[FoRK] reas. conv. 10/22: "Religion is not only wrong; it's evil"

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

[#5 in a "reasoned conversation" about Christianity and atheism]

Hi Stephen,

On Oct 20, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> "The New Atheism.  No Heaven.  No Hell.  Just Science..  Inside the  
> crusade against religion."
> OK, who's getting Wired story ideas from our banter???  And why  
> don't we get invited to comment??
> ;-)

My sympathies on your being plagiarized. :-)  To make it up to you,  
let me invite you to comment here...

> The article begins:
> "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we  
> are not doctrinaire believers.  They condemn not just belief in God  
> but _respect_ for belief in God.  Religion is not only wrong; it's  
> evil.

> Between crazy Islamic terrorists and American religious power  
> grabbers who have let slip what they really think on the path to a  
> theocracy, I believe a backlash has been triggered.

Actually, I sorta agree with you.  I (like many Christians, and  
arguably Jesus himself ;-) don't have much use for "religion qua  
religion", because (as I'm sure you agree) religious hierarchies and  
dogmatism (whether pro- or anti- God) are a great source of evil.

However, it is a bit of leap from "organized religion" to "belief in  
God" as the source of evil.  And I've been puzzling out how to  
provide an objective, empirically-driven test for your (or at least  
Dawkin's) assertion that "belief in God is evil."

It might help if we could bound our discussion a little more  
tightly.  Let me define "belief in the Christian God" -- or  
equivalently, "belief in Jesus" --- as accepting as true that:

I.  There is a single organizing principle behind the universe
II. The character of that principle mirrors what we [think we] know  
about Jesus of Nazareth
III.  It is possible to encounter Jesus and draw on His power in our  
daily lives

While there are of course many other definitions of Christianity, I  
am curious whether you can prove your case relative to this  
minimalist definition -- or if you have an alternate, rigorous  
definition you can propose in it's place.

Given (I-III), it seems to me that even a cursory examination of  
available data would indicate that:

A.  Individuals and societies that come to a belief in Jesus  
typically become far more loving, just, and other-centered than they  
were before

B.  Those shared beliefs become a powerful force for unity,  
reconciling people across linguistic, racial, and economic lines far  
more effectively than other belief system

C.  That unity is, at least initially, powerfully other-centered,  
directly resulting in massive amounts of both large-scale and small- 
scale "good works."

D.  In order to maintain that unity and harness that power, most  
[though not all] Christian communities tend to develop powerful  
authority figures who exert discipline over those communities.

E.  Many [though not all] of those figures end up abusing that power  
in a way parallel to that of secular authority figures.

F.  This can lead to both disdain for and violence towards those  
outside the community, especially those who were formerly part of  
that community.

G.  The resulting violence is roughly comparable in scope and  
severity to that inflicted by non-Christian and non-theistic communities

Is that a reasonably fair (if horribly over-simplified)  
characterization of Christianity's role in the last two thousand  
years of human history?

If so, I would like to propose the following alternate explanation/ 
observation:

1.  Community formation requires the existence of belief in -- and  
pursuit of -- something greater than self (family, nation, math,  
dialectical materialism, God, whatever)

2.  The stronger and more powerful the belief, the greater its  
potential for both good and evil

3.  Christian communities have engaged in pretty much all the same  
evils as any other large communities (theistic or non)

4.  However, Christian communities have also created more positive  
good than any other such community in the history of humanity

I realize you don't agree with all (or even most :-) of this, and I  
haven't cited any sources yet, but I would like to understand _which_  
aspects you disagree with, and what dataset you use to justify that  
dis-belief; as well as what sort of evidence you would like to me use  
to back up my claims.

Thanks!

Best wishes,
-- Ernie P.