New survey: half of Canadians think religion does more harm than good

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In spite of that, folks continue to speak of "religion" as if it's some singular entity, frequently assuming that "religion" equals whatever the dominant forms are in their culture.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the overall net effect of religion is going to be dominated by mainstream religion.

This doesn't mean that some small fringe religious group out there hasn't come up with a religion that's entirely positive in its effects, but it does mean that the effects of any fringe group - good or bad - are going to be less than the rounding area when considered along with large, established, mainstream, institutional churches.

It isn't about having a narrow definition of "religion"; it's about having a clear understanding of "overall".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Quintessence - the reality is that all religion often gets lumped together by public policy.

For instance: in Canada (like in most countries), charities must have a charitable purpose from a small set of available purposes. Most churches here use "advancement of religion" as their charitable purpose in order to be considered a charity.

If the government or citizens are going to discuss whether allowing "advancement of religion" as a charitable purpose should be kept or removed from the list, we're inevitability going to end up talking about religion in general when considering what the effects of the change would be.

Now... I'm all for the law simply ignoring religion: let charities qualify based on legitimately charitable purposes, and let religious freedom be protected through more general rights like freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, etc... but this isn't the current state of things. As long as the law has special treatment based on "religion", we're going to be talking about "religion" as a whole from time to time.

 

[Quintessence]

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the overall net effect of religion is going to be dominated by mainstream religion.

Sure. As a follow-up to that, what is "mainstream religion?" More importantly, are people's impressions of "mainstream religion" accurate?

I don't understand how people can define "mainstream religion" in a global context, much less generalize about it like they are. That just makes no sense to me. At most I could say something like "Abrahamic monotheisms are numerically dominant in the present era," but then within that there is so much diversity I have no idea what "mainstream Abrahamic monotheisms" looks like. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. There's way too much diversity within those traditions for me to go 'yeah, Abrahamic monotheisms cause more harm than good.' I don't get how people can generalize like that. It just makes no sense to me.

But people make stupid generalizations quite frequently, as the mechanisms for it are built in to how our minds process information. I suppose I should stop being surprised about that.

It isn't about having a narrow definition of "religion"; it's about having a clear understanding of "overall".

So long as this understanding doesn't result in bigotries and prejudices (which is not an uncommon outcome, unfortunately), that's fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. As a follow-up to that, what is "mainstream religion?" More importantly, are people's impressions of "mainstream religion" accurate?

I don't understand how people can define "mainstream religion" in a global context, much less generalize about it like they are. That just makes no sense to me.

First off, we're talking about a Canadian survey, so I think it's reasonable to consider a specifically Canadian context, not necessarily a global one.

That being said, I'd personally define "mainstream religion" in terms of the specific religions that qualify as mainstream, and I generally define "mainstream" religions in terms of number of adherents. Here are the numbers for Canada:


Religion in Canada - Wikipedia

Where we put the cutoff is a bit arbitrary, but based on my personal (and admittedly subjective) judgement that Sikhism is a mainstream religion in Canada, 0.5% works for me as the qualification for "mainstream".

Where would you put the line?

At most I could say something like "Abrahamic monotheisms are numerically dominant in the present era," but then within that there is so much diversity I have no idea what "mainstream Abrahamic monotheisms" looks like. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. There's way too much diversity within those traditions for me to go 'yeah, Abrahamic monotheisms cause more harm than good.' I don't get how people can generalize like that. It just makes no sense to me.

One way of looking at it: consider a law that advantages or disadvantages "religion" in some way and think about whether a change to that law would make things better or worse.

For instance, say we were considering tax breaks for tuition at "religious" schools. This will undoubtedly benefit some people and harm others, but we can add up the people on both sides and decide on a net effect, regardless of how diverse "religion" is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just as with people's opinion about atheists, this poll says more about the population answering it than it does about religion.

I've constructed complex models and algorithms, not only for work, but as a personal hobby, and I would have a hard time coming up with one which could meaningfully isolate and calculate the net positive/negative effects of religion, as a whole.

To be honest, as a poll question, it's far too broad and non-contextualized to provide any substantive information about who you're polling, or what their responses mean.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can't agree with that. I might if people could be bothered to name specific religious traditions and elements within religious traditions they take issue with instead of grossly overgeneralizing with the word "religion," but all too often that isn't done.

Certainly this is what I've encountered. The 'us versus them' simplistic mentality may have worked here in Canada 50 years ago, from both sides, but the new immigrant religions are largely quite misunderstood. The old atheist guard (of which my own brother is an example) has absolutely no clue what Hinduism, Buddhism, even Judaism is about. Their beef lies with Christianity, and at one time that was what 'religion' meant. It will take at least another generation for some stuff to sink in.

 

[YmirGF]

Certainly this is what I've encountered. The 'us versus them' simplistic mentality may have worked here in Canada 50 years ago, from both sides, but the new immigrant religions are largely quite misunderstood. The old atheist guard (of which my own brother is an example) has absolutely no clue what Hinduism, Buddhism, even Judaism is about. Their beef lies with Christianity, and at one time that was what 'religion' meant. It will take at least another generation for some stuff to sink in.

Then again, some of us atheist rascals are actually quite conversant on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. Heck, some of us even have a working knowledge of Jain, Shinto and Taoism as well. Again, the real point is that we don't really care.

 

[Vinayaka]

Then again, some of us atheist rascals are actually quite conversant on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. Heck, some of us even have a working knowledge of Jain, Shinto and Taoism as well. Again, the real point is that we don't really care.

Depends on the atheist. There's a large spectrum in atheism as well, as you know. From my very limited experience, there is a rural/urban divide, with the urban folks generally being more aware, simple because they may well have actually driven past a Sikh temple. Rural conservative Alberta OTOH ... well.

But you're right. Indifference should never be mistaken as hate.

 

[Quintessence]

First off, we're talking about a Canadian survey, so I think it's reasonable to consider a specifically Canadian context, not necessarily a global one.

Okay, I'm confused. From the OP (emphasis mine):

Highlights:

• 51% of respondents agree that religion does more harm than good in the world.

That doesn't sound like a specifically Canadian angle? Did you intend to type "in Canada" there and not "the world?"

Kinda odd questions either way, to me. Our day-to-day experiences are highly localized, and the level of extrapolation required to project that to global, national, state, or even to one's city is quite extreme. It's not something I would feel comfortable doing.

Where would you put the line?

I don't know, but I don't find it matters. I don't base my assessment about religion on what is categorized as mainstream.

One way of looking at it: consider a law that advantages or disadvantages "religion" in some way and think about whether a change to that law would make things better or worse.

That is a useful take on it. It doesn't work so well when you're a non-dualist. I think less in terms of "better" and "worse" and more in terms of "is this in alignment with my values." Something being in alignment with my values does not make it "better" it makes it more agreeable for me (and inevitably disagreeable to someone else). I'm afraid things are never so simple for me as your example expresses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly this is what I've encountered. The 'us versus them' simplistic mentality may have worked here in Canada 50 years ago, from both sides, but the new immigrant religions are largely quite misunderstood. The old atheist guard (of which my own brother is an example) has absolutely no clue what Hinduism, Buddhism, even Judaism is about. Their beef lies with Christianity, and at one time that was what 'religion' meant. It will take at least another generation for some stuff to sink in.

It sounds like your impression might be the one that's out of date. What you describe sure doesn't reflect my experience growing up in Toronto in the 80s and 90s.

Other than my grandmother, I had more exposure to Hinduism and Islam growing up than I did to Christianity.

 

[Vinayaka]

It sounds like your impression might be the one that's out of date. What you describe sure doesn't reflect my experience growing up in Toronto in the 80s and 90s.

Other than my grandmother, I had more exposure to Hinduism and Islam growing up than I did to Christianity.

Toronto and rural Alberta are miles apart, figuratively. But yes I can see that. Toronto has over 50 Hindu temples now I think. Each of us reflects personal experience. Even within Edmonton though, I get people walking by the temple I volunteer landscape at, and they'll occasionally come in to ask me a question about what this building is. There are truly some rather 'off' misconceptions, but I think you're correct that those types of people are in the minority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, I'm confused. From the OP (emphasis mine):

That doesn't sound like a specifically Canadian angle? Did you intend to type "in Canada" there and not "the world?"

It's a survey of Canadians. "In the world" can be taken a few ways. Until your post just now, I took "in the world" to mean "real as opposed to theoretical." I suppose it could be taken as "globally as opposed to locally," but that's not where I went with it.

Kinda odd questions either way, to me. Our day-to-day experiences are highly localized, and the level of extrapolation required to project that to global, national, state, or even to one's city is quite extreme. It's not something I would feel comfortable doing.

Whether you feel comfortable with it or not, it's happening on your behalf. Governments set policies every day that restrict or encourage things on the basis of them being "religious."

I don't know, but I don't find it matters. I don't base my assessment about religion on what is categorized as mainstream.

I'm not suggesting you do. I'm suggesting that if we're going to make judgements about the overall impact of religion as a whole, that we consider the relative magnitude of all of the individual impacts. When considering the overall impact of billions of people, the impact of a million people working together matters more than the impact of a dozen people.

That is a useful take on it. It doesn't work so well when you're a non-dualist. I think less in terms of "better" and "worse" and more in terms of "is this in alignment with my values." Something being in alignment with my values does not make it "better" it makes it more agreeable for me (and inevitably disagreeable to someone else). I'm afraid things are never so simple for me as your example expresses.

Whatever terms you want to use, we inevitably end up making decisions that affect other people based on our own judgement, and we ought to consider whether those decisions will affect those people positively or negatively.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because such views tend to be perception-based.

Yup. And often even the perception of "religion causing bad" stops and starts at violence. But if just over half the population agrees religion is causing more harm than good in the world, I suspect a good potion of those are aware of charities and wars, those arguing for freedom and those arguing to repress it, hosting addiction group therapy meetings and pedophiles.
Too bad we can't actually support or prove either of our speculations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Highlights:

• 51% of respondents agree that religion does more harm than good in the world.
• 24% of respondents agree that religious people are better citizens.
• 13% of respondents lose respect for someone when they find out they're religious.
• 34% of respondents agree that religion should play an important part in political life.

Religion increasingly seen as doing more harm than good in Canada: Ipsos poll

I'm not sure it matches my personal experience these days, though my part of the country tends to be more religious and more conservative than average.

Thoughts?

On the whole, I don't think one can accurately speak of "religion" as a monolithic term. For instance, if someone asks me, "Does religion do more harm or good in the world?" my answer will conditionally be that it does more harm, because of two factors:

• I think that the most common forms of the two most major world religions, Islam and Christianity, inspire far more hatred, violence, and irrational bias than compassion or understanding. They are only two religions out of thousands, but the fact that their followers make up more than a third of the world's population makes me give them significant weight in terms of my perception of whether religion does more harm than good in the world.

• If we speak of the thousands of religions that exist in the world, I think religion probably either has a positive net effect on the world or it has a neutral/indeterminate net effect. Paganism, for instance, strikes me as potentially conducive to respect for the environment, compassion when treating animals (same for Hinduism), and appreciation of nature. Buddhism encourages loving-kindness meditation. Jainism encourages pacifism, arguably to a fault.

So, in terms of the most common religions, I think the net effect is harmful. In terms of all religion, including very uncommon forms thereof, there's a lot of positive influence that I don't think is improbable to cancel out or outweigh any negative influence resulting from the less-common forms of religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Paganism, for instance, strikes me as potentially conducive to respect for the environment, compassion when treating animals (same for Hinduism), and appreciation of nature.

They also rampantly promote pseudoscience and things that don't even deserve to be called that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They also rampantly promote pseudoscience and things that don't even deserve to be called that.

Every religion has its downsides, of course, which is why I think speaking about net effect is the more accurate approach in a poll like that instead of portraying ideologies as black or white.

 

[Sha'irullah]

A big part of it is that the word itself has been abused for a very long time.

Religion is not supposed to be validated by its demographic expansion - which, in practice, shows an almost inverse correlation to its actual worth. Many of the most vocal "defenders" of so-called "religion" are, frankly, bullies, cowards and nutjobs that happened to find a measure of security in numbers and peer support.

Sometimes I wonder if the word itself can be saved. It deserves better.

Something you need to consider first is to define religion since what most people call religion nowadays is merely Abrahamic cults that spread to the forefront of cultures. Nobody considers what a religion is or why it even exists. I live in America where the only things that unites anybody in my age group 20-30, is the overbearing need to spend money on things that express their satisfaction.

Just looks at how religious pilgrimage has been replaced by gaming conventions and anime expositions. Essentially all the meaningless and hedonistic things have hit the forefront of my generation and made my kind useless. Nobody I know spends any amount of their time trying to understand their morality or create meaningful principles to enrich their lives. It is always about seeking the next bit of pleasure that comes their way.

It i even worse for the non-theists who simply toss aside every element of religion good or bad and live the most shallow lives possible. They simply lack insight into what religion is and how to formulate an alternative.

 

[LuisDantas]

It i even worse for the non-theists who simply toss aside every element of religion good or bad and live the most shallow lives possible. They simply lack insight into what religion is and how to formulate an alternative.

Is that so? My gut feeling says otherwise.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Is that so? My gut feeling says otherwise.

I don't know what you're talking about but when you encounter atheists in person or online you will get a fairly strong leaning of ignorance toward religion. Not only that but I end up getting outcasted for my tolerance toward it. You obviously have never experience that with the current angsty atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know what you're talking about but when you encounter atheists in person or online you will get a fairly strong leaning of ignorance toward religion.

While that is certainly true, I don't know that it is any more true of us atheists than it is of anyone else. I strongly suspect that it is not.

Not only that but I end up getting outcasted for my tolerance toward it. You obviously have never experience that with the current angsty atheists.

If you say so.