Can we live better lives with religion (response to Transcipt)

[Pygoscelis]

I foolishly clicked on the "active posts feed" onto this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/lecture-transcripts/134333131-live-lives-religion.html#post2895339

It appears to be a transcript from a lecture, and I mistook it for a long post by a poster here, and wrote a reply to it point by point, since it was so well written and seemed to call for a response from the other side

So I'll post it here, in case anybody has read it and is curious what a response to it from an atheist would look like....

--------------------------

However before I get into the thick of the argument, I’d like to highlight that all the negative things, all the evils attributed to religion, are actually not unique to religion.

Technically I agree with this. They are not entirely unique to religion, but religion sure does do them well. You can do tribalism and you can hate the outgroup without religion, but it sure does make it easier if you can LITERALLY demonize the other. You can bury your moral compass beneath obedience to a charismatic leader or other authority figure, but it sure does make it easier if that authority figure is made to be ultimate unquestionable and unassailable, and good by definition. Misogyny, homophobia, etc exists in the non-religious, but is sure is more prevalent in the religious. And I suppose in rare cases you could come up with obtuse reasons to believe in things like vicarious redemption or prayer rituals or magical jinn and the like without religion. Some non-religious people do believe in ghosts. So yes, there is nothing entirely uniquely negative about religion.

Let me give you an example. Let’s talk about the outdated cliché of religion causes war and conflict. Is that unique to religion?

No. Not in the slightest. In face most wars, even "religious wars", are started for non-religious reasons (ie, resources or power etc). Religion just makes them easier to wage and harder to stop. Look at Israel/Palestine conflict. There are factions within both Israel and Palestine that don't want the conflict to end, for selfish reasons, and the conflict has been made impossible to end due to religious reasons. Take religion out of the equation and there MAY be a chance for peace there. Fan the flames of religion and there is little hope for it.

There are many reasons I am not religious, and many reasons why I find most organized religions troublesome, but I'll skip that for now, and go through your post here, as you appear to have put some good effort into it and appear to be writing in good spirit, and you deserve a response.

Let me go into my arguments. My first argument is the sociological argument and it can be summarized as follows: Religion makes your life better in contrast to a lack of religion, because it has been shown to facilitate better mental health, better physical health

If this is true, and it may well be, it isn't dramatic or terribly noticeable.

lower levels of crime

This isn't true. I have seen numerous studies finding no difference, and others finding atheists to be underrepresented in prisons, but I figure that is because atheism correlates with higher education, wealth and intelligence (an easier life).

You'd imagine that atheists would be FAR more criminal than theists if we are to believe all of the stuff I hear from religious folks about how religion makes them more moral, etc. Some, yes even on this very forum, even tell me that without God you can't be moral. And yet jails are not overflowing with atheists, and all without threats or bribes or obedience to a church or God authority. Being good for the sake of being good: That is true morality.

higher levels of happiness

I have seen studies pointing in this direction, and others finding no difference. I am inclined to believe there is something to it, as religious people tend to be very in-group and have greater cohesion and harmony with their fellow in-group members. That may make them more happy.

higher levels of altruism and philanthropic activity

I have seen studies on this as well, and they break down on whether or not you consider supporting the religion to be charitable. If you exclude religion based charities, with conversion as a major part of their goal, you tend to lose the effect. And I would argue very strongly that helping people because it is the right thing to do is far more altruistic than helping people because an authority figure (God) tells you to.

Now, Peter Cave also writes in his book Humanism, “What though is the conceptual or logical link between morality and the belief in God?” Humanists claim there is none. Well in my take of the above, I would later on kindly ask him to reconsider his assumptions. Argument no.2 is a philosophical argument: Religion makes your life better than a lack of religion because of the logic of submission. Listen to this carefully. 1) God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. 2) Human beings are obviously not. 3) Therefore it is rational and beneficial to follow what God has said. [13:31 – 14:18]

This works if you believe. It fails completely if you don't. I point out again that obedience to power is not morality. If you do good because you obey, that is not a moral decision or a moral action. A moral action is doing good because it is the right thing to do. Obedience is doing what you are told no matter what is right. Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. We should be careful not to confuse the two. And religion too often does confuse the two.

If you trust that your God knows better than you do what is right and what is wrong, and defer your moral judgment to this imagined God, then those who you believe speak for this God, be it in a holy book, a prophet, or a preacher, gains control over you. That is how people fly planes into buildings. It is how people come to drink poisoned coolaid, and mutilate the genitals of and deny blood transfusions to their children. These latter actions are almost entirely done by the religious, due to this failure to engage their own moral compass, or the overriding of it with obedience to religious dogma. Belief in an imaginary power telling you what to do may be comforting, but it can also be extremely dangerous.

The hidden premises are that God exists, and that He has revealed something to humanity.

Indeed. Accepting that premise will take you a long way towards the point you are trying to make here. Of course, I do not accept that premise, and see you as self-deluded, though hopefully benignly so.

I believe this can be substantiated by showing that the uniqueness of the Quran can only be best explained supernaturally. And in doing so, I will prove the existence of the supernatural cognitive power i.e. God, and at the same time showing that the Quran is what He revealed. In other words, explaining that the Quran is a miracle.

Of course you believe that. You are a Muslim. You will argue that the Quran is unique, and special, and no book can be written like it, which of course is entirely subjective. Mormons think the same of the book or Mormon. I will simply say you are wrong, and that I see nothing unique or special about it, and you will say I am blind or ignorant.

Firstly though, what are miracles? According to the older philosophers such as David Hume and others, they said miracles are violations of natural law. But does this make sense? Surely this is an irony-clad description of what miracles are. Because what are the reality of natural laws? Because natural laws are just inductive generalizations of patters we perceive in the universe. Now if something breaks that pattern, does it mean it’s a miracle? No I think that is incoherent.

I would tend to agree. We don't know everything, and something may change to enable what we thought was impossible before. If I told David Hume that humans would walk on the moon, or showed him my cellphone, he'd think it impossible, and probably call it a miracle.

And I would argue that the best description for miracle are acts of impossibility. So we have to search for supernatural explanation. In the words of the philosopher William Lane Craig, he says “Miracles are events that lie outside the productive capacity of nature.” So in this way, we have to look for non-natural explanations.

But good luck proving that something you observe is outside the productive capacity of nature. I don't think you can do that, so I find this definition of miracle equally flawed as Hume's.

So let’s go back to our definition. Since the Quran cannot be emulated, and since we have exhausted all possibilities of the nature of the Quran which is the Arabic language, then it must be a miracle.

You are literally trying to use semantics, language, and ordering of words to show "events that lie outside the productive capacity of nature"? Just no. Splitting the moon in half is your better avenue here. When astronauts show us evidence on the moon that it was once split in half and then came back together, at around the time the Quran says that it did, that will be far better evidence for you than your self-interested claim that the Quran is special and unique (which many of us find it not to be).

So we have justified the logic of submission: 1) God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. 2) Human beings are not. 3) Therefore it is rational and beneficial to follow what God has said. [17:46 – 18:41]

Even granting your premises here, which I don't, you have another problem with this logic. You are assuming that God is benevolent towards us. Why assume that? You are assuming that God is honest with us. Why assume that? Is it not equally plausible that God views us as an experiment or as toys for his amusement or merely as beings to worship him? I think you have to answer the question of why God made us and how God views us, as in what does God get out of it, before you can make the leap you are making above. Personally, when I read the Torah, Bible or Quran, I don't see a kind and loving God in there, so much as a rather tyrannical, jealous and brutal one.

Another serious problem here is that even if God is perfectly benevolent to humans and knows all, you still have to be sure that you understand what he is telling you... despite there being so many scholars who disagree and religions which conflict within themselves and between each other. If there is a God, and if this God has a message for you, he sure doesn't make it easy to understand, and must not will us all to understand it (if he is all powerful he could do so, no?).

My third argument is a moral argument, and it can be summarized as follows: Religion makes your life better, because it is the only basis for objective morality. Morality that has meaning. The word better in our discussion today is a moral or value judgment. Something is better, something is worse, something is bad, something is good. Now I would argue that without God, we cannot meaningfully discuss today’s topic! Peter should go home! This is because without God, there is no objective value and objective morality. Now this doesn’t mean that humanists or atheists or people of no religion do not display moral behavior. Of course they do! Peter is a great guy. As he says in his book, “The overall humanist stance is that moral behavior needs neither belief in a God nor the motivation to please in a God.” I agree, but the argument here is not about behavior, it’s about moral ontology. The basis of morality. Can we say the holocaust was objectively morally wrong, a 100% wrong, regardless if the Nazis had occupied the whole world and brainwashed us, it’s still objectively wrong. But you can’t say this, without the existence of God. Because I said, God is the only objective anchor that transcends human subjectivity. In this light the famous J.L Makki, a professor of Oxford University and one of the influential atheists of our time, he says “If there are objective values that make the existence of God more probable than would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible from morality for the existence of God.” [18:41 – 21:02]

So you are saying that Good isn't what we subjectively decide or believe is Good, but Good is what God says is good. So how is that any less subjective? You have just removed your own judgment and put it on your God. So whatever God says is good, is good? Is there no truly objective standard outside of God? So if God says it is good to dash children against rocks and hunt and kill homosexuals, then it is? And if God says not to take kafir as friends and not to draw cartoons then its automatically bad, with no basis beyond God says so? Can you see how dangerous this line of thinking could become? Especially if your God is imaginary?

So, can we say that killing a young child is 100% morally wrong? Well, you can only say this if you have a religious or a Godly worldview. Because as I said, God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.

God only trancends human subjectivity if God is real. If God is not real, then all you are doing is repressing your own moral compass and values and sense of empathy and fairness, and farming out your moral decisions to other people or books that you believe speak for this God. And even if God does exist and does transcend human subjectivity, God is himself making his own subjective judgment.

Euthyprho's Dilemma seems relevant here. Is God good because he meets some independent judment of goodness, or is what we call "good" good because God says so? If God told you to kill your children and fly a plane into a building, with no explanation other than you are to obey him, would you do it? Sometimes I fear that religious people actually would, and that scares me. It shows religion rendering people sociopathic (unable to feel empathy or make moral judgments for themselves).

In the absence of God, there’s only two other possible foundations. And those come from evolution and social pressure. But can evolution provide an objective basis for morality? What does evolution say? That we are just accidental byproducts of a very long, lengthy evolutionary process. That our morality has evolved like how ears and teeth who are toenails. And it’s illusory. Because biology says that we are going to change. And if your morality is pegged on your biology, then your morals are going to change. So it’s not objective anymore. This is why Michael Rouze, a philosopher of Science, points this out. He explains “Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands, feet and teeth. Considered as a rational justifiable set of claims about our objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’, they think they’re referring above and beyond themselves.” Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation.” [21:05 – 22:44]

I agree that what we call morality is our evolved senses of empathy and fairness, coupled with the social pressures and beliefs that we hold. We evolved the senses of empathy and fairness for good reason, as a social species, and it is not unique to humans. You can see it in dolphins, dogs, monkeys, and most other social species. Society couldn't function very well without it. And it is constantly pushing us to improve our moral values as we become larger and larger and closer and closer societies. I fear that it is not developing as fast as modern technology is, but it is improving.

As for societal organization and social pressure and culture, we have developed that as well, and it has steadily improved over time. Despite all of the problems that we still have, we do live in the most peaceful era of human history. Note how the bible makes no mention of rape or slavery. These were both once accepted as acceptable by society, and yes, including by religious people. And in fact, it is usually the conservative religious fundamentalist types that are the most resistant to this change. Note how we have now not only reached new moral understandings of slavery and rape, but more recently of inter-racial, and now even gay marriage. Empathy and inclusiveness have prevailed.

You say that Islam is the greatest system and that life under it perfect and harmonious, and as a liberal, I do see a lot in it to praise, especially the forbidding of usury. But this is also the religion and culture that freaks out more over the drawing of cartoons than over violence done in its name. I see room for improvement. Actually, I would bet that in its time, when the Quran was written, Islam was a big improvement over what came before, but my fear is that given the nature of religion, Islam has been slow to improve beyond that. And that goes for pretty much any fundamentalist religion.

 

[BilalKid]

violence done in its name.

islam perfect, muslims not :shade:

 

[Serinity]

a criminal can use a knife to kill people, while a butcher can use a knife to slaughter animals and distribute it to the poor.

Is the knife the cause of all the killings happening? No. It is the people that is the problem, not Islam, ever.

Are the guns the problem? The airplanes? The tanks? No. Rather the problem lies within mankind. The solution is Islam.

Islam is here to fix all problems, but mankind turn away, or get decieved by their desires, or shaytaan.

 

[Pygoscelis]

islam perfect, muslims not :shade:

That which is declared perfect cannot improve. A holy text or doctrine may be an improvement over what came before it, but in declaring it perfect, it then becomes a barrier to further moral progress.

 

[Bhabha]

That which is declared perfect cannot improve. A holy text or doctrine may be an improvement over what came before it, but in declaring it perfect, it then becomes a barrier to further moral progress.

In the Quran there were things that were not understood before. Things that didn't make sense, because our own mental capacities were limited. Now certain things begin to make sense as we read through them.

The Quran is complemented by the Hadiths and the consensus of scholars (for sharia law), which governs things such as financial transactions, marriage, etc. It's a whole system, but who said it is static?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

I believe you can find God in the morality that seems to go beyond human nature, you mentioned forbidding usury. There is also the need to forgive others, not to judge, as we will be judged in the same way, dress modestly and give to the poor. Fasting also brings us closer to God, it is a way of trying to control our excesses.

Twenty thousand children will die needlessly today of grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease. True justice would mean these children would be treated fairly and in the same way as children in the developed world, so they would not starve. Only God can put this right in a greater good life after death.

I think more people would kill; if they thought they could get away with murder. If you have a true faith in God, it would not just be a case of evading man's justice, but the thought of also having to answer to God. When you look at the 99 names of Allah, I believe this is a good description of God's character.

I think you can find a profound sense of peace from trusting in God, I don't think you can find this peace without God.

I believe this passage is also in the Quran....

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

In the spirit of searching for justice and God.

Eric

 

[Serinity]

That which is perfect CAN't improve, cuz it is already perfect. What you call improvement is merely degradation of our moral state, WE corrupt ourselves, we are our own worst enemy.

Islam is perfect, supreme, Islam calls towards the natural state we were born as.

Islam ensures optimal security, stability and flexibility. If there was no punishment for murder, there'd more murderers, no punishment for rape, illegal sex, prostitutes, etc. Would increase such immoral behsviour.

You only harm yourself if you disobey Allah SWT, you will never be able to harm Him SWT. It'd be also ignorant and arrogant.

I say that we don't even understand what perfection means in its true and full sense. Knowing that Allah SWT is All-Wise, All-Knowing, there is no need for us to meddle in and try to redefine morality - for if we try to redefine morality according to ourselves, whims and desires. It'll only confuse us and cause chaos.

We polute everything around us. Allah created everything in balance and harmony, the ecosystems etc. Are all very good, yet we are the one who destroys those kinda things.

doesn't it show that to go against Allah SWT is to lose yourself? If you try to redefine nature, you'll destroy it. Cause Allah SWT created nature. We can NEVER do better than Allah, Exalted be He.

if u try to improve morality, you'll destroy it.

 

[Freedom]

Religion's purpose is to guide us towards a better afterlife, not to give us a better life in this world.

 

[Misbah0411]

That which is declared perfect cannot improve. A holy text or doctrine may be an improvement over what came before it, but in declaring it perfect, it then becomes a barrier to further moral progress.

Spoken like a true atheist that uses flawed logic and leads him further astray. What is moral progress to you? Is it like accepting gay marriage in secular society or even adultery? Morality doesn't have to evolve. It comes from the Creator who knows best what is right and wrong. Stealing was wrong 5000 years ago and and is still wrong today. Same with adultery, murder, etc. The problem is when man tries to take the role of the Creator and make laws that contradict Him.

 

[Misbah0411]

Religion's purpose is to guide us towards a better afterlife, not to give us a better life in this world.

Incorrect. You have a flawed understanding of Shariah. Islam came to make this dunya tolerable while preparing the believer for the Hereafter.

 

[Serinity]

Those who try to take the role of the Creator only harm themselves and others who follow them, they lead themselves and others astray.

Morality comes from Allah SWT. Allah SWT knows best what is right and wrong. Mankind however choose to follow desires rather than morals. They confuse themselves, humans are not fit to be a lawgiver. Allah SWT is the only Lawgiver. The Ruler.

May Allah SWT forgive me if I said wrong . Ameen.

Allahu alam.

 

[Serinity]

It is flawed logic, btw. No human can ever determine right and wrong, I'd say that is utmost arrogance. Only Allah SWT determines that, not humans, ever.

I hate humans who think they can say and decide what is right and what is wrong, they can never, and will never decide that. Sodomy is filth, and will stay filth. Just because humans 'legalise' it, doesn't make it right. Who are we to go against the Creator? That is just arrogance.

Those who take the people and make the people decide what is right and wrong, has taken them as false gods, authu billah. They obey and follow the people.

May Allah SWT forgive me if I said any wrong. Ameen. Allahu alam.

 

[piXie]

Pygoscelis

Please englighten us as to what will give us a better life then? No laws to follow and everyone do as they please?

A holy text or doctrine may be an improvement over what came before it, but in declaring it perfect, it then becomes a barrier to further moral progress.

Further moral progress or further moral corruption and degeneration?

 

[Serinity]

There is no need for further moral progress. It isn't in mankind's ability or responsibility to say what is right or wrong!

If mankind tries to take the role of the Creator, chaos, blodshed, and corruption will happen. But they'll say "we are but reformers!" nay, they are the corrupters.

Morals isn't something you can change, it is constant. You are only deluding yourself, by saying that we can change morals, we shouldn't. It'll lead to corruption. Further corruption.

Whether I can kill a person or not, is conditioned by the circumstances. If I said "you can now kill people on the street.. Kill all women!" does that make it moral? Who are we to do so? Moral doesn't progress. Morality is from Allah SWT. We'd only corrupt ourselves if we tried to say what is right or wrong.

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is no need for further moral progress.

That may be the saddest thing that I have ever read.

It isn't in mankind's ability or responsibility to say what is right or wrong!

Yes, it is. We do it all the time, and it is imperative that we do it. Even if a God exists, you have made the moral decision to judge him as Good and to follow him. You have read your holy texts and have understood your religion in a particular way, reading your own moral sense into it. Why else would some here come to see Islam as peaceful and loving (injecting a strong moral sense), while others follow like Daesh (failing to do so). Subduing your own moral sense in deference to obedience to what you think is Allah can only go so far, because you read your own moral sense into what you decide Allah wants.

We also face many moral quandaries due to advancing technology that was simply not contemplated by those who wrote the Quran (or any ancient holy text). Everything from stem cell research to cloning to organ donation to blood transfusions to meat cultivated in labs without living animals come with moral considerations that we need to address and that the thoughts of people hundreds of years ago can't help you with. As technology advances further there will be more and more of these moral issues to address, and we need to keep moral progress strong, keep empathy and fairness and our other moral senses unimpeded by religious dogma, to come to ethical and equitable answers.

And, of course as you know, I see no reason to believe that Allah does exist, so by "obeying Allah" I only see you as obeying those who claim to and who have claimed to speak for Allah. The human brain and human culture and society is all we've got to answer moral issues. I know that thought scares you, but hiding from it and pretending there is some celestial tyrant to bow down to, so that you don't have to take responsibility for your own moral decisions, doesn't help and often hurts.

Obedience to power is not morality. Morality is doing what is good no matter what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told no matter what is good. We need to not confuse the two. If you came to believe that Allah wanted you to fly a plane into a building or kill your children, with no further explanation, would you do it? If your answer is yes, then you are amoral and may be a sociopath. If your answer is no, then you have your own moral compass and sense of right and wrong independent of your obedience to Allah. If you answer "God would never do that" despite what is written in holy texts etc, then that is a cop-out.

Or perhaps you would say that you would do it, but trust that God must have some good reason for it outside of your knowledge, because God knows all and you do not, which is where I think the speaker in the OP transcript was going. I pointed out some serious flaws with that logic above. You'd have to assume God's intention, and that he is good and benevolent towards you. And you'd have to be certain that you got his message and intention correct, despite the millions of different understandings from different people claiming to have gotten it from him. And at the end of the day, if your God doesn't exist but you only think it does, then your God belief has led you to do something horrible.

Morals isn't something you can change, it is constant. You are only deluding yourself, by saying that we can change morals, we shouldn't. It'll lead to corruption. Further corruption.

Moral values have changed and do change. Slavery and rape were once accepted in most human societies, including highly religious ones (which were most if not all of them). We have made moral progress since then and now know that it is wrong to own another human being or to force sex on an unwilling person.

Mohammad himself (at 50) married Aisha and consummated the marriage with her when she was very young (between 6 and 15 depending on what sources you believe). We now see that as wrong and would call it statutory rape (anything under 18). Science has shown us that the human brain is not fully and completely developed to enabled true informed consent for such decisions at that age (especially at the younger end of that spectrum). Even if she was 18 or 19 a lot of people today would see it as suspect, him being 50. This has often been used to attack the prophet and his religion, but the truth is that in that time and place it was considered perfectly acceptable and moral, and she was likely seen as an adult by her society, as the Quran says that a marriage must be between consenting adults. And that itself is a nice improvement over the old testament Bible, which treats women as property, and marriage as a contract of sale between a father and a husband.

 

[MuslimInshallah]

I believe this passage is also in the Quran....

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

In the spirit of searching for justice and God.

Eric

Assalaamu alaikum,

Just to clarify, this quote is from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Bible), not the Qur'an. I think what Eric was trying to say is that he thinks the Qur'an also expresses the idea of doing good for others, as a way of doing something Pleasing to God.

May God Bless you all with the Light of faith.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MuslimInshallah;

Just to clarify, this quote is from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament (Bible), not the Qur'an.

Sorry if I did not make this clear, but I also seem to remember reading a very similar passage from the Quran. old age is creeping on, so please forgive me if I am mistaken.

I think what Eric was trying to say is that he thinks the Qur'an also expresses the idea of doing good for others, as a way of doing something Pleasing to God.

Yes, I believe that to be true

Blessings

Eric



May God Bless you all with the Light of faith.[/QUOTE]

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

And I would argue very strongly that helping people because it is the right thing to do is far more altruistic than helping people because an authority figure (God) tells you to.

I think many of the charitable organisations would disappear; if you took religion out of our towns. The basics food bank, homeless shelter, good neighbour group, Street Pastors, lunch clubs for vulnerable people, support for the disabled, elderly, community centres and many more.

These groups operate week after week and year after year, they are funded and staffed by volunteers from the churches. I know other religions do the same kind of good deeds for people in need.

If religion disappeared, would there still be the will to help vulnerable people?

In the spirit of searching for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[Karl]

Is "Humanism" just another religion? Secularism and atheism is a new global fanaticism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If religion disappeared, would there still be the will to help vulnerable people?

Is this a serious question or are you trolling? Do you think that if religion ceased to exist then there would be nobody to help the homeless or feed the hungry or conduct other charitable works? Do you really think that? If you do then you are viewing the world through a very religious filter and blinding yourself to secular reality.

Consider the history and culture of the area you speak of when you see all of the religious charities you speak of. Are these people helping others because their religion tells them to, or are they helping others because they know it is the right thing to do? A good litmus test would be to look and see if they help people not of their religion as much as those of their religion. Groups like the Red Cross or Salvation Army, etc are pretty much religious in name only. There is a Catholic Family Support charity near where I live that you would never guess was "Catholic". Most of their staff are not Catholic and they serve anybody and everybody and don't preach any Catholic doctrines (they help homosexuals without judging, distribute condoms (directly against Catholic doctrine), etc).

In the absence of such charities, secular ones would pop up very quickly to fill the void. They already do to a large degree. Doctors without borders, united way, local soup kitchens and homeless shelters, etc. Most of the charitable organizations here in Toronto are not in any way associated with a religion, and we're more socialist than the US of A. Then you've got the nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway), highly irreligious and outright socialist, caring far more for the group than for individual gain.

I can assure you that if religion ceased to exist, charity would not. Although we may get rid of a few religious "charities" that are more about saving souls than saving lives.