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.

There's No Place Like Heaven

Growing up I was certain there was another life awaiting me, upon crossing the threshold of death. I knew there was an afterlife, a heaven, a paradise, just beyond the reaches of this world. Whereas other religious people whom have confessed to me they have many doubts regarding the fundamentals of their faith, I believed absolutely in God, the Bible as his word, and the tradition of Judaism as the living truth. Though in Judaism heaven is not as predominate as in some other religions, it is understood that after we die, we are brought before God for judgment and, provided we repented before our last breath, we would be spared from the darkness of hell, and brought forth into heaven.

There is a certain comfort which is unparalleled in the secular world, of knowing that one is going to outlive his own death. What came after this brief and tragic life was promised to be glorious beyond earthly comprehension. I so believed in the eternal afterlife that as a child I would spend many a night laying awake in bed terrified by the concept of eternity. Eventually I would become so frightened that I would wake my mother with tears in my eyes, asking her to explain eternity. She would comfort me by stating that God is smarter than we, and therefore we need not worry about how he will make heaven enjoyable for us. 

This deep seated belief stayed with me for 23 years. I loved life, but was unafraid of death, for I knew without a shadow of doubt that beyond this earthly existence, this tragic play of suffering and joy, of tears of laughter, of chaos and order, lies a place of only goodness, whatever that meant. (I can retrospectively see the paradox in a paradise, for wouldn't "good" lose all its meaning without a measure of "bad"?) When I rejected my childhood faith, when I committed myself to rationalism, I was faced with a fear many people seldom think about. 

I was suddenly gripped with the fear of death. I was finally able to stare into the abyss that awaits us all. After our "moment in the sun" we are gone, never to live again. Whereas most people I presume, have either ridden themselves of this irrational fear, or they have suppressed it and are only struck by its harsh blow when they too, focus on the brevity of life, I was faced with it for the first time.  

For me, it became an obsessive thought. At any moment I could stop breathing and I would vanish from existence. And with my death, everything I was planning, my dreams, my hopes, my goals, would vanish as well. How pitiful when one lets his fear of death envelope his life. 

I am still trying to conquer this fear of death, for I have never had to do it before. It has made me less courageous, less able to risk my life, and uneasy with concept of sacrificing my life, even for the greater good. I used to know that if the moment arose, I would be the first to give my life for another, now, I am now hoping I am never confronted with such a challenge. 

Of course, the fear of death is completely irrational.  That is to say, there is nothing to fear. Once you no longer exist, you will not feel anything, your consciousness will be as dead as you are. You will quite simply, not exist. I once heard it said: "There is no reason to fear death. When you are here, death is not, and when death is here, you are not." A rational platform, indeed. 

The fear of death mustn't be confused, however, with the will to live. These two, though similar in subject, are very different in content. The will to live is a healthy disposition, based on enjoying your life, the people around you, the work you are involved in, etc.  The fear of death is the terror of no longer existing. It is the solipsism that believes the world just could not go on without you. It is the arrogance that your life is too important to simply vanish. The will to live, mentioned above, should also not be confused with self-preservation. Self preservation is a natural impulse, an almost inescapable instinct, not a will. 

This fear of death, that I have recently begun feeling, has made me even more suspicious of religion. Is it not just too convenient that just as every human feels the fear of his own death, every religion has ways to circumvent it? The pieces seem to fit too well, do they not? This is not the only existential fear that religion vanquishes, but it is perhaps the most comforting. Heaven has also been a great motivator for righteousness, for it is the righteous, religion teaches, who receive a share of paradise. The danger for the rest of humanity depends on how "righteousness" is defined by the myriad of religions and their myriad of gods. 

So, I will continue to suppress this fear of death by combating it with its inherent irrationality. Where I once would proudly die for my beliefs, I will take the, perhaps, more timid approach stated by Bertrand Russell: "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Lastly, I will grasp every moment of life, every precious instant with a vigor and excitement, for any one of them could be my last. 

And in the times where the fear has all stricken my heart, I will remember the great words sung in Monty Python's "Always Look at the Bright Side of Life": 

For life is quite absurd

And death's the final word

You must always face the curtain

with a bow

Forget about your sin - give the

audience a grin

Enjoy it - it's your last chance

anyhow. 

So always look on the bright side

of death...

Life's a piece of sh*t, when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true

You'll see its all a show, keep 'em laughin' as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

And...

Always look on the bright side

of life...

The greatest weapon against fear is comedy, is it not?

Why I No Longer Want to Be an Atheist

When I left my religion a little less than a year ago, I quickly gravitated towards atheism. Not passively, because I no longer had belief in God, but actively so. It would seem that after I removed myself from the community of believers, I sought a new community, a community of atheists.

Interestingly, I have met only a few people who will call themselves atheists. Even my most secular friends shy away from the word. Stranger still, my friends who will admit that they don't believe in God, will call themselves non-believers or unbelievers, that is, if they don't avoid any such labels entirely. Thus my community was formed online. Through various social networking sites I was able to attach in some way or another to a a cultural array of thousands of men and women who do identify as atheists. This was comforting for a time, a sort of roadside inn on my ever-bending path.

However comforting having a cause to fight for or having a community may have been, I could not avoid two facts: 1) The word atheist carries with it a negative implication, and 2) It is not how I wish to identify in the long run. It is not, so to speak, "the sword I wish to die on."  I began to critically examine the word "atheist" both it's literal understanding, as well as it's colloquial undertone.

The term "atheist" according to the Oxford Dictionary means: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

However, many people wrongfully define it as: "The belief that there is no God."

Though I am quite certain there are people who believe there is no god, this, in my experience, has not been the true definition of an atheist, nor is it any less illogical than the theist. The religious, ironically, are very quick to point out such hypocrisy. "We are not all that different, you and I," the theist will say to the atheist, "for as I believe there is a God, you believe there is none!" Indeed, he would be right in the case of an atheist who believes there is no God. Disproving that anything exists is an impossibility, as was pointed out, in a mocking sense, by Russel's teapot.

The majority of atheists with whom I have come in contact have identified with the actual definition, that of  disbelief or lacking belief in God or gods. An a-theist is simply someone who does not subscribe to any theology. The same is true with words like: apolitical, amoral, and achromatic, the prefix "a" simply means "without." In it's simplest sense "atheist" is a harmless word that describes nothing more then that the individual labeled as such does not have a belief in God. In this literal definition many secular people can be rightly placed. Yet there is resistance, why?

A word's definition has never been set in stone. It flows with the culture, it evolves and morphs with society. This etymological evolution must be respected for words have always been a means to communicating with other people sharing our era, or eras to be, nothing more.

Therefore, it is not the literal definition that will shine a light onto a word's true meaning, but it's implication when used in contemporary dialogue.

In our 21st century society this term seems to come with a sort of negative stench. Moreover, it is received as an attack against theology, against religion, against God himself. Thus, atheism has become synonymous with anti-theist. Though many atheists are troubled by this, is it not at least somewhat the case? When one calls themselves an atheist, identifies as an atheist, is one not standing in direct opposition to religion? This is not necessarily a bad thing, it may at times even be a great thing; however, we should be aware of what we are doing when we use the term. We are making a statement. A statement of rejection, of disagreement with religion, and generally people feel antagonized by those who disagree with them. One cannot help but feel threatened when someone is standing in opposition against what they love, what they hold dear, what they don't want challenged.

Today, calling yourself an atheist sets you apart from the religious, opposite them. This, I will repeat, is not to mean that I condemn in any way its usage, but that one who claims to use it just to define his state of credulity toward religion, is as silly as someone calling himself gay in the 21st century, referring to his happiness.

There are those atheists who are on a mission to correct the definition. They hope to appeal to the masses and change the connotation of "atheist." I salute their valiance. However, I do not know if such a thing is possible. People do not enjoy changing their opinions nor the words they use to express those opinions. Perhaps in this age of tolerance we will yet see this word made into a positive label. Though I suspect, if that day comes, there will be no more use for it anymore.

So, after almost a year of non-belief in God, am I an atheist? Literally speaking, yes, but what of the "definition" as it is perceived today? I suppose that would depend. I think it best to use it as one would a weapon. I will examine the situation, evaluate the effect the word will have on the person listening, and acknowledging it's mighty power, choose to use it, or not. It is not who I am, I am not wholly an opposition to religion. I am a rationalist. What is rational I embrace, what is an insult to reason, I dispose of. I have no enemies. I walk a path beaten with steps of many travelers, both religious and secular, who have come before me. We are all on the same journey, the relentless pursuit of truth, above all else.

Western Implosion and Middle Eastern Explosion

The Earth, it seems, is imploding in the West and exploding in the East. While ISIS gains power and rages through the Middle East, we in the West have become fearful for our very lives. Indeed, if ISIS or one of the other terrorist organizations fueled by Muslim fundamentalism gets hold of a nuclear weapon, one cannot help but wonder whether that would spell the end of existence on this planet. It would seem that as science comes ever-nearer to fully understanding the earth's beginning, religious fundamentalists are hellbent on it's end. However, is that all we have to fear?

As our worried eyes turn inward, toward our western democracies, are we to worry less? Perhaps, we mustn't worry for our bodies, for the law certainly protects us, but what of our souls? I use this word for lack of a better one. I not referring to the concept of "soul" in any immortal sense I assure you, I am merely referring to the part of humans that seeks to transcend itself. The portion of our consciousness that motivates us to build rather than destroy, to plant rather than uproot, and to "become all I can be" instead of become what they want me to be. 

As we look upon our free societies we can see a sort of moral decay. People seek money, fame and decadence, abandoning wisdom, truth, and goodness. The religious speak of their high moral standards, yet many of their so-called high standards have nothing to do with human happiness on this world whatsoever. The atheists speak of their morals as well, but how many can be said to study them, master them? Ethics may be the most important area of study today, and it is absent from most of our children's curriculum. Money has become as powerful as a god. Money represents survival, more money, more survival, and thus, more power. People are killing, stealing, and as selfish as ever. The world pursues temporary fleeting pleasures and not lasting friendships, strong ethical characters, and the thirst for knowledge. People seem not to notice the other, that is, whenever we are not actively hostile toward them. Which evil is worse, indifference or cruelty?

What is the source of our society's moral decline? I would like to posit that it is consumerism. The constant "need" for the next best thing. The misery of the present and the lust for the future. The great enemy of happiness. Consumerism is the confusion of "want" and "need." It is apparent to me, that this deadly confusion, this mixing of terms, has caused modern man to feel his very survival in jeopardy. When we are told that we do not have, and that we need more, how are we to focus on our moral fortitude? How am I to care for the less privileged when it is I who am lacking? When my lust is not satiated, why worry about them, the disgusting other. In fact, is it they who prevent my happiness, and more importantly, my very survival. 

This moral implosion, this ethical decline, will spell a cruel end to our civilization. We mustn't be confused, there is a real threat of death that hails from the fundamentalists of the Middle East, but we are no utopia either. We are strangling ourselves with self-imposed misery. Our society of individual rights and equal opportunity, is the platform necessary for a strong and happy civilization, but alas, without individual morality, without studied and taught ethics we are nothing more than a jungle of beasts disguised as civilized creatures.

One may read into this that I am calling for a socialist movement; that my enemies are the big corporations. This analysis would be dead wrong. I have not the interest in this essay to explore the positive and negative aspects of the many varying social orders, I am merely calling for something much more simple, yet sublime. A return to values. We need to study ethics, teach ethics, live ethics.  Scholars of history today know more than they ever have.We have seen many systems that have tried and failed. We have watched many revolutions against tyranny only gain power and become tyrannies themselves. Who better than we to create a lasting ethical code? One that seeks the best for the individual, whilst not forgetting the whole. One that embodies the morality inherit within each of us. One that is led by rational discourse.

The first step, I believe, is to live by the maxim: "Who is happy? He who is happy with his lot." Once we reestablish the distinction between "want" and "need," once we realize that our survival is not in jeopardy we can climb Maslow's pyramid and begin to focus on actualization, both of the self and society. Once accomplished, I believe humanity without much help, will begin to peek out from their material caves and seek to build a civilization based on values, based on respect and acceptance of the Other, based on ethical imperatives.

This analysis may, of course, be wrong. Consumerism may be not a cause but a symptom of the moral decline. One way or another, these are the discussions we should be having, we need to be having, or nuclear annihilation is not the only thing we should fear.

My Atheistic Faith

Recently, while conversing with a rabbi who is fast becoming a good friend of mine, I was "accused" of being a "man of great faith." The rabbi was of course making an ironic statement that followed our two hour discussion on religion. I advocated for raising children through reason-based ethics, and he, a man who has raised a few very fine children (within religion) told me that I must have a lot of faith if I believe I am going to be able to raise children in this crumbling world, without God.

I appreciated the irony of the statement, but also began to wonder about it's validity. Am I going to be successful in raising godless children to be as ethical and universally-focused as I am? Can reason withstand the roaring waves of emotional complexities that accompany raising children? Obviously, I am not leaning all aspects of child-rearing on cold calculative reasoning. There are no mathematical laws that can help parents raise a youngster. Every child is a vastly different universe sui generis.

However, rationalism in a broader sense, can be a guide. Is not the understanding that every child requires their own unique love and care, a rational discovery? In fact, it is irrational to think otherwise.

Yet without the great Judge in the sky who can see and hear everything, without heaven or hell, how am I to convince my young children to behave before they reach the age of reason? Certainly, even a young child can be frightened into good behavior by a god who is ever-inscribing their good and bad deeds in an eternal rap sheet. Is it possible to raise ethical boys and girls without God, or at the very least, Santa Claus?

The rabbi went further to say that even if a deserter of religion can raise ethical children, it is only because he or she was raised in a religious and therefore, moral environment. It is only a matter of time, the rabbi claimed, before the second or third generations slip into narcissistic indulgence and, in the worst cases, vicious barbarism.

If these observations are in any way accurate (I'm not convinced they are), we must reiterate the question posed above: Can one, without the "policeman in the sky," raise children in such a way that will ensure the continuance of ethical behavior throughout many generations?

Here lies my so-called faith. I do not know whether I can accomplish this feat, yet I am confident enough to try. I may have been raised religious, but I do not believe that religion can take credit for all, of even most, of my ethical behavior. I was raised by religious humanists, who found every Biblical verse they could to bolster the teachings of universal brotherhood, and mankind's responsibility to protect and care for the earths inhabitants. I have met other religiously-raised people who have very shallow characters, and yet others who have used religion to unleash evil unto the world. It then stands that religion is no more than a medium for good people to be inspired towards good, and bad people to strengthen their evil. [As a side note, I once heard a quote from Steven Weinberg which is most befitting to insert here: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."]

I would rather therefore, place my faith in myself as a future parent, and mankind as a race. Indeed, both I and humanity at large have committed varying evils that have led the cynical to give up on our species. I am yet young, and therefore still retain the hope that man, given the proper tools, can rise above his base animal nature and create a more refined world. I do not believe that man need religion to escape the bounds of self-indulgence, but simply to be educated in the importance of reason-based ethics and morality. Man can transcend himself if taught the proper perception of reality. We may be products of evolutionary natural selection but we are not slaves to it. Indeed, reason is the very tool needed to free ourselves of the shackles of survival of the fittest, where the strong prey on the weak.We can be compassionate to the sick and distraught; we can care for the widow and orphan; we can build societies based on principles of justice and integrity; and we needn't abandon our reason in the process.

It is with such a spirit that I will attempt to raise my children. A daunting task indeed, but alas, a glorious one.

Good Religion vs. Bad Religion

Atheists are frequently charged with the crime of painting with too broad a brush when it comes to religion. As Islam has held a monopoly on cruelty inspired by religion in the recent past, it is said to be unfair to compare Christianity, Judaism and Islam when discussing the problems with faith. This is certainly a valid point. Everyday on the news we hear about the acts carried out by Muslim fundamentalists against Western civilizations and even other Muslims. ISIS is becoming more of a global threat everyday. It is not being dramatic or apocalyptic to say that a great war lurks in our near future that may spell the end of the world.

Judaism and Christianity have been somewhat benign for a long time now, and even though there are, of course, fundamentalists in each of these religions as well, their rare acts of violence, however vile, scrape only the surface of the evil that has been unleashed on the world in recent years in the name of Allah. It would be irresponsible of us to forget this distinction in our discourse regarding religion.

It therefore, is irrational to place all religious faith or dogmatic obedience on the same scale. Clearly, some sacred texts have evolved, at least somewhat to fit the modern world, where others have not. To put it another way, a way I have heard it from religious moderates, there seems to be "good religion" and "bad religion."

Let us examine these two phrases. What does a "good religion" consist of? Does a "good religion" necessarily fit snugly with a 21st century mindset? Does a "good religion" change whenever the moral zeitgeist does? If the answer to this question is yes, I don't see why we even call such a practice "religion" anymore! Perhaps, it is more fitting to call such a religion, a tradition instead. That is, sacred practices observed fervently, unless it conflicts with the morality of the generation.

Certainly many, if not most, religious people would be repulsed by such a description of their faith. They wish to follow the word of God, not distort the word of God to fit pop culture. This type of religious faith is certainly more respectable, but what then, is a "bad religion?"

Do Islamic fundamentalists go against the word of Allah? Do they corrupt the text in order to live lives of temptation? Perhaps some them do, but others are just following the words emblazoned in the book they believe to be the infallible word of the one God. "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out from the places they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. (Qu'ran 2:190)" These fundamentalists are following the word of God to the letter. Where the "weak-minded" have modernized and changed the texts to better fit into society, these "pious crusaders" are ridding the world of the evil infidels. Can this be called: "bad religion?" Are they not, in principle, acting the same way believers of other faiths do? Are they not simply going according to the text they believe to be sacred? To act any other way would be irreligious, would it not? It would seem that the only difference between religions is that some texts are more hostile to modern society and others less so.

Of course, it can be said that interpretations of these verses vary, and therefore, other Muslims believe such verses to be time-bound, and no longer relevant. This is, of course, what religions like Judaism have done. It is clear, for example, that most religious Jews do not hearken any longer to such commandments as: "If your brother, the son of your mother, or the son of your father, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is like your own soul will entice you secretly saying: 'Let us go and worship the gods of others'...you shall not accede to him and not hearken to him; your eye shall not take pity on him...Rather, you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be the first against him, and the hand of the entire people afterwards." (Deuteronomy, 13:7-10) For reasons of interpretation, the religious Jewish people have abolished such commandments. One would be hard-pressed to find a case of a Jewish man killing his brother for trying to entice him to Buddhism.

It would seem then, that the real distinction is not between good and bad religions, but rather interpretations that are more compatible with Western culture and interpretations that are more dangerous. How is one to know which interpretation of a given verse to follow? Say, for example, a Jew were to kill his brother for trying to convince him to convert to Buddhism, could he not simply cite this verse and explain that his interpretation varies from the norm? Surely the Jewish people would rise up and condemn such an act, but could they say more than that such an interpretation isn't the popular rabbinical one?

Indeed, once we allow ourselves to believe without needing evidence, we have, in a sense, opened the door for religious extremism. This is a harsh statement to make, and it must be read in the spirit in which it was written. Obviously, I am not claiming that all religions are the same, nor am I stupid enough to think all religions pose an equal threat to the continuance of our species. I am merely saying that faith as a principle, belief which "transcends" evidence, is a dangerous and uncertain path from which the human race should distance itself. We should try our best to expel such dogmas from our minds. We must demand evidence before accepting fantastical claims, or we run the very real risk of cultivating men and women who will do as we did -- that is, accept claims without evidence -- with simply, more adverse interpretations. This is a danger every religion, every faith-based dogma, poses to the world at large. To compare religions is certainly unfair and inaccurate, but to point to their common "thinking error" is perhaps the most important thing we can do. Such "thinking errors" are currently plunging parts of our world into a dark abyss, and making large strides towards complete annihilation of the human race.