Would people be so religious if they knew what religion caused?

Great Debates
1

In my experience of learning about the conflicts and struggles the Christian religion caused in the Western world, I began to lose faith in it myself. I really had never known the atrocities that fanatic leaders attempted, from the Crusades to the religious wars after the Reformation. All through history, the “holy” religion advocating a “good” life only caused conflict and suppression of other people. Religion caused people to be imprisoned, silenced, or killed. It also prevented discoveries from getting out, as the discoveries countered certain aspects of Christian belief (and are things that we commonly accept today, yet we had no idea how it contrasted with idea of Christianity). These types of things could be seen in the Scientific Revolution when natural philosophers such as Galileo were silenced in order to prevent spreading ideas of “heresy.”

I would feel more comfortable with deist thought from the Enlightenment, but I am still quite skeptical.

So my question is, if everyone, even devout Christians, were to know what religion caused throughout history, would they stick to their oh so spiritual faith?

2

I can’t say I agree with your premise here. A lot of things are blamed on religion, but how much of it is REALLY the fault of religion and how much of it is just a convenient excuse for people to evil things?

In that sense, religion makes a wonderful scapegoat for a lot of deeds because it’s an absolute, indisputable authority. For instance, racism and/or genocide is often attributed to religion. I’ve seen a number of these things defended in a number of “factual” ways about the superiority of one group or the inferiority of another, and all of these things can be argued. But the moment you can say that the scripture says something, it all becomes a matter of interpretation.

As for other things, like science, I think it’s a bit different. People are, in general, afraid of change, particularly things that put their entire world-view on it’s head. When it was challenged that the Earth was not the center of the universe, people became defensive and looked to justify their beliefs rather than be forced to endure those changes. In that case, religion was just the tool that enabled them to fight it, it wasn’t the catalyst.

Besides, there’s plenty of horrible acts through history that didn’t have religion as their motivation, but are otherwise identical to similar religious persecutions. Take, for instance, the McCarthyism vs. the Salem With Trials. Both played on deep seeded fears for political and/or personal gain.

For me, the bottom line is, I just don’t see religion as responsible for any of these sorts of acts, and certainly not my own beliefs. I won’t let a few whack-jobs who use it to justify their attrocious behavior as reason to doubt my own beliefs. And, really, do you actually think most religious people today AREN’T aware of the crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, etc.?

3

Most probably would. Either they are engaged in such evils themselves right now, or they’ll just handwave them aside as an aberration, like Blaster Master just did. The last thing they’ll do is blame the religions in question; no matter what evils are committed in it’s name, it is taboo in our culture to blame religion.

4

You seem to be assuming that there are no religious people who are as knowledgable as you on this. Which seems kinda silly.

I do in general think that religion does more harm than good. But it’s a close enough thing that I wouldn’t really disagree with anyone who said the opposite. It’s not a big enough difference that perspective doesn’t change it.

5

Some people are loathe to blame themselves for their own evil. It’s like the bachelor who trashes his house and blames the maid.

6

Yep. The OP seem to take the position that having faith is a sign on stupidity or of a lack of education.

7

Harmful consequences which flow from religion do not speak to the truth or falsehood of that religion in any way. Similarly, that the theist is (hypothetically) more satisfied with his life than the atheist is not an argument in favor of theism.

8

Actually, it can. If the religion states that absolutely no harm may come from following that religion, and yet it does, then that particular belief is contradicted.

9

Nope. The OP seems to be taking the position that people might abandon or refuse religion if they knew of the violent activity brought onto society because of religion.

10

So then then people of faith do not not of the “violent activity brought into socierty…” ? Therefore the OP seems to take the position I mentioned.

11

Except that a person is free to define harm. Surely, none of you assumes that the faithful here (for the most part) think in terms of eternal atoms. I mean, if harm means destruction of an arm or leg, then that’s pretty much naturalism anyway. But most people of faith believe that eternity belongs to the spirit, and have assurances that you can not harm their eternal essences. Jesus teaches that it would be more prudent to fear the person who can destroy your eternal soul than the person who can merely kill your body.

12

Yes. It’s not like it’s a big secret. And lots of people stick with their faith for emotional, not logical reasons.

13

My use of harm in both cases there refers to the same thing, as defined by that religion. More generally put, if a religion says* x * will not happen, and x happens, that’s a contradiction.

A person is certainly free to define harm. I am talking in terms of their own definition.

14

Show me the religion that says it is impossible for someone to perpetrate harm in the guise of it’s own teachings.

15

Could you rephrase that? I don’t understand what you mean.

16

You said: “If the religion states that absolutely no harm may come from following that religion, and yet it does, then that particular belief is contradicted.”

Granted, in theory. However, just as a person is free to define harm, so is he free to define what it means to follow a particular religion. Given that, there is no religion (I assume) which teaches that it is impossible for any of its adherents to bring about harm through the practice of said religion as they understand it. Thus your objection is moot.

17

I think he means in regards to your statement:

“If the religion states that absolutely no harm may come from following that religion, and yet it does…”
What specific religion(s) states that absolutely no harm can come from following that religion?

18

Thanks for restating! (and to PA as well).

I know of one specific person who does believe exactly that; lekatt, as I understand his belief system (if i’m wrong, I won’t be offended by a contradiction). One person does not a religion make, and certainly i’m theorising, but I don’t find it hard to believe that there is a religion or there are adherents who believe they cannot possibly do harm if they follow their religion to the letter. It need not be a whole religion; I have certainly heard Christians and Muslims say that if they are following their respective god’s will, they cannot do harm as their god does not cause harm. Likewise i’ve heard others of the same religions disagree.

19

Fair point; individuals may well hold their beliefs to be absolutely and universally benign. Also, I’m sure we would sometimes run into a True Scotsman fallacy: No follower of Religion X can cause harm by its practice; therefore anyone who does cause harm in its practice is not really following Religion X.

20

Well… I think a lot of the religious wars were not fundamentally over religious beliefs but had the same reasons other wars had; like economics and power grabbing. On the other hand I define a religion as fundamentally an organization based on a supernatural belief system. And for instance the catholic church is definitely to blame for a fair number of atrocities.

I would argue that absolute indisputable authorities are inherently dangerous if not outright immoral. Authorities of that kind are usually not indisputable in the sense that they can’t reasonably be argued against, but in the sense that if you try, they’re more likely than not to try to silence the debate by shutting up the people asking the question.

In answer to the OP: most people I know who are religious have plenty of knowledge of history. But I have to say that most of them aren’t exactly unquestioning followers of some religious authority. Knowledge of history may make people question their religion, and some probably do stop believing altogether or stop believing some of the crazier/hateful parts of their belief. But I don’t think the majority of religious people over here (W-Europe) are ignorant of the violent history of their religions.