I think the biggest trickiness of this whole topic comes from the fact that it is indeed not so black and white. To clarify my stance, I cannot deny that there are people who did good acts in a way that can only be attributed to religion, and that they would not have done without religion. We have the following qualities: (good person, bad person) and how they’re done (independently of religion/lack of religion, because of religion, because of lack of religion), and thus 6 total classes of people to investigate.
Just to quickly clarify an ambiguity here, I guess we could have more classes for “good ONLY because of religion” vs “good because of religion in reality, but hypothetically we expect they would have been good without it”. But for the sake of simplicity it seems like we can lump that second type in with the “independently of religion” quality.
Definitely anyone who argues that the class of “Good Person Only Because Of Religion” is empty is being totally insane. There’s a hefty amount of people in this category. I don’t know all the people you listed, but I’m fine saying for sake of argument that they are all in it - although I imagine you’d agree some of them may have been good people and some things even if religion didn’t exist? But I’d like to go in whatever direction you think makes your argument strongest.
Likewise, anyone who argues that the “Bad Person Only Because Of Lack Of Religion” category is empty is also being really biased. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have committed atrocities because “God doesn’t exist so I can do whatever I can get away with”, etc.
I think what’s at stake here is, firstly, the relative sizes of these classes, and secondly, whether their relative size is a historical coincidence or an intrinsic result of something about religiosity.
If the stakes are right, I’m not really sure how to proceed “rigorously”. It’s really a job for sociological studies, since there are enough humans that we could both list individual examples for a very long time - I’m sure we both agree that all 6 classes of people I described have at least a million members alive even just right now. It seems like the best we can do is make persuasive type arguments.
I can think of a few directions of arguments to make, so forgive me in advance if I’m scatterbrained. I’ll just write an idea of one:
Your examples of Good Because Of Religion people are outstanding, “great” people. Such people are not representative of the population as a whole. Perhaps for very outstanding people, religion is more likely to be beneficial. But when we look at how “the masses” (to use an elitist term) use religion to justify things, I usually see it for much more petty things like controlling one’s children, as a justification for condemning groups they just don’t like, as a justification for violence, etc. The role religion plays in the current American social situation is undoubtedly an example of this, and the same goes for the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and much of the perpetual conflict in the Middle East in general. I am not aware of similar situations in the world right now that are not largely based on religious zealotry. Even from historical concepts, it seems religion is often used as a tool to manufacture mass consent for these things.
There is Sudan, there is Cambodia, there was Pol Pot and China and Vietnam fighting. There is China’s purge on muslims (which is self proclaimed to be atheist and marxist). Marxism can be used (when twisted enough) to justify horrible things. Many people thus conclude that marxism is bad (the opium of masses a quote from Marx on religion). Do the reactionary logic concluding that marxism is bad because of Stalin and Pol Pot fail? I do think so.
One of the persons I listed, Béla Tábor, a Hungarian philosopher claims that the original Christian faith of Europe disintegrated into revolution (Marx) and religion and that at the time (1945) revolution was the purer one of the two antipodes. There can be place for arguments measuring the role and purity of religion in the 21st century. But categorical arguments have nonintended consequences: marxism, religion and science were all twisted for bad aims. Claiming that religion is inherently bad is the same take as claiming marxism is inherently bad. I am critical towards science, religion and marxism. But my critique is an inner critique. Compared to nazism (or bolshevism): I am opposed to nazism alltogether without claiming that there is pure forces of freedom hidden in it. I do not see how could one make categorical bad judgement about religion (or marxism) akin to judgement about nazism without essentially lying.
The same author, Béla Tábor, a jewish thinker, if alive, would claim that the biggest actor of antisemitism today is the state of Israel itself. He would claim it from a deeply religious point. A point that is so religious that it opposes nationalism radically, very different from the shitshow going down in Israel or the US.
I think the biggest trickiness of this whole topic comes from the fact that it is indeed not so black and white. To clarify my stance, I cannot deny that there are people who did good acts in a way that can only be attributed to religion, and that they would not have done without religion. We have the following qualities: (good person, bad person) and how they’re done (independently of religion/lack of religion, because of religion, because of lack of religion), and thus 6 total classes of people to investigate.
Just to quickly clarify an ambiguity here, I guess we could have more classes for “good ONLY because of religion” vs “good because of religion in reality, but hypothetically we expect they would have been good without it”. But for the sake of simplicity it seems like we can lump that second type in with the “independently of religion” quality.
Definitely anyone who argues that the class of “Good Person Only Because Of Religion” is empty is being totally insane. There’s a hefty amount of people in this category. I don’t know all the people you listed, but I’m fine saying for sake of argument that they are all in it - although I imagine you’d agree some of them may have been good people and some things even if religion didn’t exist? But I’d like to go in whatever direction you think makes your argument strongest.
Likewise, anyone who argues that the “Bad Person Only Because Of Lack Of Religion” category is empty is also being really biased. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have committed atrocities because “God doesn’t exist so I can do whatever I can get away with”, etc.
I think what’s at stake here is, firstly, the relative sizes of these classes, and secondly, whether their relative size is a historical coincidence or an intrinsic result of something about religiosity.
If the stakes are right, I’m not really sure how to proceed “rigorously”. It’s really a job for sociological studies, since there are enough humans that we could both list individual examples for a very long time - I’m sure we both agree that all 6 classes of people I described have at least a million members alive even just right now. It seems like the best we can do is make persuasive type arguments.
I can think of a few directions of arguments to make, so forgive me in advance if I’m scatterbrained. I’ll just write an idea of one:
Your examples of Good Because Of Religion people are outstanding, “great” people. Such people are not representative of the population as a whole. Perhaps for very outstanding people, religion is more likely to be beneficial. But when we look at how “the masses” (to use an elitist term) use religion to justify things, I usually see it for much more petty things like controlling one’s children, as a justification for condemning groups they just don’t like, as a justification for violence, etc. The role religion plays in the current American social situation is undoubtedly an example of this, and the same goes for the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and much of the perpetual conflict in the Middle East in general. I am not aware of similar situations in the world right now that are not largely based on religious zealotry. Even from historical concepts, it seems religion is often used as a tool to manufacture mass consent for these things.
There is Sudan, there is Cambodia, there was Pol Pot and China and Vietnam fighting. There is China’s purge on muslims (which is self proclaimed to be atheist and marxist). Marxism can be used (when twisted enough) to justify horrible things. Many people thus conclude that marxism is bad (the opium of masses a quote from Marx on religion). Do the reactionary logic concluding that marxism is bad because of Stalin and Pol Pot fail? I do think so.
One of the persons I listed, Béla Tábor, a Hungarian philosopher claims that the original Christian faith of Europe disintegrated into revolution (Marx) and religion and that at the time (1945) revolution was the purer one of the two antipodes. There can be place for arguments measuring the role and purity of religion in the 21st century. But categorical arguments have nonintended consequences: marxism, religion and science were all twisted for bad aims. Claiming that religion is inherently bad is the same take as claiming marxism is inherently bad. I am critical towards science, religion and marxism. But my critique is an inner critique. Compared to nazism (or bolshevism): I am opposed to nazism alltogether without claiming that there is pure forces of freedom hidden in it. I do not see how could one make categorical bad judgement about religion (or marxism) akin to judgement about nazism without essentially lying.
The same author, Béla Tábor, a jewish thinker, if alive, would claim that the biggest actor of antisemitism today is the state of Israel itself. He would claim it from a deeply religious point. A point that is so religious that it opposes nationalism radically, very different from the shitshow going down in Israel or the US.