Religion is not evil

[arthwollipot]

(snipped)

See, this is the kind of antitheist rhetoric that annoys me. I have acknowledged that religion is the source of much harm. I have no argument with that. My point is that this harm can be addressed without destroying the good things that religion provides. This kind of kneejerk response does no help at all. It is purely destructive.

In contrast, Penemue, good post. Lots of well-thought out points there.

 

[Pup]

On the topic of charity, religions seem to me like black-tie celebrity charity dinners.

At those events, there's a lot of time and money focussed on limos, clothes, food, entertainment, etc., and a lot of money raised for the charity.

Yet, if everyone stayed home and spent all the extra time and money on helping the charity, even more would be donated. Clearly, the charity isn't just what it's all about.

Humans seem to have a need for all this extra hoopla, before they'll actually do something good. Religions provide that.

But there's still the problem of good vs harm in the extra activities. Society looks down on charities that spend 90% on fundraising and 10% actually helping their cause, and I think one must also consider whether various religions add to or subtract from the total misery, both physical and psychological, in the world.

 

[Mehdimentio]

But does false consolation make things better for the individual who is experiencing distress? Isn't part of coping with your crises learning to accept them, to grasp your situation and be able to move on? Isn't that much better for your health, than fostering yourself with naïve delusions that may as well all be a lie, the price of which you may have to pay later on?
I have a hard time seeing how this sort of false consolation can be of benefit to you, given that its real function is to make you think that everything is going to be okay, regardless of it really being true or not. The inverse is also relevant. How would you feel if you have been praying to Jesus (or any other deity) your whole life, just to realize that your despair hasn't been answered by the very figure you have dedicated your whole mind to?
Religious consolation strikes me as a mental form of painkiller. Its effects are only temporary, what you need is a proper treatment.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

It's neither of those. It's an acknowledgement that they exist and that they do good.

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!

Maybe. It would be nice if your prediction comes true. I hope it does.

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?

Of course not - read my arguments again. I'm saying that we can address the killing and the child abuse without denying the good that religious charities perform.

But there's still the problem of good vs harm in the extra activities. Society looks down on charities that spend 90% on fundraising and 10% actually helping their cause, and I think one must also consider whether various religions add to or subtract from the total misery, both physical and psychological, in the world.

If a charity isn't 100% transparent about its allocation of funds, then it isn't worth supporting. When deciding whether to support a charity or not, transparency should be a major factor for consideration. The good ones spend much less on fundraising and administrative expenses than they do helping the poor and impoverished. Do your research. Look into the charities that you are considering supporting. If they spend in the ratios you suggest, don't support them.

 

[welshdean]

See, this is the kind of antitheist rhetoric that annoys me. I have acknowledged that religion is the source of much harm. I have no argument with that. My point is that this harm can be addressed without destroying the good things that religion provides. This kind of kneejerk response does no help at all. It is purely destructive.

In contrast, Penemue, good post. Lots of well-thought out points there.

See, this is the kind of hand waving, apologetic rhetoric that annoys me. Wolli, are you happy to see human beings burned alive? Children mutilated?
The handfull of churches (note the use of church - not religion) that give [aid] without taking [strings attached] is pitiful when compared to the big boys. As Critical sock put it; Are you happy to say that the killing and the child abuse are worth it to have food on the table and drinking water in Somalia? Because I'm not, not at all.
How much does the RCC receive per year, all incomes, as all incomes were got from the backs of the poor allowing it the obscene wealth we see today? How much does it spend on charitable work done without strings attached? I don't know the answer to my first question, but I know the answer to the second is approximately £bugger-all. Contrast that with MSF, income/charitable spend.
In a nutshell, I can see no point in allowing this nonsense to continue. The charitable work would be done without any religious connotations at least as well and I'd suggest probably better.

 

[arthwollipot]

But does false consolation make things better for the individual who is experiencing distress?

I'm not sure that "false consolation" is actually a meaningful term. If someone is consoled, then they're consoled, regardless of the source of that consolation. I'm not talking about faith healing or something that can be directly evidence-checked. To me it's obvious (and trivial) that if a religion discourages people from seeking proper medical attention (as some clearly do), then that is harmful and should be stopped. Consolation and emotional support is a lot more difficult to quantify in that way. In the end, if someone is happier, and more emotionally secure, then that's generally a good thing.

One more thing I will acknowledge: that by encouraging belief in the supernatural, religion discourages rationality. I believe that this too can eventually be overcome. It'll probably be the hardest aspect of religion to address, but it should be doable in the long term.

 

[HansMustermann]

I wouldn't say "evil", as that involves a certain element of intention, but I would say that inherently it causes harm even just by introducing bogus premises. Garbage in, garbage out, really. The most valid logical inference will still produce an unreliable result if based on false premises.

Note that by "harm" I'm not even talking about the crusades, or the exorcisms in Africa, or the witch camps in Ghana, etc. Those are easy targets. But even if we don't get bogged into those again, there is actual harm even beyond that.

Giving people hope sounds good and fine, but what about detrimental actions that such false hope influences? E.g., hope that their rabbit foot works is what makes people bet their lifetime savings in Vegas.

The fact is that at every moment in life you take choices like "do I do X, or do I do Y?" and then look at the pros and cons for X and the pros and cons for Y, when actually deciding that. Adding some false hope or an illusionary safety net to one column just makes that choice artificially better or safer, and may cause a decision which is not actually the best course of action.

It would be harmless if people actually took their decisions based only on the real stuff, and then only used religion as a comfort afterwards. But it's not that decoupled. Those false promises are factored in even in taking the decisions, and can skew the results. Badly.

E.g., think of all the battered wives who find the comfort and strength in Jesus to... not just stay with some abusive drunk, but keep their kids with that abusive drunk too. They're not just finding some comfort in the idea that they'll get some rapture bonus points for it. They're finding a reason to continue that bad course of action, and ruin not only their own lives, but often their children's lives too. It's not just some comfort, it's actually distorting the actual facts used to take a decision, and allowing the bad decision to win.

Or on grander scale, religion is not just what made us herd some people in ghettos for half a millennium, but also what made them accept to be herded in ghettos if the alternative was to stop pleasing a non-existent God. It's actual "do I do X, or do I do Y?" choices where someone's imaginary friend was not just a comfort, but a reason to pick the most self-detrimental choice.

 

[welshdean]

Of course not - read my arguments again. I'm saying that we can address the killing and the child abuse without denying the good that religious charities perform.

Nobody is denying the little good that they do do. It's the price they charge for it we are questioning.

If a charity isn't 100% transparent about its allocation of funds, then it isn't worth supporting. When deciding whether to support a charity or not, transparency should be a major factor for consideration. The good ones spend much less on fundraising and administrative expenses than they do helping the poor and impoverished. Do your research. Look into the charities that you are considering supporting. If they spend in the ratios you suggest, don't support them.

Ah. So you agree then, let's get rid of religion. If we all followed the advice in that last sentence of yours ALL religions would be [financially] bankrupt in a matter of years. Of course, they are already bankrupt morally.

 

[CriticalSock]

It's neither of those. It's an acknowledgement that they exist and that they do good.

But that's just a statement about anything man-made. Humans aren't either perfectly good or perfectly bad. Do you think that the good they do outweighs the bad that they do?

Maybe. It would be nice if your prediction comes true. I hope it does.

I hope so too.

Of course not - read my arguments again. I'm saying that we can address the killing and the child abuse without denying the good that religious charities perform.

Actually I'd like to refute my own argument about child abuse. That is something that individuals within a religion do and is not something generally condoned by religion.

However, if you addressed everything in religion that was bad then what you'd be left with wouldn't be identifiable as religion any more.

 

[Mudcat]

Religion is a tool. A hammer is a tool as well. A hammer can be used in the building of a house, or it can be used to cave in someone's head. A hammer is neither good nor evil regardless which of the two it has been used for or how many times it was used to do either or both. It is like religion in that aspect, however unlike religion a hammer is a useful tool. What use is religion?

 

[Cleon]

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

As I said before - "religion" is not a monolithic entity. There is no rational reason to treat it as such.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Ditto to Welshdean's posts.

From a practical point of view, getting rid of religions would have to be all of them, because if only the Christian ones were removed, the Islamic- fundamentalist-type ones would be delighted to step into the gap and that would create far more difficult problems. There has to be a strong, coherent humanist-type structure to come out on top; and that's not going to happen for a while yet.

 

[arthwollipot]

See, this is the kind of hand waving, apologetic rhetoric that annoys me. Wolli, are you happy to see human beings burned alive? Children mutilated?

Again, please read my posts before running off your mouth. To express it yet again, NO. I am not happy to see that. It should be stamped out. My point yet again is that it can be stamped out without destroying the good that faith-based organisations do.

The handfull of churches (note the use of church - not religion) that give [aid] without taking [strings attached] is pitiful when compared to the big boys.

I repeat: AU$310,764,196. The largest aid & development organisation in Australia (the country I live in and therefore have the most information about). Six times the amount generated by the next biggest (which happens to be secular). The aid and development sector is dominated by World Vision. Other organisations pale in comparison. And again, please try to read my posts.

As Critical sock put it; Are you happy to say that the killing and the child abuse are worth it to have food on the table and drinking water in Somalia?

Already addressed appeal to emotion. Please move on to more rational arguments.

How much does the RCC receive per year, all incomes, as all incomes were got from the backs of the poor allowing it the obscene wealth we see today? How much does it spend on charitable work done without strings attached? I don't know the answer to my first question, but I know the answer to the second is approximately £bugger-all.

Actually, Caritas (the Catholic aid organisation which is signed up to the code of conduct that specifies no-strings-attached charitable work) generated AU$25,898,458 in charitable donations in the 2010-11 financial year. Same source as before. Twenty five, almost twenty six million dollars is hardly bugger all.

Contrast that with MSF, income/charitable spend.

Less than the amount I quoted earlier - but the difference is considerably smaller than between MSF and World Vision. Double rather than six times.

In a nutshell, I can see no point in allowing this nonsense to continue. The charitable work would be done without any religious connotations at least as well and I'd suggest probably better.

Except that it isn't and never has been.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ditto to Welshdean's posts.

From a practical point of view, getting rid of religions would have to be all of them, because if only the Christian ones were removed, the Islamic- fundamentalist-type ones would be delighted to step into the gap and that would create far more difficult problems. There has to be a strong, coherent humanist-type structure to come out on top; and that's not going to happen for a while yet.

I'm referring to faith-based organisations in general. In my experience there are more Christian ones than Islamic ones - although the latter do exist, and they sign up to the same codes of conduct, for the same reasons.

 

[Cheetah]

I'm not sure that "false consolation" is actually a meaningful term. If someone is consoled, then they're consoled, regardless of the source of that consolation.

What if that source is homeopathy, speakers for/to the dead etc., people are still consoled and or feel better, doesn't justify it in my book.

 

[arthwollipot]

Religion is a tool. A hammer is a tool as well. A hammer can be used in the building of a house, or it can be used to cave in someone's head. A hammer is neither good nor evil regardless which of the two it has been used for or how many times it was used to do either or both. It is like religion in that aspect, however unlike religion a hammer is a useful tool. What use is religion?

As I have been *sigh* arguing all along, it provides hope and comfort to millions, and practical aid to the poorest. Those 99% occupying everywhere? While I support them and their motives, they have it sweet compared to many thousands in Somalia or Cambodia who have no food or clean water.

 

[arthwollipot]

What if that source is homeopathy, speakers for/to the dead etc., people are still consoled and or feel better, doesn't justify it in my book.

I'm not sure where my argument ever addressed homeopathy or spiritualism, both of which I am firmly against. I don't see the relevance.

 

[Ryokan]

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

Charity through churches and religious organizations may be the norm in your country, but in mine it's far more common to do it through secular organizations, especially the Red Cross. Sure, there are some religious organizations that do good work too, like the Salvation Army, but they pale compared to the big secular ones.

So you really don't need church hierarchy and organization to do good work if you want to. I'm sure the Red Cross is strong in the US as well, just that since there are so many religious people, they choose to do it through religious organizations.

 

[arthwollipot]

Charity through churches and religious organizations may be the norm in your country, but in mine it's far more common to do it through secular organizations, especially the Red Cross. Sure, there are some religious organizations that do good work too, like the Salvation Army, but they pale compared to the big secular ones.

So you really don't need church hierarchy and organization to do good work if you want to. I'm sure the Red Cross is strong in the US as well, just that since there are so many religious people, they choose to do it through religious organizations.

Okay, different countries, different circumstances. The Scandinavian countries are well-known as largely secular. As I said, I only have direct knowledge of the Australian aid and development sector.

 

[Cheetah]

I'm not sure where my argument ever addressed homeopathy or spiritualism, both of which I am firmly against. I don't see the relevance.

Maybe my view is a bit limited, but I think a good deal of the consolation provided by religion is based on false premises, the same as homeopathy and spiritualism, people really do feel better though.