Should we forgive (and forget) religions' past atrocities?

Great Debates
1

Is it fair/justifiable/ethical to criticize modern religious institutions–or perhaps, religion in general as a phenomenon–for their/its past crimes and atrocities? I ask this because I really want to hear mixed views on the question. I don’t know how I feel, just yet.

Here’s the background to my question:

I just finished reading three books* that have inflamed my normally mild-mannered atheism into borderline anti-theism. I have to admit, these authors make some compelling points, and I find myself strongly agreeing with them at times, and feeling deeply spiteful towards religion in general for all of its long, looooooong history of abuses against the human species. But I don’t want to get carried away with the rhetoric.

I would expect that the two most common counterarguments to the anti-theistic “argument from institutional evil” (as I call it) would reduce to:

*1. Yes, religion has done much harm, but it has also done just as much if not more, good.

  1. Religions can evolve, just like any other institution or society. Is it fair to criticize Christianity for the pogroms, Inquisitions, and Crusades, when we no longer criticize the United States, as a nation, for slavery?*

Of these, I find 1) to be pretty unconvincing, because it amounts to a pathetic “Yes, but…” protestation. Pointing to good things you’ve done does NOT diminish your culpability and responsibility for the bad things. Moreover, religion is purported to be a force for transcendent good, and this lame counterargument does nothing to salvage the deep damage done to that idea by the “argument from institutional evil”.

But I have a more difficult time processing 2). My instinct is to say in response that a) religion continues to offend, abuse, and injure, just not on as grand a scale, thanks to humanistic and Enlightenment-derived secular political systems; and b) how much real “evolution” can occur anyway, in a belief system that is supposed to be divinely-wrought and thus absolute and unchanging?

Your thoughts? Thanks!

*Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, Jon Krakauer
The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
*god Is Not Great *[sic], Christopher Hitchens

2

Heck, even we generously assume that no religion can be blamed for anything, we should get rid of organized religion anyway because it represents institutionalized ignorance.

3

We’ve seen what can (and usually does) happen when religion is coupled with political power. When the only time religion behaves itself is when it can be held in check, I can neither forgive or forget.

4

Yes, it is fair because they claim to be intrinsically true and moral. A government can claim that it isn’t composed of the same people with the same opinions as is was 50 or a hundred years ago, and that can work; religions however claim to be tapped into something other than erring humans. If they want to be judged like any other group of humans, as something that needs to learn from their mistakes, then they also lose their claim to somehow having a special source of enlightenment.

In other words, it is fair to criticize them for the evils of the past, because the existence of those evils demonstrates that their claim to having some special source of morality and enlightenment is false.

Not even close, it has always been overwhelmingly a force for evil. What little good it has done can be done better by non-religious groups and people. And on top of that, much of the “good” it does is just a matter of doing harm with one hand while helping with the other, and trying to take credit only for the latter. Religion tends towards poisoned gifts.

5

You can forgive people, but you can’t forgive a religion. Religion is just a tool, to be used for good or evil or whatever the person that wields it wants to do.

As for forgetting…just be vigilant instead. Call bullshit when you see it, but don’t just lean on religion’s past for your justification to call bullshit.
This is coming from a catholic.

6

No, religion uses people more than they use it. It turns people into puppets willing to die for it, willing to betray and sacrifice their friends and relatives for it. And it corrupts judgment; it promotes evil by its nature, it makes doing good difficult even for the well meaning, while excusing and encouraging the malignant and greedy.

7

Sorry…you may see it that way, but that’s not how I see it. People use people in the name of religion; religion doesn’t use anyone. Just like any other movement, people can be used by other people in the name of <insert movement here>.

8

Consider the Jim Jones cult and other ones where everyone dies; no one profits, everyone dies. Who is the one using the people there?

It is the religion itself that is using them, which doesn’t care that it is destroying itself in the process because it is a thing, not a person. A mindless psychological disease with no foresight, parasitizing its human hosts to their death.

9

“Forgiving” events that happened centuries past is meaningless, when neither those who could offer the forgiveness nor those who could receive are still on Earth. The idea is as dead in the water as that nonsense about the federal government offering an official apology for slavery, which was circulating a few years back.

As for “forget”, I believe that forgetting historical events is usually a bad idea. We should remember that the Spanish Inquisition occurred. We should also remember, for instance, that Chairman Mao killed far more people on an average day of his 27-year dictatorship than the Spanish Inquisition killed in its entire existence. (Out of curiosity, I wonder whether the three books that inflamed you so much mentioned that?)

On the other hand, pointing out that we (living persons) aren’t responsible for the Pogroms, Spanish Inquisition, etc… does exactly that. Perhaps before going further, we should clarify what you mean by the “argument for institutional evil”. Are you saying that religion is institutionally evil?

Let me tell you a story that I once heard in church. This was told to me in the first person, and I’ll repeat it as best I can remember it.

So if you’re now strongly against religion, do you have to stop this sort of thing because of the Spanish Inquisition?

10

Wow, that guy has unlucky relatives and no sense of the festive.

11

Ah, yes, how noble. Of course in reality we see churches spending the money to send people to preach at the wounded and suffering. Or the “We’ll give you your water rations as soon as you let us baptize you” routine, like we pulled in Iraq. Or spreading lies about condoms and abortions. Or running camps where homosexual or atheist children are beaten and terrorized into compliance.

Religion isn’t about concern for others, it denies that others matter at all; what matters is the god(s) and the soul, not petty real things like human beings.

12

The question, as stated I think is meaningless. Unless you can give some definition of what “religion” actually is, then it is impossible to discuss what is actually wrong with it. To know the properties of something you actually have to define what it is.

What usually happens in these sorts of discussions is that “religion” is left in a very vague state so that the detractors can pull in all sorts of things from different and incompatible beliefs of why religion is harmful. No-one actually believes all of these things together, nor can they as they are often mutually exclusive. Also it ignores the fact that while there are some religions that have some objectionable points, not all do. In fact many religious people would join in condemning those things that you object to.

On a deeper level there is also the question of whether the problem is actually religion, or is the problem a central one of humanity. It is important because if the problem really is that people everywhere do evil things regardless of their beliefs, then even if “religion” (whatever that is) is eradicated then humanity won’t be any better off. Given that there have still been just as many atrocities committed in secular regimes as in religious ones, I see no evidence that removing religion from people actually makes them any better in the long run. In fact I think it rather ironic that often the loudest voices on the evils of religion themselves talk in very intolerant and unforgiving ways of those that disagree with them.

Calculon.

13

It isn’t like the believers are going to be less vague. Arguing with believers is like trying to nail jello to a wall with all the vague handwaving, goalpost moving, and outright lies when they can get away with it.

Ah, the old standard. We can’t criticize religion, so instead we’ll call humanity evil. Of course, the same “logic” could be used to absolve any nasty belief system of blame; fascism isn’t wrong, it was just being misused by those vile disgusting humans!

Not true, the more secular a society is, the better off it is.

Oh, and even if your claim was true, all you are doing is arguing that religion is worthless. That it doesn’t make people better, that it accomplishes nothing. Not much of a defense.

14

ITR champion, I don’t understand your story. Where was the party? If it was supposed to be for the purpose of raising money, then where was everyone who was supposed to be there to contribute the money?

15

Wrong. Most serious believers in a religion can give a concise view of what it is they believe. This type of argument really has no interest in what people actually believe, and is really just about painting people as “evil”.

I am not arguing that every view is intrinsically right, just that not all are intrinsically evil. Until you define what it is you actually mean by “religion” in the statement “all religions are evil”, then you are not saying much of anything. That really is the problem.

Comparing the US and the UK, as this study does, is like comparing apples and oranges. In particular the US is still working through things like the practice of slavery and racism that is not as much a problem in the UK. The two societies are too different for any real comparison. Religiosity is only one of a number of differences
Secondly these types of studies prove nothing because there is a “chicken and egg” problem. Are societies turned bad by religion, or do people become more religious as a response to the dysfunctional society around them.
Thirdly the conclusion is really set by the societies that you wish to compare. If you include Eastern Block countries, the comparison becomes significantly worse for secular countries for instance.

16

Only when talking to people that agree with them; when talking to people who don’t already buy what they are selling they tun into mush. As seen all the time right here on the SDMB.

No, the problem is that you don’t want to acknowledge that we already know what most religions are religions, since they call themselves religions.

How convenient for you. Of course, the study compared multiple countries to the US, not just the UK.

But none of that matters to you, naturally.

“Secular” societies that were - surprise - dominated by communism, a system that was a religion in all but name. So of course they were disasters.

17

Maybe everyone else invited knew it wasn’t really a party, it was a fundraiser, and they went elsewhere. I know I would have.

18

I don’t think “evolve” is the right image, either for religious institutions or for political/societal ones.

For one thing, if you’re drawing a parallel to biological evolution, individual organisms don’t evolve; species do.

But more importantly, it assumes that evolving—in the sense of progressing or becoming more advanced or more “highly evolved” (whatever that might mean) is what institutions typically do. My knowledge of history suggests to me that it’s closer to the truth to say that they go through periods of sickness and of health; they get corrupted and they get cleansed; they get sidetracked, seduced, diverted from their mission, and sometimes they find their way back on track. (And sometimes they make progress in some areas while simultaneously going to hell in a handbasket in others.)

19

Just because you don’t understand them, or really have any desire to understand them doesn’t mean that they are “mushy”. I think the problem with the SDMB is that there is a number of vocal atheists whose only debate tactic is to ridicule and shout down religious believers, and never actually engage in the arguments made.

So your definition of a “religion” is you know it when you see it? And what common elements do they share that allows you to deduce that they are all detrimental to society.

Neither does my point that these types of studies are ultimately meaningless without developing reasons for the religiosity and social conditions of the country. Just observing how things are tells you nothing of how they got to be like that. Of course the study concludes what you want it to, so that doesn’t matter.
Neither apparently does the work done by secular people like sociologist Rodney Stark that religion, and in particular monotheistic religion, has been good for society. Just picking one study that agrees with you doesn’t mean anything as there is a large number of such studies. What is the consensus of people working in the area? What meta-studies are there and what do they say?

Communists see themselves as decidedly non-religious or atheists. To call them religious goes against your earlier claim that religious people are those that call themselves religious.

So I ask you, what precisely is a religion, and how does that lead to the conclusion that they are all evil?

Calculon.

20

Of course the Spanish Inquisition shouldn’t put a halt to your telling tales you’ve heard in church of anonymous people doing nice things for other anonymous people.