Some atheists say that religion is useful in keeping 4 to 5 billion believers in check. What do you think about this?
Posted: June 15th 2010
brian thomson www
I think there is a historical basis for that, since religions, in the past, performed functions that we would associate with government today. If you look at some of the things Muslims do as part of their religion, they would be classified as “public health warnings” today.
What are “ritual ablutions” but formalised hygiene? Pork can not be safely handled in the same way as e.g. lamb, so the order came down from the religious authorities: don’t eat it at all. In the absence of any other authorities, in an era when the causes of diseases were not understood, the only way to enforce a hygienic practice was to make it a religious law. It’s a shame that some religions fail to recognise that this method of controlling people is obsolete.
Posted: June 18th 2010
George Locke
Religion is often good at keeping people in check, but I wouldn’t say it’s good for much. It’s true that religions prohibit antisocial behaviors, but any functioning society will prevent antisocial behavior — you don’t need religion for this.
The problem is that most religions also tend to suppress healthy and productive behaviors, like consensual sex, free discourse, and rational inquiry.
To the extent that religion stops people from murdering each other, it is a good thing. I can’t really say if religion deserves much credit here, but I know that it does an awful lot of damage. As we know it today, at least, religion is not worth the trouble for what good it does.
Posted: June 18th 2010
SmartLX www
It depends on what you mean by “check”.
If you worry that all these people would run riot without religious moral guidelines, the existence of (at least) hundreds of millions of peaceful, civil atheists and agnostics (and the abnormally high percentage of believers in many nations’ prison systems, including the US) suggest that this is an unfounded fear and the people don’t need keeping in check.
If you mean that religion is a useful control device for governments and other ruling groups trying to stay in power, that’s probably true. It’s not necessarily a good thing though.
Posted: June 17th 2010
logicel
Theocracies like Iran clearly do use religion to keep people in check.
However, all societies have some kind of upper hand with the masses. The masses can be plied with religion, mindless entertainment, fast food, etc. The old Roman approach of panem et circenses springs to mind.
It is not necessarily the emphasis on religion that keep people in check, but the focus on not thinking clearly, on deferring blindly to authority, to conformism, taking the easy way out, and not being handed a baloney detection kit early in life.
Religion is just a byproduct of the broader focus on keeping people in check. Do away with religion, but not with this broader focus of keeping people mindless, we will be swamped with other kinds of irrational thinking. Religion certainly does not have a monopoly on irrationality.
Of course, we are kept in check for our own good!
(Note: The last sentence is sarcastic.)
Posted: June 17th 2010