Continuing now with the final section of the case against God which I outlined here:

6) Belief in the “God” concept is worse than merely wrong or illogical. It inspires patterns of thinking and behavior which negatively affect us all. Whatever good this belief may have inspired owes nothing to its basic, dangerous irrationality and will survive our rejection of that irrationality.

D) Consider the effects belief in “God” has on cultures and nations:

The more monolithically religious a culture or nation is, the less creative, inventive, progressive, or democratic it seems to be.

People who have all the answers given to them by “God” don’t spend their time hypothesizing alternatives. People who believe the world was created perfect by “God” do not try to change that world for the better. People with a direct line to “God’s truth” do not feel the need to investigate other points of view which can only “corrupt” that truth. People who believe they’ve been told how to live their lives by “God” will tend to be hostile to any democratic system of government which gives the vote of the “Godly” and the “unGodly” equal weight.

The most vibrant and creative cities in world history have been seaports and crossroads where many different people and ideas have been tolerated and allowed to mix, mingle, and cross-pollinate. Virtually every element of civilization which we enjoy today is a result of radical thinking, free inquiry, and open debate – not of prayers to “God,” or endless scrutiny of old “holy” books in remote monasteries , or the theist’s tendency to make others conform, leave, or die.

The history of progress exists in spite of belief in “God” – not because of it. Theists – not atheists – have been the ones who have stood in the way of science virtually every step of the way. Similarly, democracy has taken root and flourished in spite of belief in “God” – not because of it. Modern democracy became possible only after the power of the Church diminished (and in fact was vociferously condemned by Pope Pius IX as late as the 1860s). The founders of American democracy were not the narrow-minded Puritans of the early 17th century but post-Enlightenment men of the late 18th who knew the sorry history of church-state entanglement all too well, took pains to exclude all mention of “God” from the Constitution, and looked to ancient Greece and practical political philosophers for guidance – not the Bible.

In contrast, those who have embraced “God” the tightest have been those people subsequently inspired to punish questioners and dissenters, to censor and ban “unholy” works, and to inflict pogroms, Crusades, witch hunts, Inquisitions, and Holocausts upon those who are different. From the ancient Hebrews who conquered others and destroyed foreign temples and icons lest they be “led astray,” to the Christian iconoclasts who demolished countless works of “heretical” art in the 8th century, to the Taliban who are ridding Afghanistan of its non-Islamic artifacts today, “Godly” people have repeatedly tried to destroy the creations of the “unGodly” while creating relatively little of value themselves. What they have created of value owes little to “God” and could have been made in the absence of that absurd concept. (Gothic architecture and Renaissance painting, for example, owe more to the sciences of engineering and perspective than to anything to be gleaned from the Bible.)

Separate the “God” concept from its negative impact on cultures and nations and what’s left? Mainly a huge misallocation of time, money, and resources.

Americans give well over $70 billion dollars every year to more than 500,000 “houses of God.” That’s over $70 billion every year that could be going to hospitals, schools, libraries, research institutions, museums, infrastructure, historic preservation, parks, zoos, and countless other things which produce far more practical benefits. Yet while our schools decay, our bridges totter, our water supply systems deteriorate, our drug treatment and mental health centers remain severely underfunded, and our antiquated election machinery calls into question the legitimacy of our government, stunningly modern churches continue to spring up for part-time use in wealthy suburban enclaves coast-to-coast. We easily scoff at those silly Third World Indians who allow their sacred cows to wander where they will regardless of the damage they cause or the people they might feed. On what grounds are we so much more tolerant of the theist mindset in America which seems no less damaging or silly?

Many theists will counter that their churches aren’t merely big buildings and parking lots which stand empty 6 days out of 7 or padded pews meant to cushion the hindquarters of the devout as they spend an hour a week giving praise to a man who said give all to the poor. Many theists will say that their churches are actually service agencies which aid unfortunate Americans and send missionaries out into the world to help make it a better place. If only it were so. Alas, it seems that less than 3% of the average congregation’s budget is devoted to social programs; a mere $1500 per congregation per year is given in direct assistance to the needy (Newsweek, Feb. 12, 2001; p. 25). The vast majority of missionary works seems geared towards “saving souls” (i.e., spreading the virus of “God”) rather than towards more useful activities. It is by no means unusual for genuine aid to be offered only as a bait or a bribe for religious conversion (as recent stories about the earthquake relief activities of the Rev. Franklin Graham in El Salvador have once again made clear). In times past, such aid has actually been prohibited by theists on the grounds that poor people and disaster victims were poor or victims because it was “God’s will” – and “God’s will” of course mustn’t be challenged. Jesus’s comment that “the poor shall always be with you” has sometimes been cited by theists as a basis for concluding that it’s futile or inappropriate to try to help everyone out of poverty.

If the “God” concept has done anything to improve a culture or a nation which couldn’t have been done better without it, it is far from clear what it may have been.

(To be continued…)