SECTION VI
Chapter 5 -  Does Our System of Morality Originate from God?/
              Does Being Religious Make us "Better" Humans?

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is 
guilty if he only thinks of doing so." - Immanuel Kant

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues."
                                   --Abraham Lincoln
  
"Without civic morality communities perish; without personal morality their 
survival has no value."            -- Bertrand Russell

"I have a conscience.  It doesn't depend on religion. And I think it's so
    with other people, too".     -- Isaac Asimov


 Is There a Universal System of Morality That Originates From God?

  Religions since ancient times have presupposed the existence of an ABSOLUTE
system of morality that was set down by one or more divine beings/God. The
ancient Babylonians had their Hammurabi's Code, the ancient Egyptians used
the Book the Dead, and of course the Jews and Christians have the Ten
Commandments. In most ancient cultures, it was believed that priests were
necessary to serve as intermediaries between God and ordinary humans.  God
operated through these priests to communicate His Will on various moral,
social, and political issues.

   Other religions and religious philosophies have maintained that humans
do not need intermediaries such as priests to commune directly with God.
Instead, it is believed that humans can personally "tap" into God's divine
system--and thus "feel" what is really right or wrong.   The Quakers are
an example of a religious group who have believed that every individual is
endowed with a spark from the original creation, which through prayer and
meditation allows them to commune with God.

   The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that there is a moral system that was
imprinted upon our minds at the time of birth. To Kant, the presence of this
sense of morality in humans could be used as a proof for the existence of God!
Kant's proof proceeded along these lines. We look around ourselves and see
some evil people leading seemingly happy lives, while other good people
appear to suffer.  Our worldly experience would tell us that only a FOOL is
overly good. Yet, despite this, our feelings tell us--even in the face of
temptation--what is MORALLY right or wrong.  When we DO yield to temptation,
there is a feeling that remains deep down within us --which lets us know that
what we have done is wrong.

  To Kant, the fact that we have this INSTINCT/FEELING, must mean that
somehow we "know" that good behavior is beneficial for us in the long term.
That is, that we will be rewarded for this--in either this life or in the
afterlife.  This means that our MORALITY SYSTEM must NOT be derived from our
experience, but is something we are born with.

  Kant admitted that his MORAL proof did not supply an "objective, valid"
proof for the existence of God to the skeptic. Still, he nevertheless believed
that it was "reasonable" to assume that God was behind this natural, moral
feeling of humans.

      Various studies have shown that in many cultures there DOES appear to be
commonly held moral principles-- such as a shared sympathy or concern for
others, a sense of fairness, and a sense of duty (sometimes called conscience.)
Philosophers and theologians in many cultures throughout time have proposed
a version of the Silver/Golden rule--which asks one to love their fellow
human being--or, at a minimum, to at least not harm him.

Skeptical Position Regarding an "Absolute" System of Morality

  Skeptics have maintained that Kant and his followers have ignored important
evidence that would refute the existence of an "absolute" system of morality
that can be tapped into by all individuals.

   For example, psychologists and other researchers have documented cases
of individuals who apparently, possess NO moral sense or "feeling" of right
or wrong (eg sociopaths). Some individuals appear to have been BORN this way.
Others apparently have "lost" this sense of morality--after growing up in a
violent or otherwise non-loving home environment.

   While under the influence of mind-altering drugs and alcohol, one's sense
of morality can be turned off.  This has led some scientists to theorize that
there is some NATURAL internal mechanism within the human body, that has broken
down--as opposed to there being some external, SUPERNATURAL law-- that every
human can tap into for spiritual (moral) direction.  There are case studies
where brain tumors and other disabilities have seriously impacted one's sense
of morality.  For example, in 1848 Phineas Gage was involved in a terrible
accident in Vermont that destroyed part of his brain. The once moral, upright
young man began to curse and have such serious behavior problems that he could
no longer keep a friend, or hold onto a job. (See Section VIII, Chapter 6 for
this and other examples of mental disorders.)

  Although many culture SHARE some general rules of morality (such as NOT
harming others, and respecting the property rights of others)--after one
drills down further into the DETAILS, major DIFFERENCES frequently appear.

  One dramatic example demonstrating the DIFFERENCES that exist between
morality systems among distant cultures, was recorded by the Scottish officer
Macpherson in 1905.  He wrote how he could NOT persuade the Khonds of India
to discontinue their traditions of infanticide and human sacrifice--because
they did not "FEEL" these to be morally wrong.  Realizing that he could not
persuade them on moral grounds to stop this practice, Macpherson instead
determined to use reason on them.  He asked them what evidence they had that
sacrificing a human did indeed bring about a good harvest? He then proceeded
to demonstrate how this evidence was inadequate. (J.M. Robertson, LETTERS ON
REASONING, 2nd edition, London: Watts, 1905 p 18 as quoted by GA Wells,
RELIGIOUS POSTURES p 190-1)

  There are many other examples that could be given to further demonstrate
the absence of a universal system of morality. Take for example where earlier
Christian sects disagreed with each other whether various activities-- ranging
from dancing, drinking alcohol, and gambling--were "sinful". One can read
letters from the seventeenth and eighteenth century, where the author "feels"
intense moral outrage at what is often today considered mild and harmless--
such as seeing fellow Christians celebrating the "pagan" holidays of Christmas
and Easter.  Again, one may look back at previous centuries, when there were
numerous wars waged by one religious group against another one--with each side
feeling PASSIONATELY that they were obeying the "Will" of "their" God.

   This would seem to indicate that (at least to some extent), that it is our
CHILDHOOD UPBRINGING that instills in us what we grow up to believe to be
morally right or wrong.  That is, our morality system is largely based on
the culture in which we are brought up in.  Thus, before the Civil War, many
religious individuals did NOT "feel" slavery to be morally wrong!  Nor was
child labor considered a social evil.  There were harsh criminal penalties--
even death--proscribed for such petty crimes as stealing sheep or cattle.
Yet today, these past practices are largely perceived as inhumane and wrong.

   Many times, one can observe how the more similar two cultures are in
their morality system, the more likely that they were in contact with each
other.-- This again would seem again to indicate that their morals were
probably "influenced" or borrowed from the other.

  Just as there appears to be no absolute DETAILED laws of morality--the same
is true of our sense of beauty in art or music.  Our sense of beauty is heavily
influenced by the culture in which we are brought up in. For example, during
Medieval times, a beautiful woman was considered to be pale, and to possess a
flat bosom (as opposed to say, the tanned, busty women of the 1980's). What
one person might perceive as profoundly beautiful music or art--another person
might perceive as "ungodly" awful.  Although culture is not the only factor,
the point is that there are no universal ABSOLUTE measures for something as
basic as our perception of beauty.

Secular Reason(s) Why there may be a Natural Basis towards General Morality

  New philosophies arose to support the skeptical stance against absolute
morality. During the 1800s, the philosophy of "Utilitarianism" was put forth
by Jeremy Benthan and James Mill, and later developed by Mill's son, John
Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, and others.  According to the Utilitarians,
moral law was based on utility--meaning, whereby one acts according to what
they perceive to be its consequences.  These consequences are judged in terms
of human happiness (similar in definition to happiness as defined by the
ancient Greek philosophy, Epicureanism).

   Religious apologists and scholars have retaliated with a variation of
Kant's moral proof.  They argue that even if one agrees there is no one
DETAILED system of morality agreed upon by all cultures-- still the skeptic
must be prepared to explain "how" GENERAL shared feelings of morality developed
"naturally" within human society at all! After all, there could STILL be a God
or other divinely directed force that is the basis for an absolute system of
GENERAL morality.  The diversity that exists at the DETAILED level, may still
be according to His "Will". Thus, the skeptic must be prepared to "explain"
how ANY mechanism of morality developed "naturally" among foreign, distant
cultures.

  Skeptics have responded with various explanations. (These may or may not
have some basis, depending on the reader's perspective.) One secular
explanation relies heavily on Darwin's theory of evolution to explain that
natural selection may have favored the development of moral feelings within
society over millions of years.  Proponents of this theory, often see
similarities in morality between humans and the animal kingdom.

    For example, one proponent of this view (Westermark), argued that society
is "the birthplace of the moral consciousness", and that this moral 
consciousness may also be seen in animals:  "All mammals seem to possess an 
instinct, whereby they react sympathetically towards others of their kind.
Such as where the mother defends her baby, or the male his mate, or even with 
the dog and his human master." (GA Wells, Ibid)

  Gilbert Murray (1939), suggested that there is an instinct to naturally
empathize with our neighbor--which arises out of the human brain's capacity
to project our self onto new, hypothetical situations.

  "In the late war, how many thousands of men--not particularly selected
  or high-minded men--risked their lives eagerly to save a companion wounded
  in No Man's Land?  They did not ask or know why they did it.  Some may have
  alleged motives of religion, or motives of ambition in the form of medals
  or promotions.  But the basic motive was probably more or less the same
  all through; that instinctively they could not see a mate lying there
  wounded and not try to help him." (Gilbert Murray, "What is Permanent
  in Positivism", in STOIC, CHRISTIAN AND HUMANIST, 2nd edition, London:
  Watts/Allen and Unwin, 1950, pp 184-5.)

   The agnostic G.A. Wells, in his book RELIGIOUS POSTURES, argued that
the natural tendency towards kindness and self-sacrifice that are found in
most cultures--were "established during the course of social evolution":

  "If there is an instinctive basis to social behaviour, one does not need
  a theist's creed in order to sympathize with one's neighbor.  Because a
  few sound maxims are to be found in sacred books it is not reasonable
  to credit religion with their dissemination; they were recognized in the
  most primitive societies because they were based both on instinct and on
  social necessity.  There are certain precepts held in common by religious
  and irreligious persons, and these almost universal moral principles are,
  as it were, generic characters, established in the course of social
  evolution.  We can all observe in ourselves natural promptings to kindness,
  generosity and self-sacrifice which have no relation to any religious or
  metaphysical beliefs.  Nor does theistic creed at all ensure sympathy with
  one's neighbour.  The state of mind we call faith has often been correlated
  with hatred for the large majority of mankind, and it is very doubtful
  whether devoutly religious people are in any way better citizens, friends,
  or parents than people who have deliberately rejected religion."
  (G.A. Wells, RELIGIOUS POSTURES, Open Court: La Salle, Illinois, P 184)

   If there is any truth to the skeptical position, then this could mean that
absolute moral standards may be judged according to how well they encourage
HUMANISTIC values of concern and respect for our fellow humans within our
society. This, in turn, could imply that humanism (defined here as "caring
for other humans") is the real basis behind many of the world's great
ethical systems-- be they "divinely" inspired, or "naturally" inspired.

Does Religion Help Individuals Lead a More Fulfilled Life?

    There are numerous testimonials (in all religions) of people who were
depressed and/or had criminal records--who after becoming religious, became
A BETTER PERSON. Many converts have described a previous state of purposeless,
and how their newfound religious views led them towards finding new MEANING in
their lives.  In these cases, clearly religion HAS helped these individuals
find and lead a better and more meaningful life!

   There are several possible explanations for the feelings of well-being
reported by these individuals. One is that there is a universal force of
goodness emanating from God, that people of all religions can tap into and
experience.  Another view, is that our human bodies are so constructed as to
experience "divine"-like sensations.  This latter view can be interpreted in
two different ways-- (1) either God Himself purposely created mankind in just
this way, or (2) --the agnostic position-- that this feeling is a side-effect
of our naturally complex human bodies.

  Regardless of how one answers the above, this feeling DOES appear to
be experienced by believers in virtually ALL religions, mystical systems,
and ideologies.  Even atheists can experience this feeling when inspired by
some "idealized" view of the world or mankind.

  This feeling also explains why--except during periods of ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/
POLITICAL turmoil--that there has been little cross-over by believers from
one religion into another. That is, the vast majority of people remain in
the religion or ideology that they were born into-- most likely because
their emotional or spiritual feelings are being satisfied by their native
beliefs.  Interestingly, when an individual DOES convert from one religion/
philosophy into another--it has been observed that he or she may be far more
intense (devout) regarding their newfound belief-system than those who were
BORN into their religion/philosophy.  (This intensity in conviction appears
to occur, regardless of which religion/philosophy the individual is leaving
and/or entering.)

Not All Religious Individuals are Necessarily "Good"

  Looking at the flip side of the question, it can be observed that NOT all
religious individuals are motivated to be good (where "good" here is defined
according to the Silver/Golden Rule--not harming others/helping others).
For example, various studies of prisoners have shown that the vast majority
of them (99.5% in a 1945 study) stated that they believed in God. (footnote:
SOCIOLOGY AND RESEARCH JOURNAL, May-June 1949, found that 99.5% of 85,000
convicts polled were believers.) More recent studies have found that some
85% of today's convicts are either Christians or Jews. (note: Since the
remaining 15% could also include Muslims, Buddhists, deists, etc--it is
difficult to ascertain how many in this group includes agnostics and atheists--
Agnostics and atheists make up about 7% of the U.S. population.)

  Of course, it can be countered--that MERE "belief in God" is NOT enough to
count for one being "religious"!  Instead the person must ALSO be COMMITTED
towards religion--ie to go to church, read the Bible on a frequent basis, and
to try, in general to make their religious teachings become a part of their
own daily lives.

  But even here, it can be demonstrated that law-abiding, church going citizens
are not necessarily ALWAYS good. A friend's father of mine was an alcoholic and
would beat his wife and children.--He was a deacon in his church. Some
preachers/priests have been involved in sex scandals. Psychologists often
profile the "classic" child molester as an individual who seems otherwise a
good citizen and Church worshiper.  Even some priests and preachers have been
accused and convicted of molesting young children.

  It is important to keep in perspective that the above applies only to a
small minority of clergymen.--But the point is that the problem does exist.
(Religious groups insist that this just means that clergymen are fallible
creatures, who can be tempted into sin along with the rest of humanity.)

Does Religion Make Us more "Caring", "Compassionate" Individuals?

  In his "Charity", C.S. Lewis discussed how some religious individuals
are NOT naturally compassionate or caring--and how this should NOT be
considered a "sin":

 "Some people are 'cold' by temperament; that may be a misfortune for
  them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin;
  and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the
  duty, of learning charity. The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do
  not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; ACT AS IF YOU
  DID [emphasis mine].   As soon as we do this we find one of the great
  secrets.  When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently
  come to love him.   If you injure someone you dislike, you will find
  yourself disliking him more.  If you do him a good turn, you will find
  yourself disliking him less."

  Lewis, notes that one must have genuine feelings in order not to feel
disappointed in this:

  "There is, indeed, one exception.  If you do him a good turn, not to
  please God and obey the law of charity, but to show him what a fine
  forgiving chap you are, and to put him in your debt, and then sit down to
  wait for his 'gratitude', you will probably be disappointed..."

  However, even if one cannot call up genuine feelings-- then following this
ritual might still lead us towards becoming a little bit better than we were
before:

  "...whenever we do good to another self, just because it is a self, made
  (like us) by God, and desiring its own happiness as we desire ours, we
  shall have learned to love it a little more or, at least, to dislike it
  less..." (C.S. Lewis, "Charity--The Business of Heaven", op cit., p 340)

  Thus, C.S. Lewis argues that just by going through the ritual of following
Christian tenets, that this might eventually lead towards a cultivation of
"true" Christian compassion and loving.

Is "Caring", and "Compassion" A Result of Being Religious?

   In real life, most of us, probably have known of examples where religion
has NOT made some people more "caring"/"compassionate" (even after following
religious rituals).  That is, while many religious individuals appear to
genuinely "care" for those less fortunate than themselves--there are OTHER
religious individuals (who attend Church regularly, etc, etc), who maintain
a "hardened" or superior attitude towards the unfortunate.

  Of course, this SAME dichotomy may be seen among NON-religious individuals--
as there exists BOTH compassionate and non-compassionate agnostics and atheists.
Another way of summarizing this, is to say that a person's outlook on humanity--
(defined here as caring for other individuals)--appears to be INDEPENDENT of
his/her religious/nonreligious association. (See Section XI, Chapter 4 where
this topic is reintroduced under the labels of humanism, fundamentalism, and
hedonism.)

   A good indicator regarding one's attitude towards the poor/unfortunate,
is whether the individual personally "empathizes" with the plight of others.
That is, where s/he could envision himself as being in a similar unfortunate
position-- and in turn needing the assistance of others. A religious
individual, for example, might say something similar to, "There but for the
grace of God, go I."  Nonreligious individuals who are concerned, may envision
what it would be like to "walk in the other person's shoes." Thus, arguably,
it would seem that SOME religious and nonreligious individuals show genuine
concern, regardless of whether there is any promise of a future reward in
heaven, or not.-- Or to put this another way, because they were PERSONALLY
concerned for the plight of others, they wanted to help--regardless of what
was "in it for them."

  Probably most people have known of a religious but "hardened" individual.--
I have a close relative who fits into this category. One year, I told her NOT
to spend money on me for a Christmas present-- but instead to donate the
money she would have spent on me, to some charity (such as the Salvation Army).
She responded that she and her husband had ALREADY donated their "fair share"
to the poor for the year--so that this was not really "necessary"! (It was as
if she had no conception that she was donating money to help the poor--instead
of racking up gold stars in heaven for her.)

   As another example, I know a woman who was purposely exposed by her
Protestant fundamentalist sister to a disease known as toxoplasmosis when
she was two-three months pregnant. (Toxoplasmosis will cause blindness and
mental retardation in the fetus.)  Even though the woman was hysterical
and begged her sister not to expose her, her sister coldly replied that her
actions did not matter-- for if she contracted the disease, then this would
be "God's Will."  After the woman had a miscarriage, the fundamentalist
sister showed no remorse that she had done anything morally "wrong".

  "Hardened" religious individuals may angrily turn against former members
who are perceived to have "sinned" against the community. For example, Section
IX, Chapter 3, tells how a Christian Scientist couple delayed taking their
sick son to the doctor, because they were told that this would show  "lack of
faith" in God.  When they finally took him to the hospital, the doctors told
them they could have easily cured his son--"IF" they had brought him in earlier.
After their son died, their Christian Science congregation did not show
compassion for their tragedy. Instead, they charged the couple with "causing"
their son's own death-- attributing it to their "lack of faith" in seeking
out medical assistance.

  Often, "hardened" religious individuals I have known, seem to believe that
their beliefs and prayers "protect" them from numbering among the poor/
unfortunate. Among the non-religious, "hardened" individuals I have known,
it was their "superior intelligence", "hard work", "bank accounts", etc, that
so protected them!  It was not uncommon for these "hardened" individuals to
show disdain for the poor/disadvantaged by labeling them lazy, sinful, etc.
Any assistance at all, was usually superficial at best, as noted above.

   Of course, if religious, but hardened individuals did NOT believe there
was a God who could reward their charity with eternal life in heaven-- then
perhaps they might switch from "superficial" help for the poor/unfortunate--
to "NO help at all". Referring back to the case of my "hardened" relative,
possibly she would have given $0.00 to the poor, if she believed that there
was NO HEAVENLY REWARD in it for her.

   It is a matter of debate whether genuinely "concerned" individuals are
influenced by a promise of a future reward.  It would appear that many are
motivated to help others--whether they will collect any future reward or not.

   Indeed, this is a complex topic. For as we shall discuss soon, there are
examples of nonreligious individuals who were considered (even by their
religious counterparts) to have lived a good, moral life, and to have shown
compassion for others less fortunate than themselves.  Also, religions (at
least SOME denominations) may have the OPPOSITE influence on individuals--
transforming them into more "hardened" individuals, as opposed to more
concerned or compassionate ones through the doctrines they emphasize/teach.

   For example, even though some types of SOCIAL crimes (such as theft,
random murders, etc) might decrease, still OTHER crimes have increased from
the passion of religious/ideological feelings. (Examples have already been
mentioned of pogroms, terrorist acts, and wars by one religious group against
another religious group.  There are also INDIVIDUAL crimes within society that
have been religiously motivated-- ranging from the burning of "witches" in
past centuries, to today's killing of abortion doctors.)

  A major factor, of course depends on  WHAT doctrines are preached by
the religious group.-- That is, whether doctrines stressing "love" are promoted,
as opposed to those stressing "hatred". (See Section XI, Chapter 1.)

  Although there are no simple answers, some interesting cases can be
examined which attempt to look at the fringes of this issue--such as examples
of where religious individuals have engaged in (what most people today would
consider to be) heinous crimes.  From there, we will also look at the
nonreligious side of the question--including the issue of whether atheism
is undermining society, and examples of the "virtuous" atheist.

One Example of a Religious Murderer

  Throughout history, one may find examples of "good" or virtuous religious
individuals (and "bad" atheists.)  However, the opposite is also true--that
examples may ALSO be found of "bad" religious individuals--and "good" or
virtuous atheists. (A child molesting priest/preacher is one example
of a "bad" religious individual, according to the definition used here.)

  I have next chosen the case of a religious individual who committed an
especially heinous crime--murdering young children during orgies--to focus
on this issue in more detail.  One reason I selected this particular
individual, is because he lived during the fifteenth century C.E.--and
therefore was not presumably affected by such modern secular influences as
drugs, television, Darwin's theory of evolution, etc. His name was the Baron
Gilles de Rais, and he was the historical person behind the tale of Bluebeard
(so named because of the bluish tint in his beard.)

   As a young man, the Baron de Rais had inherited large landholdings in
Brittany. Successful and respected in battle, he rode at Joan of Ark's side
towards victory for France against the English. Later, after the war was
over, Gilles returned to Brittany, where he squandered a large fortune in
lavish parties and feasts. When his money became exhausted, he invited the
most famous alchemists and sorcerers of his day to stay at his castle. It
was said that mysterious rites were performed in order to obtain the
philosopher's stone, whose powers included transmuting lead into gold.
Gilles was even whispered to have even sought the aid of the devil to
find gold.

  Around this same time, a number of small children began mysteriously
disappearing in the area. The community became increasingly alarmed as the
numbers kept growing into tens, and finally hundreds of missing children.
Many were concerned that witchcraft was at work, as children often seemed
to disappear out of thin air.  After some time, however, some began to
notice that the children always disappeared shortly after men from the
Baron of Rais's castle had ridden through the area.

  The Baron was arrested and his castle searched. (After all, this was the
fifteenth century, so even lords and barons could be subjected to the judicial
court system during this time.)  Upon investigation, the remains of the
children were found, horribly mutilated from orgies conducted by Gilles and
his men.  Gilles was tried in an ecclesiastical court for heresy, and in a
civil court for murder.  He was found guilty in both courts.  He was
excommunicated, and then condemned to be hanged and burned.

  The Baron Gilles de Rais reportedly did not fear his execution, but was
terrified of the penalty of excommunication, as this latter punishment
conveyed the certainty of eternal damnation in hell.  He thereupon broke
down in tears and begged that his sentence be commuted to death--WITHOUT
the excommunication.

  After confessing his sins to the clergy, they granted him his request.
His sins were absolved and he was allowed communion back into the Church.
However, the civil penalty of execution by hanging and then burning, remained.

  Then, during his execution a miracle reportedly occurred.  Gilles was hanged,
and a fire was lit.  Suddenly there was a transformation that had come over the
mood of the crowds who watched the spectacle. Instead of wanting revenge, they
began to feel compassion for Gilles de Rais.  Some women from the crowd rushed
out and rescued the body before it was consumed by the fire, so that it could
be given a proper Christian burial.

  On the spot where Gilles died, the people erected a shrine.  In time, a
legend arose in the area, that young women who prayed at the shrine would be
miraculously replenished with milk-- with which to nurse their babies.

  The meaning of the legends of miracles at Gilles' site of execution,
was no doubt symbolic of how even a terribly sinful person could pray
for forgiveness and have his sins cleansed.

  However a moral issue is also raised by the life of Gilles de Rais.-- The
Baron was a religious person--believing in BOTH God and the Devil--not to
mention that he was terrified of excommunication.  One might therefore ask
WHY the fear of hell did not deter Gilles from committing such a grisly
and inhumane crime?

  The standard religious response is that Gilles was so obsessed with making
money, that he let himself slide into sin.  Therefore, he was NOT religious
during the time he committed his crimes, but only repented (and returned to
religion) after being captured.

  However, being brought up in an environment whereby everyone was taught at
an early age the DIRE consequences of sin (ie eternal damnation in hell),
one must wonder how it was possible that Gilles could have completely
forgotten his old childhood lessons!

  One possibility of course is this:  The Catholic church teaches how virtually
everyone is a terrible sinner-- and how one can cleanse his/her sins through
proper confession and repentance.  Therefore. perhaps Gilles--believing that
EVERYONE was a sinner--decided it was not that much more worse to sin all the
way--and then LATER confess to gain forgiveness (ie sometime before he died.)
As mankind was ALREADY depraved--it was (relatively speaking) not that much
MORE sinful to be killing people too. Therefore, until the very last moment,
Gilles possibly imagined that he could do ANYTHING HE REALLY WANTED TO.
After he was captured, Gilles showed genuine contrition, and was more
concerned with being excommunicated from the Church, than in being executed.

   (The above critique is, of course, not really relevant to more moderate/
liberal Christian groups--including modern Catholic congregations--whose
paradigm or outlook towards mankind is more loving and compassionate than
St. Augustine's paradigm of Original Sin.)

Does Society Act MORE Moral, when it Believes in God?

  Many of society's leaders generally take it for granted, that belief in
God leads towards a more moral and therefore civilized SOCIETY. Or to put
this another way, it is generally believed that humans are more likely to
act morally if they believe they will be REWARDED for obeying God's moral
commandments, and alternatively PUNISHED for disobeying them.

    This is no new observation.  For example, when the Greek historian,
Polybius (second century BC) observed that the Romans he met were generally
extraordinarily honest men (compared to the Greeks)--he concluded that
this was because they feared their gods:

  "...the Romans have managed to forge the main bond of social order out
   of something which the rest of the world execrates:  I mean, out of
   Superstition.  In dramatizing their superstition and introducing it into
   private as well as pubic life, the Romans have gone to the most extreme
   lengths conceivable; and to many observers this will appear extraordinary.

   In my opinion, however, the Romans have done it with an eye to the masses.
   If it were possible to have an electorate that was composed exclusively of
   sages, this chicanery might perhaps be unnecessary; but, as a matter of
   fact, the masses are always unstable and always full of lawless passions,
   irrational temper and violent rage; and so there is nothing for it but
   to control them by 'the fear of the unknown' and play-acting of that sort."

  Strabo, who wrote nearly a century later, was more blunt:

  "A rabble of women and promiscuous vulgarians cannot be induced to answer
   to the call of Philosophic Reason if you are wanting to lead them to
   piety and holiness and faith.  In dealing with people of that sort, you
   cannot do without superstition; and superstition, in its turn, has to
   be fed with fairy tales and hocus-pocus."

    During the Enlightenment, Voltaire (a Deist, although he did not believe
in heaven/hell) argued that society acted MORE moral when it believed
in God!  For example, in his "A,B,C", Voltaire has "A" state:

  "I want my lawyer, my tailor, and  my wife to believe in God; so I imagine,
   I shall be less robbed and less deceived."

  When responding to his atheist friend Holbach that religion appears to
have kept at least some individuals from crime, Voltaire argued that this,
in itself, meant "that all the world should embrace" religion:

    "You yourself say that belief in God...has kept some men from crime...
  this alone suffices me. When this belief prevents even ten assassinations,
  ten calumnies, I hold that all the world should embrace it. Religion, you
  say, has produced countless misfortunes; say rather the superstition which
  reigns on our unhappy globe. [Superstition] is the cruelest enemy of
  the pure worship due to the Supreme Being. Let us detest this monster
  which has always torn the bosom of its mother; those who combat it are the
  benefactors of the human race; it is a serpent which chokes religion in its
  embrace; we must crush its head without wounding the mother whom it devours."
 (Voltaire, "God", DICTIONARY)

   Voltaire thus argued that belief in God was warranted--as there were cases
where it appeared to keep some men from crime.

  Napoleon (an atheist), held the cynical view that religion kept the poor
masses content with their economic station in life:

"How can a state be well governed without the aid of religion? Society
  cannot exist unless there is inequality of wealth, and equality of wealth
  is intolerable without religion.  When a man is starving to death beside
  another who is gorged, he cannot accept that disparity without some
  authority who says: God has decreed that there must be rich and poor in
  this world, but in the next and throughout eternity, it will be the
  other way around." (Letter from Napoleon in Paris dated August 13, 1800).

Examples of How Inhumane Acts Have been Justified Using Religious Morality

  On the other hand, it can be shown that sometimes inhumane acts can be
committed by religious communities. Examples would include engaging in
violence against other citizens within their own communities-- not because
they were being physically threatened, but because they had some SOCIAL agenda
they wished to pursue--such as purging society from "undesirables"--such as
Jews, Muslims, or "heretical" Christian sects.

   Even religious writers have warned, based on looking back at history,
of the dangers of having priests control the government--ie a theocracy.
According to C.S. Lewis:

  "Theocracy is the worst of all governments.  If we must have a tyrant,
   a robber baron is better than an inquisitor.  The baron's cruelty
   may sometimes sleep...But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty
   and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us
   infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own
   conscience..."

  It can be demonstrated how authoritative governments have also used
RELIGION/IDEOLOGY as a smokescreen to justify improving the economic
position of one group, at the expense of some other group. Even Jesus' humane
and loving Golden Rule had been interpreted in earlier centuries, to justify
what we would today consider to be INHUMANE acts.

  For example, because there were no EXPLICIT laws against such INHUMANE acts
as torture and slavery, Christians in past centuries were able to justify:

   (1) Torturing and Killing Suspected Witches and Heretics.

    According to St. Augustine, mild torture was a means of forcing the
heretic to recant--thus saving his soul.  Medieval Church fathers, justified
torture, under the grounds that it discouraged heresy--and saved OTHER people
from being later "infected" with heretical thoughts. Thus torture was an "act
of love" towards maximizing the number of souls that would be won for Christ.
(As for the victim, his earthly tortures were just a taste of the eternal
spiritual tortures awaiting him in hell.)

   (2)  Slavery.

    Since U.S. Southern slaveholders argued that blacks were "obviously"
inferior, weren't they doing them a "kindness" to keep them on as slaves?
Of course, as Abraham Lincoln keenly observed, most white people would not
care to see the institution applied to themselves-- personally--even if a
case could be made that SOME whites were inferior to others!

  (3) Suppression of Free Speech/Antagonism Towards the Sciences.

  During Medieval times, scientific thought was suppressed along with free
speech. With no challenges to the dictates of the totalitarian leadership,
ignorance and superstition reigned supreme. During its fundamentalist days,
the Catholic church censored scientific and humanist works--such as the
writings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin-- not to mention Voltaire,
Gibbon, Bacon, Montaigne, Locke, Mill, Hobbs, and Berkeley.

   Hitler's MEIN KAMPF was never similarly censored by the Catholic/
Protestant churches, even during the height of World War II-- or in the
aftermath of the atrocities at the concentration camps. Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco were all raised as Roman Catholics, and were never seriously
challenged nor excommunicated. Stalin was trained as a priest of the Russian
Orthodox Church (although he was asked to leave for ("for lack of religious
vocation").  Nazi dictators were allowed free reign by the Churches, while
some of the greatest benefactors of mankind were hounded and suppressed.
(Carl Lofmark, WHAT IS THE BIBLE, Prometheus Books, 1992, p 93)

Small Religious Communities Having Relatively Less Crime

   Regardless of the above, it can be readily observed that within relatively
SMALL, highly controlled religious communities, many social crimes DO appear
to be significantly reduced.  This is not surprising because people DO need
laws and structure on which to work together as communities. This relationship
can of course be seen in NON-Christian groups as well as Christianized groups--
including communities comprised of Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Moonies, Hare
Krishne, and even Chinese (atheist) communists.

   It's been observed that in homogeneous populations -- ie, where race
and religious views are the same, that there is generally LESS violence
and crime!  Still, this relationship is not so clear cut-- because these
SAME relative peaceful communities may ALSO be very INTOLERANT of OTHER
GROUPS that are of any different RACE, POLITICS, or RELIGION than the majority.

   One reason why crime may be lower in these communities is because socially
undesirable individuals (criminals, prostitutes, etc) may move away to another
community where they can operate more easily. Arguably, if the ENTIRE area
become converted, these "undesirables" would still have to live somewhere--
and counting them would statistically pull up the area's crime rates again.

 (Note:  An example of this can be seen when Christianity moved from a
minority to the majority religion within the ancient Roman Empire-- Earlier,
Christians were among the most devout, intensively religious individuals
within the community. But once EVERYONE was converted over, it was felt by
many Christians, that their standards had been lowered by including within
their ranks some of the more vulgar, but now Christianized elements of society.)

  In summary, it appears that many conservative religious communities work
well at the local level, where conformity is easy to enforce (by expelling
others out of the community). However, at the national level, there is a
larger variety of cultures and religions. Therefore, for any one group to
enforce their particular set of rigid, detailed moral codes would require so
much force, that it "COULD" potentially evolve into a reign of terror campaign
similar to the Inquisition.

Do Societies Act More "Moral" When they are Based on Tolerance?

   Arguably, those societies that value tolerance towards an open, pluralistic,
and democratic society--should be less likely to conduct heinous crimes against
their fellow citizens.  A more tolerant society would be, borrowing from Paul
Kurtz,

  "more likely tend to be a creative and innovative society, for it is
   open to new discoveries of truth and new insights, thus expanding the
   reservoir of human experience.  A tolerant society is more likely to
   engender mutual trust and cooperation.  It tends towards a more peaceful
   society; insofar as we are willing to learn from others, we are more
   able to negotiate and compromise our differences.  In a tolerant society
   there is thus apt to be less cruelty, hypocrisy, and duplicity, less
   dogmatism, hatred, and fanaticism. " (Paul Kurtz,"The Limits of Tolerance",
   FREE INQUIRY, Winter 1995-6, Vol 16, No 1, p 16)

   Of course, some individuals, especially conservative groups might define
morality along completely different grounds--say by society's divorce rates,
abortion rates, etc.  According to this definition, a tolerant society would
not necessarily lead to a more "moral" society.


            Is Atheism "Undermining" the Moral Fabric of Society?/

  Many conservative religious groups have accused agnostics and atheists
of UNDERMINING the moral fabric in society. They argue that without a God
who MANDATES a moral set of standards, that there can be NO basis for
morality!  Thus, it would be up to the individual to "decide" whether it is
"morally" acceptable to lie, steal, and murder.

  Doestoevsky phrased it this way:

"If God didn't exist, everything would be possible"!

  Voltaire had a different perspective on this issue.  When asked once
whether he thought a SOCIETY OF ATHEISTS could survive, he responded,

  "Yes, if they are also philosophers!" (Voltaire, IN Pellissier,
169, quoted by Will Durant in THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY, P 241;

   If true, this would mean that what is important, is that a person have SOME
philosophical basis for morality on which they base their life,--be it based
on a belief in God, or some other philosophical system. For NON-religious
individuals, their morality may derive from some personal philosophy whereby
they have chosen to live a decent moral life-- despite NOT believing in a
reward/punishment system administered by some higher being.  This may include
a number of philosophies based on humanism --- ie, whose outlook stresses
the inherent worth and dignity of mankind.  However, these can also include
philosophies based on non-humanistic systems -- such as communism -- which
stresses allegiance to the Party/State, instead of to a God or to the good
of the individual.

  Atheistic communist communities often act similar to conservative religious
societies in terms of their morality--for example, outlawing prostitution,
nude beaches, and the like. There is, in general, a low incidence of graffiti,
and other defacement of public property in communist countries, similar
to Western religious communities.  Thus, atheist China is believed to possess
one of the LOWEST crime rates in the world (although it is difficult for
foreigners to confirm some of the government's statistics.)  True, critics
have pointed to the communists' disregard for INDIVIDUAL rights and their
cruel suppression to retain power. However, even here, it could be argued that
they were operating no differently from fundamentalist religious groups who
also wish to control society by minimizing human freedoms, in this same way.

  There is another topic that is relevant here, but is being deferred to
the last section of this book--and that is the topic of hedonism.  Hedonism is
defined for purposes of this book as the selfish concern for ONLY oneself
(ie epitomized by the phrase--the "ME" generation.) Suffice it to say here,
that SOME hedonists are RELIGIOUS, while others are AGNOSTIC/ATHEISTS.
Or to put this another way, hedonism appears to be independent of whether
one believes in God or not. (See Section XI, Chapter 4).

Does Agnosticism/Atheism Lead One to "Give Up" on Life?

  A common criticism of agnosticism/atheism is that without a belief in an
all-powerful God and immortality, there can be no sense of living a MEANINGFUL
life.  There are of course, many philosophies that are non-theistic--examples
include Buddhism, Confucianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism.  It is a matter
of semantics as to whether one defines these as "religions" or "philosophies".
Even though these are not necessarily predicated upon a belief system in
a divine being--they each lay down a moral system for their adherents regarding
how one should conduct their life.

  In his book, THE FULLNESS OF LIFE, the secular humanist Paul Kurtz responds
to criticism of theists that without a belief in immortality there can be
no sense of living a meaningful life:

  "There are moments when everything seems pointless, we wish to abandon
  all of our commitments, we may even contemplate suicide--profound crises
  of self-doubt and frustration. We may ask: Why beat one's head against a
  stone wall? What's the use? ... Why not die?  Why life instead of death?
  If we are all going to die one day, why defer the inevitable? Why stave
  it off, why not NOW?"

  He answers that philosophy of humanism holds that life IS worth living
for the vast majority of people.(The only exceptions apply to those who are
terminally ill and/or experience profound physical pain and suffering
which can not be cured from any known medicine.)  This does not mean
necessarily that life IS worth living--for there is a great deal of
variation on how people are situated--in terms of physical and mental
health and economic/social adversity.  But it does mean that life SHOULD
be worth living, and that it is the goal of humanists to make life worth
living not only for themselves, but for others as well.

  An important goal of the humanist is to lead a "full" life--the pursuit of
which, philosophers have termed "happiness."  As such, this is a concept that
is subjective/relative to the individual--both to his/her individual needs and
also based on the culture to which s/he belong.  It could be argued that this
entails at least some degree of hedonism -- as this also implies personal
pleasures and enjoyment.  However there is an important difference between
the "full life" and hedonism:

  "It is a mistake...to identify pleasure totally with the full life, as
  hedonists have done.  For one may have hedonistic thrills, yet be
  miserable; one may pursue pleasure and suffer a mundane, narrow existence.
  The complete sensualist or opium eater may undergo intense pleasurable
  excitement, but be in a state of melancholy, grief, or boredom.  Although
  moderate amounts of pleasure would appear to be a necessary condition of
  the good life, pleasure is not a sufficient condition for the fullness of
  being; the hedonist indeed may be the unhappiest of men."

  For some, the full life, may be as with Epicurean, one that enjoys savoring
simple, quiet pleasures--such as drinking a glass of wine, or planting a
garden. For others such as Mill, it is the experience of "higher" intellectual
pleasures, such as appreciating a good book, fine music, or art. For others,
it might be in the pleasurable experience of making love with one's mate.

  Many humanists have stressed the importance of opening up our senses towards
experience beauty and love in the world around us--making us feel needed
and relevant--at least within our local sphere.  (See Section VIII, Chapter 5
for examples of how atheists have coped with their fear of death, by learning
to experience life in the here and now.) When one is absorbed with the
"fullness" of living, then the desire for immortality is still there--but
settles in the background with other desires and fantasies.  Some agnostic
humanists, such as Robert Ingersoll, have stated there is nothing wrong with
HOPING for eternal life--even one is not religious. The key is to stress that
"no one" knows for sure.

  According to Kurtz and other humanists, the agnostic should turn the question
around on the theist--and ask him/her how is it possible that "life is really
meaningful" for THEM. That is, "Is it not the theist who squanders life" by
acting out life-- as if it were the first act in a play that was not important.
In addition, there are negative side effects to belief-- Guilt from engaging
in "sinful" acts and fear of going to hell, being primary examples. Indeed,
in some cases, it can be questioned whether religion can really make a
person "happy" where guilt and fear comprise a significant component of their
belief systems.

Can Individual Atheists be Virtuous?

   It has long been observed that BOTH religious and NONreligious individuals
have sometimes led good virtuous lives, dedicated toward the betterment of their
fellow man.  Thomas Jefferson commented on this, when he noted that the atheists
Diderot, d'Alembert, d'Holbach, Condorcet "are known to have been the most
virtuous of men...their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation
than the love of God." (TJ to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814. Cousins, 141.)

  In an earlier letter to Peter Carr dated August 10, 1787 Jefferson wrote:

  "Fix Reason firmly in her seat... If it ends in a belief that there is
  no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and
  pleasantness you will feel in its exercise, and the love of others
  which it will procure you."(PAPERS, XII, 14-18)

Examples of the Virtuous Atheist Philosopher

  The English philosopher David Hume is sometimes presented as an example of
a virtuous, but atheist philosopher.  Adam Smith once said of David Hume:

  "Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and
  since his  death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise
  and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit".

  Hume, recognized that religious individuals expected him to live a
NON-virtuous life because he was an atheist. In response, he once joked
that he considered himself to be "a sober, discreet, virtuous, frugal, regular,
quiet, good-natured man--OF A BAD CHARACTER." (emphasis mine.)

  Knowing Hume's reputation as a virtuous man, James Boswell, a religious
Christian, wondered if Hume might recognize his "error" and recant his
atheism just before he died, so that he could go to heaven. Boswell therefore
paid a call on David Hume on July 7, 1776--as the latter lay on his deathbed.

   What Boswell found was a smiling, good-humored man who had no inclination
to convert on his deathbed. Indeed, Hume shook him up when he insisted
"that the morality of every religion was bad"-- and that "when he heard a
man was religious, he concluded that he was a rascal, though he had known
some instances of very good men being religious."

  Boswell was especially disturbed by this last remark, as this was just the
"extravagant reverse" of what was claimed against "infidels". He was also
taken aback how Hume appeared so comfortable with the idea of his own
mortality-- and his lack of fear of any hell.  Boswell pondered over what
could be the basis for Hume's morality, since it was not the Christian faith?
Boswell related how he had bad dreams for several months following Hume's
death trying in trying to understand this.

  Another example, of a virtuous atheist is the late Isaac Asimov--who argued:

  "The Bible IS a human document.  Much of it is great poetry, and much of
  it consists of the earliest reasonable history that survives.  Samuel I and
  II antedate Herodoctus by several centuries.  A great deal of the Bible may
  contain successful ethical teachings, but the rest is at best allegory and
  at worst myth and legend.  Frankly, I don't think that anything is
  divinely inspired.  I think everything that human beings possess of
  intelligent origin is humanly inspired, with no exceptions."

  In an interview with Bill Moyers, Asimov explained why he did not feel
tempted to commit crimes:

  "I don't believe that I'm ever going to heaven or hell.  I think that
  when I die there will be nothingness.  That's what I firmly believe.  That
  does not mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and
  rape and everything else because I don't fear punishment.  For one thing,
  I fear worldly punishment.  And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of
  my own conscience.  I have a conscience.  It doesn't depend on religion.
  And I think it's so with other people, too".

 "Besides, even in societies in which religion is very powerful, there's
  no shortage of crime and sin and misery and terrible things happening--
  despite heaven and hell.  I imagine if you go down death row where a bunch of
  murderers may be waiting for execution and ask them if they believe in God,
  they'll tell you yes."

  According to Asimov, the belief that a person can do "anything they want"
can actually lead one to live according to lower moral standards, because
of the belief that they will always be "forgiven." For himself, he would
not be able to do unjust, immoral acts, because he would then have to answer
to his "own conscience"--which would never be able to accept the superficial
explanation that one was just "sorry"-- or couldn't God just take care of it?
(Isaac Asimov Speaks Out--Bill Moyers' Conversation with the American Humanist
Association President", THE HUMANIST, January 1989, p 6)

  Obviously many religious groups DISAGREE with Asimov--arguing that only
religious feeling gives one the depth and appreciation of genuine love and
beauty. (Fundamentalists would of course denounce Asimov's views as heretical,
and declare that God will punish him for his views with everlasting punishment
in hell).

Skeptical/Agnostic Position that Religion Makes Society Inhumane and Immoral

  Just as conservative religious groups have charged that atheism is
destroying the moral fiber of society, some skeptics have returned the
favor--insisting that it is instead religion that is harmful and immoral
in society.

   Over the course of history, it can be seen that church institutions
condoned the heinous practices of slavery and torture -- including the
burning of witches during the middle ages.  Consider this quote by Mark
Mark Twain taken from his PEN WARMED IN HELL:

  During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible
  commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church,
  after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred
  years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set
  about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day
  during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole
  hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with
  their foul blood.

  Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and
  never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who
  discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the
  parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung
  pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in
  remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to
  do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was
  the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson
  killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and
  when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against
  witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring,
  with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

  There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has
  changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is
  gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are
  gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

  It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through
  which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the
  mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to
  suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his
  religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human
  decency.

  According to Bertrand Russell, "Men tend to have the beliefs
that suit their passions. Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their
belief to excuse cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and
they would be kindly in any case."

 Per Russell, genuine moral rules are NOT based on external religious
commandments, but on love and intelligence from within:

  "No obedience to moral rules can take the place of love, and where
  love is genuine it will, if combined with intelligence, suffice to generate
  whatever moral rules are necessary."

and,

  "I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that
   virtues based upon lies can only do harm."

  According to the nineteenth century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, it is
religion that inspires the greatest Inhumanity to man:

 "Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made
  dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust infamous
  things can be justified and established... If morality has no foundation
  in itself, there is no inherent necessity for morality; morality is then
  surrendered to the groundless arbitrariness of religion."
(Ludwig Feuerbach, THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, translated by George Eliot,
GREAT BOOKS IN PHILOSOPHY (Buffalo: Prometheus books, 1989)

  Per Feuerbach, belief in a god represents man's highest aspirations and ideals 
for himself. These ideals (including love, wisdom, and immortality) are 
dehumanized, and placed instead within a supernatural realm under the heading of 
God. But this categorization in turn alienates man from these ideals, making 
them seem only attainable to man with divine assistance.  According to Feuerbach 
we should reject God--but not the feelings or ideals themselves.

   Robert Ingersoll argued that persecutions and wars will increase
whenever any religion teaches INTOLERANCE. Because when it is taught
that God WANTS "heretics" to be killed, this will inevitably lead devout
followers to arise who will want to 'help' God along in the killing:

    "As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation,
  just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power.  Why should
  the church pity a man whom her God hates?   Why should she show mercy
  to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire?
  Why should a Christian be better than his God?"

  Of course, the above ALSO applies to the Far Right Nazis and the Far
Left atheist Communists. Bertrand Russell admitted that all of these
authoritarian based, dogmatic movements should really be lumped together:

  "I do not believe that a decay of dogmatic belief can do anything but
   good.  I admit at once that new systems of dogma, such as those of the
   Nazis and the Communists, are even worse than the old [dogmatic religious]
   systems, but they could never have acquired a hold over men's minds if
   orthodox dogmatic habits had not been instilled in youth.  Stalin's
   language is full of reminiscences of the theological seminary in which
   he received his training.  What the world needs is not dogma but an
   attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture
   of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity
   imagined in the likeness of the believer."

  Thus, the aforementioned abuses were directed by Far Left and Far Right
groups, who insisted that they had the right and authority to enforce
their views and values on all of society.--Again, the above does NOT apply
to more liberal, tolerant religious individuals and groups who stress love
for all people--even those OUTSIDE their community!

Conclusion--
Importance of Religious Tolerance and Moderation in Religious Communities

  As we have seen, not only does religion serve as a comfort to many
individuals-- helping people to cope during a personal crisis--such as
bereavement, divorce, disability, unemployment, etc.-- Religion also
undoubtedly appears to HELP people to lead a better, civilized life
within society, (as was the observation of Voltaire and others). Religion
can also lead one towards finding spiritual meaning in their lives.

   On the other hand, history has ALSO shown that abuses--such as witch-trials,
slavery, and religious wars-- have too often been the response of conservative,
fervent religious/ideological groups who argued they were acting in the name
of their God (or equivalent ideology).  The centuries of wars and torture
among Catholics and Protestants are one example. Jews would likewise agree
that most of the "immoral" pogroms and persecutions that they faced over the
centuries-- had been at the hands of people who believed themselves to have
been "devout" (but conservative) Christians.

   Much of the modern interpretation of Judaic-Christian ethics are
relatively recent humanist additions. That is, practices which were once
considered acceptable--heretic persecutions, witch-burnings, slavery, and
capital punishment for MINOR crimes (such as petty theft), are now largely
considered" inhumane"--this despite the fact that there is no SPECIFIC
religious injunction against them.

   It is no coincidence that when Iran recently established a Moslem
fundamentalist state, that it ALSO re-instituted an "eye-for-an-eye" legal
system --which included, for example, cutting off a hand for stealing.
It is NOT that Islam itself, is a more cruel or inhumane religion than
Christianity!--During the Middle Ages, the roles between Christians and
Muslims were largely reversed--where Islamic society was relatively-speaking,
the more religiously tolerant AND advanced civilization of the two.
European Christians were then considered the backward area of the world--ie
the "Third World" of their time. The difference is that today, Islam does not
have a strong base of liberal, humanist leadership in most countries--but
instead tends to be controlled by authoritarian, fundamentalist regimes.
(See Section XI, for a definition of humanism and fundamentalism.)

  It was primarily liberal religious groups and freethinkers who first
fought for democracy and human rights.  Emphasizing humanistic principles
that go back to Jesus' pure message of loving one another, it was these
groups who first challenged the institution of slavery, and also sought to
improve social conditions for the poor and labor classes during the
Industrial Revolution.

  The problem is that humanistic liberal Christian groups have declined
in political power during the last decades.  With the subsequent rise in
fundamentalist-minded religious groups, can also be seen the return to some
of the older views of authoritarianism and intolerance to outside religious
sects.  It is the opinion of this author, that it is no coincidence, that in
tandem with this trend, we are seeing a return to the deep-rooted hostility
against scientific, rational solutions towards such serious problems as
overpopulation and environmental degradation. (The last chapters of this
book address this topic in more detail.)