STR Ambassador
November 22nd 2004, 01:04 PM
Goodness is a slippery term, especially when applied to religion. What looks worthy at first glance can turn out to be evil in the last analysis. And that's the one that counts.
Is Religion Good? by Greg Koukl
I frequently take part in public, interfaith dialogue on radio and TV. The prevailing view among the pastors, rabbis, and priests who participate seems to be that, all things being equal, it's good for a person to have religion in his life. Some kind of religion is preferable to no religion at all. Columnist David Gergen recently wrote, "Whatever form a religious pilgrimage takes, we should encourage those willing to make the journey." [emphasis mine]
Is religion inherently good, though? The catch to this question is defining "good." For many, any enterprise concerned with morality--and religion usually qualifies, here--is considered good. This makes religion appealing. The general consensus is that most religions seek to combat evil in its various forms and espouse some version of the golden rule: "Do unto others...." Religion elevates humanity above the coarse and vulgar. It stimulates man to reach beyond himself to the needs of others.
In its pure form, religion breaks down barriers, unites divisive elements, promotes love and acceptance. Certainly the world would be a better place with more of it, wouldn't it?
The Bad Side of Goodness
"Goodness" is a slippery item. It has a fickle side. Good fortune today may turn on you tomorrow. Pleasure can beget sorrow. Any "good" thing, including religion, must ultimately be measured not by its immediate effect, but by its final product. Let me illustrate.
If a man is dying of cancer, he could take morphine to remove the physical suffering. In a temporal sense, that would be good. He would feel better. He'd be able to do more of the things he enjoys instead of being crippled by pain.
But what if the absence of pain keeps him from going to the doctor? The morphine will not ultimately heal his cancer. If no further steps are taken, the malignancy will eventually kill him. Can we say that the morphine is ultimately beneficial if he eliminates the symptom, but dies from the disease?
No. Ultimately, it is destructive. If relief from pain keeps a man from remedial surgery, then it can't be called good. Whenever a soothing remedy substitutes for health-giving therapy, evil results.
This is true of everything. The apparent goodness of an event can be reversed by its ultimate result. You may eat a fine and sumptuous meal, but if you get food poisoning, then the meal wasn't good for you. A casual sexual encounter may be stimulating, but if you get AIDS you won't look back on the experience with fondness.
Religion's Flaw
The concept that religion is necessarily good is flawed because it doesn't pay enough attention to the end product. Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.
I'm not arguing here that the Christian concept of God is necessarily more accurate than any other. That's what I believe, but it's not the point I'm making. I'm simply saying that there is a serious philosophical problem with saying that all religions are equally good in an ultimate sense. Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.
Religions might offer some kind of moral teaching. That's good as far as it goes. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. If their fundamental tenets lead to a false conception of God instead of a true understanding, then they cannot be called good in spite of the short term benefit they may offer. It's the final analysis that really counts.
If issues of religion have eternal consequences, then errors in thinking are infinitely tragic. To rephrase Karl Marx, false religion is the opiate of the people. It soothes, but does not cure.
Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org
Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.
Is Religion Good? by Greg Koukl
I frequently take part in public, interfaith dialogue on radio and TV. The prevailing view among the pastors, rabbis, and priests who participate seems to be that, all things being equal, it's good for a person to have religion in his life. Some kind of religion is preferable to no religion at all. Columnist David Gergen recently wrote, "Whatever form a religious pilgrimage takes, we should encourage those willing to make the journey." [emphasis mine]
Is religion inherently good, though? The catch to this question is defining "good." For many, any enterprise concerned with morality--and religion usually qualifies, here--is considered good. This makes religion appealing. The general consensus is that most religions seek to combat evil in its various forms and espouse some version of the golden rule: "Do unto others...." Religion elevates humanity above the coarse and vulgar. It stimulates man to reach beyond himself to the needs of others.
In its pure form, religion breaks down barriers, unites divisive elements, promotes love and acceptance. Certainly the world would be a better place with more of it, wouldn't it?
The Bad Side of Goodness
"Goodness" is a slippery item. It has a fickle side. Good fortune today may turn on you tomorrow. Pleasure can beget sorrow. Any "good" thing, including religion, must ultimately be measured not by its immediate effect, but by its final product. Let me illustrate.
If a man is dying of cancer, he could take morphine to remove the physical suffering. In a temporal sense, that would be good. He would feel better. He'd be able to do more of the things he enjoys instead of being crippled by pain.
But what if the absence of pain keeps him from going to the doctor? The morphine will not ultimately heal his cancer. If no further steps are taken, the malignancy will eventually kill him. Can we say that the morphine is ultimately beneficial if he eliminates the symptom, but dies from the disease?
No. Ultimately, it is destructive. If relief from pain keeps a man from remedial surgery, then it can't be called good. Whenever a soothing remedy substitutes for health-giving therapy, evil results.
This is true of everything. The apparent goodness of an event can be reversed by its ultimate result. You may eat a fine and sumptuous meal, but if you get food poisoning, then the meal wasn't good for you. A casual sexual encounter may be stimulating, but if you get AIDS you won't look back on the experience with fondness.
Religion's Flaw
The concept that religion is necessarily good is flawed because it doesn't pay enough attention to the end product. Many religions have good moral teachings, but any religion that gives temporal benefits without ultimately leading us to the true God is treating the symptom and not the disease.
I'm not arguing here that the Christian concept of God is necessarily more accurate than any other. That's what I believe, but it's not the point I'm making. I'm simply saying that there is a serious philosophical problem with saying that all religions are equally good in an ultimate sense. Their contradictory ideas about God and the afterlife can't all be correct. Someone must be mistaken.
Religions might offer some kind of moral teaching. That's good as far as it goes. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. If their fundamental tenets lead to a false conception of God instead of a true understanding, then they cannot be called good in spite of the short term benefit they may offer. It's the final analysis that really counts.
If issues of religion have eternal consequences, then errors in thinking are infinitely tragic. To rephrase Karl Marx, false religion is the opiate of the people. It soothes, but does not cure.
Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org
Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.