Religion is a tool invented by humans to create and organize human societies. Like any other human tool it can be used for many different purposes depending upon who is using it. IMO, if it promotes unnecessary violence or promotes human selfishness it is being put to bad purposes and those particular actions should be fought. If it is being used to promote and advance the welfare of all humans those actions should be supported regardless of the imaginary beings being called upon to create a common bond..And how often in history have we seen religion being used to advance the welfare of all? MLK would be an example, but there are few examples where religion wasn't being used by both sides. Not just "My god is mightier", but theologically based philosophy like slavery is good or bad or homosexuality is/isn't a sin. It can be hard to say which comes first, although if you look at the First Crusade, it appears that the Bishop that offered salvation to any idiot who would grab a sickle and ran off to Jerusalem was quite surprised by the massive response. Since then, his model has been followed, but I'm always leery of a theory that claims some person had a desire to control, so they invented religion. I think most pre-science believers did truly believe and it actually did work that if you got others to believe, you could accomplish great things. But like the military industrial complex, once you create that belief system it becomes a force of its own, hard to control. We now know much better ways to advance civilization, so I don't think the idea that "if religion does some good we should let it be" holds anymore.
Religion is a tool invented by humans to create and organize human societies. Like any other human tool it can be used for many different purposes depending upon who is using it. IMO, if it promotes unnecessary violence or promotes human selfishness it is being put to bad purposes and those particular actions should be fought. If it is being used to promote and advance the welfare of all humans those actions should be supported regardless of the imaginary beings being called upon to create a common bond..And how often in history have we seen religion being used to advance the welfare of all? MLK would be an example, but there are few examples where religion wasn't being used by both sides. Not just "My god is mightier", but theologically based philosophy like slavery is good or bad or homosexuality is/isn't a sin. It can be hard to say which comes first, although if you look at the First Crusade, it appears that the Bishop that offered salvation to any idiot who would grab a sickle and ran off to Jerusalem was quite surprised by the massive response. Since then, his model has been followed, but I'm always leery of a theory that claims some person had a desire to control, so they invented religion. I think most pre-science believers did truly believe and it actually did work that if you got others to believe, you could accomplish great things. But like the military industrial complex, once you create that belief system it becomes a force of its own, hard to control. We now know much better ways to advance civilization, so I don't think the idea that "if religion does some good we should let it be" holds anymore. I think that we need to study religion scientifically; the same as any other subject. Just denouncing it and claiming that it works only to the detriment of human society is as much a prejudice as any the religious holds towards us non-believers. I see to many people who are non-believers treating science the same as the religious treat their gods, as I posted some time ago. But to me science is objective investigation not merely faith in scientists. This is one of the Dennettionian blind spots that many in the scientific community share. "One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance. You are normally oblivious of your own blind spot . . . . " Breaking the Spell Daniel Dennett Breaking the Spell Pg. 31 The nation-state, even when democratic, the scientific community are no better than religion and sometimes worse when it comes to promoting myths. Religion is a tool nothing more nothing less it is how it is used that can be the problem. And although I sincerely believe that the belief in non-existent supernatural beings cannot be the basis for a valid long term social organization in todays world IMO we still have a long way to go before we establish a viable and just alternative.
Funny that you say we should study religion, then quote a book that does just that. I see studies about religion all the time. What makes you say that it hasn’t been studied enough? Not that we should stop studying, but why do you think we aren’t doing enough?
The realization that we are ignorant of our own ignorance is what drives us to improve the scientific method. It’s what drove us to begin experimenting with nature rather than waiting for gods to guide us.
You commit the Nirvana fallacy, that because we haven’t established an alternative, we shouldn’t jettison the parts of religion that we have ample evidence to do so. This OP didn’t say all of religion is hurtful, it was a counter to the statement that religion is not hurtful at all.
Maher is wrong, though. Biology made all those nasty things happen, religion is just one of the "hats" worn.Religion contains actual philosophies of how to live your life and specific directions for what to do and why. It is specifically taught and people are given rewards and punishments for doing or not doing it. This is partially accurate, but not always applicable. The fact that the majority of religious people are not causing death and destruction is proof that religious "indoctrination" is not the trigger which causes these behaviors. Something else is going on. That may be true and there certainly are many other factors and combinations of factors that drive people to do such things. But it would be interesting to know if religion is a common thread in aggressive antisocial acts. It could be a determining force without every religious person (or even most) engaging in such acts. Lois
Maher is wrong, though. Biology made all those nasty things happen, religion is just one of the "hats" worn.Religion contains actual philosophies of how to live your life and specific directions for what to do and why. It is specifically taught and people are given rewards and punishments for doing or not doing it. This is partially accurate, but not always applicable. The fact that the majority of religious people are not causing death and destruction is proof that religious "indoctrination" is not the trigger which causes these behaviors. Something else is going on. That may be true and there certainly are many other factors and combinations of factors that drive people to do such things. But it would be interesting to know if religion is a common thread in aggressive antisocial acts. It could be a determining force without every religious person (or even most) engaging in such acts. Lois I missed that comment by mid atlantic somehow. First, my comment wasn't just about death and destruction, it was about using reasoning or not. But let's go with the "partially accurate" thing and focus on death and destruction. The actions of the majority are not entirely applicable here and do not constitute proof. The majority of Americans are not participating in the war in Afghanistan and many are against it, but still, we are all culpable to some degree. Non-action allowed racism to continue in the South for decades. Non-action is a cornerstone of religion; don't question authority, don't trust your feelings if they contradict the clergy, don't think for yourself. Pray for peace, but don't speak out against those who cause war. Wait for the better time to come, don't take action now. Don't listen to those people who talk about the Inquisition, that wasn't "real" Christianity, besides that's in the past. "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." That's Bishop Helder Camara, saying that just a few decades ago, and he's talking about his own Catholic leaders, not just politicians. You can find these exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule. We are in the middle of an experiment right now. Liberal Christians are teaching things in church that used to be confined to seminary. Pastors are encouraging people to question the Bible. And, people are leaving churches in droves. Correlation? Could be.
It can be difficult to not come across as high and mighty in forums, especially when you are pretty sure you are right. There was a time when I was on the opposite side of this argument, and although a lot of data went into changing my mind, it is difficult to present that data in any manner that leads to my conclusion. It’s as difficult as making the case that because there is a Constitution guaranteeing rights in the US, people in the US actually enjoy those rights. Certainly many don’t. If you know both history and law, you can show that church and state are separated, but if you live in many of the isolated communities in America, you would have no idea what that really means.
Similarly, I went to a liberal church for a while and thought that there was a revolution going on to transform Christianity. Then I figured out that a protective bubble had been built around me that kept me and my Jesus freak friends in and mainstream Protestants out. Throughout history, bubbles like this occasionally get broken and real change occurs, but most of the time, they do their job of maintaining the status quo.
So, when I challenge anyone to say why they think religion is not, on balance, bad, I’m asking, what data am I missing, and does what I’m saying make sense.
Of the 10,000 gods in mankind’s existence the key catalyst of the surviving religions has proven to be the ones with some sort of afterlife. Take away heaven or any form of afterlife and the religion will die.
People are fallible, it’s an inherent trait in all of us, no one has perfect conception of reality or can be truly objective.
But religion takes common metaphorical experiences gained over time and tries to present and express them in terms of perfection and then reacts often with extreme measures when the inevitable occurs…they don’t live up to billing.
Wanting the human world to operate in strict observance of a literal bible or following precisely the teaching of a certain prophet may meet the interests of the powerful religious organizations that grow out of received inner experiences, but they inevitably don’t meet the demands of the real world we exist in. Hence this inherent conflict lays the ground for inevitable violence and oppression based on religious beliefs.
The pursuit of verifiable knowledge through developments like the modern scientific method may not be as commonly accessible as the codification of inner received “wisdom” as with religions, but it offers a means to check facts and consistently adjust to a constantly evolving world.
It’s the difference between comfort(religions) and safety(science) at a time when we need to be able to understand and react in a very dynamic environment without blowing up those we don’t understand and may not like because of that.
As an atheist I feel something satisying about blaming religion for bad human actions. But I also have to be reasonable and fair. Religion is so much a part of the vast majority of the human population that it’s far too easy to blame it for a lot of things it shouldn’t be blamed for. And because it’s so ubiquitous, it’s hard to know whether it has any real influence or how much.
Only a few religious people are driven by any religion to engage in bad acts in its name. The majority of religious people–even very religious people–do not engage in such acts. i suspect that, more often than not, it is merely a handy attributiion for things people want to do for other reasons. Humans are human no matter what their belief system. They tend to act in certain ways for many reasons, most of which they don’t know and can’t identify. It’s too easy to attribute bad acts to religion because it’s here, there and everywhere and so easy to blame. As we’ve pointed out here before, morality doesn’t come from religion. It comes from human interaction and survival. Peope attribute to religion many things, good and bad, that have no real connection to religion. We should all think twice before we fall into the trap of blaming religion for nearly every bad act. Yes,it should be blamed for some, but I think it is very rarely a driving force. There are so many other factors to be considered. It’s a lazy way of assigning blame, and a self satisfying one. Blaming religion also tends to stop us from thinking things through and finding the actual sources of bad acts. Religion is a too handy scapegoat.
Lois
Most "serious" religions make people absolutist and self-righteous and blind to all self-skepticism - willing to accept faith above real world experiences and learning. IMHO all bad traits to be avoided.Eh, it's temping to agree, but there is no evidence religion makes people that way; self righteousness and inability to use analytical thinking are heritable traits in many people. Alright, trying not to sound too self-righteous here, but what about the evidence of the creeds and teachings of major theologians of the major religions? They flat out tell you to not use reason. They call philosophers and education false gods. Are people born not thinking, or do their elders tell them that NOT questioning is wise?To my layperson's knowledge, there is no evidence that people are born "not thinking" - except maybe severely brain damaged people. There is evidence that the capacity for critical thinking, magical thinking, and curiosity are "nature" rather then "nurture", so there's going to be a wide array.
Maher is wrong, though. Biology made all those nasty things happen, religion is just one of the "hats" worn.Religion contains actual philosophies of how to live your life and specific directions for what to do and why. It is specifically taught and people are given rewards and punishments for doing or not doing it. This is partially accurate, but not always applicable. The fact that the majority of religious people are not causing death and destruction is proof that religious "indoctrination" is not the trigger which causes these behaviors. Something else is going on. That may be true and there certainly are many other factors and combinations of factors that drive people to do such things. But it would be interesting to know if religion is a common thread in aggressive antisocial acts. It could be a determining force without every religious person (or even most) engaging in such acts. LoisFrom what I've gathered it's not, but I haven't gathered that much.
You're not made that way, then! But, others are.The Musculoskeletal, Endocrine, Cardiovascular, Neurological systems all combined to produce the destroyed clinics.Granted, but religion was the catalyst. I posess those same systems but pass abortion clinics by without a second thought. Same with churches. My non-theistic neurological systems don't compell me to throw a bomb in the door or shoot a fundie for Dawkins. Cap't Jack
Mike, just because a person might have biologically what it takes to behave a certain way, it doesn’t mean that environment doesn’t play a role. I don’t know if religious fanaticism causes people to bomb abortion clinics but I think it is possible. We do know, however, that religion was not the trigger behind 9/11 nor the bombing of Atocha train station in Madrid. All one needs to do is read Scott Atran’s book; not to be “convinced” as Darron said, but to be informed. The evidence on this topic seems pretty clear to me.
“When I hear from people that religion doesn’t hurt anything, I say, really? Well besides wars, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan." —Bill Maher, in an interview with Don Imus on Fox, Nov. 1, 2009Okay slight problem of dealing with a long list. So I'm hearing many things that only apply to some items. Category 1 Things that are explicitly stated by religious leaders: the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches You could say they don't happen all the time but I don't see how you can say they aren't a direct result of organized religion or gain most of their support via religion. Without religion, these would be difficult to make a case for and recruit people to do them. Category 2 Political actions that had the support of religious leaders: wars, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing These would be harder to pull off with religious support alone but they are easier to get done politically if you have the support of the people who are being told to support it by their clergy Category 3 Things that are indirect result of religious policies systematic sex with children, blowing up girls schools (arguably a Category 1) That these things can happen without religion seems irrelevant to me. We agree their bad, so any motivating factor for them needs to be analyzed. There are times when I could agree that a war is a rational decision, but human sacrifice has never accomplished anything. It's only explanation was supernatural and thankfully we've figured out it was wrong. And why look to religion to inform me about the justification for war? I have no argument that religion has positive aspects, but until an actual religion steps forward and truly cleanses itself of these bad elements, I don't see much point in discussing them. The problem is they don't have a way to sanction others who use their same book to justify evil. In this country, they could do it fairly easily. Change the designation of religion to include rules about what they can do. A 501c3 can't talk about politics and educational institutions have standards. If there is such a thing as "true" Christianity, let's hear what it is.
Mike, just because a person might have biologically what it takes to behave a certain way, it doesn’t mean that environment doesn’t play a role. I don’t know if religious fanaticism causes people to bomb abortion clinics but I think it is possible. We do know, however, that religion was not the trigger behind 9/11 nor the bombing of Atocha train station in Madrid. All one needs to do is read Scott Atran’s book; not to be “convinced" as Darron said, but to be to informed. The evidence on this topic seems pretty clear to me.You might also read Adam Lankford's book TheMyth of Martyrdom: what really drives Suicide Bombers . His contention is, after studying the backgrounds of the most lethal terrorists, that radical groups actively seek out and use those who are mentally ill to do their dirty work but as I stated, in many cases (clearly not the Unibomber) the catalyst was religion. He included, for instance the bios of each one of the 911 terrorists and in every case they were societal pariahs with suicidal tendencies and drawn to extreme religious beliefs that promised them relief and reward from their extreme mental anguish. IOW, religion gave them the focus needed to perform this extreme act. Would they have hijacked a plane and flown it into a building knowingly killing thousands of innocent victims without a religious motive? If they wanted to committ suicide then why not just pick up a gun or jump out of a window? Cap't Jack
This is rather a long quote, and it’s from a novel, but I think it might be appropriate here.
"… generally speaking, beliefs arise from an event or character that may or may not be authentic, and rapidly evolve into social movements that are conditioned and shaped by the political, economic and societal circumstances of the group that accepts them…
“A large part of the mythology that develops around each of these doctrines, from its liturgy to its rules and taboos, comes from the bureaucracy generated as they develop and not from the supposed supernatural act that originated them. Most of the simple, well-intentioned anecdotes are a mixture of common sense and folklore, and all the belligerent force they eventually develop comes from a subsequent interpretation of those principles, or even their distortion at the hands of bureaucrats. The administrative and hierarchical aspects seem to be crucial in the evolution of belief systems. The truth is first revealed to all men, but very quickly individuals appear claiming sole authority and a duty to interpret, administer and, if need be, alter this truth in the name of the common good. To this end they establish a powerful and potentially repressive organization. This phenomenon, which biology shows us is common to any social group, soon transforms the doctrine into a means of achieving control and political power. Divisions, wars and breakups become inevitable. Sooner or later the Word becomes flesh and the flesh bleeds.”
Carlos Ruiz Zafon, “The Angels’ Game”, Phoenix, London 2010. Pages 213-214.
TFS
As an atheist I feel something satisying about blaming religion for bad human actions. But I also have to be reasonable and fair. Religion is so much a part of the vast majority of the human population that it's far too easy to blame it for a lot of things it shouldn't be blamed for. And because it's so ubiquitous, it's hard to know whether it has any real influence or how much. Only a few religious people are driven by any religion to engage in bad acts in its name. The majority of religious people--even very religious people--do not engage in such acts. i suspect that, more often than not, it is merely a handy attributiion for things people want to do for other reasons. Humans are human no matter what their belief system. They tend to act in certain ways for many reasons, most of which they don't know and can't identify. It's too easy to attribute bad acts to religion because it's here, there and everywhere and so easy to blame. As we've pointed out here before, morality doesn't come from religion. It comes from human interaction and survival. Peope attribute to religion many things, good and bad, that have no real connection to religion. We should all think twice before we fall into the trap of blaming religion for nearly every bad act. Yes,it should be blamed for some, but I think it is very rarely a driving force. There are so many other factors to be considered. It's a lazy way of assigning blame, and a self satisfying one. Blaming religion also tends to stop us from thinking things through and finding the actual sources of bad acts. Religion is a too handy scapegoat. LoisIt may not be the proximal cause of many destructive actions and policies that individuals and groups engage in, but religions help to create the context that make them possible in many cases. Far too often they foster a victim culture that allows followers to claim that their actions are justified due to perceived wrongs to their founders or prophets. Speaking as someone who was part of the Christian fundamental movement in my youth, it's hard to overstate how closely many people in that following identify with and feel empowered by the imagined martydom of Christ. The underlying context is, "look at what terrible things they did to our saviour, we must always be prepared to react by whatever means are necessary to that kind of threat in the future." There are also close parallels with Islam and the always available resort to Jihad to "protect" the faith. I think it's a mistake to think of both those religions as being mostly about spirituality, Christianity in it's present form arose out of the Roman civil war at the time of Constantine and was used as a rally point for the forces that eventually rejoined then expanded the Empire once again. It's followed some basic patterns that have allowed it to survive and expand in an often violent and chaotic world and probably more closely represents Roman values, not true Christian ones. Lip service is given to modesty, tolerance, love for others and forgiveness, but those things are easily abandoned when the Christ the Martyr image is invoked. So while religions may not be the root cause of some of the more destructive forces in society, they very often serve as a focal point for those forces. It's harder to rally people around a cause that is based in critical thinking processes for instance, science offers us an alternative that while it's less familiar to many people, is much less susceptible to being hijacked for destructive political and private interests.
So while religions may not be the root cause of some of the more destructive forces in society, they very often serve as a focal point for those forces. It's harder to rally people around a cause that is based in critical thinking processes for instance, science offers us an alternative that while it's less familiar to many people, is much less susceptible to being hijacked for destructive political and private interests.Great points fuzzy. Maybe we shouldn't see the process of science as bad, things like taking the necessary time to make a decision and waiting to gather evidence before charging ahead. In some cases, you have to choose based on intuition, or you are choosing to do nothing and that can be bad, but religion doesn't make doing that any easier or any better.
This is rather a long quote, and it's from a novel, but I think it might be appropriate here. "..... generally speaking, beliefs arise from an event or character that may or may not be authentic, and rapidly evolve into social movements that are conditioned and shaped by the political, economic and societal circumstances of the group that accepts them..... "A large part of the mythology that develops around each of these doctrines, from its liturgy to its rules and taboos, comes from the bureaucracy generated as they develop and not from the supposed supernatural act that originated them. Most of the simple, well-intentioned anecdotes are a mixture of common sense and folklore, and all the belligerent force they eventually develop comes from a subsequent interpretation of those principles, or even their distortion at the hands of bureaucrats. The administrative and hierarchical aspects seem to be crucial in the evolution of belief systems. The truth is first revealed to all men, but very quickly individuals appear claiming sole authority and a duty to interpret, administer and, if need be, alter this truth in the name of the common good. To this end they establish a powerful and potentially repressive organization. This phenomenon, which biology shows us is common to any social group, soon transforms the doctrine into a means of achieving control and political power. Divisions, wars and breakups become inevitable. Sooner or later the Word becomes flesh and the flesh bleeds." Carlos Ruiz Zafon, "The Angels' Game", Phoenix, London 2010. Pages 213-214. TFSGood quote. Makes sense. Lois
I just heard something in a panel discussion from Jonathan Haidt. The panelists were discussing morality and some theory from Samuel Bowles came up. Haidt said we probably first cooperated in war (you could call it defending the tribe if you want to be nice), then other structures, including religion developed to support that.
I’ve heard similar theories about rituals around hunting. We hunted for survival, but we could relate to animals that had fear in their eyes and had families just like us, so we developed rituals to seek forgiveness and to condition the young warriors to participate.
I have very little to back any of this up, so if anyone can add to it, that’d be great.