Is belief in God/s dangerous?

[tiltbillings]

That is the point, isn't it?

You know kalachakra tantra?

Imagine all that people engaging in warfare with muslins becouse of relegion...

It is like to say the problem is the society the problem is with ourselfs. The problem is In every human being that sustend a wrong behaviour, that behaviour stutent the relegion. When humankind becomes defiled with bad behaviour, religion becomes defiled. The font is the humakind.

There seems to be an assumption here that just because it is a religion, it is in all ways, in all things good. But then I have no idea of what you are talking about.

[tiltbillings]

Or it can be a personal relationship. Between the mother-to- be and her fertility god.
We logical persons don't get into that, of course. And I'm not advocating it. But if it makes some people more likely to act ethically, and does not agitate hatred, and can be confined within the culture that believes it, well then I have to say break out the ghee. Worse things have happened.

I am all for goddess worship. The more the better.

In as much as religion, of whatever sort, can be - and has been - used to act out the baser aspects of humanity, it can also be a source of transendence and great good.

[Spiny Norman]

While attacks on the idea of God itself (as fallacious, untenable, etc.) are appreciated, my main concern is on the danger of holding such a belief, that God exists.

Yes, I think it's a dangerous belief because it means people see things through a distorted lens. It could be argued that for this reason all beliefs are potentially dangerous.

P

[rowyourboat]

The Buddha says the negative results of craving are mild but long lasting
the negative results of aversion are strong but short lasting
the negative results of delusion are strong and long lasting
- so leave God at the door please

[curiousgeorge]

When you look back through history and the amount of bloodshed and violence in the name of god and religion, it is blantantly obvious that it is dangerous. Crusades ring a bell?

That makes a nice haiku!



God and religion
Obviously dangerous:
Crusades ring a bell?

[curiousgeorge]

well said! Belief in God - or anything else - can be dangerous. Including disbelief in God. :p

I do agree that religion has a reputation for tapping the inner stupid, but I think its somewhat undeserved. Afterall, wars may be fought in the name of religion, but religion didn't cause them. Clashes over resources caused them. Religion was just a convenient, but ultimately unnecessary, excuse. Slavery, colonization, and the Spanish Inquisition all had far more to do with resources than with morals.

There are people who seek some pretty far out cults, but these are the same people that, say, buy amulets thinking the amulet will bring luck and protect the wearer from bullets. If it weren't the amulet, it would be something else. People will always sell snake oil, and people will always buy it because its easy. Its not religion, per se, taking advantage of these people so much as it is he characteristics of the people getting expressed. Trickle up, not trickle down, I say. Granted, groups of people take on characteristics, and group-think emerges. This is certainly a problem. But this is also a problem with mobs in general, and not specific to religion, either.

Beyond that, there is the nightly news effect. How often do you hear reports of a good Christian or Muslim who goes about their business quietly, helping people. Not so much. But the conservative televangelist who is bopping the gay prostitutes in between shows? All over the front page.

[bodom]

When you look back through history and the amount of bloodshed and violence in the name of god and religion, it is blantantly obvious that it is dangerous. Crusades ring a bell?

That makes a nice haiku!



God and religion
Obviously dangerous:
Crusades ring a bell?

Im a poet and didn't know it.

[christopher:::]

Dear all,
This question is exactly what it sounds like. Is there some drawback to a belief in god/s, or worse, a real danger?
What is meant by God here is anything that acts like an omnipotent creator, overseer, divine providence, or, and especially, commander.

While attacks on the idea of God itself (as fallacious, untenable, etc.) are appreciated, my main concern is on the danger of holding such a belief, that God exists.

hi alter,

I agree with retrofuturist, it really depends on the person and what they believe about God. Historically its been true that many wars have been fought by people believing they were fighting for God, that God was on their side and wanted them to kill/punish nonbelievers. That's dangerous and unfortunately we still have these kinds of warrior God believers in our world.

But is God the problem? Look at Stalin and Mao, at what nonbelieving Communists have done. One doesn't need to believe in God to construct excuses for killing and conquering "enemies." I'd say the belief that one is right, that violence is fine and killing people is okay are the most dangerous ideas. Any belief system that gets mixed up with that stirs up terrible suffering.

As Buddhists it's often helpful to be tolerant. That doesn't mean seeing all beliefs as being the same, but being as mindful as we can, recognizing that sometimes different religions are serving a positive purpose for others, that while the Buddha's dhamma will take you further and provide greatest clarity (in most of our opinions) spiritual growth and the cultivation of wholesome mindstates (and behaviors) can be facilitated by many religions. When not, we should speak out, but when other religions are serving a positive purpose its worth taking notice.




From the Buddhist point of view, to make tolerance contingent upon whitewashing discrepancies would not be to exercise genuine tolerance at all; for such an approach can "tolerate" differences only by diluting them so completely that they no longer make a difference. True tolerance in religion involves the capacity to admit differences as real and fundamental, even as profound and unbridgeable, yet at the same time to respect the rights of those who follow a religion different from one's own (or no religion at all) to continue to do so without resentment, disadvantage or hindrance.

Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms. The non-Buddhist systems will not be able to lead their adherents to the final goal of the Buddha's Dhamma, but that they never proposed to do in the first place. For Buddhism, acceptance of the idea of the beginningless round of rebirths implies that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect more than a small number of people to be drawn toward a spiritual path aimed at complete liberation. The overwhelming majority, even of those who seek deliverance from earthly woes, will aim at securing a favorable mode of existence within the round, even while misconceiving this to be the ultimate goal of the religious quest.

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss — the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world.

Bikkhu Bodhi
Tolerance and Diversity

[PeterB]

Number of people killed by the Spanish Inquitition in one hundred years. ( every death appalling ).. seventeen thousand.
Number of people killed by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 in the name of atheism.. two million.
Dont let Dawkins and Hitchens fool you . There are much more dangerous things than theistic religions.

[tiltbillings]

One doesn't need to believe in God to construct excuses for killing and conquering "enemies." I'd say the belief that one is right, that violence is fine and killing people is okay are the most dangerous ideas. Any belief system that gets mixed up with that stirs up terrible suffering.

Yes, but having a pipeline to the alimight whatzit is a good basis - likely none stronger - for the certitude that what one is doing it correct.

[christopher:::]

One doesn't need to believe in God to construct excuses for killing and conquering "enemies." I'd say the belief that one is right, that violence is fine and killing people is okay are the most dangerous ideas. Any belief system that gets mixed up with that stirs up terrible suffering.

Yes, but having a pipeline to the alimight whatzit is a good basis - likely none stronger - for the certitude that what one is doing it correct.

I think examples like Pol Pot, Stalin, the Chinese Communist crushing of Tibet, Adolf Hitler and others show the danger in certitude that what one believes and is doing is correct. Belief in God is one far too common variation on that theme, but absolute certainty in one's self, lack of compassion and massive delusion seem to be common factors related to what is "dangerous" in so many cases, across the board, from atheist communists to muslim monoists to christian industrialists and buddhist materialists, etc...

Samsara comes in a wide variety of flavors, wears many different masks. So does wisdom, kindness and compassion..

[PeterB]

Chris kindness and compassion, being conditioned, are as much samsaric as cruelty and hate. Its just that its much harder to see how the conditioned arises if under the influence of cruelty and hate. They are less skillful. Wisdom is something different.

[octathlon]

The posts in this thread from today are arguing about whether various atrocities are attributable to belief in god(s) vs. some other cause, which is not really on topic of whether belief in God/s is dangerous. What is the actual danger of belief in God?

In most all cases I can think of, God is believed to be eternal and unchanging, and either because of that or along with that, there is unquestioning acceptance of the idea of an eternal soul. According to Buddhism, a person can't escape suffering as long as they hold that delusion, so I would say Yes, belief in God is dangerous.

[tiltbillings]

One doesn't need to believe in God to construct excuses for killing and conquering "enemies." I'd say the belief that one is right, that violence is fine and killing people is okay are the most dangerous ideas. Any belief system that gets mixed up with that stirs up terrible suffering.

Yes, but having a pipeline to the alimight whatzit is a good basis - likely none stronger - for the certitude that what one is doing it correct.

I think examples like Pol Pot, Stalin, the Chinese Communist crushing of Tibet, Adolf Hitler and others show the danger in certitude that what one believes and is doing is correct. Belief in God is one far too common variation on that theme, but absolute certainty in one's self, lack of compassion and massive delusion seem to be common factors related to what is "dangerous" in so many cases, across the board, from atheist communists to muslim monoists to christian industrialists and buddhist materialists, etc...

Not very many communists suicidally drove airplanes into buildings or strapped on bomb belts as a blood offering to the State.

The issue here is not comparison. As is said above: "The posts in this thread from today are arguing about whether various atrocities are attributable to belief in god(s) vs. some other cause, which is not really on topic of whether belief in God/s is dangerous."

[Dhammakid]

I agree with Octathlon - from the Buddhist perspective, the danger in belief in an eternal, omnipotent creator god is that it is in direct contradiction to the three marks of anatta, annicca and dukkha.

But if I may speak outside of the Buddhist perspective: the danger of this type of belief can be in the fact that if one believes that this god has absolute power over the universe, and knows everything everyone does, then there isn't much room for free will, which makes any attempt to "change" as a person futile. Furthermore, if this god claims to justify the punishment of nonbelievers, then the person who believes in this god will find all manner of mental justifications to do harm to others in the name of this god.

In any case, there is a danger in believing that you are absolutely right in what you believe and everyone else is absolutely wrong. I know many "god-fearing Christians" who are quite tolerant of other beliefs and don't necessarily claim to be following the only true religion. However, I do believe that, based on experience and history, belief in the commonly worshipped Judeo-Christian god is dangerous because the texts attributed to this god is chock full of horrendous acts against humanity justified by religion. One can choose to ignore the bad parts of the texts, but then there is a sort of cognitive dissonance created, especially when pressed by others to give a good reason why they are still Christian even though they are rejecting a large portion of the "holy" text.

I think belief in a god predisposes one to fanaticism and intolerance because you're relying on an outside source as the definitive and final word on all aspects of life, instead of investigating for yourself these things to see if they are actually true or relevant to your everyday lived experience. This outside source can tell you anything and everything and you'll believe it because you've already convinced yourself that this outside source is the final word.

The last thing I'll say is that, in my experience, fundamentalist Christians believe that any wholesome action a "non-believer" does is incapable of producing the same so-called positive benefits of the Christian because it's not based in Christian behaviorism. So even if a person is the nicest, most caring, most giving, most compassionate person you can ever meet, they will still meet with a terrible afterlife simply because they don't believe in god. Monotheism predisposes one towards a monopoly on morality, which is often used as further justification for persecution of others.


Dhammakid