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

[JiSe]

I would say that religions are not the only thing to blame. But as most of them are quite rigid organizations, and as such they hinder the improvement upon humanity's natural flaws.

Also some of the scriptures provide easy back up material for people to justify their bigotry.

And as a third point, most people don't become better persons even though their religion might try to push them to that direction, so its a bit of a problem when the bad parts of the old teachings is respected more than the good parts.

 

[The Bullfrog]

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?

I know that my views on this subject is not bound to make me many friends here. But I'll lay it out.

Ignorance is a root cause of "evil".

A conclusion based on a false belief is greater ignorance than not knowing.

Whether you believe in god or not, good and evil are matters for mortals and not the concerns of deities. When it comes to the subject of morality God(s), or the like, should never enter the equation. I have to believe that when one acts on a false belief they are closer to error. That one who embraces belief in what is false is more ignorant than one who admits they do not know. In the case of morality we should have the strictest of thoughts, and we should draw no unnecessary assumptions. Humans need to learn how to separate their religious beliefs from morality. However that is not the way of most religions, they all to often try to define human morality by the standards of a deities that is beyond comprehension. Across the globe the most popular religions are also commonly proclaimed the authority on morality. As long as people turn to religion for guidance they will always have the potential for a negative impact on their followers.

 

[jtartar]

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.

bobhikes,
If the religion that you belong to is the cause of hatred of things, except evil things, you are in the wrong religion.
I truly feel sorry for the person who has no yearning for his creator, for it seems that God put within every person the desire to worship something greater than himself, Christian Existentialism is the consequence for true believers.
Many people today are beginning to believe that religion is more of a cause of problems than an answer to them. True religion was called THE WAY, it is the very best way of live, for it brings you to care for your creator and men, which is the two greatest Commandments, Matt 22:36-40. Without cultivating this love a person is really an empty shell, with no happiness, and no future!!!

 

[Amechania]

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

Well, you have the Catholic Church protecting pedophiles by shuffling them from parish to parish, in an attempt to protect themselves from scandal, in apparent disregard for the victims. This is about as antithetical to the Christian religion as anything I can imagine. But is the religion at fault because cetain adherents in authority fail to live up to the promise of the creed? Fear is the enemy of faith, it would seem, and a fear of public opinion is inevitably going to cost you much if you are a Christian. Christianity is supposed to be about overcoming fear, by living an exemplary moral life. These men failed, but the creed is not at fault. That is the reason for the creed, because people fail.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, I know, I'm necro-ing a thread. But the OP Is still around. I know this because he regularly stalks me sans pants.

To me, the question is very simple, and fundamental. Does a given religion have ANY impact on behaviour, be it positive or negative.
Are there people here who truly believe religion has absolutely no impact in any manner on behaviour of at least some of it's adherents?

 

[SkepticX]

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.

Ha! Nice.

But if part of a given religion's dogma produces a higher risk of rape, then that religious dogma is complicit at the least. The denial of our biology and the needs that result, for example.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Might not? What in anthropology, sociology, and/or history suggests this?

 

[Sunstone]

Might not? What in anthropology, sociology, and/or history suggests this?

My opinion is largely based on numerous things I've read or heard over the years, along with some guesswork. For instance, I'm guessing that at least some religions, by encouraging charity, actually increase charitable giving. Again, I've read that anti-homosexuality was introduced to such places as Uganda first by the British (spreading religious based anti-homosexual ideas), and was more recently reinforced by American Evangelicals who, for religious reasons, have played a crucial role reigniting and expanding anti-homosexuality. Put differently, it doesn't seem to me that anti-homosexuality would be as prevalent as it is there were it not religion. Another example might be the art of the European Middle Ages. Creating art seems to be a universal human impulse or behavior, but would the Middle Ages have produced quite so much of it without religious patronage? I suspect not. In all three examples, I believe religion promoted, encouraged, or facilitated behaviors that might not otherwise have been as prevalent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In all three examples, I believe religion promoted, encouraged, or facilitated behaviors that might not otherwise have been as prevalent.

I would argue that "might not have" is an excessively low threshold and effectively useless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Might not? What in anthropology, sociology, and/or history suggests this?

Might not? What in anthropology, sociology, and/or history suggests this?

One piece of evidence: the 1997 letter from the Vatican to Catholic Church leaders in Ireland informing them that the anti-abuse policies they had put in place the year before (e.g. requiring suspected abuse to be reported to the police) ran afoul of religious law.

Vatican letter told Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report child abuse | World news | The Guardian

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One piece of evidence: the 1997 letter from the Vatican to Catholic Church leaders in Ireland informing them that the anti-abuse policies they had put in place the year before (e.g. requiring suspected abuse to be reported to the police) ran afoul of religious law.

That is evidence of the fact - a fact not in dispute - that religion facilitates. It is not evidence that the absence of religion would not see other forms of facilitation fill the void and that the net effect would necessarily effect an increase in the common good.

 

[Sunstone]

I would argue that "might not have" is an excessively low threshold and effectively useless.

LOL! Now that you mention it, I'm willing to concede you might probably be right about that. I must have been in a too cautious mood when I wrote the OP. Er, I mean I might probably have been...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is evidence of the fact - a fact not in dispute - that religion facilitates. It is not evidence that the absence of religion would not see other forms of facilitation fill the void and that the net effect would necessarily effect an increase in the common good.

It is evidence that, in this particular case, the relugious influence of the Vatican was contrary to the common good.

... and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Vatican's letter somehow staved off some secular influence from undermining the abuse policy even worse.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is evidence that, in this particular case, the relugious influence of the Vatican was contrary to the common good.

Again, that is not in contention.

... and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Vatican's letter somehow staved off some secular influence from undermining the abuse policy even worse.

… and I think it's ridiculous (if not dishonest) to imply that I suggested it did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, that is not in contention.

It's what I was arguing. If you agree, why are you disagreeing with me?

… and I think it's ridiculous (if not dishonest) to imply that I suggested it did.

So your statement was a red herring. Fair enough.

 

[Riverwolf]

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?

I would probably say that when it comes to specific instances of problems, specific religions can be traced as one (though rarely the only) causal or influencing force. Whether this is part of a religion's core, or just a specific way a religion is practiced, probably depends on the situation. However, I argue that religion generally can't be blamed for generalized evil.

If Catholic Christianity never spread through Europe, the crusades likely would never have happened. However, who can say what other horrible things might have happened? It's not like the people of Europe were living in sunshine and flowers before Christianity; the Tribes went to war with each other all the time.

In short, I think such a judgment is highly situational, such that I don't think any general "rule" can really be determined.