Spoken as a non-religious person, religion gives a lot of people something to rely on and a base foundation of ethics and morals from an early age. It also opens many people to reading and philosophy, and can create a great sense of community in healthy environments.
When I was a wee boy here in Scotland our primary school teacher for our class of 12 was an ex WW2 Spitfire pilot - we read the bible every day. For some odd reason we only ever read the old testament and generally the bits where people are being rather beastly to one another.
I do believe that dear old Mr C might have been trying to teach us a lesson about the reality of religious beliefs.
[NB I grew up in a small quite religious community where things like cycling, playing football, hanging out clothes to dry (and probably humour) were effectively banned on Sundays].
If you read a book on the Third Reich, would you suppose it was being raised as a positive example?
In a similar way, a great deal of the Old Testament is presenting history, not condoning those beastly actions (and, indeed, often directly and straightforwardly condemning them). Context is vital.
Well, that was rather my point - I suspect he was condemning them. Certainly he never usually mentioned anything to do with his service in WW2 or anything like that - he was a conspicuously decent guy.
Fair enough, and good to hear about. Others use that to condemn the book as barbaric as a whole, which misses the point. Couldn't tell which you were implying.
This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.
Looking at my own country many people simply feel that they have no need for religion. Instead of going to church on Sunday why not watch Netflix in bed?
> This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.
This is quite wrong - the main beneficial function of religion is to provide an institutional framework for enhancing social capital and the overall "sense of community", which is a critical antidote (far more so than "welfare" or even private charity) against social exclusion and marginalization for the most vulnerable in society. The only states which try to take over this function altogether are totalitarian states - in fact, even in many authoritarian or otherwise dysfunctional and unfree states, religion - at least at a "grassroots" level - tends to function in practice as a haven for civil society. The only institutions that even compete would be labor unions (in some places), and for obvious reasons these are far less universal in their overall outlook.
Not at all, a government can easily subsidize any non profit organization. There are many community centers in my country run by volunteers and funded by local taxes for example.
I think my country has proven that if there is less necessity to turn to religious institutions a society can start the path to secularization.
>It also opens many people to reading and philosophy...
I would argue that the more religious the less one is inclined to broader reading and philosophy because the practice is usually constrained to one's own religious ideologies.
For the average person, yes, but many people got their start on philosophy reading religious texts (see: Kierkegaard, Hegel, Tolstoy, and others)[1].
Going into the realm of personal experience, I made the choice to go to church as a child, and reading the bible expanded my horizons to lots of other religious texts and eventually philosophy and literature. My closest friends in this hobby and discipline started the same way as well.
I am not positing that it opens everyone to philosophy and new ideas (as it is deeply steeped in tradition), but that it opens those who may already be interested and gives them an "in".
If what you are saying is true, then predominantly atheist countries (or societies) are mainly unethical and immoral (exaggeration).
Children of atheist parents will grow to be rapists psychos (also exaggeration).
That's maybe not what has been said here, but it's said pretty much in every discussion I've been. They argue that religion is necessary to "give" us a good moral compass, that without it we would be lost, etc.
Depends on what you consider religion, and morals, and I'd still argue it's not necessary. There are many philosophical sects that preach morality or reject the traditional compass that one can believe and internalize. Not all of these are traditionally recognized religions.
There is no need to treat religion and atheism as polar opposites. Atheism, at least in the west, has considerable overlap with Christian theology on topics like human rights. There is little rationality behind human rights, they can't be measured nor observed. Eg, who, when and how determined that humans have the right to life, but dolphins do not?
"Universal human rights" feels like a more modern wording for "God-given lifestyle". They are beneficial, but also as irrational as any religion before them, and rely on supernatural origin to make them them non-negotiable.
Some religions actually discourage reading non-approved content especially things contradictory to their core beliefs. They will also tell you that you are not allowed to be aquantances with non-believers to the point of cutting off ties with your own family. Of course, some religions only teach that men can be allowed to read.
Religious people are happier than non-religious people. This replicates fairly well across many countries. This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own. It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism, as well, if you accept God as a metaphorical construct. Religious people are also more charitable. If you break down the numbers, this increased charity is not just benefitting the church.
>Of course correlations are not causation, and the negative correlation that I expect between religiosity and happiness does not mean that atheism makes people happier, or religion unhappier. What it means—and this is supported by several sociological studies (see here for one)—is likely that people either turn to religion or maintain their religion when their social situation is so dire that they’re unhappy. When conditions are good, and there’s lots of social support, including help for sick people, old people, free medical care, and so on, then there’s no need to be religious, no need to supplicate a god for what your society can’t provide. When you’re well off, your country gradually loses religion, the thesis of Norris and Inglehart in the preceding link.
>In short, what makes people happy is not religion, but material well being and the assurance of material aid. That’s supported by the study’s finding that immigrants, including Muslims from the Middle East, quickly gain the happiness of their new country, while (I suspect), still keeping their religion, though perhaps in an attenuated form.
This does not contradict my point- if you live in rural Appalachia, there's a good chance you have a pretty hardscrabble life. Religion is adaptive in this circumstance, and you can become happier by becoming religious. The author of the article you linked also goes on to quote Marx, saying that abolishing religion is curing the masses of their opium addiction, and curing them of their delusions. I would argue that irreligious people are just as delusional, but with different failure modes. Apathy, nihilism, and lack of a sense of self dominate the irreligious; moral absolutism dominates the religious.
Obviously there are many other factors for happiness. To say anything about the effect of religion on happiness, ideally you would compare people in the same region, in similar circumstances.
Certainly as a Scot I would not naturally associate "religion" and "happiness"....
Edit: I'm talking about my experience of religion in Scotland, which is a bit grim and dour, not the rather cheerful kind that they seem to have in the US :-)
> Religious people are happier than non-religious people.
Dumb people are happier than smart people -- pick your own causality.
> This replicates fairly well across many countries.
In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.
In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.
> This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own.
Of what, pray tell?
> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...
This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.
> Religious people are also more charitable.
I believe this has been debunked, but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
Yes. I did some subsequent research and couldn't find terribly much that I felt was conclusive. I could argue that it doesn't matter hugely, as the absence of conclusive evidence, and the question of which way causality lies, was the parallel I was drawing to the 'religious people are happier' claim.
> In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.
This is a half-truth, those same countries you'll be killed for expressing non-belief or belief in a different accepted religion. This is extremism and shouldn't be linked to what the vast majority of the rest of world practices.
Absolutely. If we agree that everyone believes in either 0 or 1 religion, then we'd agree that everyone disbelieves in n or (n-1) religions, where n is several thousand (depending how you slice and dice the various sects and cults).
I'm not sure what the vast majority practice, though Pew [1] has done some good research on beliefs amongst the second most popular religion. Attitudes towards the execution of apostates is especially interesting reading.
In any case, if you live in almost any of the countries listed in that section you'll definitely be happier (and probably healthier / less likely to die) if you're religious than if you're not.
Religious populations that murder irreligious people are bad, and not worth defending. That is likely a type of suffering caused by religion.
My argument is that participating in religious activity makes an individual person happier, on average, when looking at the data. That should be convincing, given the data I presented.
> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...
>This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.
I would have a tough time convincing you that it's true, especially considering that you don't appear to be trying to argue in good faith. But consider the Unitarians. They are mostly focused on personal virtue ethics through religiosity that rejects fundamentalism. I can say that looking at athiest strongholds, such as r/atheism, does not look like a more rational congregation than you might see at your local Unitarian church. The Unitarians are trying to better themselves; r/atheism is mostly focused on tearing down their oppressors.
The claim that religious people are more charitable has not been debunked in this thread, and I would be surprised to see that the evidence points that way in the literature. I've researched it a good bit. "But it's because they give to church" does not fully explain the difference.
>but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
Altruism is not incompatible with self-interest. Additionally, most Christians are not fundamentalists. You can conceptualize Hell as the suffering that you are dealt as a result of your own failures. By giving to charity, you avoid one of these failures, and in doing so also make the world a measurably better place. (Meanwhile the statistically uncharitable atheists still think of themselves as superior, for some reason...)
We have to differentiate between unintelligent and uneducated. For the latter, there are several studies showing that lack of education can mean lack of imagination of alternative. For example in The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen described the phenomenon of rural uneducated Indian women reporting less content with their own health after they received basic health education: Suddenly they were aware that there actually was an alternative to many of their miseries.
FWIW I am trying to interpret, and presenting my case, in good faith.
I don't accept the claim that religious activity makes everyone involved (at least on the believers' side) happier. In almost all cases there's no control to compare to - you have to compare different people, rather than the same person(s) with & without religion, and then you're back to the causality question.
The question of charity I've responded to in a sibling thread.
> it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
I know I am picking on one small part of your argument, but I really hate this line of thinking. So what? Who cares why someone is charitable? I assume most people not doing it in "self-interest" feel good when they do it - does that invalidate the charity? Nobody does anything in a vacuum.
I imagine some atheists may be frustrated to be told that they're not as nice (charitable) because of their rationality.
In any case, to your question 'who cares why someone is charitable?' I'd suggest that it's important if your definition of charity is something along the lines of a voluntary offer of assistance.
If you're coerced into providing assistance -- either by promises of eternal happiness, or threats of eternal suffering -- then it's not so much charity as taxation, or perhaps a promise of remuneration.
In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.
To be fair, Russia in 1920-1930s was pretty close to that. One surely may argue that communism is also a religion, so they were simply getting rid of the competition.
I think it's not so much that he argues they are religions, but that he uses a definition of religion that encompasses them: viz., the belief in an order that is not of human invention but that imposes human moral norms.
But that definition is possibly the only fully consistent and coherent one I've seen that covers everything commonly regarded as a religion; it just covers quite a bit extra, too.
Yup, fair point. While weakening the points made by rational people is certainly not the worst thing they've done, the administration there is definitely making us all look bad.
Churches label themselves as charities, so by this reckoning donations that swell a property portfolio and a pastor's impressive lifestyle are considering "charitable". (Never mind that some churches lean heavily towards barely-disguised political activism.)
The amount of money spent on genuine good works is rather lower.
I'm sure genuinely giving people exist in religions, and they may even be encouraged by belonging to them.
But the standard rhetorical implication is that all religious people are like this and all non-profit spending falls into this category - when the reality is very different.
It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people.
There isn't a single "good" that church does to other people that couldn't be done by secular means.
On average, religious people are more charitable than non-religious people, even when you discount the money they give to the church. This is a good outcome and is evidence that religion is good.
Seeing as how most religions require a minimum 10% tithe, their followers would of course seem to be charitable. But is it really charity if it is a requirement? I’d call it a tax.
> But is it really charity if it is a requirement? I’d call it a tax.
It's not a tax. You can't get your passport revoked if you don't pay tithing. You won't go to jail for tax evasion, either. In fact, probably nothing will happen. You can continue to go to church every Sunday without paying tithing and most congregations would still welcome you with open arms. Ecclesiastical leaders might remind you that tithing requires faith and that you would receive more blessings if you paid your tithe, but as long as said leaders do not profit from said tithes, I don't see a problem with it as there is no conflict of interest.
> It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people.
Right, and you don't need a running club to motivate you to run or a school to help you learn. But for a lot of people, they sure do help if being charitable/running/learning is your goal.
Drunk people (as opposed to those who enjoy a glass now and then) may be happier, or sadder, but only for the moment. But then I'm sure you knew that already!
Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaining?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
Those who tarry long over wine;
those who go to try mixed wine.
Do not look at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
In the end it bites like a serpent
and stings like an adder.
Your eyes will see strange things,
and your heart utter perverse things.
You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,
like one who lies on the top of a mast.
“They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt;
they beat me, but I did not feel it.
When shall I awake?
I must have another drink.”
In "virus of the mind" one of Dawkins' students argues religion is more like a symbiote with both benefits and burdens on the host. His arguments seemed reasonable when I read it but I have forgotten them.
Religion offers an alternative to a life based on self interest. To love others, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, give to the poor, care for prisoners, the elderly, the addicts, etc.
Religion is not philosophy. We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god or something supernatural. For humans, everyone agrees that society is nicer to live in when people are nice to each other. So teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here.
Note that there are Christian and Buddhist philosophy etc which is useful. However, that is philosophy and not religion. You can believe in the golden rule without being christian. You can agree with the teachings of Jesus without believing that he is the son of God. You can read the Bible without thinking that it is anything more than ancient pop-culture. Also, you can believe that some things are "good" without believing in a god.
So as far as we know Religion is no better than snake oil. The main purpose of snake oil is to redistribute resources from naive people to conmen. Snake oil might have some positive placebo benefits, and maybe snake oil inspired some people to pursue medicine and help people for real, but snake oil is still just snake oil.
"We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god"
Sure, but how would that be an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil? You claim philosophy, and yet this is an age-old philosophical problem. For example, see Hume's guillotine, i.e. Hume's is-ought distinction.
"teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here."
Is truth determined by fact and reason, or merely by the purpose it serves?