E-Mail Hosting featuring webmail, IMAP, POP3 and SMTP.
Criticism of religion is criticism of the concepts, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.
Religious criticism has a long history. It goes as far back as, at least, the 5th century BCE in ancient Greece with Diagoras “the atheist” of Melos, including Titus Lucretius Carus‘ De Rerum Natura in the 1st century BCE in Rome, and continuing to the present day with the advent of New Atheism. The present movement is represented by authors and journalists such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens. Alternatively, “religious criticism” has been used by the literary critic Harold Bloom to describe a mode of religious discussion that is secular or separate from religion but not inherently anti-religion.
Critics consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual (such as brainwashing of children, faith healing, circumcision), harmful to society (such as holy wars, terrorism, wasteful distribution of resources), to impede the progress of science, and to encourage immoral acts (such as blood sacrifice, discrimination against homosexuals and women).
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his magnum opus De Rerum Natura, wrote: “But ’tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:” A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles.
Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the 16th century said: “We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others… because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example.” To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.
Writing in 1776 of the ancient Romans, Edward Gibbon said: “The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.”
Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism and Universalism, which developed from it. It continues to this day in the form of classical deism and modern deism.
Interest in and controversy over criticism of religion has increased in the 21st century due to the spread of so-called New Atheism.
Criticism of religious concepts
A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville’s Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release, stating: “Clearly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive.”
A dinosaur leading sheep, Cologne, August 2005
A major criticism of many religions is that they require beliefs that are irrational, unscientific, or unreasonable. Stated differently, religious beliefs and traditions lack scientific or rational foundations. There are several aspects to this criticism, including:
- Religions often posit facts that are contradicted by scientific evidence (e.g. evolution, origin of the universe, miracles); for example, the claim that prayer has a beneficial effect on others has been tested and disproved.
- Religions often require behaviors that are not sensible (such as the Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).
- Religions and their holy books contain rules and laws designed to govern behavior and conduct, some of which—within a single religion—are contradictory or impossible to follow.
- Religions and their holy books often contain conflicting facts or histories (for example, discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).
- Religions have claimed the truth of stories which contain elements indistinguishable from fairy tales or superstitions (such as astrology or Santa Claus).
- Religions cannot adapt to a changing world, and their teachings are outdated in comparison with modern Western morals. For instance, the rules on certain diets—such as the Torah‘s prohibition of eating pork or shellfish—may have made sense some thousands of years ago, when certain animals were often infested with parasites. However, such a prohibition in modern times may be illogical, as the quality and safety of food have improved.
Religions have promoted facts and histories that are contradicted by science. These often form the basis of significant controversies, such as the trial of Galileo for his purported heresy that the earth moves around the sun. The origin of the earth or universe is often described by holy books in the form of creation myths, which are contradicted by scientific theories of cosmology. The origin of the human species, as presented by many Christian sects, is contradicted by the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. In other cases, religions assert the factual existence of phenomena such as miracles and angels, which are not necessarily contradicted by science, but find little or no scientific support.
Religious adherents, such as the notable Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, counter these arguments by suggesting that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by science. However, some religious beliefs have been disproven by science, for instance Young Earth creationism. Scientist Stephen Jay Gould agreed with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria. Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Dawkins argues that any time a religious person claims that a certain event (e.g. the Love Parade stampede) is a punishment by God or that they have been helped or rewarded by God for their actions (“thank god”) the NOMA thesis is violated. For NOMA to hold, Dawkins argues the supernatural being in question must not have any effect on people’s physical lives, and that only claims regarding the afterlife are allowed.
Conflicting claims of “one true faith”
Some critics of religion discuss the multiplicity of religions that claim to be the one true faith, such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or Evangelical Christianity. Critics point out that if two or more religions claim to be the only valid faith, then logic dictates that the claims of all but one of those religions must be wrong. Atheist Stephen Roberts illustrates this principle as follows:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
— Stephen F. Roberts, quoted in Like Rolling Uphill
Survey research from the US indicates that many people change their religious affiliation over time. Those with no religious affiliation are the fastest growing group. However, this group has a relatively low retention rate (46%) when compared to other groups. Such data suggest that significant numbers of people do not believe consistently that a single faith is uniquely true.
Lack of permanence
Critics such as Opsopaus and Hitchens cite what they describe as obsolete religions—religions that no longer have active adherents—as evidence that religions are not everlasting, as the religions claim. Some obsolete religions discussed by critics include Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology. The short work “The Syrian Goddess” by the ancient author Lucian of Samosata provides many examples of once thriving religions that had gone out of existence.
Explanations as non-divine in origin
Some critics of religion, including Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, assert that theist religions and their holy books are not divinely inspired, but instead are fabrications of non-divine human individuals, created to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.  Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks. Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct and thus just another human ideology. Under this view, the origins of religion lie in human beings and human societies, not in the intervention of some divine being or cosmic truth. Accordingly, the historicity of religious accounts is called into question.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning
Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
With the exception of more modern religions, such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá’í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets were poorly understood. Religious systems attempted to address significant personal emotional issues, and tried to explain a frightening existence, usually through a dramatic narrative outlining how the world and their community came to be.
These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (forms of astrology). Given current understanding in such fields as biology, psychology, chemistry, and physics, where human knowledge has increased dramatically, many critics — including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Michel Onfray — contend that continuing to hold on to these idea systems is absurd and irrational.
Stanford computer scientist John McCarthy states, “We also have no need for [the hypothesis of God], because science has been successful, and science is the best approach to solving the mysteries that remain.” Apologists for religion such as William Lane Craig, however, claim that there are reasonable arguments supporting the existence of God.
Opium of the people
Religious suffering is, at the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
— Karl Marx
According to Karl Marx, religion is a tool utilized by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx’s opinion was their capitalist economic system.
In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism:
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable “sinfulness” of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions, which, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.
Viruses of the mind
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes. He later used this concept in the essay “Viruses of the Mind” to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.
Dawkins argues that religious ideologies are a set of ideas and concepts working together to ensure the perpetuation and proliferation of the religion itself. For instance, important concepts in Christianity are raising one’s children to be Christians, following The Great Commission and its monotheistic nature. These are proposed to work together to protect the religion from competition from other memes. In this context, religion is criticized for being maladaptive in that it can cause the carrier of that meme to act irrationally, misallocate resources and feel guilt, fear or other negative emotions without real reason.
Religion apologist John Bowker criticized the idea that “God” and “Faith” are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins’ “account of religious motivation … is … far removed from evidence and data” and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, “it does not give rise to one set of consequences … Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?” Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that “memes have no place in serious scientific reflection”, that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions, that “evolution” of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian, and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas. McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies and argues that “[i]f religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, how can it conceivably be regarded as analogous to a virus?”
Mental illness or delusion
Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Critics such as Richard Dawkins argue that religious belief often involves delusional behavior. American author Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation compares religion to mental illness, saying it “allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.”
There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic’s experiences and their links to childhood abuse. In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain. Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, “It’s possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences.” Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the “God helmet,” and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings. Neuropsychology Professor John Bradshaw also says:
Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity.
Religion apologist Keith Ward in his book Is Religion Dangerous? addresses the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as “a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs,” and notes that “[n]ot all false opinions are delusions.” Ward then characterizes a delusion as a “clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness,” an “irrational belief” that is “so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken.” He then says that belief in God is different, since “[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people”. He argues that “[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life … and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs” and claims that there are many such people, “including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today.”
Evolved characteristic of the human brain
Some critics, such as Richard Dawkins and Pascal Boyer, contend that religion is nothing more than a social construct that primitive humans evolved to improve their odds of survival. Dawkins and others have posited that a pre-disposition to believe in superstitions and religion could enhance the survival of the human species, by enhancing fear of imagined (and sometimes real) dangers, and thus increasing the likelihood that humans would take pre-emptive defensive measures.
Research in 2009 on the so-called “God Spot” has found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex—which are distinctively developed in humans—and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates. The study found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum which were also the same ones used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God. The findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival and suggests the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so. This work was followed by a study where scientists tried to stimulate the temporal lobes with a rotating magnetic field. Michael Persinger, from Laurentian University in Ontario, found that he could artificially create the experience of religious feelings in 80% of volunteers.
Immature stage of societal development
Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Some critics of religion say that religion is merely an early phase during the development of a culture or society, and that religion is often replaced with more rational or reasonable belief systems. Many critics assert that the needs of religion can be met with alternative, superior means, namely: the need for explaining life and death can be met by science and philosophy; questions of good and evil are addressed by ethics; and inspiration and beauty can be found in the arts.
Daniel Dennett in Venice 2006
Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, said “I expect to live to see the evaporation of the powerful mystique of religion. I think that in about twenty-five years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe it does today.”
Geoffrey Miller, in the November 2006 edition of New Scientist said: “Evolutionary moral psychology will reveal the social conditions under which human moral virtues flourish. The US will follow the UK in realizing that religion is not a prerequisite for ordinary human decency. Thus, science will kill religion — not by reason challenging faith, but by offering a more practical, universal and rewarding moral framework for human interaction. A naturalistic moral philosophy will replace the rotting fictions of theological ethics.” Dr. John Bradshaw, Professor of Neuropsychology at Monash University in Melbourne, wrote: “Evolutional models are every bit as beautiful and intellectually and morally satisfying as the myths, stories and precepts of an ossified theology — and they can explain, predict and be applied in hosts of important and socially useful ways.”
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages.
From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive.
— Auguste Comte
Harm to individuals
Many aspects of religion are criticized by skeptics on the basis that they are harmful to the individual believer. They cite the effects of what they consider dogmatic adherence to irrational beliefs and practices such as withholding medical care and self-sacrifice, as well as unnatural restrictions on human behaviour (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.
Indoctrination of children
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer spoke of the subject in 19th century:
“And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one’s own existence.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue
Critics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children. They claim that children are especially vulnerable to mental harms related to religion, including:
- Terrorized by threats of punishment, such as eternal damnation in a fiery hell
- Extreme guilt about normal, healthy sexual functions
- Trained to disrespect science and reason
- Indoctrinated into a particular religious faith, thus depriving the child of the opportunity to make their own free inquiry later, when they are mature
Dawkins states that he is angered by the labels “Muslim child” or “Catholic child”. He asks how a young child can be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Tory child”. He suggests there is little controversy over such labeling because of the “weirdly privileged status of religion”.
On several occasions Dawkins has also made the controversial claim that sexually abusing a child is “arguably less” damaging than “the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up a child Catholic in the first place”. This claim was later rebutted by Theodore Beale who wrote that Dawkins “first provides anecdotal information from one woman who was raised Catholic, was sexually abused by a priest, and later had nightmares about Hell….Despite posing the proposition as a comparison, Dawkins does not bother to consider what, if any, the negative effects of childhood sexual trauma might happen to be” and notes that “half” of the anecdotes Dawkins cites in favour of his case “aren’t even related to Catholicism”. Beale cites several studies that attribute suicide to childhood sexual abuse rather than to religion. Beale also cites studies that conclude that religiousity correlates with better mental health and less likelihood of suicide. Beale concludes that “[w]hile there is no evidence that being raised Catholic is more psychologically damaging than being sexually abused as a child, there is a great deal of evidence proving the opposite.”
Islam has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 10 years of age. The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10 year old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali), a 13 year old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage, and a 12 year old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14, and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several fundamentalist branches of Mormonism continue the practice.
Inadequate medical care
Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
Some religions treat illness, both mental and physical, in a manner that does not heal, and in some cases exacerbates the problem. Specific examples include faith healing of certain Christian sects, the Christian Science religion which eschews medical care, and exorcisms.
Faith based practices for healing purposes have come into direct conflict with both the medical profession and the law when victims of these practices are harmed, or in the most extreme cases, killed by these “cures.” A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child’s disease, and withholding medical care.
In 2011, a longitudinal scientific study from the Northwestern University School of Medicine concluded that religious young adults are “50 percent more likely to be obese by middle age after adjusting for differences in age, race, sex, education, income, and baseline body mass index.” The study tracked 2,433 subjects over a period of 18 years.
There are certain places with deep associations with religious feeling, often called places of pilgrimage. One of these is Jerusalem, which is revered by followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analysed, it was reported that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city. The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.
Guilt about normal sexual functions
Critics such as Hitchens assert that many religions view some types of natural sexual activity (such as homosexuality or masturbation) as evil or immoral, and that this view can sometimes lead to neuroses or other ill effects. Hitchens also argues that virginity is unhealthy, and can lead to emotional problems.
Depiction of Aztec human sacrifice from the 16th century Codex Magliabechiano
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities, specifically citing Judaism for its obsession with blood and sacrifice, particularly the goal of identifying and sacrificing of a pure red heifer (described in Numbers 19), the pursuit of which Hitchens characterizes as “absurd”, singling out the goal of raising a human child in a “bubble” so as to “be privileged to cut that heifer’s throat”. Another prominent example is the daily sacrifice of humans practiced by the Aztecs.
Genital modification and mutilation
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals. There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being “very happy” than the least religiously committed people. An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that “high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,” and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[vague] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health, and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization. A 2009 working paper by Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes based on surveys from 90,000 people in 26 European countries found that “[one’s own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.” and furthermore that greater overall “religiosity” in a region also correlates positively with “individual life satisfaction” on both the religious and non-religious population. The reverse was also found to be true: a large “atheist” (non-religious) population “has negative spillover effects” for both the religious and non-religious members of the population. Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that “the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.”
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States. According to a 2007 paper by Liesbeth Snoep in the Journal of Happiness Studies, there is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Denmark and the Netherlands, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States. Further, these studies do not differentiate between the non-religious and those who are atheist or agnostic. So while it may be that the larger group of non-religious as less satisfied, etc., than the religious, they do not define whether those who have a strong commitment to atheism are just as unsatisfied as those who are simply uncommitted.
Harm to society
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
— Steven Weinberg, Conference on Cosmic Design (April 1999)
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Critics such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.
Most religions hold their teachings or revelations to be those that are the closest to the universal truths and those of other religions to be further from, or more often, in direct contradiction with these truths. Critics of this worldview[who?] claim that this monopoly of universal truths leads, inevitably, to a very ingrained “us vs. them” group solidarity and mentality (often referred to as moral superiority) which, to a wide range of extents, dehumanise or demonise individuals outside the particular faith as “not fully human”, or in some way less worthy and less deserving of rights and regard. Results can, based on the fanaticism of this belief, vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.
One study has shown that there is a direct correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction, including homicide, sexual disease, teenage pregnancy and marital problems. Data for this study was obtained from approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies. While the data was multi-national, further evidence of religion’s effect on societal health was concluded from regional differences in the United States. According to paleontologist Gregory S. Paul:
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.
An analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from Paul’s research.
Holy war and religious terrorism
Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Critics such as Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:
- Religions sometimes use war, violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals
- Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
- Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism
Examples of religion-based wars include the Mideast conflict between Israel and neighboring Muslim countries, the Crusades, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, French Wars of Religion, European wars of religion, the Taiping Rebellion, Islamic Jihad, the Second Sudanese Civil War, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, the Sri Lankan Civil War, and Jewish-Roman Wars.
Examples of religion-based violence and terrorism include the Mormon-led Mountain Meadows massacre and Muslim-led attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2005 London bombings, and the Bali bombings. These attacks are carried out by those with very strong religious convictions. These acts of religious terrorism are seen by the terrorists as small skirmishes in the context of a much larger global religious war. Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.
Mormon-led Mountain Meadows massacre
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims. One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: “Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens,” or “Kill them all; God will recognize his.”
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in humanity’s evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.
Arguments against the harm of religious wars
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions’ ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors. Robert Pape argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading: “There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions”. After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers’ actions stem from political conflict, not religion. Michael A. Sheehan argues that many terrorist groups use religious and cultural terms to conceal political goals and gain popular support. Terry Nardin suggests that religious terrorism does not differ in “character and causes, from political terrorism.” Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion “does not ordinarily lead to violence.That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change.”:10 and that the use of the term “terrorist” depends on whether or not the speaker believes the acts involved are warranted.:9 Believers have also responded to atheists in these discussions by pointing to the widespread imprisonment and mass murder of individuals under atheist states in the twentieth century:[121
And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a ‘new man’ and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.
— Dinesh D’Souza
H. Allen Orr also attributed many of the historical religious violent activities to the secular and political roles that were performed by the church in the past and noted that the recent absence of religion among the government of modern communist nations did not lead to Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, or Joseph Stalin leading any less violently. In response to some apologists who note that the lack of religion did not prevent many modern dictators from committing great acts of violence, Christopher Hitchens said: “it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists.” Furthermore, Richard Dawkins, in response to Pope Benedict‘s accusations that atheism was responsible for “some 20th century atrocities”, has replied: “how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin’s non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns…. There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness.”
Suppression of scientific progress
Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples of scientific suppression by the Roman Catholic Church include the trial of Galileo for arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the execution of scientist and philosopher Giordano Bruno.
In more recent time, many debates have arisen that follow a pattern of faith versus reason, in particular the rise of fundamentalist and bible literalist opposition to science and liberal democracy. Examples include the creation-evolution controversy, and controversies over the use of birth control, the separation of church and state, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.
During the 19th century what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today. Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public, and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the “religion vs. science” concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject. These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair and the Scopes trial, and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers. Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler’s laws and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy, were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Suppression of art and literature
Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie
Former site of one of the Buddhas of Bamyan
Some religions have destroyed important artistic works and cultural or religious artifacts. The Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001 in the name of Islam. Catholic priest Diego de Landa almost single handedly destroyed all knowledge of the Mayan hieroglyphs, with the desire to wipe out the Mayan religion. During the English civil war, Parliamentarian soldiers destroyed two of the Eleanor Crosses, one at Cheapside in London and another in Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire, as they were viewed to be relics of the Catholic faith to which, as Puritans, they were opposed.
In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses.
In 2005, many Muslims protested against the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammad.
Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women’s rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.
See also: Human sacrifice, Honor killing, Morality and religion, and Religious intolerance
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
— Albert Einstein
Nobel Peace laureate, Muslim, and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi has criticized dogmatic Islam as morally deficient, arguing that it elevates to moral status many ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era. An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault.
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one’s conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment. Religious institutions typically declare they have special knowledge of absolute morality and invoke this in order to hinder debates on many issues such as stem cell research, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.
Treatment of homosexuals
A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
— Leviticus 20:13|KJV
Many major religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral. Singer Elton John said organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals: “I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people… Organized religion does not seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.”
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and in many of these countries carries the death penalty. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry. Human rights organisations estimate that hundreds of people have been executed for homosexuality by Iranian authorities since the 1979 revolution.
However, many liberal religious groups, and particularly most New Age religions, are accepting of homosexuals and do not regard their behavior as sinful, in particular: the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church, Progressive Judaism, Moravian Church, Neopaganism, Raëlism, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism, Haitian Voodoo, Wicca, and the Metropolitan Community Church, which was established almost specifically for this purpose.
Cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity movement, Mormon leaders, and some Post-Medieval Theologians have made claims that white people are closer to God than other races. Religious terrorist organizations such as the forenamed Ku Klux Klan, Kach and Kahane Chai and others also hold ostensibly racist views. There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978. Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race. Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 “Intelligence Report”, the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its “hate group” listing because of the church’s teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement. The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.
Treatment of women
In some Muslim countries, women wear hijabs or niqabs that conceal almost all of their bodies.
Critics say that religions often treat women in a discriminatory fashion, given them status inferior to men, depriving them of opportunities, endorsing excessive punishments, and using torture and executions as a manner of subjugating them.
An example of such criticism is the treatment of women in modern Islam, such as the required wearing of a burqa in some sects, or denying women permission to drive cars.
Critics also claim that Islam authorizes the punishment of female rape victims, citing a Saudi Arabian case where a rape victim was sentenced to receive 90 lashes because she was in a car with a man that was not her relative.
Critics including Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and usually harmful female genital modification and mutilation, when the purposes range from depriving them of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring they are still a virgin to their husbands, or falsely giving the appearance that they are still a virgin.
Another example is the use of witch trials by the Christian churches from 1480 through 1800. These trials, often resulting in torture or death of the alleged witch, were based on the Old Testament in the Exodus 22:18, which prescribes “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. Criticssay that these trials were unfair, and that witchcraft was often not in evidence, and that the trials were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, or activists.
Cruelty to animals
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary, in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration, and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry. Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice. In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in scripture. In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that “these laws are binding on Jews today.”
More recently, kosher slaughter has attracted criticism from some groups concerned with animal welfare, who contend that the absence of any form of anesthesia or stunning prior to the severance of the animal’s jugular vein causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Calls for the abolition of kosher slaughter have been made in 2008 by Germany’s federal chamber of veterinarians, and in 2011 by the Party for Animals in the Dutch parliament. In both incidents, Jewish groups responded that the criticisms were attacks against their religion.
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane. Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein in 1994 concluded that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.
Arguments against religion promoting immoral behavior
Some scientific studies show that the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism. Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.
Survey research suggests that believers do tend to hold different views than non-believers on a variety of social, ethical and moral questions. According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, a Christian-affiliated research organization, those who described themselves as believers were less likely than those describing themselves as atheists or agnostics to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage, enjoying sexual fantasies, having an abortion, sexual relationships outside of marriage, gambling, looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior, getting drunk, and “having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.”
Moreover, a comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts. The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services. Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).
Religious apologists often respond that those guilty of such actions are merely misguided extremists and don’t represent mainstream religion, or that such things are only exceptions and that, by and large, religion is a positive civilizing influence on society. Atheists such as Hector Avalos counter that this may be a No true Scotsman fallacy in that apologists may decide which believers are considered “mainstream” and which are “extremist” on a basis that favors their position.
In response to an article that correlates religiosity in society with dysfunctional behaviors, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research. In the same issue, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul’s study. His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it.” Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism. Other research in criminology indicates an inverse relationship between religion and crime, with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some say it is a modest one). Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.
Theodore Beale responds to criticisms that religion harms society by arguing that religious individuals tend to be more generous and more likely to have children. Religious belief appears to be the strongest predictor of charitable giving. One study found that average charitable giving in 2000 by religious individuals ($2,210) was over three times that of secular individuals ($642). Giving to non-religious charities by religious individuals was $88 higher. Religious individuals are also more likely to volunteer time, donate blood, and give back money when accidentally given too much change. A 2007 study by The Barna Group found that “active-faith” individuals (those who had attended a church service in the past week) reported that they had given on average $1,500 in 2006, while “no-faith” individuals reported that they had given on average $200. “Active-faith” adults claimed to give twice as much to non-church-related charities as “no-faith” individuals claimed to give. They were also more likely to report that they were registered to vote, that they volunteered, that they personally helped someone who was homeless, and to describe themselves as “active in the community.”
Corrupt purposes of leaders
Many criticisms of religion focus on the purposes of the leaders of the religions, rather than on the religious doctrines. Critics point out that many religions endow their leaders with immoral or corrupt authority, and that leaders often abuse the power for financial gain, or increased access to sexual partners, or to oppress minorities or enemies. Critics claim that religious leaders have often supported un-democratic and oppressive power structures, such as the absolutist monarchies of Europe, or the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.
Corrupt or immoral leaders
Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young’s wives
Critics point out that several religions were founded by individuals who appeared to be using the religion for immoral or corrupt purposes, such as financial gain, access to power, or justifying multiple wives. Examples given by critics include Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, and Mormon leaders Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives. Roman Catholic pope Alexander VI (of the Borgia family) was noted for his many mistresses, syphilis and nepotism. Evangelical Christian pastor Jim Bakker was convicted of fraud for improperly using large amounts of money from his congregation for personal use.
Authoritarian political power
The term “authoritarian” is used to describe an organization, an institution, or a state that enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against those within its sphere of influence, generally without any attempt at gaining their consent and often not allowing criticism of its policies.
In this sense, some religious organizations can be seen as authoritarian, insofar as their goal is to define themselves as the ultimate authority by which the law of the land is granted. As this divine source of authority is not to be criticized by non-religious arguments, it is the antithesis to secularism. A country where the above has been achieved is called a theocracy.
Some religions also teach that there was, or is, a human with divinity or touched by divine guidance, and who is therefore infallible: for example Jesus, Muhammad and, in certain circumstances, the Pope.
Divine mandate used for political gain
The ancient egyptians believed that upon taking the throne, the pharaoh became the earthly embodiment of a god. They believed that in his role as both man and god, he was responsible for preserving not only the empire, but the universe itself.
Until the end of World War II the Emperor of Japan held a similar status, and deification of Roman emperors was common practice following the reign of Augustus. Systems such as this equated political opposition to heresy, and served to support existing power structures by suppressing dissent. On New Year’s Day 1946, Emperor Hirohito (formally) declined claims of divinity with the Humanity Declaration.
The term dominionism is often used to describe a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. Critics view dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop. Schaeffer’s views influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take “control of a sinful secular society”, either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by introducing biblical law into the secular sphere. Social scientists have used the word “dominionism” to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right. Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica, a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges Marion Maddox, James Rudin, Sam Harris, and the group TheocracyWatch began applying the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.
Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.  The terms “dominionist” and “dominionism” are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Chip Berlet wrote that “some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point.” Sara Diamond wrote that “[l]iberals’ writing about the Christian Right’s take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory.” Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is “to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned.” Stanley Kurtz labeled it “conspiratorial nonsense,” “political paranoia,” and “guilt by association,” and decried Hedges’ “vague characterizations” that allow him to “paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless ‘Dominionist’ Christian mass.” Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:
The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it’s downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper’s cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside ‘the old polite rules of democracy.’ So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.
1. ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2. ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. “De Rerum Natura”. http://books.mirror.org/gb.lucretius.html. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3. ^ “Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/lucretiu.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4. ^ Middlemore, S. G. C.; Burckhardt, Jacob; Murray, Peter; Burke, Peter (1990). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044534-X.
5. ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). “The Prince“. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-10.
6. ^ “Online Library of Liberty – The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, chp ii”. http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1365&chapter=50990&layout=html. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
7. ^ “The Vernon Atheist Display,” Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
8. ^ a b Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
9. ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc.. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
10. ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
11. ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199-200
12. ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
13. ^ “IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution” (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-07-01. http://web.archive.org/web/20070701142913/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution+statement.pdf. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
14. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
15. ^ prwatch.org[dead link]
16. ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
17. ^ “Changes in Americans’ Religious Affiliation,” U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Chapter 2, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Pew Research Center, February 2008
18. ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Har.html.
19. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
20. ^ 1=Strong, Herbert A.; Garstang, John (1913). The Syrian Goddess. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/tsg/index.htm.
21. ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
22. ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
23. ^ a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
24. ^ a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
25. ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). “Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction”. American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
26. ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
27. ^ “When solar fears eclipse reason”. BBC News. 2006-03-28. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4852690.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
28. ^ “Comets in Ancient Cultures”. NASA. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/f_ancient.html.
29. ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
30. ^ “Scientific Forms of the religious hypothesis”. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/religion.html.
31. ^ Craig, William Lane (July 3, 2008). “God Is Not Dead Yet”. Christianity Today. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
32. ^ a b c Marx, Karl (February 1844). “Introduction”. A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.
33. ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm.
34. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
35. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). “Viruses of the Mind”. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html.
36. ^ In his 1992–93 Gresham College lectures, written in collaboration with the psychiatrist Quinton Deeley and published as Is God a Virus?, SPCK, 1995, 274 pp. The quotes here come from p.73.
37. ^ Dawkins’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
38. ^ Dawkins’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
39. ^ Dawkins’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
40. ^ Dawkins’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
41. ^ Dawkins’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
42. ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5. http://books.google.com/?id=Lr8ytqlY9NgC&lpg=PA73&dq=%22allows%20otherwise%20normal%20human%20beings%20to%20reap%20the%20fruits%20of%20madness%20and%20consider%20them%20holy%22&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q.
43. ^ “The Psychology of Mysticism”. The Primal page. http://primal-page.com/mysindex.htm.
44. ^ “Mysticism and Psychopathology”. The Primal page. http://primal-page.com/templobe.htm.
45. ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). “Medieval Mystics’ Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse”. http://primal-page.com/atlas.htm.
46. ^ Pickover, Clifford (September/October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit. http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=130.
47. ^ “God on the Brain”. BBC Science & Nature. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml.
48. ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). “Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question”. American Humanist Association. p. 2. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_6_59/ai_57800244. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
49. ^ a b Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). “A God of the Gaps?”. Ockham’s Razor (ABC). http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1664571.htm.
50. ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
51. ^ “Belief and the brain’s ‘God spot'”, The Independent‘, 10 March 2009.
52. ^ Stewart, Robert Charles. “Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics, Replacing Religion with Science”. Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics. http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/replacing_religion.html.
53. ^ Dennett, Daniel C. “The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion”. http://edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#dennett.
54. ^ Miller, Geoffrey. “Geoffrey Miller faculty page”. The University of New Mexico. http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/sm_gmiller.html.
55. ^ Miller, Geoffrey (18 November 2006). “Geoffrey Miller forecasts the future”. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.108-geoffrey-miller-forecasts-the-future.html.
56. ^ a b Asser, S. M.; Swan, R (1998-Apr; vol 101 (issue 4 Pt 1)). “Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect”. Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): pp 625–9. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.625. PMID 9521945.
57. ^ a b Carmiola Ionescu. “Exorcism priest is jailed for nun death”. The Scotsman. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=271822007.
58. ^ Branden, N. (1963), “Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice,” Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
59. ^ a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
60. ^ a b c Richard Dawkins. “Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion”. The God Delusion.
61. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. “Is Religion Child Abuse?”. God is Not Great.
62. ^ Day, Vox (2008). The Irrational Atheist. Benbella Books, inc. pp. 146-149.
63. ^ Dr Jonathan R.T., Davidson; D.C. Hughs, L.K. George, DC Blazer (1996). “The Association of Sexual assault and Attempted Suicide Within the Community”. Archives of General Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Duke University Medical Centre.
64. ^ Talbot, N.L.; P.R. Duberstein, C. Cox, D. Denning, and Y. Conwell (2004). “Preliminary Report on Childhood Sexual abuse, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicide Attempts among Middle-Aged and Older Depressed Women”. American Journal of Geriatric Psychology 6 (12).
65. ^ Dervic, K.; M.A. Oquendo, M.F. Grunebaum, S. Ellis, A.K. Burke. J.J. Mann, (2004). “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt”. American Journal of Psychiatry.
66. ^ Lester, David (1987). “Religion Suicide and Homicide”. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 2.
67. ^ a b “Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.”. http://seyaj.org/en/. [dead link]
68. ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). Yemeni bride, 10, says I won’t. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/world/fg-childbride11. Retrieved 16 February 2010
69. ^ “Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom”. Fox News. 2010-04-10. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/10/dead-yemeni-child-bride-tied-raped-says-mom.
70. ^ “Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding”. CNN. 2010-04-09. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/09/yemen.child.bride.death/index.html?hpt=Sbin.
71. ^ “CNN article on 12 year old bride death”. 2009-09-14. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/14/yemen.childbirth.death/index.html.
72. ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
73. ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
74. ^ D’Onofrio, Eve (2005). “Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States”. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19 (3): 373–394. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028. http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/373.
75. ^ “Exorcism by Rabbis: Talmud Sages and Their Magic”. Bar-Ilan University, Israel. http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/exorcism.html.
76. ^ Papademetriou, George C. “Exorcism in the Orthodox Church”. http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7079.asp. [dead link]
77. ^ “US boy dies during ‘exorcism'”. BBC News. 2003-08-25. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179789.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
78. ^ “Exorcism bid turns fatal”. Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2005-01-05. http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/05/stories/2005010512820300.htm.
79. ^ “Religious Young Adults become Obese by Middle Age,” Northwestern UniversityFeinberg School of Medicine, March 24, 2011,http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/news/2011J-March/Religion_Obesity.html
80. ^ “Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library”. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jersynd.html.
81. ^ “Jerusalem Syndrome”. http://savvytraveler.publicradio.org/show/features/2000/20000603/jerusalem.shtml.
82. ^ Bar-el Y, Durst R, Katz G, Zislin J, Strauss Z, Knobler HY. (2000). “Jerusalem syndrome”. British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.86. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/86.
83. ^ a b Kalian M, Witztum E. (2000). “Comments on Jerusalem syndrome”. British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (5): 492. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.5.492-a. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/5/492-a.
84. ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
85. ^ Kalian M, Witztum E. (1999). “The Jerusalem syndrome”—fantasy and reality a survey of accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries”. Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat Sci. 36 (4): 260–71. PMID 10687302.
86. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
87. ^ >Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
88. ^ Duverger, Christian (2005). La flor letal. Fondo de cultura económica. pp. 139–140.
89. ^ Hassig, Ross (2003). “El sacrificio y las guerras floridas”. Arqueología mexicana XI: 47.
90. ^ a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
91. ^ a b Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
92. ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). “The science of happiness”. BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
93. ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). “The New Science of Happiness”. Time (magazine)=Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015870,00.html.
94. ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
95. ^ Smith, Timothy; McCullough, Michael; Poll, Justin (2003). “Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events”. Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 614–36. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614. PMID 12848223.
96. ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
97. ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
98. ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
99. ^ Hackney, Charles H.; Sanders, Glenn S. (2003). “Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.
100.^ Clark, A. E., & Lelkes, O. (January 2009). “Let us pray: religious interactions in life satisfaction”, working paper no. 2009-01. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Abstract retrieved July 2, 2009.
101.^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; [[Harold G. Koenig |Koenig, Harold G.]] (September 2006). “Religiousness and mental health: a review”. Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-44462006000300018&lng=en&nrm=iso.
102.^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
103.^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). “Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note”. Journal of Happiness Studies. http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/650q541579041625/fulltext.html.
104.^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). “A Designer Universe?”. PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C.. http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm. Retrieved 2010-02-22.
105.^ Russell, Bertrand. “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?”. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
106.^ Hartung, John (1995). “Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality”. Skeptic 3 (5). http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html.
107.^ a b “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)”. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
108.^ a b c Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). “Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health”. Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html.
109.^ Full text: bin Laden’s ‘letter to America’ accessed may 24, 2007
110.^ a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
111.^ “Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ”. Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_CanerChristianJihad0505.asp. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
112.^ “Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)”. http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9442.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-18.
113.^ “Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007”. Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. http://www.apexstuff.com/bt/200702/cover.asp. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
114.^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks, Ahmad Hendricks. “Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam”. http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/jihad_judicial_ruling.htm.
115.^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
116.^ a b Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-6317-5.
117.^ “Terrorism: The Current Threat”, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
118.^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). “Review of Terror in the Mind of God”. The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
119.^ a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
120.^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. http://books.google.com/?id=Nl-f5SKq9mgC&pg=PA697&dq=Aleksandr+Solzhenitsyn+But+if+I+were+asked+today+to+formulate+as+concisely+as+possible+the+main+cause+of+the+ruinous+revolution+that+swallowed+up+some+60+million+of+our+people,+I+could+not+put+it+more+accurately+than+to+repeat:+’Men+have+forgotten+God;+that’s+why#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2007–10–18. “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’ Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.'”
121.^ Koukl, Gregory. “The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?”. Stand To Reason. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527. Retrieved 2007–10–18.
122.^ a b [[Dinesh D’Souza |D’Souza, Dinesh]]. “Answering Atheist’s Arguments”. Catholic Education Resource Center. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm. Retrieved 2007–10–18.
123.^ Orr, H. Allen (1999). “Gould on God”. bostonreview.net. http://bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
124.^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
125.^ “Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists”, The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
126.^ a b Berlet, Chip. “Following the Threads,” in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
127.^ “Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968”. The Vatican. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
128.^ “MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell”. Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06. http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/MPs-turn-attack-back-on-Cardinal-Pell/2007/06/06/1181089126575.html.
129.^ a b “Pope warns Bush on stem cells”. BBC News. 2001-07-23. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1452314.stm.
130.^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics. http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem10.html.
131.^ Wilson, David B. (2002). “The Historiography of Science and Religion”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
132.^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). “The Conflict Thesis”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. “The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science”
133.^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. p. 195. “In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the ‘warfare between science and religion’ and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science”
134.^ Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. “In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited.”
135.^ a b Ferngren, Gary (2002). “Introduction”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. “while [John] Brooke’s view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind”
136.^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). “The Conflict Thesis”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. “The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is perceived by some historians as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.”
137.^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). “Galileo Galilei”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
138.^ Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
139.^ Rupke, Nicolaas A. (2002). “Geology and Paleontology”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
140.^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). “Natural History”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
141.^ Moore, James (2002). “Charles Darwin”. In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
142.^ Barker, Peter; Goldstein, Bernard R. (2001). “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy”. Osiris. Science in Theistic Contexts. 16. University of Chicago Press. pp. 88–113.
143.^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
144.^ “BBC ON THIS DAY : 14 : 1989: Ayatollah sentences author to death”. BBC (bbc.co.uk). 1989-02-14. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_2541000/2541149.stm. Retrieved 2010-04-12.
145.^ Hossain, Rakeeb (2007-08-18). “Fatwa offers unlimited money to kill Taslima”. Hindustan Times. http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=5d562b17-64dc-4a90-8396-7cfcaea2d568&ParentID=ea13ac8f-a3d8-45a2-9eba-b56c9b73e87b&&Headline=Kolkata%27s+clerics+threaten+Taslima. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
146.^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). “Religion and Science”. New York Times Magazine.
147.^ Ebadi has spoken out against undemocratic Islamic countries justifying “oppressive acts” in the name of Islam. Speaking at the Earth Dialogues 2006 conference in Brisbane, Ebadi said her native Iran as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen “among others” were guilty of human rights violations. “In these countries, Islamic rulers want to solve 21st century issues with laws belonging to 14 centuries ago,” she said. “Their views of human rights are exactly the same as it was 1400 years ago.”
148.^ Kerbaj, Richard (2006-10-26). “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks”. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html.
149.^ Raid Qusti. “Women Asked to Leave Seminar”. http://arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=89107&d=22&m=11&y=2006.
150.^ “Vatican drive to curb gay marriage” (in BBC News). 2003-07-31. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
151.^ “When Elton met Jake |”. The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
152.^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). “Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies”. Los Angeles Times. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1018310011.html?dids=1018310011:1018310011&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+10%2C+2006&author=Stephanie+Simon&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=Christians+Sue+for+Right+Not+to+Tolerate+Policies.
153.^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). “Iran ‘must stop youth executions'”. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4725959.stm. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
154.^ a b Christianity and homosexuality
155.^ “Foreign Terrorist Organizations”. US Office of Counterterrorism. 2005-10-11. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm.
156.^ Berlet, Chip (2004). “A New Face for Racism & Fascism”. White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneaology. Political Research Associates. http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
157.^ “Ostensibly scientific”: cf. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The social science encyclopedia (1996), “Racism”, p. 716: “This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of ‘scientific techniques’, to sanction the belief in European and American racial superiority”; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to sociobiology (1998), “Race, theories of”, p. 18: “Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history”; Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. “In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist” (p. 151); Paul A. Erickson,Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: “Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism”.
158.^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
159.^ (PDF) The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities. Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General’s Office. June 2006. p. 41. http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf. Retrieved 29 June 2010
160.^ “Hate Groups Map: Utah”. Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=UT&m=5.
161.^ “Civil Rights Movement in the United States”. Civil Rights Movement in the United States. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1257023158759408. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
162.^ “Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement”. African American Review. Winter, 2002. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_4_36/ai_97515888. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
163.^ “Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964”. The Nobel Foundation. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
164.^ “Newspaper article on rape victim”. http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/1a77b84a4491420e9e0cd45cba11cb4f/15-11-2007-02-08/Rape_victim_gets_200_lashes.
165.^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). “Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation”. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). http://www.unfpa.org/public/News/pid/280. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
166.^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
167.^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
168.^ a b c Melzer, Emanuel (1997). No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935–1939. Hebrew Union College Press. pp. 81–90. ISBN 0-87820-418-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=co3KJikOaBYC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false.
169.^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=w39m4aohL9gC&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false.
170.^ Collins, Kenneth (November 2010). “A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893”. Journal of Scottish Historical Studies 30: 75. doi:10.3366/jshs.2010.0103. http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/jshs.2010.0103.
171.^ a b Shechita UK. “Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?”. Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/222241/jewish/Why-Do-Jews-Practice-Shechita.htm. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
172.^ a b “Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets”. Deutsche Welle. 10.07.2008. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3474409,00.html.
173.^ a b Runyan, Tamar (May 5, 2011). “Dutch Jews Mobilize Against Attempt to Outlaw Kosher Slaughter”. Chabad.org. http://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/1510772/jewish/Netherlands-Mulls-Banning-Kosher-Slaughter.htm.
174.^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). “Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.”. Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123. http://grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html.
175.^ Conroy, S. J.; Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). “Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students]”. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.
176.^ a b Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews, Todd L.; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). “Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
177.^ a b Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). “Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
178.^ a b Regnerus, Mark D.; Burdette, Amy (2006). “Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics”. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1): 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x.
179.^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
180.^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look”. Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.
181.^ “The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay” (archive copy at the Internet Archive), The Barna Group, November 3, 2003 (“The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay” – Summary version posted on the Barna website)
182.^ a b c “Religious people make better citizens, study says”. Pew Research Center. http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx. Retrieved 2007–10–18. “The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just “nicer”: they carry packages for people, don’t mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.”
183.^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). “Religious people are ‘better neighbors'”. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm. Retrieved 2007–10–18. “However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also “better neighbors” than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the “religious edge” holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.”
184.^ Cline, Austin. “Myth: Religious Extremists Hijack True Religion, Give Religion a Bad Name”. atheism.about.com. http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousviolencemyths/a/HijackReligion.htm. Retrieved 2 February 2009.
185.^ Jensen, Gary F. (2006) Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look, Journal of Religion and Society, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
186.^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
187.^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
188.^ For example:
§ Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). “Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (3): 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
§ Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). “Hellfire and delinquency:Another look”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (4): 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
§ Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
§ Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). “Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
§ Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
§ Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
§ Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
§ Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
§ Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323–340.
§ Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
189.^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
190.^ Brooks, Arthur C. “Religious faith and charitable giving”, Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
191.^ Will, George F. “Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists”, Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
192.^ a b Gose, Ben. “Charity’s Political Divide”, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
193.^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
194.^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). “Who Gives and Who Doesn’t? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test”. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2.
195.^ “Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians”, The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
196.^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
197.^ Driscoll, James F. “The Catholic Encyclopedia – Theocracy”. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14568a.htm.
198.^ Schulz, Regine (1998). Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs. Köln: Könemann. ISBN 3-89508-913-3.
199.^ Large, Stephen S. (1992). Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography. Routledge. p. 60.
200.^ Pollard, Nigel. “The imperial cult”. BBC History. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml.
201.^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
202.^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
203.^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
204.^ a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
205.^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
206.^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). “Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right’s rise to power”. Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
207.^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
208.^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
209.^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). “Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence”. The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisrec.html.
210.^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
211.^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
212.^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). “The Despoiling of America”. http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm. Retrieved 3 October 2007.
213.^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
214.^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
215.^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
216.^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). “Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters”. Harper’s. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/05/0080541. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
217.^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
218.^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
219.^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right’s Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
220.^ Harris, Sam 2007. “God’s dupes“, Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
221.^ “The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party”, TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
222.^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
223.^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
224.^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. “Gary North on D. James Kennedy”, Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
225.^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
226.^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. “Dominion Theology.” Z Magazine, February 1995
227.^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). “Dominionist Fantasies”. FrontPage Magazine. http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17957. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
228.^ a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). “Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory”. National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
229.^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). “Scary Stuff”. National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp. Retrieved 2007-10-06.