*

From the earliest times, superstitions born of ignorance, uncertainty, and fear, have been powerful at an individual and social level, seen as ways of explaining the world, and as crude or desperate attempts to influence the forces of nature. Myths and legends have been built and passed on to explain events, and gradually evolved into the multiplicity of myths, legends, and superstitions to be seen in all races in every continent across the world.

The religions that are based on them further reinforced the traditional reliance on superstition, and gathered more power and influence as they were organised into the denominations, sects, and cults we see today. Hand in hand with the parallel power structures of the political and military elites, they reinforce each other and yet compete for domination against the unorganised forces of people who want nothing more than a co-operative life looking after themselves, their families and their communities. Religion, when it became organised, became the ‘third arm’ of oppression.

It is understandable that the earliest people whose lives were ruled by the seasons and luck, for whom so much was unknown and unknowable, would make up stories and explanations for the natural phenomena they experienced. In seeking comfort through their imaginations in their hard and uncertain lives, Paganism, the worship of natural phenomena, and the personification of ‘Gods’ can be easily understood.

What is not so easy to understand is the persistence of these myths and superstitions today and their acceptance as ‘true’. Universal education means that people can read and see for themselves what goes on around them, they can read the history (even with its biases) of conflicts, movements, and ideas. Scientific and empirical knowledge has accumulated over the centuries — a process that has accelerated over time — and is available to a wider population than ever before. We now have the experience and knowledge from the depth of history and from the breadth of every country throughout the world. Even with distortions in the telling, we can see the patterns of history and the widespread effects of the institutions based on these superstitions — the ‘great’ monotheistic religions and a multiplicity of minor religions, cults and sects.

Now, in the 21st century, we have what was not available to the ancients, hindsight, with which we can see back through history, into the depths of previous centuries both at home and across continents; a breadth and depth of knowledge from which we should be able to learn and draw conclusions. But in some respects we are still like children, unwilling to give up belief in childhood fantasy, the comfort and fear of fairies and ghosts, god and the devil. While our societies have evolved, our capacity to deal with the changes has not kept pace, and we are in some ways as confused as the ancients were. They had too little information; we have too much. They could not see for the fog of ignorance, and many today cannot see for the kaleidoscope of complexity, misinformation, confusion, and cultural traditions.

Compare this with the simplicity and certainties of religion, its notion of trust in one infallible god, its scriptures and traditional infrastructure, a very attractive alternative to the complexities of real life. For some there will always be the temptation to be ‘born again’ rather than to ‘grow up’ and away from childish reliance on fantasy.

Along with the suppression of atheist thought, the traditional demands of scholarship have also helped to hide or disguise the credibility of atheist opinion — criticism of the scriptures or of the logic of belief. While theological opinion has proliferated and been quoted ad infinitum, gaining supposed academic credibility in the process, atheist opinion by contrast has fewer academic references, which makes it appear less substantial than it is. A demand persists that everything that has gone before must be known, chronicled and referenced, largely with justification where factual information is concerned. But this puts at a considerable disadvantage the promotion of ideas and arguments that are new or previously undocumented. In this way, creativity is often stifled under the weight of past opinion and interpretation, and can be used to divert discussion from substantive issues down blind alleys of petty argument. Knowledge vital to progressive thought remains hidden on the dusty shelves of academe, while religious argument is maintained with false credibility and theological approval. In the past when people knew their place, the elites ruled, and the technocrats and artisans ‘did what they had to do.’ The peasants knuckled under with only occasional brave revolts. Without education, they did not aspire to take part in the decision-making process. Now there are vast numbers of people who want to have their say, who are not content to be ruled only in the interests of others, particularly by small unrepresentative cliques or elites.

Mass education has brought with it a notion of fairness, egalitarianism, and rights, new to most modern human societies. But we are still divided into the rulers and the ruled; the players and the audience; the doers and the watchers; the elected and the voters; and the writers and those who read what is written. But many who are relegated to the ‘passive’ roles as workers, voters, readers, those to whom things are done or said, or of whom services are demanded, are struggling to be heard. Others assert themselves either actively, by joining pressure groups, or passively, by ‘switching off’, do not vote or read a newspaper or take part in national debate. They do their gardens, travel, and pursue all the other activities open to 21st-century humans in the developed world. Many millions now seek refuge in alcohol or drugs either to dull the pain or to escape the frustration or monotony of modern life.

In developing countries, and underdeveloped parts of developed ones, people live much as before with the added problems brought by ‘development’ without its compensations; exploitation, such as ‘commercial’ farming and the poverty caused by global capitalism and debt; population growth without increased food production or contraception.

A major factor contributing to current problems is the extent to which this evolution has been erratic and uneven. While knowledge — science and technology, health and education — has forged ahead, our physical and mental evolution has not kept up with the changes in our lives and in society. Our emotional responses, our flexibility, and our ability to adapt to change, have lagged behind. Superstition and the traditions that it shaped still hold us back. Human physiology is still adapted to physical rather than mental stress, and this has left us with the natural ‘coping mechanisms’ which, while still doing their job in maintaining our health with its checks and balances, also still leaves us vulnerable to the psychological manipulation of superstition. (See Chapter 13)

It is astonishing that at the beginning of the 21st century, with all the empirical evidence one could possibly want, and even the emerging understanding and demonstration of illusory experience in the brain [1], intelligent and educated people still believe in god and religion as good. My aim is to inject some reality into these still widespread beliefs: not just ‘this’ religion, or ‘that’ religion, as better or worse than another religion, but the whole infrastructure, built as it is upon myth and legend. I want to question the false views of minds still closed to rational thinking

Never has there been a greater need for objective, unblinkered assessment of the effects of religion as it affects all our institutions and our lives, as it has in the past and as it will affect us into the future if we let it. With threats of terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and atomic) in the hands of religious fanatics East and West, recognition of the part religion plays in political, territorial, and race conflict is increasingly urgent.

In every country throughout the world, past and present, the malign effects of religion can be seen. Yet millions of people are still convinced that religion, at its best, is magical and ecstatic, generally benign, and a force for good in the world, or at worst a harmless irrelevance that is on the way out anyway. As global news brings into focus as never before the part played by religions in conflicts round the globe, its divisive effects are becoming increasingly obvious. As more people watch historical analysis on television, they cannot help but see the central role of religion, direct or indirect, in conflicts and events.

More people are beginning to see religion for what it is and are turning against it. Unfortunately, much of this rejection is aimed at one or other specific religion, to reinforce racism or xenophobia, rather than recognising that organised religion itself is the problem.

Also regrettable is that so much media coverage is badly distorted by pressure of the religions, be they the conflicting interests of evangelical Christians, or the Zionist lobby on US policy on Israel and Palestine, Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan, Muslim sects in the Middle East and Africa, and Roman Catholics in many countries in Europe and South America.

There are growing numbers of non-believers, most of whom simply ignore religion and assert that it is of no importance in their lives and therefore the lives of anyone else, and see no reason to criticise it.

The religions and Churches through their organisation and easy propaganda, constantly promote their own supposed superiority, and make claims that go unchallenged. In recent times, however, it has become more difficult for them and the rest of the population to ignore the very evident place of religion in international conflict, and a few high profile matters such as birth control and Church schools.

Only when in one way or another people suddenly find themselves personally affected do they see some aspect of the ever present hand of religion. The Churches are active and influential in many aspects of our personal and national life, in politics and legislation, in education, health, and welfare, in the administration of justice, in personal relationships and sexual politics, as well as at every level of human society — individual, family, community, society and state, and international affairs.

Twenty first century men and women have no excuse. There is enough evidence simply from observation and the reading of history, as well as scientific understanding of so much of the natural world, that reliance on myth and legend is only for those who cannot or will not question. It seems that humans have a fatal flaw, an intrinsic tendency to clutch at straws. But it is imperative for the future that they exercise their other innate tendencies to question, to learn from experience and to progress through reason.

It is said that for a proposition to be ‘proved’ it should fulfill two requirements:

1) It must be capable of being disproved.

2) It must be tested, or assessed, and the results shown to be reproducible.

There is of course no such thing as proof for or against ‘god.’

The fact that many people think that constant assertion of ‘belief’ and ‘faith,’ and repetition of myths and legends, regardless of any actual evidence, represents ‘proof,’ is a problem for rationalists.

This is a very stern test for a critique of religion, and my case relies on the fact that there is so much widespread evidence, from observation and experience, that any fair person looking at it would have to conclude that there is no such thing as god, and that should he/she/it exist, one would have to question whether ‘it’ was benign or a weapon of mass destruction.

It certainly cannot be proved that there is a god; and it is impossible to prove the negative, any more than it is possible to ‘prove,’ in a scientific sense, that there are no fairies, elves or imaginary friends! There is, however, ample evidence from experience and observation, and the scriptures, that ‘he’ does not answer prayers, does not look after his flock, does not produce sweetness and light, peace or harmony. There is no evidence of an afterlife, or of the existence of heaven or hell. And there is enough scholarly evidence of inconsistencies not to say absurdities in ancient scriptures, over and above the divergent views of scholars on all aspects of religion, both within religions and between religions, to make it clear that there is no coherent intellectual case to be made for the existence of any supernatural beings, other than in the minds of the believers.

It can, however, be demonstrated that ‘supernatural experience’ of ‘god,’ ‘aliens’ or other imaginary sensory experience, can be produced in a laboratory by stimulating particular areas of the brain [1].

There is also clear evidence, from experience and observation, that wherever there is feuding, communal strife, civil disturbance, terrorism or war, religion is there at the heart of it, a fact that is and has been amply demonstrated. Nor do the counter accusations about atheism, as the cause of the 20th-century despotism of Stalin or Hitler, bear examination of the facts, as I will show. Religion is there either as the direct cause, or as a major factor preventing political solutions by its divisive nature. It is there as a political power in itself, or as a political tool. Almost all political conflicts are potentially solvable through political action. The nature of politics allows that there is room for negotiation; religion is not open to change and progress. There are many examples to illustrate that this is true both historically and currently in the cases of Israel/Palestine and Kashmir, and for many years in Northern Ireland.

Compare this with the religions which have relied on the flimsiest case built on myth and legend, backed up with scriptures written centuries after the supposed events: holy books full of contradictions and absurdities over which scholars have pored for centuries, trying to explain their various, often contradictory, interpretations: miracles, visions and apparitions offered as proof: opinions given as fact, and the entire construct demanding ‘faith’ to fill in the gaps in credibility. Unable to maintain their beliefs and institutions other than by faith, they have had to suppress dissent and opposition with censorship and punishment.

There is also a long and honourable history of atheist thought, and courageous people past and present, among whom are some of the most respected philosophers, reformers and scientists. A list that is growing regardless of the still-rife deprecation of secular humanism and the refusal to accept it for the legitimate and respected view of life that it is.

Serious decline in religious observance is worrying the Anglican Church in Britain, and the Catholic Church has taken a nosedive as its history of cruelty and abuse becomes widely known; and as its doctrines on divorce, contraception and abortion are rejected, at least in the West. However, religions with strong induction, conditioning, and reinforcement rituals are slower to respond to ‘cognitive’ attack.

It is difficult if not impossible for people deliberately to take on views that might alienate them from friends, family, community, and state. This was important in previous generations when life was much more precarious for most people than it is today, at least for those of us in the industrialised West. But in some ways we are now more and not less vulnerable in large industrialised countries, because of the atomised societies in which we live. Individuals easily become divorced from each other and feel isolated, families split for many reasons, many more people live alone, and longer life has brought loneliness to millions of old people. The old illusions cannot be maintained but, with wider understanding of the processes, it will be possible to build upon the ashes of superstition a more secure future.

I do believe that it is possible for human beings to change, but whether they can change fast enough to a rational, secular humanist alternative to superstition, before the superstitions cause catastrophe, I am not at all confident.

(2725)

The consideration of the effects of religion on human society is an enormous subject. It could be constructed in such a way as to look at each aspect in historical terms, looking at the range of topics in each era, or by taking each subject in turn and looking at it from a historical perspective. I have chosen the latter and will try to prove my case by citing the evidence that supports it from history and from present-day knowledge.

I could not possibly detail every example in every era, on every subject, without turning this into a turgid tome even if I had the knowledge so to do.

It is often said that ‘the onlooker sees more of the game’. Those too close and intimate with one particular subject do not necessarily see the wider picture, and those too far away may not know enough of the parts of the picture. I am not an expert and I am not a professional writer, but I am a reasonably intelligent person with a have a lifetime’s experience, and wide interest in current affairs, politics and religion. I consider myself to be in as good a position as anyone else - near enough to and far enough from - events and ideas to have a relevant perspective on the subject of this book.

I sincerely hope that in the future other writers, more learned and erudite than me, will fill the many necessary gaps in my narrative.

A dominant theme throughout is the suppression of any dissent from, or opposition to, religion.

Religions like to present themselves as apolitical. God is above politics! The opposite is true. Wherever possible they form theocratic states. Since the advent of the Taliban in Afghanistan much has been written about Muslim States ruled by Shari a Law, such as in Iran and Saudi Arabia. It may be new to many apolitical people, but theocracy is one of the oldest forms of government, nor are theocracies only Muslim. In other states they can, if they are strong enough, form political parties, and when these parties win elections they become governments, or coalition partners, influencing policy within secular constitutions.

As well as religious states, there are religious countries, which are nominally secular and have constitutional separation of Church and state, but which are so heavily influenced by a dominant religion that they operate like theocracies, for example India and increasingly the USA. In other countries, religions may not formally ally themselves with political parties but they still have their own political agendas: frequently they favour one or other party and will support any non-religious party that agrees to their doctrinal demands. In the UK, Anglicanism is the Established Church, and politicians and parties are heavily influenced on many issues where there is a strong religious lobby, most recently on Church schools, ‘faith-based welfare’ and Christian representation in the legislature, with Church of England Bishops sitting as of right as part of the legislature, in the House of Lords. The political agenda is and always has been framed to fit the demands of religious groups, most recently and notably Muslims, as the Christian Churches decline.

Within theocracies and strongly religious countries, there is no restraint on the implementation of laws consistent with religious doctrines. Many of them are covert or misrepresented as ‘independent’ or non-political, or promoting their own concept of freedom. All religious governments pass laws that comply with their religious ideologies and these laws are then enforced on all the citizens, not just their members. Many of their policies involve laws that infringe the human rights of members of minorities, women, and children, such as the banning of abortion, divorce and contraception, or compulsory religious worship in schools.

Religion is and has been used as a tool for political and social control. History teaches that the role of the religions has been that of willing partners in imperialism, racialism, and slavery: wars and civil strife, collusion with tyrants and dictators, and in the suppression of political discontent. They have also conducted campaigns, crusades, conquests, and inquisitions in pursuit of their own proselytising purposes. And they have been the direct or indirect cause of massacres, pogroms, genocide, apartheid, and oppression worldwide. The reward for Church support of monarchs has been the support of the Church by monarchs. Britain’s national anthem urges that ‘God Save the Queen’, the Queen reigns by divine right, and she is the ‘defender of the faith’. They are mutually supportive institutions and an anathema to those who would support modern secular democracy.

Every religion presents itself as entirely peaceful. All their gods and ideologies are supposed to be committed to tolerance and co-existence. The actuality has been very different.

Hand in hand with their own promotion and political ambition, has gone their need to suppress any opposition or challenge to their ideas and practices. Since the earliest times, the first flowerings of agnosticism in ancient civilisations, as well as atheism, rationalism, scientific and later secular humanism and secularism, have been ruthlessly and often brutally suppressed with a range of weapons — punishment, social pressure and exclusion, and censorship by their monopoly of the means of expression and publicity. The religions prevented the expression of dissent directly through censorship in education and the media, press, publishing, radio and television, and indirectly through language itself, academic elitism, and moral blackmail.

Education, Welfare, Health

In considering the grounds on which religions base their claims to supremacy, one can look at their record in a number of areas. Religion proclaims itself as the initiator and promoter of progress in such fields as social welfare, education and health care. Yet in each one, close examination reveals the claims to be false. Not only have they used these fields of activity to promote their own ideologies, but in doing so have often stifled possible progress.

The inculcation of Christianity was the original purpose of education and is still central to the Church’s mission in Britain. Other religions, too, confuse religious teaching with education. Their attitudes to education were: first to produce good Christians; then to satisfy the needs of employers; never to develop independent minds and critical faculties.

Their view of poverty and destitution was that it was ‘deserved’ or ‘undeserved’ (mostly the latter if it involved paying for solutions!) depending upon its perceived cause: and doctrines that physical illness, disability, and particularly mental illness as being caused by god as a punishment for sin shaped the most shameful treatment of suffering humanity. These are attitudes that can still be seen today in their demands for control in education and attacks on secular public services.

Their use of community needs has kept people dependent on the Church as an institution. Alienation or the threat of exclusion from community activities is a powerful incentive to make people conform to the dominant religion. So is the reliance on charity and worse, sectarian charity, as the method of choice in the delivery of basic services, rather than the establishment of humanitarian standards and support as a right in civilised modern societies. The use of these services as religious activities excluded rationalism, humanistic motivation, and scientific enquiry. By limiting the activity to the Church, it was possible largely to exclude women from decision-making and the development of services, and confine them to the lowest levels of involvement.

Christian doctrines against contraception and abortion create problems for many individuals, but nowhere more than in developing countries with climates hostile to human life, where they have contributed to destitution, starvation, orphaned children, and land degradation. Where overpopulation and HIV/AIDS demand swift implementation of health and population programmes, the religions work to prevent contraception, especially the use of condoms.

Crime and Punishment

Nowhere are the punitive attitudes of most religions to be seen more clearly than in crime and punishment, and the overlapping attitudes towards the treatment of women and children and the poor. From trial by ordeal and the burning of witches of the past, to the collusion of Catholic Bishops in child abuse scandals by predatory priests, and the cruelty to women and girls in Ireland and under Islam and Hinduism, the pattern is one of criminalisation and harassment, in stark contrast to their claims of compassion. Religious attitudes dictate prejudice and discrimination. Christian texts are still used to justify discrimination against single parents, non-married couples, and non-believers, and to harass homosexuals, prostitutes, and mentally ill people. Many Christian Churches still practice exorcism of devils as a form of treatment for mental disorder.

Personal Faith and Gender issues

At a personal level, religion fails to live up to its claims.

Religion as a source of personal comfort keeps people dependent upon illusion that too often proves it to be just that. It has all the solidity of any other supernatural belief with the constant danger that at the time it is most needed it will suddenly become evident that ‘faith’ has been a cruel illusion. Far from protecting from devastating grief, coping mechanisms based on fantasy are a poor substitute for rational cognitive thought and rational preparation for coping with, and recovering from, grief and emotional distress. Community structures built on inclusive human structures would not leave anyone out because of their lack of religious belief.

As the putative source of the only real lasting happiness, religion prevents people enjoying earthly pleasure. Its attitudes to sex and gender create distorted thinking about sexual and personal relationships — guilt instead of self-esteem —, and unhappy people unable to fulfill their potential within their natural proclivities.

Attitudes rooted in the religions — towards women, non-Christians, Jews, homosexual people, or ‘outsiders’ and atheists as either inferior or potentially bad — are basic to sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, and racism. These ideas have been so deeply ingrained by religion in the past that they are barely covered by a modern veneer of respect and tolerance.

Science and understanding Belief

Perhaps one of the most damaging effects of religion has been on the development of science and rationalism, seen by many religious people quite rightly as a challenge to superstition. The pursuit of science other than the branch of science more properly called technology has had to contend with the dead hand of belief in god, the planner and creator of all things with which no man (and certainly not women) should meddle. We are entering a period when the neuron-sciences will, I believe, explain how the brain and the body are what we are: that mind, consciousness, and what was called ‘soul’ are the product of the brain. Chemical and electromagnetic activity in specific parts of the brain produce not only seeing, doing, learning, intellect, mood and emotion, but experience, memory, perception, illusion and fantasy that have led people to believe in the supernatural. It will explain brainwashing, hypnosis, placebo effects, ‘healing’, visions and premonitions, and belief in superstitions, including god.

Through history and throughout the world religions exert their power through the law, and through cultural practice at all levels of government. Their influence pervades all human institutions. They work to their own agendas and in collusion with other power elites, rulers, governments and non-governmental organisations, business and the military.

In trying to present a particular view of religion, I have to look at five things

Its origins; its role throughout history; its current role in politics worldwide; the specific claims it makes over a whole range of issues; and in all of these its suppression of dissent.

Every day there are new examples of the continuing malign effects of superstition and supernatural belief, most recently the rise of the Evangelical ‘Moral Majority’ in the United States, and fundamental Political Islam. As American Playwright Arthur Miller said in his interview with Jonathan Miller for his BBC series in 2003/4 ‘The History of Atheism’ — "The marrying of religion with nationalism is lethal." So deeply are they entrenched, it will take a long time for their power and control, exercised through individual believers, the religions

(Word Count 4734)