For good people to do bad things...

[bozo]

Minimalist, I agree. Well put.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Bollocks.

Good people use religion to rationalise the most appalling acts.Without religion,they would find other excuses (such as "the national interest")

Some very nasty things have been done by large numbers apparently good,ordinary people under atheist regimes such as Fascism, Communist Russia and the PRC.

MY perception is that virtually any human beings is capable of any act,given the right circumstance: sufficient personal gain, or sufficient fear.

Atheists as a group have no claim to the moral high ground.

[Darwinian]

Good people use religion to rationalise the most appalling acts.Without religion,they would find other excuses (such as "the national interest")

Without religion they would not necessarily commit appalling acts as they are good. It's surely the bad people that use religion as a mask to commit bad acts and without religion it would still be the bad people doing the bad things but under a different guise.

Some very nasty things have been done by large numbers apparently good,ordinary people under atheist regimes such as Fascism, Communist Russia and the PRC.

You second point suggests the validity of my comment above as the orchestrator's of Fascism etc. where driven by their own ideology which has nothing to do with atheism per say but instead their own 'evil' aspirations.

[Ryft]

It's surely the bad people that use religion as a mask to commit bad acts.

I thought Weinberg had it that it's good people using religion to do bad things. Either you now disagree with Weinberg and say it's bad people that use religion to do bad things, or you need to reassess your response to Padraic's excellent post.

P.S. Thank you, guys, for your responses. Judging by your generally consistent answers, how I interpreted Weinberg was evidently spot on.

[Darwinian]

It's surely the bad people that use religion as a mask to commit bad acts.

I thought Weinberg had it that it's good people using religion to do bad things. Either you now disagree with Weinberg and say it's bad people that use religion to do bad things, or you need to reassess your response to Padraic's excellent post.

P.S. Thank you, guys, for your responses. Judging by your generally consistent answers, how I interpreted Weinberg was evidently spot on.

You misunderstand.

I was commenting on this point.

Good people use religion to rationalise the most appalling acts. Without religion,they good people would find other excuses (such as "the national interest")

My point that it is surely bad people who would do this and not good. Unless I misunderstood the comment above.

[amw79]

Just to throw in my two-penneth-worth....

Padriag has got it right saying that some 'bad' people would use any justification to excuse their 'bad' actions.

However, the main problem lies in that religion (i.e. the bible, amongst other religious texts) appears to justify immoral actions, with the promise of post-mortam reward. Therefore otherwise 'good' people take actions which they would otherwise not be tempted to take, as they believe there is a greater reward awaiting them; and (as their dictated morality is fixed and beyond question),the consequences of their ethical choices were not fully thought through.

Also, lets not just limit this action "to do bad things" (that theists are motivated to take) to extreme examples such as suicide bombing, or terrorist activities. Lets not forget the anti-gay, and condom restricting dogma's of the catholic church; which are (in any sane-minded person's) anti-social and detremental to the wider society.

[Ryft]

My point is that it's surely bad people who would do this and not good. Unless I misunderstood the comment above.

I think it's possible that you did. The minor addition of emphasis might make Padraic's point more clear: "Good people use religion to RATIONALIZE the most appalling acts. Without religion, they would find other excuses—such as 'the national interest'," which refers to the implied horrors of anti-religious regimes.

For example, Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics use religion to RATIONALIZE their appalling acts, while in reality their professed religion (i) not only does not condone such acts (ii) but in fact condemns it. Such people, if they did not have religious language by which to rationalize their acts, would use the language of the next most convenient thing. Since their behavior is brought to their chosen narrative, and not derived from it, what narrative they use is mostly irrelevant.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

My point that it is surely bad people who would do this and not good.

I understand and disagree completely.


The whole point is that essentially good people can and do commit bad acts;

EG The brutalised wife who kills her brutal husband. The frazzled mother who shakes her baby to death.
The soldier who obeys the order to shoot an innocent civilian,lest he be shot.


Two broad and graphic examples; the bad behaviour of many good (atheist) people during the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


The sincere savagery of literally MILLIONS of essentially good young (atheist) ) kids during Mao's Cultural Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution


In my life,the majority of people I've met are essentially good. I can think of perhaps two people I've ever met I thought were bad people. Completely good people are also rare in my experience.

I'd be interested in a [humanist] formula which works out at what point a good person becomes a bad person. Are there varying degrees of badness? How does one decide? Easy to point at extremes, such as Hitler or Stalin,but what about those in the middle on on the edges? Does a good man become a bad man for saying nothing against evil,or by simply going into denial?

Speaking of Hitler,to see how essentially good (religious and non religious) people can do bad things,I recommend [the controversial]: "Hitler's Willing Executioners; Ordinary Germans And The Holocaust" (Daniel Jonah Goldhagen)

[Darwinian]

I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here, so will concede that I agree with your points....

[downbeatplumb]

My point is that it's surely bad people who would do this and not good. Unless I misunderstood the comment above.

I think it's possible that you did. The minor addition of emphasis might make Padraic's point more clear: "Good people use religion to RATIONALIZE the most appalling acts. Without religion, they would find other excuses—such as 'the national interest'," which refers to the implied horrors of anti-religious regimes.

For example, Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics use religion to RATIONALIZE their appalling acts, while in reality their professed religion (i) not only does not condone such acts (ii) but in fact condemns it. Such people, if they did not have religious language by which to rationalize their acts, would use the language of the next most convenient thing. Since their behavior is brought to their chosen narrative, and not derived from it, what narrative they use is mostly irrelevant.

I dont think thats true, they bomb the abortion clinics BECAUSE of their beliefs. Without the belief there would be no bombing.

You are trying to put the horse behind the cart.