The Fallacies of Religious Clerics by N. Fakhr - HTML preview

Supporting Everything That Is Good

In general, religious clerics of all religions present their own religion as supporting everything that is good and opposing everything that is bad.

They say that they support the moral progress of society and the elimination of corruption, and that their religion wants the same things. They present themselves and their religion as supporters of beauty, good character, the fight against social problems, people's welfare, honesty, friendship among people, equality before the law, friendly relations with the rest of the world, and the happiness and vitality of young people—in short, everything that people generally consider good.

There is no religion that says it does not support good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.

But when it comes to actually following a religion and putting its rules into practice, two questions arise:

First, what exactly does that religion consider to be a good action, beauty, good character, a social problem, welfare, love for other people, happiness, vitality, or friendly relations?

Second, when different good things come into conflict, which one takes priority?

Let me explain.

Every religion has a worldview. A worldview is a person's understanding of the whole of reality: the visible world, the unseen world, and the laws that govern them. The visible world is our material world. The unseen world includes other realms, such as the afterlife, the supernatural world, angels, and so on.

For example, suppose someone believes that everything that happens in the world occurs according to God's will. In this view, God makes a particular decision about every event according to a particular wisdom or purpose. He may decide, for a particular reason, that a certain child will be born. He may decide, according to a particular wisdom, that rain should fall in a certain place at a certain time. He may also decide whether a seed should grow.

Now suppose this person also believes that through prayer, vows, sacrifice, and certain rituals, God's decisions can sometimes be changed in his own favor or to someone else's disadvantage. If he believes that these are the laws governing the world, he will naturally choose the methods that he believes are appropriate for achieving his goals.

For him, what is “good” will include doing things that can gain the favor of this personal God.

By a personal God, I mean a God who, in certain respects, has characteristics similar to a human personality—a God who, like a human being, can be pleased or displeased, compassionate or angry.

If this person believes that sacrificing a child or an animal can please this personal God and bring religious reward, he may perform the sacrifice as a “good deed.”

If he believes that opponents of his religion should be killed in order to please his God, he may do that as well.

Now suppose we ask him:

“Is protecting the lives of human beings and animals good?”

According to his beliefs, he may answer yes. He may add that his religion teaches people to protect their children and families, respect other human beings, and be kind to animals.

But if we then ask:

“Why, then, do you sacrifice your child, an animal, or another human being to please God, depriving them of their right to life?”

he may answer that according to God's command, doing so is better.

In other words, when these two apparently conflicting “good” actions come into conflict, sacrificing someone—or engaging in jihad against unbelievers—takes priority. He may also say that God will somehow satisfy the soul of the person who was sacrificed, or give some similar explanation.

Within this worldview, everything remains consistent. Good is still being done, and the priorities have been chosen correctly according to the laws and beliefs that this person accepts.

Now consider another example.

Imagine someone whose worldview has led him to conclude that the laws of nature operate in the same way throughout the universe and that these laws determine which events occur at any particular time.

Whatever the origin of these laws may be—divine or otherwise—they do not operate differently in particular cases according to someone's personal judgment or preference.

If rain falls somewhere, it does so according to the laws governing weather, which themselves operate within the universal laws of physics.

If a seed grows, its cells divide and develop according to these same natural laws.

These laws are universal. This means that throughout the visible, material world, the same material conditions produce the same results. We do not observe a hand intervening in the operation of the laws of physics, sometimes changing the way they work or preventing them from operating.

Now suppose this person bases his knowledge primarily on experience. He says that in his observations and experiments, he has never seen anything other than material and physical forces and causes—such as prayer, curses, vows, or sacrifices—affect the results of his experiments.

For this reason, he relies on the laws of nature.

And suppose that, like the seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke, he concludes that human beings are naturally free and equal and possess natural rights. Among the rights associated with Locke's political philosophy are the rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke also strongly defended religious toleration and argued against using force to impose religious belief.

Within this worldview, protecting the life of one's child is good, while killing other people because of their beliefs is bad.

Now someone with the first worldview, which was a kind of religious worldview, may tell the person with the second, more empirical worldview:

“I support everything that is good.”

At this point, the second person has good reason to ask:

“What exactly do you mean by ‘good’?”

The first person may mention respecting human beings and protecting their lives. But he may also say that pleasing his God is one of the good things.

To understand what “pleasing God” actually means, we need to become familiar with that person's religious beliefs and commands, and we need to examine the texts of that religion itself.

This is important because simply asking the person about the teachings of his religion may not always give us the whole picture. He knows the worldview of the person he is speaking to. And according to the rules of his religion, there may be circumstances in which he considers concealment, taqiyya1, lying, or deception permissible. He may therefore conceal teachings that he knows the other person would strongly dislike, especially if revealing them would prevent that person from being attracted to his religion.

For example, his religion may forbid leaving the religion. A person who joins the religion and later changes his mind may be declared an apostate and considered deserving of the death penalty.

It is possible that this part will not be mentioned while he is trying to gain the other person's support or approval.

In this way, the second person may convert to the first person's religion—or may give the first person the political power to govern society—and only afterward become fully acquainted with the reality of that religion and its laws.

Of course, this principle applies to all worldviews.

The religious person should likewise ask the second person every necessary question in order to understand what kinds of morality and unavoidable laws follow from an empiricist worldview.