In this essay, it is imperative for me to highlight the audacity of those who tirelessly defend religion. The outspoken non-religious community who publicise the harm of religion always encounter individuals who attempt to defend dogmatic beliefs; forming sly excuses for why religion is supposedly not an issue. I have independently coined the term “religion-defender” as it can describe those who attempt to be ‘too nice’ by denying the harm caused by religion.
There is a tendency to assume that atheists never quit talking about religion. Yet, would religion-defenders have said the same to civil rights activists in the 1960s that were exposing the lack of African American liberty in the United States? Would religion-defenders say the same to abolitionists in the 1700s that emphasised the ruthlessness of slavery and the need for it to be outlawed? Atheist activists are merely aiming to make another important change in the world; and that is to expose religious harm. Regardless of what period of a century we may be in, the only reason why general society attempts to defend a popular topic so confidently is because they aren't aware of the root problems!
The qualities of the religion-defending position entail overemphasized sensitivity on the subject of religion. A religion-defender would exert oneself to avoid conversing or debating religion; while religion is not ideal for small talk, it is recommended for intellectually deep discussions (whether formal or informal). Ignorance is visible when religion-defenders avoid the conversation as soon as the word religion is mentioned. If one says something that the religion-defender doesn’t agree with then they may appear offended and interrupt the factuality that you are trying to present, regardless of how friendly you converse. The religion-defender can be lenient as one will exceedingly guard religious beliefs; showing stupendous tolerance and extreme mercy when an act is committed as a result of religious motivation. Fear of offending for constructively criticising religion becomes imminent, enforcing the idea that it is “too impolite” when denouncing religious beliefs. Encouraging societal happiness and personal happiness is important, but in order to achieve this substantially, we must acknowledge the roots of the world’s problems – rather than ignore the facts by forming ludicrous excuses that hide the real causes of such problems.
It is evident that the religion-defender is unknowledgeable on the rudiments of religious doctrine and, in most cases, science too – as far as reason is concerned, science is the opposite of religion since science has an open-minded purpose, uncontrolled by dogmatic obstinacy, whereas religion is a successful attempt to control populations using fiction and plain fear. The fact that religion-defenders have little knowledge about religion and science is evident as one will endlessly misconstrue the information being discussed; showing surprised reactions to the horrific information displayed in religious texts (and too, showing a sign of unconcern on the entire subject). Consequently, the religion-defender is likely unaware of the harm that is caused by religion. Most of the time, if you were to somewhat educate those who haven’t much insight on religion, the potential harm becomes acknowledged and one would begin to eventually understand it. But, this is not the case with the subjective religion-defender. Even if one acknowledges the truth on the subject, a religion-defender would openly attempt to deny the destruction that is caused by religion. As Sam Harris has stated in an interview regarding religion (I am paraphrasing here since I cannot relocate the video online), “liberals who deny the issue are the problem” – indeed, those who continue to deny the blatant issues are seemingly making the problem grow.
A hugely common example presented by a religion-defender is the excuse that fanatics and extremists are somehow suffering from a mental disease or depressive disorder; that the person was involuntarily motivated to cause the atrocity, when in actuality the idea of paradise is the motivation. Truthfully, the “fanatics” are actually those who have not one-sidedly selected certain parts of their religious texts like much of the claimed religious populations do today. There are numerous origins that demonstrate religion being the motivator and influence of fanaticism, extremism, terrorism and so forth, yet those examples are utterly repudiated (“deny the truth or validity”) by the religion-defender. It clearly does not matter how much the secularist presents facts and logic, because the religion-defender will still adamantly disregard any form of reasoning that opposes religion and its harm; the denial of truth will persist. The possible reason for why one would defend religion so obstinately may be due to the fear of free expression; especially if a person has many friends and relatives who are religious. However, avoiding to confront the problem will only enhance it. It is reasonable for those in theocratic countries to distance themselves from exposing the harm of dogma as the consequences could be fatal, nonetheless, for those who have the privilege to live in a free society like much of the Western world, then ignoring the contemporary origin of extreme issues will not positively solve anything.
More Essays:
Do you have any thoughts or feedback to share? Use the comment section below, so I can respond to you! Also, feel free to share this post to your friends.
|
Daniel C. MeesThe Blog of Sincerity, featuring contrarian, polemical and critical writings on politics, religion, social philosophy, left-right spectrum, books, sociopolitical concerns, secularism and such - by Daniel C. Mees.
Facebook FeedArchives
January 2017
Featured Posts |