Can religion ever really be blamed?

[Trolldor]

I do not believe that religion can withstand rationality and solid reasoning so I see no downside in placing all efforts to promote those features and wasting none worrying about eradicating one of a whole host of dangerous viral memes. Once a virus reaches pandemic status containment is a futile primary defence - vaccination and treatment trump control over the spread.

It is not merely the application, you need willing participants. A meme is not a virus in so far as it does not need a host to survive, or to spread. An idea can rest unperturbed for centuries, but for a 'microchrono' look it's better to use the internet. Memes go in and out in a matter of weeks, but still constantly they are 'discovered' again and again by the next generation of internet teenagers. They find it sitting there and spread it to all those who haven't seen it and it's suddenly the latest, greatest piece of internets comedy. Religion isn't so different - neopaganism, for example, is a resurrection of old Celtic or Nordic rituals... or the idea that what they are practicing are old celtic or nordic rituals anyway.
The 'meme' can fade from human consciousness entirely, but so long as a 'hardcopy' sits there somewhere it's only necessary for someone to find it before it starts to spread again.
If you want to eliminate religion, you have to eliminate the idea of religion.

[floppit]

If you want to eliminate religion, you have to eliminate the idea of religion.

But without reasoning, even in the utterly unlikely event of success, it still remains wasted effort as the gap is soon filled with superstition, hero worship, tribal thinking, crystal healing, etc etc etc.

I acknowledge fully that the virus is not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it falls apart in terms of being a functioning analogy for the purpose of promoting a more reasoned world.

BTW - I was watching a program on Spanish Flu where they were digging up a lead coffin of a victim to try to gain samples - left alone and underground for decades there was still a strong enough perceived need to make sure the virus could not escape that full infection control was put in place. We simply don't know how long viruses can exist without a living host.

[Trolldor]

If you want to eliminate religion, you have to eliminate the idea of religion.

But without reasoning, even in the utterly unlikely event of success, it still remains wasted effort as the gap is soon filled with superstition, hero worship, tribal thinking, crystal healing, etc etc etc.

I acknowledge fully that the virus is not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it falls apart in terms of being a functioning analogy for the purpose of promoting a more reasoned world.

BTW - I was watching a program on Spanish Flu where they were digging up a lead coffin of a victim to try to gain samples - left alone and underground for decades there was still a strong enough perceived need to make sure the virus could not escape that full infection control was put in place. We simply don't know how long viruses can exist without a living host.

I'm not saying it was a bad analogy, in fact the in absence of any better one I definitely think it's the best. I do think, however, that simple 'reason' isn't enough to overcome what religion actually provides. It's not as simple as a vaccine.

Religion is probably better related to a specific virus - common Influenza. We have vaccinations every year because the Virus changes from season to season. Even if we managed to successfully vaccinate against that season's Flu, there would be another one floating around somewhere, different enough for the vaccine to be useless. Religion is very much the same.
Even if we explained the origins of the universe which left no loose ends in an objective sense, there's no guarantee religion would just vanish.
I think I agree with Hitchens in that we will see the end of religion when we as a species no longer fear death. Reason only narrows down the realms God can be used to explain, but in reality it doesn't narrow down any of the realms he IS used to explain.

[charlou]

in absence of any better one I definitely think it's the best.

ahehehe ... Of course it would be the best in the absence of any better one.


*ahem* Carry on.

[Trolldor]

in absence of any better one I definitely think it's the best.

ahehehe ... Of course it would be the best in the absence of any better one.


*ahem* Carry on.

You know what I mean.

[floppit]

If there is a religion out there that can withstand solid reasoning - hell, I don't mind keeping it!

[floppit]

I'm bumping this out of curiosity because recent events brought it to mind.

Throughout this thread I argued that the desire to acquire and retain power leads to behaviour without compassion and laziness that leads to belief over enquiry, both of which are primarily human qualities with religion being only one of a number of tools. As a bystander rather than a participant the actions of RDF bosses (for want of a better word!) as an atheist group appear to me to demonstrate quite clearly that removing religion does not remove these human inclinations, that they are not caused by religion.

I have always been open about hoping for a sea change from trying to eradicate religion towards improving our own reasoning and extending awareness of the core constructs of reasoning, it's the latter which I strongly believe has the only REAL chance to overcome not just religion but any blind faith.

I'm curious whether recent events in an (almost) fully atheist environment have impacted on people's wider view. I must admit I'm also curious to get to know new members and I guess my rather geekish way is through discussion/debate.

[Oldskeptic]

All religions seem to have something in common: New ways of thinking and or doing things are resisted. Also for some if not most of the largest most influential religions there is outright denial of the dangers that their hidebound thinking promotes, and they have no problem ignoring or denying actual evidence.

If peace, love, and understanding, and a promise that you would go to a better place after death if your were a good person was all that was involved then I would not see religion as harmful, and would say that you could not blame religion for bad things. But that’s not the case.

The hypocrisy of the largest and oldest religions is evident even in the supposed loving and peaceful Buddhists of pre-take over Tibet; who arguably oppressed the common Tibetans as much as the Chinese.

Harm does not have to come in the form of war or inquisitions. An immense amount of harm can come from vast amounts of resources that are directed towards retaining the infrastructures of expensive rituals and the extravagant accoutrements that they require.

It is my opinion that the incredibly impoverished state of the majority of people in pre-industrial Europe can be placed accurately on the doorstep of the Vatican and the royal system of tribute that was established there. As in pre-invasion Tibet the goal of the church in Europe did not have a goal of making life pleasant or even bearable for common people; the goal in both places was to further the religion itself.

In other threads in other places people have pointed out that the churches of pre-industrial Europe were the only places that the suffering could go for solace and charity. My response is that the churches created the main part of the misery that the common people were seeking relief from.

Would things have been different without organized religion, better or worse? We cannot know that, but we can say that at times it could not have gotten much worse.

This is my first real post here. I came from RDF after over three years and 2334 post there, and would like say that I appreciate having somewhere to go where things like this can be discussed in the way that this thread has gone so far.

[floppit]

First of all, hi there! It's really good to get a meaty, courteous response - I hope my response provides some enjoyment too, this is the bit I really love, I've never minded jokes and fun, even liked them but for me the debate is the heart of it all.

All religions seem to have something in common: New ways of thinking and or doing things are resisted. Also for some if not most of the largest most influential religions there is outright denial of the dangers that their hidebound thinking promotes, and they have no problem ignoring or denying actual evidence.

Religion is defensive, it has to be because it cannot let itself go, by that I mean for people wishing to reason ideas passing through, changing one's own opinion is not a great event, rather it is the means by which learning is achieved and goals reached but religion has no such agenda, no goal beyond it's current place and therefore the current place is defended. But these structures are man made and reflected in an array of other areas, such as extreme ideologies like China's communism and it is that reality which makes me challenge the notion religion rather than lack of reasoning and lack of access to information is the cause of the harm seen.

If peace, love, and understanding, and a promise that you would go to a better place after death if your were a good person was all that was involved then I would not see religion as harmful, and would say that you could not blame religion for bad things. But that’s not the case.

The other side of religion was also authored by people and I believe that was done with intent to control and suppress the growth of alternative ideas - remove the religion and that intent still remains it's simply served by other means. One can look at religion's actions in restriction of the printed word many moons ago and see the same reflected in China's action to suppress the internet. The point of both is to restrict the spread of reasoning because that, and only that can unpick tradition, culture, 'values' and most importantly the appeal to authority on which dogma depends.

Harm does not have to come in the form of war or inquisitions. An immense amount of harm can come from vast amounts of resources that are directed towards retaining the infrastructures of expensive rituals and the extravagant accoutrements that they require.

I prize democracy highly and I'm aware of the hold religion has (like bishops in the HOL), that said, because I prize democracy I understand much of my tax will go to things I would not choose, one of those things is religion, another is CAM - both, in fact all of these issues can only be resolved by the spread of reasoning, however I doubt that I would be any more happy about public spending if religion was cut out WITHOUT reasoned spending taking it's place. What people donate of their own money is up to them, I dislike the pressure placed on vulnerable people to part them from there dosh (more than most folk!) however again religion is only one of a huge swathe of means to do so.

It is my opinion that the incredibly impoverished state of the majority of people in pre-industrial Europe can be placed accurately on the doorstep of the Vatican and the royal system of tribute that was established there. As in pre-invasion Tibet the goal of the church in Europe did not have a goal of making life pleasant or even bearable for common people; the goal in both places was to further the religion itself.

This is not in opposition to my initial contention. The structures and institutions are again man made and wish to extend and keep both power and wealth. I would draw attention to the Inclosure Acts from 1750, an example of blatant impoverishment of the many to serve the few. In other words - I'm not arguing the vatican is harmless, rather that it's harm is not caused by religion, instead it is caused by mere greed and advantage.

In other threads in other places people have pointed out that the churches of pre-industrial Europe were the only places that the suffering could go for solace and charity. My response is that the churches created the main part of the misery that the common people were seeking relief from.

I'm perhaps a little more generous. I volunteered in a roughsleepers day centre that attracted me because of it's democratic approach, it's inclusion of service users in making decisions, not that different from what makes me support rationalia's approach. I was there for months before I realised it was church run! (God is so not on my radar I even missed the importance of the name 'Emmanuel House'!), either way I think what was done was done with good intent and it was valued. I used to muse how many people would be left supping tea if we asked all of those with disabilities to leave because someone else would care, then all those with LD, then those with mental health problems. As a society we are truly crap at caring for the most vulnerable and I'm reasonably sure we would remain so without religion. Secular society has hardly blazed a trail of blinding compassion, look at the response to refugees, and the tardiness in supporting the NHS to the full - and we (in the uk) are rich despite our wailing and teeth gnashing.

Would things have been different without organized religion, better or worse? We cannot know that, but we can say that at times it could not have gotten much worse.

What if I asked the same question about reasoning? My guess the answer could be given with far more confidence, our increasing ability to reason (given the hard work of past/present lives in offering us so much better information!) is all good. So, if my approach is wrong, to stop blaming religion and instead spread reasoning it still remains a safe bet in terms of social returns - but, if I am right and religion is not to blame, that it's merely one of many tools then all the efforts to quash religion are a waste. I whole heartedly accept it's ultimately about probability, neither side of this debate can know what would or would not be had religion not been present, my point is that if I'm wrong we still move forward, if the religion blamers are wrong we stand still.

This is my first real post here. I came from RDF after over three years and 2334 post there, and would like say that I appreciate having somewhere to go where things like this can be discussed in the way that this thread has gone so far.

I really hope that hasn't changed...

[Oldskeptic]

I should say that I don’t usually respond to topics such as this because they generally involve sides trying to claim that either religion does and never did any harm or that the good religion does and has done out weighs the harm, or there is the side that claims that religion is the root cause of harm that far out weighs the good.

I do not agree with either of those claims, and responded to this thread because it asked if religion could ever be blamed, and I think that it can be in certain cases. I named a few, but you may disagree and say that religion is man made and just a tool that can be used to cause harm when controlled by greedy unscrupulous men. So blame the men and not religion.

You may have a point in some cases, but in others I cannot see where the harm done could not have been done without the use of or fanatic belief in religion. The Thirty Years War comes to mind, which, although by the end was more a fight over power and property, began as battle between Protestants and Catholics over the prospect of a Catholic gaining the throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

If you take the proposition that religion cannot be blamed for any harm ever then all it takes is one case where this can be shown to be false. Then I suppose the debate could progress or degenerate from there into arguments over whether religion was really the prime cause.

Floppit wrote:
This is not in opposition to my initial contention. The structures and institutions are again man made and wish to extend and keep both power and wealth. I would draw attention to the Inclosure Acts from 1750, an example of blatant impoverishment of the many to serve the few. In other words - I'm not arguing the vatican is harmless, rather that it's harm is not caused by religion, instead it is caused by mere greed and advantage.

I would ask whether the Vatican could have held such power for so long if not for almost universal belief that the Popes and Cardinals were empowered by God?

Floppit wrote:
What if I asked the same question about reasoning? My guess the answer could be given with far more confidence, our increasing ability to reason (given the hard work of past/present lives in offering us so much better information!) is all good. So, if my approach is wrong, to stop blaming religion and instead spread reasoning it still remains a safe bet in terms of social returns

I have no problem with this, other than that there may be good reasons to point out specific cases where situations would most likely be improved if religion was not involved. Or cases where religion can be shown to be the cause. And if history has value then one of them is showing mistakes that have been made in order to learn from and avoid making them again.

[floppit]

You may have a point in some cases, but in others I cannot see where the harm done could not have been done without the use of or fanatic belief in religion. The Thirty Years War comes to mind, which, although by the end was more a fight over power and property, began as battle between Protestants and Catholics over the prospect of a Catholic gaining the throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

Would you mind fleshing this our a bit? In particular the need for the fanatic belief in a deity rather than just fanatic belief such as those seen in extreme politics, what was it about theism specifically that allowed the harm?

It really is a genuine question because there's a part of me would really like to be swayed, so far I'm not and less so day by day as people appear more alike than different despite having differences within their core beliefs.

[Oldskeptic]

Floppit wrote:
Would you mind fleshing this our a bit? In particular the need for the fanatic belief in a deity rather than just fanatic belief such as those seen in extreme politics, what was it about theism specifically that allowed the harm?

The Thirty Years war was a result of Ferdinand II being elected King of Bohemia in 1617 and his policy of forcing all of his subjects to accept Catholicism. Before this time from 1555 something resembling religious freedom existed in The Holy Roman Empire; at least the nobles were allowed to choose the religion of their own regions, and in some places there was even personal choice.

Protestants revolted and a line was drawn with the armies of the Catholic League one side and the armies of the Protestant League on the other. That is what I call a religious war.

I wouldn’t say that it was fanatical belief in a deity that caused it because both sides believed pretty much in the same deity. What they disagreed about was religion or how to practice religion.

I don’t think that theism causes any harm since all it means is that someone believes in at least one god. It is particular religious beliefs that I am talking about.

[floppit]

Floppit wrote:
Would you mind fleshing this our a bit? In particular the need for the fanatic belief in a deity rather than just fanatic belief such as those seen in extreme politics, what was it about theism specifically that allowed the harm?

The Thirty Years war was a result of Ferdinand II being elected King of Bohemia in 1617 and his policy of forcing all of his subjects to accept Catholicism. Before this time from 1555 something resembling religious freedom existed in The Holy Roman Empire; at least the nobles were allowed to choose the religion of their own regions, and in some places there was even personal choice.

Protestants revolted and a line was drawn with the armies of the Catholic League one side and the armies of the Protestant League on the other. That is what I call a religious war.

I wouldn’t say that it was fanatical belief in a deity that caused it because both sides believed pretty much in the same deity. What they disagreed about was religion or how to practice religion.

I don’t think that theism causes any harm since all it means is that someone believes in at least one god. It is particular religious beliefs that I am talking about.

First off, thank you for fleshing it out a little. I would agree that in the instance above the war does seem to be directly over religion, not that I know much about it but I've no reason to assume otherwise. My question is whether these things are from religion or using religion. To impose beliefs in order to consolidate power is something reflected widely outside of religion, to attempt to suppress alternatives and enforce a set of 'leader chosen' beliefs is again a well used process for imposition. Religion has been widespread for millennia, it's been 'at hand' and somewhat economic compared to creating a new ideology from scratch, and yet once such an ideology is created (such as highly enforced communism) one can watch it being recycled in just the same way religion is, if it is useful to a group seeking power it is adopted with a remarkable intactness.

To jump topics a little, towards something probably harder to defend my POV over, circumcision and mutilation. Just to be clear I don't doubt that religion plays a part in this, nor do I think it is in any way acceptable on the grounds of cultural respect - it is a completely despotic act. That said, I think there is something much bigger than superstition involved, the victims of the abuse aren't picked out by some random superstitious fairy tale, it's not every 3rd child born to blonde parents, or all those with a small nose - with some notable exceptions the bulk of the abuse is aimed at women and children, NOT coincidently two groups society has sought to, and believed it is justified to control. It might seem that without religion such things would hardly be possible, or without the coercion of a leader, mutilation doesn't seem likely to begin coerced and then be carried by fashion, and yet, without the need for religious text chinese foot binding (again women and children) became endemic for almost 1000 years. The absolute horror of foot binding equals with ease anything similar that has used religion as opposed to beauty for it's justification.

By focussing on the acts, on what is done rather than why, it is simpler to condemn, trying to condemn a motive is murky, motives are harder to evidence effectively and easier to argue both for and against, where as actions are material, they exist and can be seen in the material world - that difference, even alone is no small thing. Blaming religion embroils us (non believers) in a seemingly endless battle, which for those who want the battle more than the result perhaps makes sense but the battle is still needless. The biggest gun used against religion, the one that actually produces fear is education, and with it information, what is even more advantageous is that this gun works equally well with non theist and abusive ideologies.

[Oldskeptic]

Floppit wrote:
First off, thank you for fleshing it out a little. I would agree that in the instance above the war does seem to be directly over religion, not that I know much about it but I've no reason to assume otherwise. My question is whether these things are from religion or using religion.

I don’t see how it matters. Maybe you’re trying to put too fine of a point to it? It was a fight about religion between religious people.

Floppit wrote:
To impose beliefs in order to consolidate power is something reflected widely outside of religion, to attempt to suppress alternatives and enforce a set of 'leader chosen' beliefs is again a well used process for imposition.

But in this case it was Ferdinand II’s devoutness to the Catholic church that caused the problem, not consolidation of power.

I’m not quite sure what your getting at with the rest of the last post, If it is that ritual mutilation does not have to be driven by superstition or religion I agree. In fact from my reading I don’t get the impression that much of it is directly related to religion or superstition, even male circumcision seems to be more of a health code that somehow was adopted into religious doctrine.

And female circumcision not being mandatory by any religion that I know of and only done at parents’ request seems to be an offshoot of religion at most. It appears to stem more from beliefs that sex for women is a necessary evil and not to be enjoyed. Also with virginity being so valued in many cultures it does not surprise me that female circumcision is prevalent in areas where brides are paid for rather than bringing a dowry with them.

As for foot binding: I see it as one of the most drastic examples of ritual mutilation caused by status seeking and or purely subjective opinions of what is sexually attractive.

I agree that education is the best remedy for almost all of the world’s misery, but I am not optimistic. For every person promoting reason there are many more, honestly or not, pushing simpler erroneous explanations, and these people have the attention of much of the worlds population that remain uneducated to some degree or other.