In my opinion, an overgeneralization is hardly worth discussing, because by definition each side has evidence, and the only fallacy is one side ignoring contrary evidence. I'll just cover some evidence on both sides of the overgeneralization. First, some reasons why the simple assertion, "religion is an agent of harm", is not true. Obviously, I'm heavily biased on this side.
- The opposite statement, "religion is an agent of aid", clearly has some evidence, and since the two statements contradict one another, therefore neither can be absolutely true. Charity is a religious virtue, followed by innumerable believers who continually give. Moreover, principled religious believers have worked to rectify systemic social problems like slavery. To try to say that religion played no part in their beliefs and actions is ridiculous; their own quotes disprove that.
- Serene happiness requires a sense of purpose. Religion is a common way of meeting that need. Christians might even go so far to say that other ways of obtaining purpose are relatively ineffective and unsatisfying. "Man cannot live on bread alone". In any case, the fact that religion fills a (existential?) void in life is evidence that religion is not all harmful.
- Stable societies are upheld by their institutions. While I would argue that Christianity is meant to be treated as far more than one of many social institutions (institutions in which people participate just because it's what people do), religion generally has traditionally played an important role in the majority of cultures. Religion is often, if not directly at least indirectly, a basis for ethics, customs, etc. People have a tendency to take religious elements and embellish them (witch-hunting? angels?) like any other cultural artifact, but that again is evidence for the importance of religion in culture. If a society is stable, and religion is (likely) a part of that society, then religion may be serving as a stabilizing force. There is a negative way to view this effect, expressed as "religion is the opium of the people", but that's reality for ya. It transcends categories.
- A possible companion statement of "religion is an agent of harm" is the somewhat more modest "without religion, on the whole the world would be better off". Here are a few responses. 1) Religion is so entwined into human existence, this speculation borders on meaningless fantasy (try asking "would the world be better off without government?"). 2) Instead of trying to imagine a world without religion, one could calculate religion's "net worth" by tallying and comparing its upsides and downsides. Must it really be said that such an undertaking would be extremely inconclusive, not to mention subjective? I mentioned this when I offered some thoughts on the Crusades. 3) Is the "track record", measured by whatever metrics, of non-religious people uniformly superior to religious people? I don't think so. In fact, the Christian doctrine of human depravity would lead me to believe that religious or not, people can find ways to be desperately wicked. Also, people often say that someone believes in something "like a religion". Is it at all surprising such beliefs would be subject to many of the same objections as religions per se?
- Among certain personalities in particular, religion can be twisted (some easier than others) into a justification for atrocities. Sadly, the killing of heretics and infidels is well-documented and oft-referenced. The counterargument is that disturbed individuals, who are truly motivated by revenge or delusion or power, would act maliciously with or without a veneer of religious justification. For someone on a rampage, religion's role is dubious in the same way a violent video game's role is dubious.
- "Religion blinds people to reality" is an argument that is a perennial favorite, especially for the "if I can't experiment on it or measure it, it don't exist!" crowd. And as usual, there is a nugget of truth. Religious people have been known to act irrationally. Yet I fervently affirm irrationality is not a prerequisite of faith. People of faith should act rationally, with faith suppling a larger context for the facts instead of a replacement for the facts. For instance, I don't believe people of faith are obligated to trust someone who has proven to be untrustworthy every time. However, if someone sincerely wishes to repent of his past deeds, showing genuine resolve, I believe people of faith are obligated to offer that person a chance to earn new trust. Consider the difference between optimism and pessimism. The facts are the same, but one's outlook on those same facts is radically different. I agree that it's harmful for religion to blind people to reality, because religion should not be escapist. However, I strongly disagree that faith implies blindness. Those who say they don't believe in religion based on lack of proof also may just be evasive.
- Intolerance is another popular accusation of damage wrought by religion. Nugget of truth? You betcha. Intolerance is something I dislike too! As I've already said, though, this argument applies to more than religion. Any time someone believes in anything, there is an opportunity to not grant others the same freedom.
- This last reason is the counterpoint to the second reason for religion not being harmful, sense of purpose. Those who follow their (non)belief systems to the logical conclusion may state that there's no reason for religions. Whether or not it's right, it's a self-consistent position to take. If there is no afterlife, and humans are animals with oversized brains, and abstractions in general are to be valued not as independent but as pragmatic entities, and ethics are created in the same way art is created, and all of existence is a fortunate accident, then religion is rather pointless and wasteful, isn't it? There is no existential void. There is no such thing as purpose; it's a question devoid of concrete meaning. The best thing to do, when such concerns overwhelm, is to lie down until they go away or drown them out with pleasure or pain. If this is reality, if this is all there is, then religion is an agent of harm because it gives answers to nonexistent questions and thereby distracts from real questions, where "real" means "artificial" or "man-made". Ready to believe this?
