If you have read my previous posts, dear reader, you know how much I despise religious abuse. Many of the world’s greatest tragedies occurred in the name of religion. A shame, as that is the very antithesis of the purpose of religion.

I ran across this article by Richard Dawkins which gives an apparently Nacirema-influenced account of a highly addictive substance called gerin oil, addicts of which caused some of the most horrible atrocities in human history. (If you want to read it now without me ruining it, here is your last chance… ready?) The pun of course is that this drug is actually the opiate of the masses; religion (of which “gerin oil” is an anagram).

This position is tenable, but limited. Our world is not lacking in examples of different flavours of fundamentalist extremism by fringe groups. But they are just that; extremist fringe groups. The number of the faithful that support the deplorable beliefs and practices of these fringe groups within their respective traditions is comparatively low. Unfortunately these individuals, by their actions, have gained much attention. Another unpropitious consequence is the polarizing effect these groups have, putting moderates (religious or otherwise) in an uncomfortable position. Yet despite how marginalized moderates may feel, we are in fact the majority.

Consider all of the positive things religion has done. Just as there are innumerable instances of atrocities, so too are there innumerable instances of altruism. Religious institutions have ministered to some of the most marginalized people in society: the destitute, the impoverished, the imprisoned, orphans, single mothers; in short, the people mainstream society would like to forget. There is also the spiritual dimension. Dawkins’ pessimistic view ignores the countless souls that religion has helped to lead fulfilled, purposeful lives. To steal the words of another blogger, “If he judges religion based on the Crusades, do we get to judge atheism based on the Soviet Union?”

If one is to accurately evaluate religion, one must take the good with the bad. Thus an assessment of religion would be strikingly similar to that of any other social institution: religion itself is not inherently good or bad, but the actions of individuals. To say religion is bad like saying that government is bad or education is bad or that business is bad.

Almost ever religion comes with its own set of morals. Conspicuous among them is the Golden Rule, which appears, with almost word for word correspondence, in numerous world religions. Invariably, it is the bad individuals that do not adhere to this universal principle of human morality.

Ultimately we must examine causality. Bad things have happened as a result of religion. What caused these bad things? It was people that were not living up to the moral standards of the very religion they were supposedly championing. But good things too have come out or religion. The good has also been done by people. So it is that religion, as an institution, is not moral or immoral but amoral. It is up to the individual to be moral.