Is religious faith beneficial or harmful?

[Kilgore Trout]

I only know of one way not to get older.

Ah, yes - fountain of youth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In my opinion, religous faith may seem harmless in most instances but if the masses are living in a delusional state where they believe without question that they are going to go to some magical fantasy land where all their dreams come true after they die, or they get to try again (reincarnation), doesn't that cheapen human life?

Not really. It just gives a different meaning to life. It also gives comfort to people in coping with the death of others and their own death. Sure there are terrorist who do suicide bombings because they believe they will go to heaven, but I'm sure we would find that many of them suffer from serious mental illness if we could examine them. And then there are those that live a life that serves others because they believe they are being watched, and will be judged. But then again some of those same people will be very nice people because that is just who they are.
There are many factors that can make believe in a religion good, bad, saintly, hypocritical, or someone who pretends someone is listening when they pray for some form of mental gratification.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Don't let it fool you, I'm getting older.

But thank you

Aren't we all. ^_^

Perhaps we should consider ourselves as one does fine wines.
We get better and more enjoyable with age...

 

[jarofthoughts]

In my opinion, religous faith may seem harmless in most instances but if the masses are living in a delusional state where they believe without question that they are going to go to some magical fantasy land where all their dreams come true after they die, or they get to try again (reincarnation), doesn't that cheapen human life? If people believe that they have no real control over their fate won't that tend to make people act irresponsibly because they think some supernatural deity is watching over them? In my opinion most religions encourage a dangerous mind set.

Absolutely.
That is exactly what I meant.

 

[atanu]

Do you consider religious faith a net benefit or detriment to human society? This is a question about religious faith in general, not any particular faith. I mean "benefit" in the sense of being good for human society. "Detriment" means being harmful in some way to society. I'll give you a five point scale to get a sense of how firm your opinion is. You can elaborate further on your reasons in following commentary.

It has personally been very beneficial to me. The sensual perception that the universe is separate and opposed to oneself is natural and is re-inforced by most rational sciences. This perception will eventually be found to be wrong and destructive at some stage or other by all.

Society, similarly, always will have groups and conflicts, due to the above mentioned natural outcome of perception of separate existences, irrespective of religion. At core all religions teach unity of apparently discrete things and help the contemplatives to navigate the world more smoothly. Moreover, whether one accepts or not, true spiritual leaders spread peace and happiness to more people than any other kind to leaders.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The sensual perception that the universe is separate and opposed to oneself is natural and is re-inforced by most rational sciences.

Sources and/or justification for this statement?

Moreover, whether one accepts or not, true spiritual leaders spread peace and happiness to more people than any other kind to leaders.

Sources and/or justification for this statement?

 

[atanu]

Sources and/or justification for this statement?

Sources and/or justification for this statement?

Your questions are the justifications. What is your source and justification of existence Jarof? If you can answer these honestly then you may likely see reason in my post.

 

[Copernicus]

It has personally been very beneficial to me. The sensual perception that the universe is separate and opposed to oneself is natural and is re-inforced by most rational sciences. This perception will eventually be found to be wrong and destructive at some stage or other by all.

Atanu, I would ask you to step outside of your own personal religious belief for the moment and just look at the phenomenon of religious belief across the entire human species. That includes every kind of doctrinal belief in supernatural or spiritual forces. (I say "doctrinal", because I do not really intend to include superstitious beliefs, but socially-sanctioned religious belief.) Is the net effect on the human species beneficial or harmful?

Society, similarly, always will have groups and conflicts, due to the above mentioned natural outcome of perception of separate existences, irrespective of religion. At core all religions teach unity of apparently discrete things and help the contemplatives to navigate the world more smoothly. Moreover, whether one accepts or not, true spiritual leaders spread peace and happiness to more people than any other kind to leaders.

Again, whatever you believe is "at core" or who are "true spiritual leaders", has religion as a whole had a beneficial or harmful effect on our species? Does it help or hurt our well-being? Have the "false" spiritual leaders been more or less influential?

 

[Mister Emu]

These two things only apply in a society with a single religion

Which is how things, mostly, have been throughout history.

However, I don't think this is the case today - for any charitable cause where a religious organization is at work (excluding "charities" that aren't really charitable at all, such as missions of evangelism), you can find a secular organization that is doing something similar.

That secular organizations may provide something does not change that religious charities have in the past and still do provide a large amount of charity.

OTOH, religion is also often a pathway to societal upheaval itself. Look at Christianity in ancient Rome, or the rise of Islam in Arabia and Persia. Look at the Falun Gong in China now.

That is why I said "often" and not "always".

Religion may produce a happier religious populace, but it doesn't do a whole lot for the happiness of the non-religious, and one religion usually won't help the happiness of the adherents of another religion.

Religious people are statistically happier on average than non-religious people.

Does this include societies with religious pluralism? Because a lot of the benefits you listed seem to be based on the idea of a society with a single religion.

Many of the benefits do not need to be in society dominated by a single religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That secular organizations may provide something does not change that religious charities have in the past and still do provide a large amount of charity.

No, but it does change the baseline we use for our measurements of "better" and "worse".

Religious people are statistically happier on average than non-religious people.

But does religiosity in society increase or decrease happiness for non-religious people in that society? That was the point I was getting at.

Many of the benefits do not need to be in society dominated by a single religion.

But in a society with multiple religions, many of the "benefits" actually become detriments; for instance, societal cohesion on the basis of religion becomes societal division on the basis of religion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your questions are the justifications. What is your source and justification of existence Jarof? If you can answer these honestly then you may likely see reason in my post.

So you are avoiding the question then?
Figures... :sarcastic

Mate, you make claims, you get to back them up.
That mystical mumbo-jumbo don't have much clout in debates and I am most assuredly not one of your disciples.


Now, present some sources or I will have to conclude that you have none, and that you are talking @#$%&....

 

[Mister Emu]

No, but it does change the baseline we use for our measurements of "better" and "worse".

How? The nature of charity's benefit on society does not change because of multiple charities. They all help, they are beneficial.

BTW, religious people give substantially more than secular in both time and money.

But does religiosity in society increase or decrease happiness for non-religious people in that society? That was the point I was getting at.

The happier a population is, the better for a society. If religion improves the happiness of the religious people, it is a benefit.

Your question would only matter if you were going to suggest that religion decreases the happiness of non-religious people and that this decrease in happiness is as great, or greater than, the difference in happiness between the religious and non-religious.

But in a society with multiple religions, many of the "benefits" actually become detriments; for instance, societal cohesion on the basis of religion becomes societal division on the basis of religion.

Or it becomes just a loss of social cohesion when the major groups coexist. Either is a possibility, it need not necessarily be a detriment.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, I would ask you to step outside of your own personal religious belief for the moment and just look at the phenomenon of religious belief across the entire human species. That includes every kind of doctrinal belief in supernatural or spiritual forces. (I say "doctrinal", because I do not really intend to include superstitious beliefs, but socially-sanctioned religious belief.) Is the net effect on the human species beneficial or harmful?

Copernicus

How do you do that? Based on what kind of data? How does one separate many cross-linked factors? I can only comment upon transformation of my behaviour and outlook.

Again, whatever you believe is "at core" or who are "true spiritual leaders", has religion as a whole had a beneficial or harmful effect on our species? Does it help or hurt our well-being? Have the "false" spiritual leaders been more or less influential?

True spiritual leaders are those who have no personal agenda because they have decisively seen a lack of localised person that they can call as 'me'. They wish for wellness of all, irrespective of class, creed, nation, sex etc. They help people to see through tricks of their ego self and gradually take control of magical delusional selves.

Surely there are spurious leaders, who without realising the oneness of Self/existence themselves, work for their own agenda and force misery upon soceity, in the form of hatred and divisiveness. But again this is not fault of spirituality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How? The nature of charity's benefit on society does not change because of multiple charities. They all help, they are beneficial.

The question "is religious faith beneficial or harmful" necessarily leads to the question "beneficial or harmful compared to what?"

Sure, in the days when a mountain traveller's well-being depended on the help of a group of monks, or when hospitals were run by religious orders funded entirely by gifts, the balance was different, because without these religious institutions, the necessary services they provided wouldn't be provided at all.

However, today, when travellers' well-being is taken care of by the police and by army search & rescue units, and when the closure of a taxpayer-funded religously-run hospital would just mean that money would be freed up to proved more beds at a secular hospital, the religious institutions providing the services become less important, because the consequences if they disappeared would be much less: a secular governmental social safety net has taken over much of what these religious charities used to do, and there are secular charities now in place to do much, if not all, of what's left.

500 years ago, if the Hospice of St. Bernard closed, there would be a very real cost in human life. Today, if it closed, our only cost would be the loss of a historical curiosity. The effect of a charity, i.e. the marginal benefit it gives to society, depends on how good or bad the "baseline", i.e. the case where the charity didn't exist, is.

BTW, religious people give substantially more than secular in both time and money.

After you subtract out the "charitable giving" that goes toward evangelism and maintenance of church institutions (i.e. the portion that isn't really charitable at all)? I strongly doubt that.

The happier a population is, the better for a society. If religion improves the happiness of the religious people, it is a benefit.

Your question would only matter if you were going to suggest that religion decreases the happiness of non-religious people and that this decrease in happiness is as great, or greater than, the difference in happiness between the religious and non-religious.

Not really. It's just a matter of getting a full picture of the effects of religion. Conceptually, you could put all the positives on one side, all the negatives on another, and see which way the balance swings.

In the case of the effects of religion on happiness, the unhappiness that a religious society creates for the non-religious in it (or even for the religious who happen to be of the "wrong" religion) goes on the negative side... or, if you prefer a different approach to the bookkeeping, it reduces the overall quantity of "happiness" to go on the positive side.

My point is that the effects of religion on happiness are not as rosy as a simple survey of the religious in a religious society would suggest.

Or it becomes just a loss of social cohesion when the major groups coexist. Either is a possibility, it need not necessarily be a detriment.

But either way, it does negate the benefit you suggested of social cohesion.

 

[Copernicus]

How do you do that? Based on what kind of data? How does one separate many cross-linked factors? I can only comment upon transformation of my behaviour and outlook.

I'm not really interested in your outlook on your own religion. I would be surprised if you did not see it as having a beneficial effect. If you feel unable to answer positively or negatively, then you have the middle option.

The interesting pattern that has emerged in the responses is that people with a positive view of religion tend to see it as very beneficial. People with a negative view tend not to see it as very harmful but just more harmful than beneficial.

True spiritual leaders are those who have no personal agenda because they have decisively seen a lack of localised person that they can call as 'me'. They wish for wellness of all, irrespective of class, creed, nation, sex etc. They help people to see through tricks of their ego self and gradually take control of magical delusional selves.

It seems that false spiritual leaders have been remarkably successful in convincing their fellow beings, not to mention themselves, that they are true spiritual leaders. You and I have different opinions as to whether there are any true spiritual leaders.

Surely there are spurious leaders, who without realising the oneness of Self/existence themselves, work for their own agenda and force misery upon soceity, in the form of hatred and divisiveness. But again this is not fault of spirituality.

I share your opinion that there exist spurious leaders. Spirituality is perhaps nothing more than a vector for their influence.

 

[Copernicus]

How? The nature of charity's benefit on society does not change because of multiple charities. They all help, they are beneficial.

I disagree. There are charities that devote their greater effort to proselytizing their doctrines than helping the needy, and some oppose socially beneficial policies such as the use of birth control and the teaching of sex education. On balance, I see religious charities as a necessary supplement to secular charities and welfare systems, but their existence may cause some to see public welfare as less necessary, when, in fact, it is more beneficial as a means of distributing charity.

BTW, religious people give substantially more than secular in both time and money.

On what basis can you make this generalization? I have known atheists who have given very generously to charity--e.g. Bill Gates. He has arguably contributed far more substantially than anyone else in the world today.

The happier a population is, the better for a society. If religion improves the happiness of the religious people, it is a benefit.

I agree with this generalization, but I question whether it really is the best means of improving happiness in a society.

Your question would only matter if you were going to suggest that religion decreases the happiness of non-religious people and that this decrease in happiness is as great, or greater than, the difference in happiness between the religious and non-religious.

As usual, Penguin dealt with this comment on his question very eloquently. If a placebo cures someone of cancer, then the placebo is obviously beneficial in that case. However, it won't cure everyone, and it may be harmful in that people can be motivated to prefer it over more effective medical treatments.

 

[atanu]

It seems that false spiritual leaders have been remarkably successful in convincing their fellow beings, not to mention themselves, that they are true spiritual leaders. You and I have different opinions as to whether there are any true spiritual leaders.

Same as other crooked leaders.

I share your opinion that there exist spurious leaders. Spirituality is perhaps nothing more than a vector for their influence.

I do not disagree. Human tendency is to use whatever it can to gain influence by any means possible.

Religious teachings warn against it.

 

[atanu]

I'm not really interested in your outlook on your own religion. I would be surprised if you did not see it as having a beneficial effect.

What else can one expect of a question such as: What is the net effect of religious belief on society?

 

[Copernicus]

What else can one expect of a question such as: What is the net effect of religious belief on society?

A response to that question rather than the one that you decided to respond to.

 

[atanu]

A response to that question rather than the one that you decided to respond to.

I am very dejected that I cannot ever agree with you even once and vice versa. I have voted, while noting the below in an earlier post:

Based on what kind of data? How does one separate many cross-linked factors? ..........

But in general, for every famous miscreant (kings, looters, and terrorists) who have used religion for rationalising their acts, unknown thousands have derived peace and done good.

Of course you will differ.