Popular quote about religion - Why?

[Rufo]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

This quote, or some slight variation of it, seems to turn up here in the R&P section at regular intervals. Usually, it is used to comment on people doing bad/evil things specifically because of their religious convictions, rather than using their religious convictions as a justification for otherwise motivated atrocities. The frequent use of the quote crossed my mind a few days ago, and coincidentally it was used again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3632539#post3632539) yesterday, which made me think this might be a good time to bring it up.

I completely fail to understand the popularity of this quote. Not only because it does not fit with my opinions and philosophy, but because it does not seem to fit with reality, nor with the opinions and philosophies I otherwise see most frequently expressed here.

First, "good and evil people"? Since when does any reasonable person, let alone a humanist, divide people into "good" and "evil"?

Second, "that takes religion" is demonstratably not true. Does anyone dispute that there are ideological factors besides religion which have much the same effect on people's morals? Some may argue that religion has a worse record, but that doesn't make the statement remotely true.

Third, assuming it was actually true, then surely the opposite - that it takes religion for evil people to do good things - must also be true. And then the entire line of reasoning behind this criticism of religion becomes a lot more complex than the quote conveys.

Can anyone explain to me why this quote appears to frequently here, or even better, justify its use?

[This Guy]

I suspect I was the last to use it, and may have been the motivator for this thread. I may be wrong :)

My opinion is that the statement is basically true. The movie Expelled, or it's makers I should say, gives what I consider a perfect example. The makers of the movie used deceitful tactics to secure interviews with well know supporters of evolution. While I haven't seen the movie, I have seen what other ID and Creation supporters have done with out of context quotes from "evolutionist". These people appear to not mind a bit if they have to be less than honest in their treatment of the issue of evolution vs. creation. These, in almost all cases are otherwise, presumably, religious people that have high standards of morality. They generally, I believe, believe in a god that will punish sinful acts, and I assume dishonesty to be on the list. Yet they see nothing wrong, it seems, to be dishonest if it might help support their religious views.

Is there any doubt in your mind that I could provide at least 10 or 20 links to National or World news stories, written within the last 6 months, that show a case of violence being committed because of, or in the name of religion? I would rather not waste my time, but I think it could easily be done.

Is religion the only thing that could make an otherwise decent person comment a crime or do violence to another person? Of course not. But IMHO it has shown itself to be more than capable.

As for the dividing of people into groups of good and bad or good and evil, I take that figuratively. I view most people as generally good. However there are some that have shown themselves to be much more prone to doing bad things than the average. Are they evil? Maybe, maybe not. But they sure don't appear very nice ;)

[Walter Wayne]

Well, as I see it, it is a statement without proof either way.

I have seen people convert in both directions. As far as I can tell, conversion is a life changing experience, and people who go through that change their character.

I have seen an atheist, who was a "worthless" drunk become a good tolerant charitable christian. I have seen good atheists turn into downright hateful christians. Conversions in the opposite direction are similar, with former christians becoming much worse or much better people. And a good many don't really change much.

To justify saying "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I'd have to ignore much of what I have experienced. Conversion in either direction, as far as I can tell, can result in a better or worse person.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In cases where reasonable and reasonably good people do unreasonable and unreasonably bad things, religion is just another tool used by the unscrupulous to motivate the uncommitted.

Hitler used nationalism (exacerbated by the sting of the Treaty of Versailles), racism, and the promise of prosperity to do it. Stalin used political indoctrination and the threat of death or deportation to do it. Pol Pot used the promise of a Communist Worker's Paradise, political indoctrination, and racism to do it.

I use these three examples as they are all secular methods of motivation, and I neither deny nor dispute the use of religion in this manner.

Religion, as an institution, pretty much sucks.

I'm just saying that convincing people to treat others badly is not the sole domain of religion. Religion provides just one more place in the human psyche, of an appallingly large number of similar places, where someone with some skill and persuasiveness can stick in a bayonet, twist it around a bit, and drag something out of a good person that's willing to throw babies on a bonfire.

Both religion and Communism are structured in such a way as to demand obedience to authority as well as noncritical thinking about both the obedience and the reasons for the given commands. Both religion and Nazism are structured in such a way as to encourage an, "Us vs. Them," way of thinking as well as an opinion of social/"Us-group" superiority. Religion feels, as Joe Stalin felt, that they're pursuing, "the greater good," and that broken eggs and omelets go hand in hand.

To get really good people to do really bad things doesn't require religion: Religion is just makes it ever so slightly easier.

[godless dave]

I think any dogmatic, deeply held ideology can give people an excuse to override their own feelings about morality. Religion is the most talked about here; I would also hazard a guess it's the most common. But excessive patriotism or adherence to a political philosophy, even a burning desire for approval from a clique or leader, can get people to do things they would ordinarily find morally repugnant.

[This Guy]

Well, as I see it, it is a statement without proof either way.

I have seen people convert in both directions. As far as I can tell, conversion is a life changing experience, and people who go through that change their character.

I have seen an atheist, who was a "worthless" drunk become a good tolerant charitable christian. I have seen good atheists turn into downright hateful christians. Conversions in the opposite direction are similar, with former christians becoming much worse or much better people. And a good many don't really change much.

To justify saying "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I'd have to ignore much of what I have experienced. Conversion in either direction, as far as I can tell, can result in a better or worse person.

I've never considered the quote in question to be talking about conversions. My take on it is that it is talking about otherwise good people doing violent or evil things because of or in the name of religion. I've viewed the quote to imply that the "evil doers" (hehe) remain as a member of whatever faith they belonged, or ascribed to before doing their evil deed.

When someone stones their daughter because she marries someone outside the families faith, I consider that to be evil. The one doing the stoning, I assume, considers themselves doing the Will of God.

Perhaps a better wording of the quote would say something about the mindset of the person doing the "evil".

While I'm sure many exceptions can be found, let's look at two possible examples of otherwise good people doing bad things.

First we have a good man that attends church regularly, and never does anything unkind or illegal. Something happens, and he finds himself in a situation where he has no way to contact anyone he knows, has no money, and is starving. (work with me on this, I know it's extreme, but it's to make a point!;)) He might resort to stealing some food. The odds are, if that was the only method he could come up with to eat, he would do it, but feel bad about it. He would feel like he was breaking the law, and sinning before his God (most likely)

Now, let's take the guy throwing stones at his daughter. He also attends his church (or whatever) regularly, and never breaks the law or treats anyone unkindly. However, He is not sorry (though he may have regrets later?). He feels he is doing the right thing in the sight of his God, yet he is killing his daughter.

I know these are extreme examples, but I think they should get my view across.

This is the sense I use the quote in. For someone to do something that most of us would consider bad, and feel like they were doing the right thing, I believe would take either a screw loose in the head, or religion.

Make sense?

[Darat]

Well all that the quote is a few written couple of sentences that succinctly puts across an opinion regarding religion.

Any links to where it originated or is that the entire text?

[This Guy]

I agree that there are other things that can drive decent people to bad deeds. Nationalism is certainly high on the list, and would, I believe, have the same effect as religion. Well.. maybe. A lot of bad things are done in war. But much of this does in fact leave scars that aren't physical. I'm not sure the same can be said about those doing bad things in the name of religion.

Thoughts?

[Dragoonster]

I agree that there are other things that can drive decent people to bad deeds. Nationalism is certainly high on the list, and would, I believe, have the same effect as religion. Well.. maybe. A lot of bad things are done in war. But much of this does in fact leave scars that aren't physical. I'm not sure the same can be said about those doing bad things in the name of religion.

Thoughts?

I think the same can be said of those, as well as love, duty, social upbringing, and zillions of more justifications that appear Good to the abuser, but Evil to an observer or particular morality. Maybe religion is different than most in its highly organized status, or that it's less an intuitive justification. But nationalism is a close enough analogue there.

I generally don't like historical aphorisms/quotes though. They seem to too often disguise a gross generalization with flowery or sober language rather than make any clear or truly relevant statement.

[ParanoidAndroid]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

Can anyone explain to me why this quote appears to frequently here, or even better, justify its use?


I suspect it might have something to do with the apparent human affection for slogans in general. People with any opinion on any subject love slogans...even more so if there's a degree of wit. The validity of the slogan is often secondary so long as it can be applied for their purpose.

[X]

Authority demanding obedience.
And people willing to submit to that authority.

Of course, it's likely more complicated than that.

[This Guy]

ALRIGHT! I'LL STOP USING THE DAMNED QUOTE!


Ooops!

Sorry.


:o

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Just because a lot of folks would disagree isn't a very good reason not to use it if that's what you feel. It's concise, well thought out, and well presented.

You can find a lot of folks that would disagree with the Earth being round, or the sun rising in the east, after all.

You're allowed to have opinions. I'm just saying that, objectively speaking, it's not a fact.

:D If I had a nickel for everything I believe that, objectively speaking, is not a fact, the JREF prize wouldn't stop, and it'd be THREE million. :D

[FireGarden]

Recently, ddt gave a quote of Romans 13 and I looked up what Christians thought about that part of the NT. I found:

http://www.burnsidewriterscollective.com/social/2007/02/five_questions_your_pacifist_f.php

Romans 13 is:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=13&version=31

With the title "submission to authority".

Here's what the Christian had to say:

These hard words from Paul are in the Bible, and must be reckoned with . And I’m reminded of them more often than I would like. My gut reaction, what I usually fire back with, is weak. I’m warning you. It’s the same kind of gut reaction that I condemned just a few paragraphs ago. But it goes like this: “What about Hitler? Did God establish Hitler’s authority? To do good? Should we have submitted to him?”

See the mess I get myself into with that one? Needless to say, I’ve abandoned that answer.

My better answer came after years of prayer, study, contemplation, and one really good conversation with my friend Jon Busch, a self proclaimed Christian anarchist. Jon reads this passage as a dismissal of the government, and his reading is rather convincing. In much the same way that Jesus answered the challenge from the Pharisees about paying taxes by all but tossing a coin away and saying “Give to Caesar what is Caesars,” he sees Paul doing the same here. Paul knew something about corrupt governments. So, for him to say that Christians must submit to governmental authority indicates that he has no intention of Christians rising up against the government, and he’s stating the obvious when he says if you do something to anger the government, you’re going to be punished. This interpretation, for Jon, who is committed to complete reluctance to participate in the government, makes perfect sense.

For me, a Christian pacifist, I also concurred Romans 13 this way. I agree that a Christian should not rise up against the government. He should submit to that authority. But today, as in Paul’s day, there is an assumed “unless.” Unless the government requires you to act against your higher allegiance, the Kingdom of God. This may make some people squirm when they first hear it until they think about it a little more. Ask any Christian what they would do if the government suddenly told them they no longer had the right to meet and worship every Sunday; they would disobey, they would not submit, as the churches in Paul’s day did not submit, and as churches around the world still do not.

So, if Paul doesn't give exceptions, then there is an "assumed unless."

Good people will interpret their religion in such a way as to fit it into their own morality.

Good people do bad things when they stop listening to their own conscience. That has to be the case, because if someone can do something bad and not feel that it is bad (ie: they have a clear conscience), then why do you call them good?

So, for good people to do bad things, they must be led by something other than their own conscience -- perhaps someone else's, since obedience to authorities seems to be at the route of many atrocities.

There's that famous experiment of Milgram, which is all about obedience.
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm

That is good people doing something they themselves don't think is good. But they talk themselves into it. With very little pressure.

Religion can have authority figures, of course. But that's hardly unique to religion.

[Egg]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg


My main issue with the quote is the implication that it's only religion that makes good people do evil things and that without religion good people wouldn't do bad things. I see Firegarden already mentioned Milgram, I'll add The Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) to that.

As others have pointed out, there's any number of things that we could substitute for religion in the quote: loyalty, unusual circumstances, obedience to authority, misinformation, an error of judgement, emotional imbalance, stress...

I'm sure there are evil things people have done which wouldn't have happened without religion. I'm not so sure we could place religion as the top culprit, in fact, depending how we chose to measure such things, we may find it really pretty low on the list.