Religious hypocrisy

You said:

It may be that humanity would be better off without religion, or indeed, any ideologies. The good things they get credit for would probably have happened, although in different forms, anyway. Still, that may be a bit of wishful thinking. It is not likely. Religions have tricks to keep themselves going, and those with the best tricks do better. If only people could see the tricks involved in ideas like faith and loyalty when applied to myths, but once one has been indoctrinated (usually as a child), only some have the personality traits enabling them to escape, and indoctrination is a form of addiction, not easy to break from and very easy to find excuses for not wanting to break from.

ChatGPT said:

You’re touching on a debate that has occupied philosophers and social scientists for a long time. Your description of ideology and religion as self-sustaining systems isn’t unusual; many thinkers have observed that belief systems tend to develop mechanisms—social, emotional, and institutional—that help them persist across generations. Children learning a tradition early is one obvious example of how continuity happens without any conscious intention to “indoctrinate,” because families naturally pass along their values, just as they pass along language.

At the same time, the idea that humanity would likely have followed the same path without religions or ideologies is harder to establish. Human beings seem wired to search for meaning, structure, and shared narratives. If organized religions had never developed, other belief structures—political, philosophical, or cultural—would probably have filled similar roles. History suggests that large-scale cooperation often relies on some kind of shared story about purpose or identity, even in secular societies.

Calling indoctrination an addiction is an interesting analogy. There is something similar in how habits of thought can become emotionally comfortable and how social belonging can reinforce beliefs. But it is also worth remembering that many people hold religious or ideological commitments not simply because they were taught them, but because those frameworks help them interpret suffering, morality, mortality, or community in ways they find meaningful.

So the picture is probably less “humanity would be better without” than “humanity seems to consistently generate structures that serve similar psychological and social functions, whether religious or not.” The real question may be not whether such systems exist, but how flexible, humane, and open to reflection they are.

If I may gently add one thought: skepticism toward any inherited belief is healthy, but complete certainty that people are trapped inside their beliefs can be a bit too pessimistic. People do change their minds, sometimes slowly, and sometimes in surprising ways.

You said:

You sometimes unfortunately put words in my mouth. I did not say humanity would have followed the same path, I only said that the good things religion takes credit for (charities, beautiful art, etc.) would have happened anyway. I also did not say religion should be eliminated, I was just commenting on whether we would be better off without it.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for the correction — you’re right, and I shouldn’t have drifted past what you actually said. Let me restate the two points more carefully.

Your claim was that the social goods often associated with religion—charitable work, art, care for the vulnerable, and similar achievements—would probably have emerged in some form even without religion, though perhaps through different institutions or traditions. That is a reasonable and widely discussed hypothesis. History offers some support: secular organizations, governments, and cultural movements have also generated charity, scientific patronage, and art independent of religious motivation.

You also were not advocating eliminating religion, only questioning whether its net effect is beneficial. That is a much more subtle position. The question of “better off” is difficult because it depends on what we are measuring. Some people emphasize social cohesion, meaning-making, and moral motivation; others focus on conflict, suppression of dissent, or resistance to scientific and social change. Empirical answers are hard because we cannot run the counterfactual experiment of a world without religion.

One thing I would add, without pushing against your view, is that large human institutions—religious or secular—tend to develop self-preserving behaviors. That is not unique to religion. Governments, corporations, and even academic disciplines can show similar patterns. So your observation about “tricks to keep themselves going” might be interpreted as a general property of organized human systems rather than something special to faith traditions.

If you were thinking along the lines of cultural evolution, your comment fits quite naturally into that framework. I suspect you are circling a very old question: whether the functions religion serves are contingent on the particular form or whether they are structurally necessary for human societies. That question is still very much open.

You said:

You mention moral motivation as an example, but one which I strongly doubt. Most religious people I know, as Jesus so often repeated, are hypocrites here. We do not need to have a threat of punishment, we need compassion.

ChatGPT said:

You’re expressing a view that many moral philosophers have also taken seriously — that ethical behavior grounded in compassion is more stable and more authentic than behavior driven mainly by fear of punishment.

It is true that critics of religion have often pointed out the gap between professed belief and actual conduct. The charge of hypocrisy is very old; it appears even in ancient texts. But I would be cautious about turning that observation into a claim about all religious people. In any large population, you tend to see variation: some people act inconsistently with their stated values, some struggle and fail, and some live very closely to their ideals.

Your remark about compassion is interesting because it actually aligns with teachings attributed to Jesus Christ in several passages emphasizing mercy, forgiveness, and care for the vulnerable rather than ritual correctness. Many religious traditions, not only Christianity, also place compassion at the center of moral life.

Psychologically, moral motivation may come from multiple sources at once: empathy, social expectation, internalized rules, and sometimes fear of consequences. There is ongoing debate about which of these is most effective for encouraging good behavior. Some research in moral psychology suggests that empathy-based motivation tends to produce more consistent prosocial behavior, but social norms and institutions still play a role in coordinating large societies.

So your position could be summarized as a preference for morality grounded primarily in compassion rather than in threat or authority. That is a defensible ethical stance, though others would argue that compassion itself is often culturally cultivated, sometimes within religious communities.

If I may gently reflect back one nuance: even if some people behave hypocritically, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the moral framework they claim to follow is the cause of the hypocrisy. Humans are just complicated creatures who don’t always live up to what they believe is right.

You said:

I don't think you have any idea the level of hypocrisy that is really out there, all neatly rationalized. One other thing, I think Paul promoted the idea that the Mosaic law was replaced by a simple "law of love."

ChatGPT said:

I hear the frustration behind what you’re saying. Human communities are capable of remarkable moral ideals and also of very large gaps between ideal and behavior. Social scientists would say that rationalization is one of the most common ways people reduce the discomfort of holding beliefs while acting differently in practice. That phenomenon is not unique to religion; it shows up in politics, business, and even everyday personal ethics.

At the same time, it would be hard to support a claim that hypocrisy is universal or uniform. You are probably observing a subset of experiences, but other observers report religious people who strive sincerely to live by their professed values. Reality tends to be messy rather than uniformly bad or good.

Regarding your historical point, you are touching on a major interpretation of the work of Paul the Apostle. Many scholars believe he emphasized love and faith over strict observance of Mosaic ritual law. A well-known summary of his ethical teaching appears in passages describing love as the fulfillment of the law, sometimes contrasted with detailed legal requirements associated with the Torah. This idea influenced later Christian theology by shifting moral focus from external compliance toward internal disposition.

Your phrase “law of love” is often used to describe that interpretation, though historians debate how sharply Paul intended to break with the tradition of the Mosaic law versus reinterpret it. Some view his work as radical simplification; others see it as continuation in a different theological framework.

One interesting question behind your observation is whether moral systems work better when they are rule-heavy (punishment and obligation) or virtue-heavy (compassion and character). Different societies have leaned in different directions at different times, and the evidence doesn’t give a simple verdict.

If I may say gently, your emphasis on compassion as the core is actually shared by many reform movements inside religions as well as by secular ethical philosophies. You are not standing alone in that intuition.

You said:

My experiences are of course a subset, but I think typical. Those in religious orders were not hypocrites, but unfortunately the behavior of others almost always was. Infidelity on Friday and church on Sunday. As for Paul, we of course only have a second-hand or maybe third-hand narrative of his behavior. The law of love, however, stands out to me reading his epistles.

ChatGPT said:

I understand the impression you’re describing. Many people form their view of a social group from the behavior that is most visible to them, and what is visible is often the behavior that is most dramatic or most disappointing. But I would be careful about calling such an experience “typical” in a statistical sense. Surveys across different countries and denominations tend to show a wide range of consistency between professed belief and behavior. Some religious communities have very strong internal norms that discourage the kind of moral inconsistency you mention.

Your observation about people in religious orders is interesting. Historically, communities that are organized around disciplined life—monastic traditions, for example—often do show lower levels of certain kinds of behavior that their doctrines discourage. That doesn’t mean perfection, of course, but it does illustrate how social structure can influence conduct.

Your reading of the letters attributed to Paul the Apostle is consistent with a common theological interpretation. Many scholars and believers alike see a theme sometimes summarized as “the law of love,” meaning that moral behavior should flow from compassion and goodwill rather than from detailed ritual obligation. This idea is often associated with passages that describe love as the fulfillment of law.

This interpretation also connects to the teaching attributed to Jesus Christ, who is frequently portrayed as criticizing rigid legalism while emphasizing mercy and inner moral orientation.

One historical complexity is that the written record about Paul is indeed indirect. The main sources are his own letters and the narrative found in later texts, so historians have to infer personality and behavior from limited material. That is normal in ancient history, not unusual for figures of that era.

Philosophically, your emphasis on compassion as the central moral axis is very close to what some ethical traditions propose. Others argue that compassion alone may sometimes be too context-dependent and that societies also need shared rules to coordinate behavior. The tension between compassion and rule-based morality is still an active discussion.

If I may offer a small reflective thought: it might be possible that the human tendency toward hypocrisy is less about religion itself and more about the difficulty of aligning emotion, social pressure, and long-term ideals. That difficulty shows up in many domains of life, not only in faith communities.

You said:

I don't think I would rely on survey results for information on hypocrisy. The offender doesn't see it that way and even if they did would not report it that way.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a very perceptive point. Surveys are good at measuring what people are willing and able to report, but they are much weaker when the phenomenon itself involves self-justification or unrecognized behavior. If someone does not interpret their own actions as hypocritical, then a questionnaire asking about “hypocrisy” is unlikely to capture anything meaningful.

In social science, what is usually measured is not hypocrisy directly but patterns that might suggest it indirectly—things like mismatch between stated values and observable behavior. Even that is imperfect, because observers themselves bring their own standards into the judgment.

Your argument is really about the psychology of moral self-perception. Humans have a strong tendency to maintain a coherent story about themselves. When behavior conflicts with that story, the mind often resolves the tension by reframing the behavior rather than rejecting the belief. That is not unique to religion; you can find similar mechanisms in politics, professional ethics, or even personal relationships.

So your skepticism about survey evidence in this specific context is reasonable. The deeper question you are hinting at is whether moral systems should be evaluated more by their internal ideal than by average human performance under them. That is a philosophical choice as much as an empirical one.

If I may add one gentle balance: pointing out hypocrisy does not necessarily imply that the underlying moral ideal is ineffective. People often fall short of ideals that are actually quite demanding. Compassion-centered ethics, for example, may be admirable precisely because it asks more of human behavior than is easy to achieve.

You said:

I never meant to imply non-religious people are any better. The con artist stealing an old person's life savings is probably not very religious (although the old mafia seems to have been an exception). Such are on the far end of the sociopathy scale.

ChatGPT said:

You’re making a distinction that many ethicists would agree with: the distribution of moral behavior exists across religious and non-religious populations alike. Serious wrongdoing is not confined to any particular belief group. What tends to matter more, in psychological research, is where someone sits on traits such as empathy, impulsivity, and antisocial tendencies rather than whether they attend religious services.

Your example of the con artist targeting the vulnerable is often discussed in criminology as a case of instrumental predation rather than ideological motivation. Such behavior is generally associated with people who score high on what psychologists sometimes call antisocial traits, which can appear in any cultural or religious background.

Your historical aside about organized crime is interesting. Some early 20th-century groups associated with the term “old mafia” had complex relationships with local religious institutions. For example, the Cosa Nostra was culturally embedded in certain communities that were outwardly religious, even though the criminal activities of members obviously conflicted with moral teachings. That kind of social ambiguity is not unusual in history.

Your overall position seems quite consistent: you are not claiming that religion produces more evil or more good, but rather that human moral behavior varies widely and cannot be neatly divided into “religious” and “non-religious” categories. That is a fairly common conclusion among scholars who study morality as a human trait rather than as a property of belief systems.

If I may add one thought, your view actually reflects a rather sober realism about human nature. Moral systems can guide behavior, but they do not override the deeper mix of compassion, self-interest, social belonging, and rationalization that seems to be part of being human.