Some secular principles

- an opinion by Ian Bryce - March 2007

These notes represent my opinion on a secular system decision-making and ethics. They are based on scientific principles rather than religious dogma. They are very much in accordance with the stated policies of the Secular Party of Australia, and I expect they will be widely supported.

The purpose is to stimulate discussion on a range of methods and policies, and hence contribute to the Party’s position. Please send comments to ianbryce@iinet.net.au

Contents

Position Summary........................................................................................................................... 1

The Basis for this position – about Religion.................................................................................... 2

Enlightenment through science............................................................................................................ 3

Religion - The cycle of indoctrination.................................................................................................. 3

The Scientific method....................................................................................................................... 4

Handling New Questions and Disagreements......................................................................................... 4

Enlightenment through science............................................................................................................ 5

Scientific principles applied to Policy.............................................................................................. 5

Religion - Breaking the cycle of indoctrination...................................................................................... 5

Enlightened education....................................................................................................................... 6

Ethics............................................................................................................................................. 6

Medical Research............................................................................................................................ 10

Censorship.................................................................................................................................... 10

Environment.................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix A: about Religion.......................................................................................................... 13

The known origin of religions........................................................................................................... 13

The incompatibility of creeds............................................................................................................ 14

Religion provides no basis for ethics.................................................................................................. 15

Cause of most wars and intolerance.................................................................................................... 16

References about Religion................................................................................................................ 17

Position Summary

We are aware that religious doctrines have human origins, and that supernatural phenomena do not exist. The so-called holy books contain instructions for all manner of cruel and criminal conduct, and so are rejected as any source of morality.

We recognise scientific principles as the path to reliable knowledge, and enlightened reason as the path to social and ethical decisions. Thus a secular system of ethics is supported, based on utilitarian principles and universal human rights.

We believe that all children, being trusting of authority and vulnerable, have the right not to be indoctrinated with false information with the potential to instil hate. Religious instruction should be replaced in all schools by comparative religious studies which demonstrate the diversity and incompatibility of the many creation myths.

The basic tool in an enlightened education is to teach children the real origins of the world, of life, and of humans. They will gain a wonder at the natural environment, and a desire to preserve the ecosystems. They will also gain appreciation and acceptance of the variety of peoples surrounding them.

We recognise that individuals have the right to freedom of expression, and freedom from discrimination based on sexual preferences, race, religion etc.

With this right comes a responsibility not to infringe on the rights of others.

On ethical matters such as the right to die, euthanasia, abortion, family relationships, gays, the marginalised and medical research, we encourage personal freedoms, taking into account the welfare of all those affected. Impositions from religious dogmas are rejected.

The legal system would be based on the theory of human behaviour. Punishment would be designed around specific corrective actions – to physically prevent the offender causing further harm, to improve their behaviour, and to act as a visible deterrent to others.

We are very concerned by the evidence of manmade climate change, and see that all available mitigation measures are needed, including conservation, real carbon tax, renewable, and nuclear.

We recognise that continual growth on a finite planet can only lead to catastrophe, and instead encourage sustainability as a measure of wellbeing.

The Basis for this position – about Religion

We are aware of the historical record clearly showing the human origin of religious doctrines and deities, past and present. The holy book, prophet, and past miracles are designed to impart power to a specific sect.

Research shows that most of the sacred texts contain instructions for extreme cruelty, rape, murder etc. Thus any sound moral principles taught by the church do not have religious origins, and are equally available to secular thinkers.

History shows that the majority of wars, genocide, crusades, inquisitions, terrorism etc, were caused by or justified using the above religious doctrines or similar racial superiority beliefs.

In Australia today, most of the intolerance and victimisation of minorities can also be traced to such false beliefs.

Sociological evidence shows that the fictitious creeds responsible for much conflict, are passed down by parents and religious leaders. New recruits are indoctrinated when most vulnerable – as children, when programmed to accept without question what they are taught.

Thus, we believe that the only solution in the long term to such social injustice, is to break the cycle of “lying to the children” by parents, schools and churches – the above religious doctrines should not be taught.

The above is a summary of our position on religion. The claims are detailed and supported, using scientific principles, in Appendix A.

Enlightenment through science

For the last 400 years or so, one method of enquiry has proven far more effective than any other, in finding the truth. The scientific method combines evidence (observation or experiment) with analysis (theory). Many of these principles can be applied to ethics.

In this way the origins of the universe, of our planet, life, and humans, have been discovered. It rejects the sacred texts and other ancient myths. It shows the close relationship between all living humans, and indeed all life on earth, creating respect and admiration.

In science, all tests must be repeatable, by different people in different places, in order to be accepted. By sharing the evidence and analysis, disagreement is overcome. Past atrocities can be seen as bad human behaviour which is now part of history. Thus a consensus is available to end disputes.

Research shows that most of the sacred texts contain instructions for extreme cruelty, rape, torture, genocide, murder etc. Clearly, any sound moral principles taught by the church do not have religious origins, and are equally available to secular thinkers.

Religion - The cycle of indoctrination

Once indoctrinated, the growing child is usually unable to accept any questioning of the creed. This is seen all around us, and in all religions. When it is pointed out that no two religions are compatible, they shout “Mine is the One True God”. They must regard children with other beliefs almost as alien, instead of a minor variation of the one species. No wonder that, in extreme cases, as adults they will be willing to invade, subdue, commit genocide, or even die for their cause.

To cripple the child for life, from being able to make informed choices in social interaction, sexual ethics, marriage, abortion and euthanasia - is surely a form of child abuse.

The Scientific method

Let us examine the scientific method in more detail: Firstly, evidence is obtained, through observation or experiment. Then theories are developed, and tested through agreement with the evidence, and their ability to predict new results which can then be performed.

The theories are open to challenge by other scientists. If new tests or evidence emerges which disagrees with a theory, then the evidence will be closely examined. If necessary the theory will be modified, or overtaken by a different one.

Children in school science classes, as well as scientists, test such theories every day. When a theory survives all the tests, it becomes a fact (like gravity, momentum, genetic inheritance, evolution).

The opposite is religious dogma, which is not supported by any evidence, and fails the first time it is tested. Why some people believe their religious beliefs are above challenge, demonstrates the vulnerability of young minds to permanent corruption.

Handling New Questions and Disagreements

When approaching a new question, (for example, is it safe to drink water from a newly discovered groundwater source?), science offers two paths:

· Testing (gathering direct evidence) – feed the water (along with known water as a control) to groups of people in a double blind trial;

· Analysis (using known data and extending it) – analyse all impurities in the water, and compare with known safe levels.

In some cases, there might be a new ingredient in the water which has not been considered. Thus, testing is more thorough (but generally more expensive).

Unlike religions, science offers a path to resolving disagreements. Both parties are asked to present their evidence or analysis (for example the experiments they are relying on). These tests can then be examined and repeated by others. The methods and results are visible to all parties, so eventually a consensus will be achieved.

When these principles are applied to a conflict, there is a path towards resolution.

Enlightenment through science

We are aware of the history showing the human origin of religious doctrines and deities, past and present. We are aware that there is no valid evidence for the existence of any supernatural phenomena, including gods.

We recognize that the scientific method, rather than religious dogma, has proven to be the valid method of finding truth. This applies to the physical world, as well as more complex problems such as ethics and law.

Awareness of the evolution of our solar system, our planet, and life on it, leading to Homo sapiens, can help to expel ancient creation myths and “chosen race” creeds.

Our sharing DNA with all life on earth, and the relatively insignificant differences between races and minority groups, is a powerful source of respect and harmony.

Scientific principles applied to Policy

This policy provides a method of analysis, which may be applied to specific policy areas. In some cases, a logical conclusion is clear. In other cases, the starting data is a bit fuzzy, and an unambiguous result might not be obtained.

But in all cases, the key issues can be identified, and one can ensure they are taken into account.

We do not expect to reform the world overnight, but are able to present the methods and policies which are needed for our wellbeing. A successful place in the Senate will enable these to be presented in that forum, when appropriate matters arise.

Some examples follow.

Religion - Breaking the cycle of indoctrination

Sociological evidence shows the fictitious creeds and inculcation of hate responsible for much conflict, are passed down by parents, religious schools, and religious leaders. New recruits are mostly indoctrinated when most vulnerable – as children, when programmed to accept without question what they are taught.

Many carry these false beliefs through their lives, attempt to impose them on others, and certainly on the next generation. This is facilitated in Australia through the racial enclaves which have arisen through unwise immigration and integration policies.

We believe that all children, being trusting of authority and hence vulnerable, have the right not to be indoctrinated with false information with the potential to ruin their lives. Thus, we want, in the long term, to break the cycle of “lying to the children” by parents, churches and faith schools – we believe the above religious doctrines and other inculcations to hate, should not be taught.

Religious attire in schools is rejected, because it is another way of parents and schools imposing religious doctrine on children before they are able to make their own decisions.

This will be difficult to achieve, in societies where the parents are themselves are fully indoctrinated, and wish to impose their dogma on their children, or even on the whole of society.

Churches should not have any tax advantages, and church charities should not have any advantage over non-church charities.

Enlightened education

In place of religious dogma, a subject called comparative religion should be taught. This will include a survey of all religious creeds. It will show the wide range of gods, creation stories, and sacred texts that races have believed in or still do. The children will then be equipped to make up their own minds, based on all the evidence.

Secular ethics will be taught – universal human values - based on respect for all sentient beings (humans and animals).

Ethics

This secular system of ethics is based on a number of stepping-stones provided by enlightened scientific analysis. In summary:

What we know about the Mind

The current view, supported by the large body of research, says that the mind and brain is a system of many organizational layers. At the lowest layer is the arrangement of atoms and molecules – these are well understood. At a higher layer lie the 100 billion neurons (each made of atoms and molecules), and the nerve fibers which connect them.

At a still higher layer are patterns of neuron firings which form images, sounds, thoughts, memories, emotions etc. Scanning subjects using MRI has revealed connections between mental tasks, active brain regions, and reported subjective experiences.

Thus the mind is a high-level pattern in the brain activity. In the same way, software is a high level function of a silicon computer.

While the foetus is developing in the womb, consciousness and other brain processes arise gradually, like the heartbeat. Consciousness or self-awareness as we know it apparently requires a functioning cerebral cortex and a thalamus.

Consciousness can be suspended when we are denied required nutrients or given anaesthetics.

Finally it is snuffed out when we die.

While the brain was steadily evolving during our descent from primitive creatures,

consciousness also must have arisen gradually. Hence, more primitive creatures with simpler brains can be expected to be self-aware, but at a lower level than humans.

Utilitarianism

The above knowledge of the mind provides a basis for ethics. We recognise and wish to protect the awareness and social structures of all sentient beings, and science proves a method of measuring it (at least qualitatively).

We know (because we experience it) that we humans are self aware and conscious, and thus capable of feeling pain, sorrow, joy, love, appreciation of nature etc.

Our lives rely on many social structures, such as learning from the responses of others to our actions, establishing friendships where helpful actions are likely to be repaid, make plans for the future, enjoying success, and regretting failure. These capabilities add to our pleasure and pain, and hence to the value we place on life.

More primitive creatures with simpler brains probably experience such consciousness and social structures also – to a lesser degree. Thus, their feelings also deserve respect – but to a lesser degree than humans. A dog is worth less consideration than a human, a mouse less again, a worm less still, and so on.

This leads to the concept of utilitarianism, as put forward eloquently by Australian researcher Peter Singer. It is sometimes summarized as the greatest good for the greatest number.

In this way the study of the mind offers a sound basis for morality, rather than manmade texts and supernatural deities.

The origins of Behaviour

The physical influences of our behaviour can broadly be split into nature and nurture, and include:

· Our parents’ two genetic codes

· Random selection from our parents’ codes

· Randomness in the laying down of the growing brain

· Nourishment from the mother

· The environment while in the womb

· Any diseases in the womb or in life

· All environmental influences during child and adult life

· All behavioural influences during child and adult life (i.e. the behaviour of others).

Many of these are beyond human control at present. However the future behaviour of a child can benefit from the health of the mother, and the behaviour of those it comes into contact with.

Responsibility for ones own actions

Secularists recognise that each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. We all hold power over those around us, and over the ecosystems of our planet. Recourse to religious doctrines is rejected.

Resulting Policies on Ethics

The goal of ethics as described above is to maximize the wellbeing and minimize the distress sentient beings.

This goal flows down to specific principles:

Each individual is responsible for his/her own actions.

We have the right to personal freedom and to seek our own goals.

People have an obligation to avoid harming others.

Exercise of religious doctrine in public policy is a major source of suffering, and has no valid basis, so must be opposed.

Animals also have rights to wellbeing and lack of suffering. This implies that we should preserve their habitat and avoid imposing stress on them.

Acts where there is no victim (eg anything between consenting adults), should not be criminal.

Examples of (almost) victimless crimes: prostitution, where the practitioner has made a career choice among acceptable options. And the recent “mile high” case where an airline stewardess had an affair with a passenger.

Some more specific policy areas:

Contraception and Abortion – we recognise that a woman should be in charge of her own body, and she can choose whether or not to reproduce. The mother’s rights come first.

A foetus also has some rights, which slowly increase as it develops. Thus both mother and baby have rights, which need to be considered.

Most assuredly, no religious figure has the right to dictate what she does.

Right to die – Any person has the right to choose whether to live or to die. We would support the right of people of sound mind to plan for their future, anticipating that they might for example become senile (known as a living will). The stigma on suicide imposed by the Catholic Church, which causes much pointless distress, must be overcome.

Euthanasia – if a person has no quality of life, and no prospect of improvement, then termination should be allowed, when it is in accordance with their wishes, and those of relatives, friends and doctors.

Family - Society and government should support all kinds of family arrangements, including: traditional families, individuals, couples, sole parents, and any relationship involving mutual support.

Gays – Our freedoms should not be limited by choice of sexuality. There should be no stigma or laws restricting gays.

Discrimination – no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sexuality, religion etc.

The marginalized - We should not judge unfairly those who have become marginalised in society - drug users, criminals, mentally ill. We should assist and rehabilitate them.

Punishment – there is no such thing as “punishment for its own sake”, just corrective actions.

Law – we identify specific objectives of the legal system:

1) To physically prevent the offender causing further harm (jail etc)

2) To improve the behaviour of that person (eg rehabilitation, jail, fines, corporal punishment)

3) To act as a visible deterrent to others (length of jail term, death penalty).

The current legal system in most democracies effectively addresses these objectives in most cases. However, these principles will allow a systematic approach, and remove some inequities:

· In terms of the Utilitarian principle, identify the affected parties.

· Describe the harm to each (a bystander being offended by seeing and act would rank lower than the welfare of the participants.)

· This will provide guidance on the relative seriousness of the matter.

· List the range of available options for the penalty.

· How do they rank, in terms of the three objectives?

· How do they rank, in terms of the cost to society?

This structured approach would provide greater transparency.

Evidence would be handled using common sense and scientific principles. For example, early in the O J Simpson case, the lawyers wanted a separate round of hearings to determine whether DNA matching gave a probability of a false positive of one in a million or one in ten million. Experience would have shown that the probability of police planting the DNA sample was more like one in ten. Where should the enquiries focus?

Death Penalty

We recognise that many people in the world die from hunger and disease every day. In Australia, many die from the violent acts of others. The principle of utilitarianism says that if dispatching one guilty criminal (or leader) dissuades others from murdering innocent people, then it is justified.

Methodology

The secular principles described above may be applied to many other areas of ethics. The outcome will depend on the input data, and the relative values placed on those affected.

Balanced application of resources

We recognise that millions of people in the world suffer from hunger, disease and crime every day. The environment continues to degrade. Much suffering can be ameliorated or avoided through use of even small funding (eg humanitarian aid, buying back rainforests, eliminating feral pests).

On the other hand we see millions being spent on celebrity trivia, where only a few, or no one at all, benefits. For example, the trial of Lindy Chamberlain, or O J Simpson, or the Foundation to whitewash Liberace, or the dispute over Anna Nicole’s remains. Or an indoor snow slope in the desert. An executive aeroplane used for the benefit of one individual. A leader with 8 palaces. A half million dollar motor car.

Secular people would like to see a kerb put on such wasteful squandering of resources, and the funding and effort redirected instead to humanitarian aid to alleviate suffering, for birth control, for education of women in poor countries, or to save the habitat of an endangered species.

Medical Research

Medical research can be guided by the Utilitarian Principle – the greatest good for the greatest number, as described above. This process takes account of the welfare of any humans, animals, cells, ova, embryos etc involved. The potential benefits will be weighed against any suffering.

Thus we endorse research as currently conducted in Australian Universities, with oversight by ethics committees. Research should not be limited by ideas about the sanctity of life.

Censorship

We apply the principles of each individual being responsible for their own behaviour, and reject censorship based on religious dogma, or the desire of some to impose their will on others,

Thus, censorship should only be applied where there is a demonstrated potential for inducing acts which harm others, including child pornography and instilling hatred.

Environment

We recognise that humans are one of many species with a right to exist on earth. Further, the fate of humans depends critically on a healthy environment, including supplies of fresh air, water and soil.

This is challenge to the views of Bjorn Lomborg, who in his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” looked only at the wellbeing of one species. His economic rather than scientific credentials led him to conclude that by his measures, humans are better off then ever, and the planet is in fine condition.

It is a challenge to John Howard, who, as recently as August 2006, was constant in his denial of manmade climate change. He warned the States against carbon trading because it might harm their economies. We would ask him, what will be left of their economies when there is no air to breath and no water to drink?

As Four Corners said, John Howard was the last person in Australia to realise there is a problem. He is the disease masquerading as the doctor.

Energy and Greenhouse

In particular, we recognise the scientific data, which is summarized in the following:

The earth is rapidly warming, as a result of human activity. If we do nothing, catastrophe will engulf the ecosystems and the human race in around 50-100 years. Even if we sharply kerb greenhouse emissions, the consequences will be severe.

Third world countries expect, and are moving towards, the Western living standard.

Thus if we maintain our extravagant lifestyles, emissions will blow out. Australia needs to cut down, even if we are a small player on the global scale.

To achieve reductions, we need to urgently adopt all possible measures.

· Reduce per capita energy usage

· Limit the population

· Expand research into renewables

· Improve the efficiency of coal and oil usage

· Increasing renewable methanol into petrol

· Introduce/expand nuclear energy

· Promote carbon trading

The Greens propose adopting renewables instead of nuclear. However that cannot come close to the required reductions. We need to do both.

Prime Minister Howard’s attitude can be measured from his full interview with ABC reporter Jonathan Holmes for Four Corners on 28/08/2006. Of Howard’s 25 responses, 21 argued against action and none argued for action.

Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1738726.htm

I was pushing for action on greenhouse as early as 1987 – Howard’s sudden backflip in 2007 is 20 years too late.

John Howard has made it clear he favours “clean coal”. But analysis shows this is very unlikely to work. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, there is no escaping that fact. The only possibility is to store a whole atmosphere’s content of CO2 (trillions of tons) underground, forever.

To liquefy and transport it would demand more energy, increasing the usage of coal. And an accidental release (next decade or in a million years) would flood a valley with CO2, killing everything (human and animal), on a scale far worse than any nuclear accident.

Australia currently relies heavily on coal exports. We must prepare for it to be phased down, and establish safe energy technologies to gradually replace that employment.

Given that nuclear power is an imperative, Australia should embrace the whole fuel cycle. We have good supplies of uranium, which we should fashion into fuel rods for lease to other countries. We will then take back the rods for reprocessing or storage.

We are geologically and politically suited to safely storing nuclear waste. The cost will be obtained by investing a portion of revenues from leasing the rods. At least the waste gets safer every decade (unlike sequestered CO2).

The carbon trading schemes as proposed and operating now, are only a marginal tax – coal burners are pay nothing unless they increase their pollution above the benchmark figure. This means coal power remains cheaper than renewables and nuclear – there is no imperative to reduce emissions. Hence the weak conclusions of the Ziggy report – nuclear cannot be competitive with coal. This is an example of the go-soft-on-industry approach of John Howard.

Instead, we will propose a real emission tax, where industries pay for every ton of carbon released. It will be a single figure, whether from coal, petrol, diesel, LNG, LPG etc.

The new energy price structure will provide a real imperative to research, develop and implement all non-greenhouse energy sources.

Growth and Population

We recognise that humanity lives on a finite planet. Many resources are significantly depleted (eg ability of the atmosphere to absorb CO2, fresh water, air quality, soil). It has been estimated that the “footprint” of the human race, is around 1.25 planets, ie at our current level of resources usage and population, we would need 1.25 earths to sustain us in the long term. (Due to the complexity of the calculation, the figure is somewhat uncertain, but the principle is sound).

Moreover, in developed countries including Australia, our footprint is many times larger. The developing nations aspire to our level of consumption, and their growth will overwhelm the planet even more quickly.

Thus, we urgently need to stop, and reverse, population growth. For John Howard to promote Australian births through a subsidy, is irresponsible. For the succession of Popes to continue to ban certain methods of birth control, just goes to demonstrate that religion offers no valid source of knowledge.

Every quarter we hear politicians praising a high growth figure, or deploring a negative growth statistic. Most were economists, and all economics courses teach that growth is the measure of wellbeing.

It is a scientific fact that all growth which relies on finite resources must come to an end, either as a catastrophe when the bubble bursts, or in a controlled and sustainable manner.

Can improved technology remove the limits to growth? Improvements in manufacturing and power generation are small, and there are absolute limits imposed by the laws of physics. Any gains are quickly swamped by consumption growth.

Be clear that we are referring to growth in real terms, not expressed in monetary terms based on say a shrinking peso.

We recognise that Australia is not isolated form the world, so its economic and population trends will interact with other countries. However, as with all social reform we can promote responsible policies at many levels, from state to federal to global.

We are also aware that an aging population will create its own problems of “who will finance retirement and health care”. We hope it will be our children. However, we hear their common cry “Why should we look after the older generation, you trashed the planet”. The sooner we clean up our act the better for all.

References on growth: “The Prosperous Way Down”, by H.T.Odum.

“The limits to Growth”, Club of Rome.

Appendix A: about Religion

This Appendix expands on the summary presented under principles. It provides the backup or evidence for the statements made there.

The known origin of religions

We are aware of the historical record clearly showing the human origin of religious doctrines and deities, past and present.

The origin of many religions is quite clear in the historical record. An individual or group wishing to impose their agenda on society, summons up a figure powerful enough to subdue opposition – a god.

In the absence of evidence for the God, what divine authorization can be used? A common means is a Holy Book, claimed to the Word of God. How did such a Book appear? A Prophet is necessary, who has personally seen the God and was personally given the “screed behind the creed”. A few Miracles are thrown in to convince the sceptical.

For example the Christian story records Moses coming down the mountain, having been shown a burning bush, then met Yahweh, and received the Ten commandments. The Buddhists in Mongolia still possess their 250 volumes of Holy Books, used along the way to suppress the Mongols then led by Kublai Kahn. The Islam religion was reportedly founded by Mohammad, who was also the Prophet, receiving sacred instructions from the archangel Gabriel in 610 AD, and thus dictating the Koran to his disciples.

The historical record is more complete for recent religions. Take Joseph Smith, a magician-diviner, who was unable to find treasure but found two black stones. He thought they were gold tablets, and they conveyed messages to him, which his wife dictated. This became the Book of Mormon, and includes the surprising fact that Jesus Christ himself travelled to America in about 0035 AD, and from there ascended into heaven. Today, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than 12 million members on its rolls, who subscribe to this fantasy.

If that is not evidence enough for the powers of indoctrination in turning humans into morons, you can do your own search on:

· Ellen White, who saw visions after being struck by a rock and suffering temporal lobe epilepsy, and thus founded the Adventists around 1847;

· Mary Baker Eddy, who founded the Church of Christ, Scientist, in 1879; and

· L Ron Hubbard, who wrote “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” in 1950 (it was not modern, contains no science, and the author clearly suffered form mental illness); he claimed inspiration from Xenu, an ancient evil Alien overlord, and thus founded the Church of Scientology.

A church often invents some “miracles” in an attempt to demonstrate the supernatural powers of the deity. Unfortunately such miracles always disappear under proper observing conditions.

From day to day, High Priests make a selection from all the conflicting moral rules contained therein, to support their own agenda of the day (eg Henry 8th creating the divorce-tolerant Church of England, Popes to fuel the Inquisition, Fred Nile to suppress gays, Tony Abbott to prevent abortion).

The historical record clearly demonstrates that religions were created, propagated and enforced by humans. The claimed supernatural origins are a fiction, because there is no valid evidence for the existence of any supernatural phenomena, including gods.

The incompatibility of creeds

The so-called sacred texts and other doctrines contain specific claims that may be tested against each other, and the laws of nature. Comparative studies of religion show that any two contradict each other, rather than containing underlying truth. The so-called sacred texts and other doctrines contain specific claims that may be tested against each other, and the laws of nature. Comparative studies of religion show that any two contradict each other, rather than containing underlying truth. It is also clear that show no understanding of the laws of nature, and were written by humans.

Most religions hold very strictly to doctrines including:

“ours is the one true god”,

“our holy book is the only true creed”,

“we are the chosen race”,

“the world was created for us”,

“only our sect will get the top position in the afterlife”,

“our religious leaders are infallible”

“our list of Rules was given by God and cannot be questioned”.

One view (post modernism) holds that something might be true for you, and something else true for me, and hence these doctrines can coexist.

However, science shows us that in matters of fact, there must be an underlying truth, which holds in all places (not only different sects but the whole universe) and at all times (not only recorded history but during the 13 billion years since the Big Bang).

Thus we are able to ask leaders of the sects “how many gods are there, and what is their nature?”

On this basis, the facts claimed in the religions, or indeed sects of one religion, can be compared. Selecting any two doctrines, we find there are many inconsistencies, eg in the number of gods and their nature.

Example

The Roman Catholics frequently went to war to prove their version of deities of the day, selected from:

· The Old Testament God (Yahweh),

· the Virgin Mary (must have supernatural powers because they pray to her),

· the Holy Spirit (which impregnated Mary),

· Jesus Christ (was he half god or full god? Depends if it is in the X or Y chromosome),

· the archangel Gabriel and other assistants who run Heaven),

· the Devil and those who run Hell,

· and currently around 3000 saints (must be supernatural because they have to demonstrate a miracle, and occasionally save people).

Pope John Paul II himself canonized 484 saints and beatified 1,337. What level of delusion is needed to believe a human can create 1337 gods?

The church in 390 AD at Nicea, selected which of the many conflicting historical writings they would accept as gospel, tom provide them with power over the masses. Among those rejected was the Marcionite account, which said our world was created by the Jewish God #1 of the Old Testament. But He was impossibly strict and condemned all humanity. Jesus was God#2, NOT related to God#1, and released Christians from his clutches!

Thus no two Catholic sects (current or historical) would agree on the number and nature of gods, despite the necessity for an underlying truth. Agreement between Catholics and Anglicans is even worse. Not to mention the Moslems and the Hindus.

We thus find the tenets of any two sects are totally incompatible, and both cannot be true. Hence, of any 100 creeds, either 99 of them are wrong, or 100 of them are wrong.

Or in Richard Dawkins words, we are all atheists – you 99 times and me 100 times. Reference: “The God Delusion”, and “Root of all Evil”.

Religion provides no basis for ethics

Research shows that most of the sacred texts contain instructions for extreme cruelty, rape, torture, genocide, murder etc. For example:

Old Testament promotes rape

Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of rapists to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Genesis 19:7-8.

New testament promotes self mutilation

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. Matthew 5:29-30.

Quran’s Allah tortures and kills

Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90

Book of Mormon forces cannibalism

God will force people to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. 1 Nephi 21:26.

Reference: see Skeptics Annotated Bible for 1000 more.

Thus when people hold up a holy book as their source of morals, either they have not read it, or we should be very scared of them.

Clearly, any sound moral principles taught by the church do not have religious origins, and are equally available to secular thinkers.

There is no method for sorting such sound rules from the instructions to discriminate, adulterize, torture, rape and murder, etc. Which rules are promoted have varied throughout history, according to the agenda of the day.

Thus, religions can offer no real basis (authority, evidence, analysis) for ethics. Their employment of ethicists to present their doctrine of the day is rejected (eg Nicholas Tonti-Philipini, head of the International Association of Catholic Bioethics).

Cause of most wars and intolerance

History shows that the majority of wars, genocide, crusades, inquisitions, terrorism etc, were caused by or justified using the above religious doctrines or similar racial superiority beliefs.

In Australia today, most of the intolerance and victimisation of minorities can also be traced to such false beliefs.

Starting with some historical examples, Mohammad dictated to his Moslem followers, and they have taught ever since, that it is permitted to fight and kill the infidels until they attest that there is no god but God. Today, Sheik Al Hilaly preaches that Australia should be converted to a Muslim state. If we allow him to continue, we will end up with a civil war.

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule. They resulted in the invasion and sacking of may cities.

PS: The current Pope Benedict used to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which under its previous name ran all the murderous Inquisitions. He is clearly quite comfortable with this practise.

After the Council of Nicea selected a particular set of Gospels to adopt as their Creed, and banned the rest, they had the job of wiping out those who had the misfortune to be following the other teachings, Thus came the Inquisition, a reign of torture and murder starting in 385 AD and continuing until 1834. The Office (renamed) still exists, and was headed for a period by the current Pope. (Reference Time December 2004).

Henry the 8^th founded the Anglican Church around 1538 because he was a philanderer and the Catholic Pope cramped his style. His purges killed thousands of innocent Christians.

The Catholics responded in 1605 with a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament with three tons of gunpowder – the Al Qaida of the day.

Not all racial superiority beliefs arise from the supernatural. Hitler and his henchmen believed the Germanic people were a “master-race”, possibly descended from warrior tribes in Iceland or Tibet. Thus Himmler mounted an expedition to Tibet in 1935, and recorded anthropomorphic measurements for comparison with Germanic peoples. Later the belief drove them to exterminate 7 million Jews.

The Jews themselves are not innocent. The children of Israel called themselves “the chosen race”, and their claim for special privileges extends to the modern day, when religious fundamentalists assassinated their own President Rabin, when he showed signs of negotiating with the Palestinians. They regularly fight over which chosen race should have access to the Temple Mount – what an opportunity for a demonstration of tolerance instead.

Other types of racial hatred are also passed down the generations. Stories of massacres hundreds of years ago are so impressed in the children that they grow up itching to obtain revenge. The only way out is to break the vicious cycle of inculcation of hate.

When two racial superiority groups clash (eg Crusades, Ireland, Palestine, WTC, Afghanistan, Iraq), each leader can quote their Holy Creed, claiming it is infallible. This gives apparent authority to impose his will on the Infidels. There is no common basis for discourse, no possible way to test the claims.

When an enlightened scientific approach can be brought to bear, the application of evidence, analysis, and a secular ethic can lead towards a valid result for both parties.

In Australia today, some politicians use their position to impose their religious agendas on the citizens at large. Fred Nile uses his Christianity to suppress gays, Tony Abbott to restrict abortion, Philip Rudd to impose his version of supernatural beliefs.

References about Religion

Skeptics annotated Bible http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Wikipedia on each topic.