Religion...Or Human Nature: Which is it?

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that a common enough defense of religion -- or of specific religions -- is that religion is not the source of the problem, but rather human nature is the source.

For instance: One might criticize a certain religion for promoting "Us versus Them" thinking. As a counter to that criticism, someone else might then point out that "Us versus Them" thinking is a common human trait.

I think there's some validity to that defense, but it seems to me it is often taken too far. Religions can and often enough do facilitate, promote, or encourage behaviors that, while deeply rooted in human nature, might not become as manifest were it not for the encouragement of a religion or religions.

For instance: I think that at least some religions encourage misogyny. Misogyny might be rooted in a desire to control the reproductive choices of women that transcends any particular religion, but those religions are not therefore mere neutral parties to it -- instead, they add gas to the fire.

But what do you think? When, if ever, is it logically legitimate to defend religion on the grounds that its negatives are mere human nature, and when, if ever, is it logically illegitimate?

 

[bobhikes]

It seems to me that a common enough defense of religion -- or of specific religions -- is that religion is not the source of the problem, but rather human nature is the source.

For instance: One might criticize a certain religion for promoting "Us versus Them" thinking. As a counter to that criticism, someone else might then point out that "Us versus Them" thinking is a common human trait.

I think there's some validity to that defense, but it seems to me it is often taken too far. Religions can and often enough do facilitate, promote, or encourage behaviors that, while deeply rooted in human nature, might not become as manifest were it not for the encouragement of a religion or religions.

For instance: I think that at least some religions encourage misogyny. Misogyny might be rooted in a desire to control the reproductive choices of women that transcends any particular religion, but those religions are not therefore mere neutral parties to it -- instead, they add gas to the fire.

But what do you think? When, if ever, is it logically legitimate to defend religion on the grounds that its negatives are mere human nature, and when, if ever, is it logically illegitimate?

From the atheist agnostic view that is mine. If there is no God which I believe all politics, all religions all clubs and etc are human made. Being that everything is human made they are a reflection of human nature.

If you take away all the religions of the world. Humans would find something else with the same problems to follow instead.

For me it does seem if you follow history that we are becoming less animal like and more philosophical, but we are also becoming more powerful through technology.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This whole subject is an interesting and fuzzy line that could be explored in various ways and in excruciating detail. However, to speak to the OP at hand, I think, in a general sense, a religion could be held responsible (above and beyond the realities of human nature), when it broadly promotes, encourages, and/or normalizes negative attitudes and behaviors in a way which increases their natural prevalance and/or intensity as a result of being fundamental components of human behavior.

For example, misogyny (as control of female sexuality, choices, and behavior) fundamentally exists in some people due to whatever reasons. However, if a religion adopts misogyny as a cultural norm or requirement, then the prevalence of this behavior will become much higher than it would be in a "natural" culture. So, although we can say that misogyny is just a symptom of human nature, it wouldn't leave religion off the hook if said religion's influence exacerbated or increased this symptom.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

human nature has a lot of aspects. Religion is the element of
human nature to institutionalize beleif systems.(which beleifs are irrelevant )

So it is both. Because were ever there are humans there are always an indigenous institution to tell humans "how it is"
The representatives of any religion become "knowers" who tell people who admittedly don't know.

When this happens people will act accordingly to what they are taught.

 

[bobhikes]

Religions are not stagnate they have changed through out history. They change after human views progress. If I read this right we are on the cusp of them changing again. I would say with in the next 1000 years.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Religions are not stagnate they have changed through out history. They change after human views progress. If I read this right we are on the cusp of them changing again. I would say with in the next 1000 years.

For sure

 

[Nakosis]

IMO Religion is the result of human nature, so....

Over time the nature of humans change and so also religion.

religion allows us to justify our nature. If we take that justification away then we'll have to find other reasons to justify our nature. Following, accepting religious doctrine saves time.

 

[LuisDantas]

I tend not to make the distinction. Religion is supposed to be the result of the adherent's efforts. If a religion fails to curb the worst excesses of its people, then it is indeed its failure.

 

[fantome profane]

I never really believed that religion is the cause of "the problem".

But I am skeptical of any claims that religion is he solution to "the problem"

 

[ametist]

It isnt ever legitimate to defend a religion. Thats a silly thing. Even god doesnt do it there could be one religion and there isnt. They are many.. At least on the surface besides we are living in a memory where all religions that need to be protected, protected and all is over already.
Until we notice that It is only legitimate if we offer to share what feels lovely and nice to us with others for the purpose of passing good time.

 

[Willamena]

For instance: I think that at least some religions encourage misogyny. Misogyny might be rooted in a desire to control the reproductive choices of women that transcends any particular religion, but those religions are not therefore mere neutral parties to it -- instead, they add gas to the fire.

Okay; I don't get it. Misogyny is rooted in something other than religion, but religion is still to blame?

 

[Quintessence]

Okay; I don't get it. Misogyny is rooted in something other than religion, but religion is still to blame?

I would avoid using the word blame entirely. It is a messy, needlessly emotional word to describe what is going on.

Think of it in terms of causal variables or mediating/influencing factors. All events have many causal variables and influencing factors. I believe Sunstone is meaning to suggest that religion is sometimes a causal variable or mediating factor, but it is not, in of itself, necessarily a primary cause or dominating factor.

In general, I would think all things can pretty much be broken down into roughly three root causes:

• Individual factors - the behavioral disposition (personality) and genetic makeup (aptitudes) of the target organism
• Ecological factors - the overarching environment (including the cultural/social environment, if applicable) the organism dwells in and its influence on the target organism
• Situational factors - the specific situation the organism is confronted with

All three of these broad categories are vital, and I think it's misleading to pinpoint any one of them as the "root" cause. If you don't have any one of these three things, things do not tally. Any event has all three.

 

[yoda89]

But what do you think? When, if ever, is it logically legitimate to defend religion on the grounds that its negatives are mere human nature, and when, if ever, is it logically illegitimate?

Lets use an example. We disagree on something. Therefore, because of this I beat you with a baseball bat. Your extremely physically harmed. You ask me why and how I could do such a thing. My response is that I am merely human. It is in my nature because I am human to beat people who disagree with me with baseball bats.

 

[Sunstone]

Okay; I don't get it. Misogyny is rooted in something other than religion, but religion is still to blame?

A can of gasoline may not be the initial cause of a fire, but it can still add to a fire that has already started.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, violence is clearly part of human nature seeing as how it happens on a habitual basis. Logically, human nature is simply all the things that humans happen to do. Just as plant nature is all the things that plants happen to do and cat nature is all the things cats happen to do.

Ethically? That's another matter, to some.

 

[Amechania]

i suppose if a monk rapes a nun you can't really say that the it's the religion's fault unless the religion advocates nun rape as a tenet.

 

[idav]

It seems to me that a common enough defense of religion -- or of specific religions -- is that religion is not the source of the problem, but rather human nature is the source.

For instance: One might criticize a certain religion for promoting "Us versus Them" thinking. As a counter to that criticism, someone else might then point out that "Us versus Them" thinking is a common human trait.

I think there's some validity to that defense, but it seems to me it is often taken too far. Religions can and often enough do facilitate, promote, or encourage behaviors that, while deeply rooted in human nature, might not become as manifest were it not for the encouragement of a religion or religions.

For instance: I think that at least some religions encourage misogyny. Misogyny might be rooted in a desire to control the reproductive choices of women that transcends any particular religion, but those religions are not therefore mere neutral parties to it -- instead, they add gas to the fire.

But what do you think? When, if ever, is it logically legitimate to defend religion on the grounds that its negatives are mere human nature, and when, if ever, is it logically illegitimate?

Circumstances of course are different for everyone but there is a question you can ask. How is everyone around me going in an untimely manner. Some it might be war or famine, for me friends and family have issue with diseases. It is also a gamble as how much these diseases are our contribution but I place most that on nature in general. When looking word wide it is mostly nature not humans, though many may be in circumstances that make it seem different.

 

[ChristineES]

A can of gasoline may not be the initial cause of a fire, but it can still add to a fire that has already started.

True enough, but someone actually has to 1. Physically put gasoline on the fire or 2. A fire has to start where the gasoline is. If there is a can of gasoline and there is no heat, then it will not ignite. (It doesn't need a spark or flame, if it is stored in a room it can have spontaneously combustion with just a hot room).

 

[LuisDantas]

i suppose if a monk rapes a nun you can't really say that the it's the religion's fault unless the religion advocates nun rape as a tenet.

At least conceivably you might. It depends on how much effort the religion takes to discourage (or, hypothetically, encourage) the misdeed.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Any given institution or ideal is subject to the power of human nature. Take for example the argument that Atheism is dangerous because it lead to Communism which is entirely untrue.

Communism appeals to the human nature on many levels because it appeals to the poor and unwanted and promoted Robin Hood style economics which appease the minority. Religions can do the exact same thing and Christians do this all the time int he form of missionary work. Both institutions despite being non related are subject to the interpretation and motivation of human nature. Humans have used both such institutions for evil and for good despite neither actually promoting varying things.

Humans are always the problem since humans create, organize and promote such ideals without caring for the possible effects. What is created by man is the problem of man