I don't think it's bad to *have* faith, but it's a very unfortunate circumstance since clearly so many people use the faith of others as an easy inroad to exploitation. In any case, consider the following:
Is it better to do things that are ethical because you believe they're ethical and have enough inner strength to choose what's right over a short term reward at another's expense? Or is it better to do what is right because you believe if you do it you go to magical candyland where all your dreams come true, whereas if you do wrong you go to some horrible place where you're tortured and debased for all eternity? Which of the two is more moral: person A who forgoes stealing a candy bar because he knows working hard for the dollar to buy the candy bar is good for him, good for the person he works for, and good for the candy bar salesman, or person B who forgoes stealing a candy bar not because he sees the natural good in working for it (or, often, even recognizes the concept of a 'natural good'), but because he's afraid of the consequences for his immortal soul?
Does religion really make people better? Conversely, does a lack of religion make people worse? Is there any proof of that, or is it just unsubstantiated base assumption? In my experience with religion, every single one of the dozens of churches I attended as a child and young adult were chock full of what I considered foul, selfish, self-righteous, and judgmental people, full of hate and fear. There were good people too, and I made some good and long-standing friends there, but it turns out they were the ones who held a little skepticism and weren't the type to jump on the moralizing, self-righteous bandwagon.
Conversely in my experience outside the church I meet a lot of people who are generally kind, open-minded, accepting, giving, and caring. True, without the carrot and stick of religion they sometimes have poor judgment when it comes to personal choices, but they were no more likely (and I argue less likely) to hate, exclude, or look down on others. In my personal experience with people of criminal nature (mainly drug dealers and petty thieves) they have all had a religious background and a strong belief in God; they just though they were already irrevocably doomed to Hell, and since that was the only consequence in their mind why not live it up while they have the chance.
Based on that and other studies and observations, I believe religion only serves to reinforce the ignorant position that there are no practical consequences to good or bad behavior in real life, that morality exists outside the natural realm, and that ones obligations in terms of behavior are owed to some deity or supernatural soul and not to his fellow man; that a rational understanding of the world and why ethical behavior is ultimately good for everybody is pointless, erroneous, or in some cases even amoral, and that ones obligations to religious authority trump general ethical practices.
Consider also: statistical analysis has shown
the divorce rate is higher amongst people who frequently attend church than among the general population. Child molestation statistics, in terms of number accused, number of victims per pedophile, and duration of abuse per victim is higher amongst religious people (particularly catholic priests and fundamentalist groups such as FLDS) than among the general population, possibly up to 4x higher. On general crime rates:
I find no statistically significant relationship
between religious adherence and property crime or violent crime. There is
some evidence that religion may encourage crime in areas with greater population
or few religious adherents.
*from
Does Religion Really Reduce Crime?
While there is a large amount of controversy on the subject, even studies suggesting that religiosity reduces crime shows differences that are barely statistically significant. If having a church in the neighborhood could reduce crime by .5% in exchange for increasing intolerance and fracturing the community along religious lines I think I'd rather have another burglary or two (even of my own stuff!).
Of course there's more to quality of life than how often you're subjected to crime. Unfortunately, religious people seem to be more likely to reject new technologies and medicines that may increase comfort and leisure in their lives (case in point, the Amish and Jehova's Witnesses respectively). While many studies show a correlation between religious attendance and life expectancy, many of the same studies show that regular exercise has a stronger positive impact at a lower cost (cost of equipment and memberships vs. religious contributions), and other emerging studies suggest that regular participation in any social group has similar benefits.
There's more to quality of life than longevity in any case, and religion in its natural state, whether you choose to accept or reject it, is likely to have long-term consequences on your life. If you choose to be religious, the constant dissonance between your faith and apparent fact seems to me to lead to some strange and often warped ideas. Conversely, in many cultures rejection of the prevalent religion or membership in an oppositional religion can result in rejection, reduction in personal and business opportunities, or even harassment, imprisonment or death.
So, in short, believing in God, that's fine by me. Having faith in things that you can't prove to exist, also fine by me. Being good for the sake of faith rather than for its own sake? To me, not so good, but better than being evil. Building a religion around those ideas though? Not likely to have a net positive effect on you or the society subject to it.
