11 ms·

This is normal. Everything has its dark sides: religion, science and even software engineering. My personal problem is the lack of convincing arguments that re

This is normal. Everything has its dark sides: religion, science and even software engineering. My personal problem is the lack of convincing arguments that religion is good.

challenger22 7y ago
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. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p... https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Giv...
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  Religious people are happier than non-religious people. Interestingly, when we start talking about countries, not individual people, the trend reverses: atheistic countries are the happiest. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018-un-world-happiness-report-most-atheistic-and-socially-well-off-countries-are-the-happiest-while-religious-countries-are-poor-and-unhappy/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018...
  - vekker 7y ago
    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.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    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 :-)
  - challenger22 7y ago
    >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.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  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.
  - pnongrata 7y ago
    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.
    - challenger22 7y ago
      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.
      - dylan604 7y ago
        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.
        umvi 7y ago
        > 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.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > 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.
  - kcmastrpc 7y ago
    > 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.
    - Jedd 7y ago
      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. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-relig...
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    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.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  Drunk people are happier than sober people
  - jorangreef 7y ago
    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.”
nostalgk 7y ago
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.
- arethuza 7y ago
  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].
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    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.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      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.
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        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.
- 7y ago
galangalalgol 7y ago
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.
jorangreef 7y ago
I think your point is genuine, but would it be fair to rephrase your personal problem as the lack of convincing arguments... as far as you are aware? Also, just to point out something you take for granted: You use the word "good" in your argument. What is your standard of "good"ness? Is it an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil? Or is it whatever the loudest voice in the room demands it to be?
- username90 7y ago
  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.
  - jorangreef 7y ago
    "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?
francisofascii 7y ago
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.

This is normal. Everything has its dark sides: religion, science and even software engineering. My personal problem is the lack of convincing arguments that religion is good.

challenger22 7y ago

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. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p... https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Giv...

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Religious people are happier than non-religious people. Interestingly, when we start talking about countries, not individual people, the trend reverses: atheistic countries are the happiest. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018-un-world-happiness-report-most-atheistic-and-socially-well-off-countries-are-the-happiest-while-religious-countries-are-poor-and-unhappy/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018...
- vekker 7y ago
  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.
- arethuza 7y ago
  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 :-)
- challenger22 7y ago
  >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.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
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.
- pnongrata 7y ago
  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.
  - challenger22 7y ago
    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.
    - dylan604 7y ago
      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.
      - umvi 7y ago
        > 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.
Jedd 7y ago
> 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.
- kcmastrpc 7y ago
  > 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.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    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. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-relig...
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  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.
ykevinator 7y ago
Drunk people are happier than sober people
- jorangreef 7y ago
  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.”

nostalgk 7y ago

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.

arethuza 7y ago
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].
- Fellshard 7y ago
  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.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    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.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      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.
7y ago

galangalalgol 7y ago

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.

jorangreef 7y ago

I think your point is genuine, but would it be fair to rephrase your personal problem as the lack of convincing arguments... as far as you are aware? Also, just to point out something you take for granted: You use the word "good" in your argument. What is your standard of "good"ness? Is it an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil? Or is it whatever the loudest voice in the room demands it to be?

username90 7y ago
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.
- jorangreef 7y ago
  "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?

francisofascii 7y ago

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.