Religion is not evil

[arthwollipot]

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.

 

[Lamuella]

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.

 

[lionking]

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

Sadly, intolerance and hatred of those who don't share their religious beliefs is the hallmark of many religions. That's the main reason for the blowback.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. I feel that many people on here were exposed to the worst elements that religion can provide without having known the good which is very sad. As some of you may know, I am an agnostic Jew. What I haven't described though is how welcoming my local synagogue has been, despite my uncertainty; particularly the rabbi and cantor. Some of you may be wondering why an agnostic would attend synagogue. Well- here's what they've given me already: an extremely welcoming and friendly community. A sense of belonging. I felt that especially on the high holy days and Passover. Most importantly, a sense of comfort- this Saturday actually a special prayer is being said for my grandmother who passed away last year. As an agnostic I'm sometimes conflicted on prayer; I used to think it was silly to pray if I'm not sure there's a God. However, I've realized that prayer sometimes is a way for you to reflect on what's important; if some higher power above can hear you, that's wonderful. But even if that's not the case, that should not mean that prayer is useless. In Judaism, you need a minyan; a group of 10 people to pray together. The idea is that the strength of prayer increases when done as a group. Ultimately it's about community and the idea that it's never good to be alone. Our synagogue sends out notices whenever a member of the community has died. My husband has made it a point to attend the shiva service whenever possible, even if he did not personally know the deceased; simply to show that someone cares.

 

[Limbo]

I'm tired of the relentless antitheism that is displayed not only on this forum, but in the skeptical community as a whole.

It's the way God wants it.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Is it the church that gives out the food and shelter or the volunteers, seems to me you can cut out the cult and still keep the good.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is it the church that gives out the food and shelter or the volunteers, seems to me you can cut out the cult and still keep the good.

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.

 

[Cleon]

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.

 

[CriticalSock]

Arthwollipot, I think you're really cool but I think you're off target with this one. You're talking like a wife whose husband beats her.

"Yes he hits me if I don't bring him his tea on time, but he goes out to work and provides me with food and shelter."

Just because religion provides some benefits doesn't mean that it should be generally accepted.

Also, I'm sure you do charitable works yourself without the need for any involvement from religion. Isn't it just that the non-religious in the world haven't had the time to organise into the sort of groups that can do high profile charity work that's as visible as religions?

 

[Cleon]

Arthwollipot, I think you're really cool but I think you're off target with this one. You're talking like a wife whose husband beats her.

"Yes he hits me if I don't bring him his tea on time, but he goes out to work and provides me with food and shelter."

Religion is not a monolithic entity.

 

[Humes fork]

But religion is wrong. Religious beliefs, that are factual statements, tend to be incorrect.

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

Do you also respect sincere belief in Norse mythology, or Greek mythology, or Egyptian mythology? If not, then why cherry-picking? Are beliefs based on Jewish mythology somehow special?

 

[arthwollipot]

Also, I'm sure you do charitable works yourself without the need for any involvement from religion. Isn't it just that the non-religious in the world haven't had the time to organise into the sort of groups that can do high profile charity work that's as visible as religions?

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.

 

[Cleon]

But religion is wrong. Religious beliefs, that are factual statements, tend to be incorrect.

The same is true of Republicans, but I don't constantly run around telling them that they're full of ****.

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

Do you also respect sincere belief in Norse mythology, or Greek mythology, or Egyptian mythology? If not, then why cherry-picking? Are beliefs based on Jewish mythology somehow special?

It's not about respecting beliefs, it's about respecting people.

 

[Resume]

Hitchens once said something like " . . . religion has no right to forget how it acted when it was strong." I think that's a point and further, as an American, I can't forget we have a religious litmus test for any serious applicant for significant public office. This is not an ideal circumstance.

I'm perfectly willing to give religions their due for the good work they do, though I'm not willing to keep my yap shut about some of their less amiable ambitions.

 

[Resume]

It's not about respecting beliefs, it's about respecting people.

This of course should go both ways. When say a media talking head suggests that atheists should just shut up, I'm just not feeling the love.

 

[Cleon]

This of course should go both ways. When say a media talking head suggests that atheists should just shut up, I'm just not feeling the love.

Of course.

 

[CriticalSock]

Religion is not a monolithic entity.

I don't know. When it falls on people it crushes them to dust beneath its uncaring monotlihic form...

I think it's the people within the religions which are the shining rays of individuality which you are seeing as evidence of non-monolithicness.

the good, caring, charitable, individual Catholics, Muslims, Hindus etc etc etc..

It's these individuals which use the organisational structure of whatever religion they're in to do good works.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm perfectly willing to give religions their due for the good work they do, though I'm not willing to keep my yap shut about some of their less amiable ambitions.

Which is not in any way in disagreement with anything I said.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's these individuals which use the organisational structure of whatever religion they're in to do good works.

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

 

[Cleon]

I don't know. When it falls on people it crushes them to dust beneath its uncaring monotlihic form...

I think it's the people within the religions which are the shining rays of individuality which you are seeing as evidence of non-monolithicness.

the good, caring, charitable, individual Catholics, Muslims, Hindus etc etc etc..

It's these individuals which use the organisational structure of whatever religion they're in to do good works.

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?