Religion encourages passivity

The argument

Belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator often comes with a certain level of helplessness. After all, to trust in such a deity is to acknowledge the fact that they are in control of whatever happens here on earth, including our lives. For many religionists, this is a great relief, allowing them to rest easy in the knowledge that their Creator will provide for them. Even if he appears not to, they simply have to trust that their misfortunes here on earth are part of a divine plan much larger than themselves. Though this belief can be a comfort to those who hold it, it can also promote passivity, removing people’s incentive to address the problems we are facing in our “mortal world.” In other words, people may use their faith to justify their inaction-and in some cases, apathy-about major societal problems, from global warming to social injustice to, most pressingly, the coronavirus pandemic. If it’s all in God’s hands, why should we humans try to do anything to improve the world in which we live? At best, to do so is a fruitless endeavor, and at worst, it’s an attempt to play God, a prideful way of letting him know we don’t trust his divine plans. Because religion can be used to justify passivity when action is needed the most, it does more harm than good to our society as a whole.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Religion in and of itself does not encourage passivity. Rather, most faiths emphasize the need to help others and stop injustice. Religious apathy, then, is the fault of people misinterpreting their religious texts to justify their indifference about modern issues. Moreover, it is unfair to imply that religion always makes people passive, when actually, religious charities and outreach organizations abound.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Providence and human responsibility sit together in most theological traditions rather than in tension. Judaism, Christianity and Islam each hold believers accountable for their actions, which requires that those actions make a difference, and the doctrines described coexist with obligations of almsgiving, hospitality and care for the poor that presuppose intervention in the world. [Rejecting P2] That a belief can be used to justify inaction is a claim about people, not about the belief. Fatalism, confidence in markets, faith in technology and political resignation can all be recruited to the same purpose; the counter-argument's point holds, that this is a misreading of a text rather than what the text instructs. [Rejecting P3] The premise predicts an effect the record does not show. Religious institutions run a substantial share of the world's hospitals, schools, famine relief and refugee provision, and religious affiliation is associated in survey data with higher rates of charitable giving and volunteering. The movements against slavery, for civil rights and for debt relief were organised substantially through congregations — difficult to reconcile with a removed incentive to act.