Happy Atheist Forum

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, Freethought Today, April, 2000
Via here http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm)

The quotation above has always intrigued me as I don't think that any world view could pervert a truly good person. This of course raises all sorts of additional questions, not the least of which would be, what is good and what constitutes a truly good person, does the quotation have to be true in all cases or just one individual?

So, for discussions sake, let's make the assumption there are essentially good and bad people, a good person doing limited or no accidental harm to others and a bad person doing deliberate harm to others for their own benefit. You can define this in a number of ways but that's not really the point of the OP.

My thought is this. If one takes an individual of a given nature (good or bad) and exposes them to a system that can facilitate or amplify either nature, the person will follow the route they would have (good or bad) before exposure to the system but within the system. So a good person exposed to Christianity will make use of the religion's ability to foster good (charitable works for example) while a bad person will exploit the elements of the religion that facilitate the bad elements of the persons character ( e.g. bigoted behaviour towards people who do not agree with them).

Thus would good people gathering together under an umbrella that facilitates good works do more and better 'good works'?

So does religion amplify one's innate personality and can it make a good person do a bad thing? I'm not convinced it can.

Please bear in mind I'm not supporting this view as much as expressing it for debate.

Thoughts, as usual, much appreciated.  

Quote from: "Tank"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, Freethought Today, April, 2000
Via here http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm)

The quotation above has always intrigued me as I don't think that any world view could pervert a truly good person. This of course raises all sorts of additional questions, not the least of which would be, what is good and what constitutes a truly good person, does the quotation have to be true in all cases or just one individual?

So, for discussions sake, let's make the assumption there are essentially good and bad people, a good person doing limited or no accidental harm to others and a bad person doing deliberate harm to others for their own benefit. You can define this in a number of ways but that's not really the point of the OP.

My thought is this. If one takes an individual of a given nature (good or bad) and exposes them to a system that can facilitate or amplify either nature, the person will follow the route they would have (good or bad) before exposure to the system but within the system. So a good person exposed to Christianity will make use of the religion's ability to foster good (charitable works for example) while a bad person will exploit the elements of the religion that facilitate the bad elements of the persons character ( e.g. bigoted behaviour towards people who do not agree with them).

Thus would good people gathering together under an umbrella that facilitates good works do more and better 'good works'?

So does religion amplify one's innate personality and can it make a good person do a bad thing? I'm not convinced it can.

Please bear in mind I'm not supporting this view as much as expressing it for debate.

Thoughts, as usual, much appreciated.  

You know, that is a very interesting question. There are good Christians, and bad. Just as there are good and bad Pagans, Atheists, and I've met more than a few very nice Satan Worshipers, just to be fair. I think it does fall to one major thing, and that is the religion itself giving people a way to express their thinking. Some will say this lends them an excuse. No it doesn't. I also think that good and evil are intrinsically woven into the human species, because of the way we evolved.

I think that the need for religion, oddly enough, was caused by evolution. We found things that we could not explain, and rather than live in fear of it, we evolved a system of believe, as a defense mechanism,  to help us cope, and explain the formally unexplainable. Its an odd theory, but, I think it ties in well here. Sorry, I digressed I think.

I think the point I am making  is that, no, religion does not determine whether the person is good or bad, rather the person determines how they will use the religion for either good or evil.

John

I don't believe the reality here is entirely so simple as the "either/or" you seem to suggest.  This is similar to the oft proposed "nature/nuture" dichotomy, and I believe it's a false one.  My understanding of the "nature/nurture" debate, as far as it currently stands (not to get too far off topic), is that both influences are relevant in determining the final nature of the organism, and that both work as a dynamic set of influences shaping the growth and behavior of said organism.

In this case, I would say it is likely similar.  I don't believe religion functions merely as a kind of amplification device, but neither is it entirely responsible for the behavior of the individual.  Things like bigotry and intolerance are, I suspect, more learned than innate.  Violence may perhaps be more innate than learned, but I would still suggest there is a significant learned component.  The learned behavior may, in fact, influence the further growth and behavior of the individual such that its essetially innate nature is effectively changed, which then may be further reinforced by the echo chamber of the belief system.  Likewise with good behaviors.  The variations in individuals actual actions may be due to BOTH variations in innate phychological dispostions AND differences in environmental exposures, including differences in religious learning.

It seems to me that the majority of people find actions more rewarding when they can find external justification for them.  "I must be doing something right, the Bible agrees with me and look how many are Christians."

I confess to holding very little evidence for this view; what little I have is personal observation, and therefore anecdote.

I very much agree with The Black Jester, people are who they are from aquired or learned behaviours that function as processes to cope with the external reality.  I don´t belive people are born innatly good or evil... it all depends of the circunstances and religion can be just another factor of the circunstances.  Not all muslims are Osama Bin Laden, not all atheists are Mao, not all christians are Torquemada.

The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

Only if they trick themselves into justifying doing bad. Although I would think their perspective of good and bad would be distorted in the first place if they don't realize they are doing bad or choose to do bad

You would also have to believe there is some type of definitive spectrum for good and bad.

Quote from: "Prea"

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

Only if they trick themselves into justifying doing bad.

But that's what they do anyway see 9/11 as an example. It's religion that does the tricking surly?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Prea"

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

Only if they trick themselves into justifying doing bad.

But that's what they do anyway see 9/11 as an example. It's religion that does the tricking surly?

I don't believe so. I think environment (living in the desert would be horrible imo), belief system/upbringing, and the lack of understanding of themselves and reality is where the problems arise.

Religion is just the scapegoat for their own wrongdoing.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Prea"

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

Only if they trick themselves into justifying doing bad.

But that's what they do anyway see 9/11 as an example. It's religion that does the tricking surly?

Quote from: "Prea"I don't believe so. I think environment (living in the desert would be horrible imo), belief system/upbringing, and the lack of understanding of themselves and reality is where the problems arise.

Religion is just the scapegoat for their own wrongdoing.

Well that is rather the point isn't it they did specifically what they did because of their beliefs, they may have been bad in the first place but religion amplified and facilitated their personalities. In effect Islam exploited there evil nature to do it's dirty work.

Quote from: "Prea"living in the desert would be horrible imo

Funny that we don't see people from Arizona performing terrorist attacks...but perhaps the heat is why they are trying to pass "papers" laws   [/sarcasim]

Seriously, living in the desert does not make people perform orchestrated terrorist attacks.


Towards the OP.  I think that the brainwashing techniques used in the more extreme religions could  make a good person do bad things because they have been programed to believe they are good.  Just think of all the well intentioned good fundamentalist Christians who are anti-gay rights and repeatedly vote against them...they think they are combating an evil and don't think of it as harming people like the rest of us do.  This does not, however, excuse their behavior because I would question if they are ignoring the little voice in their head that tells them; something about what the church is teaching me just doesn't seem like a loving god would approve.

You know the answer is staring me in the face  :shake:  She found her way out from that and she is one of the most honest, caring and good people I have ever met. Question answered it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

My apologies if I have forced the conversation in a direction you tried to delimit at the outset, and I apologize if I have suggested you were not aware of the personality debates.  I suppose it is difficult for me to argue along these lines, since I disagree strongly with the opening assumptions.  I'm not at all certain there is such a thing as innate "goodness" or "badness" to any great extent, and I don't believe it is simply a matter of giving a person an avenue through which to express their particular and staid personality.  But if there is such a thing as innate character, I would still have to say that, while this assumed "innateness" might to some extent militate against the full influence of environmental and social influences, such factors would still effect the development of the personality to some extent so that I would have to say, yes, religion could conceivably influence a person to do bad things - particularly if a fundamentalist brand of it is introduced at a young age.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Tank"The question is Does religion amplify one's innate personality? not how one gets one's innate personality. I'm quite familiar with the nature vs nurture debates.  But how does religion affect a persons behaviour if they area good person? Can it make them bad?

My apologies if I have forced the conversation in a direction you tried to delimit at the outset, and I apologize if I have suggested you were not aware of the personality debates.  I suppose it is difficult for me to argue along these lines, since I disagree strongly with the opening assumptions.  I'm not at all certain there is such a thing as innate "goodness" or "badness" to any great extent, and I don't believe it is simply a matter of giving a person an avenue through which to express their particular and staid personality.  But if there is such a thing as innate character, I would still have to say that, while this assumed "innateness" might to some extent militate against the full influence of environmental and social influences, such factors would still effect the development of the personality to some extent so that I would have to say, yes, religion could conceivably influence a person to do bad things - particularly if a fundamentalist brand of it is introduced at a young age.

Innate was probably not a good choice of words on my part. If one leans towards nurture then of course there are no innate characteristics. However consider this off the top of my head, siblings are behaviourally unique but that is not always the case with identical twins? Admittedly the nurture aspect of the lives of identical twins would be very similar so I may have answered my own question again.

First of all, I'd like to agree with everything that THe Black Joker has said in his 2 excellent posts. This, I think, is the key point:

QuoteI disagree strongly with the opening assumptions. I'm not at all certain there is such a thing as innate "goodness" or "badness" to any great extent, and I don't believe it is simply a matter of giving a person an avenue through which to express their particular and staid personality.

I'd actually go some ways beyond this. The fact is that ordinary people are quite capable of doing evil things. Some of the clearest evidence for this comes from the Milgram Experiment on obedience to authority. For those not familiar with Milgram's seminal study, heres a link:

http://www.experiment-resources.com/stanley-milgram-experiment.html

The link includes a video, which is well worth watching.

QuoteThe Stanley Milgram Experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question:
“For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” (the dependent variable)

Remember that they had met the other person, a likable stranger, and that they thought that it could very well be them who were in the learner-position receiving shocks.

QuoteBefore the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so.
Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks. None stopped when the learner said he had heart-trouble. How could that be? We now believe that it has to do with our almost innate behavior that we should do as told, especially from authority persons.

What this points to is that its not even a matter of people being brought up or conditioned to be evil. To a large degree, evil is situational. In some circumstances, even very 'nice' folk will do very 'nasty' stuff.

Religion creates systems of authority far more powerful than anything studied by Milgram. It also motivates people to do horrible things- non-believers are immoral; homosexuality is an abomination; women's sexuality is dangerous and must be controlled. And there lies much of the problem.

@Caecilian
Millgrams work was most interesting.

So if people can be influenced to do evil can they be influenced to do good?

Quote from: "Tank"So if people can be influenced to do evil can they be influenced to do good?

Yes, just seeing your friends do good can make a person want to try a little harder (like peer pressure without the actual verbal pressuring).  As much as I care about helping the community I'm not sure if I'd bother if others were not around to help and influence me.

Quote from: "Tank"@Caecilian
Millgrams work was most interesting.

So if people can be influenced to do evil can they be influenced to do good?

Yes of course!

Think of someone like Mandela- a person with enormous influence over others. When he spoeaks, people listen. And (happily) he uses his authority for good.