Metaphysics aside, is the world better off with or without religion? Secularists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens argue that religion has been a malevolent force in human history and should be eradicated. Others disagree with some of the doctrinal claims of religion but believe that on the whole it is a force for good in the world. The faithful regard religion as the greatest gift of all. Where do you stand?
Robert Sirico argues in The Australian (21/7/08) that the Judeo-Christian tradition has been an agent of freedom from the state. I note that this has not always been the case but the article is still a worthwhile read.
Click here to watch a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath on the topic ‘Poison or Cure - Religion in the Modern World’.
Some people simply cant bear the thought that death might be the end of it all.
To these people i ask; what was life like before you were born?
- errrrrr
Some people just want answers. (It doesnt really matter how these answers came about or how they are justified)
- the machine needs all pieces to work.
Humanity requires control. Religoin epitomises control.
- can we improve the machine?
Are other forms of social control ‘better’ than religion?
- a colour inbetween white and black.
What I find intriguing in the renewed debate about religion (being fought by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris) is how militant the athiests are becoming. It’s no longer enough to simply be a non-believer; one must now passionately advocate that religion - a malevolent force in society - should be overthrown. For all the harm religion has done over the years and continues to do (and, don’t get me wrong, there’s a whole bloody lot of it), religion has also done a lot of good. For example, what would happen to the homeless in Sydney without the excellent services of various religious organisations? To be realistic, there aren’t a whole lot of non-secular and government services doing the work that religious organisations do for the homeless. The provision of foreign aid is another example (although there is a lot more help these days from government and non-religious organisations).
As such, I don’t think it’s entirely warranted to simply call for the abolishment of religion. At any rate, it won’t happen, nor could it be successful. People hold religion at the core of their identities. Whats more, any attempts to eradicate religion would cause enormous global conflict and, as a result, many times more pain and suffering than is caused by leaving things as they are.
That being said, we should confront those aspects of religion which do cause harm. For example, it is completely indefensible and morally reprehensible that the Catholic Church should refuse to endorse the use of condoms. Because of this ridiculous animosity to contraception, the lives of millions of people (particularly in parts of Africa) have been jeopardised. The Catholic Church has blood on its hands, all because of its misguided beliefs. I’m not calling for the Catholic Church to be abolished, but I certainly think it needs to be pressured to get rid of the harmful parts of its dogma, and the same is true of other religions.
I should state from the outset I am a Christian and therefore of course I come from a viewpoint of a particular view.
From the limited exposure I have had with guys like Dawkins and Hitchen’s and various conversations I have had it appears that many of the arguments that are put forward have more to do with the institution of ‘church’ rather than God or something like that. I agree that the Church has stuffed up in the past but I do wonder if just beacuse humanity has done wrong does not mean that God does not exist.
Yeah, good post. It’s important to seperate the sinful actions of the church from the righteous teachings of the bible.
If we look at the question with ‘metaphysics aside’ we can see that religion throughout history almost appears as a blank slate upon which humanity paints itself.
Religious organisations have been, throughout time, forces for freedom and, in equal parts, forces of oppression. The way that such things manifest themselves is entirely based upon the situation of the time. The same God that inspired Martin Luther King Jr. was used in Rwanda to justify genocide. The same religion that gave rights to womyn in Arabia, now is used through quasi-religious laws to oppress them.
Those who speak of religion as merely a means of oppression do so ignoring the societal situations of the time. Richard Dawkins and his ilk blabber on with arrogant tones about the savagery of religion heedless of the fact that the two greatest crimes of the 20th Century were done by Atheist states.
The basis of Western science, philosophy and literature were not only composed in the secular fires of recent centuries, but in the Universities of Islamic Spain, in the science of the strongly religious Isaac Newton and the literary minds of those who thought science bought them closer to God.
Science is held up by secularists as the be all and end all.. the great explainer of existence. It was science that bought us Zyklon B, the H-Bomb, nerve gas and the phones playing annoying RnB on public transport, and science is not to blame for these. Yet religion is blamed for the wrong done by humanity. Simply because one says that oppression is done for the sake of God, does not mean that God is behind it. ‘Verily Allah loves not the oppressors’.
To conclude, a hammer can be used for destruction or building, we do not blame the hammer for the destruction it reaps, we blame the one who wields it. We can blame religion all we want for the problems we see in the world, but remove religion and there will still be rich and poor, oppressors and the oppressed. A fanatic is a fanatic, and an atheist fanatic is as bad as any, trust me, I was one.
That was a very good post, Will. I agree with every word and especially these words: “a hammer can be used for destruction or building, we do not blame the hammer for the destruction it reaps, we blame the one who wields it.”
Will,
I totally agree. Too many people are on an anti-religion bandwagon pretending that it is an institution responsible for the worlds problems.
Hitler wasn’t defined by his religion, yet he and his followers were more than capable of genocide.
People mock religion for the faults of humanity. And all the while take a moral high ground for “seeing through” the “delusion of institutionalised religion”.
I invite those aggressively against religion to consider the works of communism, a distinctive a-religious construct, yet historically oppressive, fallible and essentially corrupted.
Stop blaming religion and start blaming people.
As a Christian who believes in grace (Jesus’ death taking the penalty that I deserve), I regard many of the criticisms of ‘religion’ valid, albeit sometimes ill-informed. Michel Onfray in the ‘Atheist Manifesto’ deserves particular derision. Religion is neither inherently good nor evil. Turning on the news reveals there is a problem beyond that of ‘religion’; Humans are bad.
Which raises the question. What constitutes a religion? Is Atheism a religion? There appears to be a push for evangelical atheism, at least amongst academics. It definitely is a metanarrative, but could we suggest it is a religion? Marxism a religion? I don’t think we need to be constricted by concepts of religion requiring a ‘traditional’ god figure.
Thoughts? Shut downs? Etc?
Muz,
I agree that many evils are sometimes misattributed to religion when they should be imputed to human beings. I’m not a religious person but I find that, on the whole, most religious teachings are either good for society or harmless. Very few (and they’re not found in all religions of course) can be characterised as harmful.
To answer your question about what constitutes a religion, perhaps there is a kernel of truth in the proposition that atheism is a religion. At the end of the day, however, I’m with Mark Schnitzius who said, “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.
It probably depends on how broadly you define religion, which is a largely semantic question. I personally don’t believe we should broaden the definition to include systems of belief that reject everything the word religion has always stood for.
Looking over my post, I need to correct something.
Evangelical atheism is a misnomer - atheism has nothing to do with sharing the gospel. Whoops.
Bald hair colour, the point remains. As you concede, you can even construe atheism as a religion. Therefore there is nothing inherent within the construct of a metanarrative concerning life which is fundamentally more prone to evil or badness.
There is a stencil near the 400 Bus stop at top campus that says ‘How many atheists are car bombers…
Question religion’
I wanted desperately to make my own stencil of Hitler and Stalin… with underneath stencil letters saying ‘Question Atheists’
Religion is great. Rules that are assumed to have the same effect on all different people and circumstances - not so great. What I mean by religion (and i get this from people like William James, and William Blake) is an individual’s personal religion from which he gains vitality and keeps his focus.
You don’t need a ‘God’ to have religion, its about a higher power, which you could be (part of) your own self.
From this classification, religion is definitely a boon. It is the presumption that a single religion fits for everyone that hurts.
