The Course of Reason

Face it, religion is wrong.

July 5, 2011

Adam Shannon from the UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers forces us to deal with religion bluntly. He notes that it cannot be tested, it has no backing, and is illogical in theory.

This post originally appeared appeared on the UNI Freethinkers & Inquirers blog.

Growing up I always was dumbfounded by people who literally believed in unfounded things. Still to this day I can't really picture what it's like to imagine there is a man in the sky, much less that the sky is green, or that some entity is around the corner. It's always seemed like what it is: a fairy tale.

The biggest fairy tale in our lives is religion, a belief system that holds people to arcane laws and superstitions such as: not being able to eat pork, believing in reincarnation, virgin births, extreme fasting is good for your health, that throwing babies off buildings onto bed sheets is a good idea, eating reincarnated flesh and blood isn't cannibalism, that there is some "life force" that exists within us or reality, and many more. These all fail when confronted with reality, rendering them pointless.

Religion can't be tested 

How can you test for some superior life force, or a sky-gods that provide nebulas definitions and are designed to avoid confirmation? You can't. That's the problem. Most people will shrug off ghosts and spirits, yet they cling for life onto "non-spirit spirits" and instantaneous forces without a shred of evidence.

The problem is that in doing so they are rejecting reality. They are rejecting experimentation and the foundations of reason. As said by Feynman, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." -- "It doesn't matter how beautiful the thing is, or who says it. If it disagrees with experiment (and reality) it's wrong." Confirmation with reality should be our reality.


Religion has no backing

Why do so many people accept that religious texts are accurate, much less moral guides for living? They preach genital mutilation, slavery, stealing, murder, stoning, denying love, ignorance, that women should be servants to men, and worst of all, hate for your fellow human being. Let alone the fact that they were assembled thousands of years ago by unreliable people who claim to see visions and through the years past manipulated and altered at the whims of those in power.

Sure, religion teaches some good moral ideas, but those have often been derived from previous experiences. Therefore, religion is just copying those and hasn't invented them. Religion, however does try to teach morality, and it fails in the face of objectivity. Religion fails when it tells that one sex should be servants to the other, or when homosexuality is wrong, or when it tells you what food or clothing is allowed. Religion makes claims, not from evidence or standing, but because it can.

Religion is illogical even in theory

If you wanted to believe that life is grand and made for you then you can do so, and you don't need religion for that. However, religion makes glamorous the process of ignorance. Religion survives not on staying correct through revision and conforming to reality, but by allowing denial of reality to be justified. That is, without a doubt, something that we should rid our societies and cultures of; why is religious ignorance tolerated? I see no reason for allowing it to exist, much less propagate itself.


About the Author: Adam Shannon

Adam Shannon's photo
Adam Shannon is a sophomore at the University of Northern Iowa studying computer science. He is the UNI Freethinkers and Inquirerswebmaster and loves secular and marriage equality activism.




Guests may not post URLs. Registration is free and easy.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

The Council for Secular Humanism's magazine (available at is called...

Creative Commons License

The Course of Reason is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

CFI blog entries can be copied or distributed freely, provided:

  • Credit is given to the Center for Inquiry and the individual blogger
  • Either the entire entry is reproduced or an excerpt that is considered fair use
  • The copying/distribution is for noncommercial purposes