Get this right and you could convince believers that there is no heaven or hell.

But in reality, the people that support and vote for them come from a more varied background, including people living in the southern “bible belt” of the US, mostly rural or small-scale suburban families in the midwest, black evangelicals, and the group to which the politicians and religions leaders themselves belong– wealthy, overfed, conservative households essentially out-of-touch with the struggles of the people they claim to “represent”. Now, all of these groups share basically the same political positions, and fall victim to the same illogic and bigotry (excuse the sweeping generalizations), but they DO have different overall backgrounds, and I think we tend to neglect that because they try to take on a unified front (and because the human brain has a fundamental tendency to stereotype).

Oh, and just as another note - could you please give me a thorough idea of what someone on the “religious right” really is? I’m a Brit, and throughout my life have yet to encounter an American Christian zealot. I suppose you’ve more validity and more of an…”enemy-base”?…to bounce your arguments off. Well, in any case, thanks for the reply, and for proving you will take the time to come up with a clear argument rather than just spite.

I verbally ran this hypothetical past a two people at lunch. They both agreed with me that people would treat each other with kindness and generosity in the absence of the promise of heaven or the fear of hell. Nonetheless, they both strongly reacted against my suggestion that believers could be convinced that there is no heaven or hell. That is why my story took a lengthy turn. I began to wonder whether believers could ever be convinced that there is no heaven or hell, even if God Himself delivered this message. In the current version of the story, of course, the message finally got through, though I am not convinced that it would, in reality.

Haku apparently doesn’t like that I had many of the believers of the world eventually converting to Buddhism. I chose Buddhism because many versions of Buddhism concern strategies for living in this world and downplay the possibility and the significance of any sort of afterlife. I wasn’t trying to argue that Buddhism is a “better religion” than Christianity. In fact, I am inclined to agree with Daniel Dennett who argued (in Breaking the Spell, page 10) that many forms of Buddhism wouldn’t qualify as “religions” at all due to the lack of an “agent” God.

Haku is reading much into the ending of my little story when he claims that I am claiming that the loss of heaven and hell would lead to a “happy world of peace and friendship.” Gee, I don’t recall promising any sort of utopia. I don’t believe that at all. I think there would be a rough period of adjustment, followed by a general improvement in human behavior. This improvement would be caused by the gradual realization that we are all in this boat together and that we need to act decently with regard to each other for many reasons that we would better appreciate in the absence of constant chattering about heaven and hell. I believe this realization would bring home to many people a deeper and more meaningful sense of personal responsibility. Would everybody fall in line? Hell no, but not because of the absence of a hell.

I’d also like to address Haku’s claim that there would be large numbers of people that would start raping and pillaging without fear of retribution (if there were no heaven or hell). I agree that some people are held in check by the fear of hell. I don’t believe it would be a large number, because I agree with Daniel Dennett that most people who claim to believe in God don’t really believe in God. They actually believe in belief in God. In America, for instance, they go around claiming that the Bible is the most important book in the world, but they rarely read it and they rarely think of the Bible outside of organized religious activities. The prisons are filled with people who claim to believe in God yet (in my opinion) don’t, as witnessed by their behavior.  In my opinion, it is not possible to tell the difference between believers and non-believers based on external life-style on a typical day.  In my opinion, almost all believers are actually people who live an “atheist” lifestyle all-the-while asserting that God exists and that the Bible is important. In America, most Believers are rampant consumers of material goods, just like most atheists.  They marry, divorce, waste time and engage in what might be argued to be aberrant behaviour to the same degree as non-believers. 

Most law-abiding people rarely read the Bible. They spend far more time watching professional sports and vegging out in front of the television. To me, this is a very telling phenomenon. If I really believed that the Bible was authored by God Himself, I would read it day and night. My conclusion is that people like to appear religious but they don’t really believe the things they espouse. On the other hand, I am not denying the great power of religion. What I do deny is that people are morally motivated by the promulgated “truths” of their religions. Instead, I believe that people are morally motivated by the social pressures of their community.

Why else might I suggest that people don’t need a heaven and hell in order to act decently? Billions of people on this planet do not strive to get to heaven or avoid hell. I have met many people from China, for instance, who claim no religious beliefs, yet they are among the most moral people I know. They are highly dedicated to their families and communities. How can this be? For me, the answer is easy. True morality does not require any form of religious worship.

On at least a dozen occasions this year, I have spoken with religiously conservative people who express great surprise that I do not believe in heaven or hell. Their responses are virtually identical. They ask how can I possibly have any moral meaning in my life unless I am frightened of hell or trying to get to heaven? When they learned that I don’t believe in a traditional God, they wonder out loud how I restrain myself from setting random fires or neglecting my children. They believe that an invisible hand causes people to behave well. Their conception is actually an invisible spanking hand of God. How sad, I often think, that people are being good to each other based upon their own personal reward or the fear of their own personal punishment. In fact, I don’t consider behavior so motivated to be moral at all. It is merely prudent or Machiavellian.

I believe that most people act decently most of the time because it is deeply in our bones to do so. We are human animals that show a high degree of cooperation and generosity, at least to our perceived in-groups. By the way, all of us (including those of us who are highly religious) excel at treating those not part of our in-group like dirt. We find it very easy to spend $50 on a vanity license plate when that same amount of money could have saved the lives of several starving children.

There is an immense amount of cooperation and altruism among all social mammals. Franz De Waal has documented this in great detail with regard to the nonhuman apes. It is also apparent in many other mammal species, including dogs and bears, none of which go to church.

Again, I admit that there are probably some people out there who are inclined to rape and pillage but are held back by the fear of hell. This is not an impressive form of morality. I consider this mindset to be “training wheel morality.” In my mind, good people do good things in spite of religious dogma, not because of it.

With regard to Haku’s mention of the “social contract,” I wouldn’t think that it would be a good idea to use any form of contract to keep “potential idiots” in check. At law, one cannot be a party to a contract unless one is mentally competent.

Life is.

Purpose is self-designated and may not be the same tomorrow as it is today.

Life is never meaningless to the individual as long as he/she can say “I have something interesting to do tomorrow.” Meaning on a mass scale is irrelevent in this formulation, because even when an individual draws a sense of purpose from the masses, it is still an individual choice and an individual that finds fulfillment.

But this is ultimately an aspect of the Strong Anthropic Principle. People have purposes, ergo the universe MUST have a purpose, otherwise…

Otherwise our importance is not what we wish it to be.

Haku’s comment, that “There’d doubtlessly be a large amount of people who’d start raping and pillaging without fear of retribution; sometimes, you need the idea of an angry God to keep potential idiots in check.” is contradicted by a couple of things. The first is the fact that human history has exhibited many peaceful, atheistic societies. Indeed, Buddhism — which posits no supreme being — is one such example. The second is that removing God from the scene obviously does not produce a society “without fear of retribution.” Retribution abounds in our world. Indeed, without the hope of a heavenly afterlife, potential criminals might think much more seriously about whether or not they wish to spend their one-and-only life sitting in prison. And even if they did, the question remains whether an earth without religiously-motivated crime would be any more violent than the one we now occupy. Given the slaughter that humans have perpetrated in the name of their God, the answer to that question is by no means obvious.

Creationist philosophy tends to believe that our purpose is designated to us by our creator. And, if there is absolutely no existence of life after biological death, and it is known that we inevitably die (temporarily discarding the possibilities of transhumanism), then why would we choose to continue to live?

Is the preservation of meaningless life a worthy cause for another meaningless life?

Hmm…I see…so in one moment you claim to be debunking religion, and suddenly you reveal that you’re only really attacking Christianity. After all, Buddhism IS a religion, with an amount of myths and rules just like any religion. And why is it only the Christians that converted? You seem to have oddly (albeit briefly) overlooked the existence of Judaism and Islam - either that, or you just wanted a throwaway comment in which it would be possible to state “Buddhism is BETTER than Christianity”; essentially, the very same religious competition which this piece is against.

“When it fully sank in that our earthly lives were our only lives, more people turned to the future the only way they now could.”

Right. Everyone lived in a happy world of peace and friendship, thanks to the fact that religion had been debunked entirely. Hmmm…just *how* believable is this sort of statement? I agree that religion has caused tons of problems - not to mention wars, ethnic genocide and social ignorance - but you almost TOO-optimistically believe that if people thought this was their only life, they’d suddenly start being NICE to one another. There’d doubtlessly be a large amount of people who’d start raping and pillaging without fear of retribution; sometimes, you need the idea of an angry God to keep potential idiots in check. Ever heard of the concept of a “Social Contract”?