Religion and Rationality - I am thinking with my fingers, but what do you think?

I listen to late night radio – those shows where you call to talk to an Agony Aunt about a man you have gone out with for ten years yet has refused to propose marriage what should you do?, or where future husbands who are looking for future wives call to meet future wives who are looking for future husbands who are looking for future wives. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that people simply can’t define what they want in a partner. After the common “tall, dark and handsome”, what you often hear is “He must be God fearing.” “She should be nice.” “He must be working.” Very rarely do you hear something you might hear and say “oh, that excludes me” like, “She should have a sense of humour, be ready to move and be able to watch a sunset.” More seriously, I think that if the wisest men that ever walked the planet were brought together and asked to enlighten us at to what brings a man and a woman together, what keeps them together and what breaks them apart, they would be unable to help us.

And the same would apply to how we come to accept a set of beliefs, discard them for a new set, then discard everything, and later start believing again. Even though we can identify fear, self preservation and bandwagon as some of the motivations behind religionism, these do not suffice to explain the religion phenomenon.

You see, a kid of six in Kano wielding a stick can control a hundred cattle. A barely literate “prophet” armed with a few catch phrases, a little charisma and Gideon’s Bible can get some of the most intelligent men kneeling down, standing up and falling down at his command. (No, you don’t need to have read Machiavelli or Greene. These things come naturally, enough.)

It seems reason goes on recess at the approach of religion (and patriotism!). Here at Nairaland you see people who clearly decided to believe something and then started looking for ways to validate it. It ought to be the other way round! Nowhere is this more noticeable than efforts to present the Trinity as rational or to fit into the Bible what it does not say. I read in one thread that Adam was not the first man in the book of Genesis. This even though it is clear the two separate verses cited repeated the creation of the same man and all the writers of the Bible, including Jesus’ apostles and the cerebral St Paul, clearly wrote with the perspective that Adam was the first man. And UFOs are in the Bible! How about the Muslims who go to the ridiculous extent of ascribing to the Bible what it does not say just to discredit it, while presenting the Quran as the most illuminating authority on science which contains the blueprint for space exploration, DNA mapping and nanotechnology, the quintessential guide spurned by scientists at mankind’s peril?

It would be refreshing candid, therefore, if we sometimes hear statements like: “Sorry, I can’t really explain the Trinity to you rationally and the biblical support for it is tenuous and without consensus. But I accept it because it is what the church teaches and as a Christian I have no doubt that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

But that is an unrealistic expectation. I do not think it is possible to be a good follower of a religion while maintaining a truly rational approach. A religious person who attempts it with a high degree of honesty will likely end up in a situation known in psychology as cognitive dissonance. He may soon give up the religion, altogether. And so what religious people do is to accept by faith, paper over the craters and move on. A non-religious person might find this hard to comprehend, but it really is simple enough: [i]since the religion is of God, everything it says must be right. God can’t be wrong. [/i]This fantastic short circuit is what is spectacularly responsible for stopping the believer from taking a dogma-by-dogma approach. Religion, therefore, is not rational. Once you accept it you follow it dogmatically. “We” become right, “they” become wrong. Otherwise you become a bad follower of the faith. You may recall the spontaneous consternation in the African dioceses when the cerebral and rational Rowan Williams was appointed the spiritual leader of the Anglicans.

There will always be conflict between the literalists (like Archbishop Akinola) and the non-literalists (like Archbishop Williams). Truth to tell, the idea that the holy books were written to be reinterpreted by intellectuals is disingenuous. It would be more honest if religious leaders told us two things: (1) The holy books were clearly written to be given a literal interpretation. (2) But the times have overtaken them and such literal interpretation would take the book closer to the Neanderthals than contemporary society. This would leave us with two options: (1) Disband the religions as not having originated truly from an all-knowing, unchanging God. (2) Say something like: “Well, prophets wrote it in the language of their day so it could be comprehended. Our critical task today is to adapt it to our times and make it useful. We know this will not be easy since there are contradictions and different people are likely to interpret things differently. We appeal for patience from all.”

The absence of rationality, though, is not necessarily an indictment of religion. As I asserted in the first paragraph, we often take some of life’s most important decisions irrationally. We are emotional, not rational. Alexander Pope, in the poem Essay on Man, which I consider the greatest literary work written as yet outside of the Bible, asserts:

Two principles in human nature reign;
Self-love, to urge, and reason, to restrain;
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call,
Each works its end, to move or govern all:
And to their proper operation still
Ascribe all Good, to their improper, Ill.

I am just thinking with my fingers. But what do you think? Is religion compatible with rationality?

MyJoe:

Alexander Pope, in the poem Essay on Man, which I consider the greatest literary work written as yet outside of the Bible, asserts:

Two principles in human nature reign;
Self-love, to urge, and reason, to restrain;
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call,
Each works its end, to move or govern all:
And to their proper operation still
Ascribe all Good, to their improper, Ill.

Pope is heavy. I like that poem on Heloise and Abelard where he makes that phrase 'Eternal sunshine of a spotless Mind'. A film was made with that line as title.

How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!

Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd;

Not seen that film. I found Pope rather a bit late. Thought Milton and Dante were the end.

MyJoe:

Religion and Rationality - I am thinking with my fingers, but what do you think?

I listen to late night radio – those shows where you call to talk to an Agony Aunt about a man you have gone out with for ten years yet has refused to propose marriage what should you do?, or where future husbands who are looking for future wives call to meet future wives who are looking for future husbands who are looking for future wives. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that people simply can’t define what they want in a partner. After the common “tall, dark and handsome”, what you often hear is “He must be God fearing.” “She should be nice.” “He must be working.” Very rarely do you hear something you might hear and say “oh, that excludes me” like, “She should have a sense of humour, be ready to move and be able to watch a sunset.” More seriously, I think that if the wisest men that ever walked the planet were brought together and asked to enlighten us at to what brings a man and a woman together, what keeps them together and what breaks them apart, they would be unable to help us.

And the same would apply to how we come to accept a set of beliefs, discard them for a new set, then discard everything, and later start believing again. Even though we can identify fear, self preservation and bandwagon as some of the motivations behind religionism, these do not suffice to explain the religion phenomenon.

You see, a kid of six in Kano wielding a stick can control a hundred cattle. A barely literate “prophet” armed with a few catch phrases, a little charisma and Gideon’s Bible can get some of the most intelligent men kneeling down, standing up and falling down at his command. (No, you don’t need to have read Machiavelli or Greene. These things come naturally, enough.)

It seems reason goes on recess at the approach of religion (and patriotism!). Here at Nairaland you see people who clearly decided to believe something and then started looking for ways to validate it. It ought to be the other way round! Nowhere is this more noticeable than efforts to present the Trinity as rational or to fit into the Bible what it does not say. I read in one thread that Adam was not the first man in the book of Genesis. This even though it is clear the two separate verses cited repeated the creation of the same man and all the writers of the Bible, including Jesus’ apostles and the cerebral St Paul, clearly wrote with the perspective that Adam was the first man. And UFOs are in the Bible! How about the Muslims who go to the ridiculous extent of ascribing to the Bible what it does not say just to discredit it, while presenting the Quran as the most illuminating authority on science which contains the blueprint for space exploration, DNA mapping and nanotechnology, the quintessential guide spurned by scientists at mankind’s peril?

It would be refreshing candid, therefore, if we sometimes hear statements like: “Sorry, I can’t really explain the Trinity to you rationally and the biblical support for it is tenuous and without consensus. But I accept it because it is what the church teaches and as a Christian I have no doubt that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

But that is an unrealistic expectation. I do not think it is possible to be a good follower of a religion while maintaining a truly rational approach. A religious person who attempts it with a high degree of honesty will likely end up in a situation known in psychology as cognitive dissonance. He may soon give up the religion, altogether. And so what religious people do is to accept by faith, paper over the craters and move on. A non-religious person might find this hard to comprehend, but it really is simple enough: [i]since the religion is of God, everything it says must be right. God can’t be wrong. [/i]This fantastic short circuit is what is spectacularly responsible for stopping the believer from taking a dogma-by-dogma approach. Religion, therefore, is not rational. Once you accept it you follow it dogmatically. “We” become right, “they” become wrong. Otherwise you become a bad follower of the faith. You may recall the spontaneous consternation in the African dioceses when the cerebral and rational Rowan Williams was appointed the spiritual leader of the Anglicans.

There will always be conflict between the literalists (like Archbishop Akinola) and the non-literalists (like Archbishop Williams). Truth to tell, the idea that the holy books were written to be reinterpreted by intellectuals is disingenuous. It would be more honest if religious leaders told us two things: (1) The holy books were clearly written to be given a literal interpretation. (2) But the times have overtaken them and such literal interpretation would take the book closer to the Neanderthals than contemporary society. This would leave us with two options: (1) Disband the religions as not having originated truly from an all-knowing, unchanging God. (2) Say something like: “Well, prophets wrote it in the language of their day so it could be comprehended. Our critical task today is to adapt it to our times and make it useful. We know this will not be easy since there are contradictions and different people are likely to interpret things differently. We appeal for patience from all.”

The absence of rationality, though, is not necessarily an indictment of religion. As I asserted in the first paragraph, we often take some of life’s most important decisions irrationally. We are emotional, not rational. Alexander Pope, in the poem Essay on Man, which I consider the greatest literary work written as yet outside of the Bible, asserts:

Two principles in human nature reign;
Self-love, to urge, and reason, to restrain;
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call,
Each works its end, to move or govern all:
And to their proper operation still
Ascribe all Good, to their improper, Ill.

I am just thinking with my fingers. But what do you think? Is religion compatible with rationality?

IMO, it is not.

VALIDATOR:

IMO, it is not.

Are you religious?

MyJoe:
I am just thinking with my fingers. But what do you think? Is religion compatible with rationality?

Rationality is absolutley central to faith, at least for me.

I will quote Nwankwo who said recently:

m_nwankwo:

It is incorrect to assume that genuine faith has no evidence. On the contrarly genuine faith is inseparable with clear and indisputable evidence. But the evidence must be sort in its own kind. If one makes a purely spiritual claim, then it is meaniless looking for the evidence in physical matter. Because the skeptics refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything else outside what the physical organs can percieve, then they dismiss everything imperceptible to the brain or instruments that are meant to improve them as myths.

So infact I could not disagree more when you say this:

MyJoe:
It seems reason goes on recess at the approach of religion (and patriotism!).

  What is true reason? PastorAIO has a thread on this topic. Am I being irrational to believe based on a spiritual experience? that cannot be translated into the physical?

  For example, I wasn't there when Jesus was cruficied. I didn't see the Romans beat him up or the Jews sell him out. There is no shred of physical evidence, no blood we can test or dna we can match to Jesus. But I believe it. Why? Because I have had experiences not of the physical, there is a undisputable assurance in my heart, and I have seen the words in the bible become true in my life when I followed it - that then becomes my proof to me, my evidence to me, that the bible is true and genuine. Still makes me irrational? to you maybe, but to me, its perfectly logical.

MyJoe:
It would be refreshing candid, therefore, if we sometimes hear statements like: “Sorry, I can’t really explain the Trinity to you rationally and the biblical support for it is tenuous and without consensus. But I accept it because it is what the church teaches and as a Christian I have no doubt that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

But that is an unrealistic expectation.

Unrealistic why? Perhaps you've been running into overzealous people of faith. I refrain from discussing biblical issues with non-christians for the simple fact I believe and the bible says that non-christians cannot and will not be able to grasp and understand many biblical teachings.

  I think one big problem is trying to solve an algebra equation using the forumla for a chemical reaction, trying to play basketball with your feet, or cook egusi soup using butter instead of palm oil. We should be seperating matters of the spiritual from matters of the physical. But we fast run into a roadblock, as many non-religionists refuse to accept anything that cannot be perceived by the physical senses.

JeSoul:

Rationality is absolutley central to faith, at least for me.

I will quote Nwankwo who said recently:
So infact I could not disagree more when you say this:
  What is true reason? PastorAIO has a thread on this topic. Am I being irrational to believe based on a spiritual experience? that cannot be translated into the physical?

  For example, I wasn't there when Jesus was cruficied. I didn't see the Romans beat him up or the Jews sell him out. There is no shred of physical evidence, no blood we can test or dna we can match to Jesus. But I believe it. Why? Because I have had experiences not of the physical, there is a undisputable assurance in my heart, and I have seen the words in the bible become true in my life when I followed it - that then becomes my proof to me, my evidence to me, that the bible is true and genuine. Still makes me irrational? to you maybe, but to me, its perfectly logical.

Unrealistic why? Perhaps you've been running into overzealous people of faith. I refrain from discussing biblical issues with non-christians for the simple fact I believe and the bible says that non-christians cannot and will not be able to grasp and understand many biblical teachings.

  I think one big problem is trying to solve an algebra equation using the forumla for a chemical reaction, trying to play basketball with your feet, or cook egusi soup using butter instead of palm oil. We should be seperating matters of the spiritual from matters of the physical. But we fast run into a roadblock, as many non-religionists refuse to accept anything that cannot be perceived by the physical senses.

I have absolutely no qualms with this, but just remember that exactly the same reasoning will stand in defence of the Hindu who worships Cows.

Deep Sight:

I have absolutely no qualms with this, but just remember that exactly the same reasoning will stand in defence of the Hindu who worships Cows.

Lol, touché. I was just trying to point out that rationality is not necessarily or at all divorced from faith and it is not something we can necessarily put our fingers on and take a pulse.

Now, who is right and who is wrong? Is the Hindu cow the way or is it Jesus Christ and the cross? well, I concern myself little with whatever is floating out there. I know what I believe and why I believe it.

^^^ Have you ever asked yourself these questions:

   1. What if i am wrong?

   2. What if Jesus was only a human who preached positive values/

   3. What if indeed the talk about him being God or the son of God is not actually the case?

Do you realize it would mean that you have spent a lifetime dishonouring God by worshipping a human being, whereas God's express command was and remains - Worship I, the Lord God alone, and none other?

Have you reflected on the possibility that you may spend your life worshipping a fellow human being?

What if you are wrong?

Deep Sight:

Do you realize it would mean that you have spent a lifetime dishonouring God by worshipping a human being, whereas God's express command was and remains - Worship I, the Lord God alone, and none other?

Will you stop this nonsense? When did the oneness of infinity make this declaration? . . . .

Deep Sight:

^^^ Have you ever asked yourself these questions:

  1. What if i am wrong?

  2. What if Jesus was only a human who preached positive values

Honestly, more times than you would believe. Almost everyday is a constant reassessment of what the heck it is I am doing, holding to this outrageous claim of a virgin and Jesus and miraculous blood that washes away sin and almost everday is a consistent return to what I have held to as true for a long time now.

Though I will readily admit I am wrong and miss the mark on many issues in regards to my faith, I am afterall just a mere human.

And what if I am wrong? well, that's for all of us to find out someday, till then, I will hold steadfast with no regrets.

And what if you're wrong?

As for Religion and rationality here is how I feel it works. . .

There are those who take a literalistic interpretation, that denies virtually all of science and anything that contradictions the mythological claims believed on by "faith". There also are those who have a fear laden tendency to demonize others who are perceived as being antagonistic or in opposition to the in group mindset, this can include science which contradicts literal mythology. Then there is the 3rd group which are the "rational" religious moderates who are constantly redefining their various gods and reducing the meaning of god to a point where it has no impact on the natural universe or they compartmentalize it in a way to simply ignore it out of hand by trying to rationalize what they are being thought, This groups are the ones that will quickly declare things that do not make sense to them and can not be supported at all as allegory or find some other interpretation that best fits their world view or change the original meaning or message of the religious text entirely in their bid to rationalize what their religion actually says or teaches. So the answer is NO. . . Religion is NOT compatible with rationality?

mazaje:

Will you stop this nonsense? When did the oneness of infinity make this declaration? . . . .

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

@Jesoul
Your honesty in putting this point across make it hard to argue. Given this position of yours, have you considered the possibility, then, that we will be judged on our sincerity? Which questions the assumption implied in this position held by you and M Nwankwo:

Thus no man can go astray or be incabable of recognising God except he wilfully choose to do so. Only when a human spirit by his own free decision choose to block these faculties of his spirit is the recognition of God made impossible.

more of the bible in there "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened"
[quote]

[/quote]

Why must not knowing or believing in God then be a sin for someone who (1) never had a revelation (2) did not "search" because he did not see the need, and that because he honestly believed in materialism?

^^^ @ Joe: I feel that puristic materialism is the equivalent of death.

^^^ Perhaps, but I don't know for certain. I have always argued that people ought to concern themselves with these things and make a search. I argued it on the Deist Perspectives thread. However, there are people raised in China and Eastern Europe with the mindset that science is the only god there can possibly be. Such a person does not dream or have any revelations - he wouldn't know what to do with them, anyway. When you approach him to talk about a god, he sees you the way a typical Nigerian kid would respond if you come to talk about materialism. He believes his only mission on earth is to improve it. He lives and dies with this belief, feeling fulfilled. Given JeSoul's clearly stated position on this forum that people generally believe that which accords with their experiences, a situation she has no problem with, is this fellow not justified?

^^^ By puristic materialism, i did not mean only a rejection of the existence of God, but also a rejection of ALL things non-material; cardinally in this case a rejection of the existence of one's own "spirit" or "spiritual purpose."

^^^ Thanks. But I don't think this answers or invalidates my question. It seems disbelief in God and a rejection of the non-material often go together. I hope JeSoul is reading and will respond.

^^^ You do believe in Karma, how do you juxtpose it with puristic materialism.

@ deepsight. You saying Hindus worship cows is, IMO, the same as someone saying you worship numbers. That is a gross misrepresentation of the Hindu faith.

MyJoe:

@Jesoul
Your honesty in putting this point across make it hard to argue. Given this position of yours, have you considered the possibility, then, that we will be judged on our sincerity? Which questions the assumption implied in this position held by you and M Nwankwo:

 Absolutely but that must be put in context and perspective - there are those are people who willingly and willfully reject God - and even do so sincerely sometimes. They are in a different class from people who could not see or understand anything beyond what they were exposed to, and in sincerity of heart, lived as best they could. See this portion of Rom 2 "Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it. Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says."

As you alluded to, the man who lives in Amazon jungle has a vastly different understanding of the world compared to the man living in New York city. We've all had different and varying degrees of knowledge and limited exposure to truth. The beauty of the verse in Romans is that in spite of that, and for those who did not have the opportunity to learn about God, their conscience will serve as their law. I hope this does sufficient justice to the question?

  In regards to the man subscribing only to the material . . . well, I believe that to acknowledge and recognize that there is a God, this knowledge is inherent in each man, programmed if you will, and to reject and supress that knowledge of His existence take a conscious, concerted and even rebelious effort. To strip oneself of that knowledge, is to reject God and not cool.

Krayola:

@ deepsight. You saying Hindus worship cows is, IMO, the same as someone saying you worship numbers. That is a gross misrepresentation of the Hindu faith.

Hey - i was just trying to force a point. They do regard cows as absolutely sacred animals and the question was: will their faith that this is the case necessarily mean that cows are in fact special creatures to be revered.

So its not that i do not accept that hinduism is far more than that, i do.

@ Deep Sight:
There was a time when everyone in Europe believed in God and went to church. Everyone believed God created the world in six twenty-four hour days and that a snake gave a fruit to a woman which messed up the world. Then came people like Shelley, Byron, Marx, Nietzsche and the others. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Cambridge to doing atheism! Today Europe has moved further on. An atheist can become Prime Minister of almost any European country today. And the Europeans have created far better societies than any other part of the world - not even the US with all its technology and money can compete in terms of general standard of living. It is my thoughts that if things continue the way they are at the moment, in another 250 years the USA, Latin America and even Africa will catch on and only a fringe of society will do religion and God. On Karma and materialism, I am still trying to figure out these things and the facts I just stated rob me of the capability to answer your question. How does Karma with reincarnation bear on our apprehension of God? How come the most most advanced people are the "godless" ones? I don't know. I would like to hear your thoughts on it, though.  So I will only repeat the one I asked earlier: Is it not possible that we will be judged on our sincerity?

_{It is possible of course that something will happen to kick off a reversal of mankind's post-spiritual era.}

Deep Sight:

Hey - i was just trying to force a point. They do regard cows as absolutely sacred animals and the question was: will their faith that this is the case necessarily mean that cows are in fact special creatures to be revered.

So its not that i do not accept that hinduism is far more than that, i do.

It can be argued that cows have done more for humanity (Especially in India) than Jesus, Mohammed, or any religious figure has. In context, there isn't much that is unreasonable about the sacred status given to cows.

MyJoe:

How come the most most advanced people are the "godless" ones? I don't know.

Perhaps its because too many religionists handicap themselves with their supposed faith? instead of allowing it to spur them on towards greater things? It becomes their crutch and excuse for doing nothing. Instead of going out and working to better themselves, they pervert its purpose and cry to the skies all day long for a divine quik fix. We see this happening on the daily in Naija.

JeSoul:

 Absolutely but that must be put in context and perspective - there are those are people who willingly and willfully reject God - and even do so sincerely sometimes. They are in a different class from people who could not see or understand anything beyond what they were exposed to, and in sincerity of heart, lived as best they could. See this portion of Rom 2 "Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it. Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says."

As you alluded to, the man who lives in Amazon jungle has a vastly different understanding of the world compared to the man living in New York city. We've all had different and varying degrees of knowledge and limited exposure to truth. The beauty of the verse in Romans is that in spite of that, and for those who did not have the opportunity to learn about God, their conscience will serve as their law. I hope this does sufficient justice to the question?

I have no problem with this.

JeSoul:

  In regards to the man subscribing only to the material . . . well, I believe that to acknowledge and recognize that there is a God, this knowledge is inherent in each man, programmed if you will, and to reject and supress that knowledge of His existence take a conscious, concerted and even rebelious effort. To strip oneself of that knowledge, is to reject God and not cool.

This is true of just about anyone born in Nigeria. It is untrue of a many of the kids raised in China or communist-era Czechoslovakia. Here you have state propaganda promoting materialism and many homes continue from the where the state stops. Such kids take to heart the Freudian statement that believing in God is a childhood fancy which mankind will eventually grow out of. They laugh when you talk about God or demons.

Sleep well.

MyJoe:

I have no problem with this.

And I have no problem with that 

This is true of just about anyone born in Nigeria. It is untrue of a many of the kids raised in China or communist-era Czechoslovakia. Here you have state propaganda promoting materialism and many homes continue from the where the state stops. Such kids take to heart the Freudian statement that believing in God is a childhood fancy which mankind will eventually grow out of. They laugh when you talk about God or demons.

Sleep well.

Or perhaps it is true for everyone, but the society they're born into[i] indoctrinates [/i] them out of that knowledge? I have no doubt the societal/religious circumstances one is born into determines largely in which direction they will believe.
Do you personally believe that we're programmed to naturally believe in God? (not talking about religion now, just the concept of God).

THIS IS MY TAKE:


“To DOUBT is infinitely more important than ADORATION… to QUESTION is so much more important than to BELIEVE”

Everywhere people are searching for objects to ADORE, but I don’t find people awake enough in their attitudes and convictions.

How happy we would be if terrorists would adore their ideology less and question more,


Blessed are those who ask questions!!!

The notion that faith in God is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith.

- Robert Ingersoll

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing; fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.

- Bertrand Russell

toneyb:

The notion that faith in God is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith.  

- Robert Ingersoll

Thats because Ingersoll himself is being too flippant with the real truth. He also makes the false assumption that faith in God is totally devoid of "reason, observation and experience".

toneyb:

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing; fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.

- Bertrand Russell

If we look closely, the irrational virulence associated with atheism is based primarily on fear . . .

- fear that God might indeed exist

- or fear that there is way too much self-sacrifice involved with Christ.