‘Religion more likely to result in conflicts than in peace’

[trotsky]

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/-religion-more-likely-to-result-in-conflicts-than-in-peace-/41082242

As part of the National Research Programme “Religions, the State and Society”, sociologists of religion from Lausanne and St Gallen have gauged the religiosity and spirituality of people in Switzerland. The final report, the most comprehensive study of this topic to date, is now available as a book in German.

...

Only around a fifth of the population (18%) are still regular consumers of institutional religion. Within this group, the Catholic and Protestant core congregations are dwindling, while the charismatic free churches are gaining ground.

...

...religions are being viewed more critically and with greater detachment today than in the past, the researchers conclude.

Thus 85% of the respondents were fully or largely of the opinion that, in view of current world events, “religions are more likely to result in conflicts than in peace”.

[shenmue]

1. And then there was that Stalin guy, but shhhhh.

[trotsky]

3. The religion of communism was also dangerous indeed.

Thanks for reminding us.

[rug]

7. Communism has about as much to do with religion as trotskyism.

[mr blur]

5. Stalin lives in Switzerland? Who knew?

Oh, I see, you mean that atheists are following a religion too! Heard that before - I think it was Ray Comfort. Or Bill O'Reilly. One of those loonies, anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. authoritarian ideologies are dangerous, glad you agree.

[cleanhippie]

21. Hand delivered in support of the fight against wilfull ignorance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218159626

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Meh.

'in view of current world events'.

Religion is used as a tool by those looking to control others, but it's not the only such. If religion didn't exist, those who seek to control others would simply choose a different tool.

[trotsky]

4. Oh I largely agree that is true.

However, the unique aspect of religion is its ability to make promises that it doesn't need to deliver on. Promises of eternal reward in the afterlife, etc.

[unblock]

6. i think religion emboldens people; sometimes for good, sometimes for evil.

it can make subjugated people more complacent (opiate of the masses);

if can make community-minded people give or give more or their time and/or money;

but it can also make people angry enough to kill or die.


mostly, though, i think isolating the effects of religion is a fool's game. economics and other social factors are always mixed up in it. it's a complex multivariate system and religion is just one factor.

[okasha]

11. Oh, good grief.

That's a much too sensible respinse to out-of -context flamebait!

[unblock]

12. sorry, forgot i was in an internet discussion group.

[okasha]

13. No need to apologize.

It happens to the best of us.

[trotsky]

14. Do you think that without religion...

people would still give their time and money to charity?

Or is religion required for that kind of activity?

[unblock]

17. mrs. unblock and i have given time and money, and we're both atheists

and we certainly know plenty of right stingy bastards who call themselves believers.

[trotsky]

18. So we agree that the good we can get from religion isn't unique to religion...

and certainly doesn't require religion to get it.

Do you think there's any bad stuff unique to religion? Perhaps being promised an afterlife where behavior in this life will be punished/rewarded?

[unblock]

20. well, you can't completely discount the benefits just because they may not be unique

even if various forms of doing good and having a smooth, working society could be achieved in the absence of religion, that doesn't mean religion couldn't facilitate this.

as for the bad stuff, sure, religion seems to encourage very strongly held, non-negotiable beliefs, which can lead to unnecessary conflict. people can also draw the wrong conclusion, e.g., we've all known a few christians who believe that the forgiveness concept gives them a free pass to commit all manner of evil, perhaps thinking that all they need to do is accept jesus into their heart on their deathbed. that's hardly the right way of thinking about it, but it doesn't stop some people.

most important from my own atheistic, politically oriented viewpoint, religion is a sheep's cloth a wolf can use to great advantage. if you were the devil, would you present yourself today with a square mustache and a swastika armband, or would you hold a bible in your hand and wave the american flag?

[trotsky]

22. I'm not discounting the benefits.

I agree they exist. Just like you agree that religion isn't *necessary* to obtain them.

religion seems to encourage very strongly held, non-negotiable beliefs, which can lead to unnecessary conflict

Also agreed. So religion, on the whole, gives us no benefits that cannot be otherwise obtained, but does provide negative aspects that are indeed unique to religion. Doesn't that overall equation tip the scales against religious belief?

[unblock]

24. personally i agree with your conclusion but not your logic.

something could have unique negatives and non-unique positives yet still be, on balance, worthwhile.

i'm no doctor, but i'm sure there are quite a few medications that fit this description.

let's say the positive effects of an antidepressant could be achieved just as well with a change in diet, exercise program, therapy, and perhaps making some social adjustments (getting a new hobby, dumping a toxic friend/lover, etc.). of course, there are side-effects that wouldn't happen without that antidepressant. yet, because it's easier for patients to comply with taking a daily pill than with a changing diet, exercising, and going to therapy, and changing their social structure, on balance the antidepressant might be worthwhile.

[trotsky]

26. Comparing religion to a drug?

Interesting. If the drug had NO side effects, in your example I'd say go for it. But there are side effects. Pretty nasty ones - and the key difference with a drug's side effects is that the negative stuff of religion affects all of us, not just the consumer of it.

[unblock]

27. it wouldn't be the first time (opiate of the masses, anyone?)

although i wasn't intended to compare religion to a drug, i was merely using it as another example of to illustrate why i don't follow your logic. in my example, the drug has non-unique plusses, unique negatives, and yet on balance could be considered worthwhile.

as i said, i agree with your conclusion, i just don't buy your logic. i arrive at the conclusion by thinking that the evidence overall is simply that religion does more harm than good.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. Read your Sigmund Freud.

He said that religion meets human psychological needs. We want a big daddy who protects us from harm and makes us feel special.
He wrote all that over a hundred years ago. People have psychological needs and knowledge of those needs is used to manipulate us every single day in many different ways.

Clue: His nephew Edward Bernays, invented the modern public relations and advertising industries because he took Uncle Siggy's knowledge of peoples' fears and drives and used them to create PR and advertising.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. religion is just one factor

Yes that is correct. So the question is "what effect on society does this factor have?". Wishing the question away by claiming that because "it's a complex multivariate system" one cannot analyze any of the variables is nonsense. You've just dismissed economics, biology, computer science, physics, chemistry, along with sociology.

[unblock]

16. no, you're dismissing my insightful comment.

of course there are even statistical tests to tease out effects of single variables in multivariate systems, e.g.

what i'm saying is that simply asking people to guess this value without discussion of the other variables is not going to be particularly meaningful; or rather, it wouldn't meaningfully answer the direct question asked. instead, it would reveal only people's perception of the effects of religion rather than religion's actual effect.

moreover, it would gloss over important distinctions in understanding the effect of religion, e.g., perhaps it leads to peace in an equitable society but violence in an inequitable society. this sort of thing would be important to understanding the overall effect of religion, but it is completely lost in a simplistic single-variate question.

[bvf]

19. So if you were allowed to

conduct the same survey using a different design, what variables would you control for, and which would you measure?

[unblock]

23. personally i think polls are vastly overrated and overused.

they primarily measure people's opinions; so if opinions are what you're interested in, then by all means conduct a poll. but if you're interested in the actual effect of things, such as religion, on other things, such as violence, then asking people's opinion might not be the best approach.

i would think a historical analysis of a wide variety of cultures, and time periods, measuring religiousness and violence and other factors such as economic inequality, economic growth, political turmoil, etc. would be far more revealing.

[rug]

8. I don't think this is as breathtaking as you thiink it is.

For one thing, the survey is confined to Switzerland. Granted its long history of conflict and violence, but still . . . .

For a second thing, this study was prompted by Switzerland's uncomfortable reaction to immigrants:

Switzerland’s religious makeup has undergone some fundamental changes during the past few decades. Not only have the immigrants who have put down roots here brought a number of new religions with them, but there has also been a shift in relations between Switzerland’s Christian population and its national churches. While these have lost large numbers of their erstwhile members, the number of people with no religious affiliation at all is rising and the free churches are thriving.

http://www.nfp58.ch/e_index.cfm

[okasha]

10. "Switzerland?"

This should be pronounced with the intonation of Paul Scofield playing Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, "But Wales, Richard?"

[rug]

25. Oh that was a great movie.

[okasha]

28. I love it.

I used it in class as an intro to Tudor/English Renaissance literature.