Religion: Is it a good thing?

Arguing is what academic life is about. It's what academics do: people get ideas, present them, and must then support them against competing ideas. Contributing to its academic excellence, the University of Oxford, through the independent Oxford Union, has a long and vigorous history of debating (Oxford Union, 2010). This style of debate is one that The Economist has been following in its "Economist Debates". These debates are included in my suggested reading matter because they allow you to read a variety of competing views, generally short, on a controversial topic that really does matter to people today, from a range of speakers which includes leading academics, social leaders, politicians and others, as well as ordinary readers of The Economist. And in the best academic tradition, reasons and evidence are presented, opposed, supported, clarified and rebutted in an ongoing discussion over a ten day period to persuade listeners, or in this case readers.

In October last year, one motion debated was that "this house believes that religion is a force for good."
At the end of the debate, the motion was convincingly defeated: 75% of The Economist's readers who took part voted against the motion; that is, they do not think that religion is a force for good ("This House Believes", 2010). The scene is set in the introductory remarks: "Throughout history and across the globe religion has been a cause of peace and violence, tolerance and inflexibility, charity and selfishness" (About this Debate sect.).

Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reading about cultural anthropology in Quest, and as you skimmed though chapter one last week, you might have noticed that superstitions and religion feature prominently in those readings (Hartmann & Blass, 2007, pp. 3 - 41). Our other class readings over the next few weeks will also connect with these topics, so for some extra reading, perhaps a little more challenging than on the BBC News (but not too much), you might like to read some of the arguments for and against religion in The Economist's debate on that topic. And then share your ideas in response to the arguments and issues raised in a comment below.

So, do you agree or disagree with The Economist's readers?

__________

References

Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oxford Union. (2010, December 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:27, January 16, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Union&oldid=402611310

This house believes that religion is a force for good. (2010, October). The Economist. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/185