Are Efforts to Whitewash Religions Dangerous?

[Sunstone]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I agree with it. Pagans are sometimes simultaneously perpetrators and victims of this sort of thing. When we talk about 'the ancients' or the societies that existed before Christianity became widespread, we (meaning me as well) sometimes tend to view them through rose-tinted glasses. The ancients were paragons of virtue; their societies were egalitarian utopias where religious and individual rights were guaranteed.

The sad truth is they were not - they were all far more repressive than many Western societies today. The worship of the Old Gods was usually enforced by law or social pressure, racism & xenophobia abounded and women were by-and-large treated as second class citizens.

 

[Erebus]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

I agree with the statement. The idea that true religion can never do harm is something that very dangerous people can hide behind. It only takes a minor distortion of logic to view it like this: "Of course I'm not doing harm, I'm a true [insert religion here]"

I prefer to view religion as roughly analogous to a hammer. One person will use it to build a house, another will use it to beat somebody to death. The hammer itself is neither good nor bad, but it can be used for either.

 

[LuisDantas]

I very much agree with the statement.

Religions are various approaches about nurturing and directing motivation.

It is rather obvious that a reliable way of telling good from harm is not an inherent part of the package, and by pretending otherwise we end up inviting the spread of unchallenged, unquestioned harm.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Whitewashing implies political deceit or manipulation of other people, and the statement overlooks how often that happens. I think that statement confuses two groups of people by confusing whitewashing with beliefs. To me whitewashing is when someone not believing the religion covers for it, installs it into other people. They encourage other people to believe in something that they themselves do not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

Yes, I do.

I think there can sometimes be a disconnect between an adherent's personal beliefs and the official beliefs of their religion, or the actions of "extreme" elements. I've talked to plenty of liberal adherents who try to argue that those less liberal parts of their religion have nothing to do with them, despite the fact that they fund them with their weekly tithes and lend them authority by standing up to be counted as members of their church. I see a strong tendency by these adherents to whitewash their religion to divest themselves of responsibility for the actions they enable despite disagreeing with them.

Jeff Dee (one of the hosts on the Atheist Experience and the Non-Prophets) makes an interesting point: there are plenty of believers who really only support parts of their holy books but say they support the whole thing. He argues that as long as they do this - instead of editing down their holy books to a version that only includes the parts they support - they share responsibility for the other believers who do take those parts seriously, even if they *say* they're opposed to homophobia, misogyny, witch-burning, killing apostates, rejection of science, or whatever else is in the parts that they don't actually agree with but tacitly support as part of a package of beliefs. In general, I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

[Laika]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

Disagree, to a point. its too simplistic to think "religion is bad". The problem is less the whitewashing, and more the reason for it; the belief that a religion is intrinsically good by virtue of believing it to be true. Anyone who thinks they are intrisically good no matter the consequences, is on a dangerous path. The reverse, that religion is intrinsically evil regardless as to whether a religious person does good, is just as bad in terms of the level of bigotry and prejudice. It may be a somewhat nietzschean view but accepting that people- and therefore all religions and belief systems- is capable of both good and evil is discomforting but at least you can accept responsibility for your actions rather than believing they are necessitated by a higher law or higher power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Disagree, to a point. its too simplistic to think "religion is bad".

It would be... if that was what was claimed. Do you think it's fair or honest to characterize "religion sometimes does harm" as the blanket statement "religion is bad"?

 

[Laika]

It would be... if that was what was claimed. Do you think it's fair or honest to characterize "religion sometimes does harm" as the blanket statement "religion is bad"?

Yes in so far as the statement is making religion, rather than human beings, the cause of harm. it is then only a question of degrees between the two when we think religious belief is the source of harm. human beings can be good and evil. belief systems- which admittedly playing a role in how people behave- do not fundamentally change "why" people behave in one way or another. they do not have moral qaulitites independent of the people who believe and practice them. it is also rather nieve to think behaviour and religions can be divided neatly into "right" and "wrong" as life is more mixed than abstract moral standards. religion is not the source harmful behaviours but provides an ideological system to rationalise it as "god's will".

 

[Erebus]

I think there can sometimes be a disconnect between an adherent's personal beliefs and the official beliefs of their religion, or the actions of "extreme" elements. I've talked to plenty of liberal adherents who try to argue that those less liberal parts of their religion have nothing to do with them, despite the fact that they fund them with their weekly tithes and lend them authority by standing up to be counted as members of their church. I see a strong tendency by these adherents to whitewash their religion to divest themselves of responsibility for the actions they enable despite disagreeing with them.

This is an interesting angle on the topic and one I hadn't considered before. I suppose it's all too easy not to think about where your money (and therefore your support) is going.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes in so far as the statement is making religion, rather than human beings, the cause of harm.

I'd love to see the argument you think you're arguing against. It doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the arguments that anyone here are making.

Where did you get "rather than human beings" from?

BTW: the correct answer was "no". Your mischaracterization of the quote in the OP was neither fair nor honest.

it is then only a question of degrees between the two when we think religious belief is the source of harm. human beings can be good and evil. belief systems- which admittedly playing a role in how people behave- do not fundamentally change "why" people behave in one way or another. they do not have moral qaulitites independent of the people who believe and practice them.

Let me get this straight:
- belief systems affect how people behave
- belief systems do not have moral qualities
- therefore, behaviour has no moral implications?

That's the implication of what you just argued.

it is also rather nieve to think behaviour and religions can be divided neatly into "right" and "wrong" as life is more mixed than abstract moral standards.

The only person besides you who even mentioned "right"/"wrong" or "good"/"evil" in this thread did so to disagree with characterizing things this way. Whatever argument you're arguing against is only in your own head.

religion is not the source harmful behaviours but provides an ideological system to rationalise it as "god's will".

So you don't disagree with the claim that religion is sometimes harmful; you just acknowledge that this sort of religion (like all religion) comes from some other source or sources?

 

[Quintessence]

I suppose I don't really see the point of making the statement about religion at all, rather than simply humans or reality in general.

 

[Thana]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

Mm, I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence. On one hand I agree since the statement is essentially 'Generalizing is harmful' which is true. On the other hand, I don't think religion is much of anything. It's the people who are at fault, not the religion. It's capabilites are nil. It's a tool that can do nothing on it's own.

I think the more we blame religion, the less responsibility people are expected to take for their actions and their beliefs.

 

[atanu]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

How can any sweeping assertion, including this assertion, be correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose I don't really see the point of making the statement about religion at all, rather than simply humans or reality in general.

Depends on the context. If we're talking about religion as an individual choice, then sure: it's so diverse that there's no statement we could make about "religion" that would be universally true.

As a societal phenomenon, though, it becomes easier to pin down specifics. If we're looking at the net effects of religion overall, or umbrella religious groups, the more "fringe" beliefs become unimportant to the overall net effect of religion (while still being important to individual adherents); no matter how passionately some individual or coven of a half-dozen peole feel about their special, unique beliefs, they don't even register as a rounding error when compared with, say, Sunni Islam, Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Southern Baptist Convention.

Also, it's worth pointing out that there's one important area where we treat religion as an unquestionable good: tax and charity laws. If it's unjustified to make blanket statements about "religion", then it's unjustified to automatically treat religious organizations as charities (which assumes that they're a societal good). If religion is neither good nor bad, and individual religions' morality is just a diverse expression of the morality of its adherents, then religiosity is absolutely useless as a marker for charitableness.

 

[Scott C.]

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why or why not?

I'll only respond with regard to Christianity. There's nothing in true Christianity that has ever or will ever encourage anyone on heaven or earth to do evil. False versions of Christianity may encourage evil to one degree or another. People may also pervert Christian principles at a personal level to justify their evil acts. And there are some Christians that chose to do evil rather than to do what their religion teaches. Also, every Christian, no matter how well they understand true Christianity, and no matter how hard they try to always do good, they will make mistakes. I don't call that evil, but rather human weakness that shows our dependence on God to improve. If someone observes what they consider to be evil behavior from a Christian, the observer may be correct or he may be confusing good for evil, out of ignorance or bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll only respond with regard to Christianity. There's nothing in true Christianity that has ever or will ever encourage anyone on heaven or earth to do evil. False versions of Christianity may encourage evil to one degree or another.

Since "religion" would refer both to whatever you consider "true Christianity" as well as whatever you consider "false Christianity" (as well as other religions of all description), is this your way of agreeing with the OP?

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose I don't really see the point of making the statement about religion at all, rather than simply humans or reality in general.

Religion is a human activity, and it does have a purpose.

Excusing it from the consequences of pursuing its goals and fulfilling its purpose strikes me as both dangerous and dishonest.

Besides, if we are excusing religion from the blame of what encourages and choosing to blame "humans" instead, does it not have to follow that religion can't claim the merits of what good it does either?

 

[EtuMalku]

Religion itself is dangerous . . . . period.

 

[Laika]

I'd love to see the argument you think you're arguing against. It doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the arguments that anyone here are making.

Where did you get "rather than human beings" from?

BTW: the correct answer was "no". Your mischaracterization of the quote in the OP was neither fair nor honest.

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash religions do more harm than good. The claim that religions only encourage people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm religions sometimes do."

Religion is attributed as the source of moral agency. "people" are "encouraged" by religion- but religion does not exist independently of people believing it. you can replace the word religion with god and it means the same thing.

"However well meaning they might be, efforts to whitewash God do more harm than good. The claim that God only encourages people to do good, and never --- if properly understood -- encourage people to do evil, is a dangerous claim that ignores the harm Gods sometimes do."

So in otherwords, the quote began with the assumption that religion is a moral agent of good and evil independent of the believer who is "encouraged" to behave a certian way. My post was an attempt to recognise and correct that wrong assumption. Man is the source of behaviour, of good and evil- not religion.

Let me get this straight:
- belief systems affect how people behave
- belief systems do not have moral qualities
- therefore, behaviour has no moral implications?

That's the implication of what you just argued.

behaviour has moral implications, but beliefs do not necessarily lead to behaviour. Someone can believe something without ever acting on it. hypocrisy and inconsistency as human attributes as opposed to the insistence on absolutes in religious ideologies. To use a metaphor, human motivation is a light going through a lens of different beliefs. the lens can affect how the "light" of human motiation is scattered or coloured but it is not the source of the light.

The only person besides you who even mentioned "right"/"wrong" or "good"/"evil" in this thread did so to disagree with characterizing things this way. Whatever argument you're arguing against is only in your own head.

So you don't disagree with the claim that religion is sometimes harmful; you just acknowledge that this sort of religion (like all religion) comes from some other source or sources?

to paraphrase an NRA slogan.

Religion doesn't kill people. people kill people.

But as I want to acknowledge the complexity of the issue, religion helps rationalise motivations into systems of reasoning and the choice of methods for doing so.