In The Name Of Religion

Many bad things are blamed on religion by anti-religious people. Often this is done unfairly. Religious sympathisers will point out that the atrocities in question are not being carried out as a consequence of religious doctrine, rather, they are being carried out in the name of religion.

As an anti-theist, I think that the religious sympathisers are right here. Not completely right - I do think that there are many bad things done as a consequence of religious doctrine. But broadly I agree that many anti-theists blame religion for things that aren't actually direct consequences of religious doctrine, and that this is unfair.

However, I don't think that religious sympathisers really consider what it means for religion if so many atrocities are committed in the name of religion. Why? Why not just carry out the atrocity? Or why not do it in the name of something else, say, whether P=NP?

Some religious people will say that these terrorists, warlords, shitty controlling politicians and parents, want to make the religion in question look bad. Aside from striking me as overly conspirational, why? Why go to all the effort? What's in it for them?

Or could it be that people are much more motivated to commit atrocities if they think they are ordered to do it by their religion, regardless if that is actually scripturally justified?

Many of the people carrying out horrible actions in the name of religion really seem to believe that what they're saying comes from God. They often have scriptural justifications, even if they're cherry picked and out of context. It really seems like they've been selectively fed parts of a religion, along with wholecloth inventions that are said to be part of the religion.

But why is religion so motivating?

Well, consider what religious people typically believe:

• Morality comes from above. From their religion. Whatever it is they are ordered to do by their deity is the right thing to do. Whether that involves slaughtering your own son, or giving to charity.
• Their eternal well-being hinges on their adherence to their religion. An eternity of torment or bliss awaits them.
• Death is not the end, it is merely transport to the next stage in life. Immortatlity is being promised.
• God knows best. No matter how bad something might seem to our limited human minds, God can see if it is actually good. And disagreeing with that is the height of arrogance and one of the worst things a mere human can do.
• Their religion is under attack by bad people that want to lead people astray because they're arrogant and greedy. These are the unbelievers, leading the rightful away from the right path if they do not resist.

Now when things align just right, these beliefs are not that harmful. If they believe that God instructs them to care for others, to help those in need. to avoid bloodshed, to try to peacefully convert others, then these other beliefs (for the sake of this argument) are fine. They'll help the needy and do it with fervour, because these instructions came from up high. They are absolutely the right thing to do.

But what if someone has the beliefs I listed in bullet points, but is made to believe that God has different additional instructions? What if someone finds someone with that general framework but tells them that these people who defy God are so abhorrent they deserve death, to protect those they might influnce from eternal torment? What if they are then made to believe that eating pork and showing skin constitues sinning? Convincing someone all that from scratch is difficult. But if they already have that bedrock, the radicaliser has an easier time. Imagine having a knob in your brain that makes you explode if set to the right value. Or the classic red "self-destruct" button cartoon villains always build into their devices. Why have it at all, and deal with that risk, if there is nothing you get in return?

Of course there are other factors involved in atrocities that are committed in the name of religion, and terrorism is not a direct consquence of Islam (in fact, I think that if someone really tried to study Islam they will find that they cannot be a terrorist and a Muslim - Islam has issues but terrorism is not one of them). But I don't think that the role of religion in those sorts of atrocities can be completely discounted.

That's not to say that people who commit atrocities will not look for other ways to motivate people - patriotism is another big problem, but why make it easier for them?

Religion effectively puts the plumbing in place that enables the worst sort of atrocities. The same fervour that we praise when directed in praiseworthy avenues makes people capable of the worst sorts of things.

Imagine if, instead of a religious morality, people had a secular humanist morality. If they believed the following:

• Even if God existed, morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures. If God commands an action that reduces their well-being, his command is wrong.
• Death is a big deal. It's the end of the show. Let's try to avoid it and not do it for anyone else.
• We should use our reason, even if it isn't perfect, to decide what to do. If we smell bullshit, and despite all attempts to check we still smell bullshit, we shouldn't accept something because "it comes from someone a lot smarter than you"
• We're not under attack by people doing mundane things like having sex with people of the same gender or studying biology.

It's a lot harder to corrupt someone with these beliefs. It's still possible, but it takes more work.

But is it fair to blame religion for what people do when they don't follow it exactly?

I think that this is a tough question. I generally prefer blaming it for what people do when they follow it exactly rather than deviate.

However, as religious people often remind us, humans are imperfect. They're unlikely to follow their religion exactly. They're more likely to take away some messages than others. Given that the bullet point list I outlined is a very common takeaway - and is a pretty parsimonious interpretation of doctrine, and that the more nefarious "kill the blasphemers" is a common manipulation that people have been making for millennia, I don't think that religion can be completely blameless here.

Fuel by itself is not a problem, unless there is also oxygen and heat. But given that there already is a lot of oxygen, and if heat is present, it is irresponsible to add fuel in the mix and not expect fire.

On the other hand, a religious person might say that rather than try to discourage religion, we should actually encourage it. If people knew their religion well, then there would be fewer acts committed in the name of religion that are at odds with religious doctrine. This is true, but there are a few issues with this. For a start, this will increase issues that are a direct result of doctrine, if they exist. But it is also an empirical question. If you make people less religious, do they commit more heinous acts in the name of religion, or do they become less motivated to commit any sort of act for their religion? I think that if history is any indication, it's the latter.

What I am most concerned about, and maybe my priorities are wrong, is that religions are false. Now if there were serious negative consequences to being irreligious I might consider encouraging religiousity. But if religion is false and can motivate people to do bad things, then that's all the more reason to get rid of it.

In conclusion, I don't think that this is the most powerful anti-theistic argument, but I think it is a good response to "why do you care if people are religious". It is something that religious and non-religious people should take into account.