Question: Can religion be a force for good?
Sam Harris: I’m not saying that religion can’t ever be useful or inspire good things. It certainly can, and has, and will. And that’s better than the alternative.
But there’s a distinction.
We have to recognize there’s a distinction between something being true and something being useful. Every benign religion, every religion that’s actually helping somebody sometimes could be functioning like a placebo. It could be totally barren of content and still useful in certain circumstances.
I could invent a religion right now which we know is not true, and would be extremely useful if I could spread it to billions. I could invent it right now. This religion is, the principles are, “Do your best to love your neighbor, and your family, and every person you meet. Encourage your children to study science and mathematics to the best of their abilities. And if you don’t do this, you will be punished for eternity by 17 demons after death.”
Now I have no doubt that if I could spread this to billions, this would be a better religion than the religions we’ve got. It would be better than Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam. You’d have no suicide bombers. What you would have is a generation of children bearing down on science and mathematics to the best of their abilities, encouraged by their otherwise ethical parents, all under the compulsion of “do this or else these 17 demons will torture you for eternity.”
We would live in a much better world, no question. Would the useful of this suggest for a moment that the 17 demons actually exist? Would it provide a reason to believe in these 17 demons? Not even slightly. So that’s the divide here.
There’s a big difference between the utility of an idea, or the consoling nature of an idea, or the idea that God has a plan for me, or everything happens for a reason, and the idea that these there are consoling, are quite distinct from whether there are good reasons to believe them.
Recorded on: Jul 4 2007.
Discuss
RJ Blythe on February 12, 2008, 1:00 PM
Mr. Harris is speaking under the pretense that humanity is moral by default, but that's simply not the case. Would the world be a better place without religion than it is with it? For the answer, you need not look any further back in history than the 20th century.
The atheist dictatorships of the past century resulted in more deaths than all of the religious wars in the rest of history combined. To put this in perspective, the total number of deaths in all the crusades, of which there were 9 major crusades, is approximately 9 million. Under Stalin alone, there were over 60 million killed.
The anti-theists cry out against the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and today's abortion clinic bombings (of which the total number of deaths isn't even 10,000) as an example of religious pestilence. They are travesties, to be sure. But the blemishes on the history of religion don't even hold a candle to the tyranny inacted by godless governments.
RJ Blythe on February 12, 2008, 1:03 PM
By the way, that "10,000" figure is the combination of Salem, the Inquisition, and abortion clinic bombings — just in case someone got confused and thought 10,000 have been killed in abortion clinic bombings.
RJ Blythe on February 12, 2008, 6:00 PM
Mr. Harris is speaking under the pretense that humanity is moral by default, but that’s simply not the case. Would the world be a better place without religion than it is with it? For the answer, you need not look any further back in history than the 20th century.
The atheist dictatorships of the past century resulted in more deaths than all of the religious wars in the rest of history combined. To put this in perspective, the total number of deaths in all the crusades, of which there were 9 major crusades, is approximately 9 million. Under Stalin alone, there were over 60 million killed.
The anti-theists cry out against the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and today’s abortion clinic bombings (of which the total number of deaths isn’t even 10,000) as an example of religious pestilence. They are travesties, to be sure. But the blemishes on the history of religion don’t even hold a candle to the tyranny inacted by godless governments.
RJ Blythe on February 12, 2008, 6:03 PM
By the way, that “10,000” figure is the combination of Salem, the Inquisition, and abortion clinic bombings — just in case someone got confused and thought 10,000 have been killed in abortion clinic bombings.
Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 8:37 AM
Great Plutonian,
What you are saying is logically flawed. First, you need to take into account the number of people who were around at the time. The planets population, and the population of countries is much greater in the 20th century than during the crusades. Second, you need to consider the difference in weapons. Give the crusaders air planes and machines guns and the number killed would be much much higher. Third, if you read Harris' book (which clearly you haven't) you would know that he calls for an end of ALL faith, included that in political movements like communism. Also, you need to include on your list of those killed for religion in the middle east. This number would have to include everyone killed in the Israel conflicts, and everyone killed by foreign insurgents in Iraq (i.e. the ones who blow up masques and markets).
DisillusionedWords.com
Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 1:37 PM
Great Plutonian,
What you are saying is logically flawed. First, you need to take into account the number of people who were around at the time. The planets population, and the population of countries is much greater in the 20th century than during the crusades. Second, you need to consider the difference in weapons. Give the crusaders air planes and machines guns and the number killed would be much much higher. Third, if you read Harris’ book (which clearly you haven’t) you would know that he calls for an end of ALL faith, included that in political movements like communism. Also, you need to include on your list of those killed for religion in the middle east. This number would have to include everyone killed in the Israel conflicts, and everyone killed by foreign insurgents in Iraq (i.e. the ones who blow up masques and markets).
DisillusionedWords.com
Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 2:49 PM
To the great plutonian,
You seem to believe that without religion, one cannot have ethics or morality. This is an argument that is often stressed by those of rigid faith. However, there is a simple tool that one can use as a moral compass without a god. Simply ask yourself: If the rest of the world were to do what I am doing, would it be as good a place?
Where in that question is god?
Religious rules represent one source of morality. But there is a difference in those that follow. Those who follow the rules of religion do so out of a fear of divine retribution and judgment.
I am in no way against faith in deities and belief in god. However, the rigid structure of dogmatic religions have cause most to lose sight of what really matters. Christians find themselves cursing homosexuals, yet they ignore genocide and even greater atrocities to humanity. Religions have become political machines and sermons are now speeches. We must return to pure faith, for no one can argue that the teachings and core beliefs of the major religions are to blame for the atrocities committed in their names.
Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 7:49 PM
To the great plutonian,
You seem to believe that without religion, one cannot have ethics or morality. This is an argument that is often stressed by those of rigid faith. However, there is a simple tool that one can use as a moral compass without a god. Simply ask yourself: If the rest of the world were to do what I am doing, would it be as good a place?
Where in that question is god?
Religious rules represent one source of morality. But there is a difference in those that follow. Those who follow the rules of religion do so out of a fear of divine retribution and judgment.
I am in no way against faith in deities and belief in god. However, the rigid structure of dogmatic religions have cause most to lose sight of what really matters. Christians find themselves cursing homosexuals, yet they ignore genocide and even greater atrocities to humanity. Religions have become political machines and sermons are now speeches. We must return to pure faith, for no one can argue that the teachings and core beliefs of the major religions are to blame for the atrocities committed in their names.
Jens Petersen on March 1, 2008, 9:07 AM
You know, the atheist dictator argument is used so often and with such lack off understanding, it needs to be addressed. Yes, Stalin was an oppressive megalomaniac who killed millions of people, but he did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed for power. It may interest people to know that when Lenin died, the person who was meant to take over as leader was Trotsky, not Stalin. But Stalin basically accomplished a successful coupe. In order to keep control of his power, guess who he started killing? If you were to say Trotsky and his fellow supporters, then you are absolutely right. Stalin was killing atheist Trotsky supporters. If Stalin was killing in the name of atheism, would it make any sense to kill fellow atheists? Ridiculous.
Another thing people often forget is that some of the communist ideas as described by Marx and Engels actually influenced various social changes in the west. You can thank Marx for the labor movement and the formation of the unions in the west. Employee's rights and safety in the work place, pension funds, social security etc, based on atheist ideas. The problem with communism was that the proposed structure of a communist government as envisioned by Marx & Engels had no checks and balances and there was too much power concentrated in a few individuals. If Trotsky had succeeded Lenin as was supposed to happen, he may have figured it out and help shape the first experiment in Marx's idea into a better government. Or he could have become as bad as Stalin finding so much power to abuse. We will never know as Stalin , who had been studying to be a priest, took control of the Soviet Union and quickly had Trotsky killed and created his own cult. As for Mao, Pol Pot and Kim, they learned from Stalin, not Marx. To get to the point, my irritation when hearing religious arguments bringing up Stalin as an argument of immorality of atheism completely ignores the fact that most of the people killed by Stalin were atheists to begin with, so Stalin obviously was not killing for the sake of atheism. Some common sense please.
Jens Petersen on March 1, 2008, 2:07 PM
You know, the atheist dictator argument is used so often and with such lack off understanding, it needs to be addressed. Yes, Stalin was an oppressive megalomaniac who killed millions of people, but he did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed for power. It may interest people to know that when Lenin died, the person who was meant to take over as leader was Trotsky, not Stalin. But Stalin basically accomplished a successful coupe. In order to keep control of his power, guess who he started killing? If you were to say Trotsky and his fellow supporters, then you are absolutely right. Stalin was killing atheist Trotsky supporters. If Stalin was killing in the name of atheism, would it make any sense to kill fellow atheists? Ridiculous.
Another thing people often forget is that some of the communist ideas as described by Marx and Engels actually influenced various social changes in the west. You can thank Marx for the labor movement and the formation of the unions in the west. Employee’s rights and safety in the work place, pension funds, social security etc, based on atheist ideas. The problem with communism was that the proposed structure of a communist government as envisioned by Marx & Engels had no checks and balances and there was too much power concentrated in a few individuals. If Trotsky had succeeded Lenin as was supposed to happen, he may have figured it out and help shape the first experiment in Marx’s idea into a better government. Or he could have become as bad as Stalin finding so much power to abuse. We will never know as Stalin , who had been studying to be a priest, took control of the Soviet Union and quickly had Trotsky killed and created his own cult. As for Mao, Pol Pot and Kim, they learned from Stalin, not Marx. To get to the point, my irritation when hearing religious arguments bringing up Stalin as an argument of immorality of atheism completely ignores the fact that most of the people killed by Stalin were atheists to begin with, so Stalin obviously was not killing for the sake of atheism. Some common sense please.
Musycks on March 6, 2008, 9:01 PM
Is Pluto the Disney dog writing this rubbish? about the same depth of insight… the old calumny is trotted out about the atheist mass-murderers… dear me, pay attention. Apart from the fact they were not trying to convert anyone to anything, merely grabbing and holding power (a very old human sport)… who did the killing? Stalin inherited a heavily Orthodox Christian country… any doubt check the rise of the Churches after 70 years of supposed Commie rule! So most of his henchman would have been Christian… where was their faith when the time came to carry out the orders? where was the faith of the SS and Gestapo (roughly 90% Catholic) when the Nazis where slaughtering millions? Evil is evil, pure and simple, and unbelief in a sky-dog obviously makes little difference either way. get in on the main game… how can you believe a near superstition laden near stone-age explanation of the Universe, what it comprise and what makes us tick?
Supernatural drivel for the weak minded.
woof.
Musycks on March 7, 2008, 2:01 AM
Is Pluto the Disney dog writing this rubbish? about the same depth of insight… the old calumny is trotted out about the atheist mass-murderers… dear me, pay attention. Apart from the fact they were not trying to convert anyone to anything, merely grabbing and holding power (a very old human sport)… who did the killing? Stalin inherited a heavily Orthodox Christian country… any doubt check the rise of the Churches after 70 years of supposed Commie rule! So most of his henchman would have been Christian… where was their faith when the time came to carry out the orders? where was the faith of the SS and Gestapo (roughly 90% Catholic) when the Nazis where slaughtering millions? Evil is evil, pure and simple, and unbelief in a sky-dog obviously makes little difference either way. get in on the main game… how can you believe a near superstition laden near stone-age explanation of the Universe, what it comprise and what makes us tick?
Supernatural drivel for the weak minded.
woof.
Silent Anonymous on May 21, 2008, 7:13 PM
I am a atheist (well maybe agnostic, ie. I don't know, and I won't pretend I do know what happens after you die.) However, I think Plutonian may have a point. Not so much a good point, and also not because there is much truth to his version of the Stalin rationale. It comes more from the observance of the other comments and my own experiences.
If you read into the tone of the other comments you'll notice a strong argumentative and somewhat condescending feel in them. In my own experiences, I tend to believe that people who blindly follow religion are ignorant fools, and I argue them much more vigorously than they return.
So the question is… Would people be more likely to kill because of a belief or more likely to kill because of fact. Even when the fact is that we do not know the facts.
Do I get more angry, because people will not admit the truth (that they don't know what happens after you die), or do people who believe they know the answer to that question get more angry at people who believe a slightly different version of what happens after you die. History may show a tie thanks to Stalin, because you cannot separate a man's actions from his ideas and beliefs. Atheism was part of his makeup, and therefore part of is actions. So at least a percentage of his killings are attributable to atheism.
Silent Anonymous on May 21, 2008, 11:13 PM
I am a atheist (well maybe agnostic, ie. I don’t know, and I won’t pretend I do know what happens after you die.) However, I think Plutonian may have a point. Not so much a good point, and also not because there is much truth to his version of the Stalin rationale. It comes more from the observance of the other comments and my own experiences.
If you read into the tone of the other comments you’ll notice a strong argumentative and somewhat condescending feel in them. In my own experiences, I tend to believe that people who blindly follow religion are ignorant fools, and I argue them much more vigorously than they return.
So the question is… Would people be more likely to kill because of a belief or more likely to kill because of fact. Even when the fact is that we do not know the facts.
Do I get more angry, because people will not admit the truth (that they don’t know what happens after you die), or do people who believe they know the answer to that question get more angry at people who believe a slightly different version of what happens after you die. History may show a tie thanks to Stalin, because you cannot separate a man’s actions from his ideas and beliefs. Atheism was part of his makeup, and therefore part of is actions. So at least a percentage of his killings are attributable to atheism.
Andrew Clunn on June 6, 2008, 1:07 AM
This fails to address the issue of qualifying morality without religion. He speaks of moral behavior being respecting your fellow human beings as the only real potential benefit of religion. Even if he is correct, where is the structure of morality present in atheism? This view of brash and brazened disrespect for traditional values and views without the offer of an alternative, to keep people from selfishness and individualism to the point of social degradation, seems too close to nihilism. He may have an answer, but it is not evident at all in this video.
And please people, do not use the stereotypes floating around the atheist community about people of faith being idiots, it only serves to prove stereotypes within the faith community about atheists being elitist pricks.
Pastor Jennifer on June 8, 2008, 8:21 AM
Morality is not derived from religion but from natural feelings of empathy. Empathy has evolved in many species in the mammal branch of the animal kingdom because of the benefits it confers. Harris poses the question in the form of a false dilemma. Is religion a force for good, or is it intrinsically bad because of the errancy of its suppositions?
With religion or without religion, human consciousness needs to evolve into a more advanced state where the dichotomy presented by Harris is no longer relevant. Marvin Minsky claims that we need to develop post-modern minds that are more like machines!!! I am beginning to agree with him!
Pastor Jennifer on June 8, 2008, 12:21 PM
Morality is not derived from religion but from natural feelings of empathy. Empathy has evolved in many species in the mammal branch of the animal kingdom because of the benefits it confers. Harris poses the question in the form of a false dilemma. Is religion a force for good, or is it intrinsically bad because of the errancy of its suppositions?
With religion or without religion, human consciousness needs to evolve into a more advanced state where the dichotomy presented by Harris is no longer relevant. Marvin Minsky claims that we need to develop post-modern minds that are more like machines!!! I am beginning to agree with him!
Jon Yule on June 14, 2008, 9:52 AM
AndrewClunn:
The stereotype of the elitist atheist prick is very humorous, thank you for bringing it up.
Question: Is there a more conceited, arrogant, elitist idea than thinking that the creator of the universe loves me and cares about my hopes and dreams, and if I live my life correctly I'll spend eternity in a magical realm where everything is perfect?
Atheists, meanwhile, largely believe that we are descended from and connected to all other forms of life on the planet. They largely believe that we have special traits (such as various forms of communicating like reading, writing, and sophisticated languages… or the fact that we have very large brains in proportion to body size) but that we are not the "purpose" that the universe was created.
The religious idea of man's importance is ridiculously elitist, so spare us the "elitist atheist" remarks.
Jon Yule on June 14, 2008, 1:52 PM
AndrewClunn:
The stereotype of the elitist atheist prick is very humorous, thank you for bringing it up.
Question: Is there a more conceited, arrogant, elitist idea than thinking that the creator of the universe loves me and cares about my hopes and dreams, and if I live my life correctly I’ll spend eternity in a magical realm where everything is perfect?
Atheists, meanwhile, largely believe that we are descended from and connected to all other forms of life on the planet. They largely believe that we have special traits (such as various forms of communicating like reading, writing, and sophisticated languages… or the fact that we have very large brains in proportion to body size) but that we are not the “purpose” that the universe was created.
The religious idea of man’s importance is ridiculously elitist, so spare us the “elitist atheist” remarks.
Andre Phillips on November 19, 2008, 6:57 PM
Unfortunately, nobody seems to have addressed the real issue brought up by Plutonian. I didn’t interpret his comment as saying that Stalin killed for atheism, but rather that atheism allowed Stalin to kill whereas religion would have held him in check. Of course, he’s completely off the mark here. No, no creature on Earth is moral from birth, but it’s something we learn as we grow. It’s our ability to empathize and predict the future that makes us moral and our ability to become moral doesn’t at all rely on dogma or superstition. Stalin was a clinical paranoid schizophrenic with very real mental deficiencies, so to claim that he somehow represents the default godless human is ridiculous.
Jonathan Evans on April 7, 2009, 12:23 AM
I don’t think the ‘elitist atheist’ remark was meant to imply that atheists believe that humanity itself is the focal point of the universe. The stereotype does however paint atheists as elitist in that the most vocal of the group tend to view all theists as unenlightened and inherently stupid. Personally, I see as much arrogance in claiming that a ‘creator’ definitely does not exist then in claiming that a creator definitely does exist.
It seems to me that in relation to Mr. Harris’ piece, the world would be better off if more people were willing to examine what various religions have to offer, form your own opinions, believe if and as you please but acknowledge the very real possibility that you may be way the hell off.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register