Cognitive dissonance, logic, and protecting our children

Cognitive dissonance presents a very salient problem with which many of our brother and sister humans are faced every single day. There is also the problem of not understanding why it is important to value logic, reason, and evidence.

As Sam Harris puts it: "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what possible logical argument could you invoke to show the importance of logic?"

This is, to put it mildly, quite the conundrum. I am not willing to give up on someone who makes faith claims and engages in mental gymnastics in order to reconcile their beliefs with the nature of reality; I would be lacking in my obligation to fellow members of my species were I to do so.

The only way we are ever going to rid ourselves of baseless supernatural claims is by relentlessly pointing out how ridiculous these ideas are and how delusional are those who hold them to be true. We must shame people, if we have to, into letting go of these beliefs.

What's more, we need to protect the children of our species. Here is something the faithful do not seem to understand: Your children are not your property. You don't, in fact, have the right to teach them whatever you want; you are simply custodians of their fragile, growing minds. And while you have considerable leeway in choosing how to raise them, forcing them to believe as you do, about things which you cannot possibly know, is a most egregious infraction on their personal and psychological integrity.

You are hijacking the mind of a child to conform to a worldview which is patently false. Is it not obvious from their incessant questions that your answers and circular logic are grossly inadequate? If you teach a child arithmetic, the child will question until he or she receives a sufficient answer. You can see for yourself that two and two make four; it is a fact, based in reality.

Children need to know as much about reality and the way things work in this reality, the only reality we know of. It is detrimental to confuse them with supernatural claims based on no evidence. You don't need religion to teach your children morality. In fact, religion is probably the worst way ever thought up to teach morality.

Please, stop lying to your children; we need them. We need them for the next great discovery, to keep moving humanity forward, and to ensure that all we've accomplished isn't lost. I implore all of you to think on these things.

No more reformations, please.

Religion, particularly Islam, doesn't need a 'reformation'. We've already tried that with Christianity, and we still have to argue about contraception and abortion and stem cells and homosexuals with 'Christians.' In every single major societal debate, you will invariably find that one side is arguing based on religious grounds - and they are always the wrong side from an objectively moral viewpoint.

Saying religion needs a reformation is like saying slavery needed a reformation. "It's not ALL of slavery that's evil and based on immorality and ignorance, we should just reform it so that it's more palatable to our modern sensibilities." Get real.

It is not the singling out of Islam, as I have said time and again. Any idea, if it is harmful, should not be allowed to persist.

The argument that "Christianity used to be the same" is a tired one, and it gets us nowhere. "Christians did the same things then that Muslims are doing now." That's a ridiculous argument because it justifies barbaric behavior. We don't live 'in past centuries.' We live now. And now, we know enough about the world and science and morality to discard ancient ignorance. We have secular rather than religious laws (excepting, of course, Muslim countries), and we shouldn't give Islam a pass because they didn't get the memo.

The information of every conceivable human endeavor since the dawn of history (the written word) is at our fingertips. It's my position that, given enough time, the information access bestowed upon us by modern technology will do away with these ancient myths; but we shouldn't just wait around in the meantime.

I will say it again: I am equally critical of other faiths and ideologies. To me, the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is a wholly disgusting and immoral one; not to mention their ideas on compulsory love under pain of eternal torture, and theophagy, to name but a few.

Religion: Let it go...

I don't say that ridding ourselves of religion will solve all of our problems. If religion and mysticism were to disappear entirely from the face of the earth, tomorrow, we would still have all of our other issues to deal with. 
However, it should be obvious to everyone that the needless suffering and death of millions which takes place every single day in the name of religion would decline dramatically.

Religion is a far more divisive force than it is a unifying one. If everyone who believed in the God of Abraham - never mind the Hindus and the Buddhists and everyone else - if only the people who believed in the God of Abraham were able to get along and coexist peacefully, I would never have had a reason to be an outspoken critic of religious faith.

The reality, however, is that the very nature of religious faith precludes it from allowing its adherents to leave well enough alone. Even non-denominational believers FEEL that atheists and other non-believers (no matter that they are good people) need to eventually 'open their hearts to god.' No matter how you slice it, it leads to proselytizing; aggressive or otherwise, it makes no difference.

In a nutshell: If there were no problem with religion, there would be no problem with religion. That "Let it go" song from Frozen should be repackaged and marketed to adults who still believe in stupid, harmful, ridiculous, immoral, and ultimately evil myths.

A simple explanation of the contradictions within the Quran

It is telling that the Meccan verses of the Quran which say things like "there is no compulsion in religion" were 'revealed' to Mohammed when Islam was still a fledgling religion and its prophet had no power and a paltry few followers. This is what you'd expect one to say in a hostile environment. "No one is forcing you (much stronger Meccan pagans) to believe me." There is another early verse which says "be kind to your opponents." A verse which was revealed years later contradicts this by saying, "kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out like they drove you out." It is patently obvious what what this is referring to; Mohammed's persecution and escape from Mecca.

The reason there are so many contradictions is that the later Medinan verses were spoken by a man who had gained much power and influence over the course of 13 years or more by marrying a wealthy widow and moving to a different city. Once Mohammed's power base was firmly established, the earlier, kinder verses were superseded by much more violent ones. "Be kind to your opponents" became "Kill them all." There is no great mystery here, folks. A man with no power will say and do what he has to to survive. That same man then goes on to seek revenge and contradict all of his earlier teachings. This is not the behavior of a benevolent spiritual leader; but it is easily ascribed to a megalomaniac who was orphaned as a child and bullied/mocked as an adult.

Mohammed gives no justification for this discrepancy in the Quran and the change in Allah's mood from peaceful to militant and conciliatory to confrontational. Muslim apologists in the West present the kinder verses of the Quran or what is known as the Early Revelation. While Islamic scholars, with only Muslims as their audience, say that those softer verses of the Quran were abrogated and supplanted by harsher ones. The reason is obvious - Mohammad became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad.