What's an objective assessment of the benefits and harms of religion overall, in your view?

[pinto]

Both are evident in different times, situations and cultures. And objectivity is often a stretch. What's your take?

(I'm asking this from a cultural point of view. Not a god is / god isn't dichotomy.)

[libodem]

1. I like the idea of a common community

Gathering to celebrate the milestones in our lives. I appreciate the concept of a baby dedication, christening, or baptism ceremony. I like the idea of a childhood right of passing like confirmation. I think an adolescent passage like a bar and bat mitzvahs is cool. A place for weddings so everyone is celebrating the union of a new couple. And a forum for a funeral. I think human beans need ceremony and some rituals to make their lives complete.

I don't really think it takes religion to make us be moral and ethical, by way of the fear of fire and brimstone. But why not have lessons in morality for kids?

I think Bible study for the learning of Hebrew history and the life and times if Jesus is a must for a decent grip on western civilization.


Church politics, practices, and doctrines, I'm kind of a meh attitude since I'm mostly a nonbeliever in the old testament version of the deity.

If we must personify the deity, I say GO GODDESS!

[pinto]

2. Yeah. I think community, in one form or another, can be a benefit.

And that echoes other forms of commonality. Whatever the format.

[dimbear]

3. That's a big question, and lots of research have gone toward answering it. To be objective,

unfortunately, means the answer has to be statistical. Hence boring. Study after study does show that religion goes hand in hand with poverty. The obvious explanation is that religion is always trying to expand, so it encourages irresponsible reproduction. This fault outweighs any advantages, IMHO.
Everybody is tired of my saying 'look at a globe' but it's still good advice. Look where poverty seems most hopeless--Haiti, Bangladesh, the like. Religion is rife, secularism practically nil. Now look to the rich countries of our world, most of them in Europe. Secularism is on the rise and religion is dying. Populations are in check and there's a future.
Another useful comparison is between India and China. Both have grave problems, but in comparison between the two China is making far more progress. India is hobbled by its religions, China not.
I only mention the main problem. Not that other problems aren't important, but brevity.

[pinto]

4. See some of your your points, yet does religion go hand in hand with poverty? Economic policy,

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

nation by nation, seems to be the factor. Or lack of any social safety net. Those seem to be political and/or bureaucratic stuff.

[dimbear]

5. It's not a simple question. That's why there's so much research in the area. One could look to

alternate explanations, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Poverty follows religion wherever religion encourages irresponsible reproduction, which is far too often. In some countries folk ignore their religion's instructions, for instance Italy, and manage to escape.

Here's my post on the Philippine disaster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=100581

[Promethean]

7. While I agree with you in general

I don't agree with your conclusion. Poverty and religion do go hand in hand. However I subscribe to the thesis that religion preys on the poverty stricken. People in poverty are already having a hard life. Religion offers an easy, low apparent cost, light at the end of the tunnel. Poverty also is tied to a lack of education which obviously means less reliance on critical thinking. All this adds up to an effective way to control people and there will always be unethical monsters in human form happy to take advantage.

[cbayer]

8. Another explanation is that those who are impoverished are often without hope

and find hope and solace in religion. That's not necessarily a bad thing and they often receive assistance they can't otherwise access through religious groups. While they may be vulnerable they are not necessarily victims of this, but may be beneficiaries.

There are many religious organizations that work to help people out of what is essentially slavery, not put them into it.

[pinto]

18. I disagree that religion necessarily represents a "dumbing down" of adherents.

Two examples come to mind from my own limited experience with religious history.

The history of the Irish monasteries preserving classical literature, handwritten manuscript by manuscript, during Europe's "Dark Age". That included pre-Christian writings.

And the still current standard of critical thinking embedded in Jesuit education. Jesuit colleges remain adamant about the value of criticism, dialogue and the back and forth of discussion.

Both within a religious context, obviously, but hardly an attempt to control people. Just the opposite, imo.

[Brettongarcia]

9. Lots of "harm done" by belief in miracles, spirits: magical thinking cripples people

People who are taught that reason and hard work and practical knowledge are useless, who are taught that the way things work is to pray and wait for bread to appear out of thin air, or who try to live just on spirits but not physical food (James 2.14-26), will obviously suffer.

When we rightly suggest that promises of physical miracles are false, even deceitful fraud, preachers sometimes ask "what harm" is done by those promises; if after all these false promises attract people to a religion that teaches them obedience and meekness and other virtues like spirituality. But as it turns out, a great deal of harm is done. Even the allegedly higher religion of "spirituality," of meekness and asceticism, turns out to be bad, when people try to live on kind words and sentiments or spirits, but not physical food.

It is no accident that religion is associated with poverty; it actively produces it. Enveloping people in magical thinking, and delusions, they become dysfunctional, and ... poor, crippled.

http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/god%E2%80%99s-science-v-6-0-the-harm-done-title-page/

[cbayer]

10. Religion produces poverty?

While there is a correlation, I have never seen any data that would support your take on causation.

Your link is really odd. Who is this guy and why does he put his name in quotes. I googled him and came up with nothing.

[Brettongarcia]

11. Monks often explicitly spoke against material "riches"; took vows of "Poverty, Chastity, Obedience"

1) The opposition of much of religion to material things, their embrace of poverty, is often even explicit. Therefore likely they would produce it.

2) Teaching people to "hate" the material "world," to despise "worldly" "knowledge" and science, would logically cause them to ignore and disdain science and technology, and other things. Thus they are shut off from ways of thinking that are proven fruitful. In favor of magical thinking proven unfruitful.

That's the rather new hypothesis by Woodbridge Goodman (nom de plume?). Which would explain the correlation between poverty and religion. By proposing an even causal relation between religion and poverty; religion does not assuage poverty, as much as it ironically, produces it.

This hypothesis is rather new though; and no doubt needs some further research.

Those of you with a background in empirical medicine, might like to do some original research in this new area, on this new hypothesis.

[cbayer]

12. Well monks and priests make that as a choice.

That doesn't really support your statement that religion causes poverty. And, to be honest, these monks and priests are not really impoverished. They have food, water, shelter and pretty much everything one needs to live. The truly impoverished often don't have those things.

Who teaches people to hate the material world? I think religion teaches people that material goods are pretty meaningless and paying attention to the needs of those less fortunate is important. And despise knowledge and science? Where does that idea come from?

Sorry, after skimming some of Goodman's writings, I can't give them much credence and I still don't see any evidence that religion causes produces poverty. If anything, religion often helps people out of poverty, enslavement and towards freedom.

I also don't see any "research" in the Goodman writings.

[Brettongarcia]

13. Goodman's hypothesis

Goodman offers an hypothesis only ... pending further research. He normally does not claim to be doing formal scientific research, as of yet.

But there's plenty of informal/historical data to at least propose as an hypothesis, if not a firm finding, that religion ironically PRODUCES poverty.

First 1) there's the correlation.

Then 2) causally, it stands to reason that teaching people to hate practical material results, would discourage them from producing material wealth.

For that matter 3) monks sometimes pursued anti-materialism, asceticism, to the point of literally fasting, starving to death. To some extent this fatal ascetic model is built deep into Christianity; influencing lay members too no doubt, to some extent.

And? 4) The Bible at times told us to "hate your life in the world"; to hate "riches" and "possessions." And so forth. This is a standard teaching in much of classic Christianity. The Bible often attacked "worldly" "knowledge." These elements of the Bible were often taken to attack any concern for the real or physical world; in favor of the inner life of spirit and so forth.

Today to be sure, fortunately much of Christianity has backed off the dualism that supports "spirit" over the material life. But traces of the old anti-materialism are definitely there, historically. While any strongly anti-material sense attacks the very basis of Science: physical, material evidence.

[cbayer]

14. Who is he and what kind of research does he propose?

I have a theory, too. People who are without hope often find both hope and solace in religion.

I still don't see where you get this idea that religious people "hate practical material results". There are some that reject empirical data in favor of their religious beliefs and that's problematic, particularly when they want to control educational systems.

Have you read anything about Prosperity Theology? It actually does exactly the opposite of what you describe. Both sides are pretty extreme and most religious people live somewhere in the middle.

[Brettongarcia]

15. Good observations, caveats. Aside from Prosperity Gospel though? Consider Asceticism, Spirituality

It's true that much of religion is more balanced.

However, if you are looking for over-spiritual, anti-worldly excess, you need look no further than our traditional priests and ministers and monks, especially. Spirituality and asceticism - and anti-materialism - are much stronger there. To this very day, most Catholic priests do not make a lot of money; they still take vows of "Poverty." To some extent, this has influenced even much of mainstream Christianity.

Granted, religion makes people feel better. But then so do some delusions and illusions and fantasies. The question is: are their feelings objectively, empirically true. Are their pleasant fantasies real? Taking opium and having opium dreams, makes people feel good; but is it always good for them?

Living in Lotus Land, the Greeks suggested, in the world of dreams and hopes, causes them to neglect practical material realities. And this leads them to laziness, and then poverty.

[cbayer]

17. Delusions are generally a sign of mental illness.

While they might solve a delimma of some sorry, they rarely make people happy. Fantasies do tend to make people happy.

Is religious belief delusional? I would argue that it is not, as would pretty much everyone with legitimate training in psychiatry/psychology.

Is religious belief a fantasy? Who knows. Certainly not you or I.

Opium is sometimes a very good thing. If you have ever had surgery or a serious pain inducing condition, I would venture that you found opiate based pain meds to be a very good thing indeed.

If I recall correctly, the lotus eaters slept blissfully, didn't really care about anything and hurt no one. Not sure where the idea that they were lazy and impoverished comes from. I suspect that those living in unspeakable conditions would much prefer to live in Lotus Land, were they giving the choice.

Which is why they may believe that there has got to be something better after this life.

[Brettongarcia]

22. Assertions that "whosoever asks" can literally walk on water, are delusional/fantasy; easily shown

Just ask for the power to walk on water. Then observe results.

[cbayer]

23. If one is a literalist, that might be true.

But many see this as metaphor or allegory, which much of the bible is, imo.

Again, delusion is a medical term that has a specific definition and meaning. Someone who believes they can, and then tries to, walk on water is likely to run into trouble and very possibly delusional.

Someone who believes that a historical figure sent by god did it is most likely not delusional.

I recently saw a TV show where the challenge was to develop a mechanism for walking on water. Some of the contestants were successful (physics students) - neither delusional nor fantasizing.

Whether the belief that it happened at some time in the past is fantasy or not is a question which can't be answered. At any rate, it's a pretty harmless belief.

[Brettongarcia]

25. If the Bible is not literally true, but only metaphorically, it loses much claim to truth

The alternative to literalism, IS taking it all as spiritual metaphor. But 1) many take it literally. And 2) then too religion is not quite as strongly, directly true as many think religion should be. While then? There are the problems with spirituality itself, just noted.

Much of religion promises miraculous powers not just in the past, but also today: miracles to "whoever asks" would include a promise to us today (John 14.12 ff).

And giving too many people false beliefs, that they might rely on, could be disastrous. Delusions cause people to rely on things that are not reliable.

What happens if some deluded person tries to walk across a raging river to save flood victims, rather than waiting for an emergency crew?

[cbayer]

26. I don't think it is necessarily an all or none thing, and

it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make the case either way.

Even those that consider themselves literalists are truly that (see Dear Dr. Laura letter).

To me, it's a collection of books, stories, metaphors, poems, etc. Whether some of it is literally true or not is, again, a question which is probably impossible to answer.

You are once again using delusion to describe religious beliefs. In that context, it is very difficult to take your arguments seriously.

As I said, someone who literally believes that they can walk across a raging river is probably delusional. Someone who believes that it has been done at some time in the past probably isn't, as that is a belief shared across many religions and is not likely to put anyone at risk.

[Brettongarcia]

27. Would you and Psych. say a person who thinks he can literally walk on water, is not delusional?

[cbayer]

29. I have said multiple times that that person would most likely be deemed delusional,

unless they are one of the physics students who fashioned a mechanism for doing so.

But you have applied that term rather broadly to religious believers in general.

It is there that I think you make your error.

[Brettongarcia]

30. Many believe this delusion of miraculous powers. As for the rest? "Spiritual" persons...?

1) Benny Hinn and other televangelists still promise big physical miracles, today, in our own time. So MUCH of religion is false.

2) As for the rest? It is thought that taking the old promises of miracles, as metaphors for spiritual things, being "spiritual," is a better, higher Christianity or religiousity. But I am noting problems with spirituality too.

For example: many spiritual ascetics thought they could live just on spirits, thoughts; and died of starvation (James 2.14-16; see also the history of Asceticism).

3) Granted, those in the middle, might be more reasonably balanced; neither all-too-believing in miracles, nor too spiritual. However such persons will have abandoned most of the Bible, which tends to contain both these two extremes (i.e. big physical miracles, alternating with spiritual insistence that physical things are bad or unnecessary).

And after abandoning the Bible, then any claim to following say, "Christianity" say, seems tenuous.

4) One might to be sure still claim, next, to have some kind of generic "religion" above and beyond historical and biblical Christianity. But without a) promises of big physical miracles, and b) spirituality itself, then what is left to form the content of this religion?

[cbayer]

31. Some do believe that, but they don't encompass all religious believers.

And they are easy prey for charismatic televangelists - no surprise.

There is no reason for one to be "higher" than any other. That goes for the religious, the spiritual and the non-believers.

Each person reaches their own space for their own reasons. Some are helped. Some are harmed. Some feel the need to convert (or de-convert). Others do not.

Each individual is just that - individual. I see no reason to interfere or even criticize their belief systems unless they try to impose it where it is not wanted or harm others with it.

As for Christianity, or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or atheism for that matter, the simpler the definition, the better, imo. A Christian is a person who believes Jesus was the Christ. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a deity.

Any attempt to define beyond that becomes the definition of sects, not the religion as a whole.

If you choose to say that those who do not believe in big physical miracles aren't really christians, I would say your definition pertains only to certain sects.

As for me, I think there is much to be gained from various religions, including christianity. I also think there is much to be avoided.

[struggle4progress]

6. In some ways, earth has often been a fairly grim place for most of humanity,

and our current prospects don't seem very bright either, even to a fortunate person such as myself: we're facing over-population, gross pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, climate change ...

With the threats we face, I decided many decades ago that our situation is quite hopeless: people seem too pre-occupied with daily life or too self-absorbed to really work together effectively for the changes needed to save us from disaster -- but faced with catastrophe, we also have a moral obligation to work to avoid it

From this results endlessly evolving contradictions in my views on life in the 20th/21st century: (1) our situation is hopeless; (2) we must be realistic, hence perhaps should accept that our situation is hopeless; (3) but if our situation is not entirely hopeless, we have a moral obligation to act to avert disaster; (4) if our situation is not hopeless, then believing our situation is hopeless is likely to lead us into fatal inaction with the result that our situation ultimately does become hopeless; (5) therefore I must not believe the situation is hopeless, even if all evidence points to the hopelessness of it; (6) but if I do not believe the situation is hopeless, that too might produce complacency and fatal inaction; (7) at this point neither my reason nor my desire not to succumb to hopelessness can be resolved; (8) when I am optimistic I must find reasons to doubt my optimism; when pessimistic, must find reasons to doubt my pessimism; when comfortable with my logic, must find reasons to doubt my logic; when uncomfortable with my logic, must find reasons to trust it; (8) I find no certain guide in myself or others; (9) when I trust others, I must find reasons to distrust them, and when I distrust others, must find reasons to trust them again; I must simultaneously believe in possibilities I consider impossible, and when I believe in impossibilities, must find reasons to disbelieve them; (10) that is, I must attempt to sail towards a better world, not knowing exactly how to come closer to it, having no reliable chart here to aid me in this moral obligation, with only the certainly that this endeavor is unlikely to carry me to my goal; (11) and so I am in the position of absolutely everyone else who contemplates the difficulties of our present time; (12) I must make choices without being able to convince myself that my choices are right

But now I hear the ancient wisdom of Isaiah Learn to do good, seek justice, and help the oppressed -- which does not suggest that I will be good but that I can learn

[cbayer]

16. There is no question that religion has both benefits and harms, imo.

It can be used for either and has been since it's inception.

When I see arguments about which has been greater, I'm not very interested, as I don't think it can be quantified.

When I see statements that it's all good or all bad, I laugh. That is just so patently untrue, it's hard to take those that take that position seriously at all.

Actually, broad brush statements about religion are generally ridiculous on their face. The only thing one can say with certainty is that religious people have some kind of religious beliefs and non-believers don't.

[pinto]

19. Broad brush statements about anything are generally pointless, imho.

[skepticscott]

20. What good has religion done

that could not have been accomplished without religion? If you have no answer, then religion is automatically on the losing side.

Go ahead.

[pinto]

24. I'll offer my post below as one example. MLK often spoke from a faith based perspective.

In doing so he resonated a secular, civil rights message among others who held a faith based perspective. I doubt he would have had such an impact without that aspect.

I don't have an answer, just a question. I'm open to opinions, hence my original query. Don't feel it's a win / lose situation. Nor should it be, imo.

[skepticscott]

34. Oh, YOU doubt it?

Well, there's an argument if I ever heard one. Are you aware of no freedom and independence movements that succeeded without religion as a base? Are you really arguing that if there had been no religion that blacks could not possibly have been motivated to seek equality?

And yes, I'm sure you're not seeking any kind of answer or truth or understanding...that's not a surprise. Like so many others here, you just like to revel in uncertainty.

[pinto]

35. No, as I said, MLK's position played a part in his advocacy for civil rights and it echoed with many

If there had been no religion blacks would certainly have sought equality. As they still do. MLK helped that movement. Yes, I doubt it would have had such a nationwide impact without his involvement.

As an aside, you've no clue to what I'm seeking. I don't presume to be sure about what you're all about. It's a discussion forum not an inquest. That said, your dismissive, demeaning comments seem petty snipes, imo. Just my take. I'm not here to trade insults with you or anyone else. OK?

[pinto]

21. Religion's role in secular politics shows both sides of benefit and harm. In different ways.

I'm a strong supporter of the separation of church / state. To overlook that one effects the other is a mistake, though.

MLK, a Baptist minister, was one of a number of religious figures to advocate for civil rights legislation. Some current religious groups advocate for limiting civil rights legislation.

The difference, imo - MLK spoke from the outside as an advocate. He didn't run for office. Now we see religious groups speaking from the inside, running for office as religious advocates.

At that point the separation standard falls apart.

[longship]

28. I see few benefits of religion.

However, in general, I have no qualms about religious beliefs people hold as long as they are content to keep it to themselves and do not attempt to impose them on others.

Yes. Believers do some good. But there are often strings attached, which from my perspective can at least partially nullify the good. So I am inclined to not automatically give them a pass on their claims of their charity. There are some very notable positive examples which I am happy to acknowledge. But there also plenty of examples of people and religious organizations "doing good" seemingly only as a mode of proselytization. That is coercive and is something I cannot support.

There are secular organizations which do good without those things. That's a big difference for me as I choose not to support religion.

I am not very tolerant of the argument that one has to be a believer to be good, which is where these discussions often end up. (on edit: rarely here on DU, though.)

[lumpy]

32. Christians should stay in the closet to do their praying just as Jesus advised.

[cbayer]

33. Staying "in the closet" has such a negative connotation.

I think a better interpretation of that scripture is "in your room".

And it speaks only to prayer and against public displays of righteousness, imo.