Is religion harmful to society?

[HydrogenBond]

It is not always easy to differentiate the religion, from the secular, when these are blended. The pure secular is closer to the atheist point of view since it is more concerned with day to day existence based on will, civil laws and the choices of the individual. These two affects exist at the same time, with both having an impact on the cultural behavior. One should not try to lump it either way but we need to separate the affects to spread each data point into two piles.

 

Let me give an historical example. When the Catholic Church first formed there were seven kingdoms. They had a common religion so one would expect them to be one happy family with a common goal. The reality was each had its own secular agenda based on their cultural interests. This was not taught by the church, but existed apart from the church. In this case, it wasn't the common religion causing quarrels and competition for wealth, power, land and resources, between the kingdoms. It was not consistent with the common religion, which benefitted by unity.

[charles brough]

It is not always easy to differentiate the religion, from the secular, when these are blended. The pure secular is closer to the atheist point of view since it is more concerned with day to day existence based on will, civil laws and the choices of the individual. These two affects exist at the same time, with both having an impact on the cultural behavior. One should not try to lump it either way but we need to separate the affects to spread each data point into two piles.

 

Let me give an historical example. When the Catholic Church first formed there were seven kingdoms. They had a common religion so one would expect them to be one happy family with a common goal. The reality was each had its own secular agenda based on their cultural interests. This was not taught by the church, but existed apart from the church. In this case, it wasn't the common religion causing quarrels and competition for wealth, power, land and resources, between the kingdoms. It was not consistent with the common religion, which benefitted by unity.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. The Catholic Church began no later than with Emperor Constantine about 350 AD. Out secular believe system began to take shape right after the Reformation. During those 1,150 years, I believe the Pope ruled the Church with an iron hand. Are you referring to the French Feudal system being different than the English one?

[Galapagos]

I read the Massimo Pigliucci link.

I'll take your word for it, but you obviously did not read very carefully if this is true.

Trying to prove religion has no function by doing little projects like that is like trying to disprove the existence of "God."

This was not the aim of this study nor do the researchers(or Pigliucci in his subsequent review) claim this. In fact, if anything this supports the notion that religion can play a functional role; supernatural agents served as authorities watching over deals, and in this case motivating altruism.

That is not the function of intelligent science. It is finding out what the function is, and Pigliucci did not find it. He does not say what religion is and what it is not, how and why if forms, what function it has served . . .

Pigliucci was summarizing the research of Norenzayan and Shariff. I assumed you would figure this out(it is clearly stated in the first sentence of the blogpost) and read the actual paper if you were interested(either to agree or contest), but apparently I was wrong.

I would also point out that you seem to be committed to the view of functionalism; that it can simply be assumed that culture exists because it serves some function.

I consider this assumption to be unjustified-- there is no reason to assume culture exists to benefit any entity at all. I will not try to settle this here in one single post, but I would simply point out that what you are saying is not accepted universally, especially not without further qualification.

 

All the research was on small samples of an immense picture.

 

Feel free to read the section of the paper titled "Experimental Evidence: When Gods Are on Our Minds"(as published in the journal Science) and contest their research more specifically if you find any flaws in it.

http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Norenzayan&Shariff_Science.pdf

 

He stated that communes function only because members have a high investment! What would you call a hunting-gathering group but a commune? We had them every since we became human---and before. In other words, the research picks at little things but only confuses the picture. I wrote a book on this subject and cannot re-write it here.

Are you familiar with the work of Robert Trivers, or reciprocal altruism? I suspect that reading some of his seminal work(or at least the paper you are critiquing) might clear up some of your confusion.

 

 

We have to get a common system of belief that can supercede the old religions so we are not going to have to fight each other.

Our weak secular unity is failing to do that.

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* *

The study linked(along with the work of Zuckerman posted above) contradicts this claim of yours.

I quote from the conclusion of the article:

The preponderance of the evidence points to religious prosociality being a boudned phenomenon. Religion's association with prosicality is most evident when the situation calls for maintaining a favorable social reputation within the ingroup. When thoughts of morally concerned deities are cognitively salient, an objectively anonymous situation becomes nonanonymous and, therefore, reputationally relevant, or alternatively, such thoughts activate prosocial tendencies because of a prior mental association. This could occur when such thoughts are induced experimentally or in naturalistic religious situations, such as when people attend religious services or engage in ritual performance. This explains why the religious situation is more important than the religious disposition in predicting prosocial behavior.

Although religions continue to be powerful facilitators of prosociality in large groups, they are not the only ones. The cultural spread of reliable secular institutions, such as courts, policing authorities, and effective contract-enforcing mechanisms, although historically recent, has changed the course of human prosociality. Consequently, active members of modern secular organizations are at least as likely to report donating to charity as active members of religious ones(42). Supporting this conclusion, experimentally induced reminders of secular moral authority had as much effect on generous behavior in an economic game as reminders of God(27), and there are many examples of modern, large, cooperative, and not very religious societies(such as those in Western and Northern Europe), that, nonetheless retain a great degree of intragroup trust and cooperation(43).

[charles brough]

"""The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality

Ara Norenzayan* and Azim F. Shariff

 

We examine empirical evidence for religious prosociality, the hypothesis that religions facilitate costly behaviors that benefit other people. Although sociological surveys reveal an association between self-reports of religiosity and prosociality, experiments measuring religiosity and actual prosocial behavior suggest that this association emerges primarily in contexts where reputational concerns are heightened. Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers. Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust. Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans. We synthesize converging evidence from various fields for religious prosociality, address its specific boundary conditions, and point to unresolved questions and novel predictions.

 

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.""" :)

 

GALAPAGOS, to me, line by line remarks are bickering. We need to address the main issues. One is that they are supporting a hypothesis based upon an omnibus word, one with a multitude of meanings and, hence, of no reliable meaning at all. Such words as "prosociality" are academic ivory tower double-talk referred to as "academeese." There is all kinds of social behavior. Do you or do you not consider social behavior instinctive? What is its corresponding behavior in other primates? People do what is of benefit of the group because it enhances status and in the males, status comes from being brutal as well. It is the role of the alpha male to keep status by overseeing the protection and general welfare of what he recognizes as his group. His group, in a badly divided society, can turn out to be only his family---hence, corruption.

 

The word "altrusim" is also an omnibus word. Are your consensus researches using the term for a mother's instinctive care of her young? For the alpha male leading the males to hunt or in a war party? Is it altrusim when a chimp or a human returns a favor? Is it altruism when a an alpha male kills a deformed baby? These are all social behavior benefiting the group and, hence, "good". But what is good for the "group" can be "bad" for an individual in the group or for another group which is attacked and its territory or nation cut away from it.

 

Do you see how connecting human and animal behavior to clear up issues and hence not have to use deceptive omnibus words becomes highly offensive to the religious and, hence, motivates the abundant double-talk academic papers and research that abound? By churning it out, they keep their prestigious academic positions and high status in society. They in the social sciences do this for the whole society to keep it together as one, but it is not science. It has to be atheistic-science in order for social science theory to be accurate.:):hyper:

[Ahmabeliever]

Is religion harmful to society?

 

YES! - My opinion...

 

I was taught that everyone else was evil and I was not to be a part of the world, rather, I was meant to be apart. This is elitism. I learnt sexism (women at home, man rules the house), I learnt racism (the sons of Ham shall be your servants) I learnt homophobia...

 

I learned to not care about the ecology, for the plants and animals were 'yours to command'. I learned that it doesn't matter how bad it gets, no worries, Jesus will come back and fix it.

 

Now, how antisocial is this!!!! Everyone is evil, the planet doesn't matter the soul does, women other races, other sexual persuasion, all lesser beings...

 

Gods chosen people...

 

Religion sucks big dogs nads. And christians are insane.

[pamela]

Ahmabeliever, you sound exactly like those preachers that pick a handful of verses and base a whole ideology around it. Your final comments are crass and insulting. You have the right to believe what ever you will and the christians have their rights as well. As far as I can tell, you have

not stated why religion is harmful, but just have ranted about your bad experiences. Please provide back up to support why religion is harmful to society.

[ughaibu]

As far as I can tell, you have

not stated why religion is harmful

Of course he did:

Now, how antisocial is this!!!! Everyone is evil, the planet doesn't matter the soul does, women other races, other sexual persuasion, all lesser beings..

[pamela]

really???? because this is an opinion...support it- documentation????

people do these things with or without religion- if you choose to back up someone elses opinion, then you may provide the back up as well

[ughaibu]

really???? because this is an opinion...support it- documentation????

people do these things with or without religion- if you choose to back up someone elses opinion, then you may provide the back up as well

The documentation referred to appears, primarily, to be the Bible.

[pamela]

apparently....maybe somebody should run by their local motel and pick up a copy of the Gideons, to provide a verse or two.

I am fully aware of times in history where man has chosen to use the bible to his own evil advantage. the Crusades is one such example. A holy Jihad is another by use of the Qu'ran.I could go on and on. I also could cite instances of people serving and helping mankind as well from a religious standpoint. Feed the children? there are both good points and bad all along the way.The choice is man's as to how he will behave. Religion does not kill: man does. Religion did not hurt this earth, man did. As far as racism, how is degrading christians any different than belittling a particular race.

[Moontanman]

While it is obvious I am no supporter of religion in general or fundamentalism in particular i think it's safe to say that religion by and large has, at least in it's dim beginnings, had a positive influence on humanity or at least in promoting the development of societies. Like most things religion has long been hijacked by those looking for power and control (I think the desire for power and control are two of the worst and most obvious perversions humans have come up with) If religion could get out of the business of dictating reality and stick to helping members and society at large religion could continue to be a good thing. But in recent centuries religion has been fighting a delaying action against science and the study of the natural world. Every time religion comes up directly against science it looses. I think religion was a natural off shoot of people trying to explain the natural world before the ideas of science developed. In a way religion was mankind's first attempt at science. Religion should occupy it's self to social problems and get out of the way of science to risk taking a hit it cannot come back from.

[HydrogenBond]

I think there is a tendency to stack data, one way or the other when discussing this topic. It might be based on the conditioned media template of a couple of data points, like one plane crash, to generalize how unsafe planes are. The rational person will add all the data points and realize the dramatic exceptions, are just that.

 

The math analogy is drawing a curve through data points. If we erase selective points we can change the shape of the curve. We are still presenting valid data points but we can turn a sine wave into a straight line if we erase selective data points.

 

Let me give a example of how this data stacking works to draw an erroneous curve. This is only an example. Every war ever fought, both religious and non religious has involved technology. War has motivated more advancement in technology that maybe any area of culture. Technology is also the reason we are worrying about global warming and the future of the earth. Technology has deforested the earth, polluted rivers and the air, etc. Based on just these selective doom and gloom data points, and the curve we would draw through these actual data points, we could argue technology is harmful to society. I am not saying this is true but shows how selective data can cause use to draw a fantasy curve.

 

In the case of technology, we would not data stack this way, but will make sure we include all the data points, including the good ones such as farm and medicine technology, to draw the reality curve. In spite of this doom and gloom sub-curve, all the data draws a good curve. The same is true of religion. If we data stack via the media template of emotional appeal for drama, we get the wrong curve. The negative data may be valid data but it is not all the data.

 

The missionary donating their time in a poor country helping the people learn to farm is part of the data. Reverend Martin Luther King helping to spear head the civil right movement is part of the data. These data points leave the linear curve of doom and gloom. The best fitting curve will have extra curvature unless will use political pseudo-science, where data stacking is business as usual.

[charles brough]

Ahmabeliever, you sound exactly like those preachers that pick a handful of verses and base a whole ideology around it. Your final comments are crass and insulting. You have the right to believe what ever you will and the christians have their rights as well. As far as I can tell, you have

not stated why religion is harmful, but just have ranted about your bad experiences. Please provide back up to support why religion is harmful to society.

 

I agree. Despite all the faults Christianity has from our now secular perspective, it built up our civilization from among the Goths and vandals to where by the 16th century we were the most advanced civilization on Earth. Then, we had science and the secular age on top of that but still on a social foundation of the old and increasingly antiquated faith. We just need to replace the whole combination and start building a whole new civilization on a better whole belief system.

[HydrogenBond]

What religion and non-religion have in common is law and the way law is stored in the brain. Law is a two-sided coin that contains both the positive emotional valence associated with the acceptable behavior and the negative emotional valence associated with the consequences of violating the law. For example, if you obey the speed limit you are a good citizen. This makes you feel safe and positive. If you violate the speed limit the police will pull you over and give you a fine. You may also increase the odds of an accident, etc. This side of the law coin has imagery of fear, anxiety, etc. Although it is one thing, it has two separate emotions attached depending on which side you look at. All law works this way.

 

In religion, places like heaven and hell symbolize the two storage areas where the good and bad sides of laws are stored. In other words, if you look at what is considered hell, it has all the people/behavior who took the path of the negative side of the coin of law. I am not saying this is true, only that it reflects how the brain associates the two sided law coin. Heaven has all the behavior associated with the good side of all the moral laws.

 

Where religious style negativity can get extreme is when there is an overlap between a single negative association and the bulk association associated with the negative sides of law coins. For example, the terrorists may lump the infidel with everything evil even if there is no proof of this. Just being an American lumps you with everything in that negative bin. That one negative feeling triggers the entire memory block so now the infidel is a composite of all that is in that negative block.

 

The brain appears to be able to distinguish where the data should go. For example, killing should go into the negative pile. So even if we rationalize killing and try to place it in the good pile, it still goes into the negative pile. The affect that occurs, is one may be thinking they are doing good by themselves, but the natural association pulls up the opposite pile. The result is the behavior can get darker and darker. The terrorists rationalize the good of their actions based on their laws, but their behavior triggers the bad pile. Their outlook toward the enemy and their behavior toward innocent civilians is consistent with the negative pile even with lip service to the good pile.

 

In the first century, the first Christians saw this affect. They preached doing away with laws or commandments contained in ordinances because of this very reason. They said it is not what enters the mouth that defiles the man but what comes out of the mouth. What comes out of the mouth comes from the heart or an emotional association. They said, sin is not imputed where there is no law. Without law, one does not add to sin association to the negative pile. If we stack on the law-sin, a minor violation can trigger the entire pile causing people to stone you to death.

 

It is not religion that is the problem but the way law is stored in the brain. Even the atheists can still get this affect due to inner polarization. For some, the word religion is enough to trigger the negative pile. Even if someone never did anything from the dark side of history, they get lumped with all that negativity. George Bush was a good example of an atheists affect. His very name could trigger the bad pile. It is not religion but is the same affect and may be due to piling on more atheist moral law via PC. Sin is not imputed where there is no law. But even the atheists added new sins to the pile enforced with fear.

[REASON]

What religion and non-religion have in common is law and the way law is stored in the brain.....

 

.....It is not religion that is the problem but the way law is stored in the brain.

 

So you believe it is not religion that is harmful to society, but rather the way we store laws in our brains that is harmful. :)

 

The idea of distinguishing reason from delusion in the development of our perception of reality has no bearing as you see it. Is that correct?

 

 

To me, the question here is:

 

Is it harmful to society to delude ourselves through religion for the sake of coping with a challenging existence and the fear of death by believing that a higher power can give us strength, guidance, and hope?

 

If this were the only purpose of religion, I would say no.

 

But in order to generate such a belief among the masses, religious doctrines and scriptures must be continually promoted as credible and authoritative. One thing that helps to enhance that authority is that scriptures are old and have stood the test of time. I often hear my religious friends tell me that they believe in the Bible because it hasn't changed (at least that's what they think) and that science is unreliable because it changes all the time. They place their faith in that which they perceive to be stable and eternal.

 

The irony is that because these scriptures and doctrines are old, the information they contain, particularly about the natural world, is completely out of date and is not at all reflective of what we have come to understand about the universe through scientific research. This creates a conflict. Religions that have staked their existence on the credibility of their scriptures find that they have to cast doubt on the science that threatens the worldview of their indoctrinated followers, and thereby threatens the existence of their religion.

 

So it has also become the purpose of religion (not all) to convince their parishioners to distrust science, and to impede our understanding of the reality of the natural universe, which can only be revealed through science.

 

In this regard, I believe religion has been and continues to be, harmful to society.

[Ahmabeliever]

OK, I'm a bit passionate about this subject. But if I upset some folks, it is their problem, their reaction. The thread title asks the question, and yes, you got my opinion.

 

I studied the bible as a Scripture Union merit student for 8 consecutive years.

 

Christianity brough civilisation??? What???

 

So, the mayans were not a civilisation? Or the Incans? Or...? Or....?

 

Religion may have been useful, it is now a crutch that is hindering the human race trying to walk forwards. It is anti science and anti social.

 

Yes, we have trouble dealing with death, isolation, immortality, purpose.

 

Get a reason for living worthy of supporting a life. Dependants you love, or a mission to help somebody/somewhere/something, or invent/create, or just contribute in some meaningful way. It doesn't take God to make good people, it just takes people.

 

Religion takes money from our poorest neighbourhoods every week since the first church got built there. And then they give a small percentage back.

 

Considering the money is taken on false pretenses, I call that theft. On a grand and unprecedented scale.

[Moontanman]

OK, I'm a bit passionate about this subject. But if I upset some folks, it is their problem, their reaction. The thread title asks the question, and yes, you got my opinion.

 

I studied the bible as a Scripture Union merit student for 8 consecutive years.

 

Christianity brough civilisation??? What???

 

So, the mayans were not a civilisation? Or the Incans? Or...? Or....?

 

Religion may have been useful, it is now a crutch that is hindering the human race trying to walk forwards. It is anti science and anti social.

 

Yes, we have trouble dealing with death, isolation, immortality, purpose.

 

Get a reason for living worthy of supporting a life. Dependants you love, or a mission to help somebody/somewhere/something, or invent/create, or just contribute in some meaningful way. It doesn't take God to make good people, it just takes people.

 

Religion takes money from our poorest neighbourhoods every week since the first church got built there. And then they give a small percentage back.

 

Considering the money is taken on false pretenses, I call that theft. On a grand and unprecedented scale.

 

Religion, has been getting pass for theft since the very beginning. Anytime you get an organization that brings in huge amounts of money but doesn't have to pay taxes or even account for the money you are asking for corruption. At the very least religion should pay taxes and account for every dime brought in.

 

At one time religion may have been a positive but in

modern times it's just a parasite sucking the life's blood from society and doing little except promoting it's own existence. Yes religion helps people but the amount of money that goes toward helping vs the amount that goes toward estates for preachers or new Churches is an unknown and suspect for that reason. I see no reason that religion needs huge palatial buildings nor do i see that preachers need to have a live style that would qualify them for life styles of the rich and famous. If indeed Jesus was a real man and even half of the things written about him were true then he deserves much respect for going against the powers that be in his time, for helping the poor and sick, for devoting his life to helping others. But I do notice he didn't collect money for his help, live in a palace or spend huge sums of money on his personal possessions. I see no connection between the Jesus of the bible and the religion that calls it's self Christianity.