Religion: Science's Anti-Christ

So many ask me: Why do you have a problem with what other people think?

Because I might want to get on a bus in Israel someday or, I fear, get on a bus in Chicago in 5 years.

Here's a simple question: Why do we need religion?

Keep in mind that there's a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is a set of teachings about the truths of both human morality and human history. Spirituality is the word that describes ones relationship with the reality around them.

Unfortunately, many of today's dominant religions rely on these things: Habit, Ritual, Loyalty, Fear and Sense of Purpose. They do not, however, rely on credible science. In fact, most of the religions of today are incompatible with the history of the world as it is constructed from verifiable evidence. Radiometric dating places the earth around 4.5 – 4.7 Billion Years Old while the Judeo-Christian calendar puts it at around 5700 Years, for example.

Of course, modern history has taught us that religion has been a fetter on scientific discovery. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, and so on have all been, at one time or another, condemned for their various findings. Not many of us can dispute the significance of their scientific work today, but that begs the question: If their discoveries turned out to be true and the Holy Bible untrue, then does the Bible have any merit at all? Can we cherry-pick which parts of God's perfect word are correct and which are bullshit?

Religion is the opposite of science in so many ways except one: They both make claims about the way the world is. In contradiction, science is a method for learning – an ever changing perception. As new evidence comes to light (and new ways of acquiring it) the view of what is being studied becomes enriched. Religion is a fixed piece of knowledge – the basis of which is contained in (usually) ancient texts. Questioning it (such as in science) can be one of the most egregious offenses. The only thing that gives religion its strength is the social culture dedicated to it.

Oddly enough, however, religious people are more atheist about other faiths of which they do not belong than most atheists are about all faiths.

Also, arguments of the faithful are impossible to debate, because they require no evidence for those faiths to begin with. How does someone argue against a statement like: I just know Jesus was the Messiah. Scientifically minded people are weakened by juvenile arguments, because you'll rarely ever hear them resort to saying the contrary: I just know Jesus was not the Messiah. Scientifically minded people require more evidence than what is available to give such a statement.

Like a drug, religion fills you with a sense of (albeit shallow) fulfillment. The sense of self-righteousness and God-given purpose allows religious followers the privilege of feeling special, larger than life, or even super human. We all know the kind – people who claim to look into the souls of others or feeling "presences" of the dead and so on. They also speak with a sense of entitlement as believers as they claim to know what is impossible to know and that the rest of us aren't as fortunate.

Then they claim that to be the case with scientists – that their arrogance is offensive. I'd like to point out that there's a difference between certainty and arrogance. When someone's job is figuring out the mutations of different viral organisms so vaccines continue to be effective, it would be tough to convince them that their certainty of evolution is false.

So, again, why the need for religion? It's not morality – that's for sure. The moral standards in most of the western holy texts are utterly outdated. Not even the most extreme fundamentalist follows all of the teachings of the Bible.

The purpose of morality is to limit conflict between social creatures. Chimpanzees, for example, have an excellent sense of morality and cooperation among their groups – all without God. Wolves and Coyotes – carnivorous predators - work effectively in social groups. They also share what is hunted. Again: No God. No Jesus. No Muhammad. No nothing.

If we don't need religion to be moral and its teachings of history are incorrect then what is its purpose? On the other hand, the role of religion as an unnecessary social divider is obvious. There are so many divisions between humans – color, sex, nation, class – why cloud the human species with more ridiculous sub-categories?

Now send me your hate mail.

Profiteering for Profit-Extinction

Micheal Moore's latest film Sicko, which is an attack on the United States healthcare industry, seems to be generating a very fascinating P.R. campaign. His first interview since the Fahrenheit 9/11 buzz happened on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO last Friday.

They discussed how, at Cannes, Moore was recieved by both Democrats and Republicans alike. He told Maher that a man approached him after the screening to tell him (in tears) how much Moore's film moved him... and that he and his wife have always been die hard Republicans.

This story was repeated on Oprah this past week. Oprah's viewing audience is gargantuan and she has been known to attack her guests from time to time. However, she clearly sided with Moore, and there's no better way to attract the centrist majority of America than to show your face next to a grinning, God-loving, phony balogna Oprah Winfrey.

Not that I'm totally complaining. I think Moore is playing political chess better than ever.

For example, one of the most compelling arguments in the film (as seen in the trailer) points out how the detainees at Guantanamo are recieving excellent free health care from the military. He contrasts this with some of the 9/11 rescue workers that developed respiratory problems who were refused healthcare since they weren't on the government's payroll.

Think about this for a minute. One of the loudest screams from the left since the "war on terror" began was that the detainees from Gitmo were being tortured. Now the left-wing's poster boy is saying that they're recieving free healthcare. How can the right-wing defend itself from these attacks? Are they going to say "Gitmo's no picnic" and therefore agree with the left's previous argument? They're cornered, but I'm sure they'll just avoid talking about it.

Sicko's core point is that the healthcare industry can't be for the people and be for profit at the same time. I whole-heartedly agree, but I also think that's just the tip of the iceburg.

To further illustrate:

If food is for profit, it's going to make you addicted and slowly kill you, which it does.

If housing is for profit, it's going to be over-priced and place homeowners and tenants in terrible debt, which it does.

If news is for profit, it will favor the interests of their (wealthy) sponsors rather than the interests of the viewers in need to know, which it does.

If philosophy is for profit, you have religion. There I said it.

If the motivation of a society is geared toward the quest for greater and greater profits, rather than meeting the needs of people, it will clearly function in a lopsided and unfair way. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor will grow in numbers exponentially. To make the best profits you need the most cheap labor to exploit, and desperately poor people make excellent cheap labor, and if they're sick they're even more desperate.

I just hope Moore's intentions are good and that by attracting such a large amount of people, he'll use his own profits to keep talking about why profits are bad in general, not just for the healthcare business.