I’m not making here an overall claim about the net effects of religion, but this is a handy place for links to the different forms of danger of religion. I focus primarily on the Abrahamic (Judeo-Christio-Islamic framework) and the large-scale data is drawn from Christianity and Islam, which are the world’s most widely followed religions.
This page will be updated with more contents and links as I find them.
What the holy texts say
A good place to start a study of the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament), Quran, and Book of Mormon (Mormonism, or the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) is a nineteenth century American spin-off of Christianity) is the Skeptics Annotated Bible. The author of this annotation has also allowed another organization to organize a Scripture Project with the annotations as a starting point.
My top links: Short version of cruelty in the Quran, short version of cruelty in the Bible.
I’ve dealt with these issues in more detail in separate blog posts, such as this one on Deuteronomy Chapter 13. The upshot is that the Bible and Quran are both violent texts that unequivocally preach the killing of non-believers, with violence forming a smaller absolute amount but larger proportion of the Quran.
What people claim to believe
Claimed belief in the literal truth, inerrancy, and divinity of religious texts: A Gallup poll claims that 25-35% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God meant to be taken literally, with about 45-50% saying it is inspired by the word of God and about 20% saying that it is a collection of myths, fables, and legends. This is not a single-year poll but uses averages over many years and also compares with historical trends and breaks down responses by church attendance and religious affiliation.
There is an even more extreme Rasmussen poll which finds that 63% of Americans claim that the Bible is the literal truth. But this Rasmussen poll lacked an attractive “inspired by the word of God”-style option, so the Gallup poll is likely more reliable.
Claimed belief in specific prophecies made by religious texts: Pew poll on the imminence of the second coming of Jesus, Pew poll on Israel as fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.
Claimed beliefs on killing in the name of religion: Pew poll on Muslim views on suicide terrorism in a number of European countries. I am still trying to locate polls of Muslims that ask them whether they believe that the Koran is the actual word of God, meant to be taken literally.
Stated public views of religious leaders/present-day (i.e., since 1990) authoritative sources
On the literal interpretation of Heaven, Hell, God and evil spirits: Pope’s claim that Biblical Hell should be taken literally (there’s been some repudiation), video primer on Hell created by US religious leaders, an exorcism conference by Catholic bishops, Jehovah’s Witnesses website explains that God’s Kingdom is literal and awaits us them, Mormon FAQ on God, which explain that God is literal, human, and loving.
On the death penalty for apostasy: To their credit, Christian and Jewish leaders of late have not been advocating the killing of people who leave or are not members of their faith (yes, that’s damning with faint praise). Many Muslim religious scholars, however, have been taking their religious texts more seriously. And Islamic theocratic governments around the world subscribe to at least some version of the view that apostates should be severely punished — though the severity of the punishment ranges from confiscation of property and arrest to outright killing. Here is a writing on the fate of infidels and apostates under Islam. Here is a MEMRI TV video on the concurrent opinions of various schools in Islam on death as the punishment for apostasy. Here’s a debate in the UK where the question of the death penalty for apostasy in Islam was brought up. This is not surprising given the contents of the Quran, e.g., 2:216, 3:151-196.
The writings of the ex-religious and of outside observers of religion
For instance: Former Muslims United, a forum for ex-Muslims, has most of its testimonials coming anonymously because of fear for their lives. Writers against Islam such as the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel and Nomad, require bodyguard protection because of the death threats they have received — see this article by Susan Jacoby in Big Questions Online. Others, such as Ibn Warraq, write under pseudonyms.
I wonder how the sacred texts of the Hindus would fare in this regard i.e., cruelty, and intolerance. The Bhagavad Gita, which is representative of the large body of religious texts that encompass the Hindu system of beliefs, has a very philosophical slant to it. Despite the setting (an impending war), there seems to be a general consensus that the correct interpretation of the text resides at a metaphorical level, in contrast to the fundamentalist interpretations that religious texts of other religions seem to accept. I have read an english translation of the Mahabharata which seemed mostly harmless and the stories that constituted them often illustrated a simple moral (although the translation, at times, incorporated some notes that saw meaning from stories in a very contrived fashion). I would certainly be surprised if the Hindu texts preached violence in the same manner as the Quran or the Bible such as killing of babies, lurid descriptions of cruel acts of violence, etc.
Comment by Chidambaram Annamalai — June 8, 2011 @ 11:43 pm
Chidambaram, thanks for your comment. (I also noticed some other comments by you, and will reply to them in some time). I haven’t come across portions of the Hindu texts that have the same kind of violence as the linked-to portions of the Bible or Quran. However, I haven’t studied these text s in sufficient depth to come to clear conclusions in this regard.
That said, I am not a fan of the idea of treating the Hindu texts as anything divine or holy or sacred, but rather simply as a mix of mythology and philosophy that can be evaluated on their own merits (or lack thereof). For this reason, even if I were to agree with some of the philosophical propositions, or enjoyed the mythological tales, I wouldn’t consider myself a “Hindu” in a religious sense.
Comment by vipulnaik — June 9, 2011 @ 12:49 am
Nicely put. I’d consider my views on the matter the same. The whole reason I read the Mahabharata (way back in 6th/7th grade) was because of the fantastical nature of the stories that comprised it. Even at the time I read it, I never really believed in the truth of any one of them. I remember the reason why I read many of these stories (some were even illustrated somewhat like a graphic novel): I thought they were “necessary” from a cultural point of view in the sense of offering an “explanation” as to why we do certain things like for example celebrating Deepavali. Later, of course, I realized that any explanation offered is really irrelevant, and people can have fun all the same.
Comment by Chidambaram Annamalai — June 9, 2011 @ 6:50 pm