Is religious faith beneficial or harmful?

[Copernicus]

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

There is no right or wrong answer. I was just seeking a cross-section of opinion. I found the results and the subsequent discussion interesting, as noted in my last post.

 

[Comicaze247]

I intended the middle option to represent neutral or mixed feelings.

That's the thing, I'm not neutral about it nor do I have mixed feelings about it. I strongly believe that it's not harmful in and of itself and that its only as beneficial as the person practicing it allows it to be. Nothing neutral or mixed about it.

 

[Copernicus]

That's the thing, I'm not neutral about it nor do I have mixed feelings about it. I strongly believe that it's not harmful in and of itself and that its only as beneficial as the person practicing it allows it to be. Nothing neutral or mixed about it.

I firmly believe that no matter how carefully you word a poll or how comprehensive and fair you try to make the choices, there will always be someone who complains that their preferred answer is missing. Comicaze, you would probably not have created massive confusion by either taking the middle choice or abstaining. FWIW, I think that you are not alone in trying to read some kind of spin into the thing and wanting to make the question more about personal religion. What I was looking for was a general feeling or opinion about the phenomenon of religion at a global level. I am satisfied with the result I got, because I wasn't quite expecting it. I thought that there would be more "very harmful" answers on the negative side and "more beneficial than harmful" answers on the positive side. Instead, I got a different distribution.

And we all need to remember that this survey only works for those who engage in religious debates in an internet discussion group. It doesn't necessarily reflect how a more general demographic would answer it.

 

[Wombat]

Hmm. Maybe. I think that historically, when governments didn't concern themselves much with aid and charity, religious organizations did fill this need. 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.

Please.

Can you (any non theist) identify a "secular organization" doing paralel community work to the Salvation Army on anything like the scale that is required?

Last time I looked the Sallies assisted some 34million Americans per year, and that was before the financial crisis, and that's just one church in one country.

I have looked, I have asked, I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides. And Aunt Sally is just one of many.

 

[Penumbra]

Please.

Can you (any non theist) identify a "secular organization" doing paralel community work to the Salvation Army on anything like the scale that is required?

Last time I looked the Sallies assisted some 34million Americans per year, and that was before the financial crisis, and that's just one church in one country.

I have looked, I have asked, I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides. And Aunt Sally is just one of many.

Red Cross, despite the name, is secular.
Unicef was created by the UN
The United Way is secular, I think.

Red Cross and Unicef in particular are huge. Besides, the Salvation Army doesn't get all its funding from "one church in one country". It gets funding from places all over the world, including tons of secular donations.

 

[waitasec]

Please.

Can you (any non theist) identify a "secular organization" doing paralel community work to the Salvation Army on anything like the scale that is required?

Last time I looked the Sallies assisted some 34million Americans per year, and that was before the financial crisis, and that's just one church in one country.

I have looked, I have asked, I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides. And Aunt Sally is just one of many.

you and i have gone around this merry-go-round before

there are more faith based charities because there are more people that have faith...and people who do not have faith give to those faith based charities

 

[Wombat]

Red Cross, despite the name, is secular.
Unicef was created by the UN.

As I said and as you quoted-
"I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides."

There is a difference and distinction in the support provided...there are reason for the difference....that's why I made the distinction clear.

. Besides, the Salvation Army doesn't get all its funding from "one church in one country". It gets funding from places all over the world, including tons of secular donations.

Never suggested otherwise.
Yea...millions of non theists support a religious aid organization (kinda makes ya wonder why) just as millions of theists support Red Cross-Unicef.

Question still stands- Why no major secular domestic aid programe?

 

[Penumbra]

As I said and as you quoted-
"I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides."

There is a difference and distinction in the support provided...there are reason for the difference....that's why I made the distinction clear.

Never suggested otherwise.
Yea...millions of non theists support a religious aid organization (kinda makes ya wonder why) just as millions of theists support Red Cross-Unicef.

Question still stands- Why no major secular domestic aid programe?

So you're going to try to redefine it so that you can try to put religious ones in a better light than secular ones?

There are valid discussions on which types of charity are most efficient and beneficial, but the point is, there exist secular charities that rival and exceed the scale of the religious ones.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please.

Can you (any non theist) identify a "secular organization" doing paralel community work to the Salvation Army on anything like the scale that is required?

Last time I looked the Sallies assisted some 34million Americans per year, and that was before the financial crisis, and that's just one church in one country.

Here in Ontario, the Ministry of Community and Social Services provides services to the homeless and other at-risk groups at levels many times that which the Salvation Army provides.

Obviously, as a ministry of the provincial government, it doesn't provide services outside this province, but similar government agencies provide similar services in other places.

I have looked, I have asked, I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides. And Aunt Sally is just one of many.

Like Penumbra mentioned, the Red Cross would fit that bill.

Red Cross, despite the name, is secular.
Unicef was created by the UN
The United Way is secular, I think.

Yes, it is.

I know that around here, United Way will fund programs run by both religiously-affiliated and secular charities, but United Way itself doesn't have a religious affiliation.

Red Cross and Unicef in particular are huge. Besides, the Salvation Army doesn't get all its funding from "one church in one country". It gets funding from places all over the world, including tons of secular donations.

The Salvation Army is a church itself; I think that might be what Wombat was referring to.

Edit: but I think Wombat missed my point. If I as a person who donates to charities decides that I want to put my money toward helping the homeless, for instance, it would be very easy for me to find a secular charity that's doing work in this area. Maybe in an earlier time, religious charities would've been my only options, but that's not the case now. It's not like Salvation Army and the St. Vincent de Paul Society are the only games in town any more.

 

[Copernicus]

Question still stands- Why no major secular domestic aid programe?

The United States government is a secular organization that blows away any religious charity group. If you are looking for NGOs, I suggest that you start with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is run by some famous rich atheists, although I don't think that they seek to promote their religious skepticism through their charities in any way similar to the way religious groups promote their opinions.

 

[Comicaze247]

I firmly believe that no matter how carefully you word a poll or how comprehensive and fair you try to make the choices, there will always be someone who complains that their preferred answer is missing. Comicaze, you would probably not have created massive confusion by either taking the middle choice or abstaining.

I did abstain because I didn't want to skew the results with an answer that wasn't close to what I believe.

FWIW, I think that you are not alone in trying to read some kind of spin into the thing and wanting to make the question more about personal religion.

The thing is, religion is very personal. Everyone has different views on spirituality, even within the same religion, the same sect, and even the same family. Whether it is beneficial or harmful is up to the person and how they use it. It is very much a double-edged sword.

What I was looking for was a general feeling or opinion about the phenomenon of religion at a global level. I am satisfied with the result I got, because I wasn't quite expecting it. I thought that there would be more "very harmful" answers on the negative side and "more beneficial than harmful" answers on the positive side. Instead, I got a different distribution.

And we all need to remember that this survey only works for those who engage in religious debates in an internet discussion group. It doesn't necessarily reflect how a more general demographic would answer it.

Personally, I was actually expecting more middle-of-the-road answers from our community

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I was actually expecting more middle-of-the-road answers from our community

Well, a religious discussion board tends to attract people who aren't apathetic toward religion. They usually have strong feelings one way or the other, IMO.

 

[Comicaze247]

Well, a religious discussion board tends to attract people who aren't apathetic toward religion. They usually have strong feelings one way or the other, IMO.

I wasn't thinking they'd be apathetic. I'd think there was more consideration in it, in that there is no black and white.

 

[darkendless]

I feel faith is harmful given the tenacity of SOME of its adherants to completely ignore reason in order to supplement their faith which leads to a very skewed perception of reality.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted very harmful,organised religion is a mass of people (no pun intended) all believing the same dogma,this is physically harmful as can be seen in Africa for example via STDs,or if we look at the Middle East where it is written in a book that the end will not come until a follower of a certain religion hides behind a talking rock,as i post people are trying to kill each other over whats said in these books.

Religion creates barriers and differences IMO and many ignore reality because of it,again evidence for this is in the history of the world so far and something i have unfortunately witnessed first hand,so yes i think religion is and has been very harmful.

 

[Mister Emu]

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 consequence

The government funded hospital would not be a charity.

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.

So if all the religious charitable giving in Canada ceased at this moment there would be no loss to society? You'll understand I hope, I find that difficult to accept.

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.

Your doubts are unfounded.

Religious people give more money and time to non-religious charities than secular people do, on average.
Religious Faith and Charitable Giving | Hoover Institution

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.

I never argued that... I said that religion would still be a benefit unless the unhappiness created was greater than the happiness.

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.

The problem is exactly the opposite, the existence of welfare causes people to see private charity as less necessary, or they view welfare as charity in and of itself(which is likely why conservatives give more to charity than liberals). When private charities are more efficient than government agencies.

On what basis can you make this generalization?

Statistical averages. See my answer to 9-10ths about this. Religious people are more likely to give and average over three times as much in money and twice as much in time when compared to secular people.

It is not surprising when, as noted by 9-10ths, charity is considered part of the identity of most of the major religions in America(where the survey was taken).

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

It may or may not be the best means, but it is a means, and one that could be used in conjunction with other means.

 

[Greystone]

You only have to look at history to see that religion is harmful with examples such as the crusades, the Spanish inquisition and witch hunts which resulted in many hundreds of thousands of people were killed.

Christians and Muslims today also believe that all practicing male homosexuals should be put to death. How can killing people in the name of religion ever be good?

 

[Wombat]

So you're going to try to redefine it....

No...I’m going to stick to my question as qualified and defined in the first place-


As I said and as you quoted-
"I have seen and been refered to secular international aid programs, disaster relief and cause specific charities...but I cannot find or see any secular organization doing day to day domestic aid and support on a scale anything like what the Salvation Army provides."

... so that you can try to put religious ones in a better light than secular ones?

No, when you assume anothers motives that's called 'projection'. My intent was clearly indicated-
"There is a difference and distinction in the support provided...there are reason for the difference....that's why I made the distinction clear."

That two things are 'distinct' does not necessitate that one or the other is "better".

Again- "there are reason for the difference" and distinction in the types of aid/support programs provided by secular and religious agencies.

It was an invitation to think, consider, discuss what those differences are and why...rather than just prolong the shallow binary opositional atheism "better" than theism viceversa peeing competition.

There are valid discussions on which types of charity are most efficient and beneficial, but the point is, there exist secular charities that rival and exceed the scale of the religious ones.

Comes close to repertition of the claim I first responded to...and I say again- no... there are no "secular charities that rival and exceed the scale of the religious ones" when it comes to "day to day domestic aid and support".

There are different and distinct types of charities and support organizations providing different and distinct services...Some, like the Red Cross, Unicef and Doctors Without Borders provide disater relief and international aid...And some, like the Salvation Army, provide a whole range of day to day domestic aid and support programs. In the latter category there is no secular charity to rival (in scale and program diversity) the Salvation Army alone....let alone all the domestic church agencies combined.

That fact alone deserves "Why is it so"? consideration.

The pretence, by others (desperate to paint a "better" picture) that "The United States government is a secular organization that blows away any religious charity group" or " the Ministry of Community and Social Services provides services..." is indeed "to try to redefine" Government as a " secular charity".

A lame and fruitless illconsidered ploy unworthy of consideration or further comment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The government funded hospital would not be a charity.

No, but it's part of the environment in which a charity operates, and the environment in which a charity operates is a factor in the magnitude of the net benefit that the charity can create.

As an illustrative example: if you had a charity that ensured that every person in a community received three meals a day even if they couldn't afford it, by itself this could potentially save many lives. However, if the community also benefits from a welfare system that ensures that no matter how badly-off people get, they'll always be able to afford at least three meals a day, then the charity probably wouldn't save any lives at all. The benefit of the charity would be reduced.

So if all the religious charitable giving in Canada ceased at this moment there would be no loss to society? You'll understand I hope, I find that difficult to accept.

I didn't say that there would be no loss. My point was that for every religious charity, there's a secular alternative. If the Salvation Army closed up shop and you wanted to help a charity fight homelessness, you could give your money to the Red Cross instead. That's what I was getting at.

Your doubts are unfounded.

Religious people give more money and time to non-religious charities than secular people do, on average. 25% more likely to donate money and 23% more likely to donate time. Religious average over $2,200 while secular average over $600.
Religious Faith and Charitable Giving | Hoover Institution

Hmm. If the results of that study are accurate, then I stand corrected:

Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

 

[Wombat]

I didn't say that there would be no loss. My point was that for every religious charity, there's a secular alternative. If the Salvation Army closed up shop and you wanted to help a charity fight homelessness, you could give your money to the Red Cross instead. That's what I was getting at.

And in this you are wrong...that's what I was getting at.

Have a look at the services the Red Cross supplies on a national-

http://www.redcross.org.au/ourservices_acrossaustralia_communityservices_default.htm

and international basis-
Australian Red Cross

They do not duplicate Salvation Army service provision...there is little to no overlap... if "you wanted to help a charity fight homelessness" the Red Cross would not be an appropriate charity choice unless it was "homelessness" as result of a specific disaster or a small role in intellectual disability and elderly housing.

"If the Salvation Army closed up shop" the Red Cross would not be there with existing services for the homeless....but it sure would be inclined towards setting up such services in the face of the major disaster of the Salvation Army closing shop.

Your point "that for every religious charity, there's a secular alternative" is demonstrably false and does not withstand examination.
While there is some overlap between Red Cross and Salvation Army service provision there is a very clear distinction in emphasis and purpose with the Red Cross placing emphasis on "People affected by disaster/emergencies" and the SA placing emphasis on day to day domestic service provision.

There is good cause and solid reason for such distinction...it has to do with enduring/ongoing provision of 'community'...something the churches are very good at providing and secular NGO's struggle to achieve.

Our Services » About Us » salvos.org.au