Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


GET IT RIGHT ABOUT NECESSARY EVIL, THE BEST BAD OPTION, IN TERMS OF RELIGION AND GOD AND FAITH

The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when given two bad choices, the one which is not as bad as the other should be chosen over the one that is the greater threat.

One thing that scares people about this is that you have to embrace and celebrate and accept it if somebody SAYS they have a different idea of what the necessary evil is.  It is necessarily personal and private despite the dangerous consequences for the agent and others.  This shows that God then as a concept is no good for regulating people.

God
 
If you imagine a choice between good and God, then choose good.
 
The believers say there can be no good without God. But that is beside the point. If there were, then what comes first? Goodness.
 
Goodness in a sense is a part of God thus it can exist without God. In theory, my hand is a part of me and could still exist without me existing.
 
Burden of Proof
 
You have the naturalist who denies there is any supernatural and thus that there is or can be a God.
 
You have the deist who believes God creates the world and never intervenes in it.
 
You have the theist who believes the creator does intervene.
 
You have the agnostic who thinks that if there is a God that he is unknowable or unknown so that nobody can be sure if there is a God.
 
All these claims are believed to share the same burden of proof. Do they really? It depends on which one is the least far fetched. The more unlikely ones have the biggest burden of proof.
 
The least far fetched one is the necessary evil. That is naturalism. We cannot have any evidence that the supernatural exists. We can only guess that it is possible or not possible.
 
Sin
 
Sin is not merely being bad. It is about breaking a law to become bad. Sin is breaking the law of God.
 
If the concept of punishment or crime is a necessary evil, the concept of sin is one step too far. It is thus an unnecessary evil.
 
Mystery/Paradox
 
Religion offers you many mysteries and paradoxes. A pack of lies and nonsense can pass for a pack of mysteries and paradoxes. A paradox is when what seems to be a contradiction is true. Religion preaches contradictions it refuses to admit are contradictions. It calls them mysteries or paradoxes to hide their nonsensical nature. It can be an excuse as well for avoiding having to give evidence for an absurd teaching. A paradox even if true is a necessary evil for the only reason it is not regarded as a contradiction is because it is true. You need solid evidence to call something a paradox for the risk of letting a contradiction be taken for a paradox is overwhelming. The paradoxes of religion are poorly supported by logic and evidence. There is no way they can be termed necessary evils. They are just evils. The more beautiful they are the more toxic they are.
 
Miracle
 
God has set up nature to work in a regular way. Sometimes he supposedly changes its way of working. The result is called a miracle. An example would be the sun spinning in the sky or the resurrection of Christ. Exceptions must prove the rule to be real exceptions so a miracle by definition is a necessary evil. If God needs to do miracles, surely one good and meaningful one would do? Making statues weep blood is not an important miracle and is not going to give any sane person meaning in life.

Secularism
 
Secularism ignores specifically supernatural or religious doctrines. In doing so, it tries to be neutral between different faiths. But in fact is not neutral to religious faith for religious faith claims to be right and true and bans a neutral approach while demanding commitment. Faith and religion are related but are not the same.
 
Religion, in principle if not in practice, creates issues and concerns about how the believer is to relate to the law of the land. Christianity has always encouraged believers to disobey the law if it commands sin. For example, the apostles were expected to keep preaching about Jesus though it was made illegal. They were praised for breaking the law. The apostles said that they have to obey God rather than man. Christians have claimed that when they broke the law of the land that it was not because they were breaking the law but obeying God.
 
Whatever their intentions they still broke the law.
 
A religion that would refuse to obey the law if banned from preaching is treasonous.
 
The state encouraging or endowing religion is taking the risk of encouraging treason.
 
Secularism solves a lot of problems and creates new ones. But it is the best of a bad lot and a necessary evil.