“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison, Letter to William Bradford 1774

One of the most troubling aspects of religion, in particular Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam, is their insistence that everything that exists, everything that is good, everything humans need to lead a fulfilling life arise from God. They also claim the Bible or the Quran are the inerrant word of God and questioning such doctrine is an evil act.

That both cannot be true simultaneously, and the more likely scenario is that neither are, is lost in the fog of blind devotion.

Religion contends there is no morality, decency, or altruism unless one is committed to faith in God to the exclusion of all others.

In reading the book, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I am struck by the theme that actions such as his—beyond heroic by any measure in the face of the Nazi terror he opposed to the moment of his execution—were, in his own view, insufficient.

From the introduction to the book by the late Bishop of Chichester, G.K.A. Bell,

“But it was not enough for him to seek justice, truth, honesty and goodness for their own sake and patiently to suffer for them. No, according to Bonhoeffer, we have to do so in loyal obedience to Him who is the source and spring of all goodness, justice and truth and on whom he felt absolutely dependent.”

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, Kindle Edition. (From the section Memoir by G. Leibholz, quoting G. K. A. Bell, late Bishop of Chichester)

In more pedestrian terms, being good, or opposing evil, because it is the right thing to do, is not enough in Bonhoeffer’s view; good must be done because it shows our devotion to and dependency on God for all things.

This, in a nutshell, is my argument with religion in general and the Abrahamic religions in particular. Like a virus subverting cellular processes and churning out cancerous cells, religion co-opts the innate goodness of human nature and convinces people it must be from God. It diverts resources and time to meaningless acts of worship, ceremony, and sacrifice focused on a false premise.

Even worse, religion does not just contend that good cannot exist without God; theologians like Bonhoeffer claim it is secondary to devotion to God. This disregards the clear evidence for human evolution and social development. To borrow the title Richard Dawkins gave to one of his books, it is The God Delusion.

Think about this for a moment. Acting altruistically, doing the right thing, is secondary to demonstrating devotion to God? How does one explain altruism in people who have never experienced Christianity? This doctrine’s purpose is transparent and singular: to preserve the continuity of the faith.

God created man; man devoted to God is good, so God is the only way for man to be good. If a man acts malevolently, that is the influence of evil or a lack of faith, not a failure of God.

Evolution would argue otherwise. Behaviors dominated by cooperation and mutual support are more successful at avoiding extinction (adaptation) than those dominated by competition. Inherent goodness and moral behavior—in the sense of being based on the principles of proper conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or customs—is more likely to survive “natural selection,” which undeniably drives the process of species survival or death in the world and the universe.

People who went to the memorial service in England after Bonhoffer’s execution by the S.S Black Guards believed.

“…that, on April 9th, 1945, when Dietrich Bonhoeffer met his death at the hands of the S.S. Black Guards, something had happened in Germany that could not be measured by human standards. They felt that God himself had intervened in the most terrible struggle the world has witnessed so far by sacrificing one of his most faithful and courageous sons to expiate the crimes of a diabolical regime and to revive the spirit in which the civilization of Europe has to be rebuilt.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Kindle Edition.

The quote is most troubling since it illustrates how this Christian God sees innocent human sacrifice of his choosing as a valid expiation of sins committed by others against the word of this same God. This God believes that the designated human sacrifice of one of his faithful is the most expedient way to address evil.

This bears repeating.

Sacrificing one of his own faithful to expiate the sins of evil committed by others is a respectable philosophy. Worthy of praise and devotion.

Who did they commit this sin against in the first place? The same God killing one of his own as penance for the sin.

First, God sends his son, who is himself, to die a horrible death to expiate the sins of man committed against this god, beginning with the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, quite telling right there, then raises the dead son (again, himself, who died yet is confusingly immortal) to show his love for man.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3-16 (and you thought it was just the score of the game with all the signs on TV.)

Then, when the Nazis come along, he causes Bonhoeffer, because of his devotion and discipleship, to act in a way opposing the Nazis, knowing (he is omniscient after all) how they would react. Then this God allows the Nazis to imprison, torture, and execute Bonhoeffer to expiate the sins of the Nazis.

You will understand my confusion. And “it is a mystery” is woefully inadequate, if not morally reprehensible. I suppose the thought of a second son was never a consideration.

This begs the obvious question. Why does God intervene by directing the actions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in heroic opposition to the Nazi terror rather than preventing the rise of the Nazis in the first place?

If you would expiate the sins of the Nazis by executing someone, why not direct one of the millions of munitions we dropped on Germany to hit the Führer’s bunker and expiate him all over the walls?

Or, if it would make you feel better, crash one of the B-17s being flown by a Christian into the bunker. You get a twofer, killing evil and a devotee sacrifice. Wouldn’t that be more in sync with the doctrine?

Why let innocent Germans, especially babies and children, die for the sins of the Third Reich? Is it because they weren’t good enough to expiate the sins of their fathers? Or is that “visiting the sins of the father unto the third and fourth generation” mandatory?

The conundrum of God either being unable or unwilling to prevent evil is a stubbornly persistent flaw in the arguments for God’s existence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, he knew the Nazis would rise to power and develop the Final Solution. One might argue he was just a spectator at the events. Yet, even being omnipotent, he decided to cause a Lutheran priest alone to take a moral stand against it?

Seems more inconsiderate, or impotent, than omnipotent.

But I still cannot wrap my head around the contention that Bonhoeffer himself argued his actions were meaningful only if he acted as a faithful servant and believer in God. Taking a stand, fraught with risk against the power of the Nazis because they were evil was not enough, no matter how honorable.

And, of course, there are Biblical passages offering instruction in such matters.

And as he passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place of toil, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (Mark 2.14)

“… It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once. This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus. There is no need of any preliminaries, and no other consequence but obedience to the call. Because Jesus is the Christ, he has the authority to call and to demand obedience to his word. Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (pp. 15-16). Kindle Edition.

This quote illustrates my point. Levi, according to Scripture, follows Jesus without question or hesitation, not because he tries to do good, but because “Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ.”

And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But he said unto him. Leave the dead to bury their dead, but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (p. 17). Kindle Edition.

The point is to follow him not to do good in the world—righting wrongs, challenging evil—but because Jesus is calling. Nothing else matters.

Blind faith. Great name for a rock band, poor life philosophy. Blind faith gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indian Schools (our own final solution), slavery, and Nazi Germany. It continues to plague us today.

Why? What makes this calling more consequential than the altruistic acts themselves? Simple. The propagation of faith for faith itself.

Evolution postulates that natural selection—not, as it is often misinterpreted, the survival of the fittest but the survival of those who can best reproduce and adapt—promotes beneficial mutations and practices. Thus, there may have been an “evolutionary” benefit to religion.

Community, sharing of resources, commonality against enemies (there is a great deal of smiting of enemies and seizure of the spoils of war, in particular the ever so desirable virgins, with no limit of seventy-two thus trumping the Muslims, in the Old Testament) which may foster high rates of survivability and by passing on the “faith” gene, insuring continuity and spreading of the faith.

While evolution is clearest over geological time scales, there are examples of rapid change within several rather than hundreds of generations. Religion may have offered a better chance of survival in prehistoric humans until the Enlightenment.

One sign of this could be lifespan. From the time of the first homo sapiens until the Enlightenment, humans lived a precarious existence, surviving, on average, 30-35 years. Over fifty percent of humans never made it past their early thirties.

As a side note, remember they ate only organic meat, fish, and pesticide-free vegetables, yet died at thirty years of age.

With the advent of the Enlightenment—the rise of science—human lifespan began to expand worldwide, with people living well into their eighties.

Religion may have had an initial, beneficial effect on survival, but science has improved on it exponentially. And yet, a significant majority (although declining worldwide, correlating to rising educational levels) still embrace some form of religion.

Perhaps evolution is mutating the religion gene to the science gene.

 Evolution might even explain how religiosity declines as educational level increases.

Yet we still lack an explanation for Bonhoeffer’s contention that being good is not enough absent a “discipleship” committed to God. This is troubling because articulate and intelligent theologians like Bonhoeffer influence modern religions, which try to impose their doctrines in secular matters.

“Any belief system that explains the suffering of children instead of rejecting it has already abandoned morality” Betrand Russell

Bonhoeffer himself sees this as not only desirable but necessary. His opposition to Nazi Germany and their corruption of the Church was a sign that a government not molded by Christianity was threatening, ineffective, and contrary to the supremacy of the faith.

I see this as dangerous. Bonhoeffer’s heroic actions opposing the Nazis aside, understanding his motivations—acting because it is an elemental part of his discipleship with Christ—is essential to prevent this philosophy from gaining control of secular government.

This event would threaten freedom and democracy and challenge the continuity of a moral and ethical society based on rationality not fear of the afterlife promulgated by an invisible being.

The evidence of this goal of trying to impose religion on secular government is everywhere. The rallying cry of the false contention that we are a Judeo-Christian nation is no less frightening than black-booted brown shirts ( we have those, too) screaming about racial supremacy of the white man.

When politicians embrace this philosophy for political advantage, even those who may hold sincere Christian beliefs, they betray the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

When some within this country clamor and cry that we are a Christian nation, yet act opposite to the words and actions of the man the seek to hoist on others, they reveal the danger of such a political, rather than a genuine, act of faith.

They pose the greatest threat to this country since our founding, bar none.