Net effect of religion

Starfox

We all know religion has done some bad stuff: crusades, the Inquisition, the list goes on and on. However, religion has done some good things throughout the ages as well. Works of art, for example. Even if someone does a good deed because they want to get into heaven, they still did a good deed. So here's my question:

Up to today, have religion's positives outweighed its negative effects? Or has it caused humanity more harm than good?

chaosof99

I think the small things religion has done good is already outweighed by those equal things being destroyed to quell rival religions. You mentioned created work of art. I am pretty sure that in the early days other works, for example idols, were destroyed as they were created in honor of or depicting rival gods.

And let's not forget that murder is pretty much the most irreversible negative action that can be done. There have been more people killed for or because of religion than any other motivation or "attribute".

rhinocero

It's impossible to tell (although I would say it's done more good than harm), but at the same time, I don't know that historical evil done in the name of religion is necessarily an argument against religion itself. It's an argument against religion that does those things and an argument against modes of behavior and thought that use religion to justify those things. But religion itself does not necessarily do or justify those things.

kumarhk

I don't really think this can be argued for a couple of reasons. First, a lot of people do good or bad things based on their religion but don't really let other people know about it. Second, I believe that religion is just an excuse for people to do good or bad things. I do believe it has really gotten out of hand and we don't need it anymore in the 21st century, but people with kind hearts will do good things with or without religion, and people who want to do evil things will do evil things, religion or not.

Jason

I do believe it has really gotten out of hand and we don't need it anymore in the 21st century, but people with kind hearts will do good things with or without religion, and people who want to do evil things will do evil things, religion or not.

That might be the case for adults who decide whether to embrace religion, but what makes me angry is the indoctrination of children into religions that oppress women, racial minorities, and homosexuals. On top of that, threatening a five-year-old with eternal damnation is a very distinct form of mental torture, I feel.

Cremlian

I do believe it has really gotten out of hand and we don't need it anymore in the 21st century, but people with kind hearts will do good things with or without religion, and people who want to do evil things will do evil things, religion or not.

That might be the case for adults who decide whether to embrace religion, but what makes me angry is the indoctrination of children into religions that oppress women, racial minorities, and homosexuals. On top of that, threatening a five-year-old with eternal damnation is a very distinct form of mental torture, I feel.

That reminds me of a funeral I was at, where my gf''s little 9 year old cousin asked me "When is the rapture happening?"...

*sigh*

Viga

I do believe it has really gotten out of hand and we don't need it anymore in the 21st century, but people with kind hearts will do good things with or without religion, and people who want to do evil things will do evil things, religion or not.

That might be the case for adults who decide whether to embrace religion, but what makes me angry is the indoctrination of children into religions that oppress women, racial minorities, and homosexuals. On top of that, threatening a five-year-old with eternal damnation is a very distinct form of mental torture, I feel.

That reminds me of a funeral I was at, where my gf''s little 9 year old cousin asked me "When is the rapture happening?"...

*sigh*

You would have to add a thousand sighs if you ever talked to the church kids I grew up around. I also agree with your point, Jason. I worry for my younger cousins and there's a reason I left the church my family attend.

Anyway, as a whole I see a few negatives, but none that are earthshaking as the ones in history. At the same time I see how it affected individuals in such a positive way. The last few years of my mothers life was much better and she became better because of Christianity. I also met people who were horrible until they joined the church. Some people don't have the strength to change on their own. So they needed it.

Although I may not believe in a deity, I believe religion has it's place in this world and it's place is that purpose. I just wish it would not be used for occasional harm or persecution.

Rym

Some people don't have the strength to change on their own.

This sentiment bothers me. It implies that some people are powerless to effect change in their own lives without being lied to or lying to themselves. It justifies a false means to a positive end.

If we're OK with the use of trickery to change the behavior of problematic members of society, then that's fine, but it opens a large number of options in regard to societal control, several of which are dubious, dangerous, or unethical. We need to agree right now as to whether or not such means should or should not be universally abhorred before we can continue any further in this debate. (I've made a poll). This is a very important underlying point of contention on the issue of religion.

Loganator456

This reminds me of one of the topics in one of the latest FNPL episodes:
"Is it best to live as close to reality as possible? Should you lie to yourself or believe things because you like to believe them just to get yourself through the rough spots?"

While this isn't exactly the same topic, it is related somewhat. I think to the extent of murder and other negative, irreversible things, it shouldn't be used as a form of manipulation. But to try to fix a problematic part of society, like Rym was saying, or for the sake of preserving the arts, are some of the few cases I think it should be used, if at all.

Apreche

The answer is obviously never. If you were to answer yes, that lying is an acceptable form of societal control, you're basically advocating the Truman Show. We can make a perfect world by lying to everybody. The vast majority of people will live a lie. They will have no control over their own destiny, and have no free will. The world will be "perfect" in that it will be shiny and clean and happy. A Brave New World, so to speak. Yet, the people themselves will be no different than animals in a zoo. They will have no free will, because they are prisoners of mythology. The few people who craft the lie will rule the world, and will be the only ones with freedom.

Would you rather be Truman, and live in a perfect world, or be free in a not so perfect world?

Oh by the way. (he goes to the paint) You know who wrote a whole book about controlling society with a big lie? (he goes for the layup) Adolf Hitler! (He scores! Godwin ftw!)

Jason

Would you rather be Truman, and live in a perfect world, or be free in a not so perfect world?

This, especially in regard to religion, is the base theme of The Handmaid's Tale, which I am currently reading. So far, it's very good at showing how a society could devolve into governmental and spiritual oppression in less than a generation. The trick is to make people want to be oppressed by telling them it's for their own good.

Kate Monster

This poll is impossible to answer in any meaningful way. There is no way of knowing the full effect religion (which is not defined or specified at all in the polling question) has had on human history, let alone to quantify good and/or bad effects.

Rym

This poll is impossible to answer in any meaningful way.

I think it's very simple. Can you knowingly lie to a society or person and still justify it if good comes out of it? All positive religious beliefs are, for lack of any evidence, effectively lies.

There is no way of knowing the full effect religion (which is not defined or specified at all in the polling question)

I never said religion in the poll anyway. I simply said "trickery or knowing falsehood." Regardless of your views on religion, this question can be answered.

et alone to quantify good and/or bad effects.

Again, no mention is made in the poll.

This poll is simply asking if a knowing lie is justifiable if its net effect on society is beneficial or desired. It's a very simply question.

Apreche

This poll is simply asking if a knowing lie is justifiable if its net effect on society is beneficial or desired. It's a very simply question.

With a very simple answer. Any benefit to society that comes as the result of a lie comes at the cost of the free will of human beings. If you want to sacrifice freedom to pave the way to paradise, I'll be staying put. Live free or die, as they say.

Jason

"Fear will keep them in line- fear of this battlestation."

Kate Monster

This poll is simply asking if a knowing lie is justifiable if its net effect on society is beneficial or desired. It's a very simply question.

With a very simple answer. Any benefit to society that comes as the result of a lie comes at the cost of the free will of human beings. If you want to sacrifice freedom to pave the way to paradise, I'll be staying put. Live free or die, as they say.

The problem is the preamble and context, not the question. If we are tying this to religion throughout history, we are not talking about lying. The people that first created a religion weren't lying, they just didn't understand the world around them, so they created stories to explain them. People weren't lied to, they just bought into a hypothesis that couldn't be proven. This created vast social and governmental institutions the pervaded every aspect of human life. It is only very recently that humanity has developed new, provable, and more accurate ways of understanding the world around them.
The question is fine, the frame is wrong.
EDIT: Also, on what scale and with what groups? If a child or someone who is mentally disabled truly cannot grasp the truth and as such they cannot factor it into their world view, causing them to make dangerous or hurtful mistakes, then I could see the merit in a lie that they could understand and that would keep them from that mistake.

HungryJoe

The poll asks if "trickery or knowing falsehood" is "a viable means of social control". If "viable" means "capable of success or continuing effectiveness", then "trickery or knowing falsehood" is definitely a viable means of social control.

How about changing the poll to ask whether it's an "acceptable" means of social control?

Apreche

"Fear will keep them in line- fear of this battlestation."

Most people will agree that using negative feelings like hate or fear to control people is wrong. Yet, many people don't recognize that using positive feelings to control others, is just as wrong. It's the control of others, by any means, that is evil.

In 1984 Orwell shows us a world where the people are controlled by fear and violence. In Brave New World Huxley shows a world where the people are controlled by entertainment. Huxley was right, and Orwell was wrong. We must work to make both of them wrong.

Jason

In what way was Orwell wrong? Bush showed us the face of a Goldstein to get us into Iraq. The Christian right tells us to be afraid of homosexuals. Conservatives are buying guns like there's no tomorrow following Obama's election. Republicans thrive under the "threat" of immigration. Hard leftist unions used scare tactics and brute force to gradually destroy American industry. I know Democratic activists who in the past eight years used fear and scare tactics to herald the "coming theocratic takeover of the government" and to insinuate that Bush would declare martial law and suspend elections.

Fear, fear, fear. It's alive and well. And I don't expect institutionalized scaremongering to disappear anytime soon; it's too successful.

Apreche

In what way was Orwell wrong? Bush showed us the face of a Goldstein to get us into Iraq. The Christian right tells us to be afraid of homosexuals. Conservatives are buying guns like there's no tomorrow following Obama's election. Republicans thrive under the "threat" of immigration. Hard leftist unions used scare tactics and brute force to gradually destroy American industry. I know Democratic activists who in the past eight years used fear and scare tactics to herald the "coming theocratic takeover of the government" and to insinuate that Bush would declare martial law and suspend elections.

Fear, fear, fear. It's alive and well. And I don't expect institutionalized scaremongering to disappear anytime soon; it's too successful.

Entertainment encompasses all emotions, including fear. The kind of fear Orwell and the Death Star are made of are direct threats. If you don't do what we say, you will be dead, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

The kind of fear we see today is part of entertainment. People are scared from the news about child kidnappings. Why do they watch the news, and why does it convince them so? Because it is entertaining. Why are people scared of gays? Because their very entertaining preacher told them.

In a Orwellian world, people have things forced upon them. In a Huxleyan world, people willingly line up for it, because it's bottled in fun.

Rym

How about changing the poll to ask whether it's an "acceptable" means of social control?

Good point. Done.

Also, on what scale and with what groups? If a child or someone who is mentally disabled truly cannot grasp the truth and as such they cannot factor it into their world view, causing them to make dangerous or hurtful mistakes, then I could see the merit in a lie that they could understand and that would keep them from that mistake.

If you think that's a valid exception, then your answer is clearly the middle one.

I'm merely trying to establish a base point from which to further argue this point. Step one is identifying whether or not it is ever acceptable to knowingly and directly lie from a position of authority (government, confidante, etc...) in order to achieve a goal. Once we establish where people stand, then we can debate the point, which has broad application.

For example, if lying like this is acceptable, then doctors could reasonably be given the authority to prescribe placebos widely when illness is only perceived or is terminal.

Rym

My main feeling is that, if we accept that a particular person could not effect change in their lives without being lied to, then we are accepting that said person has no true self control, thus warranting such drastic measures. If a person is accepted to have no self control, then how much external control should society place upon this person's will? What ramifications does this acceptance have for our ideas of free will and self determination in general?

Are we really willing to accept and act as though certain people cannot function without their minds being filled with falsehood?

Apreche

For example, if lying like this is acceptable, then doctors could reasonably be given the authority to prescribe placebos widely when illness is only perceived or is terminal.

Or they could tell you that you are going to get better when you have no hope.

Diagoras

Up to today, have religion's positives outweighed its negative effects? Or has it caused humanity more harm than good?

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
This is how cultures are destroyed. Any good religion could do is greatly overshadowed by this behavior.

Nuri

The poll is irrelevant to the question. Whether it can achieve good and whether it is acceptable are two different questions. Yes, deception can achieve more good than harm sometimes. That does not make it acceptable. Acceptable is a subjective value that will change for every person. For me, the answer is that no, it is not acceptable. I think everyone should have the opportunity to know the truth and act accordingly. They are welcome to make the decision to allow others to act on their behalf, but I don't think that decision should be based on deception.

In regards to Kate's concern, I think it is perfectly acceptable to come up with a metaphor to help explain something to someone who cannot grasp the full truth. Explaining something to a child by saying, "It's like xxx" is fine, because you're not telling them that's literally what is happening. I think it is appalling when people flat out lie to children about things because they either don't know the answer, don't want to try to explain it, or don't think the kid can handle it. Simplifying things works a lot better than many people would think. If you take the time to figure out how to say it in a way they can understand, they can grasp a lot of things. I've worked with teaching kids, adults, and teens. Rarely have I not been able to figure out how to explain things to them so they understand. Hell, I practically taught the linear programming section of one of my classes because the professor was a complete idiot about teaching it. He never knew how to answer questions.

Kate Monster

In regards to Kate's concern, I think it is perfectly acceptable to come up with a metaphor to help explain something to someone who cannot grasp the full truth. Explaining something to a child by saying, "It's like xxx" is fine, because you're not telling them that's literally what is happening. I think it is appalling when people flat out lie to children about things because they either don't know the answer, don't want to try to explain it, or don't think the kid can handle it. Simplifying things works a lot better than many people would think. If you take the time to figure out how to say it in a way they can understand, they can grasp a lot of things. I've worked with teaching kids, adults, and teens. Rarely have I not been able to figure out how to explain things to them so they understand. Hell, I practically taught the linear programming section of one of my classes because the professor was a complete idiot about teaching it. He never knew how to answer questions.

I completely agree with you, Nuri. Toddlers do not understand that running into the road could hurt them, so explaining to them as best you can is teh way to go. If you have a really stubborn toddler, sometimes you have to scare them with a half-truth to get them to fall in line. I have seen it done, and while I wouldn't choose that course of action I wouldn't consider it morally offensive.

Rym

If you have a really stubborn toddler, sometimes you have to scare them with a half-truth to get them to fall in line.

This begs the question: are we to treat obstinate adults as toddlers? ^_~

TheWhaleShark

If you have a really stubborn toddler, sometimes you have to scare them with a half-truth to get them to fall in line.

This begs the question: are we to treat obstinate adults as toddlers? ^_~

My general rule is: if you're acting like a 3-year old, I'm going to treat you like one. By default, though, I treat everyone with the respect due to an adult peer until they prove they're anything to the contrary. Sometimes, you need to come down really hard on some people to get them to fall in line.

My main feeling is that, if we accept that a particular person could not effect change in their lives without being lied to, then we are accepting that said person has no true self control, thus warranting such drastic measures. If a person is accepted to have no self control, then how much external control should society place upon this person's will? What ramifications does this acceptance have for our ideas of free will and self determination in general?

Are we really willing to accept and act as though certain people cannot function without their minds being filled with falsehood?

Some people can't, but that's most likely because we don't challenge people enough intellectually. Their minds aren't made to develop into fully-functioning adult brains, so they continue to have the mental maturity of a child. I've actually seen plenty of 9-year old children who are more functionally mature than their parents. It's a sad sight.

We need to demand more of people. Raise the bar.

Nuri

If you have a really stubborn toddler, sometimes you have to scare them with a half-truth to get them to fall in line.

This begs the question: are we to treat obstinate adults as toddlers? ^_~

My general rule is: if you're acting like a 3-year old, I'm going to treat you like one. By default, though, I treat everyone with the respect due to an adult peer until they prove they're anything to the contrary. Sometimes, you need to come down really hard on some people to get them to fall in line.

Hell yes. If they act like they're 3, treat them like it. Maybe people would start acting a little more responsibly if everyone did that.

lackofcheese

Lie-to-children
Terry Pratchett is great.

Jay

I am of the mind that religion only causes a small amount of good to occur that would not occur without religious involvement. That for the vast majority of people if they were raised atheist instead of being indoctrinated into X religion they would still act as morally as they would otherwise. They would have the same positive and negative effects on society. Any people that do have a more positive effect on society due to religion influencing their decisions would easily be balanced by those who acted more negatively due to religion then they would have otherwise.

The main problem is there are many cases in history where religion is used directly as a tool to cause great harm to large groups of people. Where on the other hand I can think of very few cases where religion is used as tool to help great amounts of people in a meaningful way. Religion, along with any doctrine that encourages irrational beliefs, is much more likely to be used to cause great harm then great benefit to humanity.