Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.

The James Randi Educational Foundation ^ | July 25, 2003 | James Randi

[balrog666]

This week's page will be devoted entirely to religion. I've reached the point where I just have to unload on this subject that until now I've felt was just outside of the matters that the JREF handles. Since religion shows up as a part of so many arguments in support of other fantastic claims, I want to show you that its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day. Previously, I've excused myself from involved discussions of this pervasive notion, on grounds that it offers no examinable evidence, as the other supernatural beliefs actually do — though those examinations have always shown negative results. Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just "are."

Rather than argue or try to reason by their standards, I'll settle for pointing out, briefly, how unlikely, unreasonable, bizarre, and fantastic their basic claims are, dealing for the most part with those I'm more familiar with, from personal experience.

[balrog666]

Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.

"Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion." That says it all.

Go, Randi, go!

[balrog666]

For your reading enjoyment and discussion.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Uh oh...

[Long Cut]

Randi has done a wonderful job of debunking "supernaturalist" claims and hucksters (Psychics, ESP-ers, etc) for years. I've enjoyed his work for a long time.

He's wading into a minefield with clown shoes on here, however.

This is going to be fun to watch...Religious zealots HATE to be told the simple fact that their beliefs, however objectively GOOD and RIGHT those may be, are unprovable.

I have often wondered why people have such a hard time just LIVING WELL, by their religious tenets, without having to go over-the-top with trying to prove that EVERY Biblical story is LITERAL TRUTH.

What, if it's NOT, are they going to go off the script and start killing, raping, destroying, and stealing?

[Physicist]

What, if it's NOT, are they going to go off the script and start killing, raping, destroying, and stealing?

Some on FreeRepublic have claimed exactly that.

[Dimensio]

What, if it's NOT, are they going to go off the script and start killing, raping, destroying, and stealing?

I've actually heard a few theists (including one Freeper, Khepera) claim that they would be a horrible person without the fear of God. I suspect that many of them assume that nontheists would thus be terrible, murderous people because they're projecting their personality faults, unable to believe that a person could refrain from murder, rape, torture or other horrible crimes even without belief in an ever-watchful God who would punish them for eternity for their transgressions.

[js1138]

is this thread dead yet?

[js1138]

I guess not.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping.

[js1138]

This thread is already smoking.

[js1138]

...claim that they would be a horrible person without the fear of God.

I happen to believe that people are born different (surprise). People vary on a number of scales, one of them being empathy. Empathetic people find it easier to be autonomous, self governing, because they really don't enjoy hurting others.

At the extreme other end of these scale is the psychopath, who can treat others as objects. No points for guessing which politicians fall where on this scale.

Psychopaths have a useful function in any society that conducts war, but they can't be left to operate on their own whims. Religion, I suspect, can supply for them what empathy supplies for others, an internal control mechanism. Points for guessing which religions push empathy as a controlling mechanism and which pose threats of external punishment. And which combine both.

[whattajoke]

Thanks for posting this for all to see/read/think about. I guess I was afraid to, if only because I don't have the FR time to deal with the flames.

Randi has always remained somewhat apolitical, though I'm sure he leans left. He does get a jab in on Bush in this article, but it's one I've always said myself. I cringe when he panders and mentions his version of god and his prayers, etc. I really wish he's stop it too.

Politics aside, since we're all in agreement on that here, Randi's article is the one I'd write if I were smarter. I agree with everything he (and Dawkins and Krakauer, whom he quotes) says here.

It's clear, concise, and well written. to my mind, I can't imagine how anyone could disagree. But of course they will.

[whattajoke]

This thread is already smoking.

damn, that was quick.

[betty boop]

Interesting comments, js1138.

[balrog666]

Randi has done a wonderful job of debunking "supernaturalist" claims and hucksters (Psychics, ESP-ers, etc) for years. I've enjoyed his work for a long time.

Ditto.

He's wading into a minefield with clown shoes on here, however.

But with eyes wide open and for a purpose.

[balrog666]

This thread is already smoking.

I figured I would save time and just post it back here.

[js1138]

Didn't Jesus say that some of Moses' laws were there because the people of the time had hard hearts? I may be stretching things but I think Christianity requires empathy, and for those born with few talents in this regard, it requires effort. No points for not trying.

[dark_lord]

Well, among other things he is apparently deliberately obtuse in his perspective on religion. For example, following the link I find he says:

But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no!

So he clearly hasn't bothered to read the very text he criticizes. And I mean that -- he says he didn't understand, and still doesn't -- when actually reading the text he is slamming he would quickly find that:

(a) They (Adam and Eve) did not only have 2 children. So the rest of his argument is immediately a non sequitur (does not follow).
(b) Apparently, for a "bright", he seems fairly obtuse about figures of speech, metaphors, symbolism, and other useful intellectual constructs with which the bible is quite packed.

He later makes the statement that: Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based...

Yeah, sure, the collected works of Aristotle are precisely upon which much of Christianity is based, yeah, you find them in all the church libraries. Why, just last Sunday a pastor at my local church was giving a fine sermon from "On Interpretation" and rambled on for 30 minutes on how there can be no affirmation or denial without a verb....

NOT! James Randi is a bag of hot gas. Check out your local Mensa chapter, you find a bunch of self-important neurotic idiots just like him who could solve all the worlds problems if only they were king.

[js1138]

The Biblical population was reduced at least one more time to the point where incest would have been necessary. And I believe there is at least one specific mention of incest being necessary.

[whattajoke]

As an equally obtuse dimbulb who can't infer just how the bible rectifies the Adam/Eve/one live son conundrum, I was hoping you'd supply the pertinent bible passages. And while you're at it, please help me and js1138 out with the post Flood gene pool miracle as well, thanks!