Religion, a force for good?

Is religion a force for good?

The knee jerk reaction from most people who hold to a religious belief is "yes, of course it is." Then when you point out that religion is used to motivate people to commit suicide bombings they will likely concede that this isn't always the case.

In one instance though someone said religion is always a force for good because the intentions are always good, even those of a suicide bomber. My reply was that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". 

However the question got me thinking, is religion actually a force for anything?

There are many definitions for religion around, one is:

"A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred"

My own take is that religion is the beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred. The practices are seperate.

There are many religions and many churches.

I believe that while humans always have free will that it is the church and the way they encourage members to act that determines whether or not the church becomes a force for good or bad and this is regardless of the intentions of the church leaders of the individuals within the church.

Take Islam. The teachings of Islam include concepts of peace, love and many other upstanding moral values and yet certain extremist sects, churches if you will, manage to use it to "radicalise" people and turn them in to suicide bombers. Islam as a religion is neither a force for good nor evil rather it is how the church teaches it that determines the acts of the attendees.

Thoughts?

Hi Dean and welcome aboard!

My own take is that religion is the beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred. The practices are seperate.

For my mind, I believe the theory should line up with the practice. If a religion teaches "peace and love" I should see it in practice in those that follow the teaching. If not, the teaching is flawed.

All the best,

Stephen

Thank you for your response Stephen.

Since the teaching is the responsibility of the leaders of the church then that statement would seem to be in agreement. I certainly agree that if a religion teaches peace and love one should see it in practice in those that follow the teaching. As stated this is not always the case. IMHO I believe that regardless of the religion it can be used as a means to motivate good or bad by the leaders of a given church. Also that the acts of a church can be good or bad regardless of intent.

The idea of intent is an interesting one. I was somewhat taken aback by the idea that because the intentions were good that religion was a force for good. Way too many jumps in the logical flow for my liking.

Anyhow, if I intend to do good and my religion intends good but the results of my actions are bad am is it still a force for good?

Obviously there is a whole side argument in the subjective nature of good and bad, I could create a grey area example but let's create an obvious example.

I am a Christian who having spent months studying the bible on my own has come to believe that the people of New York are evil and responsible for the woes of the world. It is Sodom and Gomorrah and so destined for destruction unless someone acts. Then God tells me he has a mission for me to warn the people of New York by blowing up the Empire States building. I am excited that God has spoken to me and tell all I can, being an extrovert and charismatic person I find this quite easy, no doubt why God has chosen me as his messenger.

Although most people tell me I am a nut case there are those who realise the truth of what I am saying. Together we believe the destruction of the Empire States building will be a sign that will usher in a new beginning of enlightenment and peace. I am spured on by the idolation of my followers. Ultimately my followers attempt to blow up the Empire States beliving they are saving humanity and people die.

Clearly I am deluded, I may or may not be considered evil or capable to stand trial and my followers may be judged equally cupable or more so because they actually did the deed without much input from me. Either way the result of our actions were bad even though we all genuinely believed we were doing the right thing. Ergo good intentions do not automatically mean someone or something is a force for good.

I also posit that the religion itself, in this case Christianity, was not a force for evil. I was the force for evil. It was my delusional interpretation coupled with a charismatic charm that worked on some people to make them followers that resulted in the evil act. I could have just as easily interpreted the same from the works of Nostrodamus, the Koran or any other text or I could even have made up my own divinely imparted scriptures.   

This may sound ridiculously extreme but consider the acts perpetrated by suicide bombers, believing they are going to heaven and 72 virgins or the branch Davidians who wanted only to be slaves to David Koresh or those who drank the cool aid and forced others to do the same believing they would rather die than give up their life in Jonestown.

Ergo religion is not in as of itself a force for anything since it clearly has no consistent effect. Religion is a catalyst for many different effects; although the teachings can be the same the results are down to interpretation.

This is understandible since human free will not only allows one to choose a path of righteousness but also to  decide what righteousness is and how to pursues it; it also allows you to disagree on these matters too but the existance of disagreement is proof of the free choice one has in such matters. (The law is a different matter, you can disagree with the law but typically you loose.)

How religion is effected is down to how it is taught and how those teachings are percieved. All of which is down to the leaders and individual members of the church. Churches being defined in this instance as organisations built around a religion. I posit that it is churches that are forces. They can be forces for good or evil regardless of intent or the teachings upon which they are based.

This also explains how splinter groups come to exist, when one church's interpretation of the scriptures differs significantly from the others teaching the same scriptures they end up seperating from the original and in some cases end up spawning their own group of churches. 

I believe a person must be judged by the results of their actions on Earth, not their beliefs and the same is true of churches or any organisation for that matter. I leave the determination of who is right or wrong with respect to intepretations, scruptures etc to the Divine.

Welcome, Dean Fox.  My take on this is that religion is not a force for good.  I see no good in using the Bible or God for an organization's gain which includes killing, subjugating, and controlling people.  There is nothing principled in any of this. 

Religion is a man-made invention, it is flawed, and what I've seen with any sort of man-made organization is the following... when a change of management occurs, you're not guaranteed that the good that was once in place will continue.  As well, the principles of those involved with the organization also dictate how the overall group functions and this can change when the management changes.  Caveat Emptor.

In order to live a principled life, religion is not a requirement...  my experience has proven it to be a deterrent.   

suggested reading:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807

somewhat one-sided, but worth reading ...

Behe

hmmm so much bad has been committed in the name of religion / god, but it's not necessarily the beliefs/doctrine that makes them do it (though with witch burnings....) - it's the people practising said religion/doctrine.  People are the ones that distort most of those religions/beliefs/god to suit their own needs.

I don't really understand the beliefs/people antinomy, as if beliefs are somehow good in themselves and it's only people's twisting and misinterpreting (as opposed to an ideal correct interpretation) them that leads to trouble.

Religion is a cultural system and as such beliefs are man-made cultural products, so that there are no doctrines somewhere out there detached from people, there is no belief without believers.

Beliefs, ritual acts, moral codes, and a social group that feels bound together by all the above make, all together, religion.

I take you have heard of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing.  Religionists use it to describe religions other than their own, but it usually describes them as well.

It is just a cloak to justify bad behaviour.

Look at the Jehovah character in the Bible for example.  The Bible has him killing more people than anyone else.   Your kid doesn't behave himself?  Stone him.  Jehovah says it's OK.

Vandalism?  Who was it vandalised the fig tree for no intelligent reason?  If he was my son he would have been in for a boot in the arse, but not him.  He wears a cloak of religious respectability so it is OK.

Wouldn't it be better to invent a God that didn't throw his toys out of his cot every time he didn't get his way?

Maybe we would be better off studying the Aborigine's Dreamtime rather than Middle Eastern killer gods.

What makes Bible God or Allah more real than the Rainbow Snake?  The culture you are born into?  Threats from your family?  Mind control?

Cheers

Chris

If people had faith they wouldnt need a religon.

Religons are made up of people having to conform to a groups thinking.

I think it is important to fill the mind with positivity and optimistim. Life doesnt need to be perfect to be wonderful.People can inspire one other (for example)through how they cope with adversity- This is the spiritual instinct that can in my mind be a force for for good. Of course many do this without a spiritual instinct.

Acolytes

That (some) religious people do perform good deeds is an undeniable fact, but so it is with regard to non-religious people who act likewise.

I'm inclined to think that religious people who do good would act similarly even without their religion ... but the reverse is not necessarily true. As Steven Weinberg once said:

Welcome Dean Fox.

In my opinion religion is a narrative or story that people make up or accept in order to understand and manipulate a mysterious world. Some religions may be more dangerous than others depending on the contents of their teachings, history or laws. Monotheistic religions like Hebrew, Christian or Muslim seem to be worse than polytheistic religions in inspiring authoritarianism and, in their fundamentalist versions, creating intolerance towards others.

Early, so called primitive, religions bonded humanity with its natural environment. Later, so called civilized, religions are a projection of a over-humanized authoritarian environment.

So is religion a force for good? In its early nature worshipping forms yes. But in its "civilized" forms no.

villabolo

Anything can be a force of good or a force of bad, because its PEOPLE that are in control not "religion".

Welcome to the board Dean!

I believe that people are a force for good-or they can be. It seems you and I are on a similar wavelength here.

I think that the religion you are a part of is irrelevant. It is the act of choosing a religion (or lack thereof) that makes a person commit to a moral path. When we go along with a religion because we are born into it or everyone around is doing it, we didn't put any real mental effort into it.

When, later in life, we are confronted with a choice of which path to follow, and we really make an examination and choose based on what seems right, whether we choose a religious path or an a-theistic one, we are usually more committed to following through on it. At that point, the religion becomes either the tool or the cheerleader to see us through the choice we have already made to do good.

I think that "good" requires a combination of thought and feeling. People who do bad things in the name of religion are the kind who rely on a whole lot of feeling with little to no thought.

Thank you kindly for all your considered responses. I hope that regardless of your personal beliefs none of you will ever fall for the simplistic notion that "religion is a force for good" or indeed evil.

It would seem there is a considered concensus that people are the force behind what they do either individually or as a group. This seems to me to be a healthy attitude. An interesting question to ask family, friends and perhaps congregations too, to find out if they consider their responses and perhaps get them to.

The problems that occur with any religion are often borne out of the assumption that the religion is automatically good so whatever it commands must be for the greater good, even if this includes blowing oneself up in order to attain salvation and 72 virgins. Perhaps if people thought a little more about such things they could be fore armed against such abuses by people cloaking themselves in religious trappings.

Another one of the issues I've seen in organizations is the hidden agenda.  Not everyone is privvy to this.. only certain privileged or elite ones.  I see this in religion as well as corporations.  What are the real goals of religion? 

What I know is that people say a lot of things.  Words are just words.  What they do is the real truth.  Do the things said and done within the WTS align?  Do they align with the Bible?  Do they align with principles?  Do they align with supporting the human body, heart, mind, and spirit?

Not from my experiences and observations.  I therefore conclude that this religion is not for good.

Religion is a racket and a snare.

I'm more inclined to see it as a farce for bad.

  It's when people get too 'centric about belief, non-belief, age, income level,
race, political party, nationality, etc., that people get hurt or killed.
Whichever belief or non-belief outlook you pick, don't be 'centric about it and
not be able to be friends with others or you're a pain in the ass either way.

  Don't hurt anybody on the offense for God unless God parts a sea to have a
dove fly down and have an angel make an announcement or such.
  http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id58.html

  A Catch-22 in painting Christians by those who are offensive by the above
terms is that James said "Show me your faith by your works."  If someone is
middle management for organized crime or such, I don't care what they say, James
said they don't have the faith.

  That said, depends on the religion, but yes, religion can motivate people to
be charitable, etc.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_ethics
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethics
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion

Missinglink: "Religion is a racket and a snare."

Is it though? Sure it can be used as such, and perhaps often is, but that is my point it isn't the religion but how it is used.

In another forum it was suggested that the world would be a better place without religion, to which someone else replied that they doubted it because something else would take its place - although I wonder if this would not just be a re-emergence of religion. No matter I don't believe that if there was no religion the world would be any better. Conversely I don't believe religion really makes the world a better place either.

Humans are naturally social animals. It's a survival trait. They form groups. They are also naturally wary of groups to which they don't belong. You can see this manifest at all levels. As an individual walking down a quiet street you become alert when someone else approaches, especially at night. You become more alert if you come across a group, being two or more people. You become even more alert when you don't identfify with that group. The group may or may not be a threat but your survival instinct kicks in and you become wary. This is why people get so upset with teenagers hanging around, younger children or adults don't identify with them and become intimidated. 

I could go on to explain how these basic instincts translate upwards in scale to countries. Suffice to say churches are more a manifestation of people wanting to congregate, belong and identifiy with a group, that they are based around a religion is merely what makes them churches. What that group does and how it interacts with other groups depends on the dynamics within the group, what the leaders say.

Yes this desire to belong and identify with a group is exploited to varying degrees by various groups especially churches, but not all churches do it and not all do it to the same degree. Like I said religion is a tool, it is not a force. The religion doesn't snare you rather the church may do or may play on a natural desire to belong to recruit members. 

I've seen TV adverts in Houston Texas for churches expounding the virtues of the social and networking possibilities within the church. I was told while there that the best way to get a social life and the only way to network was to join a church.

Glenster: "That said, depends on the religion, but yes, religion can motivate people to
be charitable, etc."

Ah, my point is that the religion can only do this if the church is inclinde to encourage its followers to do this in the spirit of the religion upon which the church is based. That you can have the same basic sacred texts and have different churches with different churches with some being more charitable and others more self serving (to the leaders of the church). 

It's not the religion that provides the motivator it is the interpretation by the church.