Is religion dangerous?

[ThomasToo]

I mentioned in passing that I thought religion to be dangerous in another thread in response to something Tonyrey said. When he asked how, I messaged him privately because I did not want to derail the thread and because I thought such a topic would be verboten. He told me ‘I prefer to deal with these issues publicly because they affect all of us and the truth should be broadcast from the housetops! What do we have to lose? Don’t feel you will be banned.’ In that spirit I offer here what I’d sent to him.

I think there are many reasons religion is in and of itself dangerous for numerous reasons most of which are outlined in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason which basically argues that religion–most notably moderate religion–protects the notion of ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ which is used to cordon off principles as exempt from rational investigation. This same notion is also used by those radicals who use their religion as a defense for violence and fear.

I think religion is dangerous because it tries to teach us to be satisfied with not knowing.

I think religion is dangerous because it offers illusory answers to difficult and real questions.

I think Christianity is dangerous because millions of fundamentalist Americans have played ‘let’s start the Second Coming’ with politics in the Middle East most notable in Israel.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it teaches that it is inherently sinful for a person of a given sexual orientation to find sexual and romantic fulfillment consummate with their orientation. I think it is dangerous because as a result of that doctrine it endeavors to restrict millions of gays from government protection of their relationships.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it is fundamentally sexist in the common reading of the term (that women are strictly unable to do things men are able to do).

I also linked Tonyrey to a debate put on by Intelligence Squared on the motion ‘is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?’ which has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. I provide links to Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens’s arguments here as well; each talk is 20 minutes so it’s split into two videos.
Hitchens 1) youtube.com/watch?v=XcNmzX3gSqs
Hitchens 2) youtube.com/watch?v=2P5VDkFwF5A&NR=1
Fry 1) youtube.com/watch?v=_L-_cbi_nL0&feature=related
Fry 2) youtube.com/watch?v=aBH3_78nitc&feature=related

 

[phoooiee]

I think religion is dangerous but lack of religion is even more dangerous. What do you think? Is lack of religion dangerous?

 

[ThomasToo]

I think religion is dangerous but lack of religion is even more dangerous. What do you think? Is lack of religion dangerous?

I do not. I think lack of religion is a natural state like, for example, lack of tattoos or lack of dyed hair or lack of piercings or lack of a belief in fairies, unicorns, celestial teapots or in Cthulhu. I do not think any such state or the lack of any such belief is dangerous.

I would grant that some people can use an atheistic universe to argue for absurd and potentially dangerous things but I don’t think such a worldview is, as such, dangerous.

 

[Rascalking]

I would grant that some people can use an atheistic universe to argue for absurd and potentially dangerous things but I don’t think such a worldview is, as such, dangerous.

Your a good man (I assume gender based on screen name, sorry if I’m wrong. to admit that some people use atheism for dangerous and destructive means (Mao and Stalin were not reading the Gospels, Koran, or Torah!).

I agree that religion can be dangerous! It can lead to being judgmental, arrogant, and, at it’s worst-murder.

However, I think the majority (you will always, always find extremists) of religious people, especially in todays society, understand that the three Abrahamic faiths, when understood correctly, do NOT promote violence and hate.

 

[Spencerian]

Hi.

You appear to making at least four different objections (and questions as a result), not one. That said, let me submit counter-arguments to each.

I think religion is dangerous because it tries to teach us to be satisfied with not knowing.

You are attempting to equate matters with objectivity against faith, which, by definition, **is **the belief in something that’s not objectively proven. But you likely accept what scientists tell you about the atom without owning an electron microscope yourself to see what they tell you they see. You may accept some theories about ancient life and the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere without personally experiencing it yourself. By contrast, there are historical documents that support the existence of one man in circa 30 AD and many eyewitnesses who attest to seeing this man very dead one day but alive some days later.

I think religion is dangerous because it offers illusory answers to difficult and real questions.

That’s a subjective and very generalized answer that has little for us to go on. Do you have a specific instance or subject in mind by saying such a thing? I could make the same arguments for global warming but, without same facts, it’s just my opinion.

I think Christianity is dangerous because millions of fundamentalist Americans have played ‘let’s start the Second Coming’ with politics in the Middle East most notable in Israel.

You’re attributing the actions of a handful to a whole illogically. The actions of a few are not necessarily connected to the others or makes them dangerous. Would you have the Salvation Army and the Catholic Church, two of the nation’s largest charitable organizations, disappear for the acts of a small group of people? By that logic, I would respectfully submit that you and the arguments you present here should be restricted simply because radicals in the atheist community such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens exist. I cannot say that all atheists are the same. You cannot do the same with Christianity.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it teaches that it is inherently sinful for a person of a given sexual orientation to find sexual and romantic fulfillment consummate with their orientation. I think it is dangerous because as a result of that doctrine it endeavors to restrict millions of gays from government protection of their relationships.

Please submit an instance where a homosexual union has generated a viable natural offspring from said union.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for **procreation **as well as companionship. There is no one on the planet that has been born outside of this biological framework. For that logical reason alone, the Catholic Church sees such same-sex unions as gravely disordered. Love and pleasure is not all there is to life. Generation of life is ultimately more important for, without it, there will be fewer people around to argue about it…we’ll die out.

You’re creating a straw man argument along the way here. The Church isn’t the Federal or state government, therefore they can’t restrict anything to same-sex couples. That said, there are state and Federal legislation available in regards to same-sex partnerships in regards to the legal protections that such a partnership needs. While these protections aren’t always the same as available to marriage, that’s because same-sex unions aren’t married people. The definition of marriage cannot be adjusted here.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it is fundamentally sexist in the common reading of the term (that women are strictly unable to do things men are able to do).

I’d appreciate an example here, for your question makes it too broad to answer. Women can make babies. Does that mean I should petition to be able to bear children as a man? Of course not. Biology **does **define many of our roles–but you mis-characterize the Church incorrectly by suggesting sexism plays a role in its actions. Provide a specific example, please.

 

[ThomasToo]

Your a good man (I assume gender based on screen name, sorry if I’m wrong. to admit that some people use atheism for dangerous and destructive means (Mao and Stalin were not reading the Gospels, Koran, or Torah!).

I think, as I’m sure you’ve heard before, Stalin borrowed a lot from religion in creating the his cult of personality and–as I recall–he also spent five years in the seminary.

I agree that religion can be dangerous! It can lead to being judgmental, arrogant, and, at it’s worst-murder.

I’d say at its worst genocide and torture.

However, I think the majority (you will always, always find extremists) of religious people, especially in todays society, understand that the three Abrahamic faiths, when understood correctly, do NOT promote violence and hate.

To be very honest, I think you’re giving people far too much credit. I don’t think the vast majority of people could name the Ten Commandments or the five pillars of Islam. And, to be fair, I think at least one of the Abrahamic faiths does promote violence and hate. I am by no means a koranic scholar but I don’t think it’s fair to call it a book of peace.
3:110:

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

48:29:

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves

9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Jizya is the tribute non-Muslims pay to a Muslim state.]

13:15:

And unto Allah falleth prostrate whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly

I’m guessing none of us have the Arabic to read these in the original text and I presume translation has not changed them much. There are (many) others but I think the principle stands.

 

[HereticalTheist]

I mentioned in passing that I thought religion to be dangerous in another thread in response to something Tonyrey said. When he asked how, I messaged him privately because I did not want to derail the thread and because I thought such a topic would be verboten. He told me ‘I prefer to deal with these issues publicly because they affect all of us and the truth should be broadcast from the housetops! What do we have to lose? Don’t feel you will be banned.’ In that spirit I offer here what I’d sent to him.

I think there are many reasons religion is in and of itself dangerous for numerous reasons most of which are outlined in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason which basically argues that religion–most notably moderate religion–protects the notion of ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ which is used to cordon off principles as exempt from rational investigation. This same notion is also used by those radicals who use their religion as a defense for violence and fear.

I think religion is dangerous because it tries to teach us to be satisfied with not knowing.

I think religion is dangerous because it offers illusory answers to difficult and real questions.

I think Christianity is dangerous because millions of fundamentalist Americans have played ‘let’s start the Second Coming’ with politics in the Middle East most notable in Israel.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it teaches that it is inherently sinful for a person of a given sexual orientation to find sexual and romantic fulfillment consummate with their orientation. I think it is dangerous because as a result of that doctrine it endeavors to restrict millions of gays from government protection of their relationships.

I think Catholicism is dangerous because it is fundamentally sexist in the common reading of the term (that women are strictly unable to do things men are able to do).

I also linked Tonyrey to a debate put on by Intelligence Squared on the motion ‘is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?’ which has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. I provide links to Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens’s arguments here as well; each talk is 20 minutes so it’s split into two videos.
Hitchens 1) youtube.com/watch?v=XcNmzX3gSqs
Hitchens 2) youtube.com/watch?v=2P5VDkFwF5A&NR=1
Fry 1) youtube.com/watch?v=_L-_cbi_nL0&feature=related
Fry 2) youtube.com/watch?v=aBH3_78nitc&feature=related

Due respect Thomas but I think arguments of this sort overlook, or overshadow, an even more fundamental truth:

Human Beings are dangerous. They’re the most dangerous things on this planet. And left to their own they would destroy each other a million times over.

But this is something the Church has been crying out to us to see for 2000 years. Isn’t it strange! The Church is a step ahead of you in this argument.

 

[Rascalking]

I think, as I’m sure you’ve heard before, Stalin borrowed a lot from religion in creating the his cult of personality and–as I recall–he also spent five years in the seminary.

Yes, I’ve heard those before. What’s your point? He didn’t BELIEVE in them. That’s the key thing.

To be very honest, I think you’re giving people far too much credit. I don’t think the vast majority of people could name the Ten Commandments or the five pillars of Islam. And, to be fair, I think at least one of the Abrahamic faiths does promote violence and hate. I am by no means a koranic scholar but I don’t think it’s fair to call it a book of peace.

***I plead guilty to that. I have a postive view of people, but humanity stinks. As to your Koran comment, I think your partially right, partially wrong. I am no fan of Islam, but if a moderate view of the Koran incited violence, wouldn’t their be alot more violent islamic terroists? ***

.

My answers are the ones in the bold.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)