Agnostic.com

2 2

There are three types of religious ideas, just like symbionts in biology (for example bacteria):
commensals, parasites and mutualists.
Which means: Some religious varieties are harmless, some are harmful, some are beneficial.
The following qualification is important: Some are beneficial or harmless in situation A, but turn toxic in situation B (just like E.coli bacteria in our guts: mostly beneficial but sometimes pathogenic.

Therefore we have to take a close look at which religious idea or practice we are talking about in order to say to which of the three categories of symbiosis - see above - it belongs.

Sweeping statements of the type "All religions are..." or "religion is always..." are misguided and belong to polemical usage. Everybody with a little knowledge of evolutionary theory knows that. Not even viruses are always pathogenic (most are harmless and some even beneficial)

Matias 8 June 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I am in total agreement with this post. There are many religious groups that require no belief or faith in dogma, and that provide valuable services to their members and to the community. There are also significant numbers of people who are deeply religious in a personal and private way and who harm no one. It is irritating to me to see constant hateful remarks directed at all religion of all forms.

I do think that the great majority of the most visible religious groups are malignant parasites, especially when their leaders promote fear and guilt to advance their power-hungry agendas. Even so, it is not religion itself that is at fault. The vulnerable people who are trapped in those groups are still deserving of respect and support. Attacking them will do only harm IMO.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

—Martin Luther King, Jr.

0

Which one would you consider non pathogenic? At least two out of the three largest ones are totally infectious, and because of their numbers statements like "all religions..." are statistically justifiable.
We are know there are left and right handed people, right? But the large number of right handed ones makes it statistically justifiable to almost ignore the left handed ones on every decision we make. For almost everything we manufacture we think "all men are right handed"

legna Level 4 June 27, 2018

@Matias The idea, for example, of a loving Father in heaven also does things besides reduce stress. It can make one more vulnerable to stress in certain situations, e.g., personal tragedy concerning which the loving Father appears indifferent and/or not living up to either explicit or implied responsibilities of fatherhood. It can make one apathetic or irresponsible since the heavenly father has everything well in hand. It can make one feel justified in certain actions and attitudes that would ordinarily be harmful and dysfunctional because there is some special pleading around the heavenly father's alleged desires and demands in the matter -- or the heavenly father's alleged approval.

So thanks for acknowledging that any one of these ideas can cut both ways. I would argue that they, in fact, do.

Now it becomes a question of how often that happens and the net benefits or harms of the notion in terms of how it works out in real life. AND it becomes a question of whether the benefits alleged for any one religious idea can come ONLY via religion. Is religion or god a necessary ingredient for peacefulness, for hope, for morality? Or can it be obtained, perhaps even more effectively, in other ways?

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:116862
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.