Is Religion Evil?

One of the challenges that is facing the great thinkers of our age, is defining whether religion is a force of good or evil in the world. Both sides, atheists and theologians, battle ferociously to show religion's virtue or poisonous nature. In the past it seemed that the debate was focused on proving whether or not a particular religion was true, now we focus on whether it is useful or dangerous.

When one attempts to view religion as a single organism, one quickly realizes that is anything but simple. I always find it strange when a man of a particular faith will engage in a debate as the representative of religion. Even within religions there are a multitude of differing opinions, how then is one to defend all of their disparaging ideas? He has set himself up for defeat before he even opens his mouth.

Religion has played a major role in every moment of history dating as far back as we can tell. It has inspired man to great heights and corrupted him to the greatest cruelties. It has condoned and condemned slavery. It has declared man a servant, and declared him free. It has chosen a nation and made man equal. Religion is ugly and beautiful, sinful and saintly, devilish and divine. It cannot be judged as good or evil, poisonous or virtuous, it transcends such absolutes. We must begin to examine religion in the appropriate fashion if we are to understand why it has been the driving force in all of mankind's history.

When one opens the Judea-Christian Bible what will he find? When he reads its texts, studies its essence, what will he discover? Is there a guarantee, a result every reader will walk away with?  

Human history beginning after the Bible was written, testifies that no two people experience the same thing, nor conclude the same idea from reading the Bible's cryptic text. Indeed is not every book merely a mirror in which one can see his own reflection? When one views the Bible, when he reads its stories, he will really be peering into his own soul. The text will enliven him, verses will cling to his mind while others will be forgotten. If he is cruel than he will learn cruelty, if he is loving than he will find love.

The Bible has been the book called on by tyrants and revolutionaries, activists and the complacent, to justify their deeds. The Bible has shackled the world in darkness and demanded the light. Adolph Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. called on its texts to gather the masses, to inspire their followers. The Bible has given life to the Earth while threatening to annihilate it.

How are we to approach this book of paradoxes, this text of opposites? Is it dangerous? Is it inspiring? Such a debate will bear no fruit, it will but make enemies. Each camp will claim to know the truth distancing themselves further from one another. Atheists learn to hate religion, religion begins to hate its attackers. Each side believes they are right, and they are.

Religion is evil, religion is beautiful. Religion teaches hate, and it teaches love. Religion is neither the problem nor the solution, we are.

Cyber-Misery Loves Company

The 21st century, and particularly the invention of the internet, has vastly changed the way humans interact with the world. The internet, I dare say, was probably one of the greatest inventions of all time, right along side the wheel and sliced bread.

Knowledge, that in the past would have to be sought in books, some accessible and some not, is now available to all at the few clicks on a key board. Indeed, in the past knowledge many times was afforded to those who could pay its price. Books were expensive, and therefore the acquisition of knowledge was as well.

With the invention of the internet that all changed. Now, knowledge was accessible to all who sought it. Not only could one find the answers to his questions but he was able to find several sources to compare from, and to be certain that the information was up-to-date.

The internet, in addition, connected the globe in an unprecedented fashion. People from across the world could now, for the first time, send instant messages to one another. Since the invention of the internet and up until the present day, all the conveniences here mentioned, in addition to the great many that I have not written here, have become better, faster and more accessible.

There are, of course, many ills that have accompanied this fine invention; as always is the case. The enormous amount of misinformation that clutters the endless libraries of the internet, the inappropriate cyber-stalking that is easily done, and the many evils that are now only a click away from the innocent eyes of children, are just a few demons that were released with the creation of the internet. However, that is for another essay, and even perhaps, another writer entirely.

There are other goods which come to us via the internet that are perhaps less noticeable at first glance. It is a fascinating activity, and one I repeat often, to type the beginning of a question into a Google search bar, and let the most searched options pop up as Google attempts to guess your question based on the first words typed, and the popularity of the questions beginning with the same words.

A moment ago, and for the sake of this essay, I typed the words: "Why is life" into Google. The following popped up as the most searched questions beginning with these words:
Why is life so hard?
Why is life so tough?
Why is life so pointless?
Why is life expectancy so high in Japan?
Why is life so amazing?
Why is life so unfair?
Why is life so boring?
Why is life worth living?

In other words, the internet has enabled us to ask life's most pressing questions from behind our safe and anonymous computer screens.

Humans have the strange tendency to pretend that we have it all figured out. That we do not need the advice or, even the comfort of others. We are taught that to be successful at life is to have a great job that rewards you with a large paycheck. We are taught that adults shouldn't be asking questions like: "Why is life so hard?". Those types of questions should be buried deep inside oneself, for they are childish and stupid.

We put on our carefully designed masks in order to hide the child quivering within us. The child who, ever since the invention of the internet, has been able to reach out to others, to ask the questions that he would have otherwise buried, and to receive the comfort of company that he would have otherwise not had. The internet gives us the right to be human again.

The other comforting reality we were given through the invention the internet was to see just how many people are feeling the same way as we are. The most popular search result informs us just how many people are suffering from the same deep existential fears or emotional wounds that we ourselves are suffering from.

If only we could internalize this lesson, understand the pain that our fellow human beings are experiencing, how much pity and love we would we instantly feel for them? Why, we would be hugging everyone we met, with the hopes of comforting and being comforted by them!

Sam Harris in The End of Faith wrote in regards to the simple truth of of empathy-based morality: "Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose everything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?"

Indeed, were we humans more aware of the suffering of the woman sitting beside us on the bus, or the man who works down the hall, or the child who misbehaves in class, would not kindness sweep through the world, and pity and love fill the hearts of all men, women and children?

If there is a lesson to be learned from our Google searches it is this: That we are all suffering. We are all asking the deep unanswerable and, at times, childish questions. We all want to be accepted and loved. We are all, in other words, human, all too human.

Critiquing the Zeitgeist

One who would take quick glance at the world today, especially the culture of the young adults, will find a rather horrifying picture. He will see that everything from the music to social interaction to the goals to which we aspire have become meaningless. The music that is produced today is for the most part nonsensical, and that which does retain a level of coherency, glorifies emptiness, worships lust, and deifies money. The mantra repeated by most young adults is "live as if it was your last day." And where this is a fine sentiment to live by, the general attitude is that of partying like there was no tomorrow. That is, making sure that before death's cold hand grips us, we have fulfilled every lustful desire that plagues us; and remaining numb enough, through the aid of drugs or alcohol, as to defeat the fear the we may disappear tomorrow. The obvious fallacy is the notion that desire is something that can ever be satiated. An attempt to placate the screams of desire will only show that it is a like trying to construct a building on quicksand.

Whereas, were it my last day I would wish to spend it in the most sober fashion possible, grasping onto my consciousness with all my strength, the youth preach a numbing of the intellect, so that in effect they are dead already. The very thought of death has the power to make me reach for my loved ones, not a bottle, not so, it seems, of many of my peers. Of course, many of them don't actually think they will die tonight, though some probably wish they would; what is important to focus on is the intention behind the popular sentiment.

It is placing our animalistic tendencies as the zenith of human happiness. "Say as you please, do as you please, live as you please." Respect for the aged has decreased greatly, a sense of duty towards the Earth has almost vanished and "meaning" has become a word so misused and misunderstood as to become the opposite of its own definition.

Yet something peculiar has come coupled with the shallow ideology of the 21st century. As they preach "let me do as I please!" they afford this right to all. And so, amid the decay of the human race their is, arising from the ashes, an unprecedented 'love of thy neighbor.' A certain xenophilia has become the rebellion of the youth.

Perhaps "unprecedented" is not an appropriate word. Indeed, in the not so distant history of America of the 1960's, "love" became the word that filled the mouths of many young adults. However, that generation, drowned itself in drugs and sexual promiscuity and thereby wasted away their chance to bring utopia to the Earth. We should look to their civil rights achievements and be inspired by them, and their decadence and distance ourselves from it.

Religions are staggering to keep their control of a young population that is unanimously screaming for equal rights. The Church who has denied a homosexual the right to marry has simultaneously pushed the youth, who embrace all differences and who abhor bigotry, out of the Church with them. They see no use for systems which exclude others.

The youth are rebelling by loving their fellow human! It is truly a wonderful revolution. Of course, this love is many times misguided, misplaced and crude, but we mustn't focus on the nuances just yet. Let us first revel in the tide that is turning ever so slightly towards global unity.

There is much that must happen in my generation before we can say that we have built on the foundations of the past. We need to deepen our connection to life. We need to relearn the philosophers of the past, not to pass a grade in university, but to excel at life itself! We need a resurgence of discussions about how we are supposed to live. Religions need to reevaluate themselves so as to have some relevancy in the coming years. Secularism has to deepen itself, so as to remain a healthy replacement for religious dogma. Either system, if unaltered will become a poison for the world.

For too long the world has been separated by creeds, flags, and ancient disputes. The youth are demanding unity! They are tired of hate, sickened by war, and broken by poverty. However, even an ideal such as unity can be dangerous to the world if done improperly. Indeed the overzealous sheep who lies with the lion, too soon, will find that unity requires understanding on both sides, not a passion on one.

This is why I am calling for a global enlightenment. A wild change in the way we approach life. Indeed, a unified world filled sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, cannot be considered a monumental step forward. It is our generations turn. We are stepping into the world, and are becoming its leaders. What shall we modern minded, peace craving, members of the human race do? Will we become so openminded as to allow evil to annihilate us? Will we become so shallow as to fall from our noble platform of human intellect to the primal instincts of our lowly origin? Will we, as so many generations have done, waste this opportunity for social justice in our pursuit of comfort and lust? What shall become of us?

The time for universal unity has never been so ripe, We stand at the threshold of a brand new world. A world where people are accepted for who they are. Where people are embraced no matter how different they appear to us. But, if we are not careful our season will pass and we will fall into the pages of history and vanish as a speck of dust in an ocean.

The Danger of Atheism

Fanaticism is not unique to religions. It finds itself in any dogma, in any in-tribe loyalty, in any idea that excludes others. Fanatics can be found in every group even those as seemingly benign as sports teams. In Europe, but it is true all over the world, fans of rival sports teams will brawl with one another and will generally hate passionately anyone who happens to root for the opposing team.

Whenever humans align themselves with an idea, and they hold that idea as a sacred truth, that is, a truth which requires no evidence and that frightens the holder of the idea to even consider, fanaticism rears its ugly head. Of course, this makes religions ample breeding grounds for fanaticism as well as many other species of evil.

Understood simply, when an idea becomes popular to a group of individuals, it means that the idea, whatever its original form had been, must now assume a simpler form in order to inspire and excite the otherwise bored and uninterested masses. Once the masses of individuals come together under the idea that they scarcely understand, they will feel enormous comfort, as they will now feel part of an exclusive and superior group to the rest of outside world. Community has always been the way humans escape the natural feeling of loneliness, which is the true state of man. Phrases like: "I do not wish to die alone." reveals the existential discomfort we all feel when we reflect on the lonely reality of life, and even more so, of death. Community has always been the antidote for such suffering; and communities generally form around an idea. It stands to reason then, that people who attempt to challenge the idea of the community will be met with scorn, dislike, and at times, violence. They may murder countless people in order to protect the idea that binds them, that inspires them, that lets them forget their horrible loneliness. 

This is the paradox of philosophers who wish to inspire. On the one hand what they wish to present is of a complex nature and has taken them long hours of contemplation to formulate. On the other, the masses are generally disinterested in difficult intellectual pursuits, and want their wisdom made chewy and easy to swallow. This is why we have not seen many philosopher kings, and why the most successful rousers of the otherwise drowsy public have been simple yet devilishly clever. Simple, for their thoughts are dull and ill-thought out; clever for they pander to the crowds giving them the bite-size inspiration that they so crave. The American Televangelists are a prime example of such rabble-rousers. They possess the unique ability to appear profound, while making sure not to say anything that will confuse the group they wish to inspire. In other words, they have leadership qualities.

Here lies the danger of the growing atheistic movement. Atheism has never caught hold of people as it has today. Atheism has moved quietly, stealthily through the ages. Religion has always been easy for the masses to gather around. Though many of its concepts are truly of complex nature, the clergymen have simplified for either their own benefit - that of power - or because they themselves did not understand the nature of the texts they were preaching. While the church was inspiring the masses to kill men accused of being apostates and burn women accused of witchcraft, the atheists have been quiet*. They have been philosophers, scientists, writers, poets. They have not ruled, they have not united. They drifted through the world, isolated wanderers, living almost entirely within their own minds. Whatever has slipped out from their writings and entered into the public sphere has generally been quotes pulled from much larger essays, and almost by necessity have been wildly misconstrued.

[*It is important to note here, that when I say that atheism has been a quiet idea, I am referring to the idea that we cannot know that God exists and therefore live as if he does not. I have not forgotten nor overlooked the cruelties and atrocities committed by regimes led by men who were atheists. Stalin, Mao, and Lenin, among others, though certainly atheists, did not do what they did because of atheism, they simply replaced the dogma of religion with there own self-serving dogma. This is also why they hated religion and wanted it expunged; for it is far easier to give a dogma to an otherwise dogma-less person, but it is a near impossibility to convince a person who already subscribes a dogma, to give it up for another one. As proven, tragically, by the many religious people who died as martyrs at the hands of these very regimes.]

Today however, the atheist community (as they are now called) is growing. The numbers of young adults casting aside their faith and grasping onto atheism is unprecedented. Discussions and debates are erupting all over the globe. Atheism has become a movement that wishes to see religion abolished or at the very least, tamed. Presumably, the Muslim extremists who are threatening to destroy the human race or submit them to Shariah law have caused the almost sudden surge of people wishing to do away with faith. Either that, or the bigoted Christians in America fighting with a violent rage to forbid the marriage of consenting adults of the same gender. Or perhaps, it is the rising death toll in the Middle East over Israel between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. With members of both sides calling it a "holy land given to them by God," people have begun to scorn the idea that seems to be playing so large role in the endless conflict. It may be a combination of all three, perhaps it is something I have not here mentioned; either way, atheism as a movement is on the rise.

The danger of this is clear. As I wrote above, the masses generally do not get inspired by full ideas. Ideas, profound ideas, are multifaceted and require careful analysis if they are to be understood correctly. Atheism, as an idea, is complex, as is religion. Whether we wish to admit it or not, religion has within its tainted chambers many deeply philosophical and frankly, wonderful ideas. Many of those ideas are misunderstood by their practitioners but theologians have been pointing them out for ages. My own childhood faith, Judaism, is a magnificent social system, much of which could serve to benefit mankind, and much of which has! Christianity and Islam, though I am ignorant of much within their texts, have certainly caused a great many people to become refined and sensitive to the needs of others and the world at large. Allegory though it may be, it may still hold deep truths that could help us in the quest toward happiness.

Atheism, in its complexity, is not simply a system of ridicule against religion. It is a vision of mankind, free from dogma, coming together as fellow discoverers of a mysterious and awe-invoking universe. It seeks to perfect the highly evolved intellects of the human race with the goal of creating a better world not just for humans but for all the Earth's inhabitants.

Atheism and religion as ideas, though antipodal, are branches of the same tree: the curiosity to see what is behind the curtain. They are different conclusions to the same mystery. They are not partners, but they are certainly not enemies! Life is an unsolved mystery, and may remain so forever. It stands then that deciding how we should live should be the primary concern of conscious beings.

Atheism as a movement however, runs the very real risk that from within the intellectual garden will grow the wild weeds of fanaticism. Could we not imagine an atheist regime rising and banning religion out of fury of what dogmatic religion has done to the world, or out of fear of what it might do?

It is true that atheism can boast a purity of action in the blood-stained pages of history. Whereas religion must bow its head in shame and talk about moderation or reformation within its texts and practices, atheism can claim, rightfully so, the morally superior past. Denis Diderot rightly said: "The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers." This has been the case in the past centuries, but what of the near future?

One who reads present day atheists speaking of religion will find their words are generally filled with disdain, mockery, or dripping with hatred of religion. The young adults, as is always the case, are filled with even more passionate hatred. The hatred, they always claim, is not against religious people, but religious ideas. That may be, but how long before the line is blurred or all but disappears? "Where they have burned books," the German journalist Heinrich Heine wrote, "they will end in burning human beings." The hatred for an idea does not take long before those who possess the idea are hated.

I must admit, that what I write so far as I know, has never been fulfilled. I have yet to hear of a case against religious people fueled by atheistic passion. What I write then is a warning to those who wish to see a world free of religion, who view that as the only true method to achieve global peace. For when one believes that to be the case, it is not long before he feels obligated to help it along. If discussions and debates do not do the trick perhaps violence would? To rationalize a minimal amount of violence to establish world peace would be a incredibly easy thing to do. Unless we calm the the stirring ocean of anti-religious hatred brewing in the hearts of many young adults, a war waged between the godly and godless seems like a horrible, yet plausible outcome.

This is not to say that we should not criticize ideas that religion promulgates. It does not mean that we should not debate, discuss and critique religion, or any other idea for that matter. Rather we should do so with humility that certainty cannot be met on these topics and that both sides have a voice that should be heard and considered. To claim that any idea is nonsense without first investigating it with an openmind, is arrogant and foolish. Such an attitude will not lead us in the direction of cohesive coexistence. A direction every human should be striving for.

The need then is to return to the journey. Return to doubt about our convictions. Realize the complexity of both religion and atheism as ideas, study them, contemplate them, and finally, and most importantly, realize that no one knows the truth, and we are but fellow travelers down the long and foggy road of existence.

Faith: Certainty in Uncertainty?

The evidence for and against religion is, for the time being, inconclusive. Religion, because of the way it is structured is unfalsifiable, so that no matter what arguments one brings against it, or scientific discoveries one uncovers that contradict it, religion will remain impervious, beyond the reaches of empirical proof or disproof. Of course, this says nothing of religion's validity, quite the contrary; in my opinion it weakens the argument, or rather makes it a mute point. It must be placed among the many unanswerable questions, put on the shelf, and taken down and dusted only when reality becomes a bore, and one wishes to stimulate the mind with unanswerable questions.

As an unfalsifiable, unprovable concept, religion becomes nothing more than a philosophical conundrum, tantamount to the question of individual existence, zombie brains, and the subjectivity of color. The God debate vanishes and the philosophical discussions begin: "Does God exist? Well, we can't know, but it would be good if he did. Or if they did. Or perhaps it wouldn't be good..." Any sort of concrete knowledge of the subject simply disappears into guesses, theories, and personal opinion. It certainly would not be a convincing reason to give up your life or, for that matter, take the life of someone else.

Though it is oft said, and not hard to imagine, that religion offers comfort to a great many people, if one is committed to living truthfully, a healthy skepticism seems to be the only reasonable route to take when a question is unknowable. If I cannot prove god, nor disprove him, how can anyone reasonably make a decision? Is it not the greatest hubris, and indeed, stupidity, to presume that your religion is right without sufficient evidence to prove it? Is it morally acceptable to teach children, indeed indoctrinate them, with fables of miracles and divine intervention, based on claims that were simply told to you as a child with equal conviction? 

It doesn't matter whether one is comforted by religion, repelled by it, or simply indifferent to it, the only rational approach to unknowable questions, is that of doubt. Regarding anything else in the world, would anyone ever be tempted to pose an argument to this point?

Indeed, it is quite perplexing that religious faith has survived as long as it has. Well, only perplexing until the secret of religion's success is revealed: "And these matters that I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children..." (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) Religion has always targeted the vulnerable minds of children. In this way it fills the young child's head before the child knows to doubt, to administer reason, even in the face of the authority of his parents or teachers. The child, believing without question, follows the path chosen for him by his parents and teaches the subsequent generation, and thus, religion survives. 

The only honest response to the question of God, is that of doubt and honest skepticism. To respond any different is to be dishonest; the reason for the belief, be that what it may. What could our world be like if only people were more in doubt about their religious convictions? How much could society have progressed if only people could admit to themselves that their faith in God is nothing more than a personal feeling, a whim, planted in youth, or received through contemplation, but a personal feeling, no more. As Bertrand Russel aptly wrote: "The whole problem with the world is that the fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, and wise men so full of doubt." 

People who base their certainty of God's existence on personal experience or intuition have simply shut off their minds in favor of the comfort religion offers them. They consider the warm feeling in their heart as sufficient evidence for their faith. Yet, most of these people simply discount the thousands of people in other religions claiming their own experiences and intuitions. Such hypocrisy is tragically commonplace. 

I have heard religious people who find that leaving religion to accept atheism, is to them, just replacing one dogma for another. To them, though there is no sufficient evidence for God, he also can't be disproved, so why not continue to practice religion since no one knows the truth anyway. This is a great fallacy. Atheism is not a dogma. There are no principles one must accept on faith. Atheism is the removal of religion, returning your mind to a neutral state. It is ridding it of the dogmas placed upon it, to view the world with child-like innocence again. The sinister people who convinced the overwhelming masses that atheism is a religion did a great evil to truth. Atheism, is precisely the opposite of faith, as Bill Maher wittingly said: "Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position."

Atheism is looking at the world with eyes of wonder and applying your mind to understanding the majesty of the universe. It is having the courage to live in doubt about the questions that have no answers. It is being skeptical about fantastical claims, while remaining open to have your common sense proven utterly wrong (as science continues to do to us). It is not, when defined properly, a religion in any sense of the word.

One can, if one wishes, ponder on whether all of mankind is hooked up to the matrix, prisoners of a computer simulation. This is an unknowable point, that the majority of humankind simply does not think about. We do not spend our days obsessed with trying to break free of the computer program. Rather, we live as if it does not exist (and it probably doesn't). The same needs to be our reaction to God and any other claim that lies beyond the scope of reason. We can ponder it all we like, we can formulate fascinating theories about gods, aliens and robots, but to act on those theories is nothing short of lunacy. 

Faith traps your mind. It shackles your ability to critically think about anything that contradicts your faith. And for what; to retain certainty about that which has no evidence?! Could there be anything more backward! Should not every person who wishes to be intellectually honest simply say "I don't know" about that which is unknowable?!

It seems clear that the most honest, indeed noble, course for humankind to take is that of healthy skepticism towards religion and any other supernatural claims. Perhaps, if we do, we will yet see the end of the ideas which originate from the infancy of our species. 

Belief is not a Virtue

It is a common misconception among religious people, and because of its constant utterance even some secular people have subscribed to it, that belief in God is a virtue. Absolute faith is praised as a noble virtue, as something positive to be sought after.

The reason for this misconception is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of belief. The truth is: belief is not a choice. Belief is a direct reflection of something we hold true. You cannot believe something while simultaneously thinking it to be untrue. To put it in our terms, one cannot believe in God without also thinking that he actually exists. Therefore, what you think to be true you will believe in, and vice versa. This point is obvious, yet overlooked. If one doubts the truth of this notion, one should attempt not believing something he knows to be true, or believing something he knows is not. 

The first time I was informed that belief is not choice I was still a believer in God and almost immediately rejected the idea. It was only after stammering out a pathetic response to this claim, that I began to comprehend its validity. As a believer it was very humbling to suddenly realize that what I had once held as a virtue of mine was merely a reaction to an idea I had already accepted. 

People generally wish to be considered virtuous to themselves and more so to their friends. It is for this reason that we are so easily convinced that belief in God is a virtue. Belief in God for believers is not a difficult thing to retain. A believer can then be virtuous by the mere act of being himself! Even in the face of the worst suffering, so long as the believer still thinks that the notion of God is true, the most he will feel is anger or hatred toward God. Though the believer may overcome his anger and confuse this with choosing belief over disbelief -- and thereby feel virtuous -- he has done nothing more than fall back in love with an idea he never doubted.

I suspect that the origin of this misconception, promulgated by almost every religion, is far more sinister than simply wishing to be virtuous. When someone thinks that he chooses to believe in God, he then thinks of himself as better than he who doubts God. For as he chooses, so does the skeptic. The believer will then at best, pity the non-believer as we see in the more benign christian sects, and at worst, hate the nonbeliever, as we see in the fundamentalist Islamic regimes of today. Religion therefore sets itself apart from the secular as they who choose to believe in God against those who choose to disbelieve in him. 

Once we can admit that belief in God is nothing more than a reflection of what we consider a fact about reality, we can understand the great fallacy in blaming someone for doubting God, or praising one who doesn't. Of course, since our beliefs represent what we consider to be an actual state of reality, it behooves us then to have some evidence for this claim. Is this not the rule regarding everything else? This is why all religious people whom I have met have called on some personal experience, or reasonable argument, or piece of evidence that resonated with them as the reason they believe. I suspect it would be very hard to find a true believer in any religion who does so without some reason or another, at least not admittedly so.

When the reason for belief is challenged in the mind of the believer -- when he actually doubts the principles of his faith -- he will be compelled to find an answer of sorts to quiet his doubts. If he cannot find one, he may begin to doubt other points of his faith, and may eventually leave his faith entirely. What brilliance of certain religions then, to make belief a virtue and doubt a sin! 

The "virtue" religion is actually referring to is that of allowing oneself to be credulous to the supernatural, obedient to the religious authority, and to not question the "truths" it espouses. They seek not to excite your investigative mind, but rather to inspire your feeble heart. Why else would religion praise blind faith over honest skepticism, if not to keep the wolves far away from the sheep? 

Doubt too is not a choice. One can only choose to question the assumptions he has been taught. One can look for truth at the risk of his convictions. One can choose to be unafraid of what one might find... does this not seem virtuous? 

It is the skeptic who stands in opposition to religious dogmas, or societal convictions. He casts aside any unproven claims about reality and ventures forth to see them for himself. He does not wish to be told that faith requires him to not know, for to him that sounds suspicious and rather stupid. He does not need some clergymen to lead him shackled and comfortable; he is brave enough to face reality on his own... as a free man. 

Doubt has another feature that sets it as more positive than belief. It was best said by the English actor Sir Peter Ustinov: "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." Doubt is the function of being unsure about a given proposition and therefore not willing to die or kill for it. How quickly peace among men could flourish, if we could only admit our own ignorance.  

It is humility (an actual virtue) to know the limits of man's knowledge. It is noble to admit those points of which he is ignorant, and it is brave to face this mysterious world as a man of doubt. It would seem then, that the path to doubt is the virtuous one, a path found only through honest questions, and an open mind. 

Are Science and Religion Partners?

Pope Francis has recently announced that he believes in the Big Bang theory and has reaffirmed that religion is compatible with science. He is not the first religious person to make such claims. Maimonides claimed that science has precedence to religion in matters regarding the laws of nature. Rabbi Abraham Kook, the chief of rabbi of Palestine in 1921, said regarding scientific discovery that: "In general this is an important principle in the conflict of ideas, that when an idea comes to negate some teaching in the Torah, we must not, to begin with, reject it, but build the edifice of the Torah above it, and thereby we ascend higher, and through this ascent, the ideas are clarified." Rabbi Jonathon Sacks, the former chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, wrote a comprehensive book entitled: "The Great Partnership: Science, religion, and the search for meaning."

It would seem that religion, and Judaism in particular, has come to terms with the validity of scientific discoveries, and have found ways that these new discoveries serve to enhance their belief in God. How many less people would have been tortured and killed had the Catholic Church respected what science had to say in the centuries passed?

When I was believer I manged to accept that science simply showed us how God created the world. As a child I had studied under rabbis who taught that the dinosaur fossils were sent by God to test the faithful and confuse the heretics. The one time I remember learning about evolution in my elementary school was when one rabbi exclaimed: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?!" The students laughed at the silly scientists, and the class continued. However, these cases are extreme and are fundamentalist views according to many leading rabbis, as shown above. In my later adolescent years I modified my religious belief to include respect of science.

Religion use to be afraid of science, but religious faith has adapted and evolved to be impenetrable by reason or evidence to the contrary. Every new discovery no matter how contradictory to the Bible will be accepted as God's tool. They have learned to embrace science as a branch of theology. Religious leaders no longer need to be worried about scientific discoveries since their faith and the faith of their people do not rest within this world. Their God is beyond this physical existence, therefore though he cannot be proved, he cannot be disproved. Why then should religion be wary of discoveries that can only affect this physical existence?

It would seem that religion is compatible with science; but is science compatible with religion? I do not think it to be. Science is based on the principles of testable theories, observable experiments, and, perhaps most in contrast to religion, that no "truth" is sacred and cannot be later proven wrong. There is no dogma in science. No principles one must accept without evidence. Scientists are always aware that at any moment some piece of newly discovered evidence can change the way we view the universe entirely; and they seek it! It was the scientific mind that first challenged the notion that the world was flat, or that the biblical creation narrative was accurate. Where would we be without the scientists? Indeed, we would be right where are superstitious, ignorant, ancestors were, would we not?

This idea of questioning assumptions, challenging common sense, and commitment to evidence, has propelled us from shepherds to astronauts, from creatures within the universe to its observers! It is this passion to know the universe, the humility to accept our ignorance, and our defiance of dogma, that permitted us to see beyond the stars, and below the deep dark oceans.

Religion cannot be compatible with science so long as it makes claims about the way the world is. Though the clergymen who have stopped condemning science have certainly helped it move along undisturbed, religion and science are still antipodal ways of discovering the universe. I am certainly pleased that religion has begun to accept science, for as I said, scientists will no longer be hunted down and silenced the way they once were, but there is still a gap the size of God that creates the dissonance between science and religion. Science may be a great partner for religious moderates, but religion is certainly no partner of science.