Religion, it's hard to come up with a single answer.

[strigori]

I think A root cause is maybe a better way of putting it than THE root cause. Of course the root cause of war, rape, murder, etc. is, to put it broadly, the human condition. But you seem to be forgetting about the large swaths of people that aren't murderers, who don't or wouldn't participate in genocide, and who generally aspire to lead ethical lives that maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering.

 

What makes religion uniquely dangerous as an ideology is the overlap of two unfortunate things: the complete inability to logically justify its teachings on any subject and an overwhelming emotional component that overrides the minds of otherwise reasonable people. It isn't just something people believe. It's in many cases how they think. And how people think directly affects how they behave. If you think that your lawn mower breaking down is a sign from Allah that he wants the grass to grow taller, you're going to have tall grass. If you think that the lawnmower broke down because a wire came loose and you take it to a repair shop, they'll fix the mower and you'll mow your lawn. You seem to be vastly understating, particularly in the case of Islam, just how infectious it has been, how many nations find themselves in theocracy because of it, and how many political decisions are given to religious leaders because the people believe that it is the will of Allah, and can be shepherded to do almost anything because they have the belief that anyone who does not accept Allah is an enemy, and not say, for example, the belief that all human beings should be equal.

 

If you think you should help the poor because Jesus thought it was a good idea, it might be that there is a positive social outcome. If you believe that you should help the poor and God hates f**s, there is a mixed social outcome. The problem even with the best case scenario is that you have an extra assumption that can't be validated or verified by any means. A broken clock is right twice a day, but still wrong the rest of the time.

This is where I am coming from.

 

Think there is a reason one of the first lessons the Bible tells is about how knowledge is bad? Think there is a reason why the 'faithful' are continually referred to as sheep?

 

I do think that a great many of the atrocities committed across human history would have been avoided or at least mitigated had religion not played a factor. There IS a reason why religion always seems to pop up in the motivations of the aggressors. When people get whipped up into righteous zealotry they can no longer be reasoned with. Its Their way, or death with no middle ground. There is nothing else that radicalizes a group into extreme action like religion. There just is not.

 

The precursors tend to be similar. A poor, uneducated mass population seeks an answer to their horrible existence with the message that if you do what the religion wants, after you die things will be all good. The religious leaders use another group, always a group outside their religion, to focus the masses anger. Atrocities follow.

[knapplc]

"Religion" is not the problem. Humans are the problem. Let's have a John Lennon moment about religion and just Imagine that it went away tomorrow. Would humans stop behaving ideologically? Would extremism cease? Of course not. Religion, like political ideology, is a human construct, therefore as long as you have humans you will have extremes from one group directed at another.

 

Couch that extremism any way you want - doesn't matter. Call it religion, call it politics, call it nationalism, call it anything. Religion is the gun. Banning guns won't stop the intent behind the use of the gun.

[Husker_x]

"Religion" is not the problem. Humans are the problem. Let's have a John Lennon moment about religion and just Imagine that it went away tomorrow. Would humans stop behaving ideologically? Would extremism cease? Of course not. Religion, like political ideology, is a human construct, therefore as long as you have humans you will have extremes from one group directed at another.

 

Couch that extremism any way you want - doesn't matter. Call it religion, call it politics, call it nationalism, call it anything. Religion is the gun. Banning guns won't stop the intent behind the use of the gun.

 

The difference is firearms made of wood and metal don't emotionally manipulate a person or implant a mythos that explains their world and who their enemies are. I'm don't entirely disagree with you, though. Religion is a weapon that certain opportunistic people can use to line their own pockets or destroy their enemies. But it's also, at least the way I see it, a little more complicated than that.

 

The other thing is that nobody is arguing that eradicating religion fixes all human conflict. The hope is more along the lines of lessening human conflict. Since religion is unique to poverty/race/gender/orientation in that you can't actually prove a single thing about it, it is therefore a needless reason for conflict, but also historically a primary factor in fomenting it. You can go to war because Tribe A doesn't like Tribe B and there's a land dispute. Your task of going to war becomes significantly easier when Tribe A doesn't like tribe B and Tribe B also happens to worship a 'false' or 'bad' god, while Tribe A worships the 'one' 'true' god (or so say the 'divinely' 'appointed' priests).

 

If nothing else, religion can insert the idea into armed conflict that a supernatural being beyond any member of the society that's fighting approves of the war. That excuses the need to think for some people. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Even if it doesn't directly lead to a conflict, it creates a permissive aura around it which makes the likelihood of one greater. It also depends on the religion, too, I suppose.

[knapplc]

"Religion" is not the problem. Humans are the problem. Let's have a John Lennon moment about religion and just Imagine that it went away tomorrow. Would humans stop behaving ideologically? Would extremism cease? Of course not. Religion, like political ideology, is a human construct, therefore as long as you have humans you will have extremes from one group directed at another.

 

Couch that extremism any way you want - doesn't matter. Call it religion, call it politics, call it nationalism, call it anything. Religion is the gun. Banning guns won't stop the intent behind the use of the gun.

 

The difference is firearms made of wood and metal don't emotionally manipulate a person or implant a mythos that explains their world and who their enemies are. I'm don't entirely disagree with you, though. Religion is a weapon that certain opportunistic people can use to line their own pockets or destroy their enemies. But it's also, at least the way I see it, a little more complicated than that.

 

The other thing is that nobody is arguing that eradicating religion fixes all human conflict. The hope is more along the lines of lessening human conflict. Since religion is unique to poverty/race/gender/orientation in that you can't actually prove a single thing about it, it is therefore a needless reason for conflict, but also historically a primary factor in fomenting it. You can go to war because Tribe A doesn't like Tribe B and there's a land dispute. Your task of going to war becomes significantly easier when Tribe A doesn't like tribe B and Tribe B also happens to worship a 'false' or 'bad' god, while Tribe A worships the 'one' 'true' god (or so say the 'divinely' 'appointed' priests).

 

If nothing else, religion can insert the idea into armed conflict that a supernatural being beyond any member of the society that's fighting approves of the war. That excuses the need to think for some people. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Even if it doesn't directly lead to a conflict, it creates a permissive aura around it which makes the likelihood of one greater. It also depends on the religion, too, I suppose.

 

Guns don't manipulate people, but the culture surrounding them does, at least in this country.

 

I get that it's not exactly the same; I'm not saying it is. Humans created religion, therefore if you remove religion, humans will simply transfer those thoughts/feelings/ideas to the next New Thing. Religion is just the medium through which that extremism is expressed. If it's not a supernatural being it's some other Infallible Leader, whether that be Alexander the Great, Pol Pot, Lenin, or Justin Beiber.

[The Dude]

I think we can all agree that banning religion is a bad idea. I don't even want to imagine the religious extremism that would create.

[carlfense]

I think we can all agree that banning religion is a bad idea. I don't even want to imagine the religious extremism that would create.

I wouldn't even consider it. Freedom is a good thing.

[Husker_x]

"Religion" is not the problem. Humans are the problem. Let's have a John Lennon moment about religion and just Imagine that it went away tomorrow. Would humans stop behaving ideologically? Would extremism cease? Of course not. Religion, like political ideology, is a human construct, therefore as long as you have humans you will have extremes from one group directed at another.

 

Couch that extremism any way you want - doesn't matter. Call it religion, call it politics, call it nationalism, call it anything. Religion is the gun. Banning guns won't stop the intent behind the use of the gun.

 

The difference is firearms made of wood and metal don't emotionally manipulate a person or implant a mythos that explains their world and who their enemies are. I'm don't entirely disagree with you, though. Religion is a weapon that certain opportunistic people can use to line their own pockets or destroy their enemies. But it's also, at least the way I see it, a little more complicated than that.

 

The other thing is that nobody is arguing that eradicating religion fixes all human conflict. The hope is more along the lines of lessening human conflict. Since religion is unique to poverty/race/gender/orientation in that you can't actually prove a single thing about it, it is therefore a needless reason for conflict, but also historically a primary factor in fomenting it. You can go to war because Tribe A doesn't like Tribe B and there's a land dispute. Your task of going to war becomes significantly easier when Tribe A doesn't like tribe B and Tribe B also happens to worship a 'false' or 'bad' god, while Tribe A worships the 'one' 'true' god (or so say the 'divinely' 'appointed' priests).

 

If nothing else, religion can insert the idea into armed conflict that a supernatural being beyond any member of the society that's fighting approves of the war. That excuses the need to think for some people. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Even if it doesn't directly lead to a conflict, it creates a permissive aura around it which makes the likelihood of one greater. It also depends on the religion, too, I suppose.

 

Guns don't manipulate people, but the culture surrounding them does, at least in this country.

 

I get that it's not exactly the same; I'm not saying it is. Humans created religion, therefore if you remove religion, humans will simply transfer those thoughts/feelings/ideas to the next New Thing. Religion is just the medium through which that extremism is expressed. If it's not a supernatural being it's some other Infallible Leader, whether that be Alexander the Great, Pol Pot, Lenin, or Justin Beiber.

 

What people in the secular movement are hoping to accomplish is to replace religious thinking with reason. If reason is the new thing, we have a shot to actually solve problems. Bucky was right that religion is usually just a component of a larger political struggle.

[Husker_x]

I think we can all agree that banning religion is a bad idea. I don't even want to imagine the religious extremism that would create.

 

Banning religion only adds another layer of mystery to it. "Why are they banning it if there's nothing to it?" In my worldview I want every idea, even bad ones, to be discussed freely in the light of day.

[knapplc]

What people in the secular movement are hoping to accomplish is to replace religious thinking with reason. If reason is the new thing, we have a shot to actually solve problems. Bucky was right that religion is usually just a component of a larger political struggle.

 

That implies that Reason is the opposite of Religion, doesn't it? I don't believe that to be true. I know many, many people who are more than capable of reasoning - but Christian as the day is long.

 

The issue is not the religious; Religion in its basic form is simply an attempt to explain the world around us. The issue is demagoguery, which the religious may be prone to (for reasons you've listed), but the irreligious are also prone to this, as evinced by the recent Russian elections, or the various dictatorships around the world, both recent and in ages past.

[Husker_x]

What people in the secular movement are hoping to accomplish is to replace religious thinking with reason. If reason is the new thing, we have a shot to actually solve problems. Bucky was right that religion is usually just a component of a larger political struggle.

 

That implies that Reason is the opposite of Religion, doesn't it? I don't believe that to be true. I know many, many people who are more than capable of reasoning - but Christian as the day is long.

 

The issue is not the religious; Religion in its basic form is simply an attempt to explain the world around us. The issue is demagoguery, which the religious may be prone to (for reasons you've listed), but the irreligious are also prone to this, as evinced by the recent Russian elections, or the various dictatorships around the world, both recent and in ages past.

 

I wouldn't say religion is the opposite of reason for a bunch of semantic reasons. I'd say faith is the opposite of reason (faith being a firmly held conviction assumed without evidence and/or in face of all evidence to the contrary). The reason I make that distinction is because no matter how many religious people I talk to of whatever educational background (and I've had discussions with some really, really smart people over the years), no matter what apologist is mounting the curb, there is still not one piece of evidence or reasonable argument that justifies any of the major world faiths. What's interesting to me about the psychology of religion is that perfectly normal, reasonable people can drive cars, hold jobs, make sound plans for the future of themselves and their family--none of which require any supernatural assumptions--but then on Sunday go to a big fancy building and literally believe a cracker is being turned into the flesh of a two thousand year-old Jewish guy. In other words, it's entirely possible to be reasonable on every single topic but one.

 

My question on the second part is what is the difference between the explanations religion gives us about the world and demagoguery? The explanations it gives us about gods, devils, creation, miracles, etc are all without merit and can't be verified. I do agree that non-religious people are not necessarily safe from bad or magical thinking. That's why I advocate skepticism . . .but that's a whole other topic.

[zoogs]

The issue is not the religious; Religion in its basic form is simply an attempt to explain the world around us. The issue is demagoguery, which the religious may be prone to (for reasons you've listed), but the irreligious are also prone to this, as evinced by the recent Russian elections, or the various dictatorships around the world, both recent and in ages past.

 

I agree.

 

Reason and knowledge are ultimate ideals, but many religious people are reasonable, and many non-religious people aren't. If the discussion is going to be "something that is a terrible side of humanity", then that discussion ought to be focused elsewhere.

 

I also agree with X that faith discourages reason in certain areas, but religious people who are 'reasonable' can reconcile this in a lot of ways. And those areas where the biggest differences truly are, tend to be matters of scientific curiosity, and not as significant on the moral level this discussion seems to be focusing on.

[JJ Husker]

I wouldn't /couldn't argue the same thing in my example because it doesn't have anything at all to do with the point I was trying to make. My point is you can't or shouldn't look at only the bad aspects of anything without also looking at the good aspects. Sure 911, radical fundementalism, the crusades, etc. showcase some of the bad things related to religion (just like Phillips & Peter) but then to leap to the conclusion that religion (or NU football) is only a force for bad well that is the same as using a few minority criminals as an example of why all similar minorities are also bad people.

 

If the bad aspects of religion were confined to only a few bad apples I would agree with you but unfortunately they aren't. Extremists aren't prevalent but there are many that support their acts. There are ordinary people ignorantly condoning or suggesting violence against individuals that go against their beliefs. Religion seems to instill the belief, in many of its followers, that they are entitled the moral authority to judge others whose actions or beliefs contradict their own. Religion often overrides logic for its followers and compels them to hold firm to intolerant views. It has many good aspects but until it becomes more accepting I believe that the bad aspects outweigh the good.

I'm not going to argue that extremism or fanaticism in religion isn't responsible for a whole bunch of pain in this world. I just don't see the problem as being religion itself. If people actually followed the real teachings of their religion rather than some off-shoot, radical version, we would be a lot better off. And sure there are some religions/sects/cults that are just plain crazy to begin with. But, for the most part, I think most mainstream religions have pretty good teachings but there will always be "those" people who get our attention by ignoring some of the tenets to allow for aggressive advancement of other ideology. In my mind, that isn't usually the religions fault but rather the result of extremism within particular people.

 

The reason I posted originally was that I did not particularly care for the wall-o-pain posting as a multitude of reasons why religion is bad. #1- I would bet most of those articles are the result of people gone astray from their religious teachings and #2 we are dealing with virtually the whole worlds population. Of course there are going to be an extraordinarily high number of these types of incidents. That is why I thought it appropriate to use Phillips and Peter and NU football as an analogy. There are bad apples everywhere, in every walk of life. Those types of people are going to make headlines. How big does that pool of people get when you're dealing with virtually every person on earth? Of course there are going to be a lot of bad examples. The headline you rarely see is the one about the local church feeding the hungry, housing the poor, etc. It has been my experience that there is a whole lot more of this good stuff going on that never gets recognized. That is why I feel it is misguided to list all the negatives and simply conclude that religion is bad. I understand that people who are predisposed against religion are going to gravitate towards the negative aspects. I'm just trying to offer the other side of the coin because the OP ignored it.

[knapplc]

The issue is not the religious; Religion in its basic form is simply an attempt to explain the world around us. The issue is demagoguery, which the religious may be prone to (for reasons you've listed), but the irreligious are also prone to this, as evinced by the recent Russian elections, or the various dictatorships around the world, both recent and in ages past.

 

I agree.

 

Reason and knowledge are ultimate ideals, but many religious people are reasonable, and many non-religious people aren't. If the discussion is going to be "something that is a terrible side of humanity", then that discussion ought to be focused elsewhere.

 

I also agree with X that faith discourages reason in certain areas, but religious people who are 'reasonable' can reconcile this in a lot of ways. And those areas where the biggest differences truly are, tend to be matters of scientific curiosity, and not as significant on the moral level this discussion seems to be focusing on.

 

As do I, which is one of the major reasons I'm no longer religious. And, as X also said, we're delving into some pretty serious gray areas, so the definitions get more troublesome.

[bennychico11]

I'm not going to argue that extremism or fanaticism in religion isn't responsible for a whole bunch of pain in this world. I just don't see the problem as being religion itself. If people actually followed the real teachings of their religion rather than some off-shoot, radical version, we would be a lot better off. And sure there are some religions/sects/cults that are just plain crazy to begin with. But, for the most part, I think most mainstream religions have pretty good teachings but there will always be "those" people who get our attention by ignoring some of the tenets to allow for aggressive advancement of other ideology. In my mind, that isn't usually the religions fault but rather the result of extremism within particular people.

 

The reason I posted originally was that I did not particularly care for the wall-o-pain posting as a multitude of reasons why religion is bad. #1- I would bet most of those articles are the result of people gone astray from their religious teachings and #2 we are dealing with virtually the whole worlds population. Of course there are going to be an extraordinarily high number of these types of incidents. That is why I thought it appropriate to use Phillips and Peter and NU football as an analogy. There are bad apples everywhere, in every walk of life. Those types of people are going to make headlines. How big does that pool of people get when you're dealing with virtually every person on earth? Of course there are going to be a lot of bad examples. The headline you rarely see is the one about the local church feeding the hungry, housing the poor, etc. It has been my experience that there is a whole lot more of this good stuff going on that never gets recognized. That is why I feel it is misguided to list all the negatives and simply conclude that religion is bad. I understand that people who are predisposed against religion are going to gravitate towards the negative aspects. I'm just trying to offer the other side of the coin because the OP ignored it.

 

I don't ignore it. And it's not as if it's rarely ever publicized...as I just received a letter this afternoon from a friend of my wife's asking us for money for her mission trip to Guatemala. I think the good of religion IS advertised just as much as the bad is. Unfortunately, the bad is typically done in the name of religion. When stuff like hatred of gays is preached from the pulpit...I have a hard time calling it only the doings of a "fringe" sect. When a televangelist who preaches to millions on TV (and subsequently rakes in millions from those same people)...says the Haiti earthquake was the result of a pact the Hatians had with the devil, I find it disturbing that you would say those Christians are only in the minority. When an elected official speaks out against planned parenthood because he believes "children born with disabilities are a punishment from god for abortions", I find it sickening that such mythology has found its way into our political system. When the Catholic League with over 350,000 reported members (who also belong to the largest Christian denomination and is the single, largest, Catholic rights group) states that the victims of pedophile priests are "pitiful malcontents"...I choose not to downplay this as just a select few believers that the rest of the Christian world is trying to disassociate with.

 

You say this is just some crazy, radical branch of religions. A small few who aren't interpreting the TRUE message that you seem to be correctly doing. I'm betting the small few is actually larger that you think they are...and they think YOU are misinterpreting the message. They would most likely say you are only preaching the parts of the Bible that you like and not the rest that you disagree with. So how are we going to determine who is right and who isn't? My solution is to not accept any of it...and use reason and your experiences in this natural existence as reality and truth as we know it. Which oddly enough (even though I don't believe it myself), doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a potential existence of a god that you may choose to believe in when trying to find answers to questions you may have. It ONLY has to do with rejecting interpretations from ancient holy books and sects created from these interpretations. I think only then, we'd be able to separate the fringe, crazy few from the ones who actually want to live and cooperate in society.

 

(as a side note, I didn't create the above graphic...I just found it and thought to share it)

[huKSer]

Religion, it's hard to come up with a single answer.

 

 

The answer is 42. Duh