OK, as an atheist I generally think the world would be a lot better off if there were no religion, since religion has been the cause or excuse of a lot of killing over the years (yes, you could use the argument that many people would find some other excuse, but let’s leave that aside for the moment).
However, recently I got to thinking that some people are not really “good” because they want to be; instead they are “good” because they believe in some eternal reward or damnation, and if it weren’t for that they’d go on killing sprees or whatnot. So does this argument have any merit?
If you’re speaking of a “true” sociopath (i.e., one who has no regard for the rules of society) a set of religious laws won’t control that behavior any more effectively than statutes.
If you’re asking if some people behave only because they fear an external punishment, why is that different than people who obey the law only because they fear getting caught?
Rashak hits the nail on the head in spectacular fashion. Religion is a moral order, it provides us with definitions for right and wrong, good and bad. Every society must have a moral order, it is what defines it as a society, but a moral order need not be based around a concept of a supernatural being. One could just as easily have a moral order based on, as Rashak said, on law, or on science, or on fitness (dig up the life story of Jack LaLanne).
Sociopaths are instances of extreme deviance from the moral order, and that is true regardless of what form the moral order takes.
Certainly there are people whose brains are so messed up that only a firm set of morals and fear of eternal punishment can keep them from acting out violently. “Gee, it says here I’m not supposed to murder! Wow!”
OTOH, there are also those who are just as devoid of natural checks on their behavior, and look in some book that says they are supposed to kill or hate people, and that tips them over the edge into doing so.
I know a lot of Chinese (PRC) who have absolutely no familiarity with any religion at all - ever. I cannot detect any moral diff at all - they know right from wrong without any religion. On the contrary, I am quite sure now - after 61 yrs of obs - that religion IS the root of all evil.
People most commonly turn to violent acts for one of two reasons. First, because violence is the only way for them to get the basic necessities of life. Second, because they succomb to a violent urge during a moment of emotional intensity. For instance, when someone discovers that their spouse is cheating on them, it may motivate them to murder without giving any consideration to the consequences.
A good set of religious values may be helpful in the second case. If someone is capable of always keeping their religious beliefs at the forefront of their mind, then even when that bad moment comes, those religious beliefs could help them keep proper perspective, at least enough to refrain from actual murder. However, a good set of secular values can accomplish the same thing.
Really? That’s a rather extraordinary claim to make. Can you please describe the process by which you arrived at this exceptionally strong conclusion?
Remember, I’m not asking for examples of evil done in the name of religion. I think we can all agree that this happens. Rather, I’d like to know how you determined that ALL evil – without exception – is caused by religion? Failing that, can you at least establish that the majority of evil is rooted in religious belief?
Like I said, I’d like to see if you did indeed arrive at this strong conclusion using some type of systematic methodology. I say this because I find it difficult to imagine how one could ever establish the conclusion that you drew.
Religion provided the postulates, the basic axioms upon which most societies have built the structures of rules and laws in which societies must exist. Often what it did was codify what we are already prewired to accept as right and wrong through years of selective pressures. Sometimes it built upon them so that the whole would benfit more than the individual.
Now there are a set of secular postulates that are allowing multiple religious based structures coexist. People are just as willing to fight for these postulates as any other. To defend freedom. To fight for human rights. To bring democracy to where it does not exist. To defeat tyranny and facism. To make profit, if you are a bit more cynical.
Clearly you cannot have a sociopath without a society with rules that the sociopath is outside of. Clearly religion first defined those rules. Clearly societies can have rules without religions and clearly most people follow those rules.
There are sociopaths who quite sincerely and honestly believe themselves to be guided by religious principles and motivated by religious conviction–consider Jim Jones and Osama bin Laden. I have no doubt both of these men considered themselves to be devout servants of the Lord when they committed their respective crimes.
Or consider Oral Roberts. Here we have a man who is patently a phony faith healer and has bilked his followers out of millions with such silliness as his vision of a 600 foot (or was it a 900 foot?) Jesus. Yet he controls a financial empire worth hundreds of millions, is admired and followed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, and has considerable political clout on the local and state if not the national level.
That’s exactly the kind of scam a sociopath would love. And yet I’m pretty sure that ol’ Oral honestly believes himself to be a good Christian doing the will of his God.
However, those of you who believe religion is the root of all evil should step back, take a deep breath, and calm down. Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions of people in the name of science and reason when in fact they were merely building themselves personal empires, and for much the same sort of reasons that Oral Roberts built his.
Like I said, a sociopath can rationalize anything, and he can use any kind of ideology to do it. The only way to protect ourselves from sociopaths is to keep an eye out for sociopathic attitudes and behavior.
You are forgetting the genius of religion: Someone is always watching you, and will judge you and punish you, even if you commit the perfect crime and cannot be caught by the human authorities.
One of the basic deficiencies with controlling people through secular laws only is that people know that if they don’t get caught there is no punishment. So they find ways to escape detection, and if detected, escape capture (and sometimes, if captured, escape punishment by hiring good layers)
For people who believe in religion, if you do something bad, you cannot escape detection, and you cannot escape punishment.
Religions are not the basis for moral order. I firmly believe that Sir Arthur Clarke nailed it when he said “The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”
He also said “Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.”
Just maybe you overstated your position here. You think maybe greed, and a lust for power may have had some association with evil acts. Certainly religous leaders have been guilty of committing acts of greed and seeking power. Was that because of the religion or was was religion merely the conduit for these charecter flaws that were already there? Think that ever happens in government? Hmmm Let me think.
I beg to differ, Stalin and Mao killed millions in the name of an ideology, not reason, and certainly not science (you´ve heard about Mao´s “cultural revolution”?)
