Religion: More Trouble than it is worth?

[Spring]

Hey,

I'm doing a speech on the above mentioned topic at school, so I was wondering if anyone thought the same. Reasons for and against are welcome, and I'll have a look over the ideas after school (I'm there now).

Thanks.

[sgt.null]

wow, a little broad based there. specifics???

[Spring]

Well, the subject could go either way, and I'm doing it on Christianity, not religion as a whole.

Hope that helps.

[sgt.null]

well being Catholic I will have to vote that religion is worth the bother. I believe that man was created and we have a charter. something that we don't usually bother with. but religion has done more good than harm. some will argue that religion has killed more than anything. Mao, Stalin, Hitler...

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

Government within a government, at this point. What I mean is this: an argument exists that religion was and institutionalized to keep people in line. Pray to the spirits to keep you safe, your crop healthy, etc. Do nasty things and the spirits will get you. There is no denying that the Roman Catholic empire used religion, specifically the Fear of God, to dominate Europe for centuries. Now that most countries have secular governments, though, why the bother? Something to explore...

As for the "use" of religion, Christianity in particular, I think that's a personal decision. Some people would be good and kind without it, but others are lost without the words of the Bible to guide them. Some people are horrible human beings despite going to church on a regular basis, and they believe that their cruelty is an expression of their god's will. Well, if that's the kind of god I have to look forward to meeting, I'll just go to Hell, thanks... For me, obviously, it's more trouble than it's worth, For dennis it is an integral part of his being. I think you'll find it impossible to get a definitive answer to the question your topic poses.

[lucimay]

myth is important, metaphor is important, religion...not in it's present incarnation. google Joseph Campbell, Spring or The Power of Myth, he has interesting things to say regarding your topic.

[Avatar]

I tend to think it's more trouble than it's worth. And I think that it has cost the world more than it's given to it.

It started out as fear of the unknown, but it didn't tkae long for people to see, and use, it as an instrument of control.

Nowadays, religions are moving away from that aspect of things, certainly. To an extent anyway. Now if only their adherents would do the same.

--A

[Xar]

I think you need to make a distinction here. Belief in itself has undoubtly done more good than harm, offering comfort and a certain reassurance to people who need it, and generally speaking, encouraging people towards acting in a less self-destructive way. The problem is when such belief is twisted and made to fit a person's particular concept of self-righteousness, and then used to justify heinous acts. But that's not religion by itself: it's a self-serving interpretation of it.

I don't think it is possible to say, for example, that Christianity by itself (its principles and teachings) is more trouble than it's worth. There are tens of thousands of people who find its principles to be an important, essential part of life, and who would be lost without it. And most of those people actually strive to follow its principles, and - objectively - do what they can to make life better for other people as well, however small the scale.
It is possible to say, though, that the human interpretation of these principles, used as a means of control, has been terribly damaging and reason for horrible acts ostensibly in the name of Christianity. Still, this has nothing to do with religion: if Christianity hadn't been here, those people would have used any other religion to do the same: humankind has this unfortunate tendency.

Nowadays, it seems that many people are moving away from istitutionalized religious gatherings to a more personal, and possibly more direct religious experience. Many people no longer go to Mass, for example, but they do pray perhaps every night, observe religious holidays and observances, and practice the teachings of Christianity. All in all, I find this to be a good thing, although possibly not for everyone. People learning to perceive and understand religion with their own heads rather than through the words of a preacher are much more likely to be tolerant and respectful of other religions as well, and less amenable to whatever corruption of religion a would-be exploiter would want to use. On the whole, though, there is still need for organized religion, for all those people who need the reassurance of a preacher and his or her wisdom to guide them. This, unfortunately, can lead to problems when the preacher actively preaches intolerance (as is the case with many Islamic fundamentalist preachers).

Perhaps humanity's concept of religion will slowly evolve to the point where eventually there will be no need for organized religion, and the experience will become much more personal for everyone.

[Avatar]

Excellent post as usual Xar, and I agree...an important distinction.

The problem is when such belief is twisted and made to fit a person's particular concept of self-righteousness, and then used to justify heinous acts. But that's not religion by itself: it's a self-serving interpretation of it.

But is it possible to have one without the other? Not as an individual I mean, because it is obviously possible, but in general?

Just as there have always been people who took the best of such teachings to heart, there will always be those who misuse it as well.

Of course, the same would be true even if there had been no religion. The self-serving need little excuse.

--A

[KAY1]

Religion is not the problem in itself, it is the people who choose to make of themselves religious leaders and dictate meaning to others. All throughout history we have seen it is not the concept behind religion(s) that has been the problem, but those who have abused it for their own ends or try and force their beliefs on others.

[Prebe]

Good post indeed Xar.

However, as an atheist I think that all religions start of with charismatic figures with an agenda of their own, that eventually leads to one or more books. It is important to remember that no matter how personal religion becomes, it is (still) started by a charismatic person and supported by one or more books (and any number of charismatic persons with varying agendas).

While I agree in, that religious faith has been a great comfort to a tremendous amount of people, I also believe that this very effect has resulted in lack of action on countless occasions (herein lies religions great power to controll that Avatar and Karl Marx mention).

While I belive that religion has the power to inspire people to do wonderfull thing, I believe that this power is just as often abused.

Religion is, in my view, to often used as an excuse to do the wrong things or to take no action because "God'll fix it". Any belief that tells me "I don't need to worry about that" I wouldn't trust for a second.

So in a way, if the concept of a religion is that "God will fix it" and leave it to God" there IS something conceptually wrong with religion. Religion is a lot like communism in many respects: If everyone did what the book said, there wouldn't be no trouble (heh!)

[Avatar]

I agree that there is always the "Don't worry, it'll get sorted out after you die" aspect, and that that aspect alone has been used by countless religions to justify the status quo.

It doesn't matter how unpleasant your life is here, you'll get your just desserts in heaven (or hell I suppose).

I suppose the real question for this thread is who it's trouble for. The oppressed and down-trodden are comforted by it, without a doubt. But as Prebe implies there, it also discourages them from doing anything about it, because either god wants it that way, or because god will make it up to you after you die. *shrug*

--A

[Xar]

I have to disagree here. To be sure, especially in medieval times, religion was used more as a means of control of the masses than as a spiritual comfort: in fact, the prohibition against suicide was used as a means to make sure that the lowly commoners, whose life was devoid of hope or meaning, but who were vital for the survival of the land, would not attempt to kill themselves to escape their strictures. By telling them "you'll go to Hell if you kill yourself", the church was indeed making sure they would remain alive and perform their duties, thus keeping the status quo.

But it is also true that religions never truly said "oh, be quiet, God will fix this up for you". In fact, most - if not all - religions push the believer into acting according to the religion's moral code (which, curiously enough, is remarkably consistent among different religions of the past and the present). For example, Christianity doesn't preach passivity: it preaches activity in such a way as to benefit the whole society. In fact, if these precepts were honestly followed by all members of the society, society itself would likely be much more enlightened (imagine a society where nobody would do to others what he or she would not want visited upon him- or herself). The problem arises when there are people who either do not follow these precepts, or (even worse) use them to their advantage.
At that point though, nobody says you should just shut up and submit: indeed, you should attempt in any possible way to change the situation.

The main precept of almost every great religion is not "accept what comes to you", but "live a good life and improve that of others". That could be taken in many ways: perhaps someone could believe that the best way to do so would be to enter politics and attempt to improve things from the inside; another could believe he would do best to become a doctor and save human lives; and so on. The end result of such a precept, in an ideal world, would be a society in which everyone's work benefits the whole society.

This is, unfortunately, twisted by some who believe they can use this precept for personal gain - be it power, riches, or whatever else. Unorthodox preachers who claim they alone know the truth, or can grant salvation; or who point their finger at other religions and claim they are abominations and need to be cleansed; or who incite to violence and bloodshed. But this is just an example of the debasement of some members of humankind; for each person like this there is someone else, somewhere, who does nothing but good. The problem with the world is that we tend to see the former more than we see the latter, also because it's much easier to be the former than the latter.

On the other hand, as a human being, who would you respect more? The guy who attempts to help other people, even at great cost for himself, or the guy who incites other people to kill and maim?

[Avatar]

In fact, most - if not all - religions push the believer into acting according to the religion's moral code (which, curiously enough, is remarkably consistent among different religions of the past and the present). For example, Christianity doesn't preach passivity: it preaches activity in such a way as to benefit the whole society. In fact, if these precepts were honestly followed by all members of the society, society itself would likely be much more enlightened (imagine a society where nobody would do to others what he or she would not want visited upon him- or herself). The problem arises when there are people who either do not follow these precepts, or (even worse) use them to their advantage.

An excellent post Xar, an a fair enough point I'll certainly admit. The base-line moral "codes" of many religions are indeed fairly consistent, and I'll certainly agree that, if everybody followed them, it would make a fair amount of difference to society, and to the world in general.

Perhaps one problem I have with it is the "stick" factor...do this or else. And indeed, I'll be the first to agree that, at a certain time, that was probably the easiest way to convince people.

But, as you point out, people being people, that ideal has never been more than that...an ideal.

The real problem with religion isn't religion...it's people.

--A

[Prebe]

Christianity is many things. There are groupings, mostly apocalyptic (Jehovas Witnesses as a prime example) who think that the fate of world is decided, so no matter what we do, shit will hit the fan. Now, I know that "De witness of Jah" work very hard to do Gods biddings, but that is only to save themselves and those of similar faith. That, in my book, is the same as saying "Lean back, God will fix it, as long as we just believe".

indeed, you should attempt in any possible way to change the situation.

If it was only so. For many religious people the belief in itself is the important thing. This is in my view not very fertile.

Xar: The way you explain it is fine, but it requires the belief that way, way far behind each abuser of a religion is true religion, or some kind of axiomaly "right" religion. And that can only be true if there is some kind of deity right? So, from my point of view an atheists, I think that religion is more trouble than it is worth. If, however, I adopt the attitude that there is some kind of deity, many things change. I will not do that, however, not even for the purpose of discussion

[Xar]

Christianity is many things. There are groupings, mostly apocalyptic (Jehovas Witnesses as a prime example) who think that the fate of world is decided, so no matter what we do, shit will hit the fan. Now, I know that "De witness of Jah" work very hard to do Gods biddings, but that is only to save themselves and those of similar faith. That, in my book, is the same as saying "Lean back, God will fix it, as long as we just believe".

indeed, you should attempt in any possible way to change the situation.

If it was only so. For many religious people the belief in itself is the important thing. This is in my view not very fertile.

Xar: The way you explain it is fine, but it requires the belief that way, way far behind each abuser of a religion is true religion, or some kind of axiomaly "right" religion. And that can only be true if there is some kind of deity right? So, from my point of view an atheists, I think that religion is more trouble than it is worth. If, however, I adopt the attitude that there is some kind of deity, many things change. I will not do that, however, not even for the purpose of discussion

Well, schisms and different intepretations are something that humankind is skilled in creating; in fact, even the simplest statement could be taken in many ways by different people, and, if deemed strong enough, could create a movement. You don't need religions to do that: look at what happens when a politician says something true (allright, that's a very rare occasion, but it's still an example ). He says "ok, we did this"; his opponents immediately reply "he didn't" or "yes, he says he did this, but he only did it that particular way" or "for his particular reasons". So you have those who believe the politician, and those who believe the opponents (running the gamut of possibilities from believing the politician an outright liar to believing him a devious word-twister).
It's the same with religion, really: no matter how clear and easy to understand are the ideas and the precepts, you'll always find people ready to give their own interpretation of that.

Of course, there are those who definitely lean back and hope God will fix their lives: but these are no different from the people who do the same in regards to politicians, or whatever. The spirit of religion has never been to persuade people not to act: I don't know if you've got a similar saying over there, but in Italy we have a saying that exemplifies this greatly. Roughly translated, it sounds like "Help yourself and God will help you", meaning that you can't just sit by and hope things will be allright in the end, you have to take matters in your own hands, and do what you can as long as you can.

Sure, to go back to your post, there are those among Christians who believe, for example, that salvation is not possible through personal actions but that it is only and exclusively dictated by God: or those who believe that, if you don't follow their way, you'll not be saved, regardless of how good you've been in your life. But these are extremes, and it's easy to spot them. If you start from the concept of a loving deity, which is after all what Christianity is all about, despite the many twists and interpretations this concept has suffered through the centuries, then it follows that no loving deity would punish its creations for not following him, despite their goodness; or that he would arbitrarily choose which of his creations to damn, despite their actions. So, those concepts are fundamentally incompatible with the primary concept behind Christianity.

But even as an atheist, you shouldn't dismiss religion so easily. From an atheist point of view, religion is a morality code; and I hope you will agree with me that the concepts behind most religions are morality concepts we should follow by common sense. "Do not kill". "Do not steal". "Honor life". From an atheist point of view, there is no need for a deity to exist for people to follow these concepts. Organized religion should have always been a way for people to practice these concepts of morality, but, humankind being what it is, this de-evolved into a means of gaining power and control. But you can't blame the idea: you should blame the people who twisted the idea.

[Prebe]

no matter how clear and easy to understand are the ideas and the precepts

What part of, say, the bible (I could have said the koran here) should I use as a clear and easy description of the principles of Christianity? And why should I not use it all? Who has the formula for a true Christian/Muslim, if it is not in the books?

I'm bating you, just so you know

[Avatar]

Aah, I don't think Xar is talking about being a true Christian (or anything else), other than as a side-effect of following those basic premises of love thy neighbour, and do no harm.

Agreed, the bible itself, for example, is far less claer and decisive than that, but (I think), Xar is taking only the basic principle which, if followed, would benefit society.

By far the majority of religious writings are, as I've pointed out, by people who probably had their own agenda, whatever it may have been.

We will almost certainly never know where the first agenda crept into the altruistic good intent of the founder of Christianity.

I would guess perhaps that the very first time somebody tried to convince somebody else that their idea was the only true one would be that point.

But if we were to remove every prohibition and rule from religion that did not try to control somebody on the basis of what is sinful, or what is holy, or what you should or should not do simply because god tells you, and leave only the ones that ask that you not harm others, then I think we would be as close to the bare essence of todays ideals for religion.

Unfortunately, as Xar himself points out, to eliminate all those other things from some peoples practice of their religion is well-nigh impossible.

But it would be nice.

--A

[Prebe]

but (I think), Xar is taking only the basic principle which, if followed, would benefit society.

Sure. All I'm asking is: from whence is this basic principle derived?

[Xar]

but (I think), Xar is taking only the basic principle which, if followed, would benefit society.

Sure. All I'm asking is: from whence is this basic principle derived?

Well, in that case the answer depends of course on whether you believe in a deity or not.

If you do, then the obvious answer is "the basic principle came from God, but unfortunately humans distorted it for personal gain". If you do not, then the answer is likely to be "the basic principle was set into place when civilization first began, and organized religion was built around it to give it weight and make commoners accept it".

Also, an educated believer might recognize that what is important within the pages of the Bible/the Koran/the holy book(s) of choice is not the book itself, but the message it tries to convey. Such a believer would likely accept that, if holy books are written through divine inspiration, then what you are reading is the concept God wished to express, filtered through the mind of the mortal writer - and therefore, already passed through an interpretation filter.
Remember also that the holy books we have now could - for all we know - have been through censorship during the millennia; what better means of control than changing the fundamental holy book of your people's religion, inserting something about how obeying your superiors will increase your merit, or how only following the way you (as an institution) preach, will they achieve salvation?

Take, for example, the famous part in the Gospels, in which Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, save through me". That one could be taken in many ways, from the most literal (follow Christianity or, no matter how good you are, you'll not go to Heaven) to the most metaphoric (be good to others and work for the betterment of mankind, and you'll go to Heaven). As an educated believer, I lean towards the latter, mostly because the concept of a loving and compassioned God is incompatible with the concept of a jealous God. From such a point of view, the idea that your actions do not matter, if you do not follow that particular religion, makes no sense. But - of course - others interpret that sentence otherwise, and strongly believe that you will be saved only if you convert. Are they wrong? Well, that's their interpretation of the sentence: if they live by it without bothering others with it, that is perfectly fine. It is when they start trying to persuade you that you'll go to Hell unless you follow their way that their interpretation intrudes upon yours, and the action they attempt becomes morally wrong (even though, in their eyes, they're doing you a favor).

So, as you can see, there is great danger in the idea of reading a holy book and/or taking it literally. Of course, this is the case for all books that speak of transcendent concepts (philosophy, poetry, theology, and so on), simply because of the inadequacy of the support.