Is religion harmful?
 

In the Virus of Faith Dawkins argues that Faith is a virus and extremely disastrous. Does Religion cause harm? Or does the good from religion outweigh the harm it causes?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Only if inhaled.

luckyme

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Not if used in moderation.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

As long as you control the religion and it doesn't control you I think you are alright.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Like many things in life, it can be harmful if misused.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

It's thus far been very harmful, but there's a theoretical possibility that it doesn't need to always cause problems.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

It's too bad it is so ingrained in the human head that we don't have a lot of evidence of what a society is like that doesn't have religion around.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

There is no practice more degenerate and damaging than faith.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the Virus of Faith Dawkins argues that Faith is a virus and extremely disastrous. Does Religion cause harm? Or does the good from religion outweigh the harm it causes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Religions are very varied-- they are not just the Abrahamic ones most commonly discussed here. But of course it could be destructive when used the wrong way, just like gambling addiction. The major problem comes if you become too wrapped up in your beliefs and close your mind and heart but both of the above are hardly exclusive to religion. I must note most of the theists I know are not homicidal maniacs.

Fables and myths have their place. Just because a turtle and a rabbit never had a race in real life doesn't mean the story is worthless.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no practice more degenerate and damaging than faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because religion has been at it for a long time. Those without faith haven't done such a bang up job of things either.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fables and myths have their place. Just because a turtle and a rabbit never had a race in real life doesn't mean the story is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Breathing causes harm.
Overall, it's a good thing.

When we refer to a harmful or helpful action it is the sum of it's parts that matters, we'd be hard pressed to come with something that is 100% good or 100% harmful.

Picking some aspect of religion as 'doing good' doesn't answer the OP, it's a given that something about it would be useful.

luckyme

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Benjamin Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell it to Stalin.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any correlation you see there is so contrived it's hard to know where to start. I cannot see any part of this comment that is worth rebut.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting interpretation of faith but I disagree. Maybe I consider faith something different than you do.

When someone has faith in some idea, that means they will actively reject new propositions relevant to that idea without analysis. I believe this is inherently bad without exception. I do not believe that the polar opposite of faith is 'constant re-analysis'. Rather I believe the opposite of faith is admittance of new information.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Is a crowbar harmful?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting interpretation of faith but I disagree. Maybe I consider faith something different than you do.

When someone has faith in some idea, that means they will actively reject new propositions relevant to that idea without analysis. I believe this is inherently bad without exception. I do not believe that the polar opposite of faith is 'constant re-analysis'. Rather I believe the opposite of faith is admittance of new information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that this is a pretty narrow definition of faith (simply ignoring evidence), but I pretty much agree on the conclusions you arrive at based on that definition. I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

A non-religious example: Someone studying string theory or loop quantum gravity may be aware of counter-arguments to the foundations of their approach (counter-arguments which haven't been completely refuted). However, if you hope to achieve anything in building the theory, you at some point have to attach yourself to the good aspects of the theory and see what you can get out of them. Re-analysis of your approach is a good thing, but it can't be all-consuming -- at some point you need to put the (possibly good) counter-arguments out of your mind and just go with it.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any correlation you see there is so contrived it's hard to know where to start. I cannot see any part of this comment that is worth rebut.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you are avoiding is that while there has been lots of damage done by organized religion there has also been tremendous damage done by those who are non-religious.

Categorically decrying religion as the worst of the worst is exactly the same as decrying the secular world as the worst of the worst. You've gone so far away from religion you caught up to it on the other side.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point you are avoiding is that while there has been lots of damage done by organized religion there has also been tremendous damage done by those who are non-religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's mixing very different levels in the comparison.
It could be an answer to a question, "Have religious people done harm?" but not a very good one even to that.

[ QUOTE ]
Categorically decrying religion as the worst of the worst is exactly the same as decrying the secular world as the worst of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison in context of the OP would be -
Is religion harmful? - Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are harmful? -Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are not harmful? - yes. moderate western democracies are an example.

As long as we stick to religion = theism. If we put "a devotion to french fries" under religion, which some posters on here do, then the question becomes meaningless.

luckyme

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Faith doesnt always cause harm. You can follow a religion without abandoning reason, it's just not often done. An atheist may not feel compelled to believe something for which there is no objective evidence (although I think most do about some non-God things). However, a religious person who believes based on subjective evidence alone and who also concedes any points which are subsequently contradicted by objective evidence is neither irrational nor inherently harmful.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The comparison in context of the OP would be -
Is religion harmful? - Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are harmful? -Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are not harmful? - yes. moderate western democracies are an example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that religion has done more gross harm than moderate western democracies. However, it isnt true that moderate western democracies cause no harm - I presume you mean the good things they have done outweigh the bad?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of why faith is bad. Communists thought Stalin was a level above them, they learned never to challenge Stalin, but to obey him unquestionably. Even as Stalin was starving the people of the Ukraine to death, his people had absolute faith in him. He ran his country as if he were a God, and many people worshiped him accordingly.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Who cares? It's all meaningless in Dawkins' world because there is nothing after death. So do whatever you want. Religion gratifies some people like drugs or reading science textbooks does for others. In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the end-goal of life were for everyone to be ignorant and content, I'll admit that religion would be the way to go.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is religion harmful?

[/ QUOTE ]


Depends on whom welds the most religious influence. See Torquemada or Girolamo Savonarola for the negative side of the ledger. See, ____________________, for the positive side of the ledger.

-Zeno, The Antipope

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Religions is harmful in the fact that it isn't truthful. Since all religions contradict themselves by sects, and only one could be true if at all, religion is as harmful as any other lie or denial of reality.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

The interaction of the catholic church, the papacy and primarily western europe had massive effects. Including the persecution of heretics and pagans around 400 and the orthodox-catholic split around 700. The larger interaction of islam and its neighbors is still with us. As Djilas said (in Wartime, his account of Jugoslavia 1941-5) the first excuse for people to kill each other is language, the second religion, the third politics but they don't need an excuse to kill each other.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that religion has done more gross harm than moderate western democracies. However, it isnt true that moderate western democracies cause no harm - I presume you mean the good things they have done outweigh the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

from an earlier post -

[ QUOTE ]
Breathing causes harm.
Overall, it's a good thing.

When we refer to a harmful or helpful action it is the sum of it's parts that matters, we'd be hard pressed to come with something that is 100% good or 100% harmful.

Picking some aspect of religion as 'doing good' doesn't answer the OP, it's a given that something about it would be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we seem to agree that with questions such as, "Do you like porridge?" the yes or no answer means in sum total and it's not necessary to respond to them with every little aspect we considered in order to reach our conclusion. Life would become very long if disclaimers were implied as mandatory.
We all know people that are like that. "Enjoy your trip?"
"yes, the meals were good, but ... yadda,yadda."
the 'yes' answered the question, the rest is friendly chatter.
"yes" or "no" does not even hint at "in every little aspect".

luckyme

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Thanks. It reads clearly to me now, I guess I was tired or not paying attention.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

There are positive aspects of religion, but not mutually exclusive to religion (i.e., community, altruism, death coping mechanism, etc.). But, yeah, religion is more harmful than not...but the "science worldview" could be too difficult for most individuals to grasp or appreciate. (Faith is easy, all you have to do is simply believe.)

Perhaps the "faith worldview" is something programmed into our genes in that we mostly like to follow authority. After all, the saying goes, "too many chiefs and not enough indians" leads to what, I don't know...too many skeptical thinkers out of control?

But on the positive side, people are generally more knowledgeable about the science perspective than in the past. At least in industrialized societies. This could be a reflection of the shift in work from labor jobs to more creative-type, specialized knowledge jobs in technologically and economically advanced societies.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's thus far been very harmful, but there's a theoretical possibility that it doesn't need to always cause problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone can claim this as fact. I think you can make the argument that religious thinking in the modern society is 'harmful'. But to claim that over the course of history religion has been detrimental to humanity is a very bold claim for such an insanely complex issue.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I guess I would say faith and religion are different things. Secondly I started watching and like 30 seconds in the narrator says, "those who adhere to Judaism, Islam and Christianity still prefer to ignore reason and have faith in their forever unprovable omnipresent creator." I could be mistaken but I suppose that this statement takes faith to have or at least I need faith to believe it is forever unprovable.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

Back to the OP ...

Inherent in most religions is the concept that certain ideas are not to be questioned, challenged, or denied. This is clearly harmful, IMHO.

Another concept in most religions is the existence of the supernatural. To the extent that this distracts us from the natural world, this is also harmful.

Finally, these religions require the use of faith to maintain these harmful ideas in the face of evidence that suggests them to be harmful.

This constitutes what I consider a three-pronged attack on reason and this has been very harmful in the past and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Hope" does not capture the concept of steadfastness inherent in just about anyone's definition of faith. In mtheory's definition, it's there by the consistent excluding of all contrary evidence. In my definition, it's there as the ability to move forward with a promising concept despite the existence of some unanswered objections to it. I get the feeling that a lot of you want to define it as "something bad" simply because it's a word religious folks tend to use.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Inherent in most religions is the concept that certain ideas are not to be questioned, challenged, or denied. This is clearly harmful, IMHO.

Another concept in most religions is the existence of the supernatural. To the extent that this distracts us from the natural world, this is also harmful.

Finally, these religions require the use of faith to maintain these harmful ideas in the face of evidence that suggests them to be harmful.

This constitutes what I consider a three-pronged attack on reason and this has been very harmful in the past and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Hope" does not capture the concept of steadfastness inherent in just about anyone's definition of faith. In mtheory's definition, it's there by the consistent excluding of all contrary evidence. In my definition, it's there as the ability to move forward with a promising concept despite the existence of some unanswered objections to it. I get the feeling that a lot of you want to define it as "something bad" simply because it's a word religious folks tend to use.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is that many religious people use the word "faith" to mean so many things.

They use it in the sense of a trust, or a leap of faith; they use it to express hope, and they use it to trump reason.

This last one gets us atheists really riled up, and so we attack it, but believers seem to think we're attacking their trust and their hope - even when people like Dawkins clearly say that they're only attacking the anti-reason aspects of the word "faith".

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in whether or not religion is net a "good" or a net "bad" because I think the question is silly. Religion is far too big a concept to neatly pigeonhole as "good" or "bad".

However, certain common characteristics of religion are clearly harmful and so I choose to target my attacks there.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the end-goal of life were for everyone to be ignorant and content, I'll admit that religion would be the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of religion is to make conclusions about the truth in order to be content. Dawkins is preaching his own atheistic religion, whose main form of worship appears to be bashing other religions.

He is silly enough to believe that only science can answer all questions and that at the same time, people will continue being "nice" to each other, when history has already proven that nothing is more cruel than the atheistic, cold, calculating, scientific ethic.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

If Dawkins were preaching an atheistic religion, then there would be:

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

In line with the opening paragraph on religion in Wikipedia. There isn't a codified set of beliefs however so he isn't preaching a religion. It's very simple.