It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

A lot can be said about the tragedy at Fort Hood that transpired this past week. A spree killing of such magnitude is always a horrifying ordeal, but this incident has taken on a whole new meaning because of the nature of the affair. It didn't happen in a school or some other public place. It took place in Fort Hood, a military base that housed the men and women of the armed forces. The victims were soldiers, a group of people who have long been venerated in American society. The shooter was also a soldier, but he also happened to be a Muslim and it is this affiliation that has captured everybody's attention.

Spree killings are always a spectacle, especially when there is a tragic element to it. But the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech never had a religious component to their violent acts. They were just disturbed, angry young men who gave into their violent impulses. The shooter in this case, Major Nidal Hasan, fit this profile in many ways. According to the Washington Post, Hasan was a loner like many spree killers tend to be. He had frew friends and odd, off-putting work habits. It is a trait shared by both Columbine and Virginia Tech, loners who show signs of withdrawl and depression. Yet this is not what everybody is latching onto. It's his faith that is getting all the press.

The Post also documented that Hasan was a devout Muslim. He was the son of a Palestinian immigrant and was very disciplined when it came to his faith. He prayed every day and gave generously to those in need. He also wore traditional Muslim attire and gave copies of the Quran to his neighbors. He was also reported to speak highly of suicide bombers, saying their acts were noble for their cause. This has led some to suspect that he was influenced by terrorist literature and used his faith to justify his terrible actions. Some have gone so far as to say he is an agent of Islamic terrorists groups. It would make sense given how he was reportedly harassed by others in the armed forces for his faith.

But all these assertions have one big fallacy. It's called correlation and causality. It is a fallacy the media and many pundits are guilty of in these cases. They look for a cause and whatever seems most logical or appealing to them is immediately labled as connected. Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. So do racist groups like the KKK and ironically enough the same terrorists Hasan was said to be a part of. But what is logical isn't always what is true.

The question remains. Did Hasan commit these violent acts because of or in spite of his religion? Saying his religion played a part in his acts presents the same problems with other spree killers. It was said that the Columbine killers were influenced by violent music and video games. It was said the Virginia Tech killer was influenced by violent literature. It's hard for anyone to believe in coincidences, but they do happen. The problem remains that there is no evidence that any of these things were linked to the person's actions. Studies done into the psychology of spree killers have found only two major similarities. They're all male and they're all depressed loners. Everything else, including their religion, was secondary and negligable.

Could there have been a religious component? Does this mean Islam is a violent religion? That's still debatable. In a strictly objective sense, Islam is about as violent as Christianity and Judism. They all have vengeful gods that justify horrific acts against non-believers. It could be argued that any violent act could be justified with religion. All someone has to say is "God told me to do it" and that's it. It doesn't matter which god it is or what religion it is, the logic is still the same and it is still flawed.

There's no question that these spree killings are horrific acts, but blaming outside forces does not offer any significant answers. People are inevitably responsible for their own actions. Whatever was influencing Hasan, he made the decision to kill those people. He is responsible for what he did, not his religion or his hobbies. There are millions of devout Muslims in this country and one person going on a rampage is not evidence of a trend. The exception does not nor will it ever prove the rule.

Fort Hood Suspect A Devout Muslim, Loner

Is it harder to believe or not to believe? The intuitive response is to assume that belief is more difficult. It seems logical on the surface. To believe in something in the absence of evidence is a great challenge. It’s easy to assume how hard someone would have to push themselves to accept it. It’s one of the reasons people of strong convictions are so admired on most societies. It seems as though they’re stronger in their ability to accept a premise that some may deem impossible.

But is that really the case? Is believing in something really as hard as people make it out to be? Most modern psychological studies are remarkably consistent. Belief is much easier than non-belief. To blindly accept something, whether it involves religion or politics or government, is far more preferable than to question or to reason.

It starts at a young age. It has been will documented that children in their infancy are highly impressionable. It is their tendency to adopt and accept the wishes of elders and authority figures. In a strictly survival context, it makes sense. If children always questioned authority figures, it would be distracting and dangerous for both the parents the child. By having the child blindly believe, it helps humans be more social and coordinated. That leads to advantageous survival functions that evolution has favored since the days of hunter gatherers.

It isn’t just children’s impressionability that makes belief easier. Even as rational adults, people are subject to peer pressure. A classic example is the Asch Conformity Experiment where three test subjects, one of which was a random volunteer, were asked to decide which line out of three was longer. Two controls voted on one that was obviously shorter, thus pressuring the volunteer to make a decision. Should they conform to what they know is wrong or act on their own? Most would assume a rational person would do what was right, but that was not the case. Nearly 75 percent of participants went with the group, doing what was clearly wrong for the sake of conformity.

The Psychology of Conformity

Religion and government hijack these two deeply held traits. For religion, belief in a supernatural deity is easy. Nobody has to know anything about anything to believe. They don’t have to have any special knowledge or special skills. They don’t have to do anything other than blindly believe and in return they get acceptance from other believers and hope that they will be rewarded when they die, even though there’s no evidence that they do. It’s a cheap, easy way to feel good about one’s self and it is often abused, fostering irrational superstition, bigotry, corruption, greed, and sometimes murder. The hijackers of 9/11 truly believed that their invisible god that they never saw or experienced was real and that this god would grant them 72 virgins in the afterlife for murdering innocent people. It’s an appealing belief and one that is much easier to accept than question when it is preached with the fiery rhetoric of dogmatic clerics.

Psychology of Religious Belief

Every religion is guilty of abusing humanity’s susceptibility to belief. Government is just as bad as religion. They play off that same childhood tendency to believe in one’s parents and authority figures even when what they’re doing is obviously wrong. It came full circle in the build-up to the Iraq war. Everybody was drunk with patriotism, blindly believing in the government’s assertion that Iraq posed a danger. Anybody that questioned this was deemed unpatriotic and cast aside, a clear show of the power of peer pressure.

In every state, democratic and authoritarian, leaders use their status against people. From the communist states of China and Russia to the ancient powers of Rome and Egypt, authority figures have used and abused the capacity to believe. Free societies are supposed to open these figures to questioning, but it is rare that people do so because it is so much easier and so much more convenient to just believe.

Disbelief, it turns out, is much harder. It creates a lot of discomfort in people because rejecting something is often looked down upon. Rejecting the government or rejecting religion just doesn’t seem as noble to people. Some dare to call it heretical. It’s also hard to reject the appeal of some beliefs. For many, it is very nice to believe that there is a just and loving god who will reward those that die after living a righteous life. But no matter how much someone believes in something, that doesn’t make it true. There’s no proof that there’s anything after death. There’s no proof that there’s a god of any kind or that supernatural forces exist. Not believing in them is hard because it means rejecting some mystery from the world.

In many ways, it is those that believe the strongest that are the most dangerous. The religious fanatics and authoritarian bureaucrats are so convinced they will not even consider questioning themselves. It takes a great deal of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. To not question is not only irrational, it is cowardice. From the priests to the kings, they may have the power of influence. But at their very core, they are cowards of the highest degree.

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

Everybody has their beliefs about the ongoing debates regarding health care, the wars in the Middle East, and the job Barack Obama is doing as president. People cling strongly to these beliefs, arguing them passionately in town hall meetings. Some of their beliefs are rational and valid. Others are not. There are people who believe ardently that President Obama is a socialist seeking to make America a completely socialist country. There are people who believe just as ardently that he is not a natural born citizen and his election to the White House is henceforth not legitimate. These people, the Birthers, believe the same way the Truthers believe that the September 11th attacks were ochastrated by the government. Creationists follow the same logic, believing ardently that their beliefs about the creation of the world is valid and that evolution is some vast conspiracy orchastrated by anti-Christian forces. They all believe in their heart of hearts that they are right and what they believe is true. But they're all wrong in one critical assumption. They believe that their belief alone is proof enough, even when there are countless facts that disprove them. Thus they cling to their belief, ignoring sound rational arguments to the contrary.

But why do they believe? There are plenty of ways to verify their claims. Many like creationism and the 9/11 conspiracy theories have indeed been disproven. Why won't they listen to rational arguments? The answer lies in the very nature of belief itself. Human beings are innately programmed to believe certain things without proof. It's part of our evolutionary heritiage. Richard Dawkins wrote extensively about it in his book "The God Delusion." Human beings have the capacity for reason, but they cannot employ that facet in every situation. If they are told "don't approach a hungry crocadile" it would take considerable time and energy to prove that rationally. It's much easier for someone to be told by parents or authority figures and have them believe it without proof. It saves energy, it saves time, and it enhances survival. Therefore, it is a trait that evolution has favored.

But like so many other evolutionary traits, there are drawbacks. This feature that allows human beings to believe without proof is also what breeds irrational thinking such as stereotypes, racism, and religious dogma. It is further encouraged when the capacity for human beings to know is limited. For much of human history, people didn't know what the stars were, how life began, or why things happened the way they did. That need to know is another vital survival skill because without in depth knowledge of their surroundings, people falter and become vulnerable. Beliefs, whether they are about conspiracy theories or religion, are convenient explanations. They save people the time and energy from actually investigating themselves. It's vital since not everybody has the resources to investigate. Not everyone can go down to Ground Zero and analyze the wreckage to verify the claims of the 9/11 Truthers. Not everyone can go to Hawaii either and verify Barack Obama's birth certificate. Belief is the only option and it is very convenient and often makes people feel better because it makes them feel like they know something.

It is how religion and superstition propogate. It is how conspiracy theories keep going even when they've been debunked. People cling to belief because it's easier. It's convenient. And it makes them feel good. It also saves them from the anxious feelings they get when they say to themselves "I don't know." It is a part of human nature and one that can only be countered with solid reason. Society has changed so much since the days of the Stone Age, yet people still cling to mythology from the Bronze Age and mythology of the modern era. They may believe they are right and thus vindicated, but the hard truth is that reality is never as ideal as people want it to be. The world isn't fair and it isn't always as magical as people would like it to be. Belief is fine, but pushing belief as truth is not. In a free society, claims can only stand on the merits that support them. And belief, while convenient and comforting, is not enough.

It's remarkable how often religious zealots play the victim. And who could blame them? It's easy to play the victim. It saves people the trouble of actually having to defend their position with rational arguments. Whenever some other group comes along, secular or religious, and says something they don't like, they rush to classify it as an issue of religious bigotry. As if any opposing viewpoint or differing opinion is somehow an insult to their way of thinking. It isn't just irrational. It's downright childish.

But that doesn't stop men like Ken Conner from writing articles that accuse scientists of all people of religious bigotry.

Science Theists Need Not Apply

The cores of Conner's article centers around Dr. Francis Collins, who President Obama picked to head the National Institutes of Health. Collins is a controversial figure because he's not just a scientist, he's a devout evangelical Christian who often tries to integrate his work as a scientist with his beliefs as a Christian. He's written various books such as "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." He was also featured in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which presented a dubious case that the scientific community was anti-god and anti-Christian.

This notion is not only completely false, it's rediculous. Collins isn't criticized for his religious beliefs. Nor is he criticized for his work. He is a target because he is violating one of the most important aspects of science. He is trying to thrust the supernatural world of god, satan, angels, and miracles into the strictly rational process that is science. It is a major fallacy that any rational minded scientist is quick to point out. It's called 'violation of the philosophy of science.' It is a tenant as old as science itself. One cannot appeal to the supernatural or the spiritual when making a scientific claim. That is because science is inherently rational. It requires evidence, testable hyopothesis, and logic to prove points. To put any kind of god into the mix be it the Christian god or the Aztec god is to negate the very tenants of what makes science work.

Conner doesn't understand this and neither does Collins. They rely on emotional appeals that pain the scientists as cold, uncaring, and prejudice. They will gladly point out that some of the greatest minds of all time like Plato, Aristotle, and Newton were all devout believers. This is true, but never at any point did these men use the supernatural in their work. They never appealed to god or spirits of any kind to present justification for their claims. In science, one's personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. It does not matter of a scientist is a devout believer in god or is a worshipper of the sun. What matters is the claims they make and the evidence they use to back it up. It is the evidence that trumps personal beliefs. It doesn't matter where it came from or who it came from. If it can be verified and vindicated, it is worth just as much as any work from a devout believer.

Conner will also argue without god, science lacks ethics. But this is a completely false assumption. It assumes people need god to make good moral decisions. This is a complete misnomer considering people have had god for years and used it to justify violence, prejudice, racisim, slavery, murder, and genocide. Conner and Collins try and make it seem as though without religion, science is somehow evil. But science is not evil. It can't be evil. Only people can be evil. Science by it's own definition is objective and unbias. It is the human beings who use it.

When it comes to the debate between religion and science, the issue is clear. Science is inherently rational and based on evidence, logic, and reason. Religion is inherently irrational and based on faith, superstition, and the supernatural. One cannot be used in the context of the other without destroying the premise of the other. Men like Conner and Collins are destroying their credibility by trying to have their cake and eat it to. There's nothing bioted, prejudice, or bias about it. It's irrational, illogical, and flat out wrong. Plain and simple.

Does religion make people good or bad? It seems to be a question that has become far more pertinent in the age of global terrorism. Some argue certain religions make people more malevolent than others. A quick Google search on Islam will yield many websites arguing that it is a religion of violence. Other sites will say the same about Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, or pretty much any 'ism' for that matter. But little of this propaganda has any substance behind it. To answer the question as to whether religion makes someone good or bad, it's important to understand the factors.

First off, what determines how religious or non-religious someone is? Believers of many different faiths will give all sorts of answers. Some may say it is a tradition in their family. Some may say they had a genuine religious experience that drew them to a certain faith. Some may say their faith helps make them a better person. These are all interesting components to the argument, but it isn't evidence one way or another because it's purely anecdotal. To get a better idea of what determines one's religion, it's important to get a broader picture. As it turns out, evidence indicates that there's no godly forces driving people to particular religions. It's culture mostly that determines what religion someone follows.

Religious Affiliation and Cultural Inheritance: Study of Twins

In these studies, the environment one comes up in determines a great deal what they believe. So if someone is born into a Christian community in Texas, chances are they'll be a Christian. If someone is born in a strong Muslim community in the Middle East, chances are they'll be a Muslim. If they're born into a community that is strongly Jewish, chances are they'll be Jewish. There's nothing spiritually radical about it. It's simple social dynamics.

So if religion is mostly determined by environment or culture, what does that mean for a person's morality? The next point to consider in this question involves just how religious someone is. Regardless of what religion they're brought up in, how seriously they take it is important to consider when making a reasonable discussion. If religion is supposed to make someone more moral, than those who attend church services or religious rituals should have a strong correlation with crime. But research does not support this. According to empirical research, attending religious services has no effect on deviance.

Does Religion Effect Criminality?

Again, community and culture played a large part. In communites like Mormon or tight nit religious communities in smaller more isolated areas, low levels of deviance were associated with strong social pressures and peer groups that dissuaded such activities. This is further supported by the religious affiliation of the prison population. If one religion led to more deviance than others, then it should reflect in theose in jail. But it doesn't. According to the Justice Department, the religious affiliation of inmates has no particular leanings towards one faith or another.

Prison Incarceration and Religious Affiliation

So if religion doesn't have an effect on one's morality, what does? Is there any research indicating one factor over another? As it turns out, crime rates do have a negative correlation with something: education. Various studies into crime rates have shown that the more educated a population is, the less crime there is. In America, this is well documented:

Education and Public Safety

Education as Crime Prevention

So with this knowledge in mind, what is more reasonable to promote? Religion or education? Religion, it seems, does not offer a correlative effect between how deviant a person is. Education does offer a correlative effect. So logically, education wins out. This is not to say religion has no benefits. But those promoted social demigods has no merit. It offers a much more reasonable explanation when one considers why countries in Western Europe and Japan have such a low rate of deviance. Their education level is far greater compared to that of America, which has a very inefficient government-run heavily unionized system that does not provide adaquet resources for students.

There was one other effect education had that may explain why some don't want to promote it over religion. It turns out that as one becomes more educated, they become less religious.

Education and Religion

So regardless of what one thinks about the merits of religion, it does not seem to make someone more moral and less deviant. There are other factors to consider such as socio-economic status, which often goes along with the environmental aspect that often determines religious leanings. But the research is clear. Good education makes for good people. Religion can be part of the process, but it does not pull the same weight.

It has often been said that it is impossible for a society to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a free secular state to actively avoid religious discourse in public places. This seems contrary to the notion of free speech, another pillar of the free society that the free secular state is responsible for protecting. So at which point does one intersect with the other? Where do the lines form?

The answer is simple. There are no lines.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. The freedom to express one's religion in any way they see fit is no different than the freedom of one's right to speak out. The same rights and responsibilities apply. So long as it is peaceful, not obstructing the life, liberty, and property of another individual, it is entirely protected by the free society. But some do not make this distinction. Some consider religious expression to be it's own category of expression and thus the state needs special powers to police it. This has led to an erosion of the ideals of freedom espoused by the founding fathers.

Take for instances the famous court cases McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71 that banned religious instruction in public schools or the Engel v. Vitale case that banned prayer in public schools. These cases all used the same reasoning to ban religious displays. It violated the establishment clause of the constitution which states that the government cannot support any one religion over the other no matter how dominant it may be. It's a good principle for a secular state, but in these cases it was pushed beyond the limits into the realm of censorship. There's no way around it. By banning discussion of religion in schools, that is censorship. It may offend atheists at times, but in this country there is no right not to be offended.

Take a step back from these cases and approach them reasonably. Was the government acting through force? Did beauracrats on local, state, or federal levels impose the teaching of religion or prayer in the schools directly? Or was it something that was decided by the school itself or the local parents? If it is the case that the government is directly forcing schools to teach or condone specific religious themes over another, then that is unconstitutional. But in many of these cases, it was the schools themselves and the communities that wanted these religious themes in their schools. And why shouldn't they be allowed? So long as nobody is forcing them and it is done peacefully, what right do the courts have to force them to stop? In the strictest constitutional sense, they don't.

So what about the atheists or the non-believers like myself that go to these schools? Well so long as the schools do not force prayer and teaching on the students, there should not be a problem. If school officials were doing this to atheists as a form of harassment, that would be a violation of rights and the courts do have a right to punish those who do this. But to make a vast, broad judgment that bans these practices across the board is an abuse of power and an affront to the free society.

But it isn't just non-believers who abuse these privlidges. Religous groups are just as guilty. The best case has to do with creationism. Take cases like Edwards v. Aguillard that overruled a law in Louisiana forcing schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The key aspect of the law was force. Schools had to push creationism by law. And not just any creationism like that of Native American or Hindu stories. They had to push the strict interpretation of Genesis in a science classroom. This was a clear case of the government using force to favor one religous group over another. As such, it is unconstitutional because it abuses the powers of the state. It was later verified again in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2003 that banned the teaching of intelligent design for the same reasons.

Now how is this not censorship? It's simple when one takes context into account. Creationism was being pushed in science classes as an alternative viewpoint of the truth. But in a free society, certain ideas cannot be propped up by the government just because certain groups really believe in them. Creationism and Intelligent Design failed in the marketplace of idea. They were proven to be false by science and as such, they were dropped from science classrooms. But certain religous groups didn't like that. So to make up for the fact that their dogma was not verified by science, they got the government to force it upon the people. That use of force is a clear violation of liberty, religous and non-religious alike. Now if creation stories were taught in a religious class or in literature, that's a different story because that's a different context. So long as the state doesn't force this upon students as truth, then it is perfectly fine in a school.

The Founding Fathers were for freedom and religous liberty equally. The idea of a free society harkoning back to the enlightenment was that free expression and the free exchange of ideas allows ideas and beliefs to stand on their own merits. So if certain ideas like creationism do not stand enough on their merits, they are rejected. As such, the government cannot prop certain ideas up over others. When it comes to religious, the key is for the state to stay out of the affairs of the chruch and allow religious groups to thrive on their own merits. If one is more dominant than others, let them be dominent so long as they can persuade their people that they are a good group to be a part of. And if they wish to leave that group, let them. So long as force is not involved, the freedom to practice any religious or no religion at all is warrented in a free society.

As an atheist, most assume I am for eliminating religion from society. I'm not. I am an ardent believer in allowing people to follow their own spiritual path. If some wish to be Christians, that's okay. If some wish to be Muslim, that's okay too. If some wish to worship Satan, that's just as valid. So long as none of these groups harass me or force me to take part in their customs, I'm okay with it. The free society comes before my own spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. I am and always have been for a free society where the state does not interfere with the church and people and communities are allowed to follow their own path.

It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

In wake of the recent controversy over Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, a lot has been said about religious issues concerning the abortion debate, the state of Christianity, and religion in general. It's hard to imagine how the speech would have been controversial if religion wasn't a factor. The staunch pro-life position of Notre Dame is strongly tied to the Roman Catholic faith. It would be difficult to contemplate such a strong position without the dogma of religion behind it.

Religion is capable of bringing out good in humanity, but it also does more to divide people than almost any other force. Terrorism, prejudice, and bigotry have often had religious motivations. While religion may not be the cause, it certainly doesn't help. Religon is, regardless of what many zealots say, a product of man. And as such, it is prone to man's flaws. Common ground is hard to come by in that context. Understanding it even harder.

Recently, I came across an essay written by a man named Tom Hart. I feel it does a great job of describing the issue of religion being subject to the whims of man. It also leaves room for hope.

Do not blame God for man's mistakes". These simple words add up to one of the most profound statements I've ever read. It was scrawled on a bathroom wall of the university I attended. For some reason this statement has stayed in the back my mind for many years. Gradually, over time, it has led me to ask questions and I have spent years attempting to find the answers. What ARE man's mistakes that we blame God for? You can decide for yourself and follow your own path to see what it means to you, but it has lead me to seek answers about my religious beliefs. I have come to the conclusion that organized religion may very well be the biggest mistake that God is being blamed for. I will present arguments in an attempt to show you why I feel this way.

God did not create even one of the many religions we have, men did. Each founder of a particular religion looked within themselves and saw God, and interpreted what they saw as a revelation of how to live and worship him. They were then able to convince others into believing that THEY alone had God's undivided attention and that everyone should believe as they do; BUT just because someone says, "God told me how to worship him", doesn't make it so. Each person who claims to have been given "the word" from God, interpreted their revelations according to their own subjective beliefs. For all we know each may have been given the exact same message, but interpreted it differently OR no message at all. Therefore, it doesn't make these so-called prophets right, or divinely inspired, it just makes them great salesmen. Each religion has had a great salesman.

God may be the biggest jokester of all time. He has allowed man to create a multitude of ways to worship him. He has allowed us to form and then change religions as we see fit, never interfering with what or how it is being taught. Most religions claim to be inspired by the same God. Many religions say, "my religion is the only TRUE religion" and the more fanatical religions say, "God will punish you if you don't believe in what I believe in". I do not see how anyone who knows there is a God could truly believe that he would damn the majority of the population of this world to purgatory automatically. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe that there is only one true religion. If so, then most of us are going straight to Hell.

It is my opinion that Our God is tolerant of all religions. He doesn't care that humans have devised so many ways to worship him. He is tolerant of our foolishness and the disparate ways we've created to worship him. We are human after all and as most religions agree upon, flawed. What he does care about are those things that unite all religions. It is sad that we don't put more emphasis on these things and not the differences.

Most people desperately want to believe in something, even if that something is to believe in nothing. As a species we constantly try to find something, anything that will explain human existence, why we are here, and our place in it; but it must be tangible for us to accept it. We are social beings and must be able to see it, touch it, and be a part of it in order to believe in it. Organized religion fills that need. Just believing in, and talking to, God does not. It's lonely when it?s just you and God. He doesn't say a lot and requires you to do all the talking. He exists only as a metaphysical being. God requires absolute belief in him without ever giving you a chance to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. That's hard to sustain for any one person without the support and fellowship of others. Thus, we organize ourselves into groups of like-minded individuals, who have basically the same beliefs, and call it a religion.

The majority of people never actually chose their own religion. It was chosen for them by the simple act of being born. I have no doubt that:

	If I was born in a Israel I would probably be Jewish, OR
	If I was born in Utah I would probably be a Mormon, OR
	If I was born in the Middle East I would probably be a Muslim.

For the majority of us, religion is not a choice, it is a birthright. I apologize to that small percentage of you who have actively chosen your religion because it fits your beliefs. You've obviously searched until you found a religion that, as closely as possible, fits your spiritual needs. That works for me too, but unfortunately, we are in the minority and as of this point in my life, I have not found that religion.

Please don't get the wrong idea. I respect all non-fanatical religions and those people who believe in them. I truly believe that all religions have something worthwhile to teach, but each of us ultimately decides what we will believe in and what we will not. It doesn't matter what religion you are a part of, I guarantee that there are certain tenets of your religion that you disagree with. That's because YOUR beliefs are subjective and are actually only between you and God, and no one else. The religion you are a part of simply fore fills MOST of your spiritual needs, but not all. It is just comforting being in an organized religion where we know that everyone who honestly adheres to most of our religion's beliefs will be blessed and allowed into heaven. In the end though, you will answer to God, not your religion, for your beliefs.

I have been to services in many places of worship. In each, I try to come away with the same thing: some new thought or idea that will help me understand God better and be a better person toward others. I understand that I do not have all the answers and never will, but I also understand that neither does anyone else. And while I may disagree with various religions on a number of points they adamantly believe in, they may have an answer to just one of the questions that I have been searching for, or either raise a question that I have never thought of . That makes every religion relevant. But regardless of what is said, it is ME who internalizes what is being taught during a sermon. I will subjectively believe what is taught and add that knowledge to MY belief system, use it to reinforce beliefs that I already have, or I will reject it. Even if you are a member of a particular religion, you do the same thing. All of us only accept those teachings that fit within our own personal belief system. We discard the rest. Therefore your religion is ultimately between you and God and concerns no one else. The answers I find are only relevant to me and help me along the path to a better understanding of God.

To limit oneself to a set of answers that a single religion can offer is to limit the available answers. The answers to all our questions are out there. They will be found by fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. No one religion has all the answers and as long as we refuse to look for answers anywhere except in our own religion we will never find them.

I personally believe that religion has nothing to do with books, or prophets, or religious leaders, or houses of worship. Those were ALL created by men according to their own beliefs, not by God. We believe in these things because they ultimately match our own personal, subjective, beliefs. Each religion has followers because of each individuals ability to look within themselves and match their own beliefs against the religion they follow. Therefore, my beliefs are just between me and God. The religion I choose to follow is secondary. In the end, I will answer to him, not because of which church I went to, but because of the type of person I was during my life and how I treated others while I was here. It is what resides within me and makes me who I am that will determine whether God will look at me favorably or not. It is the search for answers to the moral questions I have, and how I use the answers that I add to MY belief system that is important. I refuse to limit myself to the answers that only one religion can supply. I am the owner of my own beliefs and God will be the judge of whether I am right or wrong, as he will with us all.

Organized religions do not unite us, they divide us. They segregate one group from another. You can argue the truthfulness of your religion all you want to, but you'll only alienate others who honestly believe in the truthfulness of theirs. Organized religions, regardless of their good intentions, have caused hate, mistrust and in extreme cases death and destruction. "Believe in what I believe in, because if you don't God will not love you and you will go straight to Hell". Think about it, God can not want that. That can not be God's plan for us to worship him. I can not believe that a loving God would not tell us which religion is the "true" religion, but then condemn us to eternal damnation if we guess wrong. No one religion or person has ever had an absolute control over right and wrong or absolute knowledge of the REAL truth.

In most Blogs and articles on religion, many people will argue religious points of view by quoting scripture from their own religion as absolute proof of a point, or will quote history as defined by their particular religious texts. These arguments are absolute truisms to those who believe in them, but are meaningless to those whose religion teaches a different, or even opposing, point of view. Teachings of any religion, that are specific to that religion, will never settle an issue or unite anyone. Therefore, the only test that can be applied to a religion to determine whether it is "the true religion" is whether its tenets resonate as the truth to everyone. It will be one that's inclusive to all.

The good news is that there is a religion that we are all already apart of. We just don't accept it and use it as a tool to unite us spiritually. It doesn?t have a name. It shouldn?t. To give it a name would just throw it into the pot with all the others. If it was ever formalized and put into that pot, I wouldn't join it. It is personal and concerns no one else but me and God. It is a religion of actions and not just words. It demands no place of worship, religious texts, or men who claim to know more about it than I do. It is within me. I know more about it than anyone else ever could. I alone am responsible for finding the answers to the questions I have about it. The answers I do find may be relevant to me, and no one else.

If we pray to God, we don?t pray for Baptist things, or Jewish things, or Muslin things, or Catholic things. We ALL pray to our God for the exact same things regardless of our organized religious differences. We pray for God to protect our families, our friends, our neighbors, our country, peace on earth, an end to the pain and suffering of others, for food to feed the starving, that God may grant us peace within ourselves, and to give us an understanding of exactly what kind of person he wants us to be. Among many others, these are the important things and the things we have in common that should unite us. These things can not be made into an organized religion but, none-the-less, unite us. It is OUR conversations with God that unite us ALL. Even though it is a personal conversation between each of us and God, it is the same conversation. We leave religion behind when we pray to God.

Each of us has within ourselves the ultimate religion, and it is the same. It should unite us, but doesn?t because we?d rather give it a name, write books about it, build places to go to worship it, and create deities of those men who say they know more about it than we do. How can anyone say that the very things that keep us apart will ever unite us. Organized religion does just that and always will. The goal of a true religion should be to work toward peace within ourselves and harmony with others. It should consist of the things that bind us all together, not tear us apart. Only when we recognize this, will there ever be a true religion.

It is my belief that there is only one God. He is called by many names and worshiped in many ways by different religions, BUT he will judge each of us using the exact same criteria that will not be based upon any particular religion's beliefs. It will be based upon our relationships with each other and the type of lives we lived. Until everyone recognizes that each of us contains the true religion within ourselves, because it unites us all as one with God, we will never have peace within ourselves or with each other. These are the things that God will ultimately judge us by. So worship God as your heart tells you to and search for the answers you need to satisfy the questions you have, but please "Do not blame God for man's mistakes".

You can view the essay here: God's God