God is not Great

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Actually, the real problem is that the true correlation is betweeen evil and dogmatic ideologies, not specifically evil and religion. Most religions are dogmatic ideologies, of course, and eliminating religion would therefore greatly reduce the number of active dogmatic ideologies and thus be a good thing overall, but nonetheless there still are and have been secular ideologies that have done just as much evil as any religion by most measures, which gives the religious someone else to point at and say “See? The nonreligious are just as bad as us, so religion isn’t bad at all!”
[/QUOTE]

I agree. And if reducing those active dogmatic ideologies reduces the negatives so that one ends up with a “good thing overall” in the net total, as you say, then it correlates with the statement I’m making.

And, as I’m asserting, if the removal of such dogmatic ideology has no negative effect on the lost positives that now cannot be performed, then the net result is positive.

By the way, dogmatic ideology is one thing and religion (as defined in this thread as beliefs with afterworld benefits) is another.

I agree that dogmatism is corrosive. What I’m exploring however, specifically, is the negative net effect of behaviors that rely upon afterworld considerations which is how I’ve defined religion for the sake of this discussion.

82

[QUOTE=monavis]
I am not religious,but I believe that some people interpet their religion to use it for an excuse to do wrong, but not all of the believers do, some are sincere and try to do good.
[/QUOTE]
They may try, but because of the delusional nature of religon they will fail much more often as the succeed. The people who do things like kill their children in attempts to exorcise demons from them, send them to abusive camps to “cure” them of homosexuality, teach lies like creationism, lie about imaginary dangers from condoms and kiill people by the millions; they mean well. They fail to do well, because they believe in something insane.

And Christianity, in particular, is a rather malignant, hate-centered religion; they aren’t likely to mean well all that often.

83

**SBNR = SBRR. Bunkus. There’s no way to compare this, and therefore equating it is far from good, since this is what you’re “testing for”, essentially.

…nonetheless there still are and have been secular ideologies that have done just as much evil as any religion by most measures, **

If there is “no way” to compare SBNR and SBRR, then you can’t say in the very next post that there has been an **equal **amount, by “most measures,” of evil done by “secular ideologies” (SBNR) as there has been by “religion” (SBRR).

Furthermore, I’m not testing for that; I’m testing for the good acts that require religious belief, without which even **one **negative act that requires religious belief puts religion squarely in the negative.

Or maybe you’ve changed the subject. Because I’m not just talking about comparing evil done by religious people. I’m talking about evil done by religious people that requires religious belief for it to be done.

If you want to say that (motivation) can’t be known, I’d disagree.

84

By the way, if you want to simplify this and pare it down to bare essentials then you can throw out all of the other abbreviations and considerations and simply look at this: SBRR vs. SGRR.

Secular bad acts that require religion (SBRR) = at least one (you’ve named an example).

Secular good acts that require religion (SGRR) = haven’t heard a single one yet. Zero.

Net result for the effect of religion on secular society? Negative.

85

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They may try, but because of the delusional nature of religon they will fail much more often as the succeed. The people who do things like kill their children in attempts to exorcise demons from them, send them to abusive camps to “cure” them of homosexuality, teach lies like creationism, lie about imaginary dangers from condoms and kiill people by the millions; they mean well. They fail to do well, because they believe in something insane.

And Christianity, in particular, is a rather malignant, hate-centered religion; they aren’t likely to mean well all that often.
[/QUOTE]

I’m a bit disturbed that we’re on the same side in this thread :wink:

86

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your understanding of that; SGRR refers to secular good acts that **require **religious belief. I’ve yet to hear a single example.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not even sendible to add up “classes” of belief that are only attributable to religion or whichever. Suppose, for example, that we decided that sacrifice was exclusively the providence of religion. What would I add to the scoreboard, then? 1 negative point? Of course not. It would add some measure of the amount of evil done as a result of it. So it’s not by class.

Also, we know that there are no classes of good that only secular people do, either. So that category would be empty as well. Similarly for the secular evil, and the religious evil. Bingo! Zeros in all categories, if you’re only talking about things that can only be inspired by religion or secularity. So it’s not by that, either.

The real categorization here is “all good/bad deeds from religion/secularity, whether or not similar deeds are done by the other group”. You do this in the three ‘100’ scores, calling it a “wash”.

What you’re essentially trying to do is mix categoration rules so that you can get a 0 in one category and thereby skew the results to your preconception. This is not valid.

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
That may very well be but even if there is no way of knowing one way or the other if man’s secular goods are greater or lesser than their bads then it still ends up as a wash in terms of knowable fact. It’s not a conclusion I need for my argument and even under the theory that it can’t be known, it still functions as a wash.

Again, if there’s no way to compare it then it’s a wash which works fine.

[/QUOTE]
No, it functions as an “I don’t know”. For all you know, the numbers could be:

SGRR = 0 (retaining your bunkus value to make a different point)
SGNR = 65
SBRR = 45
SBNR = 135

Totals:
RR = -45
NR = -70

RR wins!

Unknown != “wash”. To equate them does not work fine; it is not valid.

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I do suspect that religion is worse than I’m arguing, but I’m making that known and not figuring that into the logical statement.

I’m not stooping to anything. It’s simply a way to clarify the terminology so that a discussion can be had without having to repeat the entire expression for each concept over and over.
[/QUOTE]
You are stooping to fallacious argument based in assuming your conclusion. If you want to state an opinion, just go ahead. Don’t try to wrap it in crappy pseudomath to give it more weight.

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The point being, has religion caused more harm than good?

You seem to have an opinion about that – maybe not – but encapsulating each of at least 4 logical possibilities as abbreviations for discussing the effect of religion on secular good and secular bad acts is just that and nothing more.

My purpose, perhaps different than yours, isn’t to attack religious misconceptions and fallacies. My purpose is to make an assertion for the sake of discussion: religious is a net negative because it’s positives don’t require religious belief so could otherwise occur secularly but its negatives do require religious belief and therefore could not occur secularly. I thought you agreed with that statement.

If you don’t agree, find that unprovable, then that’s cool I respect that.
[/QUOTE]

I too hold the personal belief that religion does more harm than good. I’m not going to try to prove it with a numerical arguement when we can’t even numerically quantify “good” and “evil”, though. It is certainly not provable that way.

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
If there is “no way” to compare SBNR and SBRR, then you can’t say in the very next post that there has been an equal amount, by “most measures,” of evil done by “secular ideologies” (SBNR) as there has been by “religion” (SBRR).
[/QUOTE]
Sure I can. By most measures, Stalin was a right bastard who did a hell of a lot of damage in his short time. Most religions would be hard pressed to compare with his deaths/year ratio alone. Do you dispute this?

Of course, there are other measures by which almost any religion would be much worse - if you considered telling a false statement without malice to be 10000 times worse than murder, for example. That’s why I said “most” measures, and why you can’t make a valid numerical proof. I didn’t make a proof, I made a statement a fact that both makes my point and which I’m fairly sure is true (in large part due to that “most”). There’s a difference.

87

**It’s not even sendible to add up “classes” of belief that are only attributable to religion or whichever. **

Then that’s your answer to the OP. Adding up classes of belief that are only attributable to religion is not sensible. Whatever that means. I wasn’t adding up classes of beliefs, I was denoting actions (SB,SG) and then classifying them as those that philosophically require religious belief to do and those that do not.

The OP asks: name one ethical act that requires religious belief.

Sure I can. By most measures, Stalin was a right bastard who did a hell of a lot of damage in his short time. Most religions would be hard pressed to compare with his deaths/year ratio alone. Do you dispute this?

I dispute that you can compare those while saying that moral comparisons are impossible. You just did it.

You misunderstand the purpose of the abbreviations I introduced. It’s not intended as a ‘numerical proof’; it’s intended as shorthand for terms.

Once those shorthands are established, comparisons can be made like you just did above: Stalin’s actions (SBNR) vs. religiously motivated actions that result in evil (SBRR).

I propose that in the sum total of human history, the net effect of actions that are motivated solely by religious belief are negative.

I would ask that you not denigrate my propositions by calling them crappy pseudomath and talking about pulling things out of my ass anymore than I referred to your RPG scenario as being pulled out of your ass, but as I’ve been perfectly willing to denigrate what I consider to be the stupidity of cosmosdan’s POVs, I guess I can’t ask you that so knock yourself out if you wish. It’s regrettable.

88

**No, it functions as an “I don’t know”. For all you know, the numbers could be:

SGRR = 0 (retaining your bunkus value to make a different point)
SGNR = 65
SBRR = 45
SBNR = 135

Totals:
RR = -45
NR = -70

RR wins!

Unknown != “wash”. To equate them does not work fine; it is not valid.**

Actually, by your own statements it looks like this:

SGRR = None has been stated. Zero. Nothing bunkus about that, it’s the whole point of the OP. If you want to list one, go ahead. Then call Hitchens and get your reward money.

SGNR = can’t be known or validly compared (although it logically follows that if SGRR is in fact zero, then this would be an infinite number)

SBRR = at least one (you’ve provided an example)

SBNR = can’t be known or validly compared

That still leaves religion in the negative. That’s the point.

89

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Yup.

And you answered that earlier question asked of you about ‘of what use is such a statement?’ by saying that, “Well, for one thing it’s an argument against the standard religious claim that religion is necessary.”

And the reply you got was, “Which I haven’t made” which of course changes the subject. The question asked was “what’s the use of such a statement?” and you answered it.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right , it is an answer. it seems to be the point Hitchens is trying to make. Since DT was responding to me I just wanted to be clear. I wasn’t changing the subject which is demonstrated by the fact that I immediately responded to that specific point with my next sentance.

The paragraph I quoted are his own words and it is imbalanced. When mentioning the positive he refers to the act sans motive comparing action to action. When referring to the negative he speaks of acts directly attributed to religion without making a fair and equal comparison.

Without even considering evil acts at all his point still isn’t made since the fact that the same positive acts can have either a religious or secular motivation doesn’t conclude that religion isn’t necessary. Person A feeds the hungry because of their relgious beliefs. Person B does it because of their philosophical beliefs. The conclusion is that the act itself can be done by with either a religious or secular motive. It does not conclude that religion isn’t necessary for person A to do that act. That’s what this statement

Hitchens’ assertion that religion isn’t necessary fails because he can’t speak to what is necessary to motivate the unique individuals his assertion must include.

90

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The first is not murder. It is human sacrifice. Murder is defined as an unlawful taking of a life with malice. (Murder - Wikipedia)

Human sacrifice has no malice; it has beneficence when motivated by religion.

Therefore, an act of human sacrifice cannot happen without religion.

An act of murder can.

Acts of murder will happen with or without religion.

Take away the religious motivation and you have one less murder. Net plus good.
[/QUOTE]

Wow are you incredibly wrong. read your own link again. What’s malice defined as?

91

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Sorry, that’s not what was being answered. Nice try.

Your question was “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?”

#46 answers the “so what?”. Specifically, is religion a **net **positive or negative. That addresses the “so what?” suggestion that it’s a wash.

So if you were sincerely asking why anyone would care or what difference does it make (“so what?”), that’s why they’d care.

You don’t have to agree (or understand) the values, but that’s “so what?” which is what I was responding to. Understand now?

If by “so what?” you mean there’s no point in discussing the value of religion in today’s day and age given the world we live in, then I can’t help you there it’s just too obvious.

Furthermore, your pointing out that we don’t need religion to do bad things was taken into account in that formula, and conceded. (Your statement of saying that, is itself a formula by the way; using values you made up).

So, taking into account that there are bad things done that don’t require religion (SBNR), there are **bad **things done that **do require religion **(SBRR), there are **good **things done that **don’t require religion **(SGNR), and there’s yet to be a single example of anything secularly **good **that **requires religion **(SGRR), you end up with a net negative for religion. It’s not about assigning values. It’s about logic.

[/QUOTE]

You created values for your own formula with no solid statistical data. That renders the values pure speculation and meaningless. #46 answers nothing. If it’s about logic you have yet to demonstrate it.

92

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You’re right , it is an answer. it seems to be the point Hitchens is trying to make. Since DT was responding to me I just wanted to be clear. I wasn’t changing the subject which is demonstrated by the fact that I immediately responded to that specific point with my next sentance.

The paragraph I quoted are his own words and it is imbalanced. When mentioning the positive he refers to the act sans motive comparing action to action. When referring to the negative he speaks of acts directly attributed to religion without making a fair and equal comparison.

Without even considering evil acts at all his point still isn’t made since the fact that the same positive acts can have either a religious or secular motivation doesn’t conclude that religion isn’t necessary. Person A feeds the hungry because of their relgious beliefs. Person B does it because of their philosophical beliefs. The conclusion is that the act itself can be done by with either a religious or secular motive. It does not conclude that religion isn’t necessary for person A to do that act. That’s what this statement

Hitchens’ assertion that religion isn’t necessary fails because he can’t speak to what is necessary to motivate the unique individuals his assertion must include.
[/QUOTE]

Hitchens isn’t stating that religion isn’t necessary as much as he is responding to the assertion by believers that religion is necessary. The burden of proof is theirs.

If you ask Person A if they’d continue feeding the hungry if they stopped believing, they’d say yes don’t you think? That would seem to show it wasn’t necessary.

I think if you say that good can be done with or without belief (as you state, and I’d agree) and then figure in that bad can be done with or without belief (which I’d agree) but then also figure in that some bad can **only **be done with belief, you end up negative.

93

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Wow are you incredibly wrong. read your own link again. What’s malice defined as?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, don’t know what you’re talking about. The link wasn’t defining malice, it was defining murder.

But if you’d like a definition of malice, here you go:

mal·ice /ˈmælɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mal-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

  1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness.
    Human sacrifice is not murder because it’s not done out of malice. Malice is defined as inflicting harm out of hostility or deep-seated meanness which is not the case when humans are sacrificed to a god.
94

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You created values for your own formula with no solid statistical data. That renders the values pure speculation and meaningless. #46 answers nothing. If it’s about logic you have yet to demonstrate it.
[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand the purpose of that logical expression.

It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with statistical data and makes no assertions about historical facts or the frequencies of evil acts. It’s not math, it’s logic.

In logic, abbreviations are used to express concepts.

If you don’t understand the logic presented, then I can’t help you.

You can disagree with it, but it’s presented as a way to clarify terms, set parameters, and discuss from there within those definitions. It’s also a way to narrow down what’s being discussed without going so far afield that we’re back to defining words.

#46 isn’t meant to answer anything. So, if that was intended as a snide remark it’s completely empty and meaningless (to use your language).

#46 is meant to express a thought and propose an idea, that’s it.

95

And still, not a single example has been offered.

96

**I’m not sure that’s a valid or useful point he’s making. Have acts of charity and compassion been done by non believers? Sure. [SGNR]

Wouldn’t it also be true that no evil act done that was justified by religious belief could and probably has been done for secular reasons? [SBNR]
**

By the way, if you go back to your first post you’ll see that you included SGNR and SBNR but left out SBRR which can easily be named. Without an example of SGRR, religion’s in the theoretical negative.

97

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Except, of course, I explicitly refer to the type of ‘malicious manipulation’ that secularity is unable to achieve, on account of the fact that it cannot threaten past death. Equating it to life-limited threats is invalid, or so I claim. Ignoring that fact rather than refuting it is fallacious argument.

And Hell-threats require religion, regardless of motivation, because they are dependent as much or more on the victim’s religious beliefs, since the threat is impotent in the absence of such belief.

(I’m not going to argue the sacrifice angle further; the Hell-threat point is the far stronger one.)
[/QUOTE]
IMO in order to treat the subject even you must do one of two things. Consider the act, evil or good, itself stripped down to one common label without consideration of motive, or consider motive which makes it much more complicated. I get the impression that Hitchens is considering just the act on the positive side to support his argument, and then using the religious motivation label on the negative side. That’s strongly indicated by his own words which I quoted.

Concerning your argument. I acknowledge that hell fire threats require religious beliefs. I don’t agree that that is the stripped down act. The act is manipulation. Religious leaders can use this manipulation to try and control their congregations behavior, to promote their career, to maintain their ego and feel powerful, or just for money.

Manipulation is used in the same way in secular actions. The hell fire threat becomes the threat of rejection between parents and children, or the accusation of not being a loyal citizen, or being an outcast from whatever secular group you belong to. The details may be different but the act of manipulation is the same.
The fact that the threat relates to a supposed after life doesn’t change much. It’s more the fear of rejection. God won’t love you, Mom and Dad won’t love you, your group won’t love you.

98

"Concerning your argument. I acknowledge that hell fire threats require religious beliefs. I don’t agree that that is the stripped down act. The act is manipulation. Religious leaders can use this manipulation to try and control their congregations behavior, to promote their career, to maintain their ego and feel powerful, or just for money."

Those are good points, cdan. But how about hellfire threats that are made to children by parents due exclusively to the fact that the parents believe it to be true?

As a hypothetical. Wouldn’t **that **parent **not **express **that **specific hellfire threat if they didn’t sincerely believe it to be true?

99

"I get the impression that Hitchens is considering just the act on the positive side to support his argument, and then using the religious motivation label on the negative side. "

I’m trying to get my head around this, it sounds like an insightful analysis but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

What I’m doing, if not Hitchens, is considering the positive acts done by both believers and non-believers and pitting them against the negative acts done by both believers and non-believers and noting that the religion is only required for the negative religiously motivated act and not for the positive religiously motivated act since that act could have been motivated by something secular and still been done as where the negative religiously motivated act couldn’t have been by definition (such as human sacrifice).

100

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The “motivational label” is religion. That’s the point of what’s being discussed.

Remove the “motivational label aka religion” and you’ve left the discussion.

In other words, if you remove the motivational label/religion then all you’ve got is a bunch of acts that wash.

The entire point is to investigate the degree to which religion motivates those actions in a way that only religion can to see if it’s a net positive or negative in terms of secular good. The motivation can’t be removed in such a discussion.
[/QUOTE]

Is Hitchens speaking of motives when he says

or is he speaking of the act? His goal is to present the religious motive as unnecessary. To achieve that he has to compare positive action to positive action as a starting point. He disassociates the act from the motive.
His argument fails when he uses a different starting point when considering the negative. There he starts with by associating the action with motive.