Religion: The Deuce

[LaserGuy]

Here's an idea. It's quite agreed that religion is acting wrongly. That there is some benefit to religion, but it's not being acted on. What should religion be doing? If it's suppose to be listening to the commands of God (because those commands are good for people), then should they not be doing just that? If they did, would this be much more acceptable?

Would it be that religion is wrong, but the pursuit of "spiritual" things is not?

The commandments of God are incredibly unclear and his commandments with great frequency not good for people.

Also, different religions have different divine commands, and those commands are not necessarily compatible.

[guenther]

I don't have a problem if religious people ask politely if they could talk to you about their faith and just go away if you say you don't want to. I'm more thinking Sharia4Belgium style 'Islam is the truth, you should all join us or perish by the holy power of Allah. Marie-Rose Morel (female politician of nationalistic, anti-immigration party in Flanders) died of cancer because she didn't live by Sharia Law and denied Allah as the greatest being in the universe.' You can insert fundamentalists of all denominations here. Those kind of hatred bearing messages don't fit in 'freedom of speech' anymore. I don't really think number 1 and number 2 conflict, as long as the people doing the converting don't force themselves on the people they would try to convert. Something Sharia4Belgium hasn't really understood, it seems. So Jehova's witnesses can come by my house anyday, as long as they would go away when I tell them I don't want to talk.

So it seems that your issue isn't so much with them trying to convert people, but rather with over-aggressive tactics and hateful rhetoric. While I'm not familiar with the group Sharia4Belgium, my personal experience is that groups that really care about the effectiveness of their evangelism make efforts to minimize how much they alienate the people they're trying to reach. But clearly my own anecdotes don't represent all religious people everywhere, and I'm in the same boat as you in finding that ugly behavior to be very problematic.

True. That religion puts other responsibilities above human well-being is one of the problems I've expressed with it. When a primary value - the well-being of the faith - comes in conflict with a secondary value - the well-being of humans - it sucks to be included in that second value. That and advocating doctrine based in faith rather than skepticism are the two arguments we spent pages discussing. The former is one you denied for literally years.

And in our many pages of discussions, I spelled out precisely my objections. My position hasn't changed at all since then. What has changed is my motivation in trying to convince every single person to get past all their problems with religion. I'm fine with some people objecting to it, even rather strongly. I've found much greater reward in seeking common ground with those who share a similar interest in doing likewise.

[Zcorp]

And in our many pages of discussions, I spelled out precisely my objections. My position hasn't changed at all since then. What has changed is my motivation in trying to convince every single person to get past all their problems with religion. I'm fine with some people objecting to it, even rather strongly. I've found much greater reward in seeking common ground with those who share a similar interest in doing likewise.

Cool, then just own up to being a christian apologizer and accept that you are putting the value of human beings below something you are arriving at without reason. That doing so harms humans and then we can have agreement. I'll go about fighting for human well-being, education and skepticism and you can go on championing faith, indoctrination and valuing irrational doctrine over real people.

We can have our different ideologies, watch and participate in the conflict as it plays out in political, economic and even physical means and hope our side wins. I'll hope to create a better world for the people on it and you can hope to you are right in there being an immortal soul and that believing in the Christian God specifically will result in that soul being better off.

[Whizzkid1024]

So it seems that your issue isn't so much with them trying to convert people, but rather with over-aggressive tactics and hateful rhetoric. While I'm not familiar with the group Sharia4Belgium, my personal experience is that groups that really care about the effectiveness of their evangelism make efforts to minimize how much they alienate the people they're trying to reach. But clearly my own anecdotes don't represent all religious people everywhere, and I'm in the same boat as you in finding that ugly behavior to be very problematic.

The moment when I don't agree with the behaviour of religious people is the methaforical foot between the door, when you said to Jehova's witnesses that you don't want to talk. That's the moment when they are forcing their views on you. They should just back off.

And I agree with Zcorp, that the commandments of religions are rarely in the interest of humanity as a whole. Examples are the irrational anti-vaccination movement (not entirely religious, I admit, but there's a large overlap) which is a risk for everyone, not just the religious people. The idea behind this would be 'god chooses who get's sick, so why fight against his wise decisions' The Dutch Bible belt has a strong concentration of these anti-vaccination groups. The denial of climate change caused by humans, when measurements clearly show that we have the power to change the nutrient cycles. Antrpogenic nitrate production is as large as the natural production of nitrate, causing trouble in freshwater ecosystems, for example. Again, these aren't just religious people, but they are a large fraction of this group. 'The bible doesn't mention it in 'revelation of John', so it can't happen'.

Strongly religious regions don't really like some kinds of minorities either. Women, LGBT-people, coloured people all don't have the same rights as heterosexual white men (this doesn't have to be written down in the law, but could just be social, unwritten laws as well). Most of the religious books aren't really pacifistic in their wordings and teachings. Judgement of heretics and blasphemers, isn't really that friendly in the important books of the large religions.

So, when religious people accept that democratic laws and human rights > religious commandments and teachings, we could live together in harmony

[Technical Ben]

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?
When a country riots, do we blame the laws that say "don't riot"? Or when someone is murdered do we blame the laws that say "don't murder"?

I agree that "religion" is a cause of a lot of wars and suffering. However it's the failure of the people to apply the instruction and laws given to them, not the instruction and laws themselves.

At the same time, if those laws are wrong, then we point it out. However, I've not come across a country that does not agree with the law "do not murder".

[Zcorp]

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?
When a country riots, do we blame the laws that say "don't riot"? Or when someone is murdered do we blame the laws that say "don't murder"?

I agree that "religion" is a cause of a lot of wars and suffering. However it's the failure of the people to apply the instruction and laws given to them, not the instruction and laws themselves.

At the same time, if those laws are wrong, then we point it out. However, I've not come across a country that does not agree with the law "do not murder".

Really you point it out? So this contraception thing, leading to this 'war on women' thing, with the anti-gay sentiments not to mention anti-education and anti-science sentiments prevalent amount the religious in America right now are religious followers are the fault of the people. They don't get it from a book that might or might not say what they think it says, just kinda depends on how you choose to read it?

Please tell us the true words, instructions and intentions of God and which of the different religions has it right, which God(s) is right.

I can't think of a country who really behaves based on 'do not murder' most have laws against some kinds of murder though. A year ago we murdered Osama.

It is quite certainly the people and the religion.

[el matematico]

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?
When a country riots, do we blame the laws that say "don't riot"? Or when someone is murdered do we blame the laws that say "don't murder"?

I agree that "religion" is a cause of a lot of wars and suffering. However it's the failure of the people to apply the instruction and laws given to them, not the instruction and laws themselves.

Religious zealots don't do stuff because their religion tells them not to, they do it because some interpretation of the religion lets them do it (like considering any non-believer to be a sinner/whatever that deserves punishment).

At the same time, if those laws are wrong, then we point it out. However, I've not come across a country that does not agree with the law "do not murder".

Some countries have capital punishment, which is not murder just because the law gets to define murder. It's still killing a human being.

[guenther]

Cool, then just own up to being a christian apologizer and accept that you are putting the value of human beings below something you are arriving at without reason. That doing so harms humans and then we can have agreement. I'll go about fighting for human well-being, education and skepticism and you can go on championing faith, indoctrination and valuing irrational doctrine over real people.

We can have our different ideologies, watch and participate in the conflict as it plays out in political, economic and even physical means and hope our side wins. I'll hope to create a better world for the people on it and you can hope to you are right in there being an immortal soul and that believing in the Christian God specifically will result in that soul being better off.

Wow, there's just so much false dichotomy going on there I don't even know where to start. So maybe I just won't.

So, when religious people accept that democratic laws and human rights > religious commandments and teachings, we could live together in harmony

I see. When those people over there fix their problems, then we can have harmony. To be honest, I wish it were that simple. But I think you're being overly broad in your claims against religious people and religious regions. This doesn't really communicate anything useful to those that need to hear it, and it alienates the religious people that don't need to hear it. At least that's my opinion on the matter.

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?

I have to agree with Zcorp that it's probably some of both. Sometimes you just have bad apples abusing their power. But conversely, It's not hard to get certain systemic problems within a religious group that help promote really bad things. Having said that, just because we can point to specific problems within a particular religion itself, it doesn't mean that the followers have to abandon their religion to fix the problem. In fact, when religious groups are willing to take a critical eye at their own community and organization, I think they do a lot to empower themselves.

[Whizzkid1024]

So, when religious people accept that democratic laws and human rights > religious commandments and teachings, we could live together in harmony

I see. When those people over there fix their problems, then we can have harmony. To be honest, I wish it were that simple. But I think you're being overly broad in your claims against religious people and religious regions. This doesn't really communicate anything useful to those that need to hear it, and it alienates the religious people that don't need to hear it. At least that's my opinion on the matter.

The people who use religion to find some meaning in life and just keep it to themselves aren't the problem. I hope and think these people are the large majority of religious people. The problems start when the religious teachings conflict with liberal rights of non/other believers. Things like abortion, gay marriage, euthanisia,... my opinion on those is, if it doesn't hurt anyone who didn't consent to it, you can do what they want. So if a religious person chooses to see embryo's as living beings whose intrinsic value is equal to that of a born person, that's fine, they can do that and never use abortion themselves. In a perfect world it would be just that. The problem starts when the pro-lifers want to apply their worldview on other people (which is understandable, in some way, because killing a born person would be the same as killing an embryo in their eyes). However the difference between pro-lifers and pro-choice'ers is fundamental. You can live with a pro-life worldview in a pro-choice society without problem, but it doesn't work the other way around. It's the same for gay-marriage, euthanasia, and other such topics.

A secular, humanist, democratic society doesn't limit the freedom of religious people in leading their life as they would want to (not one nation forbids religion, while there are nations where all but one are forbidden) but a religious nation limits the freedom of people of other worldviews. I have to admit there were communist nations that forbid religion because of state atheism, but according to wikipedia Cuba, China, Vietnam and Russia allow religion at the moment. (I'm not saying all the religious people are like this, I'm sure there are a lot of nice people. It's just that a large enough part in some countries is, and they can make governments change laws, which worries me)

[DSenette]

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?

I have to agree with Zcorp that it's probably some of both. Sometimes you just have bad apples abusing their power. But conversely, It's not hard to get certain systemic problems within a religious group that help promote really bad things. Having said that, just because we can point to specific problems within a particular religion itself, it doesn't mean that the followers have to abandon their religion to fix the problem. In fact, when religious groups are willing to take a critical eye at their own community and organization, I think they do a lot to empower themselves.

they don't specifically have to abandon their faith...but they certainly do have to abandon the parts of their religion that are causing them to behave like asshats.

[Technical Ben]

Spoiler:

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?
When a country riots, do we blame the laws that say "don't riot"? Or when someone is murdered do we blame the laws that say "don't murder"?

I agree that "religion" is a cause of a lot of wars and suffering. However it's the failure of the people to apply the instruction and laws given to them, not the instruction and laws themselves.

At the same time, if those laws are wrong, then we point it out. However, I've not come across a country that does not agree with the law "do not murder".

Really you point it out? So this contraception thing, leading to this 'war on women' thing, with the anti-gay sentiments not to mention anti-education and anti-science sentiments prevalent amount the religious in America right now are religious followers are the fault of the people. They don't get it from a book that might or might not say what they think it says, just kinda depends on how you choose to read it?

Please tell us the true words, instructions and intentions of God and which of the different religions has it right, which God(s) is right.

I can't think of a country who really behaves based on 'do not murder' most have laws against some kinds of murder though. A year ago we murdered Osama.

It is quite certainly the people and the religion.

Those are some truly horrid things Zcorp. But I do not agree that the bible would be to blame for them. When it gives clear examples to not do those things (just as national laws do). Religion did all those things, but not the belief in a God. For example, what were the Christians asked to do by their own laws? Jesus even said to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43, 44).

I would not assume I know who has it right. But that we can see who is giving out lies and misdirection. If a religion says the opposite to the text or law they are suppose to be promoting, then what? Why throw out the correct laws with the lawless people?

Who would be at fault in the example you gave on Osama? The law writers, the law books, or those taking the action to break those laws?

[LaserGuy]

Those are some truly horrid things Zcorp. But I do not agree that the bible would be to blame for them. When it gives clear examples to not do those things (just as national laws do).

Who would be at fault in the example you gave on Osama? The law writers, the law books, or those taking the action to break those laws?

It depends. You can have bad laws, corrupt lawmakers, or law breakers. All three are possible, and, in a complex document containing many laws, it is likely that you will end up with some contributions from all three. Laws against blasphemy, for example, are bad laws, and I would suggest that it is not wrong to break them, although it could still lead to punishment if you do. A lot of the laws and loopholes involving banking regulation that led to the 2008 market crash are a result of corrupt lawmaking (generally bad laws and lawbreaking also played a part though).

[Technical Ben]

In that case, it would not be "all law is a problem" but "bad laws are a problem". So, can we say "religion is a problem"? I'd much prefer "bad religion is a problem".
It may be a very difficult task, but it's defiantly worth it, to find a "correct religion". One/s that was not causing the things Zcorp mentioned.

[DSenette]

Spoiler:

I have a question. Is it the followers of religion who are the problem, or the religion it's self?
When a country riots, do we blame the laws that say "don't riot"? Or when someone is murdered do we blame the laws that say "don't murder"?

I agree that "religion" is a cause of a lot of wars and suffering. However it's the failure of the people to apply the instruction and laws given to them, not the instruction and laws themselves.

At the same time, if those laws are wrong, then we point it out. However, I've not come across a country that does not agree with the law "do not murder".

Really you point it out? So this contraception thing, leading to this 'war on women' thing, with the anti-gay sentiments not to mention anti-education and anti-science sentiments prevalent amount the religious in America right now are religious followers are the fault of the people. They don't get it from a book that might or might not say what they think it says, just kinda depends on how you choose to read it?

Please tell us the true words, instructions and intentions of God and which of the different religions has it right, which God(s) is right.

I can't think of a country who really behaves based on 'do not murder' most have laws against some kinds of murder though. A year ago we murdered Osama.

It is quite certainly the people and the religion.

Those are some truly horrid things Zcorp. But I do not agree that the bible would be to blame for them. When it gives clear examples to not do those things (just as national laws do). Religion did all those things, but not the belief in a God. For example, what were the Christians asked to do by their own laws? Jesus even said to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43, 44).

I would not assume I know who has it right. But that we can see who is giving out lies and misdirection. If a religion says the opposite to the text or law they are suppose to be promoting, then what? Why throw out the correct laws with the lawless people?

Who would be at fault in the example you gave on Osama? The law writers, the law books, or those taking the action to break those laws?

things done in the name of something can be attributed as being caused by that something. you can desire to separate the two all you want to remove your connections to them or to preserve some conceived purity. but if i say i'm doing something in the name of religion, or because my religion dictates that this is how i should behave...then the religion that i'm citing is in direct responsibility for what i'm about to do.

[LaserGuy]

In that case, it would not be "all law is a problem" but "bad laws are a problem". So, can we say "religion is a problem"? I'd much prefer "bad religion is a problem".
It may be a very difficult task, but it's defiantly worth it, to find a "correct religion". One/s that was not causing the things Zcorp mentioned.

Um, sure, if you want to have a religion where you take out all of the superstition and obviously wrong and immoral stuff, you'll probably end up with something that is pretty good. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to use any of the existing holy books as a basis for it though. I suspect it would be much easier just to start from scratch.

And either way, you then have to introduce some value system that is used to judge the good parts of religion from the bad parts. Once you've already found a value system that is capable of doing such a thing, it's not clear to me why you couldn't just use that for all of your judgment, rather than inventing a religion to go along with it.

[Zcorp]

In that case, it would not be "all law is a problem" but "bad laws are a problem". So, can we say "religion is a problem"? I'd much prefer "bad religion is a problem".
It may be a very difficult task, but it's defiantly worth it, to find a "correct religion". One/s that was not causing the things Zcorp mentioned.

Why is it worthwhile to find a 'correct religion?' What does that even mean?

[guenther]

You can live with a pro-life worldview in a pro-choice society without problem, but it doesn't work the other way around.

The aborted baby can't live in that world. I can see the broader point that you're making about maximum freedom, and largely I agree, but abortion happens to be an area where we differ. And while I think freedom is certainly an important part of any metric of goodness, I don't think ever increasing freedom leads to ever increasing goodness.

Also, while some people express their religion through their support on certain policies, religion is much more multi-faceted than just a political position. There might be some aspects of someone's religion you don't like, but that doesn't mean that their religion is bad. This is an important nuance if you ever want to be effective at communicating your problems to the religious community. Statments like "Those religious people wouldn't be a problem if they just kept it to themselves" doesn't really help in any way.

they don't specifically have to abandon their faith...but they certainly do have to abandon the parts of their religion that are causing them to behave like asshats.

I'm leary of anyone claiming that their religion made them be an asshat. But to your broader point, yes something this is required. Though they would likely see it as abandoning how they had practiced their religion, rather than abandoning a part of their religion.

things done in the name of something can be attributed as being caused by that something. you can desire to separate the two all you want to remove your connections to them or to preserve some conceived purity. but if i say i'm doing something in the name of religion, or because my religion dictates that this is how i should behave...then the religion that i'm citing is in direct responsibility for what i'm about to do.

Do you apply this to the good stuff too? Like all the religious humanitarian efforts bringing relief in Haiti and other troubled parts of the world? You would say that their religion is directly responsible for this?

In that case, it would not be "all law is a problem" but "bad laws are a problem". So, can we say "religion is a problem"? I'd much prefer "bad religion is a problem".

I think saying "religion is a problem" is like saying "government is a problem". There are countless examples of governments doing really bad things, and we could make a similar case for why we should just get rid of government. Or one could recognize that broad claims about all possible governments can be very challenging to defend.

I agree that seeking "better" religion (as opposed to "correct") is a better way of tackling the issue. To get better religion, people within the religion have to be motivated to change, and that is hard to bring about when they feel that a fundamental part of their identity is being attacked. But framing the issue differently can work to bring people together across dividing lines.

[Whizzkid1024]

The aborted baby can't live in that world. I can see the broader point that you're making about maximum freedom, and largely I agree, but abortion happens to be an area where we differ. And while I think freedom is certainly an important part of any metric of goodness, I don't think ever increasing freedom leads to ever increasing goodness.

Just out of curiosity, at what point do you grant the embryo the same rights as a new-born baby? And what do you think of succesfully used morning-after pills?

[Griffin]

I think saying "religion is a problem" is like saying "government is a problem". There are countless examples of governments doing really bad things, and we could make a similar case for why we should just get rid of government. Or one could recognize that broad claims about all possible governments can be very challenging to defend.

I think this is a bit too narrow. Religion is more a type of government, with Philosophies being government in general. One can say dictatorships are bad, and others can argue "no, it's just bad dictators that are bad", with the first pointing out that dictatorships come with inherent flaws, and even if we have a good dictator now its really best to avoid them altogether, and still have valid points. He may even have an alternative form of government (Democracy! Or, non-metaphorically, Secular Humanism or Unitarian! Wait... are those second dudes religious? Ah, fuck if I know. Maybe we'll call them chinese level bureaucracy...).

And I think arguing against a specific form of government as a bad thing, even if its not all bad or always bad, is a perfectly legitimate argument.

[DSenette]

they don't specifically have to abandon their faith...but they certainly do have to abandon the parts of their religion that are causing them to behave like asshats.

I'm leary of anyone claiming that their religion made them be an asshat. But to your broader point, yes something this is required. Though they would likely see it as abandoning how they had practiced their religion, rather than abandoning a part of their religion.

things done in the name of something can be attributed as being caused by that something. you can desire to separate the two all you want to remove your connections to them or to preserve some conceived purity. but if i say i'm doing something in the name of religion, or because my religion dictates that this is how i should behave...then the religion that i'm citing is in direct responsibility for what i'm about to do.

Do you apply this to the good stuff too? Like all the religious humanitarian efforts bringing relief in Haiti and other troubled parts of the world? You would say that their religion is directly responsible for this?

if the person states that they're doing good in the name of their religion, then yes.

people rarely actually do that though. they typically only use religion to justify the bad shit they're doing.

[guenther]

Just out of curiosity, at what point do you grant the embryo the same rights as a new-born baby? And what do you think of succesfully used morning-after pills?

I don't want an abortion debate, but I will share my opinion. Let me start with my moral perspective. I borrow the idea from Peter Singer that birth is not a morally significant dividing line in a baby's life. So killing a baby one day before birth and one day after birth are morally the same thing (and I differ from Singer in that I think that both are morally bad). The earlier you look in pregnancy, the weaker this argument gets to the point that I have very little moral trouble with the morning after pill. Also, I think a total ban on abortion is too limiting on women's freedom. While I don't like abortion being used for birth control, it's better than forcing someone to have a pregnancy they don't want. So in regards to policy, I'd want there to be enough time for a woman to decide if she wants the baby or not. And then we would set a legal date, X number of weeks after conception (where X might be something like 20) where the fetus would be given the same protections as a baby. I'm sure there are a million details that would need to get worked out, but that's the essence of what I'd like to see in abortion policy.

And I think arguing against a specific form of government as a bad thing, even if its not all bad or always bad, is a perfectly legitimate argument.

I think it can be a legitimate argument. My point is that it's challenging to defend. The broader picture you take, the harder it is to make a strong statement.

But let me also point out that a statement like "Religion is bad" is different than "X is better than religion". The former is about socially marginalizing something. The latter is more about the promotion of something else, and it's much easier to put forth respectful way.

if the person states that they're doing good in the name of their religion, then yes.

people rarely actually do that though. they typically only use religion to justify the bad shit they're doing.

Wow, that's a bold claim. Can you back it up with a cited source? Or is this personal experience put forth as fact? If it's the latter, then my personal experience tells me something very different.

[DSenette]

they don't specifically have to abandon their faith...but they certainly do have to abandon the parts of their religion that are causing them to behave like asshats.

I'm leary of anyone claiming that their religion made them be an asshat. But to your broader point, yes something this is required. Though they would likely see it as abandoning how they had practiced their religion, rather than abandoning a part of their religion.

things done in the name of something can be attributed as being caused by that something. you can desire to separate the two all you want to remove your connections to them or to preserve some conceived purity. but if i say i'm doing something in the name of religion, or because my religion dictates that this is how i should behave...then the religion that i'm citing is in direct responsibility for what i'm about to do.

Do you apply this to the good stuff too? Like all the religious humanitarian efforts bringing relief in Haiti and other troubled parts of the world? You would say that their religion is directly responsible for this?

if the person states that they're doing good in the name of their religion, then yes.

people rarely actually do that though. they typically only use religion to justify the bad shit they're doing.

just realized i need to clarify this. this is in regards to people who claim religion as their only reasons for such things, or at least are the only reasons for their actions that they will give.

a LOT of people will only respond with "because it's against god" (whatever that means) when you ask them why they don't like homosexuality. not a lot of people will only respond with "because it makes jesus happy" when you ask them why they donate to charity.

Just out of curiosity, at what point do you grant the embryo the same rights as a new-born baby? And what do you think of succesfully used morning-after pills?

I don't want an abortion debate, but I will share my opinion. Let me start with my moral perspective. I borrow the idea from Peter Singer that birth is not a morally significant dividing line in a baby's life. So killing a baby one day before birth and one day after birth are morally the same thing (and I differ from Singer in that I think that both are morally bad). The earlier you look in pregnancy, the weaker this argument gets to the point that I have very little moral trouble with the morning after pill. Also, I think a total ban on abortion is too limiting on women's freedom. While I don't like abortion being used for birth control, it's better than forcing someone to have a pregnancy they don't want. So in regards to policy, I'd want there to be enough time for a woman to decide if she wants the baby or not. And then we would set a legal date, X number of weeks after conception (where X might be something like 20) where the fetus would be given the same protections as a baby. I'm sure there are a million details that would need to get worked out, but that's the essence of what I'd like to see in abortion policy.

And I think arguing against a specific form of government as a bad thing, even if its not all bad or always bad, is a perfectly legitimate argument.

I think it can be a legitimate argument. My point is that it's challenging to defend. The broader picture you take, the harder it is to make a strong statement.

But let me also point out that a statement like "Religion is bad" is different than "X is better than religion". The former is about socially marginalizing something. The latter is more about the promotion of something else, and it's much easier to put forth respectful way.

if the person states that they're doing good in the name of their religion, then yes.

people rarely actually do that though. they typically only use religion to justify the bad shit they're doing.

Wow, that's a bold claim. Can you back it up with a cited source? Or is this personal experience put forth as fact? If it's the latter, then my personal experience tells me something very different.

see, i knew i needed to come back and clarify.

[Griffin]

Wow, that's a bold claim. Can you back it up with a cited source? Or is this personal experience put forth as fact? If it's the latter, then my personal experience tells me something very different.

Well, let's be honest, this is kind of human nature. Anything you do that others find objectionable is imposed on you by an outside force (even if you fully embrace it), while anything you do that others think is awesome is totally all you, totally your idea, you are super awesome thankyouverymuch.

Not generally true, of course, but it certainly explains why people use their religion (or their job, or other obligations, or their research group) to justify some downright atrocious behaviour, while downplaying when those same impulses earn them accolades.

[Whizzkid1024]

I don't want an abortion debate, but I will share my opinion. Let me start with my moral perspective. I borrow the idea from Peter Singer that birth is not a morally significant dividing line in a baby's life. So killing a baby one day before birth and one day after birth are morally the same thing (and I differ from Singer in that I think that both are morally bad). The earlier you look in pregnancy, the weaker this argument gets to the point that I have very little moral trouble with the morning after pill. Also, I think a total ban on abortion is too limiting on women's freedom. While I don't like abortion being used for birth control, it's better than forcing someone to have a pregnancy they don't want. So in regards to policy, I'd want there to be enough time for a woman to decide if she wants the baby or not. And then we would set a legal date, X number of weeks after conception (where X might be something like 20) where the fetus would be given the same protections as a baby. I'm sure there are a million details that would need to get worked out, but that's the essence of what I'd like to see in abortion policy.

Well, I think we could agree on the abortion part.

[Technical Ben]

In that case, it would not be "all law is a problem" but "bad laws are a problem". So, can we say "religion is a problem"? I'd much prefer "bad religion is a problem".
It may be a very difficult task, but it's defiantly worth it, to find a "correct religion". One/s that was not causing the things Zcorp mentioned.

Why is it worthwhile to find a 'correct religion?' What does that even mean?

People have already listed ways they think things could be done better in this thread. Many people see a need to be religious (spiritual) or to believe in a God or be part of some form of worship. They also see some benefits from this. There are probably many reasons. One would be learning to get along with others or helping those in need. People do view being a part of a religion as worthwhile to them.

So, what is a better cause of action for religion? As said, would we want to remove all types of government? I'd think that kind of world would be a lot more chaotic and troublesome than this one. Most systems need a form of "organisation". Say a family, a home, a town or city. Then a nation or any group of people. Those who want to worship their God also do so in an organised way. There is the type of worship and then those who follow it. We can look at the type of worship and decide if it's desirable or beneficial (such as teaching to show love and to help others). We can see if those following it are putting such teachings into practice (do they love, or do they fight?).

With the example of a government. If it's found out someone is misusing power to become a dictator in a democracy, do we blame democracy? Do we blame all forms of government? Or do we blame corrupt government?

So by all means call out the corrupt religions and their misuse of power. There are many of them, even the majority. Just don't pull down those who are honest and caring while you do it.

[LaserGuy]

With the example of a government. If it's found out someone is misusing power to become a dictator in a democracy, do we blame democracy? Do we blame all forms of government? Or do we blame corrupt government?

This assumes that the system itself is not inherently faulty, or not inherently stable, which is not assured. For example, one might note that communist governments have a tendency to degenerate into totalitarian states. While is it not necessarily the case, it has, perhaps, happened often enough that we might argue that the problem is not that there are a lot of corrupt people who attempt communist revolutions, but that communism itself is inherently flawed (or that communism is perhaps unstable--like balancing a pencil on its point--where there is a position that it will work, but if it is perturbed, then it leads to some undesirable outcomes). Democracy is fairly robust since it tends to be somewhat self-correcting since bad or corrupt leaders can be removed from the system, and people can vote their conscience on unfair or unjust policies, although even democracies can fail if enough force is exerted on them. Religions, I would venture, do not have this feature, and indeed, often have the opposite problem: Fanatical or fundamentalist behaviours tend to become entrenched in the system over time, and eliminating those elements tends to be difficult as pressure on the system tends to produce more radicalization.

So by all means call out the corrupt religions and their misuse of power. There are many of them, even the majority. Just don't pull down those who are honest and caring while you do it.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that so few moderates within religious circles are willing to call out the problems with their own faith. You don't see many moderate Muslims or clerics making strong statements against terrorism or jihad, let alone actively trying to work against those elements in their community. You don't see many moderate Catholics calling out the Church for its policies on contraception, or about its atrocious handling of sex abuse cases. You don't see many Protestants coming out and saying that maybe the Book of Revelation isn't a good place to be basing foreign policy or environmental policy. You don't see many moderate rabbis coming out and saying that maybe it would be okay to share the Holy Land. While I won't deny that some of such people exist, the vast majority of adherents seem perfectly okay with letting the worst elements of their faith dominate the landscape.

[krogoth]

The vast majority of adherents seem perfectly okay with letting the worst elements of their faith dominate the landscape.

Would you say it is because many don't believe it(the worst elements) exists? Things like their right to the holy land.

The real problem I have with it is the reason behind their reasoning.
They reason good = what they take from the book/scripture/teaching, and whatever is in the book must be good.

Especially when the only reason they are doing it is to get good stuff in their after life.

It's a shame most religious actions can be brought back to the statement "only doing something because you want something in return".

I can't see how forcing their morals on others is meant to help them in anyway, other than make themselves feel superior about their obviously superior morals.

I can do good because I think it's right to do, even if some god isn't threatening me with eternal damnation for not doing it.

Maybe the systems are flawed because of how Intricate they are having not been revised? At least most laws get revised or at least can be revised from time to time.

[guenther]

just realized i need to clarify this. this is in regards to people who claim religion as their only reasons for such things, or at least are the only reasons for their actions that they will give.

a LOT of people will only respond with "because it's against god" (whatever that means) when you ask them why they don't like homosexuality. not a lot of people will only respond with "because it makes jesus happy" when you ask them why they donate to charity.

I imagine the former types of questions get asked a lot more because people expect better justification for those more contentious topics, and thus we're more likely to hear those types of answers in the public sphere. However, I'm not convinced that religious people only rarely say "because God wants me to" when asked to defend why they donate. Though in the end I can only speculate from my own personal experience. Also from personal experience, I know people that might say "because it's a nice thing to do" without explicitly deferring to God because they're nervous about speaking of their religion in front of others when they don't know how they believe. What people openly state may not always reflect what they actually believe. (And as a side point, what people believe may not always reflect what causal relationship is actually happening.)

Well, let's be honest, this is kind of human nature. Anything you do that others find objectionable is imposed on you by an outside force (even if you fully embrace it), while anything you do that others think is awesome is totally all you, totally your idea, you are super awesome thankyouverymuch.

Not generally true, of course, but it certainly explains why people use their religion (or their job, or other obligations, or their research group) to justify some downright atrocious behaviour, while downplaying when those same impulses earn them accolades.

First of all, this might explain a trend, but the claim is that it rarely happens. I'd say we need more than appeals to human nature to make that strong of a statement. Also, if it's just human nature, how does that reflect poorly on religion?

Second, I'm not so sure that people would be so quick to dump on something they hold so dear. I have heard people blame religion in the sense of "That was back when I was with this other church that focused too much on legalism". But this is blaming another religious group, not blaming their religion.

Third, this type of behavior makes sense when someone agrees that blames needs to be assigned and they want to make sure it points elsewhere. They share some common sense that something bad happened. But does it apply when there's disagreement that they're doing anything wrong? For example, when people decry same-sex marriage as an abomination to God, is that the same type of example of passing the buck?

Finally, I'm not sure how important any of this is. I was asking DSenette if he was consistent with both the good and the bad stuff since inconsistency is really the only complaint I can level. But this is just his moral opinion on how responsibility should be placed. Even If he wants to wag his finger at religion over this type of stuff, it still doesn't mean that one needs to get rid of religion to fix the problems.

Well, I think we could agree on the abortion part.

I didn't expect that, but I'm glad to hear it.

Especially when the only reason they are doing it is to get good stuff in their after life.

Yup, and just last night I went to one of those religious meetings where we discussed how we could all get a bigger piece of that sky cake. With extra frosting and sprinkles! Yum!

[DSenette]

just realized i need to clarify this. this is in regards to people who claim religion as their only reasons for such things, or at least are the only reasons for their actions that they will give.

a LOT of people will only respond with "because it's against god" (whatever that means) when you ask them why they don't like homosexuality. not a lot of people will only respond with "because it makes jesus happy" when you ask them why they donate to charity.

I imagine the former types of questions get asked a lot more because people expect better justification for those more contentious topics, and thus we're more likely to hear those types of answers in the public sphere. However, I'm not convinced that religious people only rarely say "because God wants me to" when asked to defend why they donate. Though in the end I can only speculate from my own personal experience. Also from personal experience, I know people that might say "because it's a nice thing to do" without explicitly deferring to God because they're nervous about speaking of their religion in front of others when they don't know how they believe. What people openly state may not always reflect what they actually believe. (And as a side point, what people believe may not always reflect what causal relationship is actually happening.)

i've never heard anyone ever say "i'm only doing this good thing because it makes god happy. if it weren't for that i wouldn't do it"

i have heard QUITE frequently, where people hold their religions as the sole explanation for why they do x, y, or z. such as the gay marriage debate. i have yet to hear a salient argument that doesn't boil down to "because god doesn't like gays" (or some other version) to oppose legally defined gay marriage.

[LaserGuy]

The vast majority of adherents seem perfectly okay with letting the worst elements of their faith dominate the landscape.

Would you say it is because many don't believe it(the worst elements) exists? Things like their right to the holy land.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with this. I would say it probably has a lot to do with tribal (in the sociological sense) solidarity and not wanting to rock the boat. Religions also tend to enforce a strong deference to authorities within the religious hierarchy.

[Griffin]

First of all, this might explain a trend, but the claim is that it rarely happens.

It isn't a trend, but rather an innate component of human psychology. This happens all the time, on multiple levels, and while it is usually in response to outward opinions, people even do it to themselves. and hierarchical structures and overriding authorities of all sorts encourage it. People who lack it actually have difficulty functioning in society, believe it or not - the quirk exists for a reason. It's effective.

I'm not saying this in opposition to religion, just in response to the questioning of whether or not it happened and why.

But does it apply when there's disagreement that they're doing anything wrong?

Yes, as long as they suspect someone may think they are doing something wrong. (even if they disagree)

For example, when people decry same-sex marriage as an abomination to God, is that the same type of example of passing the buck?

It can be. It probably is, and has been in most every real life situation I've encountered. While I don't know, you could test this by putting them in a group of people with open and identical ideals, and have the discuss the issue. If those with the same beliefs discuss it, do they still talk about how it is an abomination to god, or does it become more personal? Generally, it becomes more personal, though I don't know for sure here. Of course, there's also the herd mentality to consider - many of them might actually be justifying it to themselves by passing the buck, if they themselves think its wrong.

I'm reminded of the study that showed a not insignificant number of anti-abortion protestors have either had abortions or brought a child in for an abortion, only to end up back on the picket-line the next day.

Saying you're doing someone else's will is a great way to get the social accolades without feeling guilty about it.

Religion isn't needed for this - government and corporations fill the role pretty well as well.

Religion tends to do it much better though, with less countervailing social forces, especially those religions with a supreme authority.

[guenther]

i've never heard anyone ever say "i'm only doing this good thing because it makes god happy. if it weren't for that i wouldn't do it"

I have. All the time. With both big and small things. When someone spoke to our church recently about their reasons to go to Haiti, they said this. And just last night at our Bible study one person said the same thing about when he had felt a prompting to give money to help out another church member there. This was in response to someone else speaking to us about keeping our eyes and ears open to ways we can directly help out others. And not just fellow church members, but really anyone that needs help since part of our mission is to serve rather than be served. A lot of people are actively rearranging their lives to be a greater blessing to others, and do so in the name of God.

It isn't a trend, but rather an innate component of human psychology.

I meant that this component of human psychology might explain a trend in how people attribute credit for the various good and bad actions in their lives.

I get that this type of thing happens a lot, but in this context it completely flies in the face of my own personal experiences. In fact, I have seen a lot of the opposite, where people credit God for all the good stuff, and they accept personal blame for the bad stuff. I don't have statistics to know which happens more, but this is certainly not a rare thing. Or if it is rare, then I have led an exceptional life to have witnessed so much of it.

But maybe I'm wrong and this does happen a lot. I don't know the significance of it. According to the Bible, Christians are supposed to give credit to God for all the good that happens to them, so in that sense I'd want to see that happen more. But beyond that I don't really know how this phenomenon would be significant, unless it's just about understanding from a human psychology standpoint (which is always a topic I love to hear more about).

[Jave D]

just realized i need to clarify this. this is in regards to people who claim religion as their only reasons for such things, or at least are the only reasons for their actions that they will give.

a LOT of people will only respond with "because it's against god" (whatever that means) when you ask them why they don't like homosexuality. not a lot of people will only respond with "because it makes jesus happy" when you ask them why they donate to charity.

I imagine the former types of questions get asked a lot more because people expect better justification for those more contentious topics, and thus we're more likely to hear those types of answers in the public sphere. However, I'm not convinced that religious people only rarely say "because God wants me to" when asked to defend why they donate. Though in the end I can only speculate from my own personal experience. Also from personal experience, I know people that might say "because it's a nice thing to do" without explicitly deferring to God because they're nervous about speaking of their religion in front of others when they don't know how they believe. What people openly state may not always reflect what they actually believe. (And as a side point, what people believe may not always reflect what causal relationship is actually happening.)

i've never heard anyone ever say "i'm only doing this good thing because it makes god happy. if it weren't for that i wouldn't do it"

i have heard QUITE frequently, where people hold their religions as the sole explanation for why they do x, y, or z. such as the gay marriage debate. i have yet to hear a salient argument that doesn't boil down to "because god doesn't like gays" (or some other version) to oppose legally defined gay marriage.

Because why admit to a personal prejudice when you can pretend it's really God's prejudice? That would take honesty, responsibility, and even courage.

[Zcorp]

Wow, that's a bold claim. Can you back it up with a cited source? Or is this personal experience put forth as fact? If it's the latter, then my personal experience tells me something very different.

Well, let's be honest, this is kind of human nature. Anything you do that others find objectionable is imposed on you by an outside force (even if you fully embrace it), while anything you do that others think is awesome is totally all you, totally your idea, you are super awesome thankyouverymuch.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here but an external locus of control for bad performance and a internal one for a good performance is not seen cross culturally. The opposite is true of many eastern peoples. So its certainly not human nature, rather it seems to be western culture and specifically American culture.

[Technical Ben]

Spoiler:

With the example of a government. If it's found out someone is misusing power to become a dictator in a democracy, do we blame democracy? Do we blame all forms of government? Or do we blame corrupt government?

This assumes that the system itself is not inherently faulty, or not inherently stable, which is not assured. For example, one might note that communist governments have a tendency to degenerate into totalitarian states. While is it not necessarily the case, it has, perhaps, happened often enough that we might argue that the problem is not that there are a lot of corrupt people who attempt communist revolutions, but that communism itself is inherently flawed (or that communism is perhaps unstable--like balancing a pencil on its point--where there is a position that it will work, but if it is perturbed, then it leads to some undesirable outcomes). Democracy is fairly robust since it tends to be somewhat self-correcting since bad or corrupt leaders can be removed from the system, and people can vote their conscience on unfair or unjust policies, although even democracies can fail if enough force is exerted on them. Religions, I would venture, do not have this feature, and indeed, often have the opposite problem: Fanatical or fundamentalist behaviours tend to become entrenched in the system over time, and eliminating those elements tends to be difficult as pressure on the system tends to produce more radicalization.

So by all means call out the corrupt religions and their misuse of power. There are many of them, even the majority. Just don't pull down those who are honest and caring while you do it.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that so few moderates within religious circles are willing to call out the problems with their own faith. You don't see many moderate Muslims or clerics making strong statements against terrorism or jihad, let alone actively trying to work against those elements in their community. You don't see many moderate Catholics calling out the Church for its policies on contraception, or about its atrocious handling of sex abuse cases. You don't see many Protestants coming out and saying that maybe the Book of Revelation isn't a good place to be basing foreign policy or environmental policy. You don't see many moderate rabbis coming out and saying that maybe it would be okay to share the Holy Land. While I won't deny that some of such people exist, the vast majority of adherents seem perfectly okay with letting the worst elements of their faith dominate the landscape.

Thanks LaserGuy. You seem to agree on my point. You agree one type of government can be more flawed, compared to another. But that does not rule out all types of government, right? Yet in the next paragraph, do we rule out all types of religion, when we have agreed some types are flawed?

For example, some types of religion avoid politics entirely. They realise it's not part of their grasp. This also means we cannot say "well, religion is a government, a more flawed one" because some types of religion are specifically not governments. So would we still rule out all possible types of religion? Or just the majority that are more flawed?

[Laserdan]

Thanks LaserGuy. You seem to agree on my point. You agree one type of government can be more flawed, compared to another. But that does not rule out all types of government, right? Yet in the next paragraph, do we rule out all types of religion, when we have agreed some types are flawed?

For example, some types of religion avoid politics entirely. They realise it's not part of their grasp. This also means we cannot say "well, religion is a government, a more flawed one" because some types of religion are specifically not governments. So would we still rule out all possible types of religion? Or just the majority that are more flawed?

I think you are obfuscating the problem behind contrived arguments. It doesn't matter if religion as a general concept, and hence all religion, is inherently flawed. Every religion we have to actually deal with in today's politics is flawed, as a way of life (because it either forces you to force other people to live the same way; or it forces you to be dishonest, which is what moderate believers are, even though I like them more than fundamentalists of course) and as a point of view - not because a reason-based approach has no flaws, no, but because it lifts up certain problems of the human condition as something to aspire to.

I'm interested in examples of 100% unpolitical religions, meaning, religions that do not seek to impose anything on anyone or to influence their environment in any way that may be deemed unwelcome by people not adhering to that religion.

[Griffin]

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here but an external locus of control for bad performance and a internal one for a good performance is not seen cross culturally. The opposite is true of many eastern peoples. So its certainly not human nature, rather it seems to be western culture and specifically American culture.

This could actually be a good point. Need to constantly remind myself how much research data in psychology is culturally biased.

[LaserGuy]

Thanks LaserGuy. You seem to agree on my point. You agree one type of government can be more flawed, compared to another. But that does not rule out all types of government, right? Yet in the next paragraph, do we rule out all types of religion, when we have agreed some types are flawed?

Originally, you were saying that a particular religion may not be flawed even if it sometimes produces bad results because people do not always implement the religion correctly. I don't disagree with this in principle. However, I also contend that this is not exhaustive of all possibilities. It is also possible that the religion itself may be inherently flawed and will never work well regardless of the implementation. For example, I would argue that a religion that includes in its central dogma that we ought to throw virgins into the volcano to appease Pelee is inherently flawed, regardless of implementation. The same many be true of certain types of government: I might argue (I won't, because it's very OT) that communism is an inherently flawed system of government, for example, and will not work out well in the long term regardless of how well it is implemented.

For example, some types of religion avoid politics entirely. They realise it's not part of their grasp. This also means we cannot say "well, religion is a government, a more flawed one" because some types of religion are specifically not governments. So would we still rule out all possible types of religion? Or just the majority that are more flawed?

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that religions are governments, rather that governments and religions share certain similar features that make it useful to compare them. One important difference that I might note, is that we have to have a government. Places that have no government are kind of shitty. I do not believe that there is any inherent reason that we have to have religions.

As far as ruling out religions goes, let me put it this way. For myself, I think there is insufficient evidence at this time to say that any religion is true, and on those grounds, we can rule them all out. But I don't believe that this implies we should necessarily get rid of all religion, or that we could even if we wanted to. Religion and culture are intertwined, and cultural events can have value regardless of their truth claims. I mean, for example, I have no interest in getting rid of Christmas. I think it's a great holiday, and is an important festival in North American culture. Yes, there are religious undertones to it, and yes, the Santa story is ridiculous. But the truth of those claims is not what produces the value in celebrating it. I see religion filling a similar sort of role--as a cultural phenomenon--and have no problem with that. The problem I do have is when religions or religious people have an agenda that involves hurting or oppressing people, or advancing foreign policy based on religious prophecies or whatever.

[guenther]

Every religion we have to actually deal with in today's politics is flawed, as a way of life (because it either forces you to force other people to live the same way; or it forces you to be dishonest, which is what moderate believers are, even though I like them more than fundamentalists of course)

So since I'm a moderate, I'm dishonest. And previously I learned that I only do good things because it gets me more sky cake. I'm glad I have the more enlightened segments of society here to educate me about my flawed self. I suppose next you'll say something crazy like how religious people too can aspire to fix problems with the human condition.

I'm interested in examples of 100% unpolitical religions, meaning, religions that do not seek to impose anything on anyone or to influence their environment in any way that may be deemed unwelcome by people not adhering to that religion.

Religions don't seek. The people within the religion are doing the seeking. And some of them seek certain policy outcomes, while others have much more apolitical goals. So determining whether, say, Christianity is a political religion is not well defined. You'd have to look at a specific group of Christians, and this answer will vary a lot depending on how you define this grouping.

Also, 100% unpolitical should mean without political agenda, not simply without agenda that people outside the religion would find unwelcome. It sounds like you're using "political" to mean "political in a way that I don't like".

[Zcorp]

Every religion we have to actually deal with in today's politics is flawed, as a way of life (because it either forces you to force other people to live the same way; or it forces you to be dishonest, which is what moderate believers are, even though I like them more than fundamentalists of course)

So since I'm a moderate, I'm dishonest. And previously I learned that I only do good things because it gets me more sky cake. I'm glad I have the more enlightened segments of society here to educate me about my flawed self. I suppose next you'll say something crazy like how religious people too can aspire to fix problems with the human condition.

I'm interested in examples of 100% unpolitical religions, meaning, religions that do not seek to impose anything on anyone or to influence their environment in any way that may be deemed unwelcome by people not adhering to that religion.

Religions don't seek. The people within the religion are doing the seeking. And some of them seek certain policy outcomes, while others have much more apolitical goals. So determining whether, say, Christianity is a political religion is not well defined. You'd have to look at a specific group of Christians, and this answer will vary a lot depending on how you define this grouping.

Also, 100% unpolitical should mean without political agenda, not simply without agenda that people outside the religion would find unwelcome. It sounds like you're using "political" to mean "political in a way that I don't like".

No, he is quite clearly using it to mean to 'impose anything on anyone or to influence their environment in any way.'

You seem to have this weird understanding that things are only political if they are done to change the seats of power in a government. When in reality the term is used to describe the influence if institutions. To have a religion with no political goal you would need to have a religion with no goal of its own, and it certainly couldn't speak of morality or ethics.

To deny that the Pope, as an example, has no political power in the united states would be completely failing to understand the concepts represented by the words 'political' and 'power.'

Much like when someone says 'religions seek' we can easily infer they mean the people who are behaving in accordance with their religion and sometimes even specifically the individuals at the top of those organizations.

I've yet to meet a Christian who does not have political goals. Do you not believe that a Christian path will lead to a better world? How is that not political?

Half of your defense for religion seems to be a gross misuse of language.