Religion is not evil

[edge]

Not always, anyway. Religion gives millions (billions!) of people all over the world comfort and hope in a world that seems bleak and uncaring.

I do not condone those evils that are perpetrated by religion (child abuse, terrorism, subjugation of women, etc), but nor do I overlook the tremendous good that religion is capable of.

Many if not most religions include charity as a cardinal virtue. This drives people to genuinely work for the betterment of others. It's an interesting fact that the places where people state that religion is most important to them overlaps quite strongly with areas that are poor and most in need of charitable work. Churches are perfectly placed to provide aid and development to these areas. They have an already-established community and infrastructure, and while it is true that some faith organisations provide aid with evangelical strings attached, many of the largest ones such as World Vision and Caritas subscribe to a code of conduct which ensures that evangelical work and development work are kept firmly separate.

I'm tired of the relentless antitheism that is displayed not only on this forum, but in the skeptical community as a whole. Let's not seek to utterly destroy a source not only of comfort, but of much-needed charitable work. Instead, let's try and weed out the unethical and immoral aspects of religion and harness the good to make this a better world for everyone.

Good on you, people have had to learn through generations which involved studying and trial and error, to find what the word really means and we are still learning.

 

[Egg]

here's the problem:

Sometimes religion is evil. Sometimes exceptional suffering is propogated not just by religious people but by people who act in the name of a religion.

I'm by no means an antitheist, and frankly I find strongly antitheistic arguments to be dull, but there are religious beliefs that are actively and massively harmful.

I think we give religion too much credit when we talk about their charitable works. Non-religious people are also charitable, and it's a mistake in my opinion to give the credit for someone's charitable acts to the religion they follow. I certainly don't credit my own charitable acts to atheism or secular humanism, even though secular humanism also considers charity to be a good thing.

There are definitely occasions where religion is an observable and demonstrable force for harm in the world. To pick one example, the Catholic church must shoulder part of the blame for the spread of AIDS in Africa because of their teachings about contraception. I think we would have to hunt a lot more and make a lot more assumptions to find occasions where the presence of a religion acted as a force for good where the presence of a secular organization would not.

These are good points and perhaps give balance to arthwollipot's OP. The danger I see though, is in generalisation. If one takes the issue of the Catholic church and AIDS in Africa and uses it as a demonstration of how "religion" is bad, it can end up as just waving a blunt tool at the problem and creating divisions between people who might agree on that particular issue.

Perhaps a better example is found in US politics where some people take an anti-theist/anti-religion stand as an opposition to those in the Christian right trying to force their ideals on others through law. This can have the effect of losing support of many religious folk who might agree or at least sympathise with keeping church and state separate, because they might feel that they might be seen to be supporting an anti-religious stance.

 

[gumboot]

Not always, anyway. Religion gives millions (billions!) of people all over the world comfort and hope in a world that seems bleak and uncaring.

I do not condone those evils that are perpetrated by religion (child abuse, terrorism, subjugation of women, etc), but nor do I overlook the tremendous good that religion is capable of.

Many if not most religions include charity as a cardinal virtue. This drives people to genuinely work for the betterment of others. It's an interesting fact that the places where people state that religion is most important to them overlaps quite strongly with areas that are poor and most in need of charitable work. Churches are perfectly placed to provide aid and development to these areas. They have an already-established community and infrastructure, and while it is true that some faith organisations provide aid with evangelical strings attached, many of the largest ones such as World Vision and Caritas subscribe to a code of conduct which ensures that evangelical work and development work are kept firmly separate.

I'm tired of the relentless antitheism that is displayed not only on this forum, but in the skeptical community as a whole. Let's not seek to utterly destroy a source not only of comfort, but of much-needed charitable work. Instead, let's try and weed out the unethical and immoral aspects of religion and harness the good to make this a better world for everyone.

What if religion does more harm than good? What if the good it does can easily be achieved by other means?

 

[arthwollipot]

What if religion does more harm than good? What if the good it does can easily be achieved by other means?

Can it actually be demonstrated that religion does more harm than good? Can it be quantified? Many have opinions on this, but they are seldom backed up by actual evidence.

 

[Lamuella]

Do you also respect sincere belief in Norse mythology, or Greek mythology, or Egyptian mythology?

Providing they don't hurt anyone, yes.

 

[Bikewer]

Why do we feel the need to cloak "good" in religion? Why not accept that behaviors we think of as good are as much a part of human nature as those we think of as "bad"?

 

[gumboot]

There have been atheist groups for decades. And some of them do charity work. However, as has often been stated, getting atheists to do anything as a group is like herding cats. Churches have organisation and heirarchy, which are definite advantages to actually achieving things.

I don't think looking at atheist groups is a particularly compelling argument. People opposed to religion are not going to organise along religious lines. Rather, you should be looking at other organisations that are non-religious, that do good.

For example, after the devastating February Earthquake in Christchurch, the two largest non-government humanitarian efforts were conducted by university students and farmers. Neither religious. Both highly organised and highly effective.

Of the world's twenty largest non-profit charities, only one is religious, most being charitable trusts set up by individual business people.

 

[gumboot]

Can it actually be demonstrated that religion does more harm than good? Can it be quantified? Many have opinions on this, but they are seldom backed up by actual evidence.

I was merely asking a hypothetical. I'm trying to determine the nature of your position.

 

[arthwollipot]

I was merely asking a hypothetical. I'm trying to determine the nature of your position.

My position is anti-antitheism. That if we are to acknowledge that religion does harm, we must also acknowledge that religion does good. I don't have an opinion on whether one outweighs the other, because frankly I don't think that's quantifiable. My position is that we can capitalise on the good that religion does while we are stamping out the harm.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Not always, anyway. Religion gives millions (billions!) of people all over the world comfort and hope in a world that seems bleak and uncaring.

Though in lesser numbers, psychics do the same thing and the results are the same: false hope for the customer and a fatter checkbook for the practitioner. I fail to see how giving people false hope and then (usually) asking for their money is a good thing.

 

[CriticalSock]

Without the organisational structure, they're less able to do good works.

But the organisational structure isn't a product of religion. It's a product of people. Wonderful people!

 

[Cayvmann]

The church supplies infrastructure, community, resources and volunteers. I suspect many volunteers wouldn't be there without encouragement from their church. Humans do tend to be quite selfish most of the time.

And most faith-based organisations aren't cults by any definition of the word.

The church, infrastructure and all, is the people. Many people of the church do not volunteer either. I suspect the church volunteers, are also in general volunteers for their communities at large. I would hate to think that the religious are so insular, that they wouldn't help their fellow, but non-religious, human.

You have too low of an opinion of humans in general. I think you are more wrong than right.

I'm not an anti-theist, but I'm certainly more pro-human than a lot of theists I know. If the church ( whichever one you go to ) works for you, then good for you.

 

[CriticalSock]

Really?

When was the last time that the Unitarian Universalist church conducted an Inquisition? Or the last rash of beheadings from the Union for Reform Judaism?

You don't like the generic, catch-all term "religion"?

Fair enough, I'm not mad keen about the generic terms skeptic and atheist either.

Would it be fair instead to say that, in general, religions are murderous uncaring entities that grind the mass of humanity into dust beneath their iron boots BUT with a few exceptions?

 

[kajata]

Wolli, I agree with you and respect people with sincere religious belief.

Why? If someone sincerely believes that a virgin gave birth to a child or that Joseph Smith translated gold tablets or that Xenu blew up billions of beings in volcanoes...there's nothing to respect there. I respect their right to believe it but it's still pretty silly.

Is religion evil? I don't know. But it's incredibly intolerant (am I being hypocritical here? I'm just intolerant of intolerance...how's that for a bumper sticker?) and divisive.

I'm just thankful the vast majority of people who say they are religious hardly follow any of the tenets of their religion and just follow the same codes of conduct society as a whole follows.

 

[arthwollipot]

Though in lesser numbers, psychics do the same thing and the results are the same: false hope for the customer and a fatter checkbook for the practitioner. I fail to see how giving people false hope and then (usually) asking for their money is a good thing.

If that were what I was talking about, then I would agree. Religious charities use the money they receive (voluntarily) from their congregations - in part - to build toilets in Somalia and help poor families in Cambodia develop their local industries. And for many, the hope is not false.

But the organisational structure isn't a product of religion. It's a product of people. Wonderful people!

I'm talking about using the existing organisation of religion to help people. If the religion didn't exist, that organisation wouldn't exist. Others would, undoubtedly. But would they be as focused on charity? I don't know. There are only a few large secular organisations involved in aid & development work. Or at least, the sector is dominated by religious charities. There are certainly a number of secular organisations doing excellent work for the poor and marginalised.

Here's a statistic. In the 2010-11 financial year, World Vision Australia - a faith-based organisation - generated AU$310,764,196 in charitable donations. The next largest was Médecins Sans Frontières - a secular organisation - which raised AU$53,615,234. (source - p.27).

 

[nvidiot]

Seems to me this is more an argument that churches are not evil, not religions.

 

[Penemue]

Religion is not, in and of itself, evil. This is true.
It is in fact, quite the opposite (or the idea itself is meant to be)...
The point of religion is to provide comfort to the majority of people who find the notion of death terrifying, and would suffer unendurable grief at the loss of a loved one if not provided with some hope that "there is more!" Religion is meant to provide this hope.

The problem with the system is two-fold. In the first place, religion has progressed from a charming notion to an organized institution with a power structure; and power corrupts. Thus, even if a religion itself is not evil, those at the top of the power hierarchy with the greatest access to the collection plates are likely to become evil, or at the very least, greedy.
Second, and building on that last, there is more than one organized religion. Hence the need to quarrel and squabble and ultimately wage wars over which religion is "correct". The charming notion of "do not despair; there is something else out there" becomes the far more unpalatable "we know the exact name of the something else, and we know he wants you to give your tithes to this religion and no other."

As to a solution to the problem; regrettably, there probably isn't one. The need for hope that lost loved ones are still okay will never be absent from humanity, and as such, religion will never entirely 'go away'. The best that can be hoped for would be making religion into a more individual aspect of life rather than an institutional one (Jesus himself suggested this, see Matthew 6 and 7; but sadly, most of Jesus' biggest fans have never actually read the Bible), or failing that, somehow getting the major religions to declare a cease-fire and admit that there are enough tithes for everyone.

The common tactic of the "Internet Atheist Activist" on the other hand, only makes matters worse. These are the ones who scream and complain that Christians demand everyone else believe the same thing they do, and then they target a Christian and follow him through a dozen threads demanding that he believe nothing. Pointing out things like 'pot and kettle' and 'fight fire with fire' and 'hypocrisy' rarely has any effect except to anger the so-called atheist, and his attacks have no effect on the Christian except to strengthen his existing beliefs with a layer of indignation and self-righteousness.

Atheists need to focus all of their energy not on 'converting' others away from the church, or on 'attacking God' and calling his followers stupid, but merely on making sure the division between church and state remains in place. It is when the churches gain power, enough to influence things like the public education system, and start trying to have their 'beliefs' accepted by the courts as 'laws' that they cross over into what could categorically be defined as evil.

 

[welshdean]

Can it actually be demonstrated that religion does more harm than good? Can it be quantified? Many have opinions on this, but they are seldom backed up by actual evidence.

The devastation of AIDS perpetuated by the RCC, and USian xtian orgs.
The burning of 'witches' in Africa (Uganda I think) VIDEO HERE NSFW Graphic warning.
Genital mutilation of very young girls and boys, often performed with sharp stones rather than sterile surgical implements. VIDEO HERE NSFW, graphic warning, (I couldn't bring myself to watch it YMMV)
The 'Limbo' farce.
The bombing of abortion clinics.
Murdering Doctors.
Flying planes into buildings.
Suicide bombers.
Sectarian violence.
Faith schools.
Creationism.
Back slapping and embracement of Fascism.
The KKK.
Mother Teresa.
This is just a very small sample of the atrocious behaviour supported and/or perpertrated by religions of every flavour. I could go on. And on. And on.

This behaviour is in no way counteracted by the very small percentage of religious orgs that offer aid with no strings attached. To be brutally honest, I'd rather see 10 tents less on a plane to an area devastated by an earthquake than see another witch burning video like the one posted above. And for the few that get a personal satisfaction from their own religion then watch the 3yr old girl have her clitoris removed in 2nd vid and tell me what did their god do to stop it. What has any religion done to condemn and more importantly, stop this kind of behaviour. For chrissakes, the pope nor head of the C of E condemned Islam for 9/11. If they can't or won't police themselves or each other then let's be rid of them all. They are nought better than smallpox.

Please don't tell me that religion is benign, you are far too intelligent to support that pov.

 

[arthwollipot]

The church, infrastructure and all, is the people. Many people of the church do not volunteer either. I suspect the church volunteers, are also in general volunteers for their communities at large. I would hate to think that the religious are so insular, that they wouldn't help their fellow, but non-religious, human.

Why do they volunteer? I'd suggest that they volunteer because of their religious convictions.

I'm not an anti-theist, but I'm certainly more pro-human than a lot of theists I know. If the church ( whichever one you go to ) works for you, then good for you.

I'm as atheist as the next guy - my atheist credentials have been well-established on this forum and elsewhere. But I'm not an antitheist. Part of my point is that atheism does not necessarily entail antitheism.

 

[CriticalSock]

I'm talking about using the existing organisation of religion to help people. If the religion didn't exist, that organisation wouldn't exist. Others would, undoubtedly. But would they be as focused on charity? I don't know. There are only a few large secular organisations involved in aid & development work. Or at least, the sector is dominated by religious charities. There are certainly a number of secular organisations doing excellent work for the poor and marginalised.

Here's a statistic. In the 2010-11 financial year, World Vision Australia - a faith-based organisation - generated AU$310,764,196 in charitable donations. The next largest was Médecins Sans Frontières - a secular organisation - which raised AU$53,615,234. (source - p.27).

Isn't that just an argument from top-dog'ness? Or maybe just an argument from been-around-for-longerness?

Yes some religions do charity work, but give us secular humanist types a couple of milennia and we'll be as big or bigger than anything that religion has come up with!

Also, what is your refutation of my Wife-beater argument? Or are you saying that the killing and the child abuse are worth it to have food on the table and drinking water in Somalia?