(May 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Bittersmart Wrote: Oftentimes when bringing up the many atrocities committed in the name of religion, many are quick to say "Well, there are plenty of crimes committed without religion, too", or "Bad people were going to commit those crimes anyway, they didn't need religion, it's just their excuse". How much of that is true, though? If there were no religion, would crime rates go down? Would there be more tolerance? I do wonder if religious indoctrination ceased suddenly, would the world be a slightly better place? Or would it remain the same, something just as bad filling the vacuum? I tend to lean towards the idea that the world would be at least somewhat better off without religion, but I'm biased.
Here's a thought on that subject:
Two ways that humans can easily rationalize bad behavior is either by "mob mentality" or by blindly following an authority, both of which involve diffusing responsibility. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on these things. One can be a political or nationalistic fanatic or a mafia capo and still commit terrible crimes. However, this kind of submission to the group or to a leader is nearly inherent in religion where "faith" (believing what you're told without question) is a key component.
Often, Christians will indignantly fire back with "oh yeah, well the atheists under Stalin were bad too". While it's true the Soviet regime was one that rejected conventional religion (and I say "conventional religion" because it's debatable whether a "cult of personality" might just be an alternative religion), the atrocities they committed were not so much because of a lack of a belief in a god as much as their political and economic fanaticism. Yes, people can do bad things in fanatical devotion to non-religious or worldly causes but religion is uniquely dangerous because of two factors:
1. "My imaginary friend tells me what's right and wrong"
The authority figure is not a worldly dictator who can at least clarify dogma, react to events and possibly restrain his/her zealots. Failing to do so, this dictator can be held responsible in a world court in the event of his/her fall.
No clarification comes from on high. What a god wants is communicated through interpretations of scripture, as filtered through the mind of the believer or a religious leader. And anyone who's debated scripture with a Christian knows full well how easily the believer can cherry pick, read through a lens of confirmation bias, come up with ludicrously obtuse interpretations, make liberal use of the ad hoc hypothesis to fill in what they want and, when all else fails, "la la la la la, I'm not listening".
Scripture says whatever you want it to say. The believers always follow a god who wants what they want. The Christian can tell me what he/she thinks of Jesus and that tells me much about what that Christian is like or aspires to be like. Consider how Michael Moore and Pat Robertson, to pick just two examples, both worship the same god and read the same scripture.
Personally, I'm more afraid of the man who hears voices in his head than I am of someone who blindly follows the orders of another. At least with the latter, there are at least limitations to what the fanatic can justify. Anything can be justified when it is the will of your imaginary friend.
2. "You'll see I'm right when we're all dead"
Eventually, communism fell when people noticed it wasn't delivering the goods. Other political, nationalistic or economic ideologies taken to a fanatical extreme will also collapse when reality sets in. Religion is immune to reality. It proposes invisible forces that lie beyond our ability to detect and promises a reward after we're dead and nobody can report how it's all bunk.
Worse, some religions, Christianity in particular, celebrate the end of the world and seem to look forward to the collapse of everything. The dangers of a self-fulfilling prophecy are very real.
So yes, human cruelty will always be with us. People will seek to justify their cruelty by appealing to everyone-else-was-doing-it or the-great-leader-said-to-do-it. Religion just presents this danger on steroids.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist



