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.
My personal problem is the lack of convincing arguments that religion is good.
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].
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.
Anecdotally in my case (Orthodox Christian) it was a dive into classical philosophy that opened me to religion.
Looking at my own country many people simply feel that they have no need for religion. Instead of going to church on Sunday why not watch Netflix in bed?
This is quite wrong - the main beneficial function of religion is to provide an institutional framework for enhancing social capital and the overall "sense of community", which is a critical antidote (far more so than "welfare" or even private charity) against social exclusion and marginalization for the most vulnerable in society. The only states which try to take over this function altogether are totalitarian states - in fact, even in many authoritarian or otherwise dysfunctional and unfree states, religion - at least at a "grassroots" level - tends to function in practice as a haven for civil society. The only institutions that even compete would be labor unions (in some places), and for obvious reasons these are far less universal in their overall outlook.
I think my country has proven that if there is less necessity to turn to religious institutions a society can start the path to secularization.
I would argue that the more religious the less one is inclined to broader reading and philosophy because the practice is usually constrained to one's own religious ideologies.
Going into the realm of personal experience, I made the choice to go to church as a child, and reading the bible expanded my horizons to lots of other religious texts and eventually philosophy and literature. My closest friends in this hobby and discipline started the same way as well.
I am not positing that it opens everyone to philosophy and new ideas (as it is deeply steeped in tradition), but that it opens those who may already be interested and gives them an "in".
"Universal human rights" feels like a more modern wording for "God-given lifestyle". They are beneficial, but also as irrational as any religion before them, and rely on supernatural origin to make them them non-negotiable.
This is definitely not typical of religion unless by "philosophy" you mean their faith's religious text.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p...
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Giv...
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...
>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.
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 :-)
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.
That seems counter intuitive, and everything I'm seeing on an initial search says the opposite. Example: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19659985.
The aggregate conclusion I'm seeing is that smarts corresponds with a small bump in happiness.
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.
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-relig...
Religious populations that murder irreligious people are bad, and not worth defending. That is likely a type of suffering caused by religion.
My argument is that participating in religious activity makes an individual person happier, on average, when looking at the data. That should be convincing, given the data I presented.
> 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.
I would have a tough time convincing you that it's true, especially considering that you don't appear to be trying to argue in good faith. But consider the Unitarians. They are mostly focused on personal virtue ethics through religiosity that rejects fundamentalism. I can say that looking at athiest strongholds, such as r/atheism, does not look like a more rational congregation than you might see at your local Unitarian church. The Unitarians are trying to better themselves; r/atheism is mostly focused on tearing down their oppressors.
The claim that religious people are more charitable has not been debunked in this thread, and I would be surprised to see that the evidence points that way in the literature. I've researched it a good bit. "But it's because they give to church" does not fully explain the difference.
>but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
Altruism is not incompatible with self-interest. Additionally, most Christians are not fundamentalists. You can conceptualize Hell as the suffering that you are dealt as a result of your own failures. By giving to charity, you avoid one of these failures, and in doing so also make the world a measurably better place. (Meanwhile the statistically uncharitable atheists still think of themselves as superior, for some reason...)
We have to differentiate between unintelligent and uneducated. For the latter, there are several studies showing that lack of education can mean lack of imagination of alternative. For example in The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen described the phenomenon of rural uneducated Indian women reporting less content with their own health after they received basic health education: Suddenly they were aware that there actually was an alternative to many of their miseries.
I don't accept the claim that religious activity makes everyone involved (at least on the believers' side) happier. In almost all cases there's no control to compare to - you have to compare different people, rather than the same person(s) with & without religion, and then you're back to the causality question.
The question of charity I've responded to in a sibling thread.
I know I am picking on one small part of your argument, but I really hate this line of thinking. So what? Who cares why someone is charitable? I assume most people not doing it in "self-interest" feel good when they do it - does that invalidate the charity? Nobody does anything in a vacuum.
I imagine some atheists may be frustrated to be told that they're not as nice (charitable) because of their rationality.
In any case, to your question 'who cares why someone is charitable?' I'd suggest that it's important if your definition of charity is something along the lines of a voluntary offer of assistance.
If you're coerced into providing assistance -- either by promises of eternal happiness, or threats of eternal suffering -- then it's not so much charity as taxation, or perhaps a promise of remuneration.
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.
But that definition is possibly the only fully consistent and coherent one I've seen that covers everything commonly regarded as a religion; it just covers quite a bit extra, too.
Apples and oranges. You're comparing secular states with religious ones.
>In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.
The communist block says hi. China salutes you as well.
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.
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.
is key.
Right, and you don't need a running club to motivate you to run or a school to help you learn. But for a lot of people, they sure do help if being charitable/running/learning is your goal.
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.”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?
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.
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?