Last night, Hubby and I couldn't bring ourselves to listen to another rendition of the "hope and change" rhetoric, and while channel surfing, found ourselves watching something called "Intelligence Squared" on PBS. Apparently, they raise a question then have both sides debate it. The audience answers the question before the debate, then after the debate, and the winner is determined by the percentage of changed votes. Last night's question was, would the world be better without religion? Not surprisingly, those who answered "yes" won the debate. It's PBS after all, and it was easy to tell by the questions which way the audience was slanted.
I don't remember the names of the highly intelligent humanists, but, D'nesh D'susa (my apologies because I'm sure I have misspelled his name) and a rabbi (whose name I also can't recall) were on the "no" side. If I had known I was going to blog about this, I would have written down their names and taken better notes, but I've just been thinking about it all morning. We started watching the show in mid-point so I don't know all the arguments that were made.
To sum up the Humanist viewpoint (which I would hasten to also call a religion), all religions have just made a mess of the world. Religion is for the weak-minded, their lives are in as much of a mess as non-religious people. In his closing remarks, he actually said, "We all just need to do unto others as we would have others do unto you."
Did he really just quote the Bible? Oh, yes he did. But, the world would be better without religion, I thought. So, how can he quote something which he obviously despises?
So, let's just take religion out of the world. There's no more Bible, no more Koran, no Book of Mormon, no book of anything that spouts religion. How do we know how to treat each other? We have no Ten Commandments to tell us how we should live. Humanists think people will just automatically go about doing good things because that is our nature. Children have to be taught how to hate, don'tcha know. Children are born loving others, unselfish, sweet little humans, and they only become hateful because of their religious upbringing, which is divisive. When they are hungry, they unselfishly wait patiently until their mothers have time to fix them some food. What child has been told to stop sharing so much? There has only been one child who was born that was totally unselfish, and that was Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. Opps, I forgot. No religion.
The fact is, that we can't imagine a world without religion, because whether humanists/atheists want to admit it or not, religion has and does make the world better. If there was no religion, why should we treat others as we want to be treated? What would be the point? Because we want to be a good person? How would we even know what "good" is without religion? If we are our own god, then, good would be what I determine it to be, and may not necessarily be what you would determine it to be. If there was no religion, the world would be in total chaos. How many hospitals have been built in the name of religion? How many schools and universities have been founded because of religion? How much art and music has been inspired because of religion?
Yes, I know that wars have also been fought in the name of religion. There have been some horrible things done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean religion should be erased from our existence. Do humanists/atheists believe there would be no wars if there was no religion? That there would just be peace and love as each "god" lived their own lives, not bothering any of the other "gods", doing good "just because"?
Humanists can't comprehend a loving God, who created us, and in spite of our sinful nature, wants to have fellowship with us. A God who is so holy, that he required a perfect and atoning offering, so that we could be forgiven of our sins, and have perfect fellowship with Him.
People are not perfect with religion in existence. How could they possibly be perfect without religion? But, then again, who would determine "perfect"? The Ten Commandments were given to teach the people how to live. Without the law of "thou shalt not kill", how would we know not to kill? Without the law "thou shalt not commit adultery", what would keep us from committing adultery?
At the end of the debate, which side do you think made the first move towards good conduct? While the "enlightened" humanists were relishing in their victory, congratulating themselves, the Christian and the Jew walked over to congratulate them.
And so, I must disagree with the 59% of the audience that said the world would be a better place without religion. I would not want to live in a world where religion did not exist.
Until next time,
