Can religion ever really be blamed?

[floppit]

The thread on intolerance set me thinking about the attributes we ascribe to religions and whether they are valid. As I don't believe in a 'being' that inspires or writes religious text I'm left to confidently conclude they are all written by people, and therefore all that they contain comes from people rather than 'religion'. I've always had doubts when people say that religions cause wars because I am clear that people cause wars and while religion may be used to justify the most abhorrent acts I struggle with the notion that it is in itself to blame - I tend to think in a religion free environment people would still try to attain oil, money, power, diamonds, land and resources by war and would merely find a different (no more valid) justification.

What I'm arguing is that the flaws of religion are flaws of people and that only self discipline and effort offers hope that we won't continue them despite having concluded the FSM is a joke! I'm suggesting that while errors in reasoning is seen as 'their' problem rather than a human problem we are more at risk of following the human patterns that religions have demonstrated over centuries.

[Chinaski]

Religion and faith create mindsets that enable or facilitate manipulation, by kill one's ability to think rationally, and by providing an extra-human source for authority (regarding morality, for example). Furthermore, because of its historical and cultural conditioning, it is likely to instill negative impulses in the very people who gain authority within its structure.

[floppit]

Religion and faith create mindsets...

What if the mindsets create the religion and faith? As I can see no other cause for religion I would argue that is has to be that way round.

[Chinaski]

Religion and faith create mindsets...

What if the mindsets create the religion and faith? As I can see no other cause for religion I would argue that is has to be that way round.

Alright then, it's still an undesirable state. And as far as social relationships go, the religious mindset has an imposing nature.

[Sisifo]

The thread on intolerance set me thinking about the attributes we ascribe to religions and whether they are valid. As I don't believe in a 'being' that inspires or writes religious text I'm left to confidently conclude they are all written by people, and therefore all that they contain comes from people rather than 'religion'. I've always had doubts when people say that religions cause wars because I am clear that people cause wars and while religion may be used to justify the most abhorrent acts I struggle with the notion that it is in itself to blame - I tend to think in a religion free environment people would still try to attain oil, money, power, diamonds, land and resources by war and would merely find a different (no more valid) justification.

What I'm arguing is that the flaws of religion are flaws of people and that only self discipline and effort offers hope that we won't continue them despite having concluded the FSM is a joke! I'm suggesting that while errors in reasoning is seen as 'their' problem rather than a human problem we are more at risk of following the human patterns that religions have demonstrated over centuries.

Yes; religion can be blamed, should be blamed and sometimes, the blame has been accepted, such as the Catholic Church apologizing for the crusades and the inquisition.

It is obvious that religion is not the one and only cause of war, but it is an important one, because it does something that nothing else can do: It can bless violence. Other reasons, like the ones you point out, can make violence understandable by some, or forgiveable. But only religion can santify and exempt of responsibility things like racism or terrorism. In other words: many reasons can make socially violence and cruelty "not-evil", but only religion can make violence "good" and desirable.

But in general, I must agree with you. Religion is not the only imaginary idea that turns humans into lambs. Nation is another one that I particularly loath, as is also Race and any kind of tag that can be used to say "They" and "Us".

[Feck]

Yes .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anything can be manipulated by persons intent on furthering their own agenda. Put an evil person at the head of an innocent movement and you have an evil movement.

[charlou]

Religion and faith create mindsets...

What if the mindsets create the religion and faith? As I can see no other cause for religion I would argue that is has to be that way round.

Most often religious tenets are indoctrinated into developing young minds, thus creating the mindset, by people who were themselves likewise indoctrinated. It's a self perpetuating meme (culturally transmitted idea).

And, yes, this can be expanded to include nationalism, racism, sexism, etc.

[Joe Bloe]

The thread on intolerance set me thinking about the attributes we ascribe to religions and whether they are valid. As I don't believe in a 'being' that inspires or writes religious text I'm left to confidently conclude they are all written by people, and therefore all that they contain comes from people rather than 'religion'. I've always had doubts when people say that religions cause wars because I am clear that people cause wars and while religion may be used to justify the most abhorrent acts I struggle with the notion that it is in itself to blame - I tend to think in a religion free environment people would still try to attain oil, money, power, diamonds, land and resources by war and would merely find a different (no more valid) justification.

What I'm arguing is that the flaws of religion are flaws of people and that only self discipline and effort offers hope that we won't continue them despite having concluded the FSM is a joke! I'm suggesting that while errors in reasoning is seen as 'their' problem rather than a human problem we are more at risk of following the human patterns that religions have demonstrated over centuries.

It sounds like a question of semantics...

Did America develop the atomic bomb? Or the Americans? Or just a few of the Americans?
In casual conversation all of these are equally valid.

Similarly when we ask:
Does religion preach intolerance? Or is it religious people that do that?

[Trolldor]

Religion only fuels the wilfullness of mankind to submit to their baser instincts. People enjoy killing, they enjoy rape, they enjoy subjugation. People are arrogant, love feeling superior.
People are not smart, they are not powerful or profound, they are pathetic. Our world has very little difference.

[floppit]

It sounds like a question of semantics...

It's more than just semantics, although they may play a part. It's about concepts, blame and separation from ourselves (us/them thinking).

Most often religious tenets are indoctrinated into developing young minds, thus creating the mindset, by people who were themselves likewise indoctrinated. It's a self perpetuating meme (culturally transmitted idea).

And, yes, this can be expanded to include nationalism, racism, sexism, etc.

I'm not sure of whether this is a sound distinction between teaching and indoctrination but I see indoctrination as something that takes place when power is misused, while the attempt can be to teach the line gets crossed when a person abuses a situation of power in order to coerce another person into sharing their own beliefs. As you rightly noted this extends beyond religion but I would go a step further and say that it stems from a very human desire to have others share our opinions, the concept of memes highlights that we invest heavily in terms of effort to see our ideas survive, as cultures and as individuals - nothing shows that more than forums! Personally I think we do this because there's gains in sharing ideas that outweigh costs, especially to group animals that learn adaptive skills from each other. I can't 'prove' there's a human drive to do this but I'd be interested in whether people largely agree or whether there's evidence to suggest it isn't so.

IF People are motivated to persuade others and if indoctrination is that process with abuse of power thrown into the mix then both factors extend well outside of religion and arguably were more likely to have created religion than to have been created by it. People don't need religion to abuse power, look at Zimbado's classic study on prisons, or for that matter the deception used in politics, there's a thread here somewhere about atheist moderators (not here) misusing power. Communism is no less violent and coercive through history despite it's oft times rejection of religion.

Where it goes beyond semantics is perhaps at a personal level for me - I don't want to indoctrinate my child and being atheist is no vaccination against me doing so, all that stands in the way is my efforts to try and not misuse power. Religious people see 'evil' and pray, but I prefer a more thoughtful approach.

Yes; religion can be blamed, should be blamed and sometimes, the blame has been accepted, such as the Catholic Church apologizing for the crusades and the inquisition.

I would argue that there's a distinction between the concept of religion and religious institutions, just as there is between democracy and many 'so called' democratic institutions - again, I think it goes back to the way power (or the fear of losing it) effects human behaviour.

But only religion can santify and exempt of responsibility things like racism or terrorism. In other words: many reasons can make socially violence and cruelty "not-evil", but only religion can make violence "good" and desirable.

I don't want to appear to be saying religion is good, that's certainly not what I think, nor do I support how it is used, just whether or not it is created by the 'problem' (which would mean atheists would need to watch their own reasoning as much as believers) or religion created the 'problem' (in which case I ought to chill out and have a picnic to celebrate my freedom and likely goodness!).

But in general, I must agree with you. Religion is not the only imaginary idea that turns humans into lambs. Nation is another one that I particularly loath, as is also Race and any kind of tag that can be used to say "They" and "Us".

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say, the role that ideas play in binding us's (how the smeg do you plural an us!) and thems.

Religion and faith create mindsets that enable or facilitate manipulation, by kill one's ability to think rationally, and by providing an extra-human source for authority (regarding morality, for example). Furthermore, because of its historical and cultural conditioning, it is likely to instill negative impulses in the very people who gain authority within its structure.

I think our predilection for easy answers kills our power to think, if religion is lost but no effort for reasoning given then the person will be no more able to think than they were before. Can we ever see if it instils negative impulses as opposed to being used to justify them? What seen thing could distinguish between the two?

[Rum]

It would seem that human beings turn out to be extraordinarily violent and destructive whenever we meet opposition. It is one of the reasons we now dominate the world and put it so much at risk.

I think this predilection for violence and aggression is in us irrespective of religion. It does seem to 'help' if we can get irrationally worked up about why we hate and must therefore kill the group we currently consider to be the hated enemy, but that can be in the context of tribe, political opponent, ethnic, or religious other or anything else which divides rather than unites.

I had a very close friend some years ago who identified this human quality to focus on difference and to develop hatred for it as something to do with Satan. He made a good point in his own way - not that agreed of course. It is a major issue for us that is for sure.

[AshtonBlack]

You cannot "blame" some thing like the concept of religion in the same way you don't blame a gun for killing someone.
If the teachings of religion were "harmless" to society it wouldn't be an issue. It is precisely because that it is dangerous in some ways and dogmatically resistant to change in others that we non-theists, "blame" the religion because of that resistance. Where as it should be "blamed" at the institutions that continue to indoctrinate children.

[Trolldor]

You cannot "blame" some thing like the concept of religion in the same way you don't blame a gun for killing someone.
If the teachings of religion were "harmless" to society it wouldn't be an issue. It is precisely because that it is dangerous in some ways and dogmatically resistant to change in others that we non-theists, "blame" the religion because of that resistance. Where as it should be "blamed" at the institutions that continue to indoctrinate children.

What should be blamed are adults who wilfully indoctrinate children. There are a few who know better, but benefit from expoitation.
A religious script on its own is nothing without wilful adherents, no matter the tenets.

[Ayaan]

Humans do have a natural tendency to look at others and classify them as "us" or "them" and a desire to have better access to resources than others (what ever that resource is). Religion plays on that. Religion says that no matter who you are if you believe these things and do these things then you are part of the "us" and hold out the promise that one day you will have a perfect life. Add in a religious leader or a leader using religion who tells people that committing certain acts, which would be considered crimes or atrocities under any other circumstances, will please a certain deity, and you have the makings of a horrific event. Religion makes it easier for humans to justify actions such as war, rape, murder, genocide, clinic bombings, denying medical treatment, treating women and children as possessions, and a whole list of other things. So yes, religion can really be blamed.