The Volokh Conspiracy - Does religion make you a better person?

More often than not, I disagree with conservative National Review columnist John Derbyshire. I do, however, endorse his argument that being religious does not in and of itself make you a better person:

Q. Do you believe religion is good for people?

A. You'd think so, wouldn't you? I thought so for the longest time. All those Golden Rules, those injunctions to charity, compassion, neighborliness, forbearance, and so on. Not only does the proposition seem obvious in itself, but we all know people whose lives were messed up, but were then straightened out after they got religion...

Evelyn Waugh . . . was religious, but he was also a nasty person, and knew it. But: "If not for my faith," he explained, "I would be barely human." In other words, even a nasty religious person would be even worse without faith.

I have now come to think that it really makes no difference, net-net. You can point to people who were improved by faith, but you can also see people made worse by it. Anyone want to argue that, say, Mohammed Atta was made a better person by his faith? All right, when Americans say "religion" they mean Christianity 99 percent of the time. So: Can Christianity make you a worse person? I'm sure it can. If you're a person with, for example, a self-righteous conviction of your own moral superiority, well, getting religion is just going to inflame that conviction. Again, I know cases, and I'm sure you do too. The exhortations to humility that you find in all religions seem to be the most difficult teaching for people to take on board. Mostly, I think it makes no difference.

As Derbyshire implies, whether or not your moral beliefs are religious is far less important than the substantive content of those beliefs. Some religious ideologies justify freedom, fairness, and charity, but others just as forcefully promote slavery, the oppression of women, and terrorism. Witness the Atta case. The same, of course, is true of secular and atheistic ideologies. The Soviet communists were atheists, but so too were many of their most courageous opponents, such as dissident leaders Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel.

As I noted here, the empirical evidence shows that nonreligious individuals do not have higher rates of social pathology (criminal activity, irresponsible behavior, etc.) than religious ones, and majority atheist nations such as Japan, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are no worse in these respects than those where the majority of the people are religious.

Ultimately, the key question is not whether you are a "person of faith," but what is it that your faith tells you to do.

UPDATE: I should clarify that I do NOT necessarily agree with all the other things that Derbyshire says in his article.

	[Ilya Somin, October 31, 2006 at 7:27pm] Trackbacks Does religion make you a better person? More often than not, I disagree with conservative National Review columnist John Derbyshire. I do, however, endorse his argument that being religious does not in and of itself make you a better person: Q. Do you believe religion is good for people? A. You'd think so, wouldn't you? I thought so for the longest time. All those Golden Rules, those injunctions to charity, compassion, neighborliness, forbearance, and so on. Not only does the proposition seem obvious in itself, but we all know people whose lives were messed up, but were then straightened out after they got religion... Evelyn Waugh . . . was religious, but he was also a nasty person, and knew it. But: "If not for my faith," he explained, "I would be barely human." In other words, even a nasty religious person would be even worse without faith. I have now come to think that it really makes no difference, net-net. You can point to people who were improved by faith, but you can also see people made worse by it. Anyone want to argue that, say, Mohammed Atta was made a better person by his faith? All right, when Americans say "religion" they mean Christianity 99 percent of the time. So: Can Christianity make you a worse person? I'm sure it can. If you're a person with, for example, a self-righteous conviction of your own moral superiority, well, getting religion is just going to inflame that conviction. Again, I know cases, and I'm sure you do too. The exhortations to humility that you find in all religions seem to be the most difficult teaching for people to take on board. Mostly, I think it makes no difference. As Derbyshire implies, whether or not your moral beliefs are religious is far less important than the substantive content of those beliefs. Some religious ideologies justify freedom, fairness, and charity, but others just as forcefully promote slavery, the oppression of women, and terrorism. Witness the Atta case. The same, of course, is true of secular and atheistic ideologies. The Soviet communists were atheists, but so too were many of their most courageous opponents, such as dissident leaders Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel. As I noted here, the empirical evidence shows that nonreligious individuals do not have higher rates of social pathology (criminal activity, irresponsible behavior, etc.) than religious ones, and majority atheist nations such as Japan, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are no worse in these respects than those where the majority of the people are religious. Ultimately, the key question is not whether you are a "person of faith," but what is it that your faith tells you to do. UPDATE: I should clarify that I do NOT necessarily agree with all the other things that Derbyshire says in his article.