Introduction
One caricature of the current debate between theists and atheists is as follows:
Atheist: “Religion is bad: look at the inquisition, the crusades, 9/11.”
Theist: “But religion also does a lot of good; don’t forget that. And most religious people don’t go off on crusades. Also atheism causes a lot more harm; look at Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Pol Pot. The harm caused by religious people isn’t caused by religion itself but by base human nature.”
I want to address these arguments and their validity. I do so because I think the majority of religious people accept the above theist stance as valid, and that it is a major factor keeping some people in their current religion; as a religious friend of mine once said “If I’m right then I’ve lived a good happy life, and if I’m wrong, no harm done.” I want to examine if this is true.
The atheist argument is too simplistic
The atheist argument is of course overly simplistic, as caricatured above. Extreme religious acts are evidence merely that some religious people cause harm. It isn’t strong evidence of causation between religion and harm, nor of the extent of that causation. It does however serve to show the extreme harm that can ensue from fundamentalist religious belief, which is important once the argument about causation is won. Causation is what atheists need to concentrate on. I think the reason that religion causes harm is through faith, and dogmatism. What faith does is to encourage belief without evidence. What dogmatism does is to discourage critical questioning. I think the real battleground should be about these two issues: first, is faith a good thing, which we wish to encourage in people, or is it too risky, and hence to be discouraged? Second, is dogmatism good?
Is Dogmatism good?
Why do people favour dogmatism and reject questioning? The simple answer is fear. Many have been told not to question by some authority or holy book. Many religions openly discourage it by saying that doubt is the work of the devil, or that it will lead you astray, or that it will lead to hell. Some have come to believe that it is impossible to lead a moral life except through faith in their particular religion, and they fear where doubt will lead them. Many fear the potential upheaval of changing their belief system, which may follow from questioning. Many people, of course, simply fail to actively question things they are told if they seem superficially correct; they are dogmatic by default.
But questioning has such great virtues. Any scientist or academic will tell you that questioning is the only method that leads to a convincing understanding of the universe. How do we know that an idea is right? Because it survives continuous, rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, in a world without questioning there are no checks and balances on what can happen or be believed. Freedom to question, to criticise, to subject something to scrutiny are essential parts of free open societies. If religion cannot survive rigorous scrutiny, it should be rejected. So the first thing that people should realize about belief is that it places on people the demand that they think for themselves and inquire deeply and continuously. This is hard work, but if you want to find truth and virtue in life, you can’t afford to be lazy. “Take nobody’s word for it”, the motto of the Royal Society, taken within reason, is a good framework for finding truth.
Is faith good?
From this we come to faith. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, evidence. This is obviously not the way to find truth. If you believe something without evidence, then you have no rational basis for defending the truth of that something. Ask yourself “How do I know?” If you can’t present a logical statement beginning with supported basic premises that then lead you logically to the truth of your belief, then logically you have to give it up. Without evidence, faith by definition cannot do this. Faith in short cannot be part of rational dialogue. Not only will faith not give you the truth, except by chance, it will probably lead to harm on the same grounds as dogmatism; it is not open to change based on rational argument. Let me use an innocent example of harm caused by faith that is not extreme. Roman Catholics believe that humans have souls that begin at conception and persist after death. There is no evidence for this, but souls are a necessary precondition for the Christian belief in salvation and the afterlife. The belief in souls that begin at conception seems totally innocent; it seems to have no moral consequences. Except that it does. Today we have the problem of a massive growing and ageing human population and many prevalent diseases of adulthood. These problems may be alleviated in part by contraception and embryonic stem cell research. Now the previously innocent belief in souls causes major problems. Catholics are obliged ethically by their beliefs to look after the souls of unborn children, despite the fact that there is no evidence for their existence, and that the small balls of cells involved do not even have a nervous system and cannot suffer. They persist in blocking stem cell research, and discouraging contraception, causing immense unnecessary suffering to millions, whilst saving only hypothetical unborn souls. And you cannot argue a Catholic out of this belief because it is not based on rationality. The Catholic church will carry on causing such suffering until it gives up faith. Faith, and nothing else causes this; this is not harm caused by base human nature, because the people involved are actually trying to do good. They simply get their beliefs using the wrong technique.
Can faith ever, in of itself, be a good thing? I think many otherwise rational people accept the notion of faith far too readily. They are used to it because it’s everywhere, it’s accepted as the done thing, and they’ve lived with it for so long. When they grow up, children are too often simply not exposed to the possibility of non-faith-based life stances such as Humanism. They instead think they have to choose between, say Christianity or Buddhism or Islam. Nobody tells them how to live any other way. Most religions actively encourage faith as the only way to salvation. But many people will also tacitly accept faith as long as it is faith in something good. Here we have the crux of the matter for me. Once you know it’s doing good, your decision is no longer blind; you are being influenced by the knowledge of what goodness is like. And if it’s goodness you want, you don’t have to accept theistic claims in order to have that.
Is the atheist argument correct?
So, what I’ve tried to show here is why I think religion is bad; faith is bad because there are other reliable ways to truth and truth matters; dogma is bad because questioning is essential for free open societies, and to establish truth, and truth matters. Faith and dogma are parts of most religions (I’d only make an exception for Unitarianism, and then only for some non-theistic Unitarians). Unwavering, literal faith and dogma are what characterize religious fundamentalism, hence the inquisition, the crusades, 9/11, which is where we started.
Does religion do a lot of good?
So now onto why I think the theistic response is incorrect. Let’s start with “Religion also does a lot of good”. I’m not willing to accept this statement yet. I am willing to accept that religious institutes explicitly encourage many clearly moral activities. So why am I unwilling to accept that religion does a lot of good? Simply because of an inadequate control. We do not know what those religious people would be doing if they were not religious. The people concerned themselves do not know, because most of them are unable to conceive of what Humanist life is like; most of them don’t know anything about it. Perhaps they would be contributing to charitable work, or other good causes, anyway. Secular charities also encourage moral ethical behaviour. So do Humanist books and parents. In the UK, voluntary contributions to community work and charitable giving are just as high amongst the non-religious as amongst the religious. Evidence from very young children, brain studies, and studies of other primate species suggest that virtue, and moral activity is an evolved condition in humans; the golden rule is ingrained in the head of almost every human. You don’t need Jesus, or Mohammed, to live a moral ethical life. If you compare the level of religiosity with measures of moral societal health across countries, you come to the conclusion that low levels of religiosity are nothing to be afraid of; the least religious countries for example have the lowest crime rates. Over people, more young people in the UK are non-religious but there has been no decline in their ethical behaviour.
I’m all in favour of encouraging moral action, and if the theistic religions were to fade away, as they are doing in Europe, then I would welcome a non-theistic replacement of church communities, with a Q & A after every sermon; in fact I think that this is something Humanists need to work harder at, perhaps when they find adequate funds and a sufficiently large base of support. What I find problematic about the “good” that is encouraged by the mainstream religions, is that it seems to be doing the right things for the wrong reasons. For most religious people, good and bad are what their God, or holy book, says is good or bad. Christians are encouraged to do good for their own future salvation under divine instruction. If you are a Humanist, however, you do good for its own sake. There may be Christians who feel they do good for its own sake. Fine; you should feel that because you are human too, and I think that’s basic human nature. Give up the Christian dogma, because if you can do good for its own sake, you don’t need it. Welcome to Humanism.
Most religious people are not bad
Are most religious people bad? Not intentionally, no. Most people are keen about their religion because of their enthusiasm to do good, and that enthusiasm should be a good thing. But all religious people are keen on faith. That means that they fail to acknowledge, and warn against, the risks attached to it. I am quite serious when I say that faith should come with some serious health warnings attached to it, but not one health warning is ever made about faith by the religious. Instead they warn against “religious extremism” or “fundamentalism”, but fail to warn against the necessary preconditions; faith and dogmatism, which they themselves encourage. As I illustrated above, the most innocent leaps of faith can cause extreme human suffering, and you simply cannot predict what will do this in advance. If you are to avoid any future harmful consequences of faith, you need a faith that is critical of itself and open to change through rational argument. And I don’t just mean the little niggly bits like whether women can become bishops. I mean the central tenets; when did you last hear a vicar publically ask the question of whether Jesus actually existed, and not come to the firm conclusion that he did? Of course vicars can’t express doubt about this; they would be branded as atheists.
I think that faith is especially dangerous because of the diverse market place of beliefs that people can now choose from, and which they are encouraged on every side to choose from. It’s like going shopping; shall I choose this religion, or that religion, add a bit of superstition here, supernaturalism there? People could be forgiven for thinking that this is a licence to believe whatever you like about the way the universe is, irrespective of the evidence. These kinds of notion are extremely dangerous in modern society; you really don’t have to look far to find an influential figure who consults an astrologer, or an evangelist, or a holy book written in the bronze or iron age, before making a decision that has consequences for millions. What is more, such people will have millions of willing followers, and to be frank, this frightens me. It frightens me that my own former prime minister, Tony Blair, was secretly a faith-head who prayed before decisive events; and it frightens me that my present prime minister, David Cameron, wants to “do God”. And if you are religious, then you contribute to this situation.
Furthermore, most religious people are very keen to convert other people. The Anglican church, one of the mildest forms of Christianity, is perfectly happy to proselytize as widely as it can; including amongst very young children. It is happy to convert adults using the Alpha course, a course that is parsimonious with the truth to say the least, whilst masquerading as education. It treads a very thin line indeed with these approaches, and one does wonder what it would do if unconstrained by the law and public opinion. Religious people do not show an adequate responsibility to the truth. This upsets me because the truth is such a beautiful thing; what a privilege it is to know what science has revealed, and to be aware of what mysteries still remain. Theists are by definition irresponsible about what we do not know.
Atheism causes a lot of harm too.
Atheists are not arguing that an atheist world would be free of immorality. They are arguing that a world free from faith and dogma would be free from the harm caused by faith and dogma, hence better in that way. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Stalin, strong candidates for the most wicked men of the 20th century, support this notion. Although Hitler was a Catholic, the others were indeed atheists, but they were certainly also dogmatic, and their dogmatic political ideologies, imitating to perfection theocracies, were what caused the harm they inflicted. In rejecting dogma, the new atheist movement also defends itself against the scaremongering accusation by the religious that an atheist world will be full of evil. Indeed all the evidence is to the contrary, as mentioned above. You could even argue that the twentieth century would have had one less terrible dictator without religion.
The harm done by religious people isn’t caused by religion but by human nature.
I would of course agree that people are inherently capable of both moral and immoral actions. To that extent any immoral act is caused by base human nature, and that statement is at best just a tautology. But, as explained above, there are plenty of religious people who, because of a faith position, end up doing harm when they only want to do good. This is clearly not harm caused by base human nature. It is harm caused by good human nature accompanied by faith.
If religions are so keen to show that immorality is not their fault, then why are their holy books so full of immoral instructions? You do not have to go far in the Bible, or the Koran, before you find incitement to genocide, death by stoning, beating, slavery, rape, homophobia….. Most Christians manage to cast aside these instructions, true, or are entirely ignorant of them. But if they are not correct or desirable, why are they still there? Whilst they remain there, and are given holy status, the door is open to evil committed as a direct consequence of that religion. When you give a Bible to a child, you are giving them a set of these horrendous instructions. Why does this not come with a health warning? Can you imagine any other book with such terrible instructions being an acceptable gift for a child?
Is the theistic argument correct?
No. Religion may do good, but it may not do any more good than non-theistic alternatives. Most religious people inadvertently do harm, because faith and dogma will be harmful, sooner or later. The atheist-dictator argument is a straw man. Religion does cause harm by legitimizing base human nature, and by encouraging good people to act in irrational ways.
Conclusion
If you are religious, you must seriously consider the potential harm caused by your faith and your dogma. If you think your faith is a cause for good, then think again. If you think “no harm done”, then think again. If we can keep all the good things about religion (encouraging morality, creating strong communities, celebrating the best of life) without the harmful things, then everyone can agree that we should. I think that the only way this can be done is by abandoning faith and dogma altogether. That’s why I’m a Humanist.
8 responses to “Does religion cause harm and is atheism just as bad?”
Null
July 28th, 2011 at 17:47
A couple of points:
1. Faith is not a bad thing in cases where there is an absence of evidence. For example, it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. It is my faith that God exists, and it is your faith that He does not. If evidence does exist then it is of course prudent for one to examine it and attempt to reach a logical conclusion.
2. You say “most religious people are very keen to convert other people.” Yet you are attempting to (de)convert religious people to humanism/atheism. Pot, meet kettle.
You may be interested in another blogger who posts many articles on Christian apologetics: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/.
peterjmayhew
July 29th, 2011 at 08:23
Thanks for your comments Null, as they raise some common misconceptions about atheism. Your arguments are easy to refute, and have been done many times by other atheists.
1. Your first point is simply not true, and is misconception number three in Sam Harris’s list (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1/). Faith is belief in something despite the evidence or in the absence of evidence. An absence of belief in something cannot therefore be faith; it is a failure to commit given insufficient evidence, and therefore is the opposite of faith. Atheists take an reasoning evidence-based stance, in which the quality of the evidence should be proportional to the magnitude of the claim before we are permitted to conclude that something is true. We don’t close the door totally to the possibility (sufficient evidence would obviously have to be accepted), but simply say that we should hold off from accepting the claim until such time as the evidence permits us to. This makes most atheists technical agnostics. You do the same with the millions of other Gods imagined through human history, and you do the same with any other supernatural claim; such as that crystals have healing powers. It’s how science works, and I presume you don’t think science is faith.
2. Wanting to change people’s minds about something is not inherently bad. It can be good or bad depending on, well lots of things. But there is a big difference between conversion to a religion and de-conversion. As I argued above, I think the moral consequences of the one are much worse than the other, and I would happily argue too that one generally involves education whilst the other involves less enlightening processes. So, not pot meet kettle.
Someone
April 15th, 2013 at 09:40
This comment shows how non-religious people can’t reason with religious people LOL!
peterjmayhew
April 15th, 2013 at 13:39
How does it show that? I’m answering it, and my answers are reasoned.
James J Hill
October 9th, 2013 at 19:05
I appreciated the objectivity of the first half of this article, but the second half seems to be confounded by the fundamental misunderstanding the academic world has of faith. Faith is not meagerly “belief without question” or belief in spite of the absence of evidence, as you put it. Faith “occurs” in the absence of evidence because it makes for an answer to moral inquisition and raw emotions, which are at their peak during times of peril. When someone you know is wrongfully murdered, you have to assume the suspect is a bad person for having done such a thing. By your own humanist values, however, you are wrong. For you don’t know what the suspect’s motive was and you don’t know for a fact that the suspect is a bad person. All you know is that he did a bad thing.
I take issue with your mentioning of the communist dictators who happened to be atheist. I think there is significantly greater evidence of harm by atheism there. Though I don’t think atheism or religion necessarily cause anything themselves since they are not conscious entities, I will say it causes harm for the sake of argument. Atheism causes harm by not just dispelling religious dogma, but the moral framework that goes with it. Without religion or belief system in general, what basis is there for a moral framework of any sort? “Reason” is vastly overstated and fragile. It varies between individuals and it is inherently subjective. Freeing the world from the chains of religion, therefore, can only result in a world where there is no definition of wrong and right, leading individuals to see all things as permissible solely because “they can”. That very logic informed the deeds of Stalin, Mao and the other dictators you mentioned.
People fight wars seeking the allocation of resources. Competing belief systems (or religions) are always a convenient front.
peterjmayhew
October 10th, 2013 at 08:37
Hello James,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Here are some immediate responses.
I agree that one of the things that make people turn to “faith” (I’d say turn to religion) is “peril”. Absolutely so: many many people brought up as religious say that that is when they get the most out of it, and many people have become religious during such times. But I don’t think that this observation negates the definition: these people are still discarding their rational side for the sake of emotional support.
When “bad” things are done to friends or family of mine, which they sometimes are, I don’t actually leap to conclusions like “that person was bad”. Actually my humanism tends to make me think “I wish that whatever factors forced that person to do that were not present: I realize that I anyone is capable of that given the appropriate circumstances”.
When I say that religion or atheism “causes” something, that is just shorthand for “is a factor making something more likely”. I am not trying to imply they are conscious, in the same way that when I think that continental drift causes earthquakes, I don’t think the continents are conscious entities. So I agree with you there too.
I may also agree that morals are impossible without a belief system. I don’t think anyone ever has lacked a belief system, and so I don’t think there have ever been morals in the absence of them, and since morality demands thinking about the consequences of your actions, and since belief systems are probably necessary to judge conseqences, I think you may be right. It’s just that belief systems don’t need to be religious (e.g. based on supernatural assumptions). They can be models built up over time based on evidence.
I disagree that discarding religion entails discarding morals. It means giving up a particular, authoritative moral system, sure, but morals clearly don’t have to be based on authority, and, one could, and people have, easily argue that it following orders doesn’t allow you as an individual to make the distinction between right and wrong; you’re leaving that to someone else. But the authority might have it wrong. If they have it right, there must be a reason for why it’s right, and that should be explicable to you and me in the absence of the authority. Authority not then necessary, and in fact by negating discussion and thought, is likely to lead people down bad roads. There is a lot of evidence that people understand morals in the absence of religion: evidence from comparative studies of religious and non-religious behaviour; studies of young children, non-human primates…..there is a vast literature now from biological anthropology on how morals should have evolved. If you’re interested in it, people often recommend Matt Ridley’s book the origins of virtue, but there are others.
When you say that reason is subjective, I’m not sure what you mean. Clearly reason is the way to get to objective facts: science relies on it and it works. Disagreement and discussion of the evidence (the dialective) is the mechanism by which people arrive at those facts.
I do agree to some extent that removing religious authoritarian morals will to some extent make moral answers less certain. But I think that moral decisions are often hard and require reflection and discussion. Consequences are often hard to predict and may vary over short and long timescales. They can’t all be summed up by a set of rules. But at the same time, there are certain biological norms: the revulsion at murder for example, and the joy of a smile. So it’s not all airy fairy either. I am not a theist, but just because I don’t think I’ll be punnished for my actions in an afterlife, it doesn’t give me permision to cause harm. I can also imagine the consequences of living in a society where everyone stole, lied, murdered, committed adultery, and clearly, wouldn’t enjoy it. Similarly, I can imagine the consequences of having a society where people are generous, kind, and look after the neglected. I even find an instant good feeling out of doing those things. They are human norms, and don’t go away without religion.
I don’t know if any of that makes any sense to you. It’s how most humanists think, and I think it’s actually true (in the sense of being well supported by evidence) too.
Best wishes,
Peter
jason roberts
January 4th, 2014 at 03:05
It is tacitly obvious that atheist apologists wish to poison the well of thought and reason, of which faith [which is trust or belief] is a necessary part of by commonly characterizing faith simply as [belief without evidence] . This is a caricature of the term and quite pejoratively used . Yes, we all know this is one of the usages of the term as listed in good ol’ Webster’s dictionary . That is cherry picking for the atheist agenda of mocking the value of faith and religion . This is a prime example of what I believe is fair to describe as atheist dogma/atheist preaching .
peterjmayhew
January 4th, 2014 at 15:25
Hi Jason,
No, I don’t think your understanding of faith is correct. You say it is “trust or belief”. First, it isn’t trust. When you have faith that Jesus rose from the dead, you are making a factual claim. You aren’t saying that he may not have but you’ll bet (trust) he did. You are saying that you believe he did. Thus, I agree that faith is about belief (not trust), which is part of the definition that I used. Second, if you had any evidence to put forward that was convincing to support this, and other, factual claims, you’d never need the word faith at all. You don’t have any, or at least none to distinguish that claim from all other supernatural claims, most of which you don’t believe. Thus, belief without evidence. I’m not trying to cherry pick:I’m trying to state clearly the way things are. I think this might help you to judge for yourself what your reasons are for the beliefs you hold. I’m very glad that you think you can use reason as part of your religion. I just don’t think you are using it when you state a belief in the supernatural. This amounts to faulty epistemology (the methods you use to find truth).
I hope that clarifies my position.
Best wishes.
Peter