"With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?

[sagersager1]

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Just curious about this. I have had multiple arguments where I use this, although it is argued back that;

"Although not in the name of atheism, secular people can do wrong acts too" and "Good people do evil acts as well, so what's your point?"

What do people think about these counter arguments?

[Alex K]

Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.

In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.

[Minimalist]

Read up on the Inquisition and get back to me.

[sagersager1]

Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.

In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.

I suppose one could say to the counter arguments that, "Sure, good people can do evil things, but if we take religion out, one could wager that evil acts would go down tremendously."

What do you think of this?

Edit: then again, a common premise is that "religion is used as a mask for evil deeds." Ugh...

[dyresand]

Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.

In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.

I suppose one could say to the counter arguments that, "Sure, good people can do evil things, but if we take religion out, one could wager that evil acts would go down tremendously."

What do you think of this?

Edit: then again, a common premise is that "religion is used as a mask for evil deeds." Ugh...

Religion is evil with a smiley face sticker.

[Alex K]

I think of this that it is not a well-defined question what happens if we take religion out, because it is ingrained in our society and in peoples' minds. You can't just take something like that out like you'd adjust some level in an experiment. I don't even know what it would mean to have the same society we do now, but without religion.

I suppose one could say to the counter arguments that, "Sure, good people can do evil things, but if we take religion out, one could wager that evil acts would go down tremendously."

What do you think of this?

Edit: then again, a common premise is that "religion is used as a mask for evil deeds." Ugh...

[Ryantology]

Religion is not the only incentive that tempts good people into doing horrible things. It's just among the worst offenders.

[abaris]

Is it just me, who's got this Sonny sock feeling?

[sagersager1]

I understand and I know you are concerned mainly with truth, but speaking hypothetically, what do you think? I suppose there are better questions, I'm not sure how to word it, just a poor question in some sense.

I think of this that it is not a well-defined question what happens if we take religion out, because it is ingrained in our society and in peoples' minds. You can't just take something like that out like you'd adjust some level in an experiment. I don't even know what it would mean to have the same society we do now, but without religion.

I suppose one could say to the counter arguments that, "Sure, good people can do evil things, but if we take religion out, one could wager that evil acts would go down tremendously."

What do you think of this?

Edit: then again, a common premise is that "religion is used as a mask for evil deeds." Ugh...

[dyresand]

The people who scare me are the ones who say i only do good because of god and if i didn't have god i would be a killer and a rapist.
Those are the people who need some real help because if they ever find out god is not real oh man....