Is Religion Bad For Society?

[uwot]

Your language also describes Atheism, of course. It claims the "truth" that there is no Creator Being in the universe, a postulate which it cannot "verify," and in fact for which it presents none of its own evidence, but merely denies the validity of such evidence as is presented by the various religions, just as CL has previously suggested.

What CL previously suggested was:

Atheism is just denying the existence of gods.

That is different from asserting that there are no gods. I consider myself an atheist, because I do not believe in gods; you might prefer to call that agnosticism, although I take the view that agnosticism is the opinion that the evidence for gods is inconclusive.
He goes on, quite rightly, in my opinion:

That's the basic principle and there's nothing implicit or explicit in that principle that advocates for discrimination and violation of human rights.

The same is true of religion and a lot of fine work is done in the name of religion. So too is a lot of bad; there is no compelling reason to think that any particular view on gods makes you more or less inclined to inflict misery on others.

Yet negation of the opposition does not constitute proof of one's own position, unless one's own position is the only rationally possible alternative.

Tell you what: you show me the words I have used that lead you to think I am making such a claim, and I will qualify or retract them.

But since religions differ, there is not merely one alternative under consideration (i.e. god-no god) but rather many alternatives.

Where they overlap is metaphysical being(s)-no metaphysical being(s). They all require that you believe in something for which the 'evidence' has an explanation that doesn't require metaphysical beings.

So Atheism would need to present its own evidence, or else we would have no reason to prefer it over any of these particular alternatives, on the one hand, or over agnostic uncertainty (rather than Atheist certainty) on the other.

The only thing an atheist is certain of is that there is no evidence for gods. It does not follow that they are certain there are no gods.

I also would ask a question about your term, "completely unverifiable." Does partial, inferential or indicative evidence count,

I think that pretty much sums up evidence for any hypothesis. I think it is worth pointing out that atheism is the absence of an hypothesis and, therefore doesn't require any evidence.

or are you supposing that some view or another should be capable of total and complete evidence?

No. I have no idea what could constitute 'total and complete evidence'. Blaggard gave some figures for the astonishing accuracy of quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman said that if you were to measure the distance from New York to Los Angeles to the same accuracy, you would literally be within a hairsbreadth. Still, I don't 'believe' in QM in the way that some people apparently believe in gods, I am quite certain it is the most compelling description of reality currently available.

If the latter, would that not commit you to being a Verificationist?

I have stated elsewhere that I am an empiricist. I try and construct a narrative that is consistent with what I see and hear, and I am very cautious about any ideas I have for which I cannot point to something objective as evidence.

And if you were, could you supply an example of a "completely verified" position on the issues in hand, either from the "religious" or the "atheist" perspective?

I'm not, but on a technical point, verificationism is about whether sentences are meaningful rather than true.

[Soren]

What CL previously suggested was:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Atheism is just denying the existence of gods.

That is different from asserting that there are no gods.

The only thing different in your statement is the choice of the words "there are no," which you seem to regard as somehow different from "denying the existence of." Can you explain the difference you're intending to capture?

Soren wrote:
Yet negation of the opposition does not constitute proof of one's own position, unless one's own position is the only rationally possible alternative.

Tell you what: you show me the words I have used that lead you to think I am making such a claim, and I will qualify or retract them.

You'll note I was not quoting you when I wrote this, so your challenge is needlessly defensive. I merely was pointing out an obvious principle of reason, which I would be surprised to discover you wished to deny. After all, the alternative...namely, to say that one does not have to provide one's own evidence but rather only to negate someone else's...would be clearly rationally untenable, so I would not imagine you would wish to defend it.

Thus, if atheism is a denial of "religion," then atheism owes us some positive evidence to support the "no-god" part of its claim. Of course, it has no such positive evidence, but rather relies on pure negation. And that is precisely what CL claimed for it. He said it's "'just denying."

The only thing an atheist is certain of is that there is no evidence for gods. It does not follow that they are certain there are no gods.

But even this seems too strong a claim. Is the atheist really saying he stands in possession of all the evidence there is, and thus knows in a "verified" way that there is no evidence for gods? Or is he merely claiming, "I don't know any evidence for gods?" If it's the latter, then of course it might be quite true; but it wouldn't lead us very far in supporting the former. In fact, not only might evidence for gods be known to other people, but simply not to the atheist, but it might even be the case (hypothetically) that they had "verified" evidence for such a being, and the atheist did not. So you are quite right to add, "It does not follow that they are certain..." They must be quite uncertain, in fact.

I think it is worth pointing out that atheism is the absence of an hypothesis and, therefore doesn't require any evidence.

This seems to be what CL was trying to achieve by asserting atheism as mere negation. The problem, of course, is that the statement, "There are no gods" is itself a positive claim, that is, a claim to "know" something, and thus does require evidence.

I'm not, but on a technical point, verificationism is about whether sentences are meaningful rather than true.

Regarding the term "Verificationism," one of its applications is merely linguistic; but another is scientific, and a third is epistemological. I think your need of it is epistemological. I say that because you indicted "religious" views on the basis that you said they are "completely unverifiable." If you do that, you must be supposing that something else, some knowledge to which atheism gives access IS "completely verifiable," or else your indictment would make no sense.

One doesn't blame a view for having no evidence if one doesn't believe in evidence in the first place; likewise, one doesn't indict a view for lacking "verification" if one does not think that ANY views can ever be "verified." So I cannot make linguistic sense out of your original indictment.

[uwot]

Or to put it in the macro context, what, in atheistic theory, prohibits a Lenin or Stalin or Mao from liquidating a portion of their populace if, after careful objective analysis, such action would enhance the greater good?

There is no such thing as atheistic theory. But if you wish to talk in those terms: what in old testament theory would prevent a god from sending a flood that liquidates the entire population of the planet, apart from a handful of humans and whatever animals they can stash (no dinosaurs, mind) which after careful objective analysis, would enhance the greater good?

[Wyman]

I think we are really just talking past one another. My point is, that left to their own devices and without a powerful counterweight, people will not behave without religion. Not all people, but the majority. You are sure that religion is what has caused wars and genocide throughout history - how do you know it wouldn't have been worse otherwise? I can't think of any atheistic societies off the top of my head except twentieth century totalitarian regimes and they seem worse than the worst theocracies. Also, 'the intrinsic value of life' seems a bit vague outside the context of religion.

[HexHammer]

I think we are really just talking past one another. My point is, that left to their own devices and without a powerful counterweight, people will not behave without religion. Not all people, but the majority. You are sure that religion is what has caused wars and genocide throughout history - how do you know it wouldn't have been worse otherwise? I can't think of any atheistic societies off the top of my head except twentieth century totalitarian regimes and they seem worse than the worst theocracies. Also, 'the intrinsic value of life' seems a bit vague outside the context of religion.

Most religions has been for power, over trade cities, holy cities or just for tax and grain.

[uwot]

My point is, that left to their own devices and without a powerful counterweight, people will not behave without religion. Not all people, but the majority.

Apart from a handful of psychopathic 20th century leaders, what is your evidence for this claim? How big do you think that majority is?

You are sure that religion is what has caused wars and genocide throughout history - how do you know it wouldn't have been worse otherwise?

This is not talking past each other, this is you making up things which I have not said. This conversation will not get very far if you cannot stick to what I do say.

I can't think of any atheistic societies off the top of my head except twentieth century totalitarian regimes and they seem worse than the worst theocracies. Also, 'the intrinsic value of life' seems a bit vague outside the context of religion.

Do you draw a distinction between secular and atheistic? By and large theists and atheists are perfectly tolerant of each other, it is only when one or other group tries to impose their beliefs that the other responds; as they should.

[Wyman]

Uwot - Sorry, I made a mistake on my last post, not reading page 2 of the discussion, so my reply (the 'talking past one another') was addressed to conde lucanor. I was thinking more of anti-religious societies than secular when I was commenting above. You are right to point out that a non-religious society would not have to be anti-religious.

As far as the points about atheism not being a theory: I was using the term atheism as meaning, essentially, 'non-religious.' If that is wrong, so be it. I would then claim that a non-religious society, within any political system, would be more violent internally than a society with religion. I say 'internally' because, as I said above, religious folks are not tolerant at all towards outsiders, so they tend to annihilate rival countries, tribes, or religious groups when possible.

My reasoning is that without some very strong impulse to respect their neighbors, people would end up devouring one another. That impulse can be supplied, at least for a time, by a very strong and brutal central power, but religion is more lasting and effective. As far as atheists living together in harmony with theists, I think that lasts until the first crisis, then all bets are off.

The very fact that atheism is not a theory creates the problem that, when a non-religious society is challenged with a crisis, they will not have a shared core system of beliefs to guide their actions and also bring them together. Conde Lucanor may respect the 'intrinsic value of life,' but his neighbors may not.

[Conde Lucanor]

I think we are really just talking past one another. My point is, that left to their own devices and without a powerful counterweight, people will not behave without religion. Not all people, but the majority. You are sure that religion is what has caused wars and genocide throughout history - how do you know it wouldn't have been worse otherwise?

Actually I have never said religion has caused wars and genocide. That would be the type of simplistic, mechanical cause-effect explanation that I would not support. It's not like religion was created out of nothing and then one day lost its way. Religion is part of the same forces that create wars and solidarity, love and hatred. Those will be around always because they are part of human essence, and in some way religion is expression of that human essence in a heartless world:

"Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

I can't think of any atheistic societies off the top of my head except twentieth century totalitarian regimes and they seem worse than the worst theocracies. Also, 'the intrinsic value of life' seems a bit vague outside the context of religion.

I can think of the Piraha society in the Amazon. They are a godless society and are doing just fine.

[Soren]

There is something interesting here, but also some things that are not quite clear. Perhaps specifying might help the discussion.

Religion is part of the same forces that create wars and solidarity, love and hatred. Those will be around always because they are part of human essence, and in some way religion is expression of that human essence in a heartless world:

Two questions from this:
1. If "religion is just part of the same forces that create...etc....human essence," then is the real problem "religion," which is then a symptom, not the root cause, or would we then look beyond to a more basic problem in "human nature" itself?

2. If the world is "heartless," what does this mean? Should we expect the world to have a "heart"? Or is this just a metaphor...but if so, a metaphor for what reality?

These two items were the interesting leads. But then there were some things that are, at present, too unclear for us to build on. In particular...

It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.

This is curiously self-contradictory, is it not? If "human essence" has not "acquired any true reality," then the speaker of the quotation must be claiming to know this somehow. But since he is also declaring that "human essence" has no "reality," he is making a claim about nothing, according to his own terms. So he claims he both knows this "nothing," and can measure when we've "acquired" or "not acquired" it, and also believes it has "no reality." Some explanation of that is required, I would say.

I can think of the Piraha society in the Amazon. They are a godless society and are doing just fine.

An earlier speaker suggested we look for a case of an atheist society that is doing well. This was probably an error of the same type as this reply, namely to mistake a single case for something indicative. If not, it's not entirely clear what this case is arguing.

If it were suggesting that a single case should be taken as paradigmatic, that would be an obvious fallacy: an exception wouldn't teach anything about the validity of a general rule, just as a person who survives a skydiving accident doesn't tell regarding the advisability of jumping without a parachute.

If it's suggesting that the Piraha have discovered a better way of life to which we ought to aspire, we should wish to know a) if this society is really "fine" in a sense we should value, and b) whether they truly are "godless" in a profound sense of that term, which would certainly make them an extreme anomaly among ancient socieities. Certainly we'd also want to know c) if they're atheists in addition to having no identifiable religion, and if so, d) whether they have always been so, or if this is a recent development of some kind. Finally, we'd need to know whether that fact is causally connected to the particular "fine" feature we are asserting in a way we could verify.

There is much here that would benefit from clarification, as you can see.

[Arising_uk]

Well, as I'm not really one to defend religion in a positive light (I argued that it was the lesser of two evils), and since Hexhammer seems to like references to Dostoevsky, how about this: doesn't atheism, if followed to its logical ends, lead inevitably to nihilism and moral relativism? ...

How so? Surely it can assume Humanism?

If the goal is to construct a government that provides for the good of the whole, what atheistic maxim prohibits sacrificing the individual(s) for that greater good? ...

Why should an atheistic society necessarily be a utilitarian one? It could assume a meritocratic stance and promote equality of opportunity for individuals, you make it on your own merits, you don't you have nothing to moan about.

If a brilliant intellectual is languishing in poverty and prohibited from contributing (what he thinks) is his great potential to society, why shouldn't he be able to kill and rob the miserly, unloved, old widow hording a cache of jewelry down the street from him as in Crime and Punishment?

Because in a meritocratic atheistic society he wouldn't be in this situation nor able to harbour this misbelief in his abilities.

Or to put it in the macro context, what, in atheistic theory, prohibits a Lenin or Stalin or Mao from liquidating a portion of their populace if, after careful objective analysis, such action would enhance the greater good?

What 'atheistic theory'? Why is it necessarily utilitarian?

[Soren]

Surely it can assume Humanism?

Well, surely one can "assume" anything: the question that is more important is "Can it justify that assumption?" So we must ask what feature of the atheist view supports any conviction that human beings are specially morally privileged beings.

Put another way, "What's so great about us?" Are we not just accidental products of a random cosmic lottery? If so, then why would we be right to imagine "humanity" comes in for special consideration, or that the use, abuse or termination of any specimen of that group is somehow freighted with significance?

Why should an atheistic society necessarily be a utilitarian one? It could assume a meritocratic stance and promote equality of opportunity for individuals, you make it on your own merits, you don't you have nothing to moan about.

Quite true. It could. It could also assume an autocratic one, a libertarian one, a communistic one, a fascistic one, a narcissistic one, a Social Darwinian one, or even a totally amoral one. The difficulty is not with what it could assume, but with whether or not it has any particular moral orientation to offer at all.

Quote:
If a brilliant intellectual is languishing in poverty and prohibited from contributing (what he thinks) is his great potential to society, why shouldn't he be able to kill and rob the miserly, unloved, old widow hording a cache of jewelry down the street from him as in Crime and Punishment?

Because in a meritocratic atheistic society he wouldn't be in this situation nor able to harbour this misbelief in his abilities

But as we see, a meritocratic society is not for any reason to be preferred by atheism to any other. Unless I mistake CL's point about atheism, he holds that its chief advantage is its "slimness" of profile, in that it addresses itself to only one question -- namely, the existence or non-existence of God. If that's right, then it cannot be the case that atheism prefers meritocracy or anything else.

In fact, we might well wonder why, on an atheist account, it would ever be "wrong" for our society to prefer a comforting delusion of some kind to a harsh "reality" -- including atheism itself (if that should turn out to be the truth about reality). If a delusion of some kind proved evolutionarily adaptive -- say, if it effectively mustered collective actions in a way not possible to an individualistic perspective like atheism -- why should we not simply embrace that delusion? In fact, would it not actually be maladaptive to fail to embrace an advantageous delusion of that sort? So perhaps we would find it better to become Marxist-Leninists, or perhaps Raelians if these are strategically, evolutionarily advantageous.

So yes, our society would not have to be utilitarian, but also not meritocratic. CL would seem to hold that atheism advocates neither. In fact, it advocates no option at all.

[uwot]

Soren; given your concern about atheist societies, real and imagined; do you have a particular theist society in mind, that you believe demonstrates the cohesion we should wish to emulate?

[Soren]

My "concern" is limited to the question of how we know what we know, rather than to advocacy of a particular atheist society. I just like to see suppositions connect with conclusions. So I'm just noting that given what I have called the "slender" or "modest" version of atheism (which is what CL was advocating) there is no more we can deduce about the good society...utilitarian or otherwise.

Fair enough?

[Arising_uk]

Well, surely one can "assume" anything: the question that is more important is "Can it justify that assumption?" So we must ask what feature of the atheist view supports any conviction that human beings are specially morally privileged beings. ...

Pardon? Why do we have to be "specially morally privileged"? Why not just that we are a being that concerns itself with being ethical and moral.

Put another way, "What's so great about us?" Are we not just accidental products of a random cosmic lottery? If so, then why would we be right to imagine "humanity" comes in for special consideration, or that the use, abuse or termination of any specimen of that group is somehow freighted with significance?

Because that individual objects? Because we are a species that can abstract and we realise that any one of us could be subject to such abuse or termination? You appear to be advocating utilitarianism as the default of the atheist, it's not a necessary case.

Quite true. It could. It could also assume an autocratic one, a libertarian one, a communistic one, a fascistic one, a narcissistic one, a Social Darwinian one, or even a totally amoral one. The difficulty is not with what it could assume, but with whether or not it has any particular moral orientation to offer at all. ...

None I think, other than not killing others because they don't believe in the 'God' or 'it's' rules that they do. Seems a fair loss. The theist position also appears to fit with most of the above so I'm not sure of your point as I presume that an atheistic society would choose it's ethical and moral position on the basis that humans are social creatures with a language that allows such things to be considered. You appear to think that humans weren't ethical and moral until religion was invented and there appears to be no evidence for such a thing?

But as we see, a meritocratic society is not for any reason to be preferred by atheism to any other. Unless I mistake CL's point about atheism, he holds that its chief advantage is its "slimness" of profile, in that it addresses itself to only one question -- namely, the existence or non-existence of God. If that's right, then it cannot be the case that atheism prefers meritocracy or anything else. ...

Agreed, a meritocracy would be chosen by reason I think, it's why I think the argument that atheism is responsible for some lack of morals is a straw man.

In fact, we might well wonder why, on an atheist account, it would ever be "wrong" for our society to prefer a comforting delusion of some kind to a harsh "reality" -- including atheism itself (if that should turn out to be the truth about reality). If a delusion of some kind proved evolutionarily adaptive -- say, if it effectively mustered collective actions in a way not possible to an individualistic perspective like atheism -- why should we not simply embrace that delusion? In fact, would it not actually be maladaptive to fail to embrace an advantageous delusion of that sort? So perhaps we would find it better to become Marxist-Leninists, or perhaps Raelians if these are strategically, evolutionarily advantageous. ...

Many have and the result will depend upon if the society survives and thrives I guess. Why is atheism and individualistic perspective any more than the theist belief is? I've said it before, I'm happy for people to believe whatever they like, personally I understand why a theist belief is a useful prop but think it a problem as, like you say, it allows mustered collective action based upon little evidence and easy control of the masses.

So yes, our society would not have to be utilitarian, but also not meritocratic. CL would seem to hold that atheism advocates neither. In fact, it advocates no option at all.

Agreed, and why should it when the options are chosen for other reasons not some non-existent authority.

[Soren]

Pardon? Why do we have to be "specially morally privileged"? Why not just that we are a being that concerns itself with being ethical and moral.

Because the mere observation that "we feel ethical and moral interest" is not a justification of our moral and ethical status any more than "I feel I want" is a justification for theft. The feeling or even the "fact" of our concern goes not one step in proving that concern legitimate. How do we know that "morality" isn't simply a vestigial reaction? How do we know we owe it to pay it any attention? What turns our impulse to something into a moral imperative that we must be granted it?

Because that individual objects? Because we are a species that can abstract and we realise that any one of us could be subject to such abuse or termination?

Rabbits object to being eaten by foxes. But foxes must eat. The fact that we can "abstract" is only a fact, and as Hume noted, does not come bundled with a value-justification. And as for the realization that it could happen to any of us, surely that's obvious; but so what? How does that factual realization issue in a moral obligation on others to prevent it?

You appear to be advocating utilitarianism as the default of the atheist, it's not a necessary case.

Nope. Funny...I was sure I was perfectly clear that "slender" atheism supports NO particular moral system at all. So let's forget utilitarianism. It's implausible anyway.

None I think, other than not killing others because they don't believe in the 'God' or 'it's' rules that they do.

What in the statement "There is no God," which is CL's slender version of atheism, suggests a prohibition on killing of any kind, for any reason?

a meritocracy would be chosen by reason

Why? Why not any of the other systems? Are their no "reasons" to prefer a liberal democracy? Can no "reason" be summoned to advocate one or another form of socialism? Why not some form of autocracy? What is uniquely "rational" about meritocracy?

And if we opt for a "meritocracy," does this mean that the weak must die? If not, why must "meritocracy" stop short of that? How does "reason" counsel restraint on this point? You'll have to show me how that works.

the result will depend upon if the society survives and thrives I guess.

In a meritocracy, why should the survival and thriving of society as a whole be the decider, as opposed to the promotion of the individual genius? Wouldn't the triumph of the individual-of-merit be the meritocratic standard?

This is odd: you seem to be under the impression that turning around and saying, "Yeah, well religion is worse" provides some kind of answer here. But at the moment, we're talking only about atheism, not about any alternatives. We're taking for granted the idea that "religion" (whatever that is) is set aside (at least for the moment), and we're seeing what the implications of the alternative are. We're just asking what CL's slender atheism itself will warrant.

But in fact, as I have suggested, CL's slender atheism has no rational political or social implications at all. It certainly offers no warrant for meritocracy. How could it: you can see that it doesn't even contain any concept of "merit"!

So I must ask, from which additional ideology are you adding that on, and why should we believe that that ideology is a necessary corollary of atheism?