After the recent fatal train crash in Australia, an elderly woman survivor was interviewed about what had happened. The crash was her fault, she declared, eyes staring in shock, and went on to explain that a fellow passenger had said to her 'You'll be home soon' just before the crash and she had said 'Yes I will'. The reporter looked puzzled and she went on to say 'I should have said "I'll be home soon, God willing". I left off the God willing and so we crashed'.
This woman, for perhaps 70 years had been carrying around in her head this twin fearsome vision of the world and how it works. First, you never know when god is going to inflict some terrible disaster on you, so you can never know anything about the future for certain. In fact the future is completely random, and no matter what you do it is impossible to influence it in any way. So there can be no certainty in your plans because God might decide, on a whim, to roll a boulder down a mountain, or put a lorry in the way of a passenger train. And, as if all that isn't terrible enough, God is watching and listening all the time, and if he notices that you have forgotten to say 'God willing' when describing the possible events a few minutes into the future, he will instantly strike you down, and, if necessary, kill and injure dozens of innocent people (all of whom might have been feverishly saying 'God willing' at the end of every sentence) just to get at you for your presumption.
Fancy some priest filling a little girl's mind with such fear that she carries it with her for the rest of her life. Putting the fear of god into her, actually, not metaphorically. I know that politicians deliberately keep the public afraid these days with wars and rumors of war and alerts and attacks and conspiracies and threats, but you wouldn't think that religious leaders would use the same tactic, would you? Anyway, the reporter, a little embarrassed, and perhaps not understanding what she had said, but fearful in these days of religious political correctness to offend a true believer, said 'well, it's good you have got your faith to see you through'. But it wasn't helpful, faith of that kind, irrational belief that has nothing to do with the way the world works, was not helping her at all. A response that saw the train crash as a totally unpredictable event which killed people arbitrarily depending on which side of the train they had been seated on, would at least leave you feeling lucky. Perhaps making you glad to smell the roses, or be determined to do something more with the rest of your life, or just be nicer to your family in future. A belief that there is a vicious and unpredictable bearded figure in the sky, pulling people's arms off for sport if they annoy him, and who had narrowly missed you, this time, is not a belief that is helpful in dealing with the real world.
Look I know this is an anecdote, but you and I both know that this 'God willing' phrase and the idea that goes with it is very common among religious people.
One of my esteemed fellow bloggers, Rick Malloy, recently wrote a review of the Hitchens book on religion, with a serve at Harris along the way. The crux of his argument is this 'Because some people commit atrocities in the name of their supposed "god," Harris rants against religion and argues that we must abandon faith itself as a method of orienting our lives' journeys.' And explicitly 'Those who decry religion for supposedly religious persons' and religious organizations' failures, even atrocities, do not deal with other sectors of society in the same manner. Just because there are bad governments, we don't call for the abolition of politics. Just because there are some unethical pharmaceutical corporations and unscrupulous doctors, we do not call for the demolition of the practice of medicine. Just because some cops and judges are bad, we don't call for the dismantling of the criminal justice system. And just because a large number of U.S. soldiers mistreated Iraqis ... we do not call for the end to the military.'
No, we do not, nor would we call for the end of religion if the problem was just a few madmen and fools among the religious. The occasional hermit who sat on a mountain would be a matter of amusement, the occasional crazed loon who wanted to end his life and that of people around him because he heard voices would be a matter for sympathy and psychiatric treatment. The oddly charismatic speaker who tried to take all the money from his followers could be dealt with by tax man or justice system. The leader inspired by visions who wanted his troops to conquer another country could be met with the full weight of international disapproval and action. Although this 'a few rotten apples' is a common argument when defending religion, it misses the point completely.
The problem is not the isolated atrocities committed by the religious in the name of religion. Nor is it the occasional whacky and wild-eyed supporters who appear on television or street corners - they actually add a bit of human charm to the boring religious hobby and its adherents. The problem is religion itself and the effect it has on all its followers. Let us imagine that religion is like cigarette smoking - have faith, this metaphor is going somewhere.
Think of it this way - smoking is very damaging if you are heavily addicted. The 4 pack a day man is probably going to die sooner than the 1 pack a day man. But there is no safe level of smoking. The one cigarette a day person may trigger lung cancer. The problem is that the toxins in cigarette smoke affect the body at whatever level. And furthermore, the single smoker is not just doing himself harm, if he was you could let him get on with it, but the smoke produced can damage all those in the same room - passive smoking is almost as bad as active smoking.
And among other features nicotine is an appetite suppressant. The mechanisms are complicated, but all smokers recognize the symptom. You can skip a meal, or two, every day, and the cigarettes will stop you feeling hungry. It is as if the cigarette is a fake piece of food, the nicotine fake nutrition. When (if!) you stop smoking you usually begin to put on weight very quickly, as the body starts to recognize hunger symptoms again, is not full of fake food causing fake hormonal responses. Religion is like cigarettes, religious belief is like nicotine. A constant intake of religious belief suppresses the normal hunger of the mind for knowledge. The brain is full of irrational thoughts; like the role of god in train crashes; how the world was created; how there mustn't be sex education for young people, at home or abroad; how rich people are good people; how you should know your place in society, and not get above yourself; how god created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago; how your rulers must be religious men; how women's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant; how wars our leaders fight are good wars, especially when the enemy has another religion; how god has decided marriage is only between a man and a woman; how humans are intended to rule the whole natural world; how a wild-eyed woman pointing at a tv camera can heal people watching television, if only they send money; how the rapture is coming to save the believers, destroy the unbelievers; how a breast must never be seen on tv, but the more violence the better; how guns are doing god's work; how stem cell research and abortion are evil, but the death penalty and war are good. Whatever issue arises in society there is no thought needed - your religious leaders will tell you what the proper response is, and just like having another cigarette, you will go away satisfied. It is not for nothing that one of the earliest stories in the bible has the punch line - 'But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'. See, food metaphors even then, but no accident that one of the earliest instructions is that humans shall not think for themselves, must not seek knowledge, must not eat apples. The "Creation Museum" in Kansas draws the same distinction between the evil of human rational thought and the goodness of obedience to god, as determined by a church. But such an approach is no basis for democracy, just as a heavy smoker would be of little use as a restaurant critic.
This is made explicit in Middle Eastern countries that want none of this democracy nonsense, but a theocracy and Sharia law. And it was made explicit in Australia recently when a cardinal instructed members of parliament that they must vote against stem cell legislation or they would be excluded from the church. It didn't matter what factors the elected politicians were trying to weigh up; what constituencies (with numerous religious beliefs, plus, gasp, atheists) they were representing; didn't matter what the beliefs of other churches were whose members might also be in parliament; didn't matter what submissions had been received from doctors and scientists and groups representing some of the vicious illnesses that intelligent design overlooked when creating the human body. Nothing mattered except, in this case, the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject. Amazingly the cardinal failed to impose his will on the whole community in this instance, but you can see him succeeding in the future, just as his predecessors succeeded in the middle ages. You might have people who are addicted to religion elected to the leadership of countries, in which case they will ban stem cell research themselves, no need for overt church action.
When you give up smoking you not only recognize the delights of food, but the amazing world around you opens up again - your sense of smell returns and flowers once again have meaning; your eyes function better, your tongue can taste ice cream flavors. In the same way, removal of the religious addiction would open up the population to new ideas, and debates, and compromises with other ideas, would get political processes functioning again. When Lenin said religion was the opiate of the masses he meant it metaphorically. But I increasingly see it as a literal description - religion is the nicotinate of the masses. Until the population can replace 'god willing' with 'people willing' we are all in big trouble.
Christopher Marlowe and I both 'count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance'. Watch me do it in the religion and evolution sections of The Watermelon Blog.