Does Modern Society Benefit From Religion?
June 23, 2007 by TJM Admin
The following is an email correspondence with an individual who was upset with this image:
Emailer: Re: http://420.thrashbarg.net/adultswithimaginaryfriends.jpg
I don’t get it. Maybe because I live in a less religious country (Canada) but that kind of hurtful/hateful anger doesn’t seem productive.
Have you ever read “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong? I highly recommend it. It really shows the value and humanity that can exist in religion
TJM Response: Truly, if one were to examine the roots of the major religions, one could easily see that there are not many redeemable qualities in most religions. Many of them have their histories written in the blood of their victims.
I find absolutely nothing admirable in any teaching that insists that you shun logical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. Yes, that statement is geared more to the fundamentalist movements of various religions. The problem is that most religions today have their beginnings in fundamentalist thought and circular logic. This kind of thinking is detrimental to the advancement and growth of society as a whole.
While some tenants of some religions may be practical and virtuous, not everyone will follow a single religion. Thus, divisiveness is inherent to religion.
Emailer: If you look at the inception of most organizations, particularly ones that date back thousands of years, you will find histories ‘written in blood’.
Fundamentalism is, in fact, a reaction to modernity. It’s an artificial reaching back to a perceived ‘Golden Age’ or an archetypal time or behaviour. So it’s incorrect to say that most religions have their basis in fundamentalism. This is one of the things discussed in the book I recommended 
I disagree that religion insists that you shun logical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. I think rather they claim that rational, linear (aristotlean) thought is not the only means to truth.
The greater point, however, is that you don’t have to find anything admirable in religion. I think there’s a big difference between not valuing something and being devaluing it in a misleading fashion. To boil down thousands of years of philosophy, thought and meditation on the fundamental questions of our existence into “imaginary friends” is disingenuous at best. Personally, I think it shows an ignorance for the history of religion. Which is why I recommended the book.
And not everyone will follow a single political system. Thus, divisiveness is inherent to politics. You can insert “ethics”, “art” or even “scientific methods” (feyerabend). The very freedom of thought that you (and I) respect so much will also lead to division. So I don’t think it’s a good argument to say that an ideal that not everyone will follow is a bad ideal.
TJM Response: Unfortunately, you have the disadvantage of not knowing the person to whom your diatribe was directed towards.
As far as the history of religion goes, I have been trained quite extensively through both seminary and personal study. (I must have forgotten to mention that I WAS at one time an ordained minister. Pentecostal, if you must know.)
“To boil down thousands of years of philosophy, thought and meditation on the fundamental questions of our existence into “imaginary friends” is disingenuous at best.” Unfortunately, it is not I that did that. You can thank the masses of people willing to be “led as sheep” to the slaughter of their ability to think independently. Truth be told, I have a great deal of admiration for the Gnostics that genuinely sought after enlightenment; those that were not simply willing to be spoon fed the doctrine that they found the most paletteable. “Blind faith” is not the answer the world needs.
“And not everyone will follow a single political system. Thus, divisiveness is inherent to politics. You can insert “ethics”, “art” or even “scientific methods” (feyerabend). The very freedom of thought that you (and I) respect so much will also lead to division. So I don’t think it’s a good argument to say that an ideal that not everyone will follow is a bad ideal.” That is not my point, although I can certainly see where you would have drawn that conclusion. You would not lay down your life to defend your love for Monet, would you? While we may be of different opinion with regards to art, we are content to allow one another our individual interpretations of said artists’ work. Yet, when it comes to religion the walls of defense come up rather abruptly when someone does not agree with what we perceive as divine or sacred. Take, for example, Christianity. Even Jesus knew the cost of what was to come: Matt. 10:34-37 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (NIV) Mohamed is also a separatist in the Quran: Quran 5 (The Table Spread):51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
As far as the idea of “imaginary friends” goes, it is not deceptive nor disingenuous. I have not seen “god.” I have not heard “god.” Those who claim that they have cannot produce “god” at will. “God” and “miracle” are simply generic terms that we set in place of understanding. Once we develop an understanding of something that was once shrouded in mystery, these terms are replaced with what we have learned, thus the necessity for a concept of god is ever shrinking in our society.
But, just for a moment, let us presume that you are correct and that religion is not only a necessary thing but a virtuous thing also. Which of the over 270 main religions world-wide to you suggest that I/we follow? And for what reasons? As we are all destined to be more apt to choose that which best mirrors ourselves, we will all choose different paths which have diverse and conflicting dogmas, ideals, theologies and methods of practice. This only serves to divide humanity, not unite it (which should be the goal of a species that wishes to survive).
Emailer: To Be Continued…
It’s truly a shame that instead of having a meaningful, honest dialog you’ve insisted on using the same divisive, antagonistic arguments utilized so frequently by Internet Atheists.
“Emailer” raised many valid points against your argument: you mentioned that religion is divisive and therefore bad; “emailer” points out that politics, for example are divisive and therefore bad. Your attempted refutation ignores this solid point. World War II was fought primarily over political systems; communism, fascism, and democracy; the current war on terror can be seen as the fight of democracy against theocracy , etc. This is a solid point. Simply because something is divisive does not make it bad. Simply because someone is willing to die for their beliefs does not make it bad. I would, I hope, be willing to die to defend academic freedom and education - does that make it bad?
Furthermore, your claim that all religions are raised upon fundamentalist roots equivalent to our idea of fundamentalism today; that is, that most major religions began as intolerant, aggressive, and unwavering belief systems is simply false. Considering the fact that most religions share common bases from which they evolved shows that there has been a great deal of flexibility as this evolution has taken place.
Your consistent focus on the negative aspects of religion does not show the whole picture, and as emailer alluded to, is disingenuous. You are essentially committing a fallacy wherein you assume that the whole is equal to the parts - granted there are bad aspects of religion, it does not follow that religion is wholly bad.
On your defense of imaginary friends: Show me “good”, show me “love”, show me “peace”, “justice”, “liberty”, etc. You cannot. Yet you are remiss, I am sure, to deny the existence of these abstract topics. In the same way that I can describe a materialistic, yet holistic appreciation of love, yet cannot “show you” love, so to can an ardent believer in God explain its existence. Simply because I can explain love as a psychological and sociological necessity based on instinct and chemical reactions does not mean it has any less place in our society.
“Which of the over 270 main religions… [should] I/we follow?”
This is both a false dilemma and equivocation. In the first, you have made it apparent that it would be impossible to take guidance from the virtuous aspects of many religions, picking as rationally as possible those which are most beneficial to ourselves and society. In the second, you have equivocated emailer’s suggestion that religion in general, and not one specific religion, has virtuous aspects; although it is clear what emailer’s intent was, you have deliberately attempted to undermine his argument through your maneuver to redefine “religion” as one specific set of beliefs.
It is truly upsetting to me that as much as Internet Atheists claim to be the guardians and armsbearers of logic, they so frequently abandon logical argumentation in favor of aggressive, fallacious arguments so common among their nemesis.
[Reply]
Looking forward to the continuation…
[Reply]
Arete: Once again, you have misunderstood the intent of the message. I will respond to everything that you have pointed out later on today when I have more time. Suffice it to say, for now, one does not need to believe in a deity in order to be ethical. I think that you and I can agree on that. (and why do your comments ALWAYS end up in the moderation que?)
[Reply]
“It’s truly a shame that instead of having a meaningful, honest dialog you’ve insisted on using the same divisive, antagonistic arguments utilized so frequently by Internet Atheists.”
Don’t lump us all together. The ones who have blogs are the ones who think they have to do something about religion. There are plenty who believe (disbelieve?) otherwise, you just don’t hear from us because we have nothing to say.
A blog from me, regarding religion would go:
I don’t believe in God, but frankly, I don’t care if you do.
Uh…. the end.
And I would never post again.
[Reply]
By the way, the article was tl;dr.
[Reply]
I want to be clear about my interpretation, so that if I’ve made a mistake you can correct it more readily: It seems to me that you have attacked religion on several grounds; that it is illogical, based on fundamentalism, and leads to violence/war/etc. I disagree with both your conclusion, that in light of those arguments, religion is bad/wrong/useless in our society, and the premises upon which you arrive at said conclusion.
I agree that one does not need religion to be ethical. I don’t think, however, that it obviates religion to say that. While one can certainly lead a rich and good life without religion, many people are helped, by religion, to lead such a life. Because of this, I think religion has value in our society. There are many things I could do without, and still lead a good life; a great deal of the literature I enjoy, much of the fine cuisine I eat, many of the friends I associate with and care for - I could still lead a good life without most of them, but they have a great deal of value to me, and I will not readily give them up simply because they are unnecessary. I don’t think it’s fair to ask a person who follows a religion and gains similarly, or more greatly, from their beliefs to abandon them because their beliefs are necessary.
[Reply]
Arete:
A) Belief in anything that cannot be proven IS illogical. That is why there are theories and there are laws.
B) Current forms of MOST (not all) religions are fundamentalist brands (ie: the Bible is the word of god, period.)
C) wars are fought for many reasons; one of those is religious conviction to do so.
My problem lies in those who merely accept a particular religion without investigation (which happens to be a majority of people, you must admit.) Or with the person who “finds god” after a seriously long alcoholic binge. Or with those who feel that the problems in their lives are just too big for them to handle, so they have to “give their life to god.” Or the rapist in jail who accepts a certain religion to fit in with a certain sect of the gen pop so that he can avoid forced sodomy. None of these examples are far fetched, and none would you give the label of “philosopher.” These are simply examples of laziness. They are people that do not understand that they have the power to transform their own lives without relying on a mythical deity to “save” them.
As I have readily conceded before, yes, there are a few good tenants to be found within every religion. However, most of those tenants are simply moral codes that stand on their own without a belief in a god. But, if you are simply following these tenants because you believe in a god that will punish you if you do not, is that truly morality? Or, are you simply using the system and biding you time because of fear? To do something which is right, just and noble simply because you fear wrath if you do not is not morality. To do so BECAUSE it is right, just and noble is.
[Reply]
Crimson731 reply on May 29th, 2008 9:22 pm:
“A) Belief in anything that cannot be proven IS illogical.”
David Hume, well known rationalist & empiricist, even conceded that science can not be used to prove science as this is circular reasoning. Therefore, all he or anyone else has to resort to is faith in the process of science and logic, neither of which can be proved logically or scientifically. His conclusion, not mine.
Funny enough, he later proceded to violate his very own tenant by writing, “Anything statement that can not be proven empirically or through the mathematical process is mere philosophy and should be consigned to the flames.” Funny thing about this statement is that it fails its own test–it can be proved neither empirically or mathematically and therefore, by its own decree, as a statement of philosophy must be consigned to the flames.
Just hoping to be an irritant in anybody’s crawl who feels they can get along in life without faith in anything whatsoever. : ) Can’t be done. Ask Hume, Popper, Weinberg or any real rationalist and they’ll admit it.
[Reply]
TJM Admin reply on May 30th, 2008 4:12 am:
No, the idea of science is the ability to duplicate results. At that point, it is not “faith,” it is reasonable expectation. Vast difference between the two. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Had you evidence, it would not be faith. I do not have faith that I will see a full moon 28 days after the last one. I have a reasonable expectation that I will due to prior experience.
[Reply]
On Morality:
I would tend to disagree with your assessment of the “majority of people” who accept religion without investigation. However, that’s a statistical claim, and I have no evidence pointing in either direction, so we can agree to disagree about our intuitions there.
You raise a very interesting point about morality. I agree that to do good solely for its internal rewards; that is, essentially, to do good because it is good, is better than to do good for external rewards; that is, essentially to do good to avoid hell/receive salvation. However, moral codes, religious or otherwise, have always been created because a majority of people will not do good, simply because it is good - most people need some sort of incentive or punishment to keep them in line.
I suppose in this case, I would argue that the ends - a mass of people doing (mostly) good* - justifies the means - using religion to enforce moral codes.
* - This is a contentious point, I know. I would posit that the vast majority of religious people tend to behave in a minimally decent manner because of their religion. I will grant you that, as in any group, there are people who use their religion as justification for horrible, unspeakable acts, but I believe they are the exception.
[Reply]
On point A (belief in anything that cannot be proven is illogical):
I’m not sure what you mean by proven. Your meaning is further muddled by the distinction you raise between theory and law. Are evolutionary biologists illogical because they believe in an unproven theory? What about physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity? String theory?
Those are very strong theories, and there is a great deal of evidence in their support. Would you advocate abandoning them because they can’t be proven ?
What about a theory that all life has some sort of value? Surely I cannot prove to you that their is some sort of intrinsic value to life, and yet I would certainly not consider it illogical to assume said value’s presence.
[Reply]
I suppose that I could have said “to believe without question things that cannot be proven.” Given the current data set that we have, the above stated theories may not be entirely correct, however they are the strongest theories and warrant a degree of belief. Let us keep in mind, however, that these theories are constantly being tested and tried within the academic communities without regard to what is believed. God, as presented to us in most religions, is above reproach and question.
[Reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Point conceded.
[Reply]
On morality:
So, then, does it make sense for the people who require religion to keep themselves from raping, pillaging, and plundering at every opportunity to call atheists immoral, when we live, ethically, very similar lives thanks to nothing but our own conscience? We do alone what those who claim god can only do with thousands of years of crushing guilt, penance, humiliation, and threats of eternal damnation.
This leads to my counter-argument for the religion as source of morality - religion forbids morality. The first rule man ever broke was to eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - we weren’t even supposed to know about good and evil, according to them. They get their morality from an ancient book full of admonitions against killing and rape, sure - but also against such silly things as eating shellfish and working on Sunday… and what is their classic response to such “crime?” Killing, of course, which leads to eternal damnation. Nice. So they rely on two thousand years of accumulated guilt, punishment, divine retribution, and mortal threats to get people to behave - and what do they get? Prison populations full of Christians. Once again, nice. I think the utter failing of the Christian mythology in dealing with morality is exactly the reason believers are encouraged to live simple lives in solitude, why they’re encouraged to avoid sex, why they’re encouraged to join monasteries and nunneries - because their moral structure cannot deal with real-life situations that happen every day in the lives of people, both ordinary and extraordinary.
Meanwhile, I have no threat of eternal suffering hanging over my head, and yet I don’t go out raping and pillaging and plundering. Why? Because I developed a conscience, which is the only tool which can truly guide a person in choosing right from wrong. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, I don’t have to consult back to a book of ancient and meaningless proverbs and prophecies to try to figure out whether one choice or another would please some mystical figure that gives me no feedback whatsoever (largely because it doesn’t exist). No, instead, I need only ask myself, is this the right thing to do? Would I like it if someone did it to me? And, lo and behold, problem solved, thanks to a conscience that is forbidden to Christians.
So do we need their crumbling, ancient structure of humiliation and guilt to guide us morally? Absolutely not. The idea that anyone still looks to that desert cult’s sales brochure for moral guidance is preposterous in this day and age.
[Reply]
The thing I always found irritating is the assumption that religion does help some people that wouldn’t be good otherwise. You know, there probably are. But, perhaps we could also help them by educating them, teaching them to think critically, and examine the pros and cons of an action. To think, if you will.
Now, not only have we created a damn-sight stronger sense of morals, but a more intelligent person to boot. This person will support the advance of science and morality, look forward to the future even.
What are they doing in our current system? Referring to a dated and incomplete text for things they are FORBIDDEN and TOLD to do. For example, the bib-lee says, I think, that a man must not force himself on a woman, elsewise he shall have to marry her(or a couple of other situations). Not only is that not much of a punishment, but he can deceive and manipulate her into sex with no apparent proscription against it.
Much more to think about for me again…
‘Scusi
[Reply]
The problems, as I see it, with the “use your own conscience as your guide, ” (sounding suspiciously like Jiminy Cricket, btw) is that when left to their own devices, there are many atheists whose “conscience” is best satisfied by seeing Jews gassed and burned, Christians silenced in gulags and inoffensive Budhists shot in killing fields. While I admit these are not the only possible outcomes of this approach to morality, they are reasonable abstractions from it (whether one likes to admit it or not) that are no more or less valid than that of the peaceful atheist in the field. If one can not resort to an authority higher than society or the gun or the individual, on what basis do we call Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot maniacal criminals? I very much doubt any were in the least bit bothered by their conscience.
Anticipating a rebuttal involving the crusades, etc. I would resort to Augustine who, I think, appropriately pointed out that one can not judge a philosophy based upon its abuse. Clearly, the temporal powers of the Middle Ages were much more interested in wealth and power as a motivation behind the Crusades than anything coming close to a teaching of Christ, who, did He not, said, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword?” (One of the saddest rationalisations I know regarding this precept occurred in Egypt about the 2nd century if I recall, where a disagreement over Christian doctrine resulted in war; however, since Jesus had made an injunction against taking up the sword, both sides agreed to use clubs instead. THAT’s fascile thinking if ever I saw it!)
The fact is, it is very difficult if not impossible to pull justification for the crusades out of the teachings of Christ; they are not a logical consequences of His life, teachings or actions. Whereas the criminal acts of these ruthless dictators are or at least can be logically extracted from the “and always let your conscience be your guide” approach to morality. Indeed, Hitler felt he was sincerely helping evolution along by elminating what he considered the dregs of the human genome. From his viewpoint, he was helping an ungrateful world.
This is not merely the polemic of Christian apologists. Many a humanist/atheist from Skinner to Weinberg to Huxley has admitted one can not pull human rights out of a humanist/atheist view of the world. Leave them to the individual and you leave Hitler and Ted Bundy to practice murder both publicly and privately as their conscience dictates; leave it to society, and when 51% agree that all persons of color x, y or z should be eliminated for the benefit of all, there is no restraint (ask Themistocles who, after masterminding the defense of Greece against the Persians at Thermopylae and Salamis, was voted into exile by the same Athenians he saved to that same Persia, where he died a decade later, whom he’d helped them defeat about the “consience” of society). It simply will not work. There must be a higher source of moral law or there is none.
This is not to be construed as an arguement that ergo such a higher source MUST exist. It merely points out that if it doesn’t, we’re all in a lot of trouble.
As to faith in education to resolve the issue, it was the atheist Sam Harris at the Beyond Belief conference in 2006 that pointed out, “How many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is more than a matter of eduction or economic deprivation?” (You see, I do listen to these fellows; don’t generally agree with them, but I do listen ; ) ). He went on further to observe that what was particularly frightening, in fact, in particular about the Islamic world is that “One can be educated enough to build a nuclear bomb yet still believe that you are going to get 72 virgins in paradise for blowing yourself and half of New York up with it. That’s THE problem!”
Harris is right. Might I suggest that the problem is not religion. It is not atheism. It is ideology. When one takes any philosophical or religious position as the sole determinant of how the world SHOULD be, and one is willing to commit any act to fulfill that vision, however beautiful or warped it may be, then one has crossed the line. Live and let live and we all live. Live and let die, and we all die. (Made that one up myself : ) kinda nifty if I do say so myself lol)
[Reply]
TJM Admin reply on May 30th, 2008 4:05 am:
Paragraph 1, Hitler was a Christian (Catholic, albeit). Secondly, let us assume that all were atheists. (After all that is all we have; our assumptions. History has been written many times over to show these examples in the light best suited for the argument.) Atheism was never used as a reason for the atrocities committed by these individuals. However, countless atrocities have been, and still are, committed in the name of one god or another. Yes, even the Christian god. (At times, against other Christians.) I am not asserting that religion drives people to commit these barbaric acts. I would put forth that if you had an inclination to do so due to prejudice, hatred or jealousy… Well, duping the masses into contributing to the horror is made far easier when God has told you to do so.
You see, I do agree with you…to an extant. It IS the ideologies that get us into trouble. You see, while you may claim that Jesus placed in injunction against taking up the sword, others will find reason to believe otherwise. Let us see how quote mining and fundamental thinking go hand in hand to promote hatred and violence:
The problem is that we are people. As people, we are quite unique individuals from one another. That which you fear I may not and vice versa. I am sure that we could each find validation for destroying that which we fear/do not understand in any number of “holy” books. Why? Because they are the words of a god, a being much more wise than ourselves. Surely, if this book or that book states it, it must be true.
[Reply]