Is Religion Intrinsically Bad?

[Received]

I ask this already knowing the question is in the negative. Slews of psychological studies involve religion as a contributing factor to higher meaning, and therefore happiness. But it's clear that this isn't all religion in general, but positive religion. It's clear that there's a negative strand of religion that is quite bad, and even if the previous brand of positive religion helps the individual attain personal meaning and happiness, does this mean that it's good for society as a whole?

I can only speak from experience. Each and every time my phenomenological experience of what I label God comes to play, it's something positive. It's a bright light during times when I've lost my way, especially when I'm treating others badly, and a warm center when I need a simulacrum of human presence to get me through hard times. There are clear, psychologically undeniable moments when I've been in the dredges of despair and made a simple prayer only to find my inertia broken.

That's no proof of God, but it is at least anecdotal evidence that what many label as God can be an overwhelmingly positive experience. Yet I can't think of this without recalling the over-guilty (nobody should feel shame, but everyone should have a sense of shame, to recall what Nietzsche said), and how their guilt seems clearly related to the maxims they've had smashed into them from authorities standing for religion. This also means pointing out a distinction between religion as a cultural phenomenon and religious experience as a personal one.

It's also clear that many religious narratives, such as the Old Testament, have very nasty parts. But I'm not aware of any places that make commandments from terrible acts. That is, we have genocide, but never (to my knowledge), "thou shalt commit genocide." This isn't dismissing the nasty parts, but is questioning the argument that works according to the thinking Hume also questioned: there is a distinction between an Is and an Ought. What this means here is that if there are any individuals who believe in terrible things by appealing to terrible verses, this is their projection based on a preceding (bad) morality, and not necessarily reflective of the text itself.

Finally, I think it's nonsensical to say that religion is bad, just as it would be to say that men are bad, or that anger is bad, or that sex is bad. There are bad instances and bad uses of these latter examples, but precisely because there are different ways of understanding them, there's no sense in making universal statements about them. Religion as a whole isn't bad, given that it's clear that some religions, at least, are very good. The deeper question is whether allowing some people to exercise good religion is justification for having bad people exercise bad religion -- that is, whether faith, in this sense, is allowable according to human freedom in relation to their religious preferences. But then you're into even deeper problems: is it possible that some people have questionable religious preferences and that they would be better off as individuals still than if they didn't have these questionable religious preferences? Say a person whose religious beliefs involve holding antagonism toward homosexuals; perhaps if this person didn't have these religious beliefs, he'd be psychologically crippled in comparison to this over life, even if he wasn't wrongly indoctrinated that homosexuals were bad people.

And we sure as heck can't escape the reality of faith. It's not a purely religious quality. It starts with our assumption that an external world exists. So it's also not faith itself that's bad, but the type of beliefs that go with this faith.

Complicated enough?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I see religion as instumental (it does things for me) and vehicular (it is a mode of transportation through life) and of potential artistic merit (life is a canvas, empty stage and a blank page to be worked on). I am not too fussed if my beliefs are in the end false, and I am not willing to practice self-abnegation in the name of secular reality. Atoms, physical processes may have brought me here, and in fact withoput prior consent, but I do not feel any sense of endebtedness or duty to occupy myself with them alone. Either that or I'm consciously immoral, but my empire is my empire and I like it a certain way. I don't mind acknowledging epistemological weakness, its up to God to show himself more clearly if he wants to convince the skeptics. Besides, the search for a hidden God can be fun. Even if He does not exist the conversation and 'play' is usually pleasant and rewarding, and can be seen as a allegorical tete a tete with a universe which otherwise couldn't find it's tongue...

 

[Paradoxum]

I ask this already knowing the question is in the negative. Slews of psychological studies involve religion as a contributing factor to higher meaning, and therefore happiness. But it's clear that this isn't all religion in general, but positive religion. It's clear that there's a negative strand of religion that is quite bad, and even if the previous brand of positive religion helps the individual attain personal meaning and happiness, does this mean that it's good for society as a whole?

How do you differentiate between positive and negative religion. There are obvious cases, such as if you compare Martin Luther King, Jr. to Osama bin Laden. It is harder when you look at the average person. Though the average conservative Christian may not be as crazy as the Westboro Baptist Church, they are actually the ones who continue the inequality between hetero and homosexuals. So, of course the conservative gains meaning and love from the religion, the religion can also promote immorality to others outside their group. Religion also tends to protect the mind from criticism.

I find it hard to say whether more harm or good is done. For all the criticism if give towards Christianity, I do greatly value my loving Christian upbringing. I guess I just wish Christians wouldn't corrupt Christianity's potential.

I can only speak from experience. Each and every time my phenomenological experience of what I label God comes to play, it's something positive. It's a bright light during times when I've lost my way, especially when I'm treating others badly, and a warm center when I need a simulacrum of human presence to get me through hard times. There are clear, psychologically undeniable moments when I've been in the dredges of despair and made a simple prayer only to find my inertia broken.

I agree it can be positive.

This also means pointing out a distinction between religion as a cultural phenomenon and religious experience as a personal one.

I would think the two tends to get merged into each other, rather than one church or person being only one or the other.

It's also clear that many religious narratives, such as the Old Testament, have very nasty parts. But I'm not aware of any places that make commandments from terrible acts. That is, we have genocide, but never (to my knowledge), "thou shalt commit genocide."

But the Bible does say that God commanded some of the genocides (if I remember correctly). If God did it then He must be justified, and if He can be justified then that might be used to justify ourselves in similar action.

 

[Received]

How do you differentiate between positive and negative religion. There are obvious cases, such as if you compare Martin Luther King, Jr. to Osama bin Laden. It is harder when you look at the average person. Though the average conservative Christian may not be as crazy as the Westboro Baptist Church, they are actually the ones who continue the inequality between hetero and homosexuals. So, of course the conservative gains meaning and love from the religion, the religion can also promote immorality to others outside their group. Religion also tends to protect the mind from criticism.

That's an open question. I think, as is clear in your comments, that religion often involves negative and positive aspects. The question here is whether the positive outweighs the negative, and that even if the negative seems more prominent, there's another question (which I've yet to hear others, particularly those critical of religion, ask) that asks if the person who has more negative aspects of his faith would be better or worse off if he didn't have this faith. It's not hard at all to imagine how this lack of mostly bad faith could be better for the individual (and therefore possibly other people) than if he didn't have it: simply imagine what a person would be like without a large degree of hope, including optimism toward the universe (God at least is loving toward me), and a reason for life after death. Now, it's also very arguable that if this person had different values and ways of looking at things that he wouldn't have these difficulties with a lack of faith instead of having a somewhat bad faith. But it's questionable whether a significant number of people are so constituted (even genetically) to be able to think or approach the world in this way. Nonetheless, I think the imperative for any person, religious or not, is toward allowing them to have the resources that would allow them to get the most out of life whether or not they end up believing in anything in terms of faith, so they can prevent bad faith from flourishing, and prevent possible nihilism without any type of faith.

I find it hard to say whether more harm or good is done. For all the criticism if give towards Christianity, I do greatly value my loving Christian upbringing. I guess I just wish Christians wouldn't corrupt Christianity's potential.

Me too. I think there are often deeper psychological needs fulfilled through any type of faith. I would draw the line at fanaticism. Loosely, faith becomes bad when the ideas are subtracted from present-centered action; example, when we're called to live for a future life and either don't explicitly call to repentance of bad actions ("sin") leading unto an approach to benevolence toward self and others or naturally lead in this direction. As such, it's a particular system of theology that's in question, and not faith itself. The real question, then, seems to be exegetical: whether the Bible really does pretty unambiguously support teachings that lead to bad character.

I would think the two tends to get merged into each other, rather than one church or person being only one or the other.

Right, and in a way they're very much interdependent. But not necessarily.

But the Bible does say that God commanded some of the genocides (if I remember correctly). If God did it then He must be justified, and if He can be justified then that might be used to justify ourselves in similar action.

That's thinking along the lines Hume questioned: just because there is an Is (something that happened, even a commandment to a specific group of people in a so-called historical setting) doesn't mean there is an Ought (i.e., you should act a certain way -- abstracting an event or occurrence into a maxim or general rule) that follows from it.

 

[ivebeenshown]

...(edit)

 

[Paradoxum]

That's an open question. I think, as is clear in your comments, that religion often involves negative and positive aspects. The question here is whether the positive outweighs the negative, and that even if the negative seems more prominent, there's another question (which I've yet to hear others, particularly those critical of religion, ask) that asks if the person who has more negative aspects of his faith would be better or worse off if he didn't have this faith. It's not hard at all to imagine how this lack of mostly bad faith could be better for the individual (and therefore possibly other people) than if he didn't have it: simply imagine what a person would be like without a large degree of hope, including optimism toward the universe (God at least is loving toward me), and a reason for life after death. Now, it's also very arguable that if this person had different values and ways of looking at things that he wouldn't have these difficulties with a lack of faith instead of having a somewhat bad faith. But it's questionable whether a significant number of people are so constituted (even genetically) to be able to think or approach the world in this way. Nonetheless, I think the imperative for any person, religious or not, is toward allowing them to have the resources that would allow them to get the most out of life whether or not they end up believing in anything in terms of faith, so they can prevent bad faith from flourishing, and prevent possible nihilism without any type of faith.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg

I don't know if the above is true, but it is an interesting point. I think extremists obviously would be better off without religion. Religion does give comfort, but you do get happy atheists.

The real question, then, seems to be exegetical: whether the Bible really does pretty unambiguously support teachings that lead to bad character.

Maybe not bad character, but some immoral action can be justified by using the Bible. I like the Bible, but reading it literally is dangerous.

That's thinking along the lines Hume questioned: just because there is an Is (something that happened, even a commandment to a specific group of people in a so-called historical setting) doesn't mean there is an Ought (i.e., you should act a certain way -- abstracting an event or occurrence into a maxim or general rule) that follows from it.

Well if the perfectly moral God does something then it might seem like a human who wishes to be morally perfect should do it. This isn't much like a 'Is, Ought' problem.

 

[Paradoxum]

...(edit)

What's your signature mean?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It means 'womens health' institutions promote abortion.

 

[jayem]

For me, the test of any religion is what it says about people who don't follow it. Not all--but many varieties of the Abrahamic religions teach that non-believers are not simply in error, but are morally suspect, if not outright inimical. Though they claim to value brotherhood, in practice they promote tribalism. I suspect Christianity and Islam both inherited this from OT Judaism. A lot of the OT is about how the people of Abraham were chosen for God's special favor, and they must keep themselves separate from the unholy infidels. This exclusivism is the biggest problem I have with traditional religion. You don't find this attitude expressed by other great moral teachers, like Socrates or the Buddha. Who look upon non-believers with a sort of a benign forebearance.

P.S. One variety of Christianity that is not tribalistic is the Society of Friends. Respect for the dignity and equality of all mankind, no matter what religion, is a tradition of the modern Quakers. Which is why they are the most admirable of all Christians in my book.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

they must keep themselves separate from the unholy infidels

Think along the lines of preserving the "genetic purity" of the breed. But not the physical breed but the psychological, behavioral and habitual.

Muhammed said IIRC that if you eat with a group you become like them, and if you enter a Church you become one of them.

 

[The Nihilist]

Do you have a link to the study showing that religion helps people be happier? I bring it up because I'd like to know, and because in retrospect, it made me miserable

 

[Tolerant Skeptic]

Greed is the only thing in the world that has caused more suffering than religion. Religious individuals are not inherently evil, nor do an hold any resentment towards those that adhere to a religious doctrine, but religion itself is something I view as purely negative. It promotes genocide, nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, chauvinism, torture, child abuse, rape, and fierce opposition to science. I would be willing to die for your right to believe whatever you wish, though I cherish the thought of a world without religion.

 

[someguy14]

but religion itself is something I view as purely negative. It promotes genocide, nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, chauvinism, torture, child abuse, rape, and fierce opposition to science.

"...but false religion itself is something I view as purely negative."

 

[someguy14]

Religion, in itself, isn't bad.
Pure religion instructs, Love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[Ernst Junger]

For me, the test of any religion is what it says about people who don't follow it. Not all--but many varieties of the Abrahamic religions teach that non-believers are not simply in error, but are morally suspect, if not outright inimical. Though they claim to value brotherhood, in practice they promote tribalism. I suspect Christianity and Islam both inherited this from OT Judaism. A lot of the OT is about how the people of Abraham were chosen for God's special favor, and they must keep themselves separate from the unholy infidels. This exclusivism is the biggest problem I have with traditional religion. You don't find this attitude expressed by other great moral teachers, like Socrates or the Buddha. Who look upon non-believers with a sort of a benign forebearance.

P.S. One variety of Christianity that is not tribalistic is the Society of Friends. Respect for the dignity and equality of all mankind, no matter what religion, is a tradition of the modern Quakers. Which is why they are the most admirable of all Christians in my book.

Via the Republic

The next question is, How shall we treat our enemies? Shall Hellenes be enslaved? No; for there is too great a risk of the whole race passing under the yoke of the barbarians. Or shall the dead be despoiled? Certainly not; for that sort of thing is an excuse for skulking, and has been the ruin of many an army. There is meanness and feminine malice in making an enemy of the dead body, when the soul which was the owner has fled—like a dog who cannot reach his assailants, and quarrels with the stones which are thrown at him instead. Again, the arms of Hellenes should not be offered up in the temples of the Gods; they are a pollution, for they are taken from brethren. And on similar grounds there should be a limit to the devastation of Hellenic territory—the houses should not be burnt, nor more than the annual produce carried off. For war is of two kinds, civil and foreign; the first of which is properly termed 'discord,' and only the second 'war;' and war between Hellenes is in reality civil war—a quarrel in a family, which is ever to be regarded as unpatriotic and unnatural, and ought to be prosecuted with a view to reconciliation in a true phil-Hellenic spirit, as of those who would chasten but not utterly enslave. The war is not against a whole nation who are a friendly multitude of men, women, and children, but only against a few guilty persons; when they are punished peace will be restored. That is the way in which Hellenes should war against one another—and against barbarians, as they war against one another now.

And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war; but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in a state of disorder and discord, they being by nature friends; and such enmity is to be called discord.

I have yet to meet a modern liberal who loves socrates and has bothered to read him.

 

[DaneaFL]

Religion is bad not because of greed, sexism, racism, and all those other specific things...

The one source for all of this is the underlying problem with religion. It's faith.
Faith IS the problem. With faith, you can get anyone to do or believe anything.

Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. This is completely dishonest.

You can end up with all kinds of wrong assumptions that could lead to things like sexism and racism if you just believe things without evidence.

So faith itself is the problem. No one should believe anything unless they have good REASON to.

Ironically, faith is required and applauded by religious people... If you are a 'person of faith' you are praised! it's mind-boggling!

To congratulate someone for being a 'person of faith' is the same as saying "Isn't he great? He is a person who believes things even without evidence!"

 

[Paradoxum]

Religion is bad not because of greed, sexism, racism, and all those other specific things...

The one source for all of this is the underlying problem with religion. It's faith.
Faith IS the problem. With faith, you can get anyone to do or believe anything.

Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. This is completely dishonest.

You can end up with all kinds of wrong assumptions that could lead to things like sexism and racism if you just believe things without evidence.

So faith itself is the problem. No one should believe anything unless they have good REASON to.

Ironically, faith is required and applauded by religious people... If you are a 'person of faith' you are praised! it's mind-boggling!

To congratulate someone for being a 'person of faith' is the same as saying "Isn't he great? He is a person who believes things even without evidence!"

I am very cynical of that definition of faith. I've heard if said by atheists alot, but it just seems too define the opposition into being incorrect. I don't think many religious people conceive of faith being like that, so when you define it like that it seems like you are talking about a different concept with the same name. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think faith needs more said of it than that. Perhaps it is a bit like libertarian free will.

My problem with religious faith is that it tends stop people from doubting. When one' eternal destiny depends one what one thinks then to doubt becomes potentially great evil.

 

[mkatzwork]

I am very cynical of that definition of faith. I've heard if said by atheists alot, but it just seems too define the opposition into being incorrect. I don't think many religious people conceive of faith being like that, so when you define it like that it seems like you are talking about a different concept with the same name. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think faith needs more said of it than that. Perhaps it is a bit like libertarian free will.

My problem with religious faith is that it tends stop people from doubting. When one' eternal destiny depends one what one thinks then to doubt becomes potentially great evil.

It's a pretty good definition. Faith allows you to make huge leaps between two pieces of evidence and see cause and effect where none can ever be shown. At best it is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and at worst, non sequitur.

Assume that one believes that Jesus was born of a Virgin and the conception was thus immaculate. Parthenogenesis does not in any way prove divinity.

Assume that on believes, as William Lane Craig often brings up, the Kalām cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

This still does not in anyway validate any particular cause, be it Zeus, the Judeo-Christian God, the Celestial Teapot or whatever. None of them are strengthened by this argument.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It's a pretty good definition. Faith allows you to make huge leaps between two pieces of evidence and see cause and effect where none can ever be shown. At best it is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and at worst, non sequitur. ...

And outright lies - those are always favourites with evangelists.



.

 

[variant]

It is good that the fictions of religion give people meaning I suppose.

It is bad that people need fictions to feel the universe and their lives are meaningful.