Its all religion's fault...

[Wolfman]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm new here, and always interested to hear others' comments.

I've participated in a number of sceptic/atheist forums in my time, and one of the most common things I hear is blaming religion for all sorts of abuses and atrocities throughout history. I myself am an atheist, so am not seeking to justify my own religious beliefs; but I nevertheless feel that this accusation is both unfair and untrue.

It is very true that the vast majority of abuses, atrocities, wars, etc. throughout human history have been committed in the name of religion. But concluding that, therefore, "religion causes war" (or anything similar) is no more logical than concluding that since the vast majority of those who have cancer drink milk, therefore "milk causes cancer".

No true skeptic or scientist will deny a basic precept in this regard; to demonstrate the validity of this tenet, you must demonstrate not only that these things happen in the presence of religion, but also that they stop (or are reduced) when religion is removed from the equation.

Now, I agree that there are aspects of religion that can predispose it to abuse, particularly the aspects of unquestioned belief, and unquestioned devotion to a deity. And I am in no way trying to claim that terrible things have not been done in the name of various religions, or to justify such abuses.

But let us look at it from the opposite perspective; if we remove religion, do we decrease or eliminate these same abuses?

Quite frankly, I don't think there is a case that could actually be used to demonstrate this conclusively one way or the other...there are not any large, cohesive atheistic populations that have existed long enough to contribute statistically relevant data to the debate.

However, in my own experience, world travel, and study of many different cultures/societies, I've come to the conclusion that religion is not a cause of these things; rather, it is an excuse or justification for them. However, there have historically been many other excuses and justifications -- race, politics, nationality, gender, etc. If you remove religion from the equation, it simply means that people will find other excuses for their abuses.

My personal view of 'human nature' is a rather pessimistic one, I'll admit. I believe that there will always be humans who will seek personal power at the expense of others, and that such people will use whatever tools are most convenient to accomplish that goal. Religion is one such potential tool, but far from the only one.

I also believe that there will always be humans who are little better than sheep, who want someone to tell them what to believe, to tell them what is 'right' or 'wrong', and then to follow that person unquestioningly. And atheists are no less prone to this than theists are. This can become particularly attractive when the person you are following tells you that you are better than others, superior to others, etc.

Thus, if we were to somehow obtain the ability tomorrow to remove all religious beliefs from our planet, and transform our world into a purely atheistic entity, I don't believe we'd see any significant decrease in war, abuse, etc. We'd still have one atheistic government declaring war on another. We'd still have people developing various arguments why they are superior to others, or why someone else is an 'enemy' or 'threat' that needs to be eliminated at all costs. We'd still have mindless patriotism, we'd still have zealots.

 

[brodski]

No true skeptic or scientist will deny a basic precept in this regard;

But how do the scotsmen feel about it?

 

[NeoRicen]

While I think religion is responsible for alot of atrocities I concede it's foolish to think it's responsible for ALL atrocities. The cause of most (if not all) atrocities is division, and religion is one of the most profound sources of it. As long as humans perceive other humans to be inferior in some respect such atrocities are always going to happen.

The specific problem with religion is that religious people believe this division because it is ordained by a supreme being who will punish you for all eternity if you don't. That's what makes it so much more dangerous than other sources of division such as politics and race, the belief that it's ordained by God.

Although to be fair when I speak of religion I don't speak of the concept of religion, just the three main 'super powers' of religion, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all extremely powerful, and all extremely prejudiced.


The problem with these religions is not EVERYONE who follows it, but the contents of their 'Holy Books'. The majority of the followers (in Judaism and Christianity at least, and Western Muslims) are Moderate, the problem is that the content of their books is not, and as long as the book is told as truth (even in moderation) there will always be people there to take it literally.

Solving human conflict is not as simple as removing religion, it's removing division, and religion today is the single most dangerous source of it.

 

[Wolfman]

Solving human conflict is not as simple as removing religion, it's removing division, and religion today is the single most dangerous source of it.

But, if we were successful in "removing" religion, would humans not simply turn around and focus on other excuses for division? I personally don't think that, in the long term, we'd even see a measurable decrease in these problems. We'd just find different excuses.

 

[brodski]

But, if we were successful in "removing" religion, would humans not simply turn around and focus on other excuses for division? I personally don't think that, in the long term, we'd even see a measurable decrease in these problems. We'd just find different excuses.

But we would see a different kind of division. When you take away the sky daddy people need to look for other reasons as to why their beliefs shouldn't be questioned, and they are harder to come up with.
You won't eliminate human conflict, but you would mitigate some of it.

 

[NeoRicen]

If everyone had enough scientific knowledge of the universe and how things actually work then I seriously think we'd agree on alot more and be less divisive, not to mention the lack of spiritually ordained violence would make violence considerably less ideal no matter what your position because your religion wouldn't protect you from modern morality and you'd likely feel the same way as most people regarding violence these days.

 

[Wolfman]

But we would see a different kind of division. When you take away the sky daddy people need to look for other reasons as to why their beliefs shouldn't be questioned, and they are harder to come up with.
You won't eliminate human conflict, but you would mitigate some of it.

Well, this is one that has to come down to personal opinion, there's no way to 'prove' it one way or the other. But I think that humans are incredibly adept at coming up with excuses to kill and abuse each other. Divisions are easy to manufacture.

You're from a different country than me. You're a different race than me. You have different political beliefs than me. Etc., etc., etc.

If everyone had enough scientific knowledge of the universe and how things actually work then I seriously think we'd agree on alot more and be less divisive, not to mention the lack of spiritually ordained violence would make violence considerably less ideal no matter what your position because your religion wouldn't protect you from modern morality and you'd likely feel the same way as most people regarding violence these days.

You seem to make the -- in my opinion -- erroneous assumption that knowledge equals wisdom. An assumption that I think human history has more than effectively proven false.

There's already tons of scientific knowledge available out there. But by far the majority of people have neither the inclination nor the interest to study and understand it for themselves. Instead, they want others to read it, and then tell them what it means.

And, inevitably, people will choose the leader/interpretation that most fits their own world view and desires.

Science has little or nothing to do with morality. Science tells us how the universe works; but there is nothing in science that can tell us, as humans, what is 'right' or 'wrong'. This is a struggle/debate that must still be carried on on a very subjective level, and will inevitably have many different people with many different (and often opposing) beliefs.

 

[Curnir]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm new here, and always interested to hear others' comments.

I've participated in a number of sceptic/atheist forums in my time, and one of the most common things I hear is blaming religion for all sorts of abuses and atrocities throughout history. I myself am an atheist, so am not seeking to justify my own religious beliefs; but I nevertheless feel that this accusation is both unfair and untrue.

It is very true that the vast majority of abuses, atrocities, wars, etc. throughout human history have been committed in the name of religion. But concluding that, therefore, "religion causes war" (or anything similar) is no more logical than concluding that since the vast majority of those who have cancer drink milk, therefore "milk causes cancer".

It feel like you are mixing your metaphores.

To take an example from 'Why people believe wierd things.'
Refractory tar have been shown to cause cancer, smoke contains tar.
Ergo.
It is a pretty safe bet to say that smoking causes cancer.

However one must be aware of the slippery slope and not take it too far.
If you eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream, you can gain weight.
If you gain alot of weight, you will become obese.
If you become obese, you are more likely to attract various not so funny diseases.
If you be come very sick you might die.

Don't eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream, it'll kill you.

In your 'religion causes war' you not only provide correalation like you do in the 'milk - cancer' example.
if you'd used the 'a lot of atrocities, tortures, wars etc have been commited by religious people' you would have been able to get away with a:
Correlation is NOT Causation.

But when you say that these bad things were done in the name of religion, which I see as equal to the "refractory tar". It is not unfair to blame religion. Just like it is not unfair to blame smoking for cancer.

 

[Wolfman]

Curnir,

Sorry, but you are not presenting a logical argument.

Yes, smoking causes cancer. How do we know it causes cancer? Because we have found that in populations of people who do smoke, cancer rates are significantly higher than in populations of people who do not smoke. Scientific process -- in the presence of (A), the result is (B); and in the absence of (A), the result is (C).

Now, look at religion. Certainly we can demonstrate that in the presence of religion, we have certain abuses. But I have not seen you -- or anyone else -- make a viable, defensible argument that in the absence of religion, those same abuses do not occur. And without that demonstration, your argument has no basis for comparison.

Also, what I used was not a metaphor; but when we talk about comparing apples and oranges, I am afraid it is your argument that is doing so, not mine.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm surprised that no one has posted this quote yet.

“Good people will always do good things, bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.”

 

[Wolfman]

I'm surprised that no one has posted this quote yet.

“Good people will always do good things, bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.”

Thanks for bringing a light note to the debate

However, I'd like to point out that, for example, it was not "religion" that made "good people" in Germany do terrible things under Hitler's rule. Peer pressure. Politics. Propoganda. Or just plain ol' fear. Very few of those involved in those atrocities did so for religious reasons; yet many of them, prior to WW II, were in every way 'decent' and 'loving' people.

 

[NeoRicen]

Just because we can't test whether or not relgion is truly repsonsible for current atrocities doesn't make it ok for people to believe all the violent and hateful things present in the Biblical texts.

It is also not Science's goal to tell us about Morals, it's a natural Human trait, not ordained by a God or higher power. How we treat others and what we do with knowledge is no more the realm of religion than it is of Science.

Religion has no authority to tell us what is right or wrong, especially since it's idea of right and wrong is 2000 year old Xenophobia ,not to mention completely and utterly based on the supernatural, hardly a way to live our lives given that there's no proof that it really is right or wrong.

In my opinion your belief that even without religion or any other division we'd still try to kill eachother is overly pessimistic. There's a reason violence and atrocities are significantly lower within the population of an individual society. What we need to realise is that we, as humanity, are a society, one people on one home, Earth, and while you may see me as overly optimistic I sincerely believe we can get along if we throw away xenophobic supernatural ideologies and embrace as a whole a more realistic and tolerant philosophy, something flexible and humanistic where we are all one species living together.

And while you disagree with our assetion that the removal of religion will solve any problems because it's not a viable, defensible argument so too is your assertion that without religion we still won't get along.

 

[Curnir]

Curnir,

Sorry, but you are not presenting a logical argument.

Yes, smoking causes cancer. How do we know it causes cancer? Because we have found that in populations of people who do smoke, cancer rates are significantly higher than in populations of people who do not smoke. Scientific process -- in the presence of (A), the result is (B); and in the absence of (A), the result is (C).

*sigh* How do we know smoking causes cancer, because smoke contains substances causing cancer.
How do we know in which RATE smoking causes cancer: Demographics.

Now, look at religion. Certainly we can demonstrate that in the presence of religion, we have certain abuses. But I have not seen you -- or anyone else -- make a viable, defensible argument that in the absence of religion, those same abuses do not occur. And without that demonstration, your argument has no basis for comparison.

Hmm. Ok so if someone murders, tortures and rapes + gets others to murder,torture and rape in the name of relgion, We shouldn't blame religion? Well I guess then we can't blame nationalism for what happened in the late 30 early 40s.
(and please note that I am not just saying that thes guys are merely religious guys or "milk" if you wish)

Also, what I used was not a metaphor; but when we talk about comparing apples and oranges, I am afraid it is your argument that is doing so, not mine.

aww.
*Curnir hugs wolfman*
Got some milk?

 

[Wolfman]

This is pretty much the inevitable direction this debate takes every time I engage in it: "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause".

None of the people making such arguments are able to demonstrate in any manner whatsoever, based on concrete, verifiable data, that the removal of religion results in the reduction or elimination of those same abuses. This in the face of tons of evidence of terrible atrocities committed throughout human history that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

So let me turn the argument around for you. You say, "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause".

Well, religious people have also done some GREAT things. Gandhi was a very religious man. As was Martin Luther King (who's birthday was just recently celebrated). For men like this -- men who fought with great determination for equality, peace, and human rights -- religion was one of their prime motivators.

So, would you then argue that since religious people fight for peace, human rights, etc., that therefore religion is a cause of these things?

I strongly doubt it.

The consistency and logic of such arguments is sadly lacking. I do not in any way deny or seek to justify the terrible abuses that have been carried out throughout human history in the name of religion. But if history has taught me one thing, it is this:

Those who think that they are least susceptible to to forces of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry are those who are, in fact, most likely to fall under their sway. It in only when we recognize that these abuses are a part of BASIC HUMAN NATURE, and will arise in ANY society, regardless of whether that society is based on theism or atheism, do we have any hope of beginning to address those issues.

 

[Curnir]

This is pretty much the inevitable direction this debate takes every time I engage in it: "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause".

Oh for the love of crying out GLAVIN.

I even pointed out that I was not making the "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause" argument.
How could you miss it?

People commiting atrocities In the name of religion. Is what i wrote about, heck even you wrote it.

And I made it very clear that I was not refering to "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause".
Because frankly that would be like saying "People who like football has commited horrible crimes, therefor football is to blame."

Correlation is not causation.
But if you find correlation you might be compelled to look for a cause.
like oooh I don't know.
refractory tar causes tumours to grow on lab mice...
or
the bomber considered abortion to be against god...

 

[brodski]

Thanks for bringing a light note to the debate

However, I'd like to point out that, for example, it was not "religion" that made "good people" in Germany do terrible things under Hitler's rule. Peer pressure. Politics. Propoganda. Or just plain ol' fear. Very few of those involved in those atrocities did so for religious reasons; yet many of them, prior to WW II, were in every way 'decent' and 'loving' people.

I would be very interested to hear how anti-semtic genocide did not have a religious basis. Even if (as in the case of Stalin's persecution and murder of Jews) those committing the atrocities are atheist, the founding cause is a history of religious hatred. The Nazi's OTOH where very keen to justify the holocaust on religious grounds, claiming that the Jews where "Christ killers" (although, bizarrely, Hitler was adamant that neither Jesus nor his mother where Jewish).

 

[Darth Rotor]

But, if we were successful in "removing" religion, would humans not simply turn around and focus on other excuses for division? I personally don't think that, in the long term, we'd even see a measurable decrease in these problems. We'd just find different excuses.

Stalin and Mao seem to have agreed, intentionally or as a consequence of their policies.

If you replace "religion" with the broader term "ideology" in the OP, the trend makes a lot of sense.

DR

 

[wolfgirl]

While I don't think that religion causes all wars, I agree that religion is probably the single largest source of division among people, which often leads to wars. And yes, if there weren't religion, people would surely find something else to fight about. But fighting in the name of religion takes the fighting to another level, because people don't think they're fighting just for some cause or leader or country, but for (what they believe to be) the very basis of their life on Earth.

And they also belive, and this is VERY important, that they will be going to another life after this one, and that what they do here will be reflected in that afterlife. So if they die for their religious beliefs, they will be rewarded in eternity. Now I, as an atheist, am less likely to be willing to die for something, knowing that there is nothing for me to look forward to other than death, death, and more death. But if I truly believed that I would live in some sort of paradise for eternity if I blew myself up along with x number of my "enemies" (those who believe differently from me), I might just be willing to do it.

This combination of believing you're fighting for your god and believing that you'll be rewarded in eternity can be a deadly combination, I think.

 

[Darth Rotor]

While I don't think that religion causes all wars, I agree that religion is probably the single largest source of division among people, which often leads to wars. And yes, if there weren't religion, people would surely find something else to fight about. But fighting in the name of religion takes the fighting to another level, because people don't think they're fighting just for some cause or leader or country, but for (what they believe to be) the very basis of their life on Earth.

And they also belive, and this is VERY important, that they will be going to another life after this one, and that what they do here will be reflected in that afterlife. So if they die for their religious beliefs, they will be rewarded in eternity. Now I, as an atheist, am less likely to be willing to die for something, knowing that there is nothing for me to look forward to other than death, death, and more death. But if I truly believed that I would live in some sort of paradise for eternity if I blew myself up along with x number of my "enemies" (those who believe differently from me), I might just be willing to do it.

This combination of believing you're fighting for your god and believing that you'll be rewarded in eternity can be a deadly combination, I think.

Ever read anything about small unit cohesion among warriors and soldiers? It's funny, fighting for a god, or God, doesn't seem to come up much in those studies. Perhaps it only comes up in the macro sense, when the leadership tries to justify the call to go to war.

A snippet from Wiki:

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a just war, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.

DR

 

[NeoRicen]

What I see (may be wrong, forgive me if I am) is Wolfman trying to shift the blame away from religion, however by that logic (as previously stated) then Nationalism or human nature are not responsible.
You dismissed the "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause" argument but that can easily be turned around against your targets for blame.
"Nationalist people do terrible things, therefore nationalism is the cause"
"People do terrible things, therefore human nature is the cause"
Those arguments sound ok? If you answer Yes then "Religious people do terrible things, therefore religion is the cause" IS a valid argument. However that's NOT the argument we're making.
What we're saying is that it's not religious people doing bad things, it's people doing bad things because their religion tells them to. there's no Nationalist dogma that tells nationalists they must kill non nationalists, even if it was not all people would agree with it (like religion) but some would. Like Religion, if Nationalism didn't exist then even less people would agree with the "kill others" ideal.
As long as religion exists then more people will have the 'killing ideal' because it's in the religious texts. Removing religion will not remove that ideal from EVERYONE however there will be alot less and alot less influential people.