Religion Has Done More Harm Than Good

To the people on this forum who are debating whether religion has done more harm than good, here are three points I would like you to consider:

1. Many of you seem to attribute every charitable deed done by religious people to their religiousity. I don't see it. If these people were all atheists and agnostics and the Tsunami hit or Hurricane Katrina, would they all turn away and not help their fellow man? I don't think so. If you think they would, then you have a very deep misconception about the nature of atheists and agnostics. And if you think that all religious people would help out, then you also have a deep misconception of religious people.
2. While I contend the majority of good deeds would still occur even without religion being involved, the opposite is not true. You would almost never see "religious heretics" burned at stakes were it not for religion. Religious fervor is probably at the heart of over 90% of the large scale human vs. human atrocities this planet has ever seen. Take religion out of the equation and you don't have Islamic suicide bombers. Study human history and you will see that this same concept of killing infidels for a promised reward in the afterlife has shed enough blood to fill an ocean.
3. I believe that in a previous thread Sklansky mentioned that religion is good for "Prisoner's Dilemma" reasons. I don't see how this applies to religion but doesn't to atheists and agnostics. Couldn't atheists and agnostics also treat each other decently for prisoner's dilemma reasons. Wouldn't their long-term self interests which also include their interests in the welfare of their progeny also fall under this prisoner's dilemma framework. Maybe I don't understand the implications of the prisoner's dilemma example well enough to see its exclusive tie in to religion because how I understand it now, I just don't see it.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
While I contend the majority of good deeds would still occur even without religion being involved, the opposite is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mao and Stalin come to mind immediately.

[TomCollins]

I'm getting pretty sick of these "Mao/Stalin" arguments. They never killed for the sake of athiesm. They killed for power. Is it that hard to see?

1. I agree to a point, however I believe religion does result in more charitable work and good deeds overall.

2. Religion has been a cause of many wars, no doubt. But I think it has also helped build civilizations and has had a civilizing influence in general.

3. The basis of morality is not religion or God, even if God does exist. Even some religious scholars agree with this point. But it undoubtedly helps guide some people toward good deeds and moral behaviour, at the cost of imprisoning their mind and soul.

Overall I think the harm of Christianity, Islam, and other weird religions is more subtle than the wars they cause. It goes back to fact that we're indoctrinating children to believe in silly fairytales, and stunting their spiritual, emotional and intellectual growth as a result. Put simply, religion dulls reason, courage and curiosity about this mysterious universe. What effects this has on society is open for debate.

Note that this doesn't apply to religions like Buddhism.

I would interject that some of the meditative philosophies (Tao, some forms of Buddhism) can lead to an over-abundance of self inflection, to the point of becoming damn near a hermit.

But I agree about imprisoning the mind. Ever since I saw my way clear of Catholicism, I am a much more independant person, more willing to go out on a limb for my beliefs and honestly, more rebellious, which I think is a good thing.

Basically I think that the world's religions are there to give different people different reasons to be a good person. Personally, all I need to be a good person (I hope) is my brain. I really dont care what it is that does it for you: if you're a good person, that's all that matters to me.

[Zygote]

and scientific progress was impeded for well over a millennium.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it has also helped build civilizations and has had a civilizing influence in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

please be more specific.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
But I think it has also helped build civilizations and has had a civilizing influence in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

please be more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with the formation and preservation of Western Civilization as we know it.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I think it has also helped build civilizations and has had a civilizing influence in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

please be more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with the formation and preservation of Western Civilization as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be more specific. give specific examples.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
and scientific progress was impeded for well over a millennium.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that matters because...?

[David Sklansky]

. "I believe that in a previous thread Sklansky mentioned that religion is good for "Prisoner's Dilemma" reasons. I don't see how this applies to religion but doesn't to atheists and agnostics. Couldn't atheists and agnostics also treat each other decently for prisoner's dilemma reasons."

Thoretically no. Because in prisoner dilemma situations an INDIVIDUAL is always better off being selfish, even if no one else is. The paradox occurs because each individul realizes that. To get around it requires people to believe in a "higher" punishment that more than makes up for the selfishness reward. For the majority of people only a belief in God will easily fill the bill.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and scientific progress was impeded for well over a millennium.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that matters because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you using a computer?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and scientific progress was impeded for well over a millennium.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that matters because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you using a computer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that I would have had access to a computer earlier in my life?

[Zygote]

you said scientific progress does not matter. your computer is the product of scientific progress. therefore, you believe that using a computer and not using a computer are equivalent in terms of what matters. And this just begs the question, why would you fork out money to buy your machine?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
you said scientific progress does not matter. your computer is the product of scientific progress. therefore, you believe that using a computer and not using a computer are equivalent in terms of what matters. And this just begs the question, why would you fork out money to buy your machine?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said any such thing. Science does indeed matter as far as quality of life, etc. go. I was asking how any such minimal delay (1000 years) in scientific progress matters (relative to us humans) in the context of the timespan of the universe (history - past, present and future) .

[udontknowmickey]

The truth or falsity of any idea or religion is unchanged by whether it causes (or fails to cause) people to live "better" lives. Maybe the only true system of beliefs require you to go commit suicide. This doesn't mean it's false, merely that it's unlivable.

If you're going to discuss the truthfulness (or irrationality) of a system of beliefs, you cannot judge it by what it "causes" people to do. If (making up religion here) Xenogeoia is true, and it commands all it's people to go and rape unbelievers in order to propegate their seed, then it's completely good and in accordance to their beliefs for believers to do so!

Rather, in order to prove Xenogeoia false, we must examine their beliefs and find them irrational and inconsistant with themselves and not with our preconcieved notions of "good."

If you're going to judge a system of beliefs against your own, of course you're going to find that it's different!

The same idea goes for Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, and any other system of beliefs out there. We cannot prove it false (or "less likely") by saying "well, it thinks that &lt;this&gt; is good, whereas I don't think &lt;this&gt; is good, therefore it is false (less likely)"

[RJT]

Yep, what Mickey said.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
. "I believe that in a previous thread Sklansky mentioned that religion is good for "Prisoner's Dilemma" reasons. I don't see how this applies to religion but doesn't to atheists and agnostics. Couldn't atheists and agnostics also treat each other decently for prisoner's dilemma reasons."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Thoretically no. Because in prisoner dilemma situations an INDIVIDUAL is always better off being selfish, even if no one else is. The paradox occurs because each individul realizes that. To get around it requires people to believe in a "higher" punishment that more than makes up for the selfishness reward. For the majority of people only a belief in God will easily fill the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theory or not, it's not too useful if it doesn't align with the facts. Humans, like most social animals and even some non-social animals, have evolved altruistic traits, some for obvious evolutionary reasons, some for more subtle ones. We don't have to be coerced into them or resolve them logically, it's a natural behaviour like a mother protecting her young. Specifically how it plays out will depend on the social structure we find ourselves in but it will show itself.

Religion only plays a role if it is a major force in a specific society but it isn't the cause of altruism and it becomes merely the way it manifests itself quite often with some of the people involved in it.

Cultures with a dominant religous belief can exhibit the full range of altruistic attitudes and a comparison of western christianity over the centuries is a good illustration. For the most part religion follows the cultural trend rather than lead, by it's nature religion is conservative rather than innovative and as we're all aware many of the causes the our present day religions adhere to were not that long ago opposed by the same religions.

It's not necessary that we actively decide that there is a big longterm reward in certain altruistic behaviour, natural selection has pruned us this way, so I think David's statement that non-theists have something to "get-around" in order to be altruistic ignores the facts of human social animal nature and is based on some 'blank slate' theory of mind and should be prefaced with " If we were born as blank slates..."

I expect most on here are aware of the large varieties of studies and disicplines that inform us about animal nature. Nature/nuture are feed-back systems and religion fits into the nuture side of the loop.

I'm still confused about the Prisoner's Dilemma example. Sklansky or anyone else, please explain what I'm missing with the following:

I don't believe in God. I am selfish and would like to own every shiny thing I see. I would steal your shiny car if I thought I could get away with it. But then a thought occurs to me. When I go to sleep or turn my back, someone will steal this car from me. So instead I decide that I would be better off (serve my selfish interests) if I played along with a rule that we should not steal from each other. This is why if I'm in Sklanky's house in a party full of strangers and I stumble across his wallet, I will not steal it even though I know I could get away with it. I know that playing along with this common rule could enable me to have a party at my house with strangers and not have my wallet stolen. Also, if I see someone truly in need, I may give them assistance in hopes that if I am ever truly in need someone will help me. This is the same reason why family member's might help each other move or paint their house.

If this is or isn't technically defined under the definition of "prisoner's dilemma" type thinking is of interest to me but mostly for just trivia reasons. My main interest is in showing that this kind of pro-social behavior that I just described and is widely believed to be based on religion only, really has nothing to do with religion. It just has to do with people who are smart enough to see the big picture on things and these people can be atheists and agnostics. I know this because I'm one of them.

Here's one additional thought not required to make my point, but interesting nonetheless. Even though I don't believe in god, I have empathy for others that further motivates me to play by these rules, and giving to people I truly believe are in need also makes me feel good. So this behaivor can be both selfish and altruistic simultaneously. And no god required. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suspect that these feelings are due to a social evolutionary process. I'm sure believers will conclude that they are some sort of proof that god exists and gives us a conscience.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I think it has also helped build civilizations and has had a civilizing influence in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

please be more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else would you have built the hierarchy of the size needed or get that many people working towards the same goal? is what I think he meant.

Say what you will about God or no God, but nothing's better than religion for getting an assload of people following orders, which is what society needed to get off the ground.

[Zygote]

So your argument is basically that religion hasn't been around long enough to [censored] up humanity for any important period that should matter?

Also, what does this have to do with the topic, "Religion has Done More Harm than Good"?