BookTalk.org

God is Not Great

Ch. 13: Does Religion Make People Behave Better?

---

---

Hitchens' main point in this chapter seems to be that religion has a tendancy to make people behave worse, and that people who show compassion for their fellow man do so in spite of, or at least independently of, religion, instead of because of it.

How did [the man who tried to repair the damage caused by the LRA in Uganda] know, I asked him, which of them was the truest believer? Any secular or state-run outfit could be doing what he was doing - fitting prosthetic limbs and providing shelter and "counseling" - but in order to be Joseph Kony one had to have real faith.

My response to this is that religion and compassion are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that complete and utter devotion to religion has led people to do some horrible things (the situation in Uganda being a prime example), there are millions of true believers all over the world who would never consider genocide to be an acceptable path. Anything can corrupt people (or be corrupted by them), but that doesn't make that thing inherently evil.

I don't think being religious makes you any worse a person than anyone else, but nor does it confer any benefits in moral issues.

All people make decisions based on their own analysis of the situation they are in. Sometimes a religious person will ask me, How do i know what is wrong and right? The answer is, the exact same way you do. Based on my experience and the society i belong to.

I think you will find prescious few people who refer to the bible when confronted with any day to day moral decision. Instead, people make their own decisions and then rationalize their decisions retroactivly to conform with a religious text, if they even bother to make the comparison.

So religion is not the final say in their decision making process. Reading the bible you would see several examples of supposedly moral acts that are flat-out repugnant. Religious people often look at these passages and say that they are not meant to be literal, or that they were allegorical or some such. That refusal to believe, or follow what is put forth in the bible is a moral decision made in contradiction of the bible.

Just because other positions whcih we would all hold valuable can be found in the bible (such as do not kill) does not mean we behave that way in accordance to scripture, but rather that it was so obvious a choice that to not include it in a code of moral laws would have been negligent. On the other hand you can see other examples of "evil" espoused in the bible because they were acceptable practices in the bronze age (slaves should behave).

This is a reflection of the time the book was written, not an ultimate moral code. So if we are not really using this book as arbiter of what is right and wrong, why do we go through the trouble to pretend that it is? consider how people use their supposed holy insight to instigate war, genocide, hatred, or intolerance backed with absolute holy authority.

Witches were burned at the stake and people lit the torch feeling like they were purging evil.

So no, just being religious does not make someone a bad person, but life without religious background is just as moral, and without the pit-falls of god-appointed hatred and strife.

After sharing the news about my unborn son last year, I had quite a few people scowling and asking why I wasn't married and that he's a bastard child. My girlfriend's grandma spews dissent amongst her family for not rigorously following religious protocol. My mother espouses an absolutist philosophy that retains it's absolutism because of her religious belief. My grandfather was insulted on his deathbed by claiming to have beliefs that weren't his own. I can't talk openly about evolution or science at work or I'll be considered an outcast.

There is less of the blatant evil in today's society, but there is still much idiocy and dissent caused by religion. I personally am fed up with how frustrating and difficult it's influences have made parts of my life.

With over 60% of religious people in this country actively denying civil rights to gays I would have to say NO, religion does not make people behave better.

Later

With his two main examples, M. L. King and Mahatma Ghandi, Hitchens suggests that the stronger the adherence to relgious doctrine or principle, the less the person will be likely to choose what is really the better, more humane, path; the more likely he or she will be to uphold faith for its own sake. King, Hitchens tells us, did not buy the vindictiveness of Jesus' references to eternal punishment in the New Testament. He was therefore really not so much a Christian, Hitchens says. King accomplished great things by turning his own will toward the advancement of humanity. It was not his Christianity that enabled him.

Ghandi, by having too strong a faith, cared mostly for that and was unable to see the true, best solution to the Hindu/Muslim problem.

Hitchens' interpretation of the two figures could be open to dispute, and two examples don't necessarily seal it. But I think in gereral it would be true that acting in order to prove "faithfulness" would be less productive, humane, and compassionate than acting from broader, non-exclusive principles of humanity.

I don't think, though, that Hitchens has much basis for strongly implying that King was not in fact a Christian. It puzzles me to hear people who dislike fundamentalism in religion, seem to insist that a believer needs to subscribe to all of what's on paper, as far as doctrine is concerned. Why can't believers pick and choose? It seems very likely to me that King, in some way that we aren't privileged to see, did find in Christian sources support for his crusade for equality.

DWill
I don't think, though, that Hitchens has much basis for strongly implying that King was not in fact a Christian.

From what little I know of MLK he defiantly was a Christian… but to say that he would not have been motivated to work for equal civil rights for blacks without a Christian background is just plain ridiculous.

I do realize no one here is making such a claim, but I thought I would mention it preemptively.

And I agree with you DWill people can and do pick and choose parts of their doctrine to follow and some to leave out… It is the people who choose the wrong parts to justify bad behavior and the ones that follow too blindly that really concern me.

Although the other moderates still seem to push their “superior” beliefs on us heathens regularly… but is it far more subtle and less violent than in the past.

It’s still annoying and frustrating though…

Later

Frank 013
From what little I know of MLK he defiantly was a Christian… but to say that he would not have been motivated to work for equal civil rights for blacks without a Christian background is just plain ridiculous.

I think a lot of this comes back to a point Hitchens returned to time and time again - Ockham's razor. One can be a good person and be religious, but as he often repeated, it works without it. Whether or not a person is kind and benevolent seems in most cases to be independent of whether or not a person is religious.

Morals don't depend on religion, contrary to what most religious advocates would have you believe.

On a side note, Ockham's Razor is often times over used. It's meant as a principle in selecting scientific theories, commonly known as parsimony. Where it applies is between theories where all other factors are even, the one that is less complex should be used. A problem is that parsimony isn't a rule, it's only a guide. Everything considered, a more complex theory might actually turn out to be the one that withstands experimentation.

This might be as good a place as any to bring up a reputed effect of religion on children. In the literature on child development and what is called "prevention," it is frequently mentioned that participation in "spiritual activities" is protective; that is, according to research, children whose parents have them take part in such groups tend to have fewer problems with adjustment, such as anti-social behavior and drug abuse. I’ve seen the statement made several times, and now I wonder whether research really supports the conclusion. If it does, then I’d need to know what it is about these activities that provides such protection. It’s not a given that the “spiritual” element is the effective part. Something I mean to look into.