Does Religion Bashing Serve Any Useful Purpose?

[Sunstone]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Personally, I find bashing of any beliefs, religious or not, an exercise in futility. I prefer to bring alternative options to the table to make a person think about why s/he believes as s/he does, not to bash, but to educate. The choices one makes regarding his/her own beliefs based on the new information is on them.

 

[joe1776]

Useful purpose? I think, for the religion basher, it temporarily satisfies their need to feel superior to others. It's behavior that can be classified as arrogant..

 

[LuisDantas]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions.

Definitely.

Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.

That is a very delicate definition, Phil. We bash things (e.g. certain politicians and political movements) all the time without that being seen with much reservation or necessarily being one-sided. It is not clear to me why religion and pseudo-religion would deserve better treatment.

If anything, movements with strong ideological and theological components deserve more of a challenge than those that are purely ideological. Claims divine guidance and exception, far from being an excuse, ought to be an aggravation, or at least a reason to expect fiercer scrutinity and criticism.

With those understandings, sure, bashing of pseudo-religion is very much useful, even necessary, in order to curtain its excesses and expose its pretentiousness.

As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

That is indeed a very real occurrence and a danger to watch for. But I don't think that is any less true than it is with criticism of political groups. And the dangers of failure to criticize have come to appear very pernicious to me in recent times.

 

[Altfish]

Useful purpose? I think, for the religion basher, it temporarily satisfies their need to feel superior to others. It's behavior that can be classified as arrogant..

In a similar way that preachers and religious apologist criticise atheism, non belief and other religions. They are satisfying their need to be superior.
Atheists don't have a monopoly on this.

 

[Sunstone]

With those understandings, sure, bashing of pseudo-religion is very much useful, even necessary, in order to curtain its excesses and expose its pretentiousness.

Then show me the science that says bashing an ideology or religion is an effective means to changing beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think it largely depends on audience and context, really. If you genuinely feel there is nothing positive about religion and the act of "bashing" said religion is merely the act of speaking your mind, I would say it does serve an important purpose. But perhaps a more clear-cut example would be the purpose of negative criticism in a forum-style debate. For example, the words of Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry in the Intelligence Squared debate on whether or not the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world in 2009 would easily fit within the provided definition of "religion bashing", and yet their words had the exact opposite effect on the live audience that has been described in the OP:

"Now the moment of truth, panel. Let me remind everybody that before the debate, when everybody came in, this is how you voted: for the motion “that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world” 678, against the motion 1102, and the undecideds, the ‘don’t know’s were 346. This is how you voted subsequently: for the motion “that the Catholic church is a force for good” from 678 it’s gone to 268. I’m sorry. Against the motion, it’s now 1876. And you can see that doesn’t leave very many ‘don’t know’s, it’s 34 undecided."
SOURCES: Intelligence² Catholic Church Debate: Transcript

Language is too powerful, malleable and transformative a thing to simply lump all particular intended uses of it into one category and decree it to have the same universal effect. The right words, exclusively negative or exclusively positive, put in the right order and put to the right people have the power to dramatically alter minds. In this sense, I would say religion bashing definitely serves a purpose, at least some times.

 

[joe1776]

Then show me the science that says bashing an ideology or religion is an effective means to changing beliefs.

When encountering the rare open mind, a sound logical argument is the only tool available for the persuasion job.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose religion bashing -- apart from the joyous expression of recreation outrage -- does serve the same purpose as "preaching to the choir". That is, it helps people who share the same views as the basher shore up their views.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then show me the science that says bashing an ideology or religion is an effective means to changing beliefs.

I have none. It may well be that criticizing mishappen ideologies is ineffective as well.

Still, until better options present themselves, what is a person to do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

The effects aren’t just on the current adherents of the religion. If you can I still negative feelings (or at least reduce goodwill) toward a religion in the public at large, then when someone is proselytized to, they’re more likely to be cautious, or when the church goes shopping for influence with government, fewer doors are open to them.

I think this approach has been successful with Scientology, for instance. It may very well be that your average Sea Org member is even more devout than ever because of the increased criticism of their religion over the past couple of decades, but I think that it’s severely curtailed the organization’s growth, which has led to the organization causing much less harm than it might have otherwise.

 

[Sunstone]

I have none. It may well be that criticizing mishappen ideologies is ineffective as well.

Still, until better options present themselves, what is a person to do?

According to the science, bashing doesn't have a merely neutral effect on people, but actually causes them to dig in and cling to their views more adamantly than before. If you want to make strong Christians, bash Christianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose religion bashing -- apart from the joyous expression of recreation outrage -- does serve the same purpose as "preaching to the choir". That is, it helps people who share the same views as the basher shore up their views.

Very often that is exactly right.

Many other times it is the necessary challenge of accomodation in a settled view. Often those are the exact same times, albeit for different people, even.

The very existence of vocal groups challenging certain views can have a powerful effect. Not always for the better, as so nauseously seem in politics, but a powerful effect nonetheless.

It seems to me that one of the reasons why the narrative of the existence of something called "new atheism" took so much traction is because the realization was so new at the time. I still remember how much of a relief it was to realize that there were other people willing to openly declare themselves atheists back in the 1990s or so.

The spread of the Internet had a huge social impact, enabling a wide appreciation of diversity that was not possible before. That resulted in some movements, such as for instance LGBT and "birthers", ended up having a lot more traction than they would otherwise have. On the other hand , some groups found themselves criticized in a scale and frequency that they never really expected to ever meet. It turns out that many of those are reliant on the existence of safe spaces of some sort or another and are perceived as traditional religions.

Hence, it seems to me, the perception that there is excessive religion bashing. It was a figurative dam giving way at long last.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Catharsis.

 

[LuisDantas]

According to the science, bashing doesn't have a merely neutral effect on people, but actually causes them to dig in and cling to their views more adamantly than before. If you want to make strong Christians, bash Christianity.

I want to make strong Christians. I want they to earn my respect. I value those that I meet.

But they better not expect to be spared my criticism simply because they are or claim to be Christians.

 

[LuisDantas]

Catharsis.

That too.

 

[Jumi]

Bashing for it's own sake? No. Debating and asking questions is good though.

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally, I find bashing of any beliefs, religious or not, an exercise in futility. I prefer to bring alternative options to the table to make a person think about why s/he believes as s/he does, not to bash, but to educate. The choices one makes regarding his/her own beliefs based on the new information is on them.

Indeed but often the alternative options are taken as bashing. So this idea of 'bashing' can be seen differently from the opposite sides in a discussion.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think it largely depends on audience and context, really. If you genuinely feel there is nothing positive about religion and the act of "bashing" said religion is merely the act of speaking your mind, I would say it does serve an important purpose. But perhaps a more clear-cut example would be the purpose of negative criticism in a forum-style debate. For example, the words of Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry in the Intelligence Squared debate on whether or not the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world in 2009 would easily fit within the provided definition of "religion bashing", and yet their words had the exact opposite effect on the live audience that has been described in the OP:

"Now the moment of truth, panel. Let me remind everybody that before the debate, when everybody came in, this is how you voted: for the motion “that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world” 678, against the motion 1102, and the undecideds, the ‘don’t know’s were 346. This is how you voted subsequently: for the motion “that the Catholic church is a force for good” from 678 it’s gone to 268. I’m sorry. Against the motion, it’s now 1876. And you can see that doesn’t leave very many ‘don’t know’s, it’s 34 undecided."
SOURCES: Intelligence² Catholic Church Debate: Transcript

Language is too powerful, malleable and transformative a thing to simply lump all particular intended uses of it into one category and decree it to have the same universal effect. The right words, exclusively negative or exclusively positive, put in the right order and put to the right people have the power to dramatically alter minds. In this sense, I would say religion bashing definitely serves a purpose, at least some times.

I swear there was a Catholic Bishop from an African Country (who I think was involved in that debate) and the only one on his "side" who seemed to take the criticism on the chin and was wholly reasonable. It was either that debate or one with Dawkins, I can't quite remember properly. So perhaps one would have to have a reasonably humble person on both sides able to take their lumps, so to speak, in order to have a meaningful dialogue. Because the other two just seemed to grow angrier.

 

[Enlil]

When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it.

But what if you see very little or nothing redeeming in a particular religion? You aren't necessarily out to 'bash' it for no purpose at all (or a cathartic or just-for-the-sake-of-it purpose), it could be that the only critical approach you can take is that one-sided approach. One can still be one-sided in this way but also logical and indeed respectful to the other if not their beliefs. Perhaps we need to distinguish this kind of 'bashing'/criticism from that which is not even respectful to the other person or persons?