https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21692327.2017.1322915?cookieSet=1

International Journal of Philosophy and Theology Volume 78, Issue 4-5

Religion as a source of evil


ABSTRACT
The starting point is that there is a structural, although not necessary link between religion and two important expressions of religious evil, religious intolerance and violence. The origin of this link lies in the radicalism that is inherent in all religions. Although this radicalism often has very positive effects, it also can lead to evil. Because religious evil is fueled by eschatological antagonism and the enormous utopian energies that are characteristic of religion, it is often qualified as symbolic. ‘Symbolic’ refers to the fundamental disproportion between the excess of the divine as a groundless ground and the finite capacity of every religion to receive it (Ricoeur). Symbolic violence arises when a religious community yields to the temptation of becoming possessive, forcing the inexhaustible divine mystery to adapt to the limited capacities of this community to grasp this mystery. This leads to the exclusion of internal or external dissenters. The final section examines how the ill-fated bond between religion and evil can be broken. It will be examined if and how a redefinition of tolerance, in particular a disconnection between religious truth and the claim to exclusivism and a commitment to interconfessional hospitality, can contribute to avoiding that religion becomes evil.


4. Conclusion
In this contribution, I have tried to show that the answer to the question why religion can be a source of evil, in particular of intolerance and violence, does not lie, as alleged so often, in the idea of an absolute, divine truth as such, but in the claim to exclusivity, that is in the claim that a specific way to approach the divine would be absolute. In order to break the ill-fated bond between religious and evil, it is vital that religions are aware of the eschatological antagonism that constitutes their essence, and of the symbolic violence that may ensue from it. This awareness should lead communities of faith to define their identity in a non-exclusivist way, in particular to realize the disproportion between the divine mystery and the fundamental incapability of an individual religious tradition to encompass it. Many things are needed in order to realize this, not only on a theoretical, but, far more importantly, on a practical level. Although the above discussion of these issues only dealt with them in a philosophical way, I want to draw the attention to three crucial practical requisites in order to break the ill-fated bond between religion and these two expressions of evil. The first is that religions should be prepared to use their self-critical potential in order to remove all idolatrous, that is appropriating traces when determining the divine mystery. Second, it is vital that the religious other is not simply perceived and treated as a threat to the own identity, but as an opportunity to discover new dimensions of this mystery, and to become aware of the specificity of one’s own religious identity. Finally, it is necessary that religious leaders, who play a decisive role in interpreting sacred scriptures and issuing moral and ritual prescripts, are educated in such a way that they are able to religious self-reflection and self-critique. This is all the more necessary because the second aspect of the virtue of tolerance, the distinction between possessing the Truth of the divine and acknowledging that one can only hope to be in the truth, is rightfully accused of being elitist. Indeed, one cannot expect ordinary faithful to reflect so profoundly on their own faith in order to make these kinds of subtle distinctions, let alone implement them in their practical lives. Hence, it is crucial for the peaceful coexistence of different religions and secular philosophies of life that religious leaders also trained to adopt such an attitude of religious self-reflection in practice.

Like Dogbert?

This is why you have lost me yet again, anybody.

In the conclusion it is stated, " . . .I have tried to show that the answer to the question why religion can be a source of evil . . ."

why religion "can be" a source of evil is very different than saying "Religion Is Evil".

Religion is sometimes the tactic of choice of those who wish to make a nice living through control and will sometimes use religion as their vehicle of choice. Those people may espouse evil depending on your definition of evil.

The same can be said of business. Some are good and some are bad and will lie and cheat people and taxes. But not all do that.

The problem is in all things human--using good to disguise bad sometimes.

Are you okay OP? I mean, from the tone of your posts it seems like you need someone to talk to. Someone with credentials. According to statistics, religion is genuinely harmful to 4% of the population. You could be in the 4%.

They either run scams like Mormons or Jim and Tammy Faye, or try to destroy innocent lives over racism, imagined Satanism, child molestation, devil worship, sexuality, or some other thing they pick on to whip their followers up into an ecstasy of hate.


Now they want to drive America into another civil war (worst case) or prolonged period of social unrest, division, and terrorism (20-30 yrs. max before they die off)


The vision of the 21st Century I grew up with was one of space stations, moon bases, fusion power, and brotherhood -- not idiotic race hatred and science denial from nutjobs who want to drag us back to the seventeenth century.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They either run scams like Mormons or Jim and
> Tammy Faye, or try to destroy innocent lives over
> racism, imagined Satanism, child molestation,
> devil worship, sexuality, or some other thing they
> pick on to whip their followers up into an ecstasy
> of hate.
>
>
> Now they want to drive America into another civil
> war (worst case) or prolonged period of social
> unrest, division, and terrorism (20-30 yrs. max
> before they die off)
===============================

Sure.

So - what makes us such easy prey for this?
(Has nothing to do with intelligence)

I have to side with D&D on this one. "Religion is Evil" is the kind of distortion of what an article actually says that I frequently jump on SchrodingersCat for.

"Can be a source of evil" and "is evil" are not the same statement.

Plus I'm not a fan of the word "evil" in general, ironically because if its religious overtones. The Austin Powers movies mocked the term in brilliant fashion with the "Dr Evil" character.

    

...religion in and of itself is evil. While religion has been, and is currently used, to justify some very destructive behaviors, not everybody follows that kind of thinking, whether they are religious or not. What religion seems to do is to emotionally justify both the constructive and destructive behaviors of its supporters. For example, while religion is used to justify slavery, there is no evidence that I've found that slavery (and here I'm talking about the prizes of war victors and not racial slavery) didn't exist before religion. people, both groups and individuals, killed each other before religion was created, but religion gave a justification for those killings to those that needed to have those killings justified.

What I'm trying to say is that if religion is evil, then we humans must be evil creatures because religion came wholly from us.

Define evil. Like, that's some heavily charged language, yeah? Already, I feel like I'm being pitched something that I might not otherwise buy.

I would posit a different theory that we really get down to the baseline of what it is about religion that propagates such negative social behaviors in people and we blame that instead.

One thing I've learned for instance, just as an example, is that not all religions are cults and not all cults are religious. Similarly, I might not like how a low credulity bar can lead to people believing in ridiculous claims and further getting emotionally invested in untrue things. But I'm not going to sit here and put Buddhists in the same boat as Baptists or Scientologists. It matters what exactly we're talking about, the behaviors and characteristics that we're trying to highlight.

"Religion" and "evil" is messy and sloppy and dangerous.

It is important not to blind ourselves willfully when trying to root out bias. Otherwise you might miss very real and present enemies standing in plain view.

Religion is a human endeavor, and as such, is the source of good, evil, and everything in between.

anybody,

I just penned a response to the thread on trans kids in sports but it was closed. So I'm going to answer here. This will be a blunter than it was in the initial iteration.

First, you really need to be more accurate in your posts. Here, for instance, you mangle the point of the article you purport to explain. That's tendentious and it is sloppy.

Now, on trans kids in sports. You and ookami seem to believe that the in utero burst in sex hormones does not result in physical differences between boys and girls. That is false. It is in fact screamingly obviously false. I am certain that neither you nor he have ever parented children because you would know that the vast majority of boys and girls behave differently; and those of us who have tried and failed to raise them the same way have in most instances failed miserably.

Is there overlap between the genders? Absolutely. Both genders have characteristics that are distributed in a statistically normal way, with considerable overlap. And many, but not all, of the people in that overlapping region are non-cis on all or some of the dimensions. That does not obviate, however, the fact that trans kids were profoundly affected in utero by sex hormones.

You state that anyone who thinks trans girls have an unfair advantage in sports is trans-phobic. That is not only mistaken, it is stupid. I don't want my daughters' ACLs injured by kids, male or trans, who are more physical--like my sons. And if you are going to claim that trans girls--or those who will become trans girls--are physically the same as birth girls, you'll need to produce evidence showing that their pre-adolescent rates of ACL injuries are the same as born birth girls, which you cannot do.

You are mistaken to take people who think trans people should have every advantage except where it jeopardizes the rights of others and lump them in with the trans-phobic. You are free to do that, to insist on a binary view of human values as you do on human biology, but it is wrong.

ookami says I have lost whatever shred of respect he had for me. I'm saddened by that but think that one way or another I'll survive.

Meanwhile, neither he nor you have lost my admiration.

I don't think you understand me, so let me be clear:

I'm not just talking about sport, there are other issues.

Let's start with sport (again, silence about trans boys and men, guess they aren't a "threat").

I said a compromise (that would not please everyone) would be to only allow trans girls who won't be going through male puberty (hormone flood starts at ten, that's when blockers start, you mentioned Johns Hopkins, they aren't the leader in this and have had a checkered past in the trans medical field), so we are dealing with teens who will be on blockers until they have surgery (around 16-18 before they start college).

I'm not talking about the common fearmongering scenario of having a coach or school coerce a male student into pretending they are trans to go on a sports team. That just doesn't happen. There have been some trans kids on teams who are undergoing hormone therapy, but didn't get access to blockers when they were younger. That's why I said excluding them would be a compromise that would leave some people out.


There are so few families who (a) accept their kids, (b) have the financial resources, and now (c) live in a place that will even allow their kids to have treatment that there are only a small, small number of kids undergoing treatment who would even want to play sports that this is an overblown issue.


Who is fit to be female for sport is an old, old, contentious issue (which is why I mentioned the Williams sisters and Caster Semenya).


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/


The notion of transgender girls having an unfair advantage comes from the idea that testosterone causes physical changes such as an increase in muscle mass. But transgender girls are not the only girls with high testosterone levels. An estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels. They are not banned from female sports. Transgender girls on puberty blockers, on the other hand, have negligible testosterone levels. Yet these state bills would force them to play with the boys. Plus, the athletic advantage conferred by testosterone is equivocal. As Katrina Karkazis, a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University explains, “Studies of testosterone levels in athletes do not show any clear, consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links. And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.” The bills’ premises lack scientific validity.

Claiming that transgender girls have an unfair advantage in sports also neglects the fact that these kids have the deck stacked against them in nearly every other way imaginable. They suffer from higher rates of bullying, anxiety and depression—all of which make it more difficult for them to train and compete. They also have higher rates of homelessness and poverty because of common experiences of family rejection. This is likely a major driver of why we see so few transgender athletes in collegiate sports and none in the Olympics.


Now the other issue:

Fundies are using trans people as the new "bête noir" to stir up their followers just like the Nazis did with Jews starting in the 1920s. Now there's a real threat of violence and murder, not just kids (and their supportive parents) who have had to deal with attempts on their life. I know several parents who have lost their jobs, had to move to a safe state, and are still denied employment simply because they allow their kids to be who they are.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cpac-trans-kids-eradicated-transgender-michael-knowles_n_64038d23e4b0c78bb7430b1c

> I'm not just talking about sport, there are other
> issues.

I agree with you about the other issues. Our disagreement is about sports alone. When you say that people who disagree with you on a specific point are trans-phobic, you paint with much too broad a brush.


-----------------
> Let's start with sport (again, silence about trans
> boys and men, guess they aren't a "threat").

I don't like word "threat," but so be it. In physical sports, the problem is more unidirectional, yes, although it may work the other way in some areas too. In either case, we have been talking about trans girls competing with born girls and I don't see a need to address subjects that have not arisen.


--------------
> I said a compromise (that would not please
> everyone) would be to only allow trans girls who
> won't be going through male puberty (hormone flood
> starts at ten, that's when blockers start, you
> mentioned Johns Hopkins, they aren't the leader in
> this and have had a checkered past in the trans
> medical field), so we are dealing with teens who
> will be on blockers until they have surgery
> (around 16-18 before they start college).

I did not mention Johns Hopkins.

What you propose makes sense to me with some reservations. I am not an expert in this stuff, so my views are subject to revision as new evidence becomes available and I get smarter. That said, I do not think you can demonstrate scientifically that nine-year-old boys and girls are identical in either physicality or sports psychology. And I do know that girls are much more susceptible to knee injuries than pre-pubescent boys are. The problem gets much worse after puberty--4-6X higher risk--but it is more than 2X worse for girls than for boys before puberty. All of which means puberty blockers do not fully neutralize the disadvantage/risk.

Pre-pubescent boys are not the same as prepubescent girls.


--------------------
> I'm not talking about the common fearmongering
> scenario of having a coach or school coerce a male
> student into pretending they are trans to go on a
> sports team. That just doesn't happen.

I am not aware of anyone on RfM having espoused that position.



-------------------
> There
> have been some trans kids on teams who are
> undergoing hormone therapy, but didn't get access
> to blockers when they were younger. That's why I
> said excluding them would be a compromise that
> would leave some people out.

And any such compromise must be tentative because ultimately no one should be denied the opportunity to engage in sports.


--------------
> There are so few families who (a) accept their
> kids, (b) have the financial resources, and now
> (c) live in a place that will even allow their
> kids to have treatment that there are only a
> small, small number of kids undergoing treatment
> who would even want to play sports that this is an
> overblown issue.

That's probably true. But we as a society need to come up with solutions for even that small number of kids. And I think that if families need resources to address their children's physical and psychological needs, society must find a way to provide that assistance. The cost would be trivial and the benefits to society great.


------------
> The notion of transgender girls having an unfair
> advantage comes from the idea that testosterone
> causes physical changes such as an increase in
> muscle mass.

No, that is incorrect. Testosterone changes are simply the easiest piece of the puzzle to measure and adjust. But there are other structural changes mediated by in utero hormone levels and evident in all sorts of structural differences between boys and girls. What I object to is the reduction of those differences to the single variable of adolescent testosterone.


-------------------
> But transgender girls are not the
> only girls with high testosterone levels. An
> estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic
> ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated
> testosterone levels. They are not banned from
> female sports. Transgender girls on puberty
> blockers, on the other hand, have negligible
> testosterone levels.

I don't accept your premise, so from my perspective this is at last partially a red herring.


-----------------
> Yet these state bills would
> force them to play with the boys.

You see? This is where our discussion goes astray. I think most state legislation on trans rights is appalling. I do not explicitly or implicitly defend any of that--and it is not relevant to our discussion.


---------------
> Plus, the
> athletic advantage conferred by testosterone is
> equivocal. As Katrina Karkazis, a senior visiting
> fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at
> Yale University explains, “Studies of
> testosterone levels in athletes do not show any
> clear, consistent relationship between
> testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes
> testosterone is associated with better
> performance, but other studies show weak links or
> no links. And yet others show testosterone is
> associated with worse performance.” The bills’
> premises lack scientific validity.

All of which suggests--rightly, as I have written in other threads and again above--that testosterone is at best a part of the problem. Put bluntly, I think your focus on the sex hormones is far too narrow and that you cannot simultaneously write that paragraph and argue, as above, that equalizing testosterone would represent a solution.


-----------------
> Claiming that transgender girls have an unfair
> advantage in sports also neglects the fact that
> these kids have the deck stacked against them in
> nearly every other way imaginable. They suffer
> from higher rates of bullying, anxiety and
> depression—all of which make it more difficult
> for them to train and compete. They also have
> higher rates of homelessness and poverty because
> of common experiences of family rejection.

All of that is true. But it is irrelevant to our conversation. That logic would imply that any category of people who are the victims of discrimination should be compensated in any ways they or their allies want irrespective what that does to others--including other victims of discrimination, in this case girls and women.

It doesn't work that way. We are talking about sports and need to come up with a solution for that problem. Other problems (frankly much more serious ones) must be addressed independently.


-------------------
> This is
> likely a major driver of why we see so few
> transgender athletes in collegiate sports and none
> in the Olympics.

Laurel Hubbard competed in the Olympics.


---------------
> Now the other issue:
>
> Fundies are using trans people as the new "bête
> noir" to stir up their followers just like the
> Nazis did with Jews starting in the 1920s. Now
> there's a real threat of violence and murder, not
> just kids (and their supportive parents) who have
> had to deal with attempts on their life.

Agreed. But neither of us are "fundies" and neither of us are demonizing trans people. What I object to is when you superimpose these broader and more profound issues onto what is frankly a dispute between allies (whether ookami and you choose to recognize me as such or not) over a narrow issue.

I carry no flag. I am not responsible for what others may say or do, particularly when I think what they do is vile.


------------------------
> I know
> several parents who have lost their jobs, had to
> move to a safe state, and are still denied
> employment simply because they allow their kids to
> be who they are.

I have no doubt about that at all. And it is reprehensible.

I know that, anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

What??? LW is not a religious fundie? Say it ain't so.

The article that you cited in scientific american is an example of non-religious fundamentalism. When you spout ideas similar to this while ignoring the far more complex reality, you become more similar to the "fundies" than you know.

First of all, the science on this is hardly settled and should never be claimed as such. There are several studies since 2015 that have shown that physical advantage of males over females is persistent even in the case of biological males who received hormone blockers. There are over 3000 genes in our shared DNA that manifest differently in males than females. Testosterone is often held up as the only factor, but that is far from the case. The subtitle of the article, "There is no scientific case for excluding them" is very problematic and demonstrates a willful ignorance of the actual science. I've noticed you tend to state the science as settled and your admonitions of "look it up for yourself" only works if they use the right combination of words for google.

The article uses faulty logic that the outliers of cases where biological girls beat trans girls in sports proves anything. People still use Billy Jean King's victory over Bobby Riggs as evidence that there's no difference between male and female tennis players. It's just not the case.

I fully agree with you that there need to be changes to include trans athletes. But, those changes should be based on sound logic and bullying people to see things as you see them using the tactics that you hate so much from religious fanatics hardly seems like it's going to create a sound result.

Lot's Wife,

I'm just disappointed by your stance on this issue. And I overreacted. I keep hearing the opinion on banning trans athletes and it's usually followed by support for transphobia. Laws restricting education and healthcare keep popping up and I'm constantly worried sick.

You've read my posts about my girlfriend. I don't want the chances of someone hurting her increasing because of all this.

I don't know that much about hormones in utero and I think people take sports way too seriously. I just think people are more than biology. Do you think athletes *want* to injure each other? But, I was a nerd and a bit of a tomgirl growing up (played the cello, spent free time reading, liked to cook, was on my school's ballroom team), so I think "the boys and girls behave differently" seems a little unrealistic on a closer look.

I made an ass of myself. What happens when you bring love to a logic fight.

You love and want to protect your girlfriend with fairness. That's admirable. I want that for her too.

The issue is complicated and also cruel. I understand the concerns and arguments all around. There's got to be a way to solve this without exclusion or examining people's genitals.

I still think issues like this are mostly intended to be a big distraction from bigger things like, well, killing kids with guns and taking away rights. It's easy to stir up controversy and create "others" to cause cultural divides (aka stir up voters with LGBTQ issues).

I think you're right about it being a distraction from other things. Using a scapegoat to distract is an old tactic that people keep falling for. I think the US is foolish enough to fall for it to a dark and familiar place, and I hope I'm wrong.

Also, she's been helping me get caught up on "One Piece," a very-long running anime she loves to death. I'd get further on my own, but I like watching it with her more. Plus, she tolerates the fact that I don't know all the lyrics to "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen but will still sing along with it anyway.

I've never watched a manga/anime series because I have a short attention span when it comes to TV...look...a squirrel. I've been curious about it though. You do need to work on Queen lyrics for sure.

Carry on!

I'm more like "Look--an acorn!"

ookami, I make an ass of myself every day so there is no need for you to apologize.

I have great admiration for you and your girlfriend, both of whom I view, with no exaggeration, as heroic. I wish nothing but the best for you.

That's why you can yell at me without my feelings for you changing.

I do respect you, Lot's Wife. I'm still disappointed. I just get tired of hearing about trans issues like it doesn't affect people. And I'm tired of the scapegoating.

You can discuss the issue with trans athletes, but please remember those are human beings you're talking about. They're not stereotypes or statistics.

And I'm not heroic; I'm just a weirdo who fell in love and wants to live his life.

Oh, I absolutely know trans people are human beings. You don't understand how strongly I feel about this. It's embarrassing to admit, but I was weeping as I composed that short post--trying on the one hand to express my feelings and on the other to avoid sounding inexcusably sappy.

I am an emotional person and I do my best to discipline myself to think rigorously because I have seen so many times when emotions have led even the best-intentioned people (and countries) into grievous error. So yeah, I may come across as cold-hearted in some of these threads. But if anything, that's an indication of how deeply I feel about the people and issues we are discussing and hence how hard it is for me to stay focused.

And as for whom I consider heroic and why, I don't give a damn about what other people--including you--think.

;-)

One of the other reasons I don't get along with debate team types: I think emotions make us human, not completely illogical. And I think some people use the "rational detachment" as a means of hiding and shutting off their emotions. We're not Vulcans, it ain't going to work.

And I also sometimes wonder if we're damaging ourselves if we keep trying to shut down our own emotional responses. I spent years living the "Turn it off/ like a lightswitch" attitude to emotions and I'm still dealing with the fallout in my head.

I think both shutting off emotions and giving in to emotion completely do damage, just in different ways.

Religious sects are just another (y a w n) result.

It's in the machine.