Agnostic.com

31 10

Those of us who favor critical thinking and arguments based on scientific evidence should avoid spreading the following common myths regarding religion :

  • religious belief is a mental disorder
  • religions were invented by priests "to control the masses"
  • nonreligious people are more moral (because they act morally without expecting any rewards)
  • religions are more intolerant and divisive than secular ideologies
  • religions are the top cause of violence in history
  • Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's atrocities were motivated by religion
Matias 8 Sep 4
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

31 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

You realize you can't just say "these are untrue" and make it so, right?

6

I see whats wrong with all those statements, but it's also worth remembering most of them could be made true with very small addendums or a slight rephrasing.

Eg moral nonreligious people (which isnt all or necessarily most of them as the quote implies) are more accurately in touch with their morality than moral religious people. How can you be called moral if youre threatened or coerced into that behavior? By claiming that you wanted to act that way regardless? Ok then youre still admitting morality doesnt come from religion and your beliefs don't matter compared to how you treat people. At best you can be as moral either way, religious or not, if your primary motivation is of the same, consistently intrinsic nature. moral people of either persuation do have that intrisic nature, but religions also have an extra dogmatic element to overcome if you want to behave morally in many areas. It's harder to be a moral christian when theres plenty of holy excuses for bigotry. If you do wind up a moral christian who behaves and votes ethically regarding women, LGBTQ, and immigrant refugees, im more impressed than if you reached the same conclusions logically without the apologism and mental gymnastics required. It's quite a feat.

I would agree that Christians believe thier morality comes from God, but that's simple not reality. Humans often don't know why they do what they do and we guess afterwards as to the reasons behind our actions. It also seems unlikely that an atheist reasoned thier way to morality as well. Though it does seem that moral pregress can be made with reason.

@JeffB initially, it doesn't seem terribly unlikely to reason yourself to morality. The golden rule is all you really need to that end, and it's not hard to reasonably imagine a solid reason for abiding it. but it does depend on more factors than we'd like to admit. For example as surprised as I am that Christians can reason their way around the bad parts of their beliefs and arrive at a moral conclusion, I'm even more surprised at how many atheists can completely ignore reason and politically side with the Fundamentalist hypocrisy of white males crying about how oppressed they are. So it can and does go either way for sure, for pleasant and not so pleasant surprises out of both. One's sense of or lack of tribalism may have more to do with the strength of their morality than belief or lack thereof does.

4

You provide a list of six statements and call them "common myths" regarding religion. However, you offer no support for your argument. This after suggesting you believe in critical thinking and arguments based on the scientific method. Would you like to try again?

@Matias "No claims?"

Are we to assume, then, that you have exhausted the body of written data on the subject? It sounds like you're claiming to be an expert on mental disorders.

@Matias Magical thinking sums up religion in a nutshell. You ever consider that psychiatrists are simply unwilling to set themselves at odds with the majority by stating what is a (rather painfully obvious) fact? You think atheists get a bad rap, how do you think an entire branch of medicine that actively condemns religion would have fared?
Faith, at its core is a mental sickness.

@Matias You do understand that your only consistent response has been a weak appeal to authority, right? Just curious.
I don't need to provide citation as to prove water is wet, or fire is hot.

@Matias Sure thing. I mean, your wrong, and a sad pedant to boot, but its ok.=D Fire hot, Water wet, Faith in the unprovable mental illness.

@Matias and yet you continue to exhibit it.
Crazy is just another term for mental disorder.
as in you just discredited your own argument by effectively doing exactly what you said you shouldnt do.. =D

Thanks

@Matias also
[campuspress.yale.edu]

or does freud not count either?

4

If your hearing voices then you have a mental illness. If your seeing things that no one else can, then you have a mental illness.

Religion is a human construct designed to control people's lives.

Religion is responsible for violence and violence done in it's name.

The guilt of sin and fear of Hell make people do, say, and believe stupid things.

4

I actually think that there is a "God Gene" that allows people to have some sort of neurological religious experience and perceive the presence of an unseen higher power. I don't have it, apparently. But to those that do, it is very real, which is why trying to argue them down about religion is a waste of everyone's time.

It is like someone who is color blind trying to convince people who are not that there is no such color as red or green.

That the presence of God might be nothing more than some unusual brain chemistry instead of evidence of an actual existing higher power might be my own opinion, but you're never going to convince someone who really "feels" it that they aren't feeling anything real.

Excellent description. John Wathey gives a plausible biological explanation of this phenomenon in his book, “The Illusion of God’s Presence”.

[amazon.com]

4

I agree on all points that these ideas are erroneous, and my best guess would be that the data would back you up if the issues were to be studied, but I don’t know if they have, fully.

skado Level 9 Sep 4, 2018
3

This is no different than a religious person setting up their rules. If this is what you think, then good for you. But to state that we should all refrain from saying these things sounds very priestly.
Do not open a discussion by suggesting that we "...on this should all refrain..." I clicked out of curiosity.
I am done.

3

Good list but I must say , when speaking with bright people I have never heard one of those statements .
Religion is just not true is all.

EMC2 Level 8 Sep 4, 2018
3
3

Religious belief is not in and of itself a mental disorder BUT religious fervor CAN be a mental disorder. think of it this way: not liking to step on cracks in the sidewalk is not a mental disorder. getting upset when others do because you truly believe that they are murdering their mothers IS a mental disorder.

religions were not invented by priests to control the masses but religion developed in such a way that priests, or kings, or emperors, or popes, early on learned to use it to control the masses.

irreligious people are not by nature more moral than religious people BUT there is an argument to be made that when irreligious people and religious people do the same good things, or refrain from doing the same bad things, the former have better motivations.

religions are not tolerant or intolerant; their advocates and followers are. some religions preach more tolerance than others. irreligious people are free of the intolerance of intolerant religions, but they are not free of their personal intolerances. that may make some interesting statistics, because that does decrease the likelihood of an atheist's intolerance, but it's certainly not a rule.

religions ARE the top cause of violence in history, and probably in the future too. in what way is this a myth?

hitler's, stalin's and mao's motivations were not religious, it is true, although in hitler's case he and his henchpersons had their own religion, which included all kinds of weird ideas about cro magnon man, aryanism and astrology, to name a few elements. still, for the most part, these villains USED religion and motivated others with it, rather than being motivated, themselves, by it.

g

@Matias you may be right. i will reserve judgment, since it is possible for wars (for example) to have one stated objective/cause but a different actual objective/cause. god seems always to be on the side of the righteous attacker! (we want your little piece of earth, which might have oil in it, or be blocking our trade route, or be populated by people who look or pray differently from how we look or pray, or just be there and we want it... but god said it was ours and here we come to take it!)

g

3

I hadn't heard all of those before.. so they probably some of those are not too common.

I do think that nonreligious persons are more moral, simply because atheists on a per capita bais are grossly underrepresented in prisons. Evidn3tly the rfear of afterlife consequences is a poor motivator.

Intolerance and/or divisiveness in religion depends on the level of cultish qualities a particular religion has. The more they say to only listen to religious leaders or officially church approved information sources, the more likely ti will be intolerant and divisive. Some (actually most_ religions are divisive to soem degree.

Religious belief, can be a mental disorder, as religious persons do believe in delusions... even after they have been proven wrong.

Religion was not invented by priests, although they did ten dto assueme power over others once belief was established. More often religion is used by rulers to control the masses and justification for punishments of those they dislike.

Although religion itself isnt' a cause of violence, it is moft often used as the excuse for violence.

I've never heard anyone make the claim for the last one on the list. Hhitler did consider himself to be a "good catholic" right up until the end, and the term "Christ killers" was used as a justification for tryggn to kill all the Jews, so religion was used as justification for what the Nazis were doing. I have nto read much about Stalin or Mao to know one way or the opther.

Anyway, most in the list although they did go through a "spin" on the facts do have some truth to them. I do think that full on facts might be more effective than facts that have been "spun" to support a point of view.

3

I agree with all of this except that I’ve never heard anyone say that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao’s atrocities were motivated by religion. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were atheists but I don’t think their main motivation was atheism. In general the atheist state concept has been an abysmal failure.

I would like to add one more myth: “There is ZERO evidence for religious belief”. Evidence is all around us: The fact that the universe exists, the presence of life, consciousness and self-awareness, free will. All that is evidence for those with open minds.

Many of the most brilliant and creative people throughput history have been deeply religious, and even today, approximately half of all scientists believe in God.

I don't see any of that as evidence for a God, though it doesn't preclude the possibility of such. Being open-minded doesn't require accepting the claim that any of this is evidence, only to consider it in good faith. The existence of the universe doesn't point to what gave rise to it. The presence of life is evidence only for abiogenesis and some mechanism of evolution, not a supernatural catalyst. Consciousness likewise doesn't tell us anything beyond its own existence, and even that is hidden except subjectively. Free will isn't a given and, indeed, many of us deny it as anything more than an illusion unless we couch it in terms of compatibilism, but even if we could demonstrate libertarian free will we'd still have all our work ahead of us to show it's somehow the result of a God. Those are all arguments from ignorance, i.e., literally the God of the gaps argument, where we say, "I don't know something important about this phenomenon, so it must be God / demons / magic / crystals / poltergeists / aliens / psychics / Sasquatch / etc." By that same reasoning, mental illness was once considered "evidence" for demonic possession before we understood that there were mental disorders of various sorts. It's also invalid to appeal to authority and/or popularity, e.g., "Many of the most brilliant and creative people throughout history have been deeply religious, and even today, approximately half of all scientists believe in God." What does that prove? I could point out that more esteemed scientists who belong to the academies of science are overwhelmingly non-religious, but that's also an invalid argument. Many of the most brilliant and creative people throughout history were also racist and thought it was just dandy to own other people based on the color of their skin, but that doesn't mean we should consider slavery as a viable option for contemporary society.

@resserts I didn’t say one way or the other whether there is a God. I don’t know anything about that, or even if the question has meaning in human terms. IMO there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There’s just the aspect of nature that we can not perceive directly or understand in terms of our space/time/matter model of reality. That aspect is dazzling, overpowering, and staggering in its implications.

All I’m saying is that there is evidence. Each person has to consider that evidence and decide if the evidence is persuasive or meaningful. Just because there is evidence doesn’t mean the issue is proven.
If you want to say that the evidence is not sufficient or is not persuasive, then fine, but if you shout THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE, then to me that is the sign of a closed mind, one protecting a dogmatic world view.

@resserts You are correct. My so-called “appeal to authority” proves nothing about theology. I was not trying to prove anything about theology. What it proves is that having religious sentiments does not imply stupidity or cowardice as is often implied on this forum.

But even if I had been trying to prove something about theology, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about appealing to authority. The opinion of experts is, in fact, evidence. Haven’t you heard of expert testimony in court? What about the global warming advocates who cite that 97% figure? Appeal to authority, no? Apparently appeal to authority is only allowed if you agree with the premises of the person doing the appealing.

@WilliamFleming You cited those things as evidence that justifies religious beliefs — however, you are correct that you didn't specify a God in that, though I hope you understand why I assumed that's in part what you meant based on context and the fact that you referenced scientists' belief in God, but it sounds to me now like you're equating religious evidence with awe and wonder, perhaps what some would label spirituality. If that's the point you're making, and basically just saying "there's stuff we don't know," then I agree with you at least superficially. But beyond that, I don't know what you're making a case for. Evidence for what? Are you making the case that we simply don't understand these things yet, or are you making the claim that there is something supernatural and that we cannot understand such things because they lie outside our reality? If you're making the latter claim, I still don't see those things as evidence. We're still talking God of the gaps (but don't take the "God" part there literally, as it's not intended in argument to be literal).

I disagree that appeal to authority is valid in this context, unless you can show how anyone's belief in religion or God illustrates the truth of the claim. You mention global warming and rightly specified experts. We're not talking about 97% of the general public, we're not talking about 97% of general scientific workers, we're not even talking about 97% of the members of top science fellowships, but rather 97% of climate scientists who are accomplished in this particular field, have deep knowledge and understanding regarding climate and what influences it, and whose work can and is scrutinized and challenged at every turn. That's what makes it more than an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity. In contrast, scientists' belief or disbelief in specific or denuded religious concepts doesn't provide us with useful information about those beliefs. Most people are reared with some religion, and it has a psychological impact, but it doesn't illustrate anything about the mechanics of the world, and reasons for belief are many and varied without a unifying scientific basis to show expertise that might lend credibility. But, I take this back to my earlier statement that the vast majority of scientists at the very top levels do not in fact believe in religious concepts or in God specifically. I still don't think that's a valid argument, but if you do then are you counting the non-religious mindset of elite scientists as a mark against your own argument? I honestly hope not, but I question how you're determining what is and is not evidence. It seems to me that evidence has to be more than a lack of understanding of what or how something is, or the opinions of people whose expertise necessarily lies in the physical world. I'm not trying to single you out, because I see a lot of people make claims about the world with similar feelings of "if you don't fully understand something then any unfalsifiable metaphysical explanation must have merit." It's really only that which I'm pushing back against, because I consider such thinking at best misguided and in some cases quite harmful (e.g., in terms of alternative medicine).

Regardless, thanks for having taken my response seriously and providing clarification. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position in any way, as I always try to address the opinion as it is and never misrepresent it for the sake of a cheap strawman argument.

@resserts Thanks for your response. It’s been a stimulating interchange.

@resserts Sorry but I just cannot resist making one more reply. Here are some opinions from some of those very top level scientists you referenced—the founders of modern physics:

Werner Karl Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Niels Bohr:
"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

Sir Arthur Eddington:
"The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

"We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness."

"The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs."

Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

I am openly and without shame appealing to authority.

@WilliamFleming Ah, but those quotes show only that even brilliant people can fall victim to arguments from ignorance. They don't understand the mechanism by which some observable phenomenon works, so they appeal to a higher power which can magic anything into existence. Isaac Newton, a religious man, and truly brilliant, couldn't explain the motion of the planets when taking into account the gravitational forces of other celestial bodies. With two-body physics, his equations worked just fine, but when accounting for all the rest he couldn't reconcile it and thought the planets wold fly out of orbit. He appealed to the hand of God, then, to explain how the planets remained in orbit. Fast forward a couple hundred years, Pierre-Simon Laplace solved the problem and was able to predict the motion of the planets with more advanced models. After Laplace published his work, Napoleon read the work and confronted Laplace, asking him why nowhere within his writing had he mentioned the Creator of the universe. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis." He understood the problems and their solutions, and he didn't need to appeal to metaphysics or magic to explain it — but we repeatedly see people make these appeals to God or other mysticism whenever they reach the limits of their knowledge and understanding.

@resserts I’m not sure if I agree. In those quotes, the physicists were speaking in general terms about their religious sentiments. They were not attempting to explain anything about nature, and certainly not by postulating some god or other. Well, maybe Planck was postulating universal consciousness as a matrix for all matter, but he must have had good reasons for that statement. He didn’t just throw up his hands and say, “God did it”.

My opinion is that true religion has nothing to do with explaining reality. It is the realization that reality can not be explained except superficially. It is to be aware, appreciative, and grateful. It is a way of life. It is not something to be proven or disproven. I guess organized religion hasn’t gotten the word yet.

@WilliamFleming Heisenberg says God is waiting at the bottom of natural sciences, suggesting that there's something about science that makes him think there's a God, and because there's no scientific publication from him showing the rigorous testing he did to illustratd this, I'm left to conclude that he was referring to things he couldn't explain. Eddington says there's something of the spirit we don't understand, so science fails us and we must look elsewhere. But what is he basing this on? What evidence that there is a metaphysical reality of any sort, other than there are non-concrete things he can't fully explain? Planck is saying he doesn't have a ready explanation for how atoms are held together, so he's invoking a consciousness (I'll call it God for simplicity) as a matrix that hold all matter together. I think it's clear that at least part of their rationale is that there are aspects of nature that they cannot explain and they turn to some form of metaphysics to fill in the gaps of their comprehension. /2¢

3

Most of those are not definitively provable one way or the other.

3

You seem to also be believing the myth that these are myths that critical thinkers are believing. That too is a myth.

@DangerDave Woah, man!

While I realize (in retrospect) how you could take what I said in this way, when I said "these" I literally meant this in application only the six "myths" that @Matias posted. Again, I can see how it can come across as you took it, but that's not at all what I was going for.

My subtle point was that in the way @Matias is countering these "myths" spreading, he using six myths about what non-theist beliefs are. I don't like how he is putting up straw-men here.

@Matias Fair enough. Raising awareness of a problem is a first step.

I do think an exposition (even very brief) on what the actually critically-defensible positions should be instead, and why those six oversimplifications (and in some cases outright falsehoods) carry it too far, would be much more helpful to the community and to specific individuals, though.

Take the "History for Atheists" blog for example of what I mean. (Of course that guy goes way more in depth than anyone could be expected to here.)

3

If critical thinking and scientific evidence is your premise why not offer the evidence for each statement? If your point instead is to avoid spreading stereotypical assumptions then that pertains to pure skepticism not science.

2

Says who? I dislike being told generalities about what a specific discussion might call for, thankyuvurrymuch.

2

As a proclaimed student of philosophy your prescriptive list whilst interesting is nonetheless somewhat dictatorial. You have not shared the myths that you support?

2

I agree. In my view religion is a tool, a dangerous tool, that is used to justify some of the violent nature of humans and to bring some order in the society. With or without religion, people will fight. The vectors along which population is divided are numerous! Religion/s is only one of the many competing ideologies, but it is probably unique as it tries to control every aspect of one's life.

If somehow everyone is atheist from tomorrow, is there going to be world peace? Science does not provide definitive answers on many questions, such as how should we allocate the natural resources or should we enforce birth rate control and so on. These questions inevitably lead to conflict.

2

In what way are these myths? I see a judgement, a theory, a philosophical proposal, a couple of descriptions of the world as it has been, and a straw man (has anyone really said this last one?)

Re: had anyone really said that last one?
Yes, in regards to Stalin.

@JeffB that is a misrepresentation. Hitchens is not saying Stalin was motivated by religion.

@SimonCyrene fair enough.
He was saying that religion was the cause. Which is similar. But I'll concede your point.

2

The introductory assertion appears to be dogma. It requires support based on evidence.

@Matias
Any proposal for censorship (or even self-censorship) requires verifiable support.
The items you listed require discussion and refutation, not censorship.

1

"spreading common myths"? is this for real?

1

Many points have been discussed here but I will concentrate on #2 "Religions were invented by priests "to control the masses"". As in any generalization, it will fall apart in specifics. Of course this is not true of all religions but lets talk turkey here. This is a western site, 98% of us either come from or live with some form of Christian religion. Yes we have 1 or 2 ex Muslims but I have seen no ex Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists. So let us look at Christianity. Was it formed to control the masses? Roman Catholicism most certainly was. The roman empire in its decline took over Christianity to preserve its influence. Its edicts and repression of sexuality, a classic example of prohibition and control. It is a mute point whether Mormonism or Jehovahs Witnesses were invented to control those that live under their spell. Just as it irrelevant that gunpowder was not invented for killing. Because is most instances thats what they or it is used for.

Can we no longer call the gunpowder that is used for non-killing purposes gunpowder? It still exists. Do we have to go looking for another name for it now, or is it still gunpowder?

@skado What you call thumb tacks (a more apt term imho), we call drawing pins. Even though they will have little chance of being used to pin down drawing paper, they are still drawing pins. Their name and origin irrelevant to their usage.

@273kelvin
Maybe irrelevant to their usage, but not at all irrelevant to our communication about them or to our understanding of them. We really need a common understanding of a word or concept before we can productively discuss it, else we're all spinning our wheels.

My question is, what are we to call the religions that were not invented to control the masses? ...so that we both know what the other is talking about?

@skado Just as in gunpowder, it is unnecessary to know its origins to avoid its effects. It matters little whether it was invented by the Chinese for entertainment. We simply need to duck and take cover. A mechanic or automotive engineer will have no need of the knowledge that the spark plug came from Voltaires pistol, as a method of igniting gasses. Anymore than you need to know that crazy glue was invented as a battlefield temporary suture, when fixing your sandals.
A victim of domestic abuse need not take any notice of the intentions of their abuser. It is in fact counter productive to give any credence to the words "But I really love you". It is the effect and usage of a system that counts.
The road to hell may be paved with good intentions but when the bombs start flying. What care I from whence they came. It may be lost like the origins of the Hatfield and McCoy feud. It is as irrelevant as a New York Times article to a swatted fly.
All religions, yes all religions are hell bent on telling you how to live your life. However benign the motivation, it is always someone who thinks they know better than you what you should do. The fact that this is usurped and taken to control human behavior is inevitable as day follows night.

1

While I agree with the sentiment of your assertions. I disagree with a number of your assertions, themselves:

  1. Religion was invented by common men and women to deal with their feelings of ignorance and powerlessness (see Feuerbach and Fromm). The priests simply took advantage from here.
  2. There are ethnocentric ideologies which are also highly intolerant. Both Nazism and communism (non religions, but also total system ideologieslike religion) perpetrated huge amounts of violence and oppression.
  3. Neither Hitler, Stalin, or Mao were motivated by religion. Hitler was a megalomaniacal sociopath, as was Stalin. Mao and Stalin believed in Marxism, again, a total system ideology which parallels religion in intellectual structure, but is -- in no way -- a religion. .

How can you claim that Nazism and Communism did not perpetrate large amounts of violence? Please explain.

I misspoke. Please see my correction.
@Matias

1

religious belief is a mental disorder Replace the word God, with any other noun indicating something imaginary in religious speaking and seen how insane it sounds

religions were invented by priests "to control the masses" Read The Golden Bough, written over a century ago it is thousands of pages devoted to and offering research and examples that prove that is absolutely true

nonreligious people are more moral (because they act morally without expecting any rewards) Religion does not enter in to people's own moral behaviour, however without the pernicious evil prejudice doctrines of religion, it is easier for a person to make moral choices based on a wish for the well being of others based on no other influence

religions are more intolerant and divisive than secular ideologies Untrue, but most totalitarian ideologies learned the power of hate as a unifying force from religion

religions are the top cause of violence in history Not the actual cause, but more often the excuse and the motivation from spreading hate.

Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's atrocities were motivated by religion No but hatred and the blaming of certain religions and religious practices did help them to power.

@Matias You have obviously never read it, don't make a fool of yourself by parading your ignorance.

@Matias I know it is from the 19th century I own a copy and have read it several times, it is a respected historical treatise, is still quoted and used today and is still thought of as an in depth examination of the history of and evolution of religion world wide, it's purposes and foundations in superstition, influences on secular government and cultural impact both universally and individually.
It is not an insult to point this out to someone when they dismiss a major work of scholarship as "a huge compilation of religious myths" A title better applied to the Scriptures of this world.
Saying "The Golden Bough is from the 19th century. Don't you think that research about the origins of religions has made some progress during the last 120 years? " Is comparable to claiming "Origin of the species" is a work from 1859 and so has no baring of the study of evolution today, because so many people have built on it and it is never quoted now.
Twaddle.
I recommend it to anyone seriously trying develop an understanding of the pernicious entanglement of religion in to government, the psychology of religious gullibility and the power of Priesthood, be it religious, shamanistic, or sorcerous.

As for insults, to paraphrase the old maxim "If it talks like a blatherskite, writes like a blatherskite, then chances are what you are reading are the prattling pontifications of a blatherskite."

@Matias but scholars are still expected to read them 😉

0

Strange prescription. Regarding the first point, I'm inclined to accept Sigmund Freud's verdict that for many religion is part of the psychopathology of everyday life.

There is certainly a higher measure of gullibility and credulity among the so-called "faithful" in general. Proof of this: American TV evangelists soliciting millions of dollars from their viewers, or African pastors driving their BMWs or Mercedes while their flocks walk barefoot! Not mental illness as such, but certainly not a healthy mindset.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:171285
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.