Religion - A force for good or evil?

Gelio

One point I often struggle to deal with is the point that religion does a lot of good in the world. This is undeniable and I feel it is a little disingenuous to reply with so did the Nazis or something along those lines. I also don't find it very conclusive to go into a tit for tat where I say an evil act then try to balance it out (or even cancel it) with a good one.

This was brought to mind by a Hitchens speech I was just listening to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8iCgfWva8
If you listen from 47:00 Hitchens is posed this sort of question and I don't find his answer convincing. He says to name a good religious act that a non-religious could not do and then to name an evil religious act that a non-religious would not do. This does not solve the problem as far as I can see. A non-religious could easily commit awful and very similar atrocities as say 9/11 for example in the name of a political view point. While it is quite possible that believing in a higher power might make you more likely to donate to charity. (although I'm not saying that it does, it is possible that conclusive research could come out making this point)

Does anyone have any different way of looking at this? Could perhaps religion make the world a better place?

Edit: See post 14

Turtwig

Any ideology or practice can have good elements to it. Considering only the good elements of something aren't a raison d'etre. Likewise, considering only the bad elements aren't fair either. Ideologies are little different though. If we are to choose to follow an ideology, then the reasonable assumption would be that we should be accentuating the good elements and eliminating the bad. The question concerning any religion is whether or not they seek to eliminate the bad eggs of that ideology. Unfortunately, it appears that for most religions to propagate they need violent imagery and habitual rituals. So the question is really can you have a popular religion without rituals that invoke violence or condescension?

In an ideal world yes you can. So religion can be good thing. Considering the individual it can certainly be a good thing. The problem is though that 'can' and 'are' are two separate things. Proponents of the idea that religion is definitive force for good tend to conflate that. The four major religions of this world aren't obvious forces for good. There the messages are mixed, vague and appear contradictory. Some might argue that those messages aren't contradictory, but that misses the point the ideology that instructs people how to behave is vague and subjective to the individual. Thus the answer to the question can only ever be vague.

Unless, of course you choose nice platonic semantics where religion is inherently a good thing by its own definition. And there in lies a major problem: how exactly do you define a religion?

Manach

Curious words from the mod of Christianity, then curious times.

Defining what religion is like trying to clarify ambiguous social constructs like democracy or tolerance which are buttressed and dependant on societal normative values and expectations depending on the historical time period (ie reading Prof. Dahl on "Democracy" - interesting discussion on this). Beyond douth there have been religious doctrines that have inspired horrors in history, and likewise the self same religious doctrines that have inspired people to mitigate or stand against the totalitarian aspects of humanity that prompts such (eg Martin Luther/Martin Luther King). For my sins, I've academically studied the darker regimes that people create for themselves in the last century; to guard against the other(as per Said's premise) or to create the perfect world once the people's enemies are eliminated. It was in the place of the prisoners, the gulags were paradoxically some of the most free places. There amongst the un-people there were numerous communities, built on religious belief that these events (which had sweep them up into goal) had some sort of redemptive meaning, which allowed the prisoners to survive when the State itself rotted away.
So in summary, like any other social imagined construct religion is what the individual makes of it - in service to the community.

nagirrac

The problem with any ideology is that even what started out as a seemingly good idea is generally subverted by the "bad guys", and if we are being truly honest the "bad guys" are part of our nature, as who among us does not have some "bad guy" in our make up in the applicable circumstances. The two great economic systems of the 20th century are good examples, both appeared to have altruistic merit when proposed by Marx and Adam Smith (giving him a lot of credit here, but he was very influential in the development of the concept of a free market economy), but both have essentially failed, one a little earlier than the other.

The lesson here is that it is all well and good removing the current bad guys, but unfortunately there are plenty more to take their place. The French Revolution is a good example of the "good guys" quickly morphing into "bad guys", the Orwellian truth unfortunately is that the bad guys will always rise to the surface, driven by greed and lust for power. How many times do we need to see that "power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts". This is just as true for religious organizations as governments or mega corporations.

Most religions, as they were originally envisioned, are forces for good, just as capitalism and communism as originally envisioned are forces for good. Within the Christian tradition, the concepts of service to others and compassion are noble aspirations when combined with consistent actions. Nobody with any sense of humanity or decency can point an accusing finger at the Society of St Vincent de Paul, or many other religious charities. Even the much maligned Vatican provides basic necessities to over 7 million Italians alone annually. It takes a particularly narcissistic mindset to find fault in those that actively give of their time and resources in the service of others less fortunate, something starkly seen on the AA thread where because of even the slightest whiff of religion, the organization must be suspect, and not just suspect but on a par with the most greedy and harmful corporations, a totally delusional suggestion.

As a society we are becoming more and more about the individual and less and less about the community, a trend that started decades ago but is now ubiquitous in western society at least. For all its flaws, religion was a key component of community, and also had more influence in the past century in establishing basic human rights than perhaps many are willing to give it. Martin Luther King was inspired by his religion, as was Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, etc. These giants in human history make a mockery of the suggestion that religion is solely a force for "evil", a position only held by those with their heads firmly in the sand.

rughdh

A force for good or evil? What's "good"? What's "evil"? What's this "force" you speak of? When I hear stuff like "Good people do bad things" I have a problem with the word "good". Are they good people to start with or are they just people. We can all behave well or badly towards others. We can lose the plot at any time. There are plenty of good people doing time for murder. Good people are just those whose habitual behaviour as witnessed by others is perceived to be acceptable to them.

We are all capable of carrying out the most horrific atrocities. If that's what you mean by "evil", then we are all capable of it, right here, right now. It doesn't excuse it, we have to take responsibility for it, no matter what.

What about "force"? Are we talking about a good energy or a bad energy here? God or Satan? Or are we talking about coercion, perhaps? I think it's all about how we choose to behave personally. Sometimes we mightn't think we had a choice when we caused someone harm because it took us by surprise, but we did it and need to own it. We can't go blaming some force.

So whether you subscribe to any form of formal belief system or not, you may or may not behave well or badly towards others and your behaviour is subject to change.

Could perhaps religion make the world a better place?

I have problems understanding what a religion is exactly, but would say that teaching our children to think critically and question everything (especially what we tell them) will go some way to making the world a better place.

Peregrinus

I think - along, I suspect, with most others in this thread - that the question (“Is religion a force for good or evil?”) is misconceived. The border of what is “religion” and what is not is a nebulous one but, however you understand “religion”, it’s a very broad category quite capable of accommodating directly opposing impulses. Asking whether religion is a force for good or evil is a bit like asking whether philosophy is a force for good or evil.

The second problem, of course, is that the question makes no sense unless you already have a shared concept of “good” and “evil”, and since many people’s concepts of good and evil have been influenced by religion - if not their own religion, then the religion embedded in their cultural heritage - the question becomes a bit circular.

And the third problem is that it presents a false dichotomy. Can religion be a force for good? Undoubtedly. Can it be a force for evil? Yes, plainly. So it is a force for good or evil? Well, for both, is the only answer that makes any sense. Is it a force for more good than evil, or vice versa? This depends on only the problem already mentioned (what are “good” and “evil”?) but on the related problem of how you quantify and compare different goods and evils, or of whether such a thing is possible or meaningful.

nozzferrahhtoo

Gelio wrote: »

One point I often struggle to deal with is the point that religion does a lot of good in the world. This is undeniable

Is it? I am not so sure. Rather I think Religion takes vicarious proxy credit for the good people do in and around it, without actually adding anything to that "good". The user ngarric came in with a similar message trying also to declare that the "good" that comes from religion was "undeniable" and he ended up flapping around the issue uselessly before retreating entirely.

But when one tries to actually unpack what the "good" religion has offered actually is, one finds the packaging empty. In terms of charity for example, the best one can really say for our major religions is that they have made themselves financially successful charity brokers. Often brokers that take a significant % of cream off the top for themselves in the process. Whether you want to testify to that by the gold adorning the vatican, or the priests I used to serve in Esso in Cork when I was in college there, who paid for the fuel in their Lexus with Gold Standard Credit Cards.... this is up to you.

There is also a chicken and egg effect of people gravitating towards religion in order to do "good". Is it really religion that makes such people do any good at all, or are such people gravitating towards religion because it is seen to be the place to go to do these things? The fact that secular and atheists people appear to be just as easily compelled to do such "good" in the world seems to testify to the suggestion that religion is entirely superfluous to any requirements here.

Motivation is also an interesting area of the discussion. When missionaries drop in boots on the ground to do good words it seems they are less doing so out of the goodness of their hearts sometimes, than it is to spread religious idealogies to the needy and vulnerable. Be it the message of their own particular god(s) or some tenet of their faith such as the sinful use of condoms in AIDS torn continents.

So it seems the old truism holds again. That when you focus on the part of a persons argument that they say is "surely" correct or is "undeniable" you often find the weakest part of the persons point hidden underneath. IS it undeniable? Why do you think so? I certainly do not.

At best Religions to me are just the failed attempts to put attractive packaging on some peoples desire to do good in the world. They do not see it as enough to simply espouse such philosophies. They need to invent a god to endorse those philosophies and build up a system of tenets and ideas that this god espouses that support those philosophies. But as with all world views divorced from reality.... the attempt is ill conceived and likely doomed to failure, damaging interpretation, and irreconcilable differences that end in a breakdown in communication.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

Even the much maligned Vatican provides basic necessities to over 7 million Italians alone annually.

And Hamas provides social services too while being a terrorist cult. And what % of all the money given in charity to the Vatican actually makes it to your Italians? How many COULD they help were they not skimming profits?

You can not simply point to the positive activities of an organisation and brush the COST of that positive under the carpet as if it is not there.

nagirrac wrote: »

something starkly seen on the AA thread where because of even the slightest whiff of religion, the organization must be suspect

And as per usual misrepresentation and straw man is your modus operandi of choice. People on that thread have explained at great length what their issue is with AA and the existence of religion there is but a tiny fraction of it, and is not the motivation of it at all.

So the opposite appears to be true to what you are saying. It is not the whiff of religion that sets people off. It is the whiff of an atheist saying anything bad about a religious organisation that sets YOU OFF in assuming that any issue people have with AA must be religiously based.

And so deep set is your need to misrepresent that you simply dismiss and ignore the vast number of paragraphs in that thread from people like myself explaining exactly what our issues and concerns about AA are, and very little of them are religious AT ALL.

But why be honest at all when you can slip points in through misrepresenation and strawmannery huh?

nagirrac wrote: »

For all its flaws, religion was a key component of community

Or more accurately community is a key component of religion. You quite often mistake the things religious associates itself with, or feeds off of, as being the things religion offers or benefits. A mistake I have corrected you on numerous times in the past, but you have a philologos style methodology of dropping out of a thread, waiting a couple of days, then popping into a new thread espousing all the same errors again as if they had never been addressed.

nagirrac wrote: »

and also had more influence in the past century in establishing basic human rights than perhaps many are willing to give it.

Or you are giving it more than it deserved.

nagirrac wrote: »

Martin Luther King was inspired by his religion

Hard to say how true that is, if it is true at all. He talked the talk alright, but likely that was more because that was the language his target audience was going to resonate with than because of it being religiously inspired in and of itself.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And Hamas provides social services too while being a terrorist cult. And what % of all the money given in charity to the Vatican actually makes it to your Italians? How many COULD they help were they not skimming profits?

But, as the OP points out, you can’t show that religion is not a force for good simply by arguing that it could be a more effective force for good than it actually is.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can not simply point to the positive activities of an organisation and brush the COST of that positive under the carpet as if it is not there.

Or vice versa. Which is why this approach to the question raised in the OP is doomed to failure.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hard to say how true that is, if it is true at all. He talked the talk alright, but likely that was more because that was the language his target audience was going to resonate with than because of it being religiously inspired in and of itself.

Oh, come on. King came to Christianity in his late teens and, after taking his degree in sociology he entered a seminary, completed a B.Div., went to Boston University to compete a doctorate in systematic theology, was ordained as a Baptist pastor and spent his entire adult life in professional ministry. Both his private and public writings are strongly religious, and reflect his own wide religious reading.

The parsimonious explanation for this is that his religious faith was genuine, and was a significant motivator in his life. A variety of claims have been made about his adultery, his attitudes to communism, his academic integrity, etc, but I’m not aware of any serious suggestion from any historian of the civil rights period that his religious faith was anything but genuine. Your claim that it is “likely” that he simply adopted the appearance of religious faith to appeal to his “target audience” looks on the face of it like a fairly improbable one, and presumably you wouldn’t be making it unless you had some fairly persuasive evidence. Are you going to share that with us?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think - along, I suspect, with most others in this thread - that the question (“Is religion a force for good or evil?”) is misconceived.

I'd agree entirely here, specifically in that the question is too broad. It covers a large number of very diverse traditions and beliefs over the entire planet over the entire course of human history, and as such I doubt that there is any concise single answer that will provide much value.

You could ask numerous narrower questions that might provide more useful answers, such as 'does the involvement of religion in running the state benefit or damage society?'.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, as the OP points out, you can’t show that religion is not a force for good simply by arguing that it could be a more effective force for good than it actually is.

Then it is lucky that that is not the claim I am actually making and I am with you on re-wording the question the OP askes. My claim is subtly different however which is that to be a force for good it has to be a force for good OVERALL. You have to incorporate the costs of any perceived "good" into the evaluation of that good. Far too many people, the ngarrics of the world, want to look at the benefit entirely in isolation from any costs or detriment.

But having said that there is a point hidden behind the "it could be a more effective force" that is worth noting. If there is a certain amount of charity in the world, and religion as a broker is skimming off massive % from this, then it is not only not a force for good (as the charity would exist anyway) but it is a force for harm (in that it is causing a massive reduction in the amount of that charity that actually reaches people who need it).

So the efficiency and effectiveness argument actually is more important than you might give it credit for. I am all for brokers and I realise they have running costs and require to profit, but there is a continuum of effect and usefulness there. And also of harm and detriment.

A useful question to ask, since you are all for changing the question the OP is asking, is just how much charity has been skimmed by these brokers, and just what damage have they done while distributing it alongside the theistic messages they often deliver with that charity.

To me it is like saying that a guy chopping peoples legs off is doing the good of removing the infection in a wound on those legs before the infection kills the owner of the leg. When he could have just applied an antiseptic treatment to the infection. Then your point sounds to me like saying “you can’t show that his intervention was not a good simply by arguing that it could be a more effective intervention.”

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, come on. King came to Christianity in his late teens and, after taking his degree in sociology he entered a seminary, completed a B.Div., went to Boston University to compete a doctorate in systematic theology, was ordained as a Baptist pastor and spent his entire adult life in professional ministry. Both his private and public writings are strongly religious, and reflect his own wide religious reading.

And he was a great study of Marx and Hegel too. As I said in a post above it is a difficult thing to prove that peoples good are inspired by their religion. That is an assumption people make. But it is just as valid an assumption that people gravitate towards religion because it appears to them to match the feelings and motivations they already have.

Are evil selfish people going into churches and coming out converted to charitably social people? That would be a fantastical claim. Or are people already feeling compassion and love for their fellow man and they are attracted to religion because it appears to match those desires and feelings they already have?`

I find the claim of religion inspiring people to do good, or inspiring people like King to fight for equal rights, to be strongly suspect. I rather expect that such people would have been just as compelled in the absence of religion, and just as moved by the plight of their fellow man, or fellow race, to stand up and do something about it.

The onus of evidence does not lie at my feet here. It is a correlation causation argument being made. Those people who suggest people like King were inspired by religion to do good have to do more than simply show that such people WERE religious or STUDIED religion. That is just correlation.

Was there anything that King ever argued for that was not argued for previously, and maybe even better, by black secular groups? He called for nothing that required any spiritual assumption or theistic ideas and as some have suggested it is just as valid to suggest he made his achievements in spite of his religion and not because of his religion.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The user ngarric came in with a similar message trying also to declare that the "good" that comes from religion was "undeniable" and he ended up flapping around the issue uselessly before retreating entirely.

If you're referring to this thread, to me it seemed more of a heated debate that failed to reach much in the way of conclusion, where the amount of flapping about was pretty evenly distributed among all the posters, myself included. I'm not even sure it arrived at a proper consensus for what can reasonably said to constitute a religion, let along whether any religion has provided net benefits.

From what I'm reading on this thread so far, it looks like a re-hash in the making.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

From what I'm reading on this thread so far, it looks like a re-hash in the making.

Then the flappers need only stop flapping and show how religion is an over all positive force for good, while openly acknowledging the costs of the application without feeding their bias by isolating the perceived good and ignoring all else.

That was not done in the other thread, and you will have to forgive me for not holding my breath at seeing it done on this one either. Much less by the flapper from the previous thread.

Gelio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think - along, I suspect, with most others in this thread - that the question (“Is religion a force for good or evil?”) is misconceived. The border of what is “religion” and what is not is a nebulous one but, however you understand “religion”, it’s a very broad category quite capable of accommodating directly opposing impulses. Asking whether religion is a force for good or evil is a bit like asking whether philosophy is a force for good or evil.

The second problem, of course, is that the question makes no sense unless you already have a shared concept of “good” and “evil”, and since many people’s concepts of good and evil have been influenced by religion - if not their own religion, then the religion embedded in their cultural heritage - the question becomes a bit circular.

And the third problem is that it presents a false dichotomy. Can religion be a force for good? Undoubtedly. Can it be a force for evil? Yes, plainly. So it is a force for good or evil? Well, for both, is the only answer that makes any sense. Is it a force for more good than evil, or vice versa? This depends on only the problem already mentioned (what are “good” and “evil”?) but on the related problem of how you quantify and compare different goods and evils, or of whether such a thing is possible or meaningful.

Sorry I should have taken more time to construct my thoughts to the page. I think what I'm really trying to figure out in my own mind is more of a thought experiment. Could religion (say mainstream religion for the sake of simplicity) exist without the evils that are committed in it's name. When I say evil I realize I am being broad but just take the higher end cases. Take Sam Harris' 'worst possible misery for everyone.' Something you as an Atheist would see as being very evil i.e. battery acid to the face or protecting of pedophiles. I know there will always be a dispute to what would be an evil act so I think the only way you could think about this is based on your own morals (of course meaning there could never be anything close to a majority agreement.)

I think the answer to this question is no. At least in reality it is. This led me to what my real question should have been. Would I like to see religion no longer exist? This is where my Good Vs Evil came in. Probably not the best way of asking. As I have accepted that people will always commit evil acts in the name of religion not having religion would wipe out these acts. Or for the sake of the argument it would.

But now onto the good. I strongly dislike the Catholic church for many reasons but that does not change the fact that there are many charitable acts done that would not have been done without it. And that's not to say anything good towards the church it just creates a sense of community that sometimes encourages Joe on his couch to get up and go on a trip to a place that has been hit my a hurricane and rebuild houses which he would not have done otherwise. That is not to say Joe is good or bad, or that he wouldn't go on that trip if for non religious reasons. But this particular day the only reason he goes is because of religion. I know this can be picked at but this is just me trying to explain a question that is active in my mind right now.

Back to the thought experiment. Do I want to get rid of religion completely? To live in a world where it simply does not exist. My problem was finding the overall balance. I'm trying to avoid the counting method where I count up the good on one side and the bad on the other and see who wins This would of course lead nowhere and make the question black and white when it is not. So how do I go about finding a way to answer such a question.

So really would you eradicate religion (obviously you'll have to make your own terms) and how would you justify your answer? And I ask the question as I have not decided on my answer yet and it bothers me.

pauldla

I don't want to eradicate religion, but I resent it when I feel it intrudes unwarranted into my life.

smacl

Gelio wrote: »

So really would you eradicate religion (obviously you'll have to make your own terms) and how would you justify your answer?

No, but I'd let it die a natural death as modern societies evolve beyond emphasising superstition and blind faith. What I would do is form a properly secular society, where discrimination on the grounds of religion belief or lack thereof is not tolerated, and any religion that is taught to children is done on an exclusively extra curricular and optional basis at the behest of religiously inclined families. This would be a big enough step forward for me, if people want to believe in Jesus or the tooth fairy in private that is their right, so long as it does not infringe my rights.

I don't buy this whole balancing of good versus evil line of reasoning, and think the relative merits and de-merits of religion should be examined separately, with a view to replacing areas of value currently provided by religious practice, and avoiding repeating mistakes. Unlike nozzferrahhtoo, I firmly believe religious practice does benefit many people in many ways, and that it does more harm than good does not mean the two should be netted off.

Waking-Dreams

I think Sam Harris’ point where he states that ‘religion gives people bad reasons to do good things when better reasons already exist’ is pretty spot on.

People can attribute their good deeds to their religious values but as you often see where people actively select the parts of scripture which are barbaric and disregard those, THEY are clearly the guarantors of their morality, not the religious beliefs.

Doing good deeds because you believe you’ll be rewarded by the almighty, as opposed to doing good things because of their intrinsic worth is some difference.

nozzferrahhtoo

Gelio wrote: »

Could religion (say mainstream religion for the sake of simplicity) exist without the evils that are committed in it's name.

There is a story I often trot out from my childhood around now. I often tell this story about a childhood experience which sheds light on your very question.

Two kids I knew were from an early age the best of friends. Two guys. They seriously loved and cared about each other. Of course being TOO friendly was often seen as "gay" so they expressed their love for each other in a rather unique way. They had a shared imaginary friend. This "friend" would often take turns staying over in their house. And when they got back together they would tell each other what that "friend" did last night. Often with lines like "Oh he was just saying last night how great you are at football and how much he missed you".

Clearly they were expressing their own opinions and thoughts vicariously through their imaginary friend and in retrospect I realize it was quite a beautiful and cute thing.

Alas one day one friend happened to mention the hair color of this imaginary friend. The other friend disagreed. Chaos ensued which very quickly escalated into minor violence and the eternal death of this wonderful shared friendship they had.

Clearly what happened here was that a difference in opinion about an entirely unsubstantiated claim came up and there was no rational way to resolve the difference. The fact that the imaginary friend did not exist meant there was no way to resolve the difference of opinion. They could not simply pluck a hair off the imaginary friends head and analyse it for light wavelengths in order to determine what range it fell under thus objectively closing the issue on hair color. Discourse was impossible. There was no means for reconciliation of their differing opinions.

So why do we have so many religions? Because there is no reason to think the central characters of each religion... the gods.... exist at all. Therefore any difference in opinion about said entities.... such as their moral opinions or desire for mankind etc etc.... are essentially irreconcilable and unsolvable.

So splinter groups form just like the friendships broke down between my two school friends. There is, after all, over 33,000 recognized variations on Christianity ALONE. Such are the subjective, irreconcilable and incompatible differences of opinion between them.

And not only are many of these differences irreconcilable, the reconciliation of them in many religions is made paramount. The eternal well being of your eternal soul, and those of your loved ones, hinge at times on picking the right faith, worshiping the right way.

All of these things I think negate any chance of religion ever existing without the evils and harms it causes. The more divorced from reality a world view is the more potential for harm I fear it contains. And the idea there is a god, and the religions that build up around that notion, are not just slightly but ENTIRELY devoid of any substantiation and are hence about as divorced from reality as a world view can get.

Gelio wrote: »

the fact that there are many charitable acts done that would not have been done without it.

Much like I questioned the thing declared undeniable in the OP, I question the assertion that the above is a "fact" at all. Could you perhaps list these acts done that would not have been done without it?

Gelio wrote: »

a sense of community that sometimes encourages Joe on his couch to get up and go on a trip to a place that has been hit my a hurricane and rebuild houses which he would not have done otherwise.

Religion does not incite people to do this at all. Community does. Maybe you would enjoy reading "Finn McCool's Football Club" which is a book about "The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of a Pub Soccer Team" in New Orleans where the team did band together and do great works for others in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

And as I called another user on, how can you assert that such people would "not have done otherwise" other than assertion or that "he wouldn't go on that trip if for non religious reasons"? You simply do not know this and many people need nothing more than seeing the plight of their fellow man to feel compelled to get up and do something about it. In fact one could argue that the compulsion at least has a grounding without religion. Seeing people in a disaster with religion you can at least decide "god has called them home to a better place now" or something. Whereas in a reality grounded view we know that the lives that need help are likely the only lives these people will ever have.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I called another user on, how can you assert that such people would "not have done otherwise" other than assertion or that "he wouldn't go on that trip if for non religious reasons"? You simply do not know this and many people need nothing more than seeing the plight of their fellow man to feel compelled to get up and do something about it.

Very true, but if you disallow the good people do that they attribute to their religious beliefs, neither can you allow the evil they do under a religious banner. That some people will be good and do good acts irrespective of their religion is doubtless true. That others are evil, sadistic, warmongering megalomaniacs regardless of their religion is also true. As per the previous thread, I'd be loathe to forgive the sins of the church simply to deny them the good work they have done elsewhere. Fairer surely to judge people on their acts rather than their beliefs?

mewso

Gelio wrote: »

A non-religious could easily commit awful and very similar atrocities as say 9/11 for example in the name of a political view point.

Just on this point I think it may be easier to give up your life when 99 virgins await you in the afterlife so while a non-religious person may well commit an atrocity in the name of a political view point I would consider it less likely. Anything that may give you pause (like not believing in a post-life reward) may lead to dialogue rather than violence.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Very true, but if you disallow the good people do that they attribute to their religious beliefs, neither can you allow the evil they do under a religious banner.

Not based solely on testimony you can not. However we can show causal links in some cases. For example the parents that watch their children die of easily treatable medical conditions for no other reason than they think the medical treatment is an affront to gods sensibilities. You would be hard pushed to convince me not to "allow that evil under a religious banner".

It is a case by case basis. I think we can argue that good and bad come from religion. We can show causal links. But as I said I am simply not going to be impressed by doing so by correlation. "X was very religion, X did good things, therefore religion led X to do good things" is a non-argument in my opinion, which is what I meant in the post you quoted.

Pointing to any one person and declaring that they only did good because of religion, or were motivated by their religion to do that good.... is an assertion. I am more than willing to consider the evidence for that assertion in any given case... but I am not willing to accept it on face value.

But as I said there are meta effects of religion which I firmly believe do lead to bad things. My anecdote of the two kids and their imaginary friend give you the _type_ of thing I mean. The divisive nature of it, and its corrosive abilities in relation to discourse. These things DO lead to bad effects.

pH

Gelio wrote: »

But now onto the good. I strongly dislike the Catholic church for many reasons but that does not change the fact that there are many charitable acts done that would not have been done without it.

This just doesn't stand up to any form of critical scrutiny, time and time again when looked at closer, religious "charity" is a convoluted form of promoting its own interests whilst at the same time being praised for doing it.

If you look at Ireland, the Catholic Church's "charity" has consisted of ruling the educational and health systems as a means of enforcing their own dogma. As for charity and so called christian organisations, read "Angela's Ashes" for an example how they really treat those in need and why they perform charitable acts.

Religion is mainly a con, to trick people of goods in this life for promises about a "return" in the non existent next one. This is why religions are invented - to accumulate wealth, power and status for those running it, looking at the scandal of the mega-churches in the US, or the history any country that becomes a theocracy like Tibet or Iran should make that abundantly clear.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not based solely on testimony you can not. However we can show causal links in some cases. For example the parents that watch their children die of easily treatable medical conditions for no other reason than they think the medical treatment is an affront to gods sensibilities. You would be hard pushed to convince me not to "allow that evil under a religious banner".

True, but few cases with causal links certainly do not amount a significant portion of mass of wrongdoing that is commonly attributed to religion, and as such is more exceptional than indicative. If we look at something like clerical sex abuse for example, there's nothing to say that the priests involved wouldn't have been sexual predators regardless of religion. Thus in terms of judging them and their employers, we do so on the basis of their actions rather than their vocation or beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

True, but few cases with causal links certainly do not amount a significant portion of mass of wrongdoing that is commonly attributed to religion

No but the other things I mentioned certainly do in many cases. As I said on a few threads now, I think the worst aspect of religion is that it is corrosive to free and open discourse. And I think that anything corrosive to free and open discourse is a bad thing. As one of the core beliefs I base my entire world view on is that human discourse is not just the most important tool we have for the future of human survival and well being.... it is in fact in many ways the _only_ tool we have and everything else is a sort of off shoot of it.

Many religions not only present irreconcilable opinion and differences to adherents, similar to my imaginary friend hair color anecdote, but it makes resolution of those differences paramount. It is not only a world view divorced from reality or substantiation, which itself is dangerous, but it makes important irreconcilable differences of opinion.

And I firmly believe that where discourse fails.... things like mistrust, hatred and violence follow.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I firmly believe that where discourse fails.... things like mistrust, hatred and violence follow.

I agree entirely. Though the stance you've adopted seems rather intransigent, and as such more likely to lead to conflict with religious types rather than discourse. I take more of a secular view, insofar I have no issue with people practising whatever religion floats their boat, just so long a the religion is not involved in the running of the state. Just because a thing is bad for you doesn't necessarily mean that it should be prohibited so much as controlled. Personal freedom is also an important part of modern society, whether that be going to the pub on Saturday or the church on Sunday.

Peregrinus

Well, yes, but as the OP points out, for every religiously-motivated 9/11 we can point to an equally horrific Oklahoma bombing perpetrated by atheist motivated by a distorted, hate-filled but entirely secular philosophy.

Simply picking out the juicy highlights of religiously-motivated violence, or religiosly-motivated benevolence, does nothing at all to answer the question raised by the OP, one way or the other. The fact that a person who is either (a) hateful or (b) benevolent is religious does not show that his is hateful or benevolent because he is religious. Arguments along these lines typically invite us to assume that good religious people would be good even without religion, but hateful religious people are hateful because they are religious, or they invite us to assume the exact opposite. Neither of these arguments has any probative value at all (though they may cast interesting psychological light on the people who advance them:-)).

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Simply picking out the juicy highlights of religiously-motivated violence, or religiosly-motivated benevolence, does nothing at all to answer the question raised by the OP, one way or the other. The fact that a person who is either (a) hateful or (b) benevolent is religious does not show that his is hateful or benevolent because he is religious.

Though religion can provide motive, and religious organisations can provide opportunity, without which the aforementioned acts would not have happened.

The OP specifically asked 'Could religion make the world a better place?' which makes me ask which religion, where in the world, and what do you mean by better. If we take a narrow case answer of Catholicism, Ireland, and a more caring, tolerant and egalitarian society, my answer would tend to be 'no'. The reason I give for this is that they had their chance, and the Ireland I grew up in in the 60s and 70s, replete with nuns and brothers running the place, was a more hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory place than Ireland today. Additionally, any organisation that demands chastity of its male only hierarchy is deeply flawed, and will attract all sorts of wierdos into positions of power. Some strands of protestantism do much better, others a bit worse, so I don't think Christianity has much to offer a modern Ireland.

If we take another narrow case, such as Islam in the Sudan where Sharia law is applied at a personal and criminal level, I'd give an even more emphatic no. A religion that mandates the death penalty for apostasy is clearly not going to be good for a society that is laced with many minor religions, and religion hasn't done much for the Sudanese all the way back to the Mahdi's time.

Looking for contexts where religion does provide net positive value is more difficult, and would probably happen more on a localised community rather than national level, let alone world wide. Some of the more philosophical religions such as Buddhism and Taoism also have their benefits, though more on a personal than societal level.

So to answer the OP, 'Could religion make the world a better place?', I'd say that I think not.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Though religion can provide motive, and religious organisations can provide opportunity, without which the aforementioned acts would not have happened.

Yes, but equally secular philosophies can provide (and have provided) motive for terrorist acts, and secular organisations can provide (and have provided) opportunities, for terrorist acts.

And, on the other hand, religion can provide motives, and religious organisations opportunities, for good acts. And the same goes for secular organisations.

Simply pointing to specific examples of any one of these four phenomena does nothing, in itself, to prove that religion (or secularity) does (or does not) make the world a better place.

smacl wrote: »

The OP specifically asked 'Could religion make the world a better place?' which makes me ask which religion, where in the world, and what do you mean by better.

In other words, you want to address questions which are not the questions raised by the OP. The OP asks about religion in general; you want to look at particular religions, necessarily disregarding others. It asks about the world as a whole; you want to look at specific places in the world. The OP asks about goodness in general; you want to ask about particular kind of good. I think we both agree that the question raised by the OP is in fact unanswerable, but your attempt to focus it in this way is, I cautiously submit, invalid. It’s like trying to focus the question “does scientific and technological progress benefit humanity?” down to “did the development of atomic weapons benefit the people of Hiroshima?” or “did the synthesisation of insulin benefit diabetics?” The way you choose to focus the question tell us the answer that you have already decided that you want.

smacl wrote: »

If we take a narrow case answer of Catholicism, Ireland, and a more caring, tolerant and egalitarian society, my answer would tend to be 'no'. The reason I give for this is that they had their chance, and the Ireland I grew up in in the 60s and 70s, replete with nuns and brothers running the place, was a more hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory place than Ireland today.

But Ireland today is as much a product of religious influence as Ireland in the 1960s or 70s, isn’t it? If there had never been any religious influence, or any Catholic influence, in Ireland the place would be unimaginably different now, and I don’t see that we can show that it would be either better or worse, by any metric. We can’t even assume that “caring”, “tolerant” or “egalitiarian” would be regarded as good things in such an Ireland, much less that they would have been more effectively realised. We can write entertaining alternative histories in which Christianity simply withers in Europe before ever reaching Ireland - I’d buy that book! - but there is no way in hell that we can pretend that this is evidence that the arrival of Catholicism in Ireland had a poorer long-term outcome that would have prevailed had it never arrived.

smacl wrote: »

Looking for contexts where religion does provide net positive value is more difficult, and would probably happen more on a localised community rather than national level, let alone world wide. Some of the more philosophical religions such as Buddhism and Taoism also have their benefits, though more on a personal than societal level.

Oh, I don’t know. Things like public hospitals, universities and the condemnation of child exposure are distinctively, and explicitly, Christian contributions to European civilisation that have since been taken up by the rest of the world. There’s also a fairly strong argument that the monotheistic core of Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions created the mindset and worldview within which the scientific method developed; you can at least argue that without JCI monotheism we would never have developed the modern scientific outlook, from which so much has flowed (including, arguably, Dawkinsite atheism).

Of course you can’t prove any of this. Besides, all I’m doing here is the obverse of cherry-picking bad consequences of religion; I don’t think these arguments can make the case for religion as a force for good any more than your selection of arguments can make the case against it.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

I agree entirely. Though the stance you've adopted seems rather intransigent

No view I hold is "intransigent". But some views are held more strongly than others. And yes the view you quoted while using the word "intransigent" is one of the firmer held ones I have. I really do believe where discourse fails, mistrust, hatred, suspicion and even violence follow. If that view is "intransigent" then that is only because I have seen little in this life or this world to contradict it, and all too many example to support it.

smacl wrote: »

I take more of a secular view, insofar I have no issue with people practising whatever religion floats their boat, just so long a the religion is not involved in the running of the state.

That is pretty much my view too, though I am a little more verbose in espousing it. The sentence I often trot out is that I feel religion has absolutely no place "in our halls of power, education, or science".

I certainly do not recall ever expressing a view that even implies or suggests I take issue with people going to Church on Sunday for example. If you feel I have then there is a failure on my part to communicate.... on your part to understand what I write.... or some combination of the two.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Arguments along these lines typically invite us to assume that good religious people would be good even without religion, but hateful religious people are hateful because they are religious, or they invite us to assume the exact opposite.

Thankfully I do not think anyone on the thread is espousing that argument, so you appear to be pre-emtively taking a strike against a position no one is really holding.

But one of the more horrific and insidious sides of religion for me is not that it makes good people do good things or bad people do bad things. But that it can make good people do bad things.

I mentioned for example the parents who watch their children die of easily corrected medical conditions. It would be lazy and simple for us to assume such parents are cruel and horrid and neglectful and hateful. The truth however is that such parents likely watched their children die horrifically and painfully while full of well meaning love for them. Their heart was likely in exactly the right place while doing it, as horrific as this is to acknowledge for us. But their love.... parent child love being one of the purest and most beautiful our species can know.... was simply warped into horror in the context of what they believed about the origins of the universe and their personal gods design for it.

The old adage goes "Good people will do good things, bad people bad things, but to make good people do bad things takes religion". But it is not my main problem that religion makes good people do horrible things in this fashion. My main issue with it that I think speaks directly to the OPs actual query, is that religion creates irreconcilable differences based on fantasy, which leads to destructive discourse or no discourse at all, and when that happens.... unpleasantness invariably follows.

There simply is no reason to think there even is a god, let alone that any of our ideas about its plans or wishes for us are correct. I certainly have never seen you for example even attempt, let alone begin to, substantiate the existence of such a deity ever. I doubt you would even know where to begin if you were to try. So as soon as we start espousing ideas about there being a god and its opinions on what our morality or way of life should be, we instantly put ourselves beyond any meaningful or advantageous discourse. And this in my view is a strong force for evil.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but equally secular philosophies can provide (and have provided) motive for terrorist acts, and secular organisations can provide (and have provided) opportunities, for terrorist acts.

Then I'd say we question the value of those specific philosophies and organisations too. It is not an argument that provides any additional value for religion. Just because I don't like oranges doesn't mean I do like apples.

And, on the other hand, religion can provide motives, and religious organisations opportunities, for good acts. And the same goes for secular organisations.

Yes indeed, and I was referencing all acts including the good, the bad and the ugly. The point was in reference to the notion that good and evil acts are coincidental to religion, whereas religion can and is by times causal.

I agree the opening question was far too broad, so really the options are to ignore it or add some contextual examples to narrow it down. Of course this leads to cherry picking, and I've picked mine as others can pick theirs.

But Ireland today is as much a product of religious influence as Ireland in the 1960s or 70s, isn’t it?

Yes it is, and I wouldn't argue against the formative nature of religion on society. You mention Christian universities, and I immediately think of the great Islamic scholars that provided so much of the foundation of mathematics today. But this is all history and as such is limited in trying to understand whether or not religion provides net value in a modern context. I think where it falls over is with its inability to evolve, e.g. morals values that would have been very liberal and humane in the context of the Middle East two thousand years ago need some serious revision to survive scrutiny in today's Europe. Notions within the Catholic church such as male only hierarchy are diametrically opposed to modern values of gender equality. Mythology aside, Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions are anachronistic in the extreme.

Europe is increasingly becoming more secular, and I think it is pertinent to closely examine the value of religion on that basis. While Ireland for example is still nominally Catholic, Irish people have almost entirely stopped becoming priests, nuns or monks, and many hold the church in contempt. At the same time, Irish society is doing just fine, arguably far better than in days gone by where people were much more religious. My feeling is that we need to identify and attempt to replicate what value religion does provide before it gets abandoned wholesale. While the church clings on to the primary schools for dear life, as the teachers are now entirely drawn from the laity, religion receives much less emphasis, and this is a trend that can only go one way. Talk to any Irish child about confirmation or communion, and it is all about the money. Talk about church and they give you reasons to stay in bed on a Sunday morning. I don't for a moment believe that Ireland will have a Catholic majority, even on a nominal basis, within two generations.

MaxWig

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But their love.... parent child love being one of the purest and most beautiful our species can know.... was simply warped into horror in the context of what they believed about the origins of the universe and their personal gods design for it.

Surely the horror exists without the religion. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Religion exists and thrives because of the horror, or terror of existence and inevitable death.

[/QUOTE] My main issue with it that I think speaks directly to the OPs actual query, is that religion creates irreconcilable differences based on fantasy, which leads to destructive discourse or no discourse at all, and when that happens.... unpleasantness invariably follows. [/QUOTE]

Not sure that I agree with you. There are plenty of irreconcilable differences based on fantasy before you even consider religion as a defining difference. If religion fails to overcome these differences, it is as a result of our humanity, our stuckness in reality, and was inevitable in any case. If religion is a fantasy, so are any and all alternatives to the problem of existence. The only common denominator is, after all, 'us'. The problems that you attribute to religion (failure of discourse based on irreconcilable differences) are being played out within all kinds of groups - families/friendships/communities/nations. Religion may well provide another level of complexity, but the destructiveness and unpleasantness predates it. Was religion a step in the right direction, even if it has failed as an experiment? Surely the answer is yes.

[/QUOTE]There simply is no reason to think there even is a god, let alone that any of our ideas about its plans or wishes for us are correct.... So as soon as we start espousing ideas about there being a god and its opinions on what our morality or way of life should be, we instantly put ourselves beyond any meaningful or advantageous discourse. And this in my view is a strong force for evil.[/QUOTE]
If we espouse that there is no God - to a group of believers - how do we differ from those who espouse there is? We have 'right' on our side? Reason? Science? It really adds very little to the original dilemma

old hippy

I find myself both fascinated & repelled by religion. I am repelled by the appalling acts carried out in the name of any faith. Killing people for their beliefs, their sexuality, their relationships.

At the same time, I love the art that has been inspired by various faiths; paintings, temples, statues, literature and so on.

Does any good come out of religion? I'm sure on an individual level, there are lots of "good" people out there. With "good" intentions. But to what aim?

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

If we espouse that there is no God - to a group of believers - how do we differ from those who espouse there is? We have 'right' on our side? Reason? Science? It really adds very little to the original dilemma

If you consider that we are part of a multicultural society that includes many diverse and often conflicting beliefs, the simplest and fairest solution is to not give weight to these beliefs in public debate, and stick to the mundane. This is essentially the argument for a secular society.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

If you consider that we are part of a multicultural society that includes many diverse and often conflicting beliefs, the simplest and fairest solution is to not give weight to these beliefs in public debate, and stick to the mundane. This is essentially the argument for a secular society.

Of course. And I'm certainly a proponent of a secular society.

But the question of religion's value remains - whether a society is secular or not.

As do the big questions pertaining to existence and death. A secular society does even attempt to answer those questions.

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

Of course. And I'm certainly a proponent of a secular society.

But the question of religion's value remains - whether a society is secular or not.

As do the big questions pertaining to existence and death. A secular society does even attempt to answer those questions.

From the other posts in this thread, there are attempts to compare the good of evil versus the bad. If we have a secular society, the amount of evil that can be carried out in the name of religion becomes restricted to the adherents of that religion, and the value of religion amounts more to personally held value rather than societal value. As an atheist I consider religious belief to be delusional and of no positive value to me personally, but I can fully understand that it is of value to others. If it provides net value for you, go for it. If I was religiously inclined though, I'd certainly try out more than one belief system in addition to the one I'd inherited.

You're right of course that a secular society does not seek to answer major philosophical questions. This is in order primarily to avoid conflict, but also to leave room for adherents of the various different religions and schools of thought to follow their own beliefs.

Brian Shanahan

Gelio wrote: »

But now onto the good. I strongly dislike the Catholic church for many reasons but that does not change the fact that there are many charitable acts done that would not have been done without it. And that's not to say anything good towards the church it just creates a sense of community that sometimes encourages Joe on his couch to get up and go on a trip to a place that has been hit my a hurricane and rebuild houses which he would not have done otherwise. That is not to say Joe is good or bad, or that he wouldn't go on that trip if for non religious reasons. But this particular day the only reason he goes is because of religion. I know this can be picked at but this is just me trying to explain a question that is active in my mind right now.

Your premise is wrong in this paragraph. There is nothing that the rcc has done as an organisation that has not been done, and done better, by more secular organisation. For every pound spent by Trocaire Goal has probably spent three, with a larger percentage of donations received being used for actual charitable purposes. At its very best you can say of the catholic church that it's a shield to help protect those who would be doing the same dangerous work in dangerous areas even if the church weren't there. And then again you've the problem that when the good work conflicts with the church message those doing good are left out to dry (look at the fates of many of the Latin American Liberation Theologists simply because they wouldn't do as the church said and drop the socialism from their message).

So at the very best you've an organisation whose whole effect is to make people's work slightly more effective and slightly more safe, and that only if they agree to toe the party line, which is often contrary to the necessary good work.

Brian Shanahan

MaxWig wrote: »

Of course. And I'm certainly a proponent of a secular society.

But the question of religion's value remains - whether a society is secular or not.

As do the big questions pertaining to existence and death. A secular society does even attempt to answer those questions.

Neither does religion. Goddidit is most emphatically not an answer.

And the thing is the questions you are alluding to about existence and death, they probably have no meaning, because the most likely answer to the why of anything is probably going to be "because it happens", not anything to do with "being x decided he/she/it wanted to create something, therefore we happened."

nagirrac

It is quite ironic that posters who demand accurate verifiable data on one topic are so quick to throw out nonsense data on other topics, as long as it serves to discredit religion.

Two clicks of a mouse will take you to the respective annual reports for Trocaire and Goal. Rather than the 3:1 ratio quoted above, the charitable expenditures of both organizations are roughly equal, based on their most recent annual reports. Open to correction, but to my knowledge Trocaire is an Ireland only funded organization, while Goal fundraises in Ireland, the UK and the US. From the little I know about both organizations, both appear to do enormous good in helping the needy in a broad range of countries.

Whether the motivation for someone contributing to charity is religious or non religious is irrelevant to someone who is starving or has had their entire possessions swept away in a tsunami. How hard is this concept for people to grasp.

Gelio

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Religion does not incite people to do this at all. Community does. Maybe you would enjoy reading "Finn McCool's Football Club" which is a book about "The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of a Pub Soccer Team" in New Orleans where the team did band together and do great works for others in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

And as I called another user on, how can you assert that such people would "not have done otherwise" other than assertion or that "he wouldn't go on that trip if for non religious reasons"? You simply do not know this and many people need nothing more than seeing the plight of their fellow man to feel compelled to get up and do something about it. In fact one could argue that the compulsion at least has a grounding without religion. Seeing people in a disaster with religion you can at least decide "god has called them home to a better place now" or something. Whereas in a reality grounded view we know that the lives that need help are likely the only lives these people will ever have.

I find it strange that I appear to be coming across as defending and religion here but I feel that I need to make my point clear. I totally agree that community is what encourages people to do particular good acts. But this community could be created by a particular religion. Regardless of how good or bad the intentions of the religion are, if they, even inadvertently, create a community that does some good then that religion has caused some good to happen.

I suppose the distinction that I am trying to make is the difference between the religion actually teaching good things that are translated into good acts and a religion simply causing some good to happen. I am arguing that the latter is quite likely.

For example, I could start a book club for no reason other than that I enjoy reading and discussing books. I have no particularly good intentions. Now say this book club reads a book about some third world country that they are inspired to go to this country and do some good charitable work for a few weeks. There is nothing intrinsically good about the book club yet it has caused some good to happen.

I am not supporting religion here, I am simply questioning if there was no religion would we lose the good it causes to happen.

pH wrote: »

This just doesn't stand up to any form of critical scrutiny, time and time again when looked at closer, religious "charity" is a convoluted form of promoting its own interests whilst at the same time being praised for doing it.

If you look at Ireland, the Catholic Church's "charity" has consisted of ruling the educational and health systems as a means of enforcing their own dogma. As for charity and so called christian organisations, read "Angela's Ashes" for an example how they really treat those in need and why they perform charitable acts.

Religion is mainly a con, to trick people of goods in this life for promises about a "return" in the non existent next one. This is why religions are invented - to accumulate wealth, power and status for those running it, looking at the scandal of the mega-churches in the US, or the history any country that becomes a theocracy like Tibet or Iran should make that abundantly clear.

Oh I absolutely agree. Religious charities are often self serving and nowhere near as effective as they could be. But would it be better to have these semi effective charities or not have them at all. Are we guaranteed that if religion was eradicated that these charities would be replaced? And if so we still have to deal with human greed. The self serving, money hungry scum will always find a way in either through religion or some other way. Now I'm not saying that the current situation is better than what the world would be like without religion, I am simply posing the question.

Having religion in my opinion causes some good to happen. Nowhere near as much as it claims to but some non the less. If we lose this religion or more specifically this sense of community, would this good cease to continue?

MaxWig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Neither does religion. Goddidit is most emphatically not an answer.

And the thing is the questions you are alluding to about existence and death, they probably have no meaning, because the most likely answer to the why of anything is probably going to be "because it happens", not anything to do with "being x decided he/she/it wanted to create something, therefore we happened."

"They probably have no meaning"?

OK - but unfortunately that answer doesn't suffice for man. We've moved on from that debate. We make meaning from everything. We don't do well without it. We don't really exist at all without it, except perhaps in padded cells wrapped in buckles.

I'm sorry but I have trouble with anyone who dismisses religion with such a simplistic encapsulation as 'Goddidit'. Atheist or not, where one doesn't fully grasp the genius of religion through history, it's hard to take their argument seriously.

Whether God exists or not, We created him/her for a reason. Universally,the human experience has been a religious one. To dismiss it out of hand as an absurdity seems ignorant in the extreme

MaxWig

pH wrote: »

Religion is mainly a con, to trick people of goods in this life for promises about a "return" in the non existent next one. This is why religions are invented - to accumulate wealth, power and status for those running it, looking at the scandal of the mega-churches in the US, or the history any country that becomes a theocracy like Tibet or Iran should make that abundantly clear.

Are we distinguishing in this thread between Religion and Religious organisations?

The idea that religions are 'invented' to accumulate wealth is simply wrong. Religion is as old as human consciousness. It is as natural as looking up. The human condition is one where we feel special - different. Religion did not create this feeling. We have a better understanding nowadays of how we came to occupy this special seat within nature, but surely the urge to religion remains within everyone.

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have trouble with anyone who dismisses religion with such a simplistic encapsulation as 'Goddidit'. Atheist or not, where one doesn't fully grasp the genius of religion through history, it's hard to take their argument seriously.

Whether God exists or not, We created him/her for a reason. Universally,the human experience has been a religious one. To dismiss it out of hand as an absurdity seems ignorant in the extreme

Genius certainly. Particularly as a method of controlling large populations of peasants by saying you'll give them nothing now, but they'll be sorted out post mortem. Unless of course they don't tow the line, in which case they'll burn for all eternity. And don't forget that the almighty is watching you're every move and can read your mind so don't even think about straying from the path. Yes indeed, as a cost effective mechanism for keeping the great unwashed in line, religion is without a doubt pure genius. Works equally well for the Cathiolic church and L.R.Hubbards Scientology.

If you look at the universal human experience of religion, you'll notice that it is most pronounced among the poorest people in the world, with good reason. As per Gelio's line of reasoning, I think religion can have some good side effects, particularly in focussing a community, but large established Judeo Christian religion is more about maintaining a theocratic power base for the upper echelons of its hierarchy. Theocracy and democracy work in opposition, which is another reason why I feel religion without secularism is bad for a democratic society.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

Genius certainly. Particularly as a method of controlling large populations of peasants by saying you'll give them nothing now, but they'll be sorted out post mortem. Unless of course they don't tow the line, in which case they'll burn for all eternity. And don't forget that the almighty is watching you're every move and can read your mind so don't even think about straying from the path. Yes indeed, as a cost effective mechanism for keeping the great unwashed in line, religion is without a doubt pure genius. Works equally well for the Cathiolic church and L.R.Hubbards Scientology.

If you look at the universal human experience of religion, you'll notice that it is most pronounced among the poorest people in the world, with good reason. As per Gelio's line of reasoning, I think religion can have some good side effects, particularly in focussing a community, but large established Judeo Christian religion is more about maintaining a theocratic power base for the upper echelons of its hierarchy. Theocracy and democracy work in opposition, which is another reason why I feel religion without secularism is bad for a democratic society.

As I touched on above, this thread seems to make no distinction between religion and religious organisation. I can understand that, I guess, but we are speaking about two very different things.
Man's control of man - while as universal as religion - also predates religion.
Reducing religion to an underhanded method of population control is again to vastly underestimate it's genius. Religion and psychology are reflections of each other.
Religion stems from man's need to alleviate the desperate reality of existence. It predates all the negative attributes being associated with it here.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Man's control of man - while as universal as religion - also predates religion.

Did not write this well.

Man's desire to control the world and man's desire to escape it are certainly related.
I just don't think that the urge to control is responsible for the creation of religion. Maybe for it's manipulation, but that is again separate

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

Religion stems from man's need to alleviate the desperate reality of existence.

Agreed. For religion to have value, our existence essentially needs to be desperate. If our society makes our existence both meaningful and enjoyable rather than desperate, religion can be dispensed with as it no longer has any value.

I rarely find reality that desperate, and when I do can can cope pretty well through the love of family and friends, the odd bit of introspection, or something as simple as taking some strenuous exercise. But then, compared to someone starving in the third world, I am in a position of privilege. I don't need religion. They need more than religion, but I guess religion gives them hope even if it doesn't fill their bellies. Reading this thread suggests they might be better off without it.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

Agreed. For religion to have value, our existence essentially needs to be desperate. If our society makes our existence both meaningful and enjoyable rather than desperate, religion can be dispensed with as it no longer has any value.

I rarely find reality that desperate, and when I do can can cope pretty well through the love of family and friends, the odd bit of introspection, or something as simple as taking some strenuous exercise. But then, compared to someone starving in the third world, I am in a position of privilege. I don't need religion. They need more than religion, but I guess religion gives them hope even if it doesn't fill their bellies. Reading this thread suggests they might be better off without it.

My opinion is that we don't find reality 'that desperate' because we are inherently religious. (I say my opinion, rather I've read such theories and happen to agree.) Reality IS desperate. We are worm-food. Fertilizer, stuck in manure producing bodies that expel noxious gases all day long while waiting around to die. If family and friends give us solace from this fact, I don't see how they do it differently from God. Any protection they offer from the anxiety of our circumstance is just as religious/delusional as God's protection.

The manipulation of anyone in the 3rd World by organised 'religious' parties is pretty sick in my opinion. But it does not effect my perception of religion per se

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

We are worm-food. Fertilizer, stuck in manure producing bodies that expel noxious gases all day long while waiting around to die.

Great isn't it! Unfortunately believing in God or the tooth fairy is not going to alter this rather stark fact. Wanting it to be different doesn't make it so, and rejecting reality would be seen by many as delusional. Being desperate also leaves you wide open to all sorts of manipulative predators, which I firmly believe many purveyors of religion happen to be.

Some religions fare better than others in my opinion though, and if you're looking for some philosophical nuggets relating pondering the nature of our existence the tao te ching is brief and merits a read. Then again you can find meaning to life in many places; I rather like Kimya Dawson's notion that 'We all become important when we realize our goal should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole' and suspect that what you are getting from religion can as readily be got through music and the arts without the mythological mumbo jumbo.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

Great isn't it! Unfortunately believing in God or the tooth fairy is not going to alter this rather stark fact. Wanting it to be different doesn't make it so, and rejecting reality would be seen by many as delusional. Being desperate also leaves you wide open to all sorts of manipulative predators, which I firmly believe many purveyors of religion happen to be.

Indeed it won't. My point is simply that we all reject reality. That is how we survive. The basis of religious myth, of all persuasions, from early pagan to modern religions reflect the processes we engage in in order to escape from the glaring hopelessness of our existence. Whether or not you believe in an interventionist/creationist God or not, you do skew reality in order to survive. The reality of existence would be too much to bear otherwise.

Some religions fare better than others in my opinion though, and if you're looking for some philosophical nuggets relating pondering the nature of our existence the tao te ching is brief and merits a read. Then again you can find meaning to life in many places; I rather like Kimya Dawson's notion that 'We all become important when we realize our goal should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole' and suspect that what you are getting from religion can as readily be got through music and the arts without the mythological mumbo jumbo.

Unfortunately I don't get anything from organised religion. I'm as atheist as the next person. Faith however takes many forms. And we all surrender to faith of some kind. We are not capable of self-reliance in the true sense. We imagine that our relationships and goals have some cosmic meaning. We are built to. Whether we get 'it' from (Organised) Religion or Music or Arts, really makes no difference. The tendency is essentially a religious one. We endeavour to transcend ourselves. Makes no odds if your God is Christ or John Coltrane.

I'm not an advocate of organised religion. Didn't mean to come across that way.
I simply think that a discussion about the good or bad of religion needs to avoid too much focus on the follies of church/religious leaders.
If Religion aims to provide man with answers to the problems of human greed for example, it seems too simple to claim that human greed is reason enough to dismiss it. If that makes sense

Zubeneschamali

My way of looking at this is that it doesn't matter.

Religion could inspire all sorts of good in the world, but it would still be a bad thing if it isn't true. Religion could inspire all sorts of evil in the world, and would still be good if it was true.

So the important question for any given religion is not "does it inspire good or evil", it's "Is it true?".

From the reverse direction, I often hear Christians trying to imagine non-belief, and saying that it should cause all sorts of immoral behaviour once the fear of god is gone; that atheists should be nihilists, hedonists, even ruthless criminals.

Apart from being a failure of imagination and wrong in practice, this is them missing the point in the same way as the OP: if there is no God and the reasonable response is nihilism, we should still face up to that, not pretend there is a God in the hopes of avoiding the reality.

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't get anything from organised religion. I'm as atheist as the next person. Faith however takes many forms. And we all surrender to faith of some kind. We are not capable of self-reliance in the true sense. We imagine that our relationships and goals have some cosmic meaning. We are built to. Whether we get 'it' from (Organised) Religion or Music or Arts, really makes no difference. The tendency is essentially a religious one. We endeavour to transcend ourselves. Makes no odds if your God is Christ or John Coltrane.

We had a real rambling thread a couple of weeks back, which among many other tangents followed were different peoples definitions of religion, including mainstream religions, pantheism, monotheism, natural religion, etc... My understanding was that the majority of people take quite a narrow definition when they use the word, which would include Judeo/Islamic/Christian beliefs, Hinduism, Buddhism and other mainstream belief systems but not much else. Much as I like his music, I find it difficult to reconcile listening to John Coltrane with any definition of religion that I'm aware of. Having a sense of wonder or awe and a vivid imagination does not constitute having religion, nor are our endeavours our beliefs.

I'm not an advocate of organised religion. Didn't mean to come across that way. I simply think that a discussion about the good or bad of religion needs to avoid too much focus on the follies of church/religious leaders.
If Religion aims to provide man with answers to the problems of human greed for example, it seems too simple to claim that human greed is reason enough to dismiss it. If that makes sense

All this demands accepted definitions for good, evil, and religion. After being lambasted for going over the top in use of Merriam & Webster and the OED recently, I reckon I'd be up for a virtual lynching in I throw out any more definitions, so I'll leave it at that

smacl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So the important question for any given religion is not "does it inspire good or evil", it's "Is it true?".

So given that that there are a bunch of religions out there with different contradictory mythologies, most of which categorically state that the other religions are bogus, the majority of people who practice religion have got it wrong, and most religion is in fact bogus. It seems like a small jump from that position to atheism which simply extends it to all religious mythology being bogus.