Why I Have to Attack Christianity

As a skeptic, I abhor intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty can include many things, among them:

1) Pretending (or worse, believing) you know something when you really don't

2) Being unable to imagine or consider alternative positions

3) Generally being humorless and oversensitive about certain beliefs and positions

4) Being unwilling, regardless of evidence or logic, to change one's mind

5) Perhaps the root of all of them, being emotionally invested in a belief or beliefs such that open, honest criticism and scrutiny evokes irritability or hostility.

There are many examples of intellectual dishonesty in our society. There is active suppression of science that conflicts with "politically correct" ideals about gender and race, and about the environment, for instance. Political correctness itself rests upon intellectually dishonest foundations, even if those foundations may be (or used to be) well meaning. I would even include the scores of scientists that allow themselves to believe that their theories are more than very useful fictions for explaining and predicting how the world works - this is intellectually dishonest as well.

But the most flagrant example of intellectual dishonesty is certainly religious belief. Faith is often defined as belief without evidence, or even belief in spite of evidence. A believer who questions is a believer who is experiencing a potential crisis of faith.

Look up "delusional disorder" on Wikipedia, and check the section entitled "Indicators of a delusion".

It is very instructive how well religious belief matches the clinical description of a delusion, as defined in psychology. And I would say that to the extent a person is religious, to that extent they are delusional. The orthodox and extremely fanatical believers generally fit the criteria for full-blown delusional disorder, or even mild schizophrenia (in the cases where they imagine that they literally hear God's voice telling them what to do and how to live). The casual believer is, well, only a smidgen delusional, but is mostly healthy, and even can be intellectually honest (about other things).

In pointing out the similarities between religious beliefs and clinically defined psychotic delusions, I'm sure I will offend quite a few people. I'd apologize for that, but that would be dishonest. I'm not sorry; some things need to be said. I have the freedom to make logical, reasoned criticisms on religion and faith as a whole, because our society generally grants such a freedom, albeit reluctantly at times.

What bothers me is that my freedom to be more specific in my criticisms and scrutiny of religious beliefs is restricted. We can outright attack the idea of a religion as a whole, but when it comes to certain specific religions, we are quickly in danger of being condemned.

Douglas Adams once remarked that it troubled him how a diverse group of people could discuss, debate, and argue vigorously about any number of political, social, and ethical questions, but the simple statement of bewilderment that an Orthodox Jew can't flip a light switch on the Sabbath is off-limits. We live in a culture with so many taboos like this, and it makes us less great because of it.

In general, any criticism or even scrutiny of Judaism, or any specific sect of Judaism, unless it comes from a Jew, may very well lead to condemnations of racism or anti-Semiticism, or even comparisons with Hitler; this is all ironic considering that the Old Testament chronicles the rampant genocidal campaigns of the early Hebrews in the name of God. Similarly, after 9/11, inquiries and criticisms about the Koran and/or Islam, and any attempt to quote passages that are hard to interpret in a different way than the terrorists must, is met with accusations of Islamophobia and bigotry (unless, again, you're a Muslim). Saying anything about Hinduism, although less likely, may be mistaken as an attack on Indians. And I don't even want to get into scrutinizing people with pagan beliefs, like Odinists - they'll just assume you're attacking them for not being of a mainstream religion, rather than inquiring about the rational and logical basis of their beliefs.

Fortunately, there's always Christianity - no one calls you a racist or a bigot if you attack that, even if they hate or dislike you for doing so. Indeed, the Christians are one of the few last refuges for specific religious criticism from the outside. Christianity is on trial. Again. This time, it's not at the hands of the Romans or the Communists or even at the hands of its own sects and schisms in-fighting. No, this time, it faces a far more dangerous adversary. You might even call him "the Adversary".

Of course, it's me. The sad part is that I don't really want to pick on Christianity. I just can't pick on Judaism or Islam. The reason why I can't is because of the rabid intellectual dishonesty at the heart of "respect" and "tolerance" for others' beliefs and "feelings". In no other area aside from religion do we have such a strong establishment of "taboo". We're allowed and even encouraged to question the decisions of our politicians, and our lawyers, and our doctors. But in the realm of the "Big Questions", questions are a faux pas. Does anyone see anything wrong with that besides me?

I could cite numerous passages from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the Koran that condone or encourage slavery, genocide, torture, the murder of children (including infanticide), racism, the oppression of women, and all sorts of other goodies. And I will: I'm saving that for another article. In the mean time, peace be with you.

Amen.