There are so many ways in which religion gets a bad rap, but one I’m thinking of right now is from those who claim that “so much evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion”, especially when the same people pose the goodness of science as an alternative.
Religious practice is by nature a human institution, whether or not there is truth behind the faith. And any human institution is subject to as much evil as every other. Scientific progress is no exception at all, especially if you look at the technology used to kill more people more efficiently.
There is an unfortunate tendency in contemporary society to want to tear down those people or institutions who aim to take the high road. Whether it’s in philosophy by trying to create structure rather than deconstruct, or whether it’s in religious effort trying to acheive and find goodness in the world, all it takes for many in this world is to find the tiniest pin prick in the balloon to allege that it’s all a sham - rather than an unexplained item, a sign of simple human imperfection, or an anomaly.
One final thing - a person who in a given religious system tries hard but makes a mistake may be referred to as a “sinner”, not a “hypocrite”. A hypocrite is someone who deceives in his/her beliefs while performing the opposite. Again, many in our more contemporary society confuse the two concepts. A person who strives to be excellent in his/her religious practice but makes a mistake is called a hypocrite in an over-zealous attempt that makes the faithless feel comfortable in their position.
In my own head, the jury’s out on the existence of God. I might be best called an agnostic. But I have great respect for religious beliefs and the people who strive to acheive perfection in their religion, and to see religion get a bad rap here as in so many other places is of concern to me. There are more places to find truth and meaning than the beaker and flange, although those too are important sources.
I have some sympathy with your complaint, rasava, but it ends up being limited by the fact that, in the end, though Religion is a human institution, it is one unlike any other: religion claims authority of an extra-human dimension which (so far as I can figure) no other institution does. When political institutions cause greater human suffering, well, we’re not disappointed so much as we are reminded that we need a “better” political arrangement. The same reminder, it seems to me, doesn’t work so well with religion, as the supernatural referent upon which it is based tends to exclude our focusing on a human solution. This recursive flaw in Religion is what propells it’s bad rap rep in our advanced modern context.
That’s very true and well put, but I wonder if we must judge religion more harshly, since it does not follow that an institution claiming to understand divine intention would imply that they get it right. That would be similar to a corporation believing it is doing good for a society by spreading a vaccine through a third-world nation actually causing deaths by bad reaction to the vaccine.
Of course, I would certainly grant you that a religious insitution that willfully performs evil MUST be held accountable like any other institution. I think the actions of the Catholic Church in the US for hiding the sexual abuse by priests is one such example. There I see the actions as implying a view that there was something more important about the reputation of the Church as a perceived “pillar of God” than the trauma and damage inflicted on so many children.
I wonder too if one’s view on this topic is necessarily predicated upon their belief in a God. A theist would likely see certain unfortunate acts as the actions of misguided or even deceptive people usurping a benevolent institution, whereas an atheist may see God as an invention for, among other things, the perpetration of malicious acts. If you know your next door neighbor as a good person but someone claims they killed someone to avenge that neighbor without the neighbor’s knowledge, you don’t place any blame on the neighbot, just like the theist doesn’t put any blame on God. But if someone says they kill to avenge a wrong committed by Osama bin Laden, you are likely to feel much differently even if Osama had no knowledge of the act and would have condemned it had he known. In the former case, you see an innocent person being used as a bad justification for a crime. In the latter, you see a son-of-a-bitch who while not directly, has performed acts to cultivate the behavior. So I guess depending on what you fill in your jar you call “God”, you’ll see evil committed in the name of God quite differently.
Ya, I think I’d agree with that so far as it goes… though in as much as the nebulousness of God remains the key factor, then I think the bad rapping practice has a legitimate social function to play. At minimum, it’s to say to “the religious”, don’t go throwing “God” around so loosely as has so often been the case throughout history. We’ve had enough, and we’re opening up our mouths now. If the supernatural is what it’s cracked up to be, then the human institution Religion ought to be able to suck up the abuse and show its true colours. Turn the other cheek and all that…
Religion does get a bad rap, but then so would any fairytale that claimed to be absolute truth.
The mai problem is that most (not all) religions are methods to exclude, to create a “them” and “us”, and I for one am judgemental and prejudiced enough without an institution or belief system giving me licence to be more so
