Is Religion Bad For Society?

[Philosophy Now]

by Rev. Bob Eckhard

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Is_R ... or_Society

[HexHammer]

It's a both yes and no, there are many good virtues in various branches of religion, but also many bad filled with supersticion and discrimination.

Specially in the muslim curan there's 13 hateful verse, instigating hate and vile behaviour to the faithful.

[Arising_uk]

... and vile behaviour to the faithful.

To the faithful?

[attofishpi]

Is Religion Bad For Society?

Im going with YES

Anything that creates allegiances of man in one form or other is destined to war...or even nasty arguments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2u6DeXvLDM

[Conde Lucanor]

Most of the time.

[Wyman]

No, it is good. I agree with the Grand Inquisitor. The masses need to be told what to do. If not directed by
someone/something that at least ostensibly advocates for moral restraint (don't kill, don't steal, etc.), then
they will find something else to follow, which usually leads to some form of genocide.

[Conde Lucanor]

Religion and genocide have been partners before.

[HexHammer]

I agree with the Grand Inquisitor.

You are knowledgeable! Impressive, most impressive!

[Wyman]

Religion and genocide have been partners before.

Never said it was perfect.

It's the lesser of two evils, religion v. atheism. As the level of intelligence increases, perhaps religion becomes the greater evil to the individual. But in terms of society and culture, religion binds people together with very strong ties - so they don't set in on each other. Now, when they meet another group of people with different beliefs, watch out. That's why most religious genocide occurs in the context of wars against neighbors.

Atheist regimes, however, not only 'burn heretics' (so to speak) like religions and go to war with neighbors, like religions, they also tend to liquidate entire classes of people from within and lose all respect for human life.

[Conde Lucanor]

Atheism is just denying the existence of gods. That's the basic principle and there's nothing implicit or explicit in that principle that advocates for discrimination and violation of human rights. To have the state imposing atheism by coercive means is, of course, as bas ad imposing any religious doctrine or political ideology by force. However, it can hardly be argued that any political structure is the direct expression of atheism principles. The same cannot be said about religion, since most, if not all, political regimes throughout history have been some form of theocracy, ecclesiocracy, or something of that sort. By its own principles, religion calls for a hierarchical structure, which exercises some type of power, as was the case of the Papal States for 13 centuries. There is still now a political state and territory ruled by Catholic clergies, which by the way, have been forced to admit all its past and present misconduct, from murder and torture to sexual abuse of children. Talk about respect for human life. These are accusations against the church as an institution, because it only works as an institution.

On the other hand, atheism itself doesn't call for a hierarchical structure, it's not an institution, and does not produce political structures directly derived from its basic principle of unbelief. As atheism gains popularity, we may see a tendency to associate and seek political spaces, but it has very little to do with the hierarchies of clergymen, and most atheist associations promote secularization, which just means the state being neutral, while still allowing universal freedoms, including religious association and free speech. It does not promote a state that persecutes religion.

There's no doubt that the ties of organized religion with state ruling have left a shameful path of blood and suffering that has no match in history with any of the so called "atheist regimes". In the diaries of Christopher Columbus he wrote that the native people he encountered were not people, were not humans. They lacked a soul, therefore they were animals and could be treated as such. As a result, entire populations were erased from the face of the Earth. Under that same criteria, millions were kidnapped in Africa and slaved under the most barbaric conditions, but still for the glory of the Christian god.

Besides that, religion has also been a champion in promoting ignorance and superstition, using its power to oppose the advances of rational knowledge, whenever it has contradicted the official dogmas of church's cosmology. Scientific theories and discoveries have been ruled heresies, and as such, have meant imprisonment and other severe punishments for those who have dared to question religious dogmas.

Whenever we find religion, we can see that it presents obstacles to human flourishing, with perhaps the only exception found in the arts.

[Wyman]

Well, as I'm not really one to defend religion in a positive light (I argued that it was the lesser of two evils), and since Hexhammer seems to like references to Dostoevsky, how about this: doesn't atheism, if followed to its logical ends, lead inevitably to nihilism and moral relativism? If the goal is to construct a government that provides for the good of the whole, what atheistic maxim prohibits sacrificing the individual(s) for that greater good? If a brilliant intellectual is languishing in poverty and prohibited from contributing (what he thinks) is his great potential to society, why shouldn't he be able to kill and rob the miserly, unloved, old widow hording a cache of jewelry down the street from him as in Crime and Punishment?

Or to put it in the macro context, what, in atheistic theory, prohibits a Lenin or Stalin or Mao from liquidating a portion of their populace if, after careful objective analysis, such action would enhance the greater good?

[Soren]

Which "religion"?

Polytheism? Deism? Pantheism? Monotheism? Do we include the deification-of-man religions, like Humanism? Do we even include contrary postulates assumed on faith, such as Atheism? What "religion"are we speaking about? If we pick one, then perhaps we could examine its real effects, and then decide whether we wanted to have it.

Yet why would it ever be reasonable to suppose that they would all have the SAME effects, especially if their fundamental propositions and suppositions are different? And how does the supposition that the would have the SAME effects expose the suppositions of the question-asker here? Has he already decided that "religions" can be sufficiently understood as an undifferentiated block, or is he somehow assuming that praise or condemnation rationally falls on ALL of them for whatever any ONE of them does?

Furthermore, for the question of "bad," we would be faced with the further difficulty of defining "bad." To which of the above systems would we appeal -- or to what other system would we appeal -- in order to know "bad for what" or "bad in what way"? And if, as might well be expected, we found some of the above to be mixed "bads" and "goods", how would we weight the relative "goods" and "bads" in order to achieve a reasoned judgment?

Given the number of ways in which insufficient information has been stipulated, how intelligible is the question?

[uwot]

Given the number of ways in which insufficient information has been stipulated, how intelligible is the question?

Perfectly. Insofar as all religions claim some sort of 'truth', that is completely unverifiable, they do all have the same effect, by demanding of their adherents that they suspend their critical faculties and take something on trust. It may be 'good' for a society that its assumptions are not challenged, but it is frequently disastrous for dissident individuals and groups.

For those who didn't bother to read the article, it ends thus:

Hopefully, it will be apparent that the atheist’s insistence that society would benefit from the removal of religious groups is quite unfounded. It could instead be argued that society would be wholly impoverished in a number of ways. Aside from the cultural and altruistic benefit that would be removed, it also seems the atheist would remove any vestige of hope from those who are suffering and holding out for a better life beyond this world, and leave them to the desperate conditions of a world fashioned only from the seeds of futility and hopelessness.

Frankly the idea that people should be comforted by the belief they will be better off dead, because life is futile and hopeless, is the sort of silly nonsense that men in frocks should be thrown in a very deep pit for peddling. I think that would be really good for society.

[Soren]

Soren wrote:
Given the number of ways in which insufficient information has been stipulated, how intelligible is the question?

Perfectly. Insofar as all religions claim some sort of 'truth', that is completely unverifiable

Your language also describes Atheism, of course. It claims the "truth" that there is no Creator Being in the universe, a postulate which it cannot "verify," and in fact for which it presents none of its own evidence, but merely denies the validity of such evidence as is presented by the various religions, just as CL has previously suggested.

Yet negation of the opposition does not constitute proof of one's own position, unless one's own position is the only rationally possible alternative. But since religions differ, there is not merely one alternative under consideration (i.e. god-no god) but rather many alternatives. So Atheism would need to present its own evidence, or else we would have no reason to prefer it over any of these particular alternatives, on the one hand, or over agnostic uncertainty (rather than Atheist certainty) on the other.

I also would ask a question about your term, "completely unverifiable." Does partial, inferential or indicative evidence count, or are you supposing that some view or another should be capable of total and complete evidence? If the latter, would that not commit you to being a Verificationist? And if you were, could you supply an example of a "completely verified" position on the issues in hand, either from the "religious" or the "atheist" perspective?

[Conde Lucanor]

what, in atheistic theory, prohibits a Lenin or Stalin or Mao from liquidating a portion of their populace if, after careful objective analysis, such action would enhance the greater good?

Is that portion of the populace willing to be liquidated? It seems that the intrinsic value of life should be enough prohibition. Ever wondered why in some religions that promise an eternal paradise in afterlife, people is not quite ready to abandon this mundane existence?