One thing that I encounter frequently on the internet, on Tumblr but more often on other sites, such as Reddit, is criticism of organized religion. I also hear a lot of such criticism in my social networks–coming both from people who participate actively in organized religion, and from atheists, agnostics, and others who for whatever reason don’t participate much in religion.

Some of the criticism that I hear is criticism that I’d consider constructive, but others of it bothers me. Where do I draw the line between criticism that is healthy and criticism that is not?

Healthy Criticism

I think that healthy criticism:

shares specific experiences that people have had, things people have said or done, and gives specific reasons why people object ideas that people were teaching or putting forth, or to the ways people acted

acknowledges the good in situations, people, and organizations, when good is present

assumes a certain degree of good faith and trust in human nature, sort of like the acknowledgement that all people are doing their best in life, and refrains from reading negative intentions into people’s actions. Phrased alternatively, I think healthy criticism acknowledges the fact that good people can do bad things, and doesn’t assume that people have bad intentions or are wholly bad just because they are doing something that harms others.

I think healthy criticism tends to have an uplifting tone. When I listen to or read healthy criticism, I tend to feel empowered and hopeful. I think this sort of criticism can have great transformative power. I think it is good for solving problems in organizations and in society.

Unhealthy Criticism

Most of the criticism that I’ve seen that I consider unhealthy falls into some predictable patterns. The criticism I consider unhealthy often:

makes negative generalizations about or attacks on groups of people, or about a specific religion, its adherents, or even about religion or “religious people” as a whole. Examples would be comments that state or imply that anyone who is religious is stupid or closed-minded.

paints a person, organization, or belief system as wholly evil, wrong, or unhealthy, selectively focusing on negative aspects of the person, group, or belief system and ignoring positive aspects.

picks up, accepts, and even reinforces beliefs that the person engaging in criticism finds objectionable. For example, I frequently see people who complain about religions teaching that people who don’t accept their religion go to hell–but many of these people speak as if all religions teach things, or all religious people believe this, when this is not true.

I think this sort of criticism tends to have a negative tone. I find that it tends to create conflict and negativity, fueling unnecessary hostility, and division. I find it often distracts people from solutions to problems, and I find it can fuel depression when people get too wrapped up in it.

How to Steer Criticism in a Positive Direction

Much criticism has a combination of unhealthy and healthy elements. I think it is important to identify the unhealthy vs. healthy types of criticism. I think that learning to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy criticism can protect yourself from depression, help you to relate to people better, and can greatly improve your ability to solve problems in organizations and in society.

Often, even if someone seems to be criticizing you or someone else or some organization in a way you find unhealthy, if you search for the healthy elements within what they are saying, and focus on them, and if you lead by example, it is possible to steer someone in the direction of positive, constructive criticism. The result can be really liberating and encouraging, as it can result in an immediate boost in both people’s mood, and can lead to deep insights and solutions to problems.