“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, New York Times, April 20, 1999
Is Weinberg right?
Man this is one of my all time favorite quotes! I love it!
I couldn’t agree more, providing we expand “religion” to include any “faith-based” rubric such as the various “isms” which have plagued the world. As an individual, Hitler may have had a few bad experiences with Jews which, over the course of his life-time, could have developed into an intrinsic hatred of them. It is only with the addition of a “belief” system (“Jews are inferior beings polluting the gene pool of the human race”) that something like the Holocaust can be conceived.
Good people do bad things for the sake of various theories and beliefs, not just those known as religion. Turning people into educated, agnostic free-thinkers could well end all war and terrorism.
I think.
I’ve heard it said that a philosophy is more dangerous than a gun, since a philosophy can kill millions of people, but a gun can only kill a few dozen. I think that religion is *not* the culprit to single out here, however, despite the fact that it typically encourages small-mindedness and evil behavior. The problem is that there are weak people who fall for propaganda in general (which includes, to me, religion, media, and much of government). Propaganda is the problem, as well as weak-minded people.
I feel that the first sentence of the quotation is not really necessary. Take it out and it becomes: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.†This is just factual, and looks accurate enough. And then, as with all practical problems, the question is: why is it so? According to one theory, religions (and other authoritarian “isms”) act as certain brain parasites: by inducing the suicide of their hosts (in this case, the moral suicide of human goodness) they enhance their own chances of spreading into new host brains. Yet, like all darwinian processes, the success of this strategy depends on the environment. A whig-liberal environment  no taboos, freedom of expression, rational arguing, separation between Church and State  will hopefully lessen the efficiency of mere thuggery as a way to access new brains. So, keep up the good work, Jim!
I don’t know about religion being NEEDED, but certainly a lot of people defend evil deeds with religion.
Personally, I don’t believe in all-good or all-evil people anyway.
Substitute “patriotism” for “religion” and the statement is equally true.
Hitler had a Jewish grandfather. How much hatred is a disguised discomfort with some part of our own lives?
This statement is a little pretzel-logick-y, because “good” people don’t do “evil” things. If people do evil things, they’re evil people.
Hmm, it seems we have a definition problem here. On shane’s definition (“If people do evil things, they’re evil people”) Weinberg’s sentence is meaningless. So, if many feel that it states something – as I myself do – their definition must differ. How? There are probably many alternatives. A possible one is a distinction between objective and subjective “good” (and “evil”). Here a “good” man would be one who sticks to subjective “goodness”. Nevertheless, he could do “evil” things if he was mislead into taking as a subjective “good” some action which was objectively “evil” (like torturing to death some other person). Hence, one could describe religion as a social device that manipulates “good” people in exactly that way, so as to produce the objectively “evil” actions that are required by its own perpetuation. I think history has much to say in favour of this interpretation.