The End of Faith?

I apologize in advance for the offensive and inflammatory nature of this post.

My work study job (at which I am currently "punched in") is hardly fulfilling. Consequently, I spend a great deal of time surfing the internet for purely educational purposes. Today's endeavor was two-fold. First, I set out to thoroughly inform myself on the Israel-Palestine conflict, since it's always a source of sad news and is at the heart of so much of the Western Civilization vs. Islam problem. Second, I decided to read, in its entirety, the "blogalogue" between atheist author Sam Harris (The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation) and Christian Andrew Sullivan (Conservative Soul). You can find their exchange here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

Reading academic arguments for and against religion is always dangerous for an Agnostic Theist like myself. Dangerous, I say, because the arguments of atheists more often than not have some darn good points. True, Andrew Sullivan does start out at a disadvantage, because Sam Harris is well versed in the Bible, Torah, and Koran, and is attaining a PhD in Neuroscience. Furthermore, Sullivan is a self-proclaimed homosexual with HIV: hardly a good start for a practicing Catholic. In my opinion, he's a walking hypocrisy. Still, I am forever searching for an argument that will strengthen my faith and not cut it into tiny bits, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Like so many other Christians, however, he finds himself instantly on the defensive against the logical and articulate Harris, and never manages to take the offensive. He fails to respond to many of Harris' trickier points, including the ridiculous claim, by Christians, that Christianity is the only true religion. Other religions, of course, argue the same thing, and none of them can "prove" their claim. Yes, yes, I know, proof isn't necessary for faith and indeed negates faith even when it supports the belief in question, but claiming to be the one true religion is preposterous. First and foremost, because religions were started by men. Whether Abraham, Peter and Paul, Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, Jr, every religion begins with a person claiming divine inspiration. Yes, perhaps one of those founders was spoken to by God, but certainly not all of them were. If that were the case then either A) there's more than one God starting various churches or B) everyone is lying except for one person, and there's no way to know which one (ergo, Christianity can't claim authenticity over the others) because all we have is the word of a fallible human.

Second, you can say that the God was the author of the Bible, but unless the Holy Spirit actually picked up the charcoal or the pen and ink and began writing, that isn't true. MEN physically wrote the Bible, and the Torah, and the Koran (which, more suspiciously, wasn't even written down by Muhammad but was only compiled from memory and the scribbles of his followers after his death), and the Book of Morman. What's more, in the case of the Bible at least, more than one man wrote it. That leaves room for error, interpretation, and exaggeration. There's also something suspicious about the idea of manufacturing a religion, Muhammad and Joseph Smith being the more recent examples of this. Go off into the wilderness alone with no witnesses, then come back to town and claim an angel visited you and revealed to you the true nature of God. Hm. It seems particularly suspicious when the ultimate benefit of claiming divine inspiration is fame, authority, support for a territorial war, or *gasp* cold hard cash (the Catholic Church has, historically, been especially proficient at earning big bucks from its followers, even to the extent of selling the "get out of purgatory free" cards (i.e., Indulgences) that sparked Martin Luther's 95 Theses and were supposed to pay for the sinfully ornate St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. I realize that's slightly off the subject, since Catholicism wasn't originally founded for financial reasons... but I digress).

This all brings us to an even more poignant point: Even assuming there is one true religion, directed by one true God, and assuming it's one of the major ones (let's stick to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity for practical purposes and leave the Mormans alone), no matter which one is the "true" one, it has been directly responsible for blood shed and suffering. I do understand that warfare, genocide, and selective persecution tend to be at the hands of fundamentalists, but A) this isn't always the case and B) fundamentalists are generally those who follow doctrine stricter than the rest of their fellow believers, and are therefore the most legitimately religious.

Let's briefly visit "A" first. There are many instances of prosecution and religious wars fought by majorities, not fundamentalist minorities, of religious sects. The French Wars of Religion between the Protestant Huguenots and the Catholics is one such instance. These wars were characterized by guerilla-type neighbor vs. neighbor warfare in which everyone was involved and nobody was exempt. At the very conception of Islam there was religious warfare, when the Meccans drove Muhammad out and he and his new followers responded a few years later by capturing Mecca. Again, not extremists, but the majority, and in this case the very founders of the religion.

And now let's tackle point B, the point that fundamentalists are actually the most religious folks and the strictest adherents to doctrine, not the misguided or the misinformed as more moderate believers would like to believe. Islamic fundamentalists follow the Koran quite strictly. Indeed, Jihad and martyrdom are in the holy book. Christian fundamentalists strictly follow scripture, believe they are the only legitimate religion, and, historically, often kill over it. Further more, the various sects of Christianity now kill each other, even though few of their basic beliefs differ. We saw this with the French Religious Wars and it can still be seen in Ireland. Even Jewish fundamentalism exists, though it is rarely discussed, particularly in America. The Zionist movement and displacement of the Arab Palestinians was, indeed, fundamentalists and extremist, even though it was approved by the UN and never considered a terrorist act. In the case of the towns of Lydda and Ramle in 1948, 40,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homes at gunpoint by the Jewish Israel Defense Forces. Extreme, yes, but quite religious. The Zionist movement is based on the return of Jews to their ancient homeland, and what could be more spiritual?

All this pondering on my part just convinces me more firmly that organized religion, although a moral anchor for many and a driving force behind countless good acts and benevolent organizations (e.g., the Jesuit Volunteer Corps), is a tragically powerful and unconquerable division in humanity. It may not seem that way to the pious, country-dwelling church goer who hold bake sales for charity and has parish BBQs monthly, but to the millions killed or made refugees because of religion, it is a sad corruption of spirituality. Churches, rules, and hierarchies shouldn't be necessary for the faithful to pray and love their God. Moreover, a good and loving God shouldn't be the impetus behind massacres. I can't help but agree with Sam Harris, that religion is one of the most harmful inventions of mankind. Not spirituality, mind you, and not belief, but religion. There's an important distinction there I want to make clear, because I do believe in God. I just find it horribly sad that others who believe take their faith to such destructive lengths, preaching violence and intolerance instead of love and acceptance.