Criticism of the Bible and religion Wikipedia pages

Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.


Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).


Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[34]
Dever also wrote:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[35] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[36]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ 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.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible









Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.


Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).


Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[34]
Dever also wrote:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[35] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[36]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ 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.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible















Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes back at least to the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is Lucretius' De Rerum Natura from the 1st century BCE. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] 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;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
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."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 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."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, 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.[27]
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).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
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[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used 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.[31]
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.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



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.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
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?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
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.[42][43][44] 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.[45] 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 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."[46] 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.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "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."[48]
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."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "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." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
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.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
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.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] 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.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] 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".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
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.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] 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.[77] 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,"[78] 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.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] 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.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was 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.[84] 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."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] 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.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), 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
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.[94][95]
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.[94] 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 own."[96]
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.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] 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."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "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."[108] 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."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



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 cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the 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.[110] 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.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] 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.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] 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[citation needed] 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.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[136][137][138]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[139][140][141][142][143][144] 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".[139] [140][141][145][146][147][148][149] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[148] 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%).[148] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[150][151][152][153][153][154][155] In similar surveys, those who attended church 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."[156]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
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.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[157]
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, 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."[158]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[159] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[160] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[161][162]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[161] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[163] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[164]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[165] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[166][167] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[163][168] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[169]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[170] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[171] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[172]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[173] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[174]
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.[175]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[176]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[177] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[178]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[179] 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.[180] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[181] 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.[182] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[183] 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.[184]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[185] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][186] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[187]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[188]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[189] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[190] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[191] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[192]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[193]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[194] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[195] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[196]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[197] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[198] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[199]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[200] or activists.[201]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[202] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[203] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[202] 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.[204] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[202] 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."[205]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[205] 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.[206] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[207]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[208] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[209]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[210]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[211]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
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.[212] 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.[123][213][214] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[215][216][217] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[215]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[218][219] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[220][221] 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.[222] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[223][224][225] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[226][227][228] Marion Maddox,[229] James Rudin,[230] Sam Harris,[231] and the group TheocracyWatch[232] 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.[233][page needed][234][235] 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."[236] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[237] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[238] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[239] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[240] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[239]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Lawrence Krauss
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ 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.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ 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.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ 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.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ 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. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ 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.
57.^ Jump up to: 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.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ 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.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ 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.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ 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.
84.Jump up ^ 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.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; 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.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "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."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: 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.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: 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.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. 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.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "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."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ 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.
111.Jump up ^ 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"
112.Jump up ^ 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"
113.Jump up ^ 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."
114.^ Jump up to: 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"
115.Jump up ^ 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."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ 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.
118.Jump up ^ 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.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ 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.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: 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
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.Jump up ^ 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.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "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."
137.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
138.Jump up ^ 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
139.^ Jump up to: 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.
140.^ Jump up to: 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.
141.^ Jump up to: 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.
142.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
143.Jump up ^ 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
144.Jump up ^ 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. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
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. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
145.Jump up ^ 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.
146.Jump up ^ 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.
147.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
148.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. 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."
149.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. 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."
150.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
151.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
152.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
153.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
155.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
156.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
157.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "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."
158.Jump up ^ "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)
159.Jump up ^ "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
160.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
161.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
162.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
163.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
164.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
165.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
166.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
167.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
168.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
169.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
170.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
171.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
172.Jump up ^ 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.
173.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
174.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
175.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
176.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
177.Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
178.Jump up ^ "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".
179.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
180.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
181.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
182.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
183.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
184.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
185.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
186.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
187.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
188.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
190.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
191.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
192.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
193.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
195.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
196.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
197.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
200.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
201.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
202.^ Jump up to: 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.
203.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
204.Jump up ^ 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.
205.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
206.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
207.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
208.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
210.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
211.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
212.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
213.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
214.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
215.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
216.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
217.Jump up ^ 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.
218.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
219.Jump up ^ 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.
220.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
221.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
222.Jump up ^ 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.
223.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
224.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
225.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
226.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
227.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
228.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
229.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
230.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
231.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
232.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
234.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
235.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
236.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
237.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
238.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
239.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
240.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 15:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion










Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes back at least to the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is Lucretius' De Rerum Natura from the 1st century BCE. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] 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;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
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."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 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."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, 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.[27]
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).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
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[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used 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.[31]
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.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



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.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
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?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
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.[42][43][44] 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.[45] 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 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."[46] 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.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "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."[48]
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."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "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." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
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.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
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.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] 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.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] 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".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
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.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] 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.[77] 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,"[78] 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.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] 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.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was 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.[84] 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."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] 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.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), 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
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.[94][95]
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.[94] 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 own."[96]
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.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] 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."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "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."[108] 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."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



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 cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the 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.[110] 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.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] 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.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] 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[citation needed] 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.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[136][137][138]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[139][140][141][142][143][144] 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".[139] [140][141][145][146][147][148][149] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[148] 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%).[148] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[150][151][152][153][153][154][155] In similar surveys, those who attended church 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."[156]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
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.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[157]
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, 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."[158]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[159] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[160] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[161][162]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[161] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[163] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[164]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[165] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[166][167] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[163][168] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[169]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[170] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[171] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[172]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[173] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[174]
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.[175]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[176]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[177] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[178]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[179] 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.[180] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[181] 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.[182] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[183] 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.[184]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[185] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][186] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[187]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[188]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[189] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[190] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[191] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[192]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[193]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[194] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[195] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[196]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[197] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[198] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[199]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[200] or activists.[201]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[202] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[203] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[202] 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.[204] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[202] 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."[205]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[205] 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.[206] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[207]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[208] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[209]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[210]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[211]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
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.[212] 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.[123][213][214] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[215][216][217] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[215]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[218][219] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[220][221] 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.[222] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[223][224][225] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[226][227][228] Marion Maddox,[229] James Rudin,[230] Sam Harris,[231] and the group TheocracyWatch[232] 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.[233][page needed][234][235] 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."[236] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[237] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[238] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[239] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[240] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[239]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Lawrence Krauss
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ 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.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ 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.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ 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.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ 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. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ 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.
57.^ Jump up to: 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.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ 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.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ 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.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ 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.
84.Jump up ^ 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.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; 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.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "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."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: 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.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: 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.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. 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.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "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."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ 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.
111.Jump up ^ 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"
112.Jump up ^ 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"
113.Jump up ^ 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."
114.^ Jump up to: 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"
115.Jump up ^ 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."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ 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.
118.Jump up ^ 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.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ 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.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: 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
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.Jump up ^ 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.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "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."
137.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
138.Jump up ^ 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
139.^ Jump up to: 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.
140.^ Jump up to: 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.
141.^ Jump up to: 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.
142.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
143.Jump up ^ 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
144.Jump up ^ 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. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
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. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
145.Jump up ^ 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.
146.Jump up ^ 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.
147.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
148.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. 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."
149.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. 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."
150.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
151.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
152.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
153.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
155.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
156.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
157.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "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."
158.Jump up ^ "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)
159.Jump up ^ "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
160.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
161.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
162.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
163.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
164.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
165.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
166.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
167.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
168.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
169.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
170.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
171.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
172.Jump up ^ 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.
173.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
174.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
175.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
176.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
177.Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
178.Jump up ^ "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".
179.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
180.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
181.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
182.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
183.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
184.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
185.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
186.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
187.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
188.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
190.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
191.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
192.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
193.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
195.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
196.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
197.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
200.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
201.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
202.^ Jump up to: 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.
203.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
204.Jump up ^ 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.
205.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
206.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
207.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
208.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
210.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
211.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
212.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
213.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
214.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
215.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
216.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
217.Jump up ^ 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.
218.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
219.Jump up ^ 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.
220.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
221.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
222.Jump up ^ 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.
223.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
224.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
225.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
226.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
227.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
228.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
229.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
230.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
231.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
232.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
234.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
235.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
236.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
237.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
238.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
239.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
240.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 15:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion