Is the belief in God ultimately harmful to society?

[Senator Napoleon]

While in the past I have been pretty ambivalent about religion and its role in society, and I may be simply hungover in disgust from yesterday's Amendment One vote, I am starting to think the only way to improve society is to somehow, someway eliminate this belief in God that seems to drive people as individuals and people in groups alike to do hurtful, hateful or downright retarded things to themselves or each other.

Whether it is the BushKenya shenanigans, to the anti-gay positions of the prominent socially conservative posters, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the South's defense and prolonging of slavery in the first half of the 19th century, religion appears to be the (or at least a) cause of many of the world's challenges. Believers are stubborn in their beliefs being true and not understanding the difference between truth and faith, which by definition is a belief unsubstantiated by proof. Is the belief in God ultimately harmful to society? Discuss whether or not morality centered around pleasing a feared higher power is better for humans in an objective sense compared to morality centered around respect for humans and basic rights.

This is not an attack toward religious posters, I genuinely want to hear your opinion on this and a defense of religious beliefs' effect on society. I don't want an argument based around charity work, either, I want to talk about the belief itself and its effect on our treatment of one another at the individual and societal level, especially toward those who don't share a religious group's point of view (regardless of the beliefs or non-belief of those individuals or communities).

[Simfan34]

So are we a New Atheist now? I could come up with a fairly compelling secular argument against gay marriage, to be honest.

[Senator Napoleon]

So are we a New Atheist now? I could come up with a fairly compelling secular argument against gay marriage, to be honest.

Strictly speaking, no, but I could myself being pushed over the edge by the particularly dangerous groups acting in God's name. I shouldn't limit that to myself; anti-religious sentiment will increase each time religion lands a "victory" for their side. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with BRTD's or Nathan's (and a handful of others) beliefs other than *it is based on something unconnected to earthly reality and *it helps validate the beliefs of the Bad Guys.

[asexual trans victimologist]

No more so than any other beliefs based in things unconnected to philosophically rigorous logical argumentation, which is the vast majority of things that people believe in and interact with. The concept of God isn't unique in that sense. What is unique is the sheer relentlessness of asshattery in this particular created species, which is arguably concomitant with sentience.

It can certainly be argued that the needs of the current era aren't ideally served by religious faith, or by such religious faiths as we have, but it's still an open question in my mind whether that's a problem with religious faith or with the current era. (The specific gay issue is...complicated, historically, including within the history of the Christian religion, much more so than the terms of the current debate would let on.)

I'm familiar with this concept that 'moderate' beliefs (I don't actually consider my own religious beliefs at all moderate, they just resolve into moderation given the terms of the arguments that are currently going on) can serve as cover for 'extreme' ones, and it's actually something that I worry about a lot, but that's hardly unique to theistic religious beliefs. That's the case whenever anybody believes anything sufficiently strongly.

Simfan, I'd be interested, purely in a devil's-advocate sort of way, in seeing you come up with a secular argument against gay marriage. The only such that I've ever seen that made any sense whatsoever were creepy social-Darwinist/eugenic type stuff.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I would say yes, provided the believers actually think that whatever god or gods they believe in want them to perform certain actions and act certain ways. Sure, that could include good things as well as bad, but it gets people to act based on the commands of a specious authority which they are generally encouraged not to question rather than thinking about what actions they should take and determining them based on sound reason and logic. Even if the particular instruction happens to be a good one, it sets a bad precedent and could affect how they think and act in a bad way down the line.

With deists and anyone else who believes in gods but don't think they have been instructed in a specific manner, any harm is largely negligible as it will normally at most affect only the life of the believer in some minimal fashion and not significantly affect others. There's still potential for consequences, but I think it is far less.

[Sibboleth]

Ah, another fine display of pseudointellectualism on the R/P board. What a shock!

[Simfan34]

Ah, another fine display of pseudointellectualism on the R/P board. What a shock!

Is "compelling" pretentious now? Or is it "secular"? But I still don't understand your opposition. I really don't. Do you think something is wrong with certain kinds of people using more-complex-than-average vocabulary or syntax?

Nathan- I shall come up with it, give me a little bit.

[patrick1]

I would say yes, provided the believers actually think that whatever god or gods they believe in want them to perform certain actions and act certain ways. Sure, that could include good things as well as bad, but it gets people to act based on the commands of a specious authority which they are generally encouraged not to question rather than thinking about what actions they should take and determining them based on sound reason and logic. Even if the particular instruction happens to be a good one, it sets a bad precedent and could affect how they think and act in a bad way down the line.

With deists and anyone else who believes in gods but don't think they have been instructed in a specific manner, any harm is largely negligible as it will normally at most affect only the life of the believer in some minimal fashion and not significantly affect others. There's still potential for consequences, but I think it is far less.

This is a slightly tangential to the OP, but do you really think that humans are a reasonable and logical species though? I certainly haven't seen much evidence of this from groups of believers and non believers alike.  I don't think this is any sort of excuse or get out of jail free card for hatred preached or practiced mind you but I think it is an important prima facie jumping off point for discussions like this.  So then is it really religion that is the suspect or that we are just kind of hard wired to be prats to each other and ourselves.

[patrick1]

Ah, another fine display of pseudointellectualism on the R/P board. What a shock!

Is "compelling" pretentious now? Or is it "secular"? But I still don't understand your opposition. I really don't. Do you think something is wrong with certain kinds of people using more-complex-than-average vocabulary or syntax?

Nathan- I shall come up with it, give me a little bit.

Al, missed his cuppa and I can only assume it is raining out. He will get less grumpy when he dries out.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

This is a slightly tangential to the OP, but do you really think that humans are a reasonable and logical species though? I certainly haven't seen much evidence of this from groups of believers and non believers alike.  I don't think this is any sort of excuse or get out of jail free card for hatred preached or practiced mind you but I think it is an important prima facie jumping off point for discussions like this.  So then is it really religion that is the suspect or that we are just kind of hard wired to be prats to each other and ourselves.

I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to this question. Individual capabilities will of course vary, but I think as a species we have the potential to be reasonable and logical. Potential is the key word, and there are a number of factors that can help or hinder that. I think that strict dogmas, be they religious or otherwise, are a hindrance to that potential since they usually discourage questioning and critical thinking in lieu of blind obedience. Eliminating those dogmas is part of what I think will cultivate our potential and allow us to move forward as a species.

[Redalgo]

I answered "no" for this poll. Having a religion and/or believing in the existence of one or more deities is not what matters so much as what the characteristics of those religions or deities are. Are the faiths and beings in question accepting or intolerant of diverse peoples and perspectives? Do they encourage unquestioning acceptance of dogma or individual pursuits of knowledge and wisdom, ones subordination to the authority of clerics within a religious hierarchy or a relatively egalitarian arrangement where there is no middleman betwixt oneself and the deities (or spirits that are equal instead of "superior" relative to oneself), and what other cultural values do they inspire in followers? How does one even define the deity or deities? A belief in "God" on its own reveals very little about ones views so far as I am concerned. It has potential to be good or bad.

Though I dislike Abrahamic faiths and consider belief in God unnecessary, I am not an anti-theist.

[Senator Clarence]

ABsolutely NOT!!!

Say what you want about the BushKenya "shenanigans" but he is aiming to help people in Kenya...he is providing them with financial support and wants to move over there to help. You talk about belief in God leading people to do things you disagree with...what about those whose belief leads them to perform charitable acts by the masses? You say you don't want to talk about charity but it's VERY relevant in this conversation

If your question involved organized religion as opposed to belief in God- I would possibly agree with your conclusion...as it is belief in God has had a largely positive impact in the world. I'm proud to be a God fearing Christian man!

[opebo]

Say what you want about the BushKenya "shenanigans" but he is aiming to help people in Kenya...he is providing them with financial support and wants to move over there to help. You talk about belief in God leading people to do things you disagree with...what about those whose belief leads them to perform charitable acts by the masses? You say you don't want to talk about charity but it's VERY relevant in this conversation

Well actually charity is a bad thing - it just masks the oppression.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

If your question involved organized religion as opposed to belief in God- I would possibly agree with your conclusion...as it is belief in God has had a largely positive impact in the world.

You can't really separate the two. People organize, and if people believe in the same God they will organize. People who commit evil acts in the name of their God don't do so because they are organized, they do it because their beliefs make them feel justified in doing it. Being organized just makes them more efficient.

I'm proud to be a God fearing Christian man!

You act as if living in fear is a good thing.

[ModerateCoward]

Option 3, surprised I am the first to vote that.

[Governor Scott]

Belief in God, itself?  No.  Using religion to shape one's political views and candidate preferences?  Yes.

[oakvale]

I would say yes, provided the believers actually think that whatever god or gods they believe in want them to perform certain actions and act certain ways. Sure, that could include good things as well as bad, but it gets people to act based on the commands of a specious authority which they are generally encouraged not to question rather than thinking about what actions they should take and determining them based on sound reason and logic. Even if the particular instruction happens to be a good one, it sets a bad precedent and could affect how they think and act in a bad way down the line.

With deists and anyone else who believes in gods but don't think they have been instructed in a specific manner, any harm is largely negligible as it will normally at most affect only the life of the believer in some minimal fashion and not significantly affect others. There's still potential for consequences, but I think it is far less.

^ Pretty much my view on this. That said, it's hard to distinguish belief in God/s from organised religions, which I have a more strongly negative opinion of. I voted "yes" in the poll.

[Sibboleth]

Is "compelling" pretentious now? Or is it "secular"? But I still don't understand your opposition. I really don't. Do you think something is wrong with certain kinds of people using more-complex-than-average vocabulary or syntax?

Not everything is about you, you know...

[Senator Clarence]

If your question involved organized religion as opposed to belief in God- I would possibly agree with your conclusion...as it is belief in God has had a largely positive impact in the world.

You can't really separate the two. People organize, and if people believe in the same God they will organize. People who commit evil acts in the name of their God don't do so because they are organized, they do it because their beliefs make them feel justified in doing it. Being organized just makes them more efficient.

I'm proud to be a God fearing Christian man!

You act as if living in fear is a good thing.

First- I think organized religion is the cause of conflicts between peoples, not belief in God...Allah and God are the same- Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not

Second- Fear of how we will be judged leads many of us to be more kind and generous. It isn't for the right reason always, but if fear of God prevents some one from committing an act of violence- do you deny it is a good thing?

[Yelnoc]

No, a belief in God is extremely beneficial to society.  The Abrahamic Gods in particular and their relevant creeds all imbue their followers with a sense of purpose.  Religions (Gods) provide people with a sense of higher purpose and a belief in an afterlife.  These two things encourage productivity and allow society to run more smoothly, because people who hold those two beliefs are more likely to be optimistic and energetic.  God does not need to exist in a physical sense to have a profound effect on society; so long as the masses believe in Him (Her/It/etc), He exists.

[The Mikado]

First- I think organized religion is the cause of conflicts between peoples, not belief in God...Allah and God are the same- Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not

This is a really good point.

That said, I think I should clarify something.  Religion itself doesn't lead to people killing other people.  Religion just acts as a convenient in-group/out-group indicator in pre-existing sectarian conflict.  If you're a Shia militant in Iraq, you're not killing Sunnis to avenge the Prophet's grandson Hussein's death at the treacherous hands of Yazid, you're trying to maximize the Shia share of the goods in post-conflict Iraq and trying to minimize and steal Sunni influence.  You see a guy named Omar, you know there are basically no Shia Muslims named Omar, you kill Omar and take his stuff.

Similar dynamic in Northern Ireland.  People don't kill each other over the literalism of transubstantiation.  They use it as a convenient marker for who's on which side.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

First- I think organized religion is the cause of conflicts between peoples, not belief in God...Allah and God are the same- Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not

Allah as taught in the Koran and God as taught in the Bible are not the same, and as such their believers will behave differently.

Second- Fear of how we will be judged leads many of us to be more kind and generous. It isn't for the right reason always, but if fear of God prevents some one from committing an act of violence- do you deny it is a good thing?

If fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from violence then you are not a good person and it is nothing to be proud of. If fear of judgement is all that makes you generous then you are shallow and it is nothing to be proud of. Self-centered fear is not the basis of true kindness or generosity.

[Senator Clarence]

You didn't answer my question...if some one was to commit and act of violence and didn't because of fear of judgment- is that a good thing? And regardless of the reason- isn't fear of judgment causing one to be more generous a good thing? I agree that if done only for this reason, the person is not truly better...all of us are guilty of this thinking at one point or another, but if it influences the person's behavior and therefore the way they treat others- it's impossible to deny it's a good thing

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

You didn't answer my question...if some one was to commit and act of violence and didn't because of fear of judgment- is that a good thing? And regardless of the reason- isn't fear of judgment causing one to be more generous a good thing? I agree that if done only for this reason, the person is not truly better...all of us are guilty of this thinking at one point or another, but if it influences the person's behavior and therefore the way they treat others- it's impossible to deny it's a good thing

It's good that someone wouldn't do a bad thing, but it's not something to be proud of. It's not something that is to be lauded. Also keep in mind that fear of judgment can keep people from doing the right thing when the situation calls for it, or it could even make them do bad things - you are dealing with a double edged-sword. Fear is not a good basis for moral behavior or a civil society.

[Senator Clarence]

You didn't answer my question...if some one was to commit and act of violence and didn't because of fear of judgment- is that a good thing? And regardless of the reason- isn't fear of judgment causing one to be more generous a good thing? I agree that if done only for this reason, the person is not truly better...all of us are guilty of this thinking at one point or another, but if it influences the person's behavior and therefore the way they treat others- it's impossible to deny it's a good thing

It's good that someone wouldn't do a bad thing, but it's not something to be proud of. It's not something that is to be lauded. Also keep in mind that fear of judgment can keep people from doing the right thing when the situation calls for it, or it could even make them do bad things - you are dealing with a double edged-sword. Fear is not a good basis for moral behavior or a civil society.

I'd agree if the fear was from govt cameras or big brother or camps...but this is a personal belief that we will be judged by our actions here. It's not as if by being a God fearing man I walk around cowered- worrying about being smitten on the spot. I know that I will be judged by how good a person I am here...I believe I would be as generous and kind if I weren't a Christian but take this for example...

People on this board have commented on my attitude in debates- such as this one. My first reaction when I see some one attacking my faith or my country or anything of mine is anger- but then I realize that isn't appropriate or Christian so I maintain my respect and engage in a cordial and very rewarding discussion. Look at Bush Kenya's attitude when he is attacked and called dumb for trying to do the right thing- he isn't angry and doesn't demean others- he is polite and kind. You seem to be the same way so this isn't limited to those who believe in God, but belief in God influences behavior in a VERY good way well beyond an internet board...

I agree some one shouldn't be proud for making a decision not to commit violence purely out of fear of retribution- but it is impossible to argue that it isn't a good thing from the perspective of society and especially the person who would have been wronged