Weinberg's thing about religion making good people do evil things

[Chanakya]

I had to look up who it was said it, and also the exact quote. {[eta] I'd kind of thought it was Hitchens. But when I looked it up to get the exact quote, then it turns out it's this other guy, who's a celebrated physicist. I suppose Hitchens was quoting him, in fact has quoted him often, because I'm quite sure I've heard him use that line, quite correctly, not just once but quite a few times. [/eta])

Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

So, is that actually an indictment of religion, overall?

In specific cases, sure it is. But surely there's another side to this as well? Isn't merely looking at one side of the equation a bit unfair?


------------------------------------------


That's all there is to this OP, the portion above the separator line. Thought it might be interesting to hear people's views on this, is all.

This quote below is just for context, should such be needed at all, and because I'm being too lazy (or, more accurately, am rushed and thought to start this thread nevertheless):

Somewhat tangential thought in connection with what's been said here: This reminded me of that aphorism, that it takes religion to get a good man to do bad things.

While I completely agree, but here's a thought, well two thoughts. Playing Devil's Advocate as it were. One: That's true of most ideologies, including, say, patriotism. And, more importantly, two: Isn't that kind of one-sided, that observation? While it is true that religion can get a good man to do bad things; but equally, religion can also keep a bad man from doing bad things and indeed sometimes do good things, right? So that, a fair evaluation would involve weighing these two opposite effects, and seeing which wins out.

For instance: You can have people of one religion discriminating against those of another religion, going to murderous extents in times past (and sometimes even now) basis religion, good people who think they're doing good. On the other hand, religion can also sometimes get otherwise not-good people to refrain from violence, or indeed to reach out to help others (even if their motives are warped, even so).

Another for instance: The priests diddling kids. Actually, not a very good instance, really. Because this is a case of bad people opportunistically and hypocritically using the power religion gives them to do evil --- not a case of actually being impelled by religion reasons to do it, because if they're believers then I'm sure deep in their hearts they know they're sinning and will be held to account for it, so that in one sense, while using the very power religion gives to them, they're doing this in spite of religion rather than because of it. But anyway, such hairsplitting aside: the other side of it may be bad people who are held back from molesting children and adult women as well because they're scared of God and his son setting the devil to shaft them in hell eternally if they do that. Again, warped motivations, but the end result is good, surely.

---------------------------

Bzzzhhh! Lots of words to express an obvious enough point, I guess. My point is, that aphorism, we kind of take it to the bank, I do as well. And yet, I generally, tangentially --- association of thoughts --- got to wondering how true it really is. In specific instances, certainly it is an indictment of religion: but, in sum, is the net result actually an indictment, or neutral, or maybe even good?



eta: I guess rather than a throwaway thought, which this comment of mine started out as, it might be interesting to hear what people have to say on this. But clearly off-topic here, so I might start another thread, later when I have time.

 

[bruto]

I think it's more accurate to say, not that it's religion per se that does the damage, but doctrine and dogma. Even that is probably more simplistic than it ought to be, but I think when you lock into a doctrine it's too easy to stop thinking, to excuse shortcomings as failures of something else, and to value adherence over character. It's so easily found in so much religion that it's an obvious target, but then you miss Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Kim and so on.

I think Weinberg is simply mistaken here, unless he stretches definitions and calls other doctrinaire systems religions. Aside from which, I've known many people who have behaved well and made hard choices and sacrifices based on their religious beliefs. Some no doubt would be thought heretics by many religious leaders of today, perhaps imposters or beneficiaries of some last-minute exemption by such as Weinberg, but I think the world and many of the people in it are far too complex and paradoxical to fit so neatly into the doctrinaire categories of popes, dictators, and scolding wannabe philosophers.

 

[Olmstead]

It's an annoying part of atheist discourse, where the only thing that could possibly matter (the obvious lack of a deity) doesn't have the intended effect on believers, so some people try to address the matter from a wholly irrelevant direction. An incredibly fruitless endeavour. If you can't beat wilful delusion, how are you ever going to convince people that their wilful delusion is "bad"?

It also traps one in another tedious discourse, so now you get to argue against Christianity being the bastion of Enlightenment or some such nonsense. No amount of non-Christian rationality and benevolence will ever convince the other party that God didn't save the human race from a cesspit of evil.

 

[angrysoba]

I suppose the point is that it depends on how you place the emphasis. It's probably fairer to say that if you fundamentally believe that God has told you to do something that you would otherwise consider to be terrible, then certainly religion could be making a good person do a bad thing. One of the most obvious examples is God says to Abraham kill me a son, Abe says man, you must be putting me on... etc...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A more general version is: Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story. (John Barth)

Religion is just a handy template to use to convince yourself and others why you must be on the side of the angels not matter the evil you do.

But "the betterment of mankind" via twisted ideas of science or morals or a higher goal has been invoked often enough; Musk, Bezos and other billionaires are openly harming people with the claim that their acts will benefit everyone some time in the far future.

 

[Chanakya]

I think it's more accurate to say, not that it's religion per se that does the damage, but doctrine and dogma. Even that is probably more simplistic than it ought to be, but I think when you lock into a doctrine it's too easy to stop thinking, to excuse shortcomings as failures of something else, and to value adherence over character. It's so easily found in so much religion that it's an obvious target, but then you miss Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Kim and so on.

I think Weinberg is simply mistaken here, unless he stretches definitions and calls other doctrinaire systems religions. Aside from which, I've known many people who have behaved well and made hard choices and sacrifices based on their religious beliefs. Some no doubt would be thought heretics by many religious leaders of today, perhaps imposters or beneficiaries of some last-minute exemption by such as Weinberg, but I think the world and many of the people in it are far too complex and paradoxical to fit so neatly into the doctrinaire categories of popes, dictators, and scolding wannabe philosophers.

Agreed, doctrine is the issue here. But: In fact, two buts:

But #1: That doctrine is part of some ideology. It could be patriotism, or communism. Or it could be religion. In as much religion oftentimes incorporates such doctrine, then might this simply be a matter of semantics? (But I get your point, absolutely. To paint doctrine as the villain and not religion per se effectively takes care of my first objection/reservation, as highlighted in my (somewhat garbled, sorry) OP.

More importantly, but #2: That still leaves unaddressed the fundamental question I was asking, or at least wondering about. If doctrine can make a good man do bad things, then doctrine can also make a bad man refrain from doing some bad things that he might otherwise have done, or indeed make an indifferent man or a bad man actually do good things. That latter, basis warped motivations, sure; but still. So that, whether we lay it at the door of religion, or of doctrine, regardless of that, does this actually amount to an indictment of the thing (religion, or doctrine)? As this quote suggests, and as many of us (including me) generally tend to assume? Or should we engage in a larger-picture debits-and-credits thing to arrive at where the balance is at?

 

[Chanakya]

It's an annoying part of atheist discourse, where the only thing that could possibly matter (the obvious lack of a deity) doesn't have the intended effect on believers, so some people try to address the matter from a wholly irrelevant direction. An incredibly fruitless endeavour. If you can't beat wilful delusion, how are you ever going to convince people that their wilful delusion is "bad"?

It also traps one in another tedious discourse, so now you get to argue against Christianity being the bastion of Enlightenment or some such nonsense. No amount of non-Christian rationality and benevolence will ever convince the other party that God didn't save the human race from a cesspit of evil.

Sorry, didn't quite get that, despite reading it twice! In context of the OP and the thread, I mean to say. Could you rephrase/explain?

 

[Chanakya]

I suppose the point is that it depends on how you place the emphasis. It's probably fairer to say that if you fundamentally believe that God has told you to do something that you would otherwise consider to be terrible, then certainly religion could be making a good person do a bad thing. One of the most obvious examples is God says to Abraham kill me a son, Abe says man, you must be putting me on... etc...

Fair point!

There's something completely reprehensible about a good man's virtues being turned against him, to make him do evil things ----- that, regardless of the opposite side of the equation. At an individual level, at any rate, no amount of the latter effect can balance out the ...the reprehensible-ness, of the former effect.

And that does directly answer my question. Or at least, goes a good way towards answering it, by offering me a commonsense perspective that had not occurred to me when I asked this, thanks.

Still, large-picture, the question remains open. (I suppose the full answer, and the entirely satisfactory answer, might be that Weinberg was addressing just this part of it, and not the whole of it --- that he was addressing this from the individual's perspective, and not from a societal perspective. That's fair enough, if that's actually the case.)

 

[Chanakya]

A more general version is: Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story. (John Barth)

Religion is just a handy template to use to convince yourself and others why you must be on the side of the angels not matter the evil you do.

But "the betterment of mankind" via twisted ideas of science or morals or a higher goal has been invoked often enough; Musk, Bezos and other billionaires are openly harming people with the claim that their acts will benefit everyone some time in the far future.

Point taken, it's sometimes/often just a rationalization. But hardly every time, probably not even most times?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A more general version is: Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story. (John Barth)

Religion is just a handy template to use to convince yourself and others why you must be on the side of the angels not matter the evil you do.

But "the betterment of mankind" via twisted ideas of science or morals or a higher goal has been invoked often enough; Musk, Bezos and other billionaires are openly harming people with the claim that their acts will benefit everyone some time in the far future.

Heroes don't commit suicide.

 

[bruto]

Agreed, doctrine is the issue here. But: In fact, two buts:

But #1: That doctrine is part of some ideology. It could be patriotism, or communism. Or it could be religion. In as much religion oftentimes incorporates such doctrine, then might this simply be a matter of semantics? (But I get your point, absolutely. To paint doctrine as the villain and not religion per se effectively takes care of my first objection/reservation, as highlighted in my (somewhat garbled, sorry) OP.

More importantly, but #2: That still leaves unaddressed the fundamental question I was asking, or at least wondering about. If doctrine can make a good man do bad things, then doctrine can also make a bad man refrain from doing some bad things that he might otherwise have done, or indeed make an indifferent man or a bad man actually do good things. That latter, basis warped motivations, sure; but still. So that, whether we lay it at the door of religion, or of doctrine, regardless of that, does this actually amount to an indictment of the thing (religion, or doctrine)? As this quote suggests, and as many of us (including me) generally tend to assume? Or should we engage in a larger-picture debits-and-credits thing to arrive at where the balance is at?

I do think there's a difference, even though there's too often plenty of overlap, between religious belief and doctrine or dogma. Religions tend to incorporate it, such that believing the idea carries with it the objectionable action, probably more often than not, but I don't think it's compulsory. It is possible, for example, to be a religiously observant scientist, an evangelist leading a secular government, and so forth. I guess I might have to make a distinction between religion as an abstract thing (not directly culpable) and religionS as the institutions whose very business is doctrine. But we see plenty of instances where even members of a religion or other ideological institution balk at certain things, and grab back the controls, so even if they're a lamentable minority, I figure there's a small subset in which the sets of personal religion and institutional religion do not intersect.

A good question in number 2, which I think may be too complicated to answer because, for one thing, it's hard to separate a person's presumed nature from their actions. How do you measure a man? How good are you if your religion (or other ideology) overcomes it and makes you do bad things? People can be weak, misled, lied to, and we tend to make up plenty of excuses for the collateral damages our beliefs produce. But at what point do excuses lose their flavor? Philosophers don't seem able to agree. Lots of factors here including blackmail, coercion, threats, exile and harship and whatnot that can lead a good person to do a bad thing, but that may not be the same as making a good person want to do the bad thing. Debits and credits are so dependent themselves on ideology that I doubt that would work even if you thought it should, which is itself arguable.

I suppose it depends a little on how you evaluate people. I'm reminded of something my friends harked back to numerous times, when at some occasion one of them was rhapsodizing over the poetry of Alan Ginsberg, and reading "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,...etc." and I blurted out "I guess that just goes to show they weren't the best minds after all."

Slightly off thread note: I'm off on a trip tomorrow, so likely will not be returning to this thread regularly if at all, so please do not think it is lack of interest. My own thoughts on this are a bit disordered and I'd be happy to continue, but not likely for a few weeks.

 

[Chanakya]

I do think there's a difference, even though there's too often plenty of overlap, between religious belief and doctrine or dogma. Religions tend to incorporate it, such that believing the idea carries with it the objectionable action, probably more often than not, but I don't think it's compulsory. It is possible, for example, to be a religiously observant scientist, an evangelist leading a secular government, and so forth.

This, I realize, is addressing a sidebar rather than the actual meat of what you're saying here: but as far as the sidebar, because it is kind of a pet peeve of mine: No, it is not possible to be a religiously observant scientist, not unless the scientist clearly tells himself, "This is all rubbish, but I'm doing it nevertheless, out of inertia, or maybe out of respect for tradition, or maybe due to societal pressure, or maybe to hook up with that hot girl that's a regular visitor to Church, or maybe simply because I find the atmosphere soothing in general terms, or whatever other deliberately non-religious reason" --- with the emphasis completely on the "observant", and none at all on the "religious".

That is, it is possible to be a scientist as far as one's profession, while also being religious, or for that matter a climate denier or a flat-earther, why not. But it is not possible to both be scientifically minded as far as some specific issue, as well as subscribe to religious ideas as far as that specific matter.

I guess I might have to make a distinction between religion as an abstract thing (not directly culpable) and religionS as the institutions whose very business is doctrine. But we see plenty of instances where even members of a religion or other ideological institution balk at certain things, and grab back the controls, so even if they're a lamentable minority, I figure there's a small subset in which the sets of personal religion and institutional religion do not intersect.

A good question in number 2, which I think may be too complicated to answer because, for one thing, it's hard to separate a person's presumed nature from their actions. How do you measure a man? How good are you if your religion (or other ideology) overcomes it and makes you do bad things? People can be weak, misled, lied to, and we tend to make up plenty of excuses for the collateral damages our beliefs produce. But at what point do excuses lose their flavor? Philosophers don't seem able to agree. Lots of factors here including blackmail, coercion, threats, exile and harship and whatnot that can lead a good person to do a bad thing, but that may not be the same as making a good person want to do the bad thing. Debits and credits are so dependent themselves on ideology that I doubt that would work even if you thought it should, which is itself arguable.

I suppose it depends a little on how you evaluate people. I'm reminded of something my friends harked back to numerous times, when at some occasion one of them was rhapsodizing over the poetry of Alan Ginsberg, and reading "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,...etc." and I blurted out "I guess that just goes to show they weren't the best minds after all."

Fair point, the hilited above. That is, not sure I agree with the conclusion drawn, but I agree it's a fair point, a point worth considering. ...But, by that yardstick, and if we take it to be true, then Weinberg's aphorism would be mistaken as well. Is that what you're arguing? Because I don't know that I'm prepared to go that far. Incomplete, it might be; but completely mistaken, I don't think.

Slightly off thread note: I'm off on a trip tomorrow, so likely will not be returning to this thread regularly if at all, so please do not think it is lack of interest. My own thoughts on this are a bit disordered and I'd be happy to continue, but not likely for a few weeks.

That's cool. Haha, that's why I swooped down to respond, on noticing your post ---- thumbs up, or "Like" if you will, for this new Notification feature! --- so that you might be able to read my post before you leave. No need to respond if you're rushed, it's not as if I've said anything earthshakingly momentous and urgent here! And have a great trip!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Heroes don't commit suicide.

tragic ones do.