does belief in god harm us?
Recently I visited a web forum conducted by atheists. Its home page had a slogan: "Believe in God? We can fix that!", so I posted a question - "I believe in God. Why does that need fixing, and how do you propose to do it?"
Of course some interesting discussion ensured, some of which was based around the answers some of the atheist members gave to the first part of my question. They argued that my belief needed fixing because it was harmful to me and to the world. But they gave very little evidence for this claim, so I set myself to test the proposition: Belief in God leads to worse outcomes in the world than non-belief.
To demonstrate that the proposition is true would require four things to be established:
(1) Have theists done worse things in the world than non-theists?
For this we need an overall estimate of the evil things done by both sides, based on competent, objective research.
Killings is one measure of general evil (not the only one, but useful because there are good estimates available). The following 5 references seem to me to be competent and objective estimates of killings committed by various groups over the centuries:
Which has killed more people? Genocides (Wikipedia) 20th century death tolls World War II death count Historian Rodney Stark
It turns out that the number of killings by non-theists in the 20th century alone was estimated to be 75-100 million, much more than the estimated 30 million committed by christians in 20 centuries. These numbers are enough for anyone to be deeply ashamed of, but they definitely suggest the atheist proposition falls at the first hurdle.
(2) Are theism and non-theism significant causes of these atrocities?
This is a pretty difficult one to test, because how can we judge whether the religious belief of someone committing an atrocity is genuine, or whether it was atheism or communism that led to atrocities? But if we want to make an assessment, we have to be circumspect, and rely on good historians.
- Sociologist and historian Rodney Stark concludes that governments and not the church were clearly responsible for the millions who died in the European conquest of the Americas (where a large number of killings occurred), and that atheism was probably not the main factor in the millions of deaths under Chinese and Russian communism.
- Nevertheless, atheism was an integral part of Marx-Leninism as this book outlines. It talks of "Lenin's policy of militant atheism". Lenin sent a letter in 1922 where he said that the "protracted use of brutality" was necessary to achieve the promotion of atheism.
- The following references report on research indicating that religion was not a major factor in most recent suicide bombings (contrary to popular belief): The role of social context in terror attacks Is Suicide Terrorism Religiously Motivated? On the Edge
So the evidence is not totally consistent, but tends to oppose the proposition that it is the religious beliefs that cause the atrocities; rather it seems to be political beliefs.
(3) Is the record of theism and non-theism in the past a reliable indication of the likely behaviour today?
Even if we could establish that either theism or non-theism did evil things in the past, it is the present we are living in, and in which the proposition is being applied. Are things likely to be the same, or different?
This is even harder to gather evidence on. But perhaps where social and international conditions now are similar to when the atrocities were committed, then we may be able to demonstrate some connection between the past and the present. On this basis, Muslim suicide bombing is obviously current, as are thousands of executions a year in China by an explicitly anti-religious Government, far more than for any other country (see Amnesty International figures for this). Next closest in time and social conditions would be the communist killings of the 20th century, with the christian killings of the invasion of South America, etc, obviously from a world very different to today.
It seems that, overall, belief in God is likely to do less harm today than in the past.
(4) How do the beneficial effects of theism compare to the beneficial effects of non-theism?
So far we have only considered evil, but good must also be in the equation.
In history, christians have been at the forefront of much beneficial social reform such as hospitals, education, anti-slavery, etc. Rodney Stark concluded from his study of the rise of christianity in the first few centuries CE that one of the major factors was the christians' superior record in social welfare (there are independent letters of an unsympathetic Roman emperor to demonstrate this), especially in their care of women, children and orphans.
In the present day, many independent studies show that believers have better mental and physical health and general wellbeing, lower rates of addiction and suicide, lower levels of stress and depression, and recover from surgery more quickly. They also are much more active in community service roles and much more likely to give time and money to charities (for Australia, see new generations and religious belief, for the US see this study). And in Australia, christian groups are by far the largest non-government providers of social services (especially aged care, but also crisis help, dealing with addictions, etc).
This research is summed up in this telling article, "Faith does breed charity" by atheist journalist Roy Hattersley, who concludes: "The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand..... The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us [atheists] free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army."
So on this matter, the evidence again does not seem to favour the atheist proposition.
so what may we conclude?
Sadly, people have done many evil things to each other, but it appears that belief or disbelief in God are not the major cause of this. We probably can't say for sure that either belief or disbelief in God are likely to lead to bad outcomes, but the evidence tends to suggest that believers contribute more good to society and have done less harm than have non-believers in the past.
It turns out that the number of killings by non-theists in the 20th century alone was estimated to be 75-100 million, much more than the estimated 30 million committed by christians in 20 centuries. These numbers are enough for anyone to be deeply ashamed of, but they definitely suggest the atheist proposition falls at the first hurdle
ReplyDeleteYou also need to factor in the size of the total population. For most of the 20 preceding centuries, population numbered two to four hundred million according to this wikipedia page. Whether taking total killings as a percentage of contemperaneous humanity changes the final conclusions or not, it would tend to make them less stark.
Yes of course that is right - a point I made on my website on the "road tests - references" page which, together with "road tests" deals with this issue in more detail.
ReplyDeleteHow can you possibly balance the fact that there was a smaller population against the fact that atheism/communism and nazism did their damage in just a few decades?
That's why my conclusions are guarded - belief and unbelief appear not to be the main problem, and unbelief appears to come out slightly worse.
Im somebody who sees no factual evidence of any god/s .But my life has been effected by religion , of that i had no choice its so widespread it effects many of us whether we like it or not.The effects have most definatly not been positive infact its been a nightmare.
ReplyDeleteIf i was to kill people would my unsocial actions be because of non belief or could they be partly due to religious influences ?.
Hitler definatly had religious influences in his childhood atleast.Some quite nasty ones to infact .
Joseph Starlin had some also .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
quote : At the age of ten, Stalin began his education at the Gori Church School. His peers were mostly the sons of affluent priests, officials, and merchants. He and most of his classmates at Gori were Georgians and spoke mostly Georgian. However, at school they were forced to speak Russian, which was the policy of Tsar Alexander III. The Russian teachers mocked the accents of their Georgian students, and regarded their language and culture as inferior.
And : During his time at the seminary, Stalin and numerous other students read forbidden literature that included Victor Hugo novels and revolutionary, including Marxist, material. He was caught and punished numerous times for this. One teacher in particular—Father Abashidze, whom Stalin nicknamed "the Black Spot"—harassed the rebel students through student informers, nightly patrols and surprise dormitory raids. This personal experience of "surveillance, spying, invasion of inner life, violation of feelings", in Stalin's own words, influenced the design of his future terror state.[11] He became an atheist in his first year.[11] He insisted his peers call him "Koba", after the Robin Hood-like protagonist of the novel The Patricide by Alexander Kazbegi; he would continue to use this pseudonym as a revolutionary. In August 1898, he joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, an organisation from which the Bolsheviks would later form.
So i suggest Father Abashidze, whom Stalin nicknamed "the Black Spot" might have had more to do with starlins nasty emotions , than it is likely many religious folk looking to put religion on high would be likely to give some credit to .
The thing is folk dont even need to be personally within religion to get the nasty effects of it .It is so manipulative and controling in its nature within the world , many have no choice as to whether they wish to be effected by it or not .
How can you possibly balance the fact that there was a smaller population against the fact that atheism/communism and nazism did their damage in just a few decades?
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to make the case that atheism is better or worse than theism, just to point out something I saw that made me go "hey, this should be accounted for". I think you're right to say the motivators for the killing that has gone on are political and not necessarily religious, in most cases.
I wonder, if people in times past had had mass-produced machine guns, cluster bombs, nerve gas, aerial surveillance to provide tactical information, etc, how much worse the killings of the past would have been.
There are such difficulties with even something as simple as counting bodies, and the benefits and harms of different belief systems (including atheism) go far beyond this, into many factors that are practically impossible to measure accurately. It's like trying to apply economics to happiness - a worthy effort, but we're far away from putting a dollar value on a contented smile, or rationally comparing the effects of various belief systems using some agreed-upon measure of value.
I'm not trying to oppose what you've said, just drive home the message to anyone who reads this that conclusions need to be very guarded. Your work is interesting and thought provoking, though :)
So i suggest Father Abashidze, whom Stalin nicknamed "the Black Spot" might have had more to do with starlins nasty emotions , than it is likely many religious folk looking to put religion on high would be likely to give some credit to .
ReplyDeleteThis is the key, I think - it has to do with people, not religion per se. Religion didn't make Abashidze act how he did, and many mainstream religious people would argue that religion supresses those sorts of behaviours. To me, it's a moot point. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I just do what I can to see that the way people I can affect act towards each other is as kind and caring as possible. I don't think proving religion or atheism right or wrong is a part of that effort - I just try to strengthen the controls within any social systems I'm a part of so that destructive behaviour is not permitted to thrive there.
I do agree with you to some extent Myron i really do .And it is really quite heartwarming to hear or even meet people that think the way you do .
ReplyDelete"I just do what I can to see that the way people I can affect act towards each other is as kind and caring as possible."
I have no faith yet i try to act/be the same way .
But however i do think that there is an element of self rightiousness and judgemental type behaviour that can be picked up from some written faith beliefs .Sure your average joe blogs can pick these types of things up from other people without faiths too , but what makes it a little more differnt i think .Is that even though maybe its through mistransulation or through ignorance of what some scriptures/writings might actually be saying , it still doesnt withdraw from the point that these faith writings can in effect still be dangerious .These faith writings are actual teachings , they are excepted by groups of people as a way of life as word of god/s .Which to me is very differnt than learning bad habits through being for instance involved with a wrong crowd of people that might be bad but not bad through reading some faith indoctrination .
Thats my opinion anyway .
Thanks for being somebody who is atleast willing to listen debate and post other points of view ! .
I have atleast great respect for this type of fair personality and dialogue .
Where as there are some who are quite happy to make claims and judgements on matters in blogs , yet if anyone comments another point of view .They with bigotry (my opinion) dont post comments unless it suits their own thoughs and judgements .These i folk i have little respect for , should i ? .
Myron
ReplyDeleteThanks for your further comments. When I asked that question (How can you possibly balance ....?), I didn't mean it as a challenge, but as a genuine question. i.e. The figures are there, they are very approximate, they are almost impossible to interpret in any definitive way, and therefore how can anyone really make a firm judgment one way or the other about the relative impacts of greater or lesser population, greater opportunity, greater evil by one person in a short space of time, etc.
I am interested in this because I think the debate is marred by people seeking to justify a viewpoint they have already arrived at. I have tried to be balanced, and I still think the only definite conclusion is the rather depressing fact that people of all beliefs and none can do pretty nasty things, but also some pretty heroic things as well sometimes.
I think the balance of what I've seen adds up slightly in favour of believers, but I wouldn't think that was a statistically safe conclusion. But I need to say it because some unbelievers make way stronger claims in the other direction which I don't think they can prove. I certainly don't put you in that category.
Gandalf
ReplyDeleteThanks for joining in, I appreciate your comments.
I don't think we can be certain of the causes of people's behaviour unless we know a lot about them, so I don't have any real idea about Stalin's upbringing and how it affected him. I do think there is something in the culture of the Balkans and Caucasus areas that seems to still, even today, retain some barbarism (we see it in the Russia-Georgia conflict, and in the Balkan wars of a decade or two ago), and as Stalin came from Georgia (actually Ossetia), who knows ....?
But I'm sorry if you have been badly affected by "religion". I think it is pretty obvious that the base teachings of Jesus should lead to people being more peaceful and thoughtful, but it is unfortunately true that many forms of institutional christianity (especially the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages) do not live up to Jesus' teaching, not even remotely. For example, churches have often given legitimacy to wars, whereas Jesus taught something very close to pacificism.
It then becomes difficult to separate out what was caused by genuine religious belief and what was caused by social conditions, ambition & greed, etc.
As I said to Myron, my main conclusions are that (1) all sorts of people can unfortunately do evil, and (2) we would do well to avoid definite statements about causes.
Thanks again.
I have no faith yet i try to act/be the same way .
ReplyDeleteI have no faith either. Well, maybe after some of the conversations I've had with people on different forums (including uncle e) they might think I have some faith, but it's not required and it's not the typical religious type. If you'd like to see what I think about things, I've got a blog at http://evolutionisgod.blogspot.com/.
These faith writings are actual teachings , they are excepted by groups of people as a way of life as word of god/s
Which, Uncle E, is why atheists consider relgion dangerous. Belief in various religious things requires (and in some cases even encourages) a suspension of critical thought in favour of faith. When faith in God transforms into faith in the church hierarchy, bad things can happen. Now, the same can happen in plenty of non-religious ways, too, which is what muddies the results. Cults of personality around government leaders are equally dangerous. I think there needs to be a lot more research into how beliefs form, and how they affect behaviour, so that we can have a solid, non-anecdotal understanding of how "dangerous" beliefs form (and which ones are genuinely dangerous), and how they may be disrupted. Unfortunately research in this area is almost nonexistent, I think (?).
Gandolf, I would say you're right about religion, but your conclusions shouldn't be limited to religion, there are plenty of non-religious beliefs that work just the same way - corruption of a good idea into something harmful for the purposes of gaining power is not something religion has a monopoly on.
Uncle E:
It then becomes difficult to separate out what was caused by genuine religious belief and what was caused by social conditions, ambition & greed, etc.
Come on now... the vast majority of religious belief is "genuine". It might not be what you get out of the teachings, and it might not be what you think the writings are supposed to communicate, but people who think differently would say you don't have genuine beliefs. If you accept the premise that you can legitimately agrue for a course of action based on scripture, then you can't then say that other people doing that and reaching a different conclusion from you aren't "genuine". "Religion is good because nothing bad is true religion" doesn't work. On the other hand, arguing with people who accept the premise that scripture is a good guide to action (given the large number of possible interpretations, I am skeptical of this premise, by the way) by saying that their interpretation is not correct is something I would support - you might be able to convince them to change their actions where someone who argued for rejecting scripture would be ignored.
You imply that there is only one "genuine" interpretation of the scripture. As a non-religious person, I would take the scriptures a whole lot more seriously if there was enough agreement on what "genuine" interpretation was that people were willing to remove or re-translate the passages that lead to such widely differing "non-genuine" interpretations. If there was agreement on what a genuine interpretation is, then doing this would just be a matter of making sure what was written was a true representation of what was intended, which no "genuine" religious person should have any problem with.
Myron,
ReplyDeleteJust two responses:
Which, Uncle E, is why atheists consider relgion dangerous. Belief in various religious things requires (and in some cases even encourages) a suspension of critical thought in favour of faith.
1. I think religion (the things people do in the name of God) is often dangerous too, not because of God but because people get the wrong idea. But people do that with or without religion.
2. There's a lot of misinformation about faith vs reason. We all exercise reason to some degree (even the silliest theist has some reasons why they believe) and we all go beyond reason on occasions (even the most logical atheist can't prove everything they think, such as their trust for their friends). The question is how to balance the two. I have reasons to believe, and then I go beyond to trust God. That is logical. A comparison would be for a child to trust its parent or me to trust my doctor.
It then becomes difficult to separate out what was caused by genuine religious belief and what was caused by social conditions, ambition & greed, etc.
You have misunderstood me here. My point was that when a catholic conquistador kills South American "indians", or an atheist Stalin orders the killing of dissenters, how much is their catholicism or their atheism a major factor, and how much are other motives? Were they really catholic believers, or just culturally catholic? We just don't know, although atheists tend to blame catholicism but refuse to blame atheism, which looks inconsistent to me (especially as we can be more certain the Stalin was truly an atheist than we can be about the conquistadors' actual beliefs).
The historians and the modern day studies seem to conclude that religion or irreligion was not the major factor in either, but it is uncertain.
Thanks again.
I think we're basically in agreement :)
ReplyDeleteStill good to have these conversations for clarification, though, because if I took something a certain way you didn't intend, I expect anyone who's really anti-religion might do the same.
Thanks for the thoughtful conversations!