An argument I’ve seen before, in blogs, forums and so on, is this: that it doesn’t really matter whether God exists or not; religion does good, makes people live happier lives, and so it should be accepted, perhaps even encouraged.
It’s not something a fundamentalist theist would say, of course, but both liberal theists and some non-theists have argued for that. Do you agree with them? Or do you see a problem with it?
I do see a problem. Several, in fact.
First, we must question whether religion really does good. One could, here, cite the usual examples: the Inquisition, crusades, witch burnings, the harassment of scientists, the slaughtering of other cultures, and so on.
To which the proponents of that point would reply: that’s mostly in the past. Religion also does charity work around the world. And, anyway, believing in an all-loving God, in life after death, in going to a place of eternal bliss (if you behaved and believed, that is) after you die, makes people feel better, more comfortable. That’s a good thing, right?
Well, first of all, while those examples are mostly past ones, there are still many bad things coming from religion these days: banning of contraceptives, pedophile priests, “intelligent design” / anti-evolution / anti-science teaching, banning of stem cell research, attacks on abortion, and the general anti-reason, pro-blind faith teachings.
Second, it’s not necessarily true that religion makes people feel better. Even though many Christian sites try as hard as they can to convince readers that atheists must undoubtedly lead sad lives of grey emptiness and hopeless despair, it’s simply not true - as you can confirm by reading many atheist blogs and sites. Not wanting to start that discussion again (at least for now), many Christians tend to believe that this world is Satan’s, that there’s no point to this life except as a “test” to see whether you go to heaven or hell, that there’s no reason to try, in any way, to make either the world, or your life, any better, since it’s not “the real thing” anyway. It’s certainly not all of them, but there are far too many Christians of the “take me, lord Jesus!” variety for it to be a coincidence. And most Christians, to put it simply, believe that their lives don’t actually belong to them. How is that different from earthly slavery? How is that “good”?
However, even if it was shown that theists, on average, were a little happier than non-theists, there would still be a problem with encouraging belief, independently of whether God actually exists. A huge one, in fact.
Reality. And the (then) necessary evasion of it.
Young children live in fantasy worlds of their own making, and that’s perfectly normal and healthy. But adults aren’t supposed to live like that. We’re supposed to live in the real world, no matter how much we love fantasy or science fiction (and I do!). Any scientist, any inventor, any creator, was only able to do what he did because he dealt with reality on its own terms. Because he accepted that reality exists, that it’s not fluid, and that only by dealing with it honestly, without deluding himself, could he begin to understand it, to learn how it works, and how to use it to his own advantage.
Suppose you end up on a deserted island. You’re hungry. Do you try to find some berries to eat? Try to make a rudimentary weapon to hunt or fish? You’re cold. Do you attempt to build some kind of shelter?
Or do you simply refuse to believe in the facts around you? Believe as if you’re in a dream, and will wake up at any minute? Or, perhaps, simply sit and pray to God to save you?
The first case is of a man who accepts that reality is real, and deals with it honestly. The second one doesn’t, and, while he may have some comforting delusions for a while, he’s the one — I think you won’t dispute that — most likely to die of starvation in a couple of days.
Honesty isn’t just something desirable when dealing with others. It’s not merely something “social”. Honesty, when dealing with reality, can mean the difference between life and death.
Therefore, a belief in something that doesn’t exist, that isn’t real, is dishonest. It’s an evasion of reality - an immature, cowardly one, too. Encouraging it is harmful - it holds back one’s development as a rational adult, leaving one like a crippled being who, as a supposed “grown-up”, still has to run to his little fantasies and delusions, because reality is too scary for him to cope with.
In short: the only reason, the only possible motive to encourage religion would be if it was true - that is, if God really existed, and did so according to people’s beliefs. Because they certainly only cause harm — both in the physical and mental senses — otherwise.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Organized religion seems to be not too far from government when I look at the harm caused.
Mostly searching for more power.
I’d like to ask what harm the Buddhist religion has caused.
Buddhism in its original form was never a religion, which may account for the seeming lack of power grabs. That said, it is most likely simply that we are less familiar with the harms of the bastardized forms of buddhism, which are religions, since Buddhims never caught on in the western world.
[quote post="169"]Buddhims never caught on in the western world[/quote]
I think the increasing number of Buddhists in the western world (not only of asian descent) might beg to differ. No, it is nowhere as prevalent as Christianity, but it is growing and to my understanding at rate greater than the basic population growth of the U.S. would suggest. I regret I cannot at the moment find my source on this, but I will keep looking. Also, there are Buddhists now who would say that in some (if not many) respects it is still not a religion.
Finally, Buddhism adapts its practices to each culture it enters without giving up the core of what Buddhism is about. If this is what is meant by a “bastardization” of Buddhism, then so be it. However, to me at any rate, the word contains negative connotations.
Jim,
The percentage of “buddhists” in the west is trivial at best, your comments notwithstanding. By any definition of the words, it has never caught on. You seem to be reacting against the claim that there exists no buddhists (or more accurately “buddhists”) in the west, a claim which cannot be found.
The US is sadly a xn nation. It is ruled by xns and xnty. The culture is almost exclusively xn. Buddhism simply plays no role in affecting or directing the culture or the spiritual beliefs in the west, no more than does Taoism, Shintu or many others.
As for the bastardization of Buddhism (represented above by the quotes) I am referring to the introduction of ceremony, gods, idols, etc. I am speaking of the movement away from the original teachings in such a way as to make Buddhism into a religion. This has happened in the east as well as the west and yes I do certainly consider it a negative. Now whether or not you consider these movements away from the core to be movements away from the core or merely adapting to each culture I would not venture a guess, but I strongly suspect that you have seen exactly what I am speaking of.
I am sure that there are still Buddhists for whom it is not a religion, in part because I was fortunate enough to spend some time with individuals who are indeed Buddhists, on the tibetian plateau a couple of years ago. This simply adds strength to the observation that Buddhism is oft bastardized by some (by most honestly) into a religion, thus abandoning the original teachings.
Though not a perfect analogy, you might consider the way that some “embrace” Tai Chi. They seek out the physical elements, the martial arts, without any understanding or interest in the philosophical aspects. Thus are best they get half of the whole, and in prmoting that half, at best bastardize Tai Chi. So many “buddhists” take some slogans, a few sayings, and a few rough ideas from Buddhism, and from this asume that they know, understand, and practice the whole. Almost all of these then add idols, ceremonies, and other trappings of religion, including gods, thus ensuring that though the still refer to what they do as “buddhism” in fact they are not even practicing a pale shadow of the original.
[quote post="169"]Buddhism in its original form was never a religion, which may account for the seeming lack of power grabs. [/quote]
I gues that depends on your definition of the term religion. The fact that it’s a non-theist one doesn’t exclude it from a religious practice. Even originally, a Buddhist would follow the teachings of someone who was once alive. (Supposedly) Even so a kind of heaven is still believed in, as well as reincarnation.
I don’t see a problem with those beliefs, even if they were “dishonest”, because for one to strive for such a goal would mean trying to live ones life without greed.
Guys, talking about Buddhism is perfectly fine…
but what do you think about the post itself (which, yes, is mostly about Christianity)?
By the way, from what little I know about Buddhism, you’re completely right - it wasn’t originally a religion.
It is true that much evil has been done in the name of religion. Here is the difference between “religion” and “Christianity”: religion is man thinking that there is anything he can do to save himself, that you only have to be “good enough” to get to heaven; true Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Religion can monger hate, violence, intolerance. The focus of true Christianity is to treat all human beings with the compassion and respect they deserve because they are God’s creation; to take care of the poor, ill, and imprisoned; and to spread the news of the Gospel. But we should only plant the seeds; no one was ever saved by being beaten over the head with a Bible.
jillbeth,
I appreciate from where you are coming, but is this not another “They are not *real* christians” defense? Given this, who is to determing who counts as a *real* xn? It would not be difficutlt to make the case that the xns who beat people over the head with the bible (or with sward, bombs, etc) are the *real* xns, just as it would not be difficult to make the case that the quakers or other peace loveing people (who live necessarily anti-xn lives) are the *real* xns… The point of which is merely to ask, upon what are the claims based?
I may be alone, but what is this difference you see between religion ond Xnty?
I personally think that there IS a difference between religion and xnty. Xnty has gone from following the teachings of “Christ” to an organized system with power to make laws, dictate, and punish.
IMO the purpose of xnty or “Jesus’ Teachings” WAS about learning NOT to judge and punish, living a life of help towards others and prayer.
However, NOW, with the power associated with this religion, all of those things are second hand to control of the populace, and cold hard cash.
Kren,
Same question, what is this difference that you see between religion and xnty?
I thought I already answered that, but I think I forgot to mention something.
Xnty seems to be something that spawned from such ideas into a powerful tool used to control. I forgot to wright earlier that if a religion is a way of thought meant to dispell one of thier greed, then any organization or person in which greed and power is the main focus, could not be concidered a religion.
I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of people who turn to religion to conquer personal demons, dispell themselves of greed, or merely because they believe in an afterlife. The problem would be the fact that they turn to the Church.
The difference between Xnty today and religion itself would be Xnty’s power griping, and religions almost universal teachings of equality. Xnty’s TEACHINGS (Jesus’ “words”) would actually argue FOR equality among humans, but the Church itself thrives on power.
[quote post="169"]or merely because they believe in an afterlife[/quote]
If you’re not already religious, what reason is there to believe in an afterlife? What, in the world around us, suggests in the slightest that there is one?
Other than “I’m afraid of death, so I’ll convince myself that I don’t really die, just go to a better place”, I really don’t see anything…
Some people claim to have seen ghosts and the like.
Which would be the only reason I could think of. As far as being afraid of death, everybody is, but no, that’s not the reason why anybody should believe in something after, especially Xtians, seeing as how death could mean hell.
I’m sure some people are religious because they fear death.
Kren,
Isn’t your distinction rather arbitrary and unfalsifiable? Also what about the fact that it does not capture any religion as described by those in the religion? Can you clarify?
BTW not everyone fears death. In fact once I got out of religion, which teaches the fear not only of death but of living, I stopped having any fear of death. I will welcome death with open arms, and I am not alone in this.
TX- Okay.
Also, no maybe not everybody fears death, but most people tend to do what they’re told when a gun is pointed at them.
Maybe that’s a case of love of life, not fear of death. It’s not the same thing.
When I go, I go. But I love my life too much for it not to matter whether I live or die.
Kren,
I agree with Pedro’s counter-example, but would also point out that I do not fear beets but neither do I seek them out. I dislike beets, or prefer other vegetables to be more precise, and so seemingly avoid them, but I do not fear them. So given the choice between hiking up another mountain for another wondeful experience, or dying, I will choose the former without ever introducing the notion of fear into the equation. In fact being one who came within an inch (literally) of dying while hiking from falling off a cliff, one could argue that I am choosing actions which are not the most death-avoiding.
Back to the topic, I still am not clear on what separates religion and xnty as you see it. Surely any definition of “religion” must capture the common usage of the term, that is to day it describes in general terms not merely xnty, but judaism, Islam, wicca, etc. It is not clear to me that your distinction allows that when focusing on greed and lust for power. That said I wholeheartedly agree that greed and lust for power are all inherent to religion, but they do not seem to be the entirity of religion, thus necessitating a more thorough description. Then we would have to ask how we separate this from xnty as you see it.
I’m sorry but after being in a few life/death situations (I’m sure most of us have) I’ve noticed that I’ve chosen life every time, even if that meant lashing out at others. Still, love of life and love of even a twinkie, when you’re talking love, letting go of whatever that loved thing is, would probably induce fear. When it comes to life itself, well just the physical phenomena of a fight or flight reaction is a clear example what happens when ones life is in danger. (At least for me)
IMO, it’s not just xnty that’s been deformed into a power. All of the other religions listed are probably just as distorted when it comes to the establishments themselves, the Church’s. But it seems that you missunderstand the difference between the Church and the actual religion, or think that there is no difference. Of which I explained earlier.
At any rate, I must have quite a distorted idea of what religion is. I must be rare in my thoughts, (maybe even alone) that to be religious means to believe that we are all flawed beings, charged with the responsibility of life on earth, with things to look forward to (or not) after death, and that religion itself is that way of thinking.
I gues that’s not what religion is at all. My mistake, I can see clearly now that religion is a horrid idea, to bring down others and give power to the powerful.
From now on, what I used to call the Church I’ll call Religion, and what I think religion is, I’ll call… um… thinking that we’re here for a reason, nope, doesn’t work… the belief in a spiritual realm, BISR, no, Belief in The Spiritual. BITS. I’ll call it Bits.
I think the only true reason that religion (any religion…including buddhism) is “harmful” (I dislike the word, it implies duality) is because the very practice removes responsibility. Every religion out there will give you “rituals”,”meditations”, and “prayers” that are designed to bring you closer to “God”(yourself)…but all of these things bring your attention to something outside of yourself. True, they are designed to bring you inward, but if you’re trying to “learn” from other people…that is still an escape from the fact that it ALL lies within (including the best way for YOU to find God). You cannot standardize the path to awareness and that is all religion is meant to do.
Of course, the argument could be made that religions bring people together, they do good deeds for others and so on…but that implies that without religion we would not do these things. Is our view of Humanity so skewed that we think people will suddenly turn vicious if they’re not lead by someone else?
A Forgetful God
[quote post="169"]but if you’re trying to “learn” from other people…that is still an escape from the fact that it ALL lies within (including the best way for YOU to find God).[/quote]
FG - You included Buddhism in religions when you said what can be harmful about them, but I have been practicing for over ten years, and I would say that my teacher stresses the exact opposite of what you quote. Yes, they teach, instruct, and point. However, they repeat, over and over again, not to trust what they say until we experience it for ourselves.
Additionally, the law of karma does the opposite of teach us to ignore responsibility. If anything, it makes it clear that with every decision, every action, there is a consequence and we must accept that as surely as we made the decision or action.
Finally, I would agree that you cannot standardize practice for everyone. That is why I always felt that different people need different paths. It’s why I have no problem with an individual choosing a particular religion if and when their path follows the path that religion has marked out. I do have a problem when that path tells the person they must try to change me, or that it has the only path. In my experiences as a Buddhist neither of these has ever happened.
So while I agree with the main content of your post, I think you are mistaken when you include Buddhism - although I won’t rule out that there are branches of Buddhism that could be included - just not all of them.
Not all spiritual belief makes one religious. I have belief in a human being’s soul because I have seen examples of them in both dream and waking vision. You could say I am crazy or that certain near-death experiences have deluded my perception of reality, except that such a simple belief without implications of any further, suggestively related truths or realities (such as the supposed existence of deities) has not introduced a religious way of rationalizing real-life situations because the soul’s exisitence alone is the only information I feel proven and that the soul’s function and the role it plays in any before or after-lives described by popular religion is completely presumptuous to me and therefore cannot be considered objectively when dealing with the affairs of physical reality which made themselves proven to me long before the existence of a person’s soul did.
That having been said, I would like to mention I find xnty’s explanation of existence as somewhat disturbing for it would have me abandoning my own charge to make better the world in whatever way I can because as long as me and future generations of my kin are submissive to the ‘creator’ we will always be “saved” once we’re dead anyway; I believe we are in charge of saving our own souls. Can I be called religious?