Criticizing religions. What good does it do?

[Jebus]

Fareed Zakaria argued this with Bill Maher last week on Real Time. What are your opinions on this? Does criticizing religion fill any purpose other than venting? Will any religious people start questioning their religion because they heard a good atheist argument? Is it possible that religious people will believe even more adamantly because of the criticism?

[brimstoneSalad]

It helps show that religion is open to criticism.

I'm not sure Maher's criticism was useful, but when it's done well, it can help plant a seed of doubt. And particularly for those moderates or those on the fence, it might push them off on the right side.

[TheVeganAtheist]

There ought to be no sacred cows, or things off the table from discussion.

[brimstoneSalad]

There ought to be no sacred cows, or things off the table from discussion.

I disagree. There is one thing.

[EquALLity]

There ought to be no sacred cows, or things off the table from discussion.

I disagree. There is one thing.

What thing?

[brimstoneSalad]

There ought to be no sacred cows, or things off the table from discussion.

I disagree. There is one thing.

What thing?

The fundamental laws of logic. Without which, discussion is not possible.

[Jebus]

There ought to be no sacred cows, or things off the table from discussion.

Of course, and this is nice for the non-religious people who like to criticize. I was looking more for the consequences within the religious groups

For certain there are a few religious people who might leave their religion after they learn of its shortcomings. However, there may also be those who get angered by criticism and start seeing it as an attack against their beloved religion, somehow leading them to become even more religious. If the first category outnumbers the second category then it's safe to say that criticizing religion brings about more positive consequences. However, it seems many non religious people like Fareed Zakaria believe the latter group outnumbers the former group.

[Jebus]

I posted this question on another atheist forum and the only replies I got was along the lines of "If we don't speak up, who will? and "We have the right to criticize, don't we?" Sam Harris replied in a similar way when Zakaria asked him the very same question, and even Bill Maher was unable to come up with a good answer. The only real answer I got was from Brimstonesalad who wrote that "it can help plant a seed of doubt." However, this must be weighed up against the risk of turning someone into an even more firm believer after having been pressured.

I will keep venting my frustrations when discussing religious matters with atheists but I am done publicly criticizing religion. I will continue to criticize specific unfair acts that are caused by religion, such as the treatment of women and apostates, but I will do my best not to make it sound like I am criticizing the religion.

The only thing that will make the world less religious is access to education. Atheists pointing out religious shortcomings seems fruitless.

[brimstoneSalad]

The only real answer I got was from Brimstonesalad who wrote that "it can help plant a seed of doubt." However, this must be weighed up against the risk of turning someone into an even more firm believer after having been pressured.

Very true, and to an extent I agree with your analysis, at least in the short term.

IF these criticisms are driving more people to fundamentalism than to reason (and the influence of the fundamentalism from those people is larger than the influence of those driven to reason), it could be a bad thing. This is an empirical question which has an empirical answer -- just one we don't know yet. Surveys would have to be done.

This is why many advocates of secularism try to work with religion, and encourage and condone religious moderate practices, even to the extent of questionable textual interpretations, because it seems to be the path of least resistance.

I will address the possible exception to this reasoning in a moment, but case in point, as to my advocacy, you might notice in the thread where we had an exchange with a Muslim recently, I was only willing to have a discussion about god with him after he accepted evolution as true.
If somebody isn't showing evidence of rationality, I usually leave it alone.

In part, this is because I want to make sure that my debates can be seen in two ways.
Harshly criticizing the most irrational religious positions (as not even worthy of discussion), while showing a level of respect for the moderate and more rational positions that don't overtly disregard science -- leveling with them on philosophical grounds when they are open to that dialogue.

I criticize religion, but I try to do it in a very calculated way. I don't see the value in criticizing Muhammad, for example.
Planting seeds doesn't have to be done with such force, you just have to get people to think. Little catchy phrases, something funny and harmless, but true nonetheless.

Now, as to the exception:

While it may be harmful in the short term, driving people to fundamentalist rage is probably ultimately driving them to self-defeat. It is fundamentalism, rather than atheism, that makes the strongest case for moderates to reject religion.
Are you familiar with the classic espionage action of provocation/incitement? Agents provocateurs infiltrate potentially dangerous groups (or harmless ones you want to discredit), and posing as one among them, provoke them to criminal action, by which means the civilized public can finally react against them, with full force of the government now brought to bear against the issue with the public's approval. It's a valid tactic. And with Islam, you don't even need to send in any agents to provoke them, it can be done with harmless cartoons.

For the same reason that it's a very very bad idea for animal rights activists to burn down research labs, Islam's extremism is its own worst enemy.

So, that said, I'm not convinced that the mocking is bad, although I see little value in it personally, there may indeed be.
Charlie Hebdo: You can't buy that kind of infamy, it's earned only through blood. Those cartoonists probably did more to raise awareness against Islam in death than they could ever have done in life.

That is, of course, another empirical question, and an unproved theory at this point.

I will keep venting my frustrations when discussing religious matters with atheists but I am done publicly criticizing religion. I will continue to criticize specific unfair acts that are caused by religion, such as the treatment of women and apostates, but I will do my best not to make it sound like I am criticizing the religion.

If you go back to the thread where I argued with you about Islam, you might understand a little of why I took the position I did.