Is religion beneficial or harmful to society?

I'd say that its important to keep religion to meaning its current defintion, although I think dogmatic religions and dogmatic ideologies that aren't religions carry nearly the same pitfalls.

 

Seems we're getting closer to the answer to this thread's question.
Could we say that total ideologies are more often than not harmful to society, but spirituality is not?

 

I think this series of videos might be beneficial to post here, and possibly the Atheism thread.

Four of the most prominent Athiests in recent years in a 2-hours discussion over the finer points what what they do (and in some cases between Hitchens and the others, perhaps what they don't) share in common:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

 

Religion inherently imposes itself upon others with its contradictory "We respect everyone!" and "If you don't convert, you'll forever perish in Hell!" attitudes.

 

I've never experienced religion imposing on me in any way. I don't have to go to church,I don't have to read the Bible, I don't have to say any prayers at home, in the workplace or in public and I don't have to wear any religious clothing. My kids don't have to study religion at school. In relation to your example of a 'contradiction', I'm not so sure they actually do contradict one another. You could respect someone but still believe they'll perish in hell forever for their lack of faith. I'm sure there are christians who post here that read all about our perspective on religion, how we justify our atheism. Many respectfully disagree. I'm positive many will nevertheless log off in the secure knowledge that we are all heading straight to hell.

 

Yep to that. I've known dozens of practicing religious people; the vast majority are about as interested in forcing their religion on other people as I'm interested in self-mutilation..


...that is to say, not in the slightest.

 

I'd agree with LostonHoth on this. I mean, someone else thinking I'm going to Hell is no problem for me. That's just their beliefs, and they can believe whatever they want about me. If they start basing laws around that belief, that's where I'll have an issue.

 

Both. Entirely secular societies tend to go up in flames rather quickly. But religion can be abused by fanatics and cynics.

 

What entirely secular societies would those be?

The only primary secular societies that I'm aware of that are particularly cited for examples are those brought about by the Russian and French Revolution.

The Russian revolution was not about being secularist per se -- it just happened to be so. It wound up being no more particularly wed to the idea of Athiesm than Hitler was to Socialism: the interests just incidentally converged. The real focus of Lenin and Trotsky was economic and social upheaval (and quite likely the focus of each man confers to the order which the concerns are listed), and the primary concern of Stalin was power. The Athiesm for all these men was mostly incidental: Trotsky was probably the most hard-line athiest, and eventually became an enemy of the Revolution once Stalin came to power.

The French Revolutionaries were somewhat more concerned with Athiesm, but even here the focus was not on religion but on upending the social order. Those at the forefront of getting rid of religious dogma were men such as Hebert, who wasn't exactly the leading figure. In fact the extremist phase of the Revolution merely tried to supplant one religion with another in the cult of the Supreme Being, which was the brainchild of Robespierre and absolutely advocated by his entourage such as St Just and Couthon (I don't believe Hebert was technically among them). Those that immediately followed inherited an unstable situation, and by the time Napoleon came to power and brought a form of political stability, he had no interest at all in maintaining any of the more radical social experiments and tinkering with the lives of those that gave him his power within France.

In other words, the secular societies usually cited that burned themselves out, so to speak, tended to be revolutionary societies anyway, and as such were highly susceptable to burning themselves out for reasons entirely dependant to thier athiesm. Religion was not keeping them from over-extending themselves as much as it was trying to change the social status quo of the very people the Religion was supposedly for, something the Americans had the good sense to not be bothered doing. Athiesm was no more accountable for the burning out of these societies than was the Jacobins re-naming all the months of the Julian Calendar and re-setting the year to zero.

 

They don't all have those beliefs, by the way. Buddhism and Hinduism simply say you'll be reincarnated(though they differ on the specifics of what that entails.) Judaism also lacks what would commonly be referred to as Hell(ie: a realm of hell fire and eternal torture) with the closest being Gehenna, which is more akin to Catholicism's concept of Purgatory. Taoism lacks hell entirely.

 

Yes, I realize this, but this sort of plays into my point. The point being that it is this "We are right, you are wrong!" mentality that religion doesn't merely carry with it but advocates that is harmful to society. This isn't some decision that religious individuals make; it is intrinsic property that all religious advocates must endure in order for their religious traditions to endure.

The conclusion I was attempting to draw is that while religion is harmful to society, it is beneficial, in moderation, for civilization. The aspects of religious practices are actually those which breed conflict and excite the population, inciting further progression as a civilization.

There is a difference between a society and a civilization. A civilization can have many societies, from the United States, Russia, and France, to San Fransisco, Moscow, and Paris, to the tiny city of Fremont in which I reside. All are societies in their individual right; you might even say that my home is a society. We have the leader (my mom) the producers/providers (my parents) and the population (my sister and myself). We possess individual customs and collective beliefs, acting, somewhat, and most of the time, as a unit.

However, civilization exists on a much grander scale, encompassing not merely the above mentioned cities and nations, but humanity as a whole.

 

That's too harsh. I don't find much intrusive about Taoism or Buddhism.

Is emancipation beneficial or harmful to society?

 

Also, religion is far from the only ones guilty of having a "We are right, you are wrong!" mentality. Who else do you think acts this way?

 

The Bush Administraton... ?

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

Oh, I agree that the "We are right, you are wrong!" mentality can be harmful. However, that's not limited to religion. Most ideologies effectively say as much, though they're not always as blunt about it as some religious people are.

It's also not found within all religions. As SuperWatto pointed out, Taoism and Buddhism don't have the same evangelical leanings that many others have. Buddhism's concept of Upaya also allows for such a wide variety of beliefs that saying someone is right is almost irrelevant if that truth isn't helpful. Hinduism also allows for a less dogmatic and intrusive practice given that all paths to the single truth are considered equally valid(and that it's fine for someone to be on the Path of Desire.)

I think the distinction between a civilization and a society is definitely worth remembering, but I would argue that religion would be helpful to both society and civilization when practiced properly. However, both are damaged when religion becomes narrow-minded and dogmatic rather than a compassionate and accepting thing.

 

The "We are right, you are wrong" mentality only becomes harmful to a society when that attitude is translated into religious law, such as the Sharia law practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, apostasy is punishable by death, which again according to Sharia law, should be carried out by beheading preferably in public.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but I'm even more for freedom from religion.

 

I think the two are effectively one in the same. If I'm going to be free to practice my religion I'd need to be free from yours.

 

Yes true, except where you reject all religion.

 

I think Atheism should be included under the list of things protected by freedom of religion, but you're right that it's often not.

 

You're right; it should be. But, more often than not, especially living in the United States, a traditionally and fundamentally Protestant nation. There is only one atheist congressman at the moment, and that's Pete Stark in the great state of California. Those who reject religion are frequently perceived as those put on Earth to destroy it. The truth of the matter is, I don't want to destory religion, but I would appreciate it if religion did not try to destroy free and independent human thought.

 

How much of a hypocrite would that make atheists though? To demand protection while attacking religion and claiming it should not be protected?

 

Personally, I've never heard an atheist argue that freedom of religion shouldn't be constitutionally protected.

 

No, I agree. If an atheist should say that religion should not be constitutionally protected, then that would leave the atheist fundamentally vulnerable.