And if they aren’t ? Religion gives people a reason to kill that simply wouldn’t exist without it.
And again, religion adds more. And an especially effective one.
But again, religion adds another reason to do so. Even in cultures where slavery isn’t allowed.
I find it amusing that religious apologists like to pretend that religion has no effect at all on human behavior, when religious people do bad things. But when they do good things, then they give all the credit to religion.
Some actions are based on specific ideas and would flatly not be done without that idea. Tellingly, I have yet to meet a religious person that has stated they would not do a given charitable act if their beliefs were proven wrong to their satisfaction and they were to stop believing them and found out that there is no afterworld reward for that action. That says a lot about the value of that religious belief in compelling that particular action.
The point, incidentally, is very useful. The best believers seem to be able to do is say its moot, but they can’t offer a single example. But that’s another thread and isn’t what the OP is about. One step at a time.
That last statement really hits the nail on the head.
In the Hitchens/Prager debate, slavery was brought up by Prager as an example of something secularly good that was done by religious people insofar as the abolition movement which was largely religious-based which is a fact; of course, as Hitchens pointed out, in the sum total of human behavior that had to do with slavery religion was used to justify it in the first place; furthermore, many of the leading abolitionists of the time were not religious.
As to the debate above about religion engendering secular bad, I think it’s fair to state that without religion people would still do bad things. Conceded.
But that isn’t the question. What’s one good thing that **requires **religion to do?
Besides, if that tangential debate were to arrive at the effect of religion on humanity as a whole and even with the fact that man would nonetheless do bad without religion, it’s not as if religion could conceivably argue it’s done more good for the world than bad. That isn’t even close, but again it’s another issue.
But belief in supernatural beings is often just a starting point for most religions (Buddhism is notable exception). From that initial point, there are credos and doctrines that further flesh it out.
In any case, I was just suggesting that to truly answer the question posed by the OP, you’d almost need for there to be a society that exists in some sort of religion/spirituality-free vacuum…
If religion is defined down, for the sake of discussion, to those beliefs that posit afterworld benefits then there probably are belief societies like that.
I’m not sure Buddhism would strictly qualify for that insofar as reincarnation goes.
Definitions
Belief that includes afterworld considerations (Religion)
Secular Bad (SB)
Secular Good (SG)
Requires Religion To Do (RR)
Does Not Require Religion To Do (NR)
Number of SGRRs = 0 (no credible examples yet posited)
Number of SGNR = 100 (using 100s all the way across to propose a ‘wash’)
Number of SBRR = 100 (a generous figure for the sake of argument)
Number of SBNR = 100 (duly noting that bad things are done without religion)
Net Totals: SGNR (SGNR minus SBNR) = 0 (man is about as good as he is bad, without religion)
Net Totals: SGRR (SGRR minus SBRR) = -100 (man is made worse by religion which ‘artificially’ adds more negatives, without which man would be as good as he is bad)
Therefore, religion is a net negative.
Unless, of course, religion’s SGRR is a greater number. So far it’s at zero.
Note that this theory does not suggest that religious people can’t do secularly good things.
SGRR refers to those secular good things that logically **require **religious belief and could not be philosophically conceivable without that belief.
Which apologists are those? That’s certainly not what I’m doing. If I’m understanding the OP correctly the point is any positive contribution attributed to religion could have been made without religion.
For the sake of argument let’s say yes. All the positive things done under the religious label could {not were} have been done without any religious influence. I say so what? Other than a somewhat interesting observation of what use is such a statement?
Furthermore, it seems equally true that every negative act done under the religious label could also have been done for secular reasons. And again, so what?
Would the priest pedophile have been a pedophile whether he was a priest or not? Would the person who hated and murdered and used religion as a justification have found a secular reason to hate and murder? Who can say?
Are there any negative acts committed by under the religious label that have not been committed under the secular label? I can’t think of any.
If the suggestion by Hitchens is that we don’t need religion to do good things I’m pointing out that we don’t need religion to do bad things either and once more, so what?
Well, for one thing it’s an argument against the standard religious claim that religion is necessary.
Of course most of them could have. But would they have been, if the motivation of religion was removed ?
If the reason for the murder was religious, probably not.
As I’ve said over and over, religion adds extensively to people’s motivations to do bad things. People don’t need religion to do bad things, but the existence of religion ensures that they will do more bad things than they would do without it. And when it’s not motivating them, it’s providing them with excuses to do bad things that they otherwise wouldn’t have had an excuse for.
Regardless of your attempts to divert the blame from religion and demonize humanity in order to defend it, most people need a motivation to hurt people or themselves; they aren’t looking for an excuse to do so and just happening on religion as an excuse. Religion motivates people to do bad things; things that they wouldn’t bother to do if they weren’t religious.
I pretty much agree with you; I would add that the human race survived for many centuries before organized religion was established. I am sure there was people who did good and bad things with out it. And hence the need for laws and even the last 7 of the 10 Commandments. Which is based on common sense.
Religion evolved along with humans. Some people use religion for good some use it to further their own excuse to build them selves up. It isn’t the religion it is the person using it that decides if they use it for good or bad.
from you? Your statement doesn’t even have a distant relevance to what I’ve said.
Which I haven’t made.
My question would be , necessary for whom? At what period in their lives? That seems to vary from person to person and I doubt there is any real answer.
We can’t know or even make a reasonably accurate guess. The same goes for good things done with so called religious motives. Would they have been done minus relgious influence or motives?
That’s where I think Hitchens argument is uneven. Is he speaking of just the actions, or is he including a consideration of motive? On the one hand , when considering the positive acts he seems to be speaking of just the action. Feeding the hungry can be done without religious influence. That’s a true statement considering just the action not the motive. Can murder be done without religious influence? Obviously the answer is yes.
When we start second guessing what motives might be the argument becomes a inconclusive mess.
I know you’ve said this over and over. Since after many attempts you’ve provided no reliable data to back it up I’ll decide for myself whether it has merit, just as you are free to do for the things I believe but can’t provide hard evidence for. Your guess is as good as mine, but not better.
Puhleeeze!! I take that first sentance to mean you’re not interested in any realistic discussions and are in the mood to make wild baseless accusations. Been there done that with you. Count me out.
You may be right that religious people have done bad things they may not have done without the religious influence. I have an equal chance of guessing correctly if I say that many of the good things that people were moved to do by their religious convictions would not have been done without those convictions. Once again, compare action to action, without considering motive, or compare action to action while guessing at motive. Keep it even. Either way, it seems a mental exercise with no realistic conclusion, or use.
In other words, yet again we hear that religion deserves no blame whatsoever. No matter what evils it calls for, it’s never a bad thing. No one is ever convinced to do something evil or stupid because their religion tells them to; it’s all their fault. Religion is always blameless. Despite the fact that we’d never give such a priviliged status to other belief systems; if someone said “it isn’t the racism it is the person using it that decides if they use it for good or bad” the rest of the thread would consist of screaming at him.
Watching the apologists demonize their own species in order to preserve religion’s reputation is amusing, as I said, but it’s also disgusting.
That’s pretty much my take on it as well. An asshole is usually and asshole in or out of a church and a nice person is usually a nice person whether they are believer or not. Organized religion is just one of the social structures we have built that reflects both aspects of humanity. Some bad , some good.
Dishonest and evasive. I don’t think you are foolish enough to believe that. Over and over, you wave away all responsibility for the evils of religion onto it’s followers; you are demonizing people in order to buff up religion. No matter the evils that religion calls for, you refuse to admit that it might actually cause those evils.
Unlikely, since there are far fewer good things done in the name of religion than bad. Given it’s delusional nature, this is inevitable; people acting according to false beliefs will only do good by sheer luck, even if they are well meaning.
I don’t think it’s possible to separate the motivation that religion may have provided from other sources of motivation. While Madonna may SAY she was motivated by religion, even she can’t discount the fact that a song or dance or pastoral scene or a human interaction or whatever – *might * have also influenced the artistic product. And that secular influence might have been the one that made the biggest difference in her creative process.
Human sacrifice? I’ve never heard of a secular case of that.
Of course, that could just be equated to murder and shrugged off as common. So, how about this: Telling people (with honest sincerity) that they are going to go to hell and be tortured there forever, and it’s the victim’s own fault, thus causing mental distress? While atheists can make all sorts of threats and deprications on a person, blaming the victim for everything, they’re hard-pressed to take away the promise of the release of death.
This is relatively small as compared to human sacrifice, but unlike that, this pretty much requires religious belief, regardless of how you define it. And this small mental distress is inflicted on tens of thousands of people (conservatively speaking), many of them children.