Is religion an insult to human dignity and threat to freedom of human spirit?

Let me add some fuel to the flames

I remembered this quote today:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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."

by American physicist Steven Weinberg.


I think there's a lot of truth in these words, maybe an ultimate thruth. And that's one of my problems with islam (as with other religions), but in present days especially with islam because this religion makes use good people do bad things the most at the present time in my opinion.

Let me add another quote:

I don’t doubt that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have other motivations than Islamic beliefs. However, would they have engaged in the fervent terrorism without thier religious beliefs? Would they have been able to recruit so many for suicide missions? Just because there are other motivations, doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t play a huge role

Source: http://www.theamericanscene.com/2008/06/06/the-weakness-of-religion

(but I admit this has to do quite a lot with lack of education - instead of getting proper and broad education, these often young muslims (what makes it even worse) are "educated" only in deformed religious beliefs and as a result they are brainwashed - result of "yesterdayness" of traditional muslim societies in Middle - East which are basically still pastoral - I mean "heardsman" - but it is logical: reason is more enemy than friend of islam - no offense please. Muslim's victim mentality is another cause).

I never considered myself to be a true atheist and I don't have to be one but when I face this very clever Steven Weinberg's words (imo), my rational judgment, my free spirit, today's or historical reality of religiously motivated atrocities I think I'm becoming a complete atheist despite words "God help me" haven't vanished from my vocabulary completely so far. Sometimes I tell myself I would want to believe (you know, world and life would be easier ) but my ratio forbids that .. .

Of course: there's always something good in religions or their legacy but one decisive negative is simply prevailing: exploitation of religion to convince people to do bad things.

So i think world would be better without any religion. I know it's hardly to happen entirely because people tend to look up to someone (or Something) (to help them find their spot in world, their identity, to help them with their lifes and where there's no GOD at hand, there's som pop star or football star at disposal ) and there always be someone who will supply this need, but at least as theoretical concept it is interesting for me..

So: Is religion an insult to human dignity? I believe so, as well as a threat to freedom of human spirit (which is more or less connected).

P.S. Oh yes, faith and religion don't have to be (or aren't - in most cases) the same things. But I leave this to others.

Weinberg's point is clever and makes perfect sense from a technical point of view. But it's arrogant and reaches a wrong conclusion.

When I practiced Buddhism, one of the things that intrigued me about it was its methodical approach to concepts like good and evil. It was similar to science that way. But if Weinberg were, somehow, able to discuss his point with Siddhartha Gautama, I guarantee he would come out of it seeing it differently.

Today I’m a Christian, and I’ve found that Christianity perceives at least one thing better than either science or Buddhism, and that’s the nature of faith and its value to human beings.

Weinberg has a point, but its human nature, not religion, that's to blame. Ironically, its arrogance he's really talking about -- arrogantly.

Are we talking religion "as advertised" or "as delivered"? You touch on this bringing up brainwashing, but never really pick a side. That seems to me to be an important distinction.

dteowner said:

Are we talking religion "as advertised" or "as delivered"? You touch on this bringing up brainwashing, but never really pick a side. That seems to me to be an important distinction.

Click to expand...

Please, explain me more "as advertised" or "as delivered". I don't know if I understand these words correctly (or their disctinction). It is not used (in direct translation) in Czech.

One major reason to promote buddhism is that it's mostly true, that's why recent theories and therapies of psychology use it, such as cognitive psychology. Buddhism stomps Christianity on pretty much everything Christianity claims to excel at. In fact, when you read what liberal Christians say about what they believe is right behavior, they are closer to buddhist ethics than what the Bible has to say.

shadow_hk said:

Please, explain me more "as advertised" or "as delivered". I don't know if I understand these words correctly (or their disctinction). It is not used (in direct translation) in Czech.

Click to expand...

I'd have a little trouble defining the difference, so perhaps some examples:
God heals -> faith healers
sanctity of life -> abortion clinic bombers
conception is a gift -> no birth control / no STD prevention
spread the word -> televangelists
follow the creed -> the Inquisition
martyrdom -> suicide bombers

Basically, people taking the ideas in the books and twisting them for their own purposes. The ideas in the various books don't sound half bad to me, but it seems to me that "bad people" have turned them into population control devices.

There are major elements of truth in all religions. I believe striving to be a better person which most religions encourage, adds to human dignity, rather than insulting it.

HK, 'advertised' relates to what the assorted 'holy books' say is the 'philosophy' of a religion, while 'practised' is what how various members of a religion 'interpret' that philosophy in the real world. Jesus said to love your enemies, yet people have gone to war and killed people 'in the name of Jesus'. Doing such offends me as well, but the error to avoid is assuming these people who do things in the name of a religion, actually are a valid representation of that religion. In another thread, PJ has been trying to convince others that muslim and terrorist are not synonyms!!

There's something I've been wondering, JemyM. You seem comfortable explaining a lot. Can I assume you explain things to children from time to time?

Are there times when you explain them logically and reasonably and others when you don't? Time when you simply encourage them to be a "good boy" or a "good girl" and to do what they're told?

Which are complex? The ideas you try to explain to them or the ones you don't? And how would you respond to someone who mocked your simple explanations on those occassions?

shadow_hk said:

Let me add some fuel to the flames

I remembered this quote today:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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."

by American physicist Steven Weinberg.

Click to expand...

Let me try something:

"Nazism is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes Nazism."

"Nationalism is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes Nationalism."

JemyM said:

One major reason to promote buddhism is that it's mostly true, that's why recent theories and therapies of psychology use it, such as cognitive psychology. Buddhism stomps Christianity on pretty much everything Christianity claims to excel at. In fact, when you read what liberal Christians say about what they believe is right behavior, they are closer to buddhist ethics than what the Bible has to say.

Click to expand...

You should watch "The Man From Earth", I believe you will really like it.

shadow_hk said:

Please, explain me more "as advertised" or "as delivered". I don't know if I understand these words correctly (or their disctinction). It is not used (in direct translation) in Czech.

Click to expand...

As advertised : I think the easiest way to explain this, is just the Bible.
As delivered: would then mean, how people actually interpret the bible to fit some purpose like the things dte pointed (->) to.

shadow_hk said:

I remembered this quote today:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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."

by American physicist Steven Weinberg.

Click to expand...

Ironic realy coming from a physicist, in terms of good people doing evil things I'd say science is right up there with religion.

shadow_hk said:

I don’t doubt that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have other motivations than Islamic beliefs. However, would they have engaged in the fervent terrorism without thier religious beliefs? Would they have been able to recruit so many for suicide missions? Just because there are other motivations, doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t play a huge role

Source: http://www.theamericanscene.com/2008/06/06/the-weakness-of-religion

Click to expand...

It'd be wrong to argue that Al Qaeda doesn't have religious beliefs, one of their main objectives is to reestablish the Caliphate but the idea that motivates their terrorism is misguided. Terrorism and, more specifically suicide bombings are tactics of asymmetrical warfare and certainly aren't restricted to Islamic militants. There was a study done a couple of years ago that noted that the Tamil Tigers carried out more suicide attacks than Islamic groups (168 between 1980 and 2000 - that may have been outstripped since the Iraq occupation) and pioneered the use of the concealed vest. We can also look at the Japanese kamikaze and the Hitler Youth toward the end of the second world - hell for that matter how many war movies coming out of Hollywood start out with a scene recruiting volunteers for a 'suicide mission'...

Pladio said:

As advertised : I think the easiest way to explain this, is just the Bible.
As delivered: would then mean, how people actually interpret the bible to fit some purpose like the things dte pointed (->) to.

Click to expand...

It's not confined to Christianity, though. I think much the same issues apply to Islam and Judaism, which is why I included martyrdom in my examples. I don't know enough about Jewish practice to come up with an example for them.

dteowner said:

It's not confined to Christianity, though. I think much the same issues apply to Islam and Judaism, which is why I included martyrdom in my examples. I don't know enough about Jewish practice to come up with an example for them.

Click to expand...

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

Squeek said:

There's something I've been wondering, JemyM. You seem comfortable explaining a lot. Can I assume you explain things to children from time to time?

Click to expand...

Not yet.

Squeek said:

Are there times when you explain them logically and reasonably and others when you don't? Time when you simply encourage them to be a "good boy" or a "good girl" and to do what they're told?
Which are complex? The ideas you try to explain to them or the ones you don't? And how would you respond to someone who mocked your simple explanations on those occassions?

Click to expand...

Unfortunally, young children lack the cognitive functions to understand abstract ideas. My cohabit is a preschool teacher so I will trust in her help when that time comes.

dteowner said:

It's not confined to Christianity, though. I think much the same issues apply to Islam and Judaism, which is why I included martyrdom in my examples. I don't know enough about Jewish practice to come up with an example for them.

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, should have said religion instead of bible probably. Or religions' scriptures.

Pladio said:

Let me try something:
"Nazism is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes Nazism."
"Nationalism is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes Nationalism."

Click to expand...

How do nationalism and nazism equal to "good people" and "good things"? Weinbergs comment is based on the common notion that you need religion to be good/moral and that religious people are good people.

JemyM said:

How do nationalism and nazism equal to "good people" and "good things"? Weinbergs comment is based on the common notion that you need religion to be good/moral and that religious people are good people.

Click to expand...

Nationalist people aren't purely bad people. They are people who believe that their national beliefs are very important.
You know how many people were part of the NAZI party ? Almost 38% of Germany voted for the NAZI party. Are going going to tell me that all of them were bad people ?
Probably not even half of them were 'bad' people, but they were however driven to do bad things.

Pladio said:

Nationalist people aren't purely bad people.
They are people who believe that their national beliefs are very important.
You know how many people were part of the NAZI party? Almost 38% of Germany voted for the NAZI party. Are going going to tell me that all of them were bad people?
Probably not even half of them were 'bad' people, but they were however driven to do bad things.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse not. Nationalism is neither good nor bad in it's own.
Nationalism can create a sense of unity among people living within the same geographical area without dividing people by race, religion and other subgroups. It can also become a chauvinist "we are the true [insert nation here]" that want to kill or boot a few fixed minorities.

Religion however continue promotes itself to be the source of moral behavior and good behavior, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Weinberg flip-flip this argument.

Christopher Hitchens have an alternative "challenge" that go something like:
1. Name me a good act that can only be done by a member of a religion.
2. Name me an evil act that can only be done by a member of a religion.

Needless to say, there's still no act that fall into the first category but pretty much everyone instantly have a few examples of number two.

As a student in psychology, my theory is that religious misinformation and objection to education is what's harmful. When you preserve people ignorant, biological impulses such as hate or fear take over as people never learn to understand themselves nor the world around them.

When this ignorance is blended with the more extreme ideas in religion, belief in demons, witches, hell, satan etc. etc. the world becomes scary and confusing for them and it's a perfectly understandable reaction to attack what's scary.

Fear is probably the most dangerous impulse we have and the majority of all terrible deeds carried out by religion is triggered by fear.

But that's the most extreme cases. In general the misinformation and ignorance have rather small effects on society, except for killing an occasional child when the parents believe in prayer, or leading to political changes when there's enough deluded people available.