Is religion always bad?

[tom006]

If everyone became an Atheist tomorrow, would the murder rate go down? Would it go up?

Would philanthropy decrease? Or would people give more?

Just some things I've been wondering about.

[tom006]

oops, wrong thread. I thought I was in religion and philosophy. Oh well. If an administrator wants to move it that would be great.

[Red Siegfried]

Good questions.

Is religion always bad? No, I don't think so.

I wish I had the answers. Would the murder rate go up or down? Unfortunately, I'd have to guess it would go up, since I think there are some people out there who wouldn't be stopped except for that fear of eternal damnation.

I would also tend to think that charitable giving would go down, since a lot of people give at church, and not that they are bad, but without the request and reminder from their clergy, probably wouldn't give as much.

I hate to think that for some people their religion is one of the only factors that keeps them in line, but sadly it might be true. For some, anyway.

I don't think that's really a misanthropic viewpoint, because for the most part I think that people generally want to do what they think is right. It's just that not everybody agrees on what is right.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, it's always bad. To lie to people in order to get them to be good people isn't a good system of morality. Would the murder rates go down? Maybe. The rate of murder in the name of religious bias would disappear. People would have to come up with better excuses to murder each other.

[Hellbound]

Quite frankly, I don't think the crime ratews would see much change.

Peopel choose the religion they follow, and people are people, whether fanatics or not. People follow a religion they agree with, and even the majority of the "religious" pay little more than lip service to the tenets of thier faith. Some religions place limits on acts such as murder, but also places allowances in certain conditions (witches and adulterous women, for instance...or infidels). Ultimately, peopel are people, and they rationalize a way to act as they want to act regardless of the religion they follow.

Least, that's my opinion.

I disagree with religion because it teaches the opposite of clear thinking. I do think that education and experience can create an understanding of society, and help peopel to see beyond the immediate to long term effects and aggregate effects (a society of anarchy, for example, cannot endure...a society of perfect order cannot grow). But religion? I don't think it's a cause as much as it is a rationalization or excuse for acting how a person is inclined to act anyway.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by tom006
If everyone became an Atheist tomorrow, would the murder rate go down? Would it go up? Would philanthropy decrease? Or would people give more?


If everyone became peaceful (this is not necessarily the same thing as being atheist) tomorrow, then the murder rate would decrease and philanthropy would increase. Since religion is not going away anytime soon or ever, that is why tolerance is so important.

[jmercer]

Let me open a can of worms. :)

All people are capable of skepticism. (Unless they are mentally impaired or emotionally disturbed.) However, it's painfully clear that many people actively avoid skeptical thinking. It's not that they're not capable of it. Skepticism is a choice, the decision to not accept something without proof.

If you were to abolish all religion instantly, would people suddenly become less credulous? Would they start to practice skepticism and critical thinking? Would they then develop a value-based set of ethics and morals created from intrinisic compassion and some kind of social "right-thinking"?

I don't think so. Skepticism is actually a difficult path to take. It requires a willingness on the part of the skeptic to challenge beliefs, and then deal with the conflict and confrontations that happen because of the challenge. Critical thinking is part-and-parcel of skepticism, but it's the part that requires a lot of effort. It's not intuitive, and it's not easily done in most cases. And it often results in skepticism, with all the thorns mentioned above. People who don't want to deal with conflict and confrontations are also highly unlikely to want to do the "heavy lifting" required for critical thinking, since the eventual reward is something they'd prefer to avoid anyway.

Religion provides a framework of morals and ethics (some of which are highly questionable!) that are provided to the individual without the need for thought or skepticism. It also provides a basic social framework that allows people to have a community sense with others who accept the same framework as their own. Yes, religion tells people what to think - and in that act, becomes a substitute for clear thinking. However, I believe that the people who buy into religion without any doubts in their mind are seeking exactly what religion offers - a moral and ethical framework that requires no thought.

There are a whole host of things that religion does poorly, or outright wrong... but there are also a number of things (in my opinion) that religion does that are worthwhile and beneficial. One of them is to provide a moral compass for those people who are unwilling to create one for themselves... and there are a lot of people like that. They want to follow and have no interest in finding their own way.

[Walter Wayne]

Hmmm, doubt murder rates would change much, but charity is different.

Monetary donations may go down, but how much and where would the losses be incurred. The reduction of purchases of Holy Hardware (Chalice and Siborium, Altar Candles, Vestments ...) by churches isn't exactly a loss, unless you are producer of Holy Hardware. A certain portion of the income also pays priests etc. While the dollar value given may be reduced, the value getting to the end user may not be. Who knows with out doing total cost accounting on every parrish around.

The church I used to call my own was good in this regard. It wasn't overly lavish, and most of the good hardware it had was individual contributors who thought it appropriate that the sanctuary be better equiped. It was rarely the clergy who demanded that everything look purdy.

Another benefit of that particular congration was that when it came time to give to soup kitchens, shelters and such it would even out the payments over months. This meant if people ear marked money for the soup kitchen in a sporadic fashion, the church guaranteed a minimum monthly amount if the parishoners fell short on a particular period. May not seem like much, but for a soup kitchen operating on a shoe-string budget being able to budget properly is nice, so the guaranteed check of x dollars every month has some value. Soup kitchens I have an excess of money and volunteers at Christmas, but often find themselves scraping the bottom of the barrel mid-summer.

Church being a social institution in many ways has one last advantage. Mob mentality. The same group think that gets them out to block abortion clinics and protest gay marriage is the same group think that allows them to get a bus load or two of people to a charity event or sometimes a distant disaster that just needs manpower. Not all mobs carry torches. Three determined people garnering volunteers from the population at large are usually at a disadvantage to similar pleas in a church environment.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, it's always bad. To lie to people in order to get them to be good people isn't a good system of morality. Would the murder rates go down? Maybe. The rate of murder in the name of religious bias would disappear. People would have to come up with better excuses to murder each other.
While I agree that morality based on reality is of greater value than morality based on a delusion, I take issue with the term 'lie'. Most of the people genuinely believe in their religion and are not being dishonest when they pass it on to others.

Walt

[arthwollipot]

I'm not going to directly answer your question here, sorry, but someone many years ago asked me whether religion was a net positive or a net negative influence on the world.

My response, after considering the question for a few weeks or so, was that in terms of individuals, religion was probably a net positive. Many people lead happier and more fulfilled lives than they otherwise would, because of religion.

However, in terms of large groups of people, religion had to be a net negative influence. Wars, intolerance, crusades, jihads, inquisitions, with hunts, etc, etc, etc ad nauseam. Religion has been the cause of much pain and suffering in the past, and (looking at the Middle East today) is likely to continue to be so for the forseeable future.

So to get back to the question, I don't think that religion is always bad. I think it is frequently bad, even usually bad, but assuredly not always.

[tom006]

Abstractly I tend to think that religion is just something people do and as one person above said, it's a convenient excuse to do things people wanted to do anyway. If that excuse is gone, then another will be found.

Then again, religion is probably an intensifier of conflict. People don't need religion to have blood feuds or burn people at the stake, but it may help prolong the effect. Many rich citizens were burned at the stake because the particuliar city they lived in happened to be broke. So it's easy to imagine how the city would have gotten that money with or without the witch excuse. On the other hand plenty of poor people got burned as well.

To flip the question around, would the Soviet gulag have occured under a Tsar? The tsars had always used Siberia for prison camps, just not to the same effect as Stalin. Still, a Tsar might want to do similar things for the same reasons Stalin did them: cheap labor and paranoia.

[Explorer]

"I wish I had the answers. Would the murder rate go up or down? Unfortunately, I'd have to guess it would go up, since I think there are some people out there who wouldn't be stopped except for that fear of eternal damnation."

It seems that religion can make it go both ways.

What if you are told by a fundamentalist cleric, in the cause of your faith, to strap explosives around you and blow up a few people?

[Oleron]

I am an atheist. I have thought about this a great deal and have chosen to be atheist because I can't see any good evidence for being otherwise.

My idea of morality is based on the simple 'golden rule' premise - do unto others as you would have them do unto you (as the bible would say). Most religions have their golden rule equivalent and they boil down to much the same thing.

I am moral, not because I fear eternal damnation but because I see morality as central to a productive, civilised society. I want society to be civilised and safe for myself and my family. If I am not moral, how can I expect morality of others?

Why are some people immoral? Why do they kill, cheat and lie?
Some do it because they believe in a different kind of morality. They believe in a religious view that places their morality higher than that of others, so they can 'morally' kill, cheat and lie while still not breaking their code.

Some people do it because they fundamentally don't care about the greater good of society, regardless of religion or the absence of it.

Neither of these opinions are acceptable to me.

I don't believe that there are hordes of people out there who are only kept in check by fear of damnation so I don't think we would see much of a change in worldwide behaviour if religion suddenly evaporated. It might confuse and stir things up in the short term but ultimately things would settle down.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by tom006
If everyone became an Atheist tomorrow

I guess if that happened I would instantly turn into a believer :D

[ceo_esq]

I don't mean to come down too hard on someone who is obviously a new member. But honestly, tom006, you should take the time to familiarize yourself with the tone, level and type of dialogue on religion that usually prevails here.

"Is religion always bad?" is a purely frivolous query. Initially framing a debate in such silly rhetorical terms makes it harder to steer the ensuing discussion back onto serious ground. "Religion is always bad" (or conversely, "never bad") is also a notorious strawman that tends only to waste time on the mercifully rare occasions where it crops up in this forum.

Welcome to the forum, by the way, and good luck.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Oleron
I am an atheist. I have thought about this a great deal and have chosen to be atheist because I can't see any good evidence for being otherwise.

My idea of morality is based on the simple 'golden rule' premise - do unto others as you would have them do unto you (as the bible would say). Most religions have their golden rule equivalent and they boil down to much the same thing.

I am moral, not because I fear eternal damnation but because I see morality as central to a productive, civilised society. I want society to be civilised and safe for myself and my family. If I am not moral, how can I expect morality of others?

Why are some people immoral? Why do they kill, cheat and lie?
Some do it because they believe in a different kind of morality. They believe in a religious view that places their morality higher than that of others, so they can 'morally' kill, cheat and lie while still not breaking their code.

Some people do it because they fundamentally don't care about the greater good of society, regardless of religion or the absence of it.

Neither of these opinions are acceptable to me.

I don't believe that there are hordes of people out there who are only kept in check by fear of damnation so I don't think we would see much of a change in worldwide behaviour if religion suddenly evaporated. It might confuse and stir things up in the short term but ultimately things would settle down.

Excellent post.

I can only speak for myself. I am a Secular Humanist. That means I believe in an ethical society and doing right by my fellow humans even though I don't believe in god. Since accepting my beliefs fully, I have become more involved with the world and making it a better place than I was before.

God is not necessary for a just society. Crime will always be with us and the people who prey on other people do so regardless of what they believe. The Mob (for example) has many practicing Catholics. They simply seem to accept the fact that they will be going to Hell or Purgetory.

I think Wars would decrease both short and long term if people stopped believing in God because no one would be fighting over the definition of God anymore.

I think the world would become smarter if the concept of God disappeared because people would have to find their own answers and would be forced to get out and seek good in fellow humans as opposed to trusting in a divine presence to keep us all in line and fix the problems of the world.

I would think some experimentation is called for, but since only 5% of America denies the existence of god, it will be tough to get a random sample.

Maybe a poll of convicted criminals would yield some data. Questions to be answered:

1) Are you currently a practicing member of a religious faith?

2) Is this the same faith you practiced at the time you commited the crime you are currently serving time for?

3) Were you raised in a particular faith?

4) Is the child hood faith the same faith you practiced at the time you commited the crime you are currently serving time for?

5) Is your childhood faith the same faith you practice now?

If the answers come out higher or lower for non-believers than the populace at large, you might have some interesting data.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by jzs
If everyone became peaceful (this is not necessarily the same thing as being atheist) tomorrow, then the murder rate would decrease and philanthropy would increase.

Why does individual peacefulness lead to charitiable contributions?

[Z]

In my opinion, this is a very complex issue.

Certainly, many people behave due, in part, to fear of damnation, fear of sin. Yet, by the same token, many people are intolerant and bigoted directly due to their particular religion. After all, many wars have been the result, directly or otherwise, of religious disagreements.

If, instead, religion were to crumble under a unified global philosophy, then we would see definite decreases in all crimes, intolerance, and hate; however, I fear that if even two people exist alone, they are bound to disagree about something.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by jmercer
However, it's painfully clear

it is?


that many people actively avoid skeptical thinking.

I doubt it. How would you test this. I must ask: Wow would any of the questions in the origional post be tested? Come up with a test and some data and I'll consider these posits.

It's not that they're not capable of it. Skepticism is a choice, the decision to not accept something without proof.



I doubt this last posit as well (which is a false dilemma). How would you test that all people have been exposed to skepticism, and have been able to make a choice? This sounds like the Christian idea (also a false dilemma) that all people must decide either to choose Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour , or to reject Jesus Christ and die because all people have heard the gospel.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Why does individual peacefulness lead to charitiable contributions?

I guess the budget for war for all countries would be used for other things.

[arthwollipot]

How many of the criminals awaiting execution in US prisons are atheists? How many are believers?

(BTW, I don't know either. I hoped someone here might).

[tom006]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I don't mean to come down too hard on someone who is obviously a new member. But honestly, tom006, you should take the time to familiarize yourself with the tone, level and type of dialogue on religion that usually prevails here.

"Is religion always bad?" is a purely frivolous query. Initially framing a debate in such silly rhetorical terms makes it harder to steer the ensuing discussion back onto serious ground. "Religion is always bad" (or conversely, "never bad") is also a notorious strawman that tends only to waste time on the mercifully rare occasions where it crops up in this forum.

Welcome to the forum, by the way, and good luck.

[tom006]

well, yeah, I'm new, which is obvious because I hit the wrong button when I wanted to quote you.

After posting that I did think that this was the sort of thing that had been talked about plenty and people were probably sick of. But then again, people talked, so maybe not.

It was deliberately simplistic. It's not always bad to start there. Obviously a behavior that apparently comes so naturally to humans can't be characterized as esssentially good or bad.

[arthwollipot]

As another noob, I should say that although I thought that the question posed was too general, it was still worth asking. But I will bow to the greater experience of the 900-plus posters.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by tom006
If everyone became an Atheist tomorrow, would the murder rate go down? Would it go up?
Probably stay the same. The only people it would affect are those few crazy guys who kill people because they think their religion tells them to, and they are likely to find that same kind of inspiration elsewhere.

Would philanthropy decrease? Or would people give more?
The names of some charitable organizations might change, but that's about it.

[sackett]

Yo tom006!

Since you're a new hand, let me help you sort out your tack.

It's not like ceo_esq to be 1) cranky or 2) brief, so I'm confident that he was waxing ironic with you. Your question is posed simply, even bluntly, but it merits discussion no matter what your point of view - and not everybody's point of view on this matter is simple to express.

For example, my first impulse is to rephrase your question this way: "Is ********* ever good for people?" (There, now I'm talking like a JREFer when rreelligion comes up.) If you put the question that way, nobody would answer yes.

Until, perhaps, he thought about it a bit.

To be sure, religion doesn't make people behave better, rather the opposite. It doesn't give purpose to life, rather it inhibits people from finding real purpose. It emphatically, tragically fails to unite people; just the opposite, it wrenches them into warring factions, and inspires cruelties that you would think no normal mind could conceive. It wastes prodigious quantities of wealth. It shelters evil people of many descriptions; the first and last refuge of a scoundrel is always the church. Religion is institutionalized superstition, and is always and everywhere the enemy of reason. In short, religion is pernicious.

Except when it comforts the dying. For the sake of the dying, we can fling our convictions down and dance on them, and feel good about it. Pity and compassion ennoble us, and a noble person won't insist - he doesn't need to -- on his viewpoint when a dying person asks for succor. Dying people can ask me to pray with them and I will. No, I won't really be praying, but I can fake it like a champ, and be glad to do it; I've done it. If they ask me to pray for them, will I do it? I don't know; my feelings might be great enough to force my head down, and I'd try. If I promise a dying person that I'll pray for him, then yes, by God I'll do it. Even a religious man will keep a promise if he has any self-respect, and I think an atheist can easily do as much.

As so often, your short question gets long answers.

[jmercer]

I find I agree with some of what you wrote, but I think some of it deserves a bit of a debate.

Originally posted by voodoochile

I think Wars would decrease both short and long term if people stopped believing in God because no one would be fighting over the definition of God anymore.


Most religious war's weren't - and aren't - actually about religion. Religion is simply used as a convenient sop and justification. Probably the last wars really fought over the definition of God were BC, or at least very, very early AD.

In example - the Crusades are widely considered to be "holy wars". However, if you dig in deeply enough, you find that religion was only a part of the justification for the wars - and that the endorsement by the Church came much later during the Crusades themselves.

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/706.html

This just happens to be one link I found, but I've read books and treatises that cite a variety of political motivations and pure greed (acquisition of land) as the main motivators. Religion was used to provide a moral justification to cover up the real and greedy reasons for the Crusades. (I'm not saying that some of the Crusaders weren't obsessed by religion - however, the decision makers who started the Crusades weren't primarily motivated by religious principles, if at all. Christianity was simply used as an excuse to justify these incursions.)

Another fine example of religion being used as a front are today's terrorists. The goal of terrorists is power. Religion is merely a tool and method to achieve that goal, and a way of obtaining human fodder.

The greatest and most devastating wars fought in recorded history are World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recently, the Middle-Eastern wars. These wars are all using sops to hide the ugly truth about their primary motivations. WWI and WWII used idealogy as an excuse, as did the Korean and Vietnam wars. The Middle-Eastern wars are dressed up in robes of "Freedom and Democracy", but are really more motivated by a struggle for power against the terrorists and unendangered access to oil by the West.

Originally posted by voodoochile
I think the world would become smarter if the concept of God disappeared because people would have to find their own answers and would be forced to get out and seek good in fellow humans as opposed to trusting in a divine presence to keep us all in line and fix the problems of the world.


I disagree entirely. Many people are becoming disenchanted with organized religion. Do they turn to atheism? No. Instead, they embrace all sorts of alternative religions and belief systems - and in some case, invent their own if necessary. Many people seem to have a built-in need to worship something greater than themselves. Alternatively, one can view this as a built-in weakness that leads to addiction, instead of catagorizing it as a need.

But whether you believe that people are "pre-programmed" to seek worship or are easily addicted to it, removing God from the equation won't change that. All that will change is the venue chosen.

Originally posted by voodoochile
I would think some experimentation is called for, but since only 5% of America denies the existence of god, it will be tough to get a random sample.


Which to some degree supports my assertion above. People in the USA are not required to believe in God or to worship. Yet 95% choose to do exactly that. If it were suddenly possible to absolutely disprove the existence of God, I'm pretty sure that proof would be largely ignored and worship would continue as always. So I simply don't think that removing God from the equation will actually change things very much at all.

Originally posted by voodoochile
Maybe a poll of convicted criminals would yield some data. Questions to be answered:

1) Are you currently a practicing member of a religious faith?

2) Is this the same faith you practiced at the time you commited the crime you are currently serving time for?

3) Were you raised in a particular faith?

4) Is the child hood faith the same faith you practiced at the time you commited the crime you are currently serving time for?

5) Is your childhood faith the same faith you practice now?

If the answers come out higher or lower for non-believers than the populace at large, you might have some interesting data.

There are so many factors contributing to criminal behavior that evaluating the statistical relevance of religion vs. atheism in the criminal population is highly unlikely to yield any real meaningful data. How many criminals become criminal out of economic desperation due to educational disparities? How many did it to feed a drug habit? And what - if anything - would these root causes have to do with religion?

It's all too easy to keep blaming religion for the world's ills. (Some of the ills, anyway.) It's not religion that's the root cause - it's PEOPLE. Granted, people often use religion as an excuse to do evil, and some people use it as an excuse for not thinking while furthering their personal (or group) agendas. But if religion were abolished tomorrow, all of these cretins would simply find another excuse and "front" to justify their actions.

Just my thoughts on this, of course. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by sackett
To be sure, religion doesn't make people behave better, rather the opposite. It doesn't give purpose to life, rather it inhibits people from finding real purpose.

I disagree with some of what you said above... NOTHING can make people behave better. It's a personal choice, regardless of whether religion is involved or not.

Religion simply is one of the existing moral compasses in the world today. (Whether or not you agree with the moral structure of a given religion is a personal point of view. In example, I vehemently disagree with several of the Roman Catholic Church's stances.)

Religion's moral compass aren't not the only ones available, but I believe that much of what they claim as "moral" has an intrinisic worth.

Regarding religion and giving purpose to life - you're correct, it doesn't. And it does distract from finding a valid purpose to life, although one could argue that some people find their purpose in life through religion. But that's a quibble and I won't really seriously debate this point. :)

Originally posted by sackett

It emphatically, tragically fails to unite people; just the opposite, it wrenches them into warring factions, and inspires cruelties that you would think no normal mind could conceive. It wastes prodigious quantities of wealth. It shelters evil people of many descriptions; the first and last refuge of a scoundrel is always the church. Religion is institutionalized superstition, and is always and everywhere the enemy of reason. In short, religion is pernicious.


Too harsh. It's PEOPLE that are the cause of these things. Religion was INVENTED by people. So was Communism, Socialism and a whole host of other beliefs that have also been used to inflict incredible amounts of harm and perform evil in the name of [Fill in the blank]. And let's not forget nationalism, which is endemic to our current world state of affairs.

We shouldn't confuse the tool with the root cause - even if the tool chosen is highly effective in furthering the distorted desires of those that abuse it.

Originally posted by sackett
Except when it comforts the dying. For the sake of the dying, we can fling our convictions down and dance on them, and feel good about it. Pity and compassion ennoble us, and a noble person won't insist - he doesn't need to -- on his viewpoint when a dying person asks for succor. Dying people can ask me to pray with them and I will. No, I won't really be praying, but I can fake it like a champ, and be glad to do it; I've done it. If they ask me to pray for them, will I do it? I don't know; my feelings might be great enough to force my head down, and I'd try. If I promise a dying person that I'll pray for him, then yes, by God I'll do it. Even a religious man will keep a promise if he has any self-respect, and I think an atheist can easily do as much.

As so often, your short question gets long answers.

I have an incredible amount of respect for you based on this last part of your post alone. Good for you, and I wish there were more people in the world like you.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by tom006
If everyone became an Atheist tomorrow, would the murder rate go down? Would it go up?

Would philanthropy decrease? Or would people give more?

Just some things I've been wondering about.

My feeling is this - If accept the notion that truth is superior to untruth or, in other words, that truth is good and untruth is bad, yes, religion is always bad. It is true that good people often do good things in the name of religion and even not very good people do good things in the name of religion. It is also true, I suspect that both good and bad people do bad things in the name of religion. If you look at it this way - that in general using the truth as guiding principle in things will lead to better outcomes - more correct decisions, less suffering, minimization of arbitrariness in the conduct of human affairs and not doing so whether it be through adherence to religion or any other arbitrary belief system leads to the opposite of all of those things than I would have to say that overall religion is all bad.

[sackett]

Originally posted by jmercer
...I have an incredible amount of respect for you based on this last part of your post alone. Good for you, and I wish there were more people in the world like you.
Thank you for this.

I'm glad that I gain stature in the eyes of a good person by admitting that I'm a flaming hypocrite. What would Sts. Paul and Augustine and all those other stern moralists make of this?

I also confess that your remarks on human nature make me uncomfortable. The truth does that.

Still: Religion provides a handy excuse for the bloody-minded, and without it they'd have a harder time justifying themselves in the eyes of the world -- the believing world, that is. Cure the believers and you isolate the evil-doers.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by sackett
Thank you for this.

I'm glad that I gain stature in the eyes of a good person by admitting that I'm a flaming hypocrite. What would Sts. Paul and Augustine and all those other stern moralists make of this?

I also confess that your remarks on human nature make me uncomfortable. The truth does that.

Still: Religion provides a handy excuse for the bloody-minded, and without it they'd have a harder time justifying themselves in the eyes of the world -- the believing world, that is. Cure the believers and you isolate the evil-doers.

I don't consider any act of comfort to a dying person hypocritical - unless the intent to comfort is absent and it's being done for show. Sorry, but you don't meet that criteria, so to me, you appear to be a genuinely caring individual. As far as the Saint's opinions on it - dunno, they're not returning my calls. ;) Even if they did, though, I doubt they'd condemn an act of charity and comfort as long as the motivation is correct.

Regarding religion being a handy excuse... no argument. As far as making it harder for the bloody-minded among us to justify their actions... I know I'm being a bit cynical, but I'm pretty sure they'd simply pick another venue - or make one up.

[sackett]

Originally posted by jmercer
. . . the Saint's opinions on it . . . I doubt they'd condemn an act of charity and comfort as long as the motivation is correct.

Regarding religion being a handy excuse... no argument. As far as making it harder for the bloody-minded among us to justify their actions... I know I'm being a bit cynical, but I'm pretty sure they'd simply pick another venue - or make one up.

We must differ on how Christian saints, especially the early ones, would regard incorrectly motivated charity. They were intensely religious men, and they inherited what Arthur Koestler called "the stony cruelty of antiquity." Further, they really and truly believed in the immortal soul and the perils it was subject to. They'd be horrified at the idea of false prayer, and they'd be ready to do something about it if they could. I'm glad such men are long gone.

If they are; present indications don't suggest that.

Yes, of course evil people use any excuse that comes handy. (Funny how they need an excuse in a world that fully recognizes the reality of evil.) I'm just saying that if they didn't have religious traditions seasoned by centuries of elaboration, they'd have a harder time getting other people to support them. Even old-time fascism, the most blatant cult of evil I know, enlisted Christianity to help out; and way too many Christians went along.

[jmercer]

Mmm... I concede both points. I was thinking in terms of the more recent saints, and you're right - religion certainly greases the chute for the kind of unthinking acceptance that Nazi's (and terrorists and others) rely on. :)

Having said that, though, I still maintain that there's no hypocrisy in the deed if the intent matches. :)

[Cheeseman531]

This is my first time posting a message. My name is Alex McVey, I am a 17-year-old agnostic, I use to be a baptist. I belive that religpn is almost always good, for instance, when my dear great-grandmother died, who I loved very much, it was sad, but thinking that I was going to see her again made it ALOT easier. I think that the only time religion is ever bad is when it is used to hurt people, but the vast majority of the time, it is used to help people. So I belive religion is more good than bad.

[jmercer]

Welcome to the forums, Alex. Excellent & honest post.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, it's always bad. To lie to people in order to get them to be good people isn't a good system of morality. Could you expound on this? While I might at first be tempted to agree with you I'm not sure that it is axiomatic.

Can you demonstrate that the only way religions get people to be good is to lie to them? Can one innocently mislead others?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by sackett
To be sure, religion doesn't make people behave better, rather the opposite. It doesn't give purpose to life, rather it inhibits people from finding real purpose. A purpose is a purpose. What is "real purpose.?

I don't think that this is demonstrable. Certainly religion has been shown over and over to be a negative force. But is religion often simply used as a negative force?

It emphatically, tragically fails to unite people; just the opposite... Is this just opinion or do you have some evidence. I would say that there is ample evidence throughout history that it has united people.

...it wrenches them into warring factions, and inspires cruelties that you would think no normal mind could conceive. Culture, ignorance, tribalism also play a part. Religion does not always wrench people into warring factions.

It wastes prodigious quantities of wealth. So does gambling, drinking, fishing, football, flying, etc. One man's waste is another mans hobby or interest.

It shelters evil people of many descriptions; the first and last refuge of a scoundrel is always the church. No, patriotism is. Plenty of scoundrels existed in the Soviet Union and many more exist in other communist countries.

Religion is institutionalized superstition, and is always and everywhere the enemy of reason. In short, religion is pernicious. Religion is philosophy and provided a means in part for humans to spread to all quarters of the globe.

I'm agnostic. I am certain that humans will eventually abandon religion since it is based on fantasy and fallacious reasoning.

I don't think it is the evil you make it out to be. Humans are evil and find ways to exploit others and gain power. Religion can be an effective tool. It can also be an effective tool for those who want to do good.

[sackett]

RandiFan said, "I am certain that humans will eventually abandon religion since it is based on fantasy and fallacious reasoning."

Dang, first you take my post apart at the seams, then you plainly call religion the same thing I do: fantasy. I don't think we disagree on much.

Maybe we disagree on details.

By "real purpose" I mean accomplishment. Perhaps all I really mean is the increasing of knowledge instead of the mere elaboration and propagation of doctrine.

I'm sticking to my opinion that religion divides people rather than unites them. Yes, it can unite people into groups as opposed to other groups, e.g., Sikh vs. Moslem, Moslem vs. Hindu, Catholic vs. Protestant, Mormon vs. everybody. But even the cultic groups aren't stable; pretty soon they start wrangling the vital difference between twiddle-dee and twiddle-dim, in the age-old manner of theologians.

About waste: Tell me the value of 99% of modern religious architecture. Show me the esthetic value of garish Hindu or Catholic idols. Tell me how a TV god-walloper in a Cadillac is worth as much as one decent clinic in Rwanda.

I know the old aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels. But we hear a lot about diddling Catholic priests and the bishops who sheltered them (and probably continue the shelter the uncaught ones), while bloody-minded fanatics seem to find a comfortable home among Muslims and Hindus - and Jews, and even, God help man, among Buddhists. As for thugs among the communists: Some would argue (and I'd find it hard to refute them) that old-time commie-ism was and is a religion.

No, religion is not a philosophy. It's the antithesis of philosophy; it's in no sense a search for truth. Religion is the enemy of free enquiry, and everywhere attempts to put down rationality, by any means it can - and no wonder, when you consider how many cynical effers make a damn good living out of exploiting the credulous, excuse me, the pious.

I'm not going into the subject of religious cruelty. My head and heart are too oppressed by the horrors we all know.

I don't think religion helped humans spread to all parts of the earth. Hunger did that.

[RandFan]

sackett,

I hope that you won't get angry or respond emotionally. I respect your opinion I simply disagree. So often these disagreements turn into pissing contests and I know that a number of things I have written could be taken as provocative. They are not meant to be. I do not mean to attack you personally nor do I think that I am smarter than you or know more. I think however that you are making a number of errors in thought and logic.

If I am wrong I apologize. Please consider what I am saying before you respond.

Originally posted by sackett
Dang, first you take my post apart at the seams, then you plainly call religion the same thing I do: fantasy. I don't think we disagree on much. Hey sackett, any and all ideas are and should be subject to questioning. Even mine ;)

Maybe we disagree on details. It is simply our perception of religion. Religion is a human construct and exists in part because humans sought the truth. Religion is philosophy.

phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n.[list=1] Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.[/list=1] Please note that I have left some of the definitions out. Also note that 4 is only applicable when there are competing egos and ideologies (See Martin Luther).

Some people only see the very real manipulative and controlling aspects of religion. Some only see the good aspects. Neither view is completely true.

Humans didn't invent religion as a means to oppress. Religion likely developed because of the need of humans to define ethics and to understand the natural world.

Historically, religion is akin to the wheel. It was a part of our intellectual evolution and helped to survive (persist).

As a philosophy however, Religion is seriously flawed. By basing its beliefs in an omnipotent god it is very, very difficult to change its tenants. This is one of the reasons there are so many religions. When a person who is not the religious leader thinks the rules are flawed they often have start a new religion. (see King Henry VIII).

In any event I am awed by religion historically and I think it very much a source for both good and bad.

By "real purpose" I mean accomplishment. Perhaps all I really mean is the increasing of knowledge instead of the mere elaboration and propagation of doctrine. I will agree religion does not lend itself to increasing knowledge once the beliefs were codified.

I'm sticking to my opinion that religion divides people rather than unites them. Yes, it can unite people into groups as opposed to other groups, e.g., Sikh vs. Moslem, Moslem vs. Hindu, Catholic vs. Protestant, Mormon vs. everybody. But even the cultic groups aren't stable; pretty soon they start wrangling the vital difference between twiddle-dee and twiddle-dim, in the age-old manner of theologians. Tribalism is human nature and not merely a byproduct of religion. Us vs them.
We are number one.
The Cowboys are the greatest football team in history.
My High school was the best high school.
Rock is better than country western.
The east side is better than the west side.
Chinese communism is superior to Soviet communism.
Rich people are snobs. Religion is but a mirror of human nature. When the Soviets and Chinese adopted atheism they did not eliminate such divisions.

About waste: Tell me the value of 99% of modern religious architecture. Show me the esthetic value of garish Hindu or Catholic idols. Tell me how a TV god-walloper in a Cadillac is worth as much as one decent clinic in Rwanda.There are a couple of fallacies in the above including false dilemma and false comparison (apples vs oranges).

Tell me the value of 99% of Las Vegas architecture?

Please show me the aesthetic value of the painting "Dogs Playing Cards?"

Tell me how drinking alcohol for pleasure is worth as much as one decent clinic in Rwanda?

Such comparisons are meaningless. Art is subjective. We can and should have leisure activities. I assume you have some hobbies. Why shouldn't you give up your hobbies and donate all of the money you would otherwise spend on them to charity?

I know the old aphorism about patriotism and scoundrels. But we hear a lot about diddling Catholic priests and the bishops who sheltered them (and probably continue the shelter the uncaught ones), while bloody-minded fanatics seem to find a comfortable home among Muslims and Hindus - and Jews, and even, God help man, among Buddhists. As for thugs among the communists: Some would argue (and I'd find it hard to refute them) that old-time commie-ism was and is a religion. You have your answer. Humans are...well, human. We will hide behind anything including Communism to justify our actions.

No, religion is not a philosophy. It's the antithesis of philosophy; Please see definition above. It IS by definition a philosophy.

it's in no sense a search for truth. With all due respect you are demonstrably wrong. You are also approaching this in a very uncritical fashion. In other words you are responding much the way many people who are religious respond.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/K113)

Also: Many religions started schools in part for scientific inquiry. Did you know that? Did you know that many truths were discovered by Monks, Jewish Scholars, Mormon Scientists, etc.

Genetics was discovered by a Monk (Mendel).

Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/viewbook.asp?isbn=0300061129)

This book is the first to examine closely the interaction between Jewish culture, medicine, and science during Europe`s age of "scientific revolution." Most students of Jewish history have treated the period from the late sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries as a mere extension of the Jewish Middle Ages, a time when the Jewish world was cut off from intellectual developments in the Christian world. The eminent scholar David Ruderman here argues, however, that during this era Jewish culture and society became increasingly aware of medical and scientific advances, and that a new Jewish scientific discourse evolved that had significant repercussions for Jewish religious concerns.


Jesuits and the Sciences, 1540-1995 (http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Flibraries.luc.edu%2F about%2Fexhibits%2Fjesuits%2F)

Early Jesuit scientific investigations were for the most part conservatively grounded in Aristotelian natural philosophy and the "classical" sciences of geometry, astronomy, optics, statics and mechanics. Jesuit science during the period 1580-1620 is characterized by commentaries on Aristotle, Euclid and other ancient writers, and by the mathematical and astronomical works of scientists such as Christoph Clavius. Works by Jesuits against magic, demonology, alchemy and astrology are also common at this period, some reflecting a belief in these practices, others written in an attempt by members of the Society to differentiate superstition and pseudo-science from true scientific investigation.

Religion is the enemy of free enquiry, and everywhere attempts to put down rationality, by any means it can - and no wonder, when you consider how many cynical effers make a damn good living out of exploiting the credulous, excuse me, the pious. More fallacy. Sorry sackett. That there are any number of cynical effers who make a damn good living out of exploiting the credulous is not proof that religion is the enemy of free enquiry.

I will agree that religion can be and often is reason why many people lock their brains. But there are many doctors, researches, professors, etc. who are religious but who are not closed minded and are in the pursuit of truth.

I'm not going into the subject of religious cruelty. My head and heart are too oppressed by the horrors we all know. Fallacy, an appeal to emotion.

I don't think religion helped humans spread to all parts of the earth. Hunger did that. "Helped." There were many things that "helped". You are committing a false dilemma. Hunger AND religion and other things helped. Religion along with oral history helped provide culture and sense of community.

sackett,

Don't let your emotions and bias get in the way of finding the truth about religion. In my opinion you are making a number of false assumptions and committing a number of fallacies. I really appreciate the discussion and I hope we can discuss this in a civil manner.

Thank you,

RandFan

[RandFan]

I would like to also point out that there is lots of very valuable (valued) and critically aclaimed religious art.

Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, George Frederick Handel, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, etc., etc.

Also,

If you take a course in philosophy you are likely to learn about .Immanuel Kant (http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm).

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him. This portion of the Encyclopedia entry will focus on his metaphysics and epistemology in one of his most important works, The Critique of Pure Reason. (All references will be to the A (1781) and B(1787) edition pages in Werner Pluhar's translation. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996.) A large part of Kant's work addresses the question "What can we know?" The answer, if it can be stated simply, is that our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical world. It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason that knowledge has these constraints, Kant argues, is that the mind plays an active role in constituting the features of experience and limiting the mind's access to the empirical realm of space and time.Kant is a rewnowned philosopher and a believer in god. It was his belief in god that fueled much of his work.

[sackett]

RandFan , I must come across as some kinda badass. Why would I get angry at being contradicted, even if in some cases you're right and I'm wrong? (You'll pay for that. I swear I'll make you ALL pay for that!)

Well, taking your points in no particular order, because I have to compose offline:

I've never like philosophy definition # 5; I think it's a folk perception of philosophy, confusing a multifaceted process with a supposed outcome, i.e., a "philosophical" outlook. But I cheerfully admit that I have no business talking philosophy at all, so let's consider your point won.

As for religious men achieving real material and intellectual accomplishments: I don't think it was their wopperjawed beliefs that made them excel; I think they achieved things in spite of their ostensible religions. In other words, I don't think superstition equips men to think clearly and creatively. Yes, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, but not because he was a monk, rather in spite of his religious affiliation. Recall too that he worked the whole thing out with mice, and then was obliged by priggish people (religious people) to do it all over again with peas.

Of course men can be divided by things other than religion, but no other differences arouse such rancor, riot, and murder as those arising from superstitious beliefs. Can you tell the difference between a Serb and a Bosnian? Neither can they, but one is Orthodox and the other is Muslim, and that makes one helluva difference to them.

About the waste caused by religion: To be sure, it's not just church-building that futilely consumes wealth, and the whole of $%^&+! Vegas isn't worth one cracked roof-tile on the smallest cathedral in Europe. But contemplate the stupendous waste of Avebury: more material moved than in Cheops's pyramid, apparently for no other than religious purposes - and I doubt that the religion of Neolithic Britain ran to much in the way of refined or exalted mysticism. Not that we can know; in the end it was all for nothing whatever.

Then there's the delectable subject of church property and the wealth of the priesthood, a scandal going back to the Egyptian Old Kingdom. When you hear "oath of poverty," send for the auditors.

I'm still not going to dwell on religious cruelty. Yes, that's an appeal to emotion; goddamn right it is.

As for religion searching for the truth: My short reply is that the stuff religious "scholars" believe isn't knowledge, and the things they do aren't work. Religious enquiry is like a tennis game: you have to agree to set up a net and play within boundaries. That's not the free play of ideas. I'm glad that you think, like me, "that religion can be and often is reason why many people lock their brains." Told you we don't disagree all that much.

For another example of what we agree on, I'm sure you concur that religion arises continually in the human mind, and that it begins with a nagging sense that "there must be more than this." I would opine (and aren't opinions wonderful! you don't have to prove a thing!) that the human sense of awe and wonder, the numinous sensation, is adaptive in that it makes men engage persistently with the world. Without it, we'd still be carving our dinners raw with pebble tools. (Somebody will observe that that might be a better state of the world than what we have now, but I've lived too close to genuine barbarism to buy it. Not that I'm never tempted.) Possibly the personal, frequently private and even secret religion of hunters had and still has some value, in that a belief in your medicine might give you more confidence, and confidence would lead to success. After all, hunters are not at the mercy of great forces; they always have a tomorrow.

But when those powerful precursors to religion, awe and fascination, are attached to imaginary beings that we try to propitiate, then the trouble starts. I would hazard another opinion, viz., that public religion, cultish religion, institutionalized religion that empowers a priesthood - in short, the kind of religion we're familiar with - isn't older than agriculture, a transition in human life that disempowered man and left him feeling pathetic.

I don't say you'll never convince me that the religion of settled peoples is adaptive, but you've got your work cut out for you. Fair warning.

I've already described one good use for religious belief: comfort for the dying. But if my emotions and bias (two different things, I hope) have been getting in the way of discovering the truth about religion, then let's lash the cannons to the bulwarks and have a proper gam: What is the whole truth about religon?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by sackett
RandFan , I must come across as some kinda badass. Why would I get angry at being contradicted, even if in some cases you're right and I'm wrong? No you don't come across like that. Citing fallacy can be rather provocative to some. And tone is often hard to convey through writing. I wanted to make certain we didn't get off on the wrong foot. Trust me it has happened so many times to me and I have ended up in a long drawn out debate wonderting to myself "how the hell did that happen. To be fair I often come accross as arrogant and condesending when I don't really mean to be.

As for religious men achieving real material and intellectual accomplishments: I don't think it was their wopperjawed beliefs that made them excel; I think they achieved things in spite of their ostensible religions. In other words, I don't think superstition equips men to think clearly and creatively. Yes, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, but not because he was a monk, rather in spite of his religious affiliation. Recall too that he worked the whole thing out with mice, and then was obliged by priggish people (religious people) to do it all over again with peas. Very good argument. I considered it myself. Yes, great people can succeed in spite of religion. And I think many have. However, as the examples point out religious organizations established places of learning and encouraged it. If a religious organization expends a good deal of its resources in pursuit of truth and is tolerant of its researchers can it really be said that those researchers excelled in spite of religion?

Of course men can be divided by things other than religion, but no other differences arouse such rancor, riot, and murder as those arising from superstitious beliefs. Can you tell the difference between a Serb and a Bosnian? Neither can they, but one is Orthodox and the other is Muslim, and that makes one helluva difference to them. I don't necessarily agree. Further I think such a claim would be difficult to prove. I have had this argument many times and no one yet as offered any data to suggest that you are correct. As it is I would say your argument is specious but I would gladly entertain any and all proof that would prove me wrong.

About the waste caused by religion: To be sure, it's not just church-building that futilely consumes wealth, and the whole of $%^&+! Vegas isn't worth one cracked roof-tile on the smallest cathedral in Europe. But contemplate the stupendous waste of Avebury: more material moved than in Cheops's pyramid, apparently for no other than religious purposes - and I doubt that the religion of Neolithic Britain ran to much in the way of refined or exalted mysticism. Not that we can know; in the end it was all for nothing whatever. But this is a judgment by you. I might be compelled to agree with you based on my own bias but not on any empirical data. Who are we to declare what is and is not worthy human behavior?

I'm still not going to dwell on religious cruelty. Yes, that's an appeal to emotion; goddamn right it is. I don't mind fallacy when it is recognized as such. I have my own favorite fallacies that I fall back on Tu Quoque being the favorite.

However I think an appeal to emotion might be appropriate in some circumstances and this might be one of those. I don't think so but I will keep an open mind.

As for religion searching for the truth: My short reply is that the stuff religious "scholars" believe isn't knowledge, and the things they do aren't work. Religious enquiry is like a tennis game: you have to agree to set up a net and play within boundaries. That's not the free play of ideas. I'm glad that you think, like me, "that religion can be and often is reason why many people lock their brains." Told you we don't disagree all that much. Humans are very good at compartmentalizing. There are and have been many religious scholars who have admirably sought the truth in various fields and at the prompting of religious leaders.

Religion CAN be and often IS a stumbling block to finding the truth. You and I can cite many examples. There is good reason for this as you and I both know. It is hard to change beliefs. Change often threatens those in power. However that it does so does not mean that Religion can never be a cause for good and seeking truth. Again, there are many examples that show that religious figures have found the truth at the prompting of religious authority.

I don't say you'll never convince me that the religion of settled peoples is adaptive, but you've got your work cut out for you. Fair warning. It is really not my purpose to show that "religion" is ever adaptive though I do think it can be (Pope John Paul has embraced evolution). Rather my point is that religion often looks for truth in many areas and is more likely to embarrass that truth when it doesn't offend held beliefs. Also, religion is not static. There have been many times throughout history where religious authority was more tolerant to science and change than others.

I've already described one good use for religious belief: comfort for the dying. But if my emotions and bias (two different things, I hope) have been getting in the way of discovering the truth about religion, then let's lash the cannons to the bulwarks and have a proper gam: What is the whole truth about religion? I would not begin to presuppose that I could answer that question.

Religion is manythings to many people. Trying to find any meaningful definition as to the truth of religion would be in my opinion a fools errand.

Rather, religion is best defined IMHO as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

If the spiritual leader or organization is conducive to finding the truth and is willing to spend its resources in search of the truth and is somewhat tolerant to new ideas (especially ones that don't directly challenge cannon law) then the church is capable of finding truth. There are many such examples. A couple of them I have already given you.

Good post. Thanks,

RandFan

[sackett]

Why didn't I have the wit to write "let's lash the CANONS to the bulwarks"? Oh well, my staircase wit occurs late the next morning while I'm struggling to put on my pants.

When I said that I doubt that religion is ever adaptive, I meant that it serves no adaptive purpose: it doesn't help people survive. Of course religions adapt themselves to changing times; the dog-collar crowd is always nimble at reworking The Eternal Truths. Gods evolve to help the priests survive.

When I speak, or rather decline to speak, of religious cruelty, I am of course thinking (or trying not to think) of stuff like human sacrifice and the things the pious do to heretics. And as I type this, the Hindu caste system is accomplishing prodigies of studied cruelty.

But there are other cruelties wrought by religious beliefs. Christianism has millennia of tortured souls to answer for: all that guilt over normal human impulses, all the literal and figurative self-flagellation, all the futile, even silly, agonizing doubt on the part of perfectly good men who feared that they might not be Following Christ's Way.

And the fear of hellfire! The guy who introduced that to the cult deserves ten thousand years of my boot rapidly hammering his dirty ass! (Note that I don't condemn him to eternal punishment; finite sin doesn't merit infinite punishment.) (Make that fifteen thousand years.) You'll pardon me if I don't recognize any fallacy in the assertion that religion has a lot of ghastly cruelty to answer for.

I asked you to explicate the whole truth of religion, and of course you declined. Yay! "By shamelessly cheating, the superior man scores a point," it says somewhere in the Tao Te Ching.* Nobody can cover the whole truth of religion. But I fear that may be because there's no objective truth to be found. Ask an Abrahamic religionist, Do you really, truly believe that a Bronze Age semitic sky-deity made the universe? and you'll be served up a 'namazing quantity of waffles, with so much defining and refining of the question that in the end God comes out looking like some lace-trimmed Jesuit, about as worship-worthy as the Tooth Fairy. Bah. I'd liefer turn Cargo Cultist.
* Gee, I don't have my copy at hand just now, but I'm sure we all know the passage.

About the value of religious art, you said, "I might be compelled to agree with you based on my own bias but not on any empirical data. Who are we to declare what is and is not worthy human behavior?"

EMPIRICAL DATA? We don't need no stinking empirical data! The whole work of esthetic judgment is above and beyond the grubbiness of data! Who are we? WE ARE MEN OF TASTE AND DISCERNMENT AND WE CAN GODDAMN WELL DECLARE WHAT'S GOOD ART AND BAD! A little less humility, RandMan. I will pass final judgment on that repellent Catholic church on Mack Avenue in Detroit, and on the sub-Woolworth idols they fill it with. I will spurn the garish calendars of gods (simpering Vishnu! cloying Krishna!) on the walls of my Hindu colleagues! I will despise the lopsided ikons the Orthodox lug about in their processions! And I will pity the men - you can't say artists -- who toiled to create all those things! Whew! Somebody fan me.

I'm surprised you want data to support the idea that religious differences embitter human conflict, increasing the level of atrocity. But that's just the kind of assumption that should be examined. Perhaps it would be impossible to measure such a thing with great precision, but much could be confidently surmised, one way or another. [heavy irony] Somebody should write a book about that. [/heavy irony]

You said, ". . . religion is best defined IMHO as 'A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.'" Eeyup, got that right. And that's why I always equate religion with superstition. If, say, Joseph Smith was a spiritual leader, then I'm Bertrand Russel.

You also said, ". . . I often come across as arrogant and condescending when I don't really mean to be." I suggest you not worry about it. Intelligent men can lose their tempers when trying to cope with fools. Have your footmen give the wretched fellows a whipping, get in your carriage, and drive awa

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jmercer
Let me open a can of worms. :)

All people are capable of skepticism. (Unless they are mentally impaired or emotionally disturbed.) However, it's painfully clear that many people actively avoid skeptical thinking. It's not that they're not capable of it. Skepticism is a choice, the decision to not accept something without proof.

Like accepting your thesis? :)

I'm skeptical of skeptics, so sue me.

How about this. Let's say you're talking to a religious person. You give them a line of thinking and, GASP, they are skeptical about it. Does that make the religious person a skeptic? Is that person, in fact, being skeptical?

Is skepticism what you do, or what you believe? An activity, or a belief system?

Let's take a completely disinterested observer. He sees a religious person talking to a skeptical person. The two people aren't connecting, they are both dissecting and rejecting arguments that are presented to each other. Which, according to the disinterested observer, is the skeptic?

Or, are you only a skeptic if you proclaim yourself to be one?


I don't think so. Skepticism is actually a difficult path to take.

Does it make you feel better to think this?

Ummm...well, if you're in a minority, when it comes to a belief system, I think it is easy to classify your particular choice in any way that you want. So, it would be difficult for you to be a skeptic, wouldn't it? Because you are *capable* of it. And those that aren't, well, they are simpletons lacking particular attributes that you have in spades.

Not that I'm attacking you, but yours is really a statement that says more about the kind of person you *think* that you are, and the kind of person you think the rest of humanty is, as opposed to any sort of objective truth.

How about this. I could easily say that you are not a religious believer because religious belief is too difficult for you. I really don't know how helpful the *difficult* label is.

Or, I could say that since you are a skeptic, it was the easiest thing in the world for you to become a skeptic. Because you are a skeptic. Unless you would disagree, and walk me through the process that led you to your belief system. And then I could have an analagous example of someone who had a process that led to religious belief, akin to your personal journey.

Of course it is a fact that most people are relgious, and that most people impart their religious belief on their children, to some extent or another. It's a reality, fortunate or unfortunate, that is no doubt disagreeable to you. In that sense, I can perceive that it is difficult to buck such a system...yet...I reckon you feel empowered by your current belief system, right? You are certainly not ashamed of your skepticism. You certainly feel smarter, more rational, more enlightened, than a hell of a lot of other people. I'm not sure how difficult it is for you to be a skeptic, frankly (me being skeptical of skeptics).

How about this. Why is it difficult for you to be a skeptic, or, why was it difficult for you to become a skeptic?


It requires a willingness on the part of the skeptic to challenge beliefs, and then deal with the conflict and confrontations that happen because of the challenge.

But this goes for relgious people too. Take your poster-boy for religious fervor. Does he challenge beliefs (secular for instance)? Does he deal with conflict and confrontation? See, this stuff is INDEPENDENT of whether or not you are a self-described religious believer or skeptic.

I get the sense that you are trying to nobilize yourself and I'm just not buying it. Yes, I agree that yours is a minority opinion and that many people disagree with you. So what? That's the story of my life, and I'm in church 3 days a week 4 times on Sunday. :)


Critical thinking is part-and-parcel of skepticism, but it's the part that requires a lot of effort.

Does it require any more, or less effort, than young earth Creationist contortionists?

Hell, it could require maximum effort to believe that black is actually white. So what? Effort is not indicitative of inherent worth.


It's not intuitive, and it's not easily done in most cases.

This is an interesting sentence that I have to ruminate about. I'll check back tomorrow, and really look forward to your response.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

Originally posted by sackett
Why didn't I have the wit to write "let's lash the CANONS to the bulwarks"? Oh well, my staircase wit occurs late the next morning while I'm struggling to put on my pants.

When I said that I doubt that religion is ever adaptive, I meant that it serves no adaptive purpose: it doesn't help people survive. Of course religions adapt themselves to changing times; the dog-collar crowd is always nimble at reworking The Eternal Truths. Gods evolve to help the priests survive.

When I speak, or rather decline to speak, of religious cruelty, I am of course thinking (or trying not to think) of stuff like human sacrifice and the things the pious do to heretics. And as I type this, the Hindu caste system is accomplishing prodigies of studied cruelty.

But there are other cruelties wrought by religious beliefs. Christianism has millennia of tortured souls to answer for: all that guilt over normal human impulses, all the literal and figurative self-flagellation, all the futile, even silly, agonizing doubt on the part of perfectly good men who feared that they might not be Following Christ's Way.

And the fear of hellfire! The guy who introduced that to the cult deserves ten thousand years of my boot rapidly hammering his dirty ass! (Note that I don't condemn him to eternal punishment; finite sin doesn't merit infinite punishment.) (Make that fifteen thousand years.) You'll pardon me if I don't recognize any fallacy in the assertion that religion has a lot of ghastly cruelty to answer for.

I asked you to explicate the whole truth of religion, and of course you declined. Yay! "By shamelessly cheating, the superior man scores a point," it says somewhere in the Tao Te Ching.* Nobody can cover the whole truth of religion. But I fear that may be because there's no objective truth to be found. Ask an Abrahamic religionist, Do you really, truly believe that a Bronze Age semitic sky-deity made the universe? and you'll be served up a 'namazing quantity of waffles, with so much defining and refining of the question that in the end God comes out looking like some lace-trimmed Jesuit, about as worship-worthy as the Tooth Fairy. Bah. I'd liefer turn Cargo Cultist.
* Gee, I don't have my copy at hand just now, but I'm sure we all know the passage.

About the value of religious art, you said, "I might be compelled to agree with you based on my own bias but not on any empirical data. Who are we to declare what is and is not worthy human behavior?"

EMPIRICAL DATA? We don't need no stinking empirical data! The whole work of esthetic judgment is above and beyond the grubbiness of data! Who are we? WE ARE MEN OF TASTE AND DISCERNMENT AND WE CAN GODDAMN WELL DECLARE WHAT'S GOOD ART AND BAD! A little less humility, RandMan. I will pass final judgment on that repellent Catholic church on Mack Avenue in Detroit, and on the sub-Woolworth idols they fill it with. I will spurn the garish calendars of gods (simpering Vishnu! cloying Krishna!) on the walls of my Hindu colleagues! I will despise the lopsided ikons the Orthodox lug about in their processions! And I will pity the men - you can't say artists -- who toiled to create all those things! Whew! Somebody fan me.

I'm surprised you want data to support the idea that religious differences embitter human conflict, increasing the level of atrocity. But that's just the kind of assumption that should be examined. Perhaps it would be impossible to measure such a thing with great precision, but much could be confidently surmised, one way or another. [heavy irony] Somebody should write a book about that. [/heavy irony]

You said, ". . . religion is best defined IMHO as 'A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.'" Eeyup, got that right. And that's why I always equate religion with superstition. If, say, Joseph Smith was a spiritual leader, then I'm Bertrand Russel.

You also said, ". . . I often come across as arrogant and condescending when I don't really mean to be." I suggest you not worry about it. Intelligent men can lose their tempers when trying to cope with fools. Have your footmen give the wretched fellows a whipping, get in your carriage, and drive awa Great post. I like the "we don't need no stinking emperical data" line. Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

I don't necassarily agree with all you wrote but I like it. As long as you understand my argument then all is well.

BTW, I grew up a Mormon and went on a mission. When I had to come to terms with the fact that Joseph Smith was a scam artist it really rocked my world.

Thanks,

RandFan

[sackett]

Always glad to talk to a jack Mormon; my Uncle Bill was one, and he lived in the Big Horn Basin surrounded by true-believing Saints; must have been hard at times, although you wouldn't know it to look at him; a contentedly realistic man.

Only trouble here is that I -don't- understand your argument. Are you saying that religious belief qua belief is a good thing in and of itself? Surely you don't mean that. There are differences among religions, and some are even worse than others. (I don't want to go into the religious practices of ancient Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America. See my earlier posts about cringing from horrors.)

Religious beliefs are like any other fantastic claims: they must be supported by evidence before a thinking person can take them seriously.

I realize that you must sometimes miss the cosy inclusiveness of Mormonism. You may well be biased by that, and be led into thinking that religion is somehow good for people. But I don't think the conviction of utter rightness that characterizes the ardently religious is ever a good thing. I'll mention Mountain Meadows and the Avenging Angels, and then have done.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by sackett
Only trouble here is that I -don't- understand your argument. Are you saying that religious belief qua belief is a good thing in and of itself? Surely you don't mean that. There are differences among religions, and some are even worse than others. (I don't want to go into the religious practices of ancient Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America. See my earlier posts about cringing from horrors.) I do not argue that religion is always good. Clearly it is not. However you are making a couple of errors. The first is to assume that any negative human behavior that is associated with religion was caused by religion.

Second you fail to see religion for what it really is. A human construct that was part of our societal evolution and played a part in the creation of ethics and was a central part of human culture.

Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/boul7525.htm)

In his concluding chapters Boulding uses his evolutionary approach to understanding societal evolution to examine the role of religion and ethics in human history. He speculates on alternative futures, and alternative patterns for understanding the greater universe. Boulding identifies a number of factors which make it very difficult to make accurate predictions about human societies. With these difficulties in mind, Boulding offers some general observations about the possible alternatives for the future in human politics, the possibility of a world government, the future of human households, sex, arts and religion. While Boulding's project has been to understand the world through the pattern of evolution, he concludes by examining four other ways of viewing the world. These ways are animism, creationism, materialism, and revolutionism. He argues that none of these views is as comprehensive as evolution. However, each view has its role. Each view can be understood as a human artifact, developing and changing within the larger pattern of human evolution.

BTW, you failed to answer a question. If a religious organization expends a good deal of its resources in pursuit of truth and is tolerant of its researchers can it really be said that those researchers excelled in spite of religion?

Religious beliefs are like any other fantastic claims: they must be supported by evidence before a thinking person can take them seriously. I don't disagree with this at all. But let's back up for a moment. Humans have a very innate and powerful urge to understand and explain the natural world. It was not comforting nor was it in their nature for people in the past to simply say they did not know why things happened.

Also, humans living in societies needed to develop a system of rules so that their could be cohesiveness. Religion provided a basis for this.

When you (sackett) examine religion you only see the false claims, the irrational and the negative aspects. This is not all that religion is. Religion is also culture and philosophy. And not just the definition that you chose. Religion sought the truth. Religion sought answer to questions about the natural world. They did not always say "god did it". Otherwise they would not have needed to start institutions of higher education, fund experiments and research. Again, whether you find many of the aspects of religion uncomfortable is beside the point.

Yes, religion often stood in the way of intellectual pursuit. Yes, religion has a built in bias that makes it difficult to find the truth. The problem with religious philosophy is that it is flawed. You and I both agree. But I do not see religion as only a blight on human societal evolution because there is much there to be praised.

I realize that you must sometimes miss the cosy inclusiveness of Mormonism. You may well be biased by that, and be led into thinking that religion is somehow good for people. Not only do I agree but I have stated similar statement many times on this forum. However, I recognize my bias and work hard to overcome it. I cannot deny the very real and documented contributions that religion has made to our social evolution.

But I don't think the conviction of utter rightness that characterizes the ardently religious is ever a good thing. Neither do I. "Even a blind man can find the center pocket once in a while."

Not all religious leaders had or have this conviction. Many are convinced that god lives but everything else is up for grabs.

Darwin was a religious man. He certainly was not convinced of his utter rightness. Being an atheist never was a prerequisite for being a scientist.

At the risk of arguing ad nauseam let me repost a couple of examples.

This book is the first to examine closely the interaction between Jewish culture, medicine, and science during Europe`s age of "scientific revolution." In this example Jewish culture is specifically linked to scientific revolution.


Early Jesuit scientific investigations were for the most part conservatively grounded in Aristotelian natural philosophy and the "classical" sciences of geometry, astronomy, optics, statics and mechanics. Jesuit science during the period 1580-1620 is characterized by commentaries on Aristotle, Euclid and other ancient writers, and by the mathematical and astronomical works of scientists such as Christoph Clavius. Works by Jesuits against magic, demonology, alchemy and astrology are also common at this period, some reflecting a belief in these practices, others written in an attempt by members of the Society to differentiate superstition and pseudo-science from true scientific investigation. Did you read that one? Is "Jesuit Science" an oxymoron? There was much discovery as a result of Jesuit Science. Funded and encouraged by the religious leaders of the time.

Again sacket you betray your bias. In your world religion cannot contribute to the advancement of the human condition. This is demonstrably untrue.

I'll mention Mountain Meadows and the Avenging Angels, and then have done. I absolutely agree that there are negative aspects to religion. Of course religion does not work in a vacuum. Human desire to control and seek retribution whether there is religion or not.

It is not my desire to defend religion. It is my desire to find the truth.

[sackett]

RandFan said, ". . . you are making a couple of errors. The first is to - assume that any negative human behavior that is associated with religion was caused by religion.

"Second, you fail to see religion for what it really is. A human construct that was part of our societal evolution and played a part in the creation of ethics and was a central part of human culture."

Let's remember that the phenomena we call religions are not of really high antiquity. Humans had evolved a moral and ethical capacity long before they were socially organized enough to have priests and temples and theologians and inquisitors. In evolutionary terms, the cults of today have only just come into existence.

No, not all deplorable human behavior is attributable to religion. But the bad behavior (how inadequate a term that is) of the religious, i.e., evil motivated by religion, is so peculiarly appalling because it's irrational. It springs from ludicrous beliefs that wouldn't fool a country schoolmarm when viewed objectively. (Or am I failing here "to see religion for what it really is?")

Here in the Western world we inherit an uncomfortable situation vis-Ã_-vis religion. I've said on another occasion that surely no religion in history has ever wallowed in images of agony and death the way Christianism does, and particularly the Catholic variety, which after all was the earliest large-scale form of the cult, and which still gives it its peculiar luridness. It's no wonder that a Western man who rejects religion will get heated over it. Here's one Westerner who lets his heat boil, and blows off the steam pretty frequently.

And I'm going to stick by my contention that religious institutions are havens for the unscrupulous, larcenous, and sadistic. The destruction of the Cathars comes to mind; I wish it wouldn't.

Yes, "Jesuit science" is an oxymoron. If a religious organization is willing to leave its members alone to pursue learning instead of elaborating theology, it can at most be said to make a passive contribution to knowledge. Let a Jezzie or other type of brother threaten any part of doctrine, and you'll see the hierarchy land on him four-footed. Recant! Repent! Abjure! bellow the bishops, and the brother will be lucky if he escapes with his life - well, nowadays I suppose they'd just unfrock him; the civil arm no longer tolerates the rigor of old-time religion. (Unless the civil arm is in cahoots with the dominant cult - and it often is, because a powerful religion is a fine ally for those who love tyranny.)

You said, "It is not my desire to defend religion." But I think it is. I think your desire leads you to credit religion with more than it deserves.

Thank you for not getting steamed over yet another gentile dragging in Mountain Meadows. Most Mormons are up to the back teeth with MM, and I can see why.

[jmercer]

elliotfc, I apologize - I've been busy in other threads and haven't checked this one because it hasn't stayed at the top for very long... sorry.

However, thank you for a long, thoughtful and cogent response. :)

Originally posted by elliotfc
Like accepting your thesis? :)

I'm skeptical of skeptics, so sue me.

How about this. Let's say you're talking to a religious person. You give them a line of thinking and, GASP, they are skeptical about it. Does that make the religious person a skeptic? Is that person, in fact, being skeptical?

Is skepticism what you do, or what you believe? An activity, or a belief system?


Skepticism doesn't presuppose correctness - in the case of the religious person, then yes - they're being skeptical, as you are about my thesis. :)

Skepticism (to me) is a methodology of questioning statements or beliefs by requiring convincing evidence to support those statements/beliefs. If the skeptic is already aware of such evidence, then they're not being skeptical, they're being obtuse.

If a skeptic is not aware of the evidence - or if they reasonably believe the presented evidence is incomplete, incorrect, insufficient or inconclusive - then they are simply continuing the process of investigation and inquiry.

However, if the evidence is conclusive or authoritative (i.e., the laws of thermodynamics, etc.), then the skeptic should then either accept the statement or belief, or at least consider it as a valid possibility.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Let's take a completely disinterested observer. He sees a religious person talking to a skeptical person. The two people aren't connecting, they are both dissecting and rejecting arguments that are presented to each other. Which, according to the disinterested observer, is the skeptic?

Or, are you only a skeptic if you proclaim yourself to be one?



The one who is basing his or her position on evidence - or lack thereof. :)


Originally posted by elliotfc


Originally posted by jmercer
Skepticism is actually a difficult path to take.

Does it make you feel better to think this?

Ummm...well, if you're in a minority, when it comes to a belief system, I think it is easy to classify your particular choice in any way that you want. So, it would be difficult for you to be a skeptic, wouldn't it? Because you are *capable* of it. And those that aren't, well, they are simpletons lacking particular attributes that you have in spades.

Not that I'm attacking you, but yours is really a statement that says more about the kind of person you *think* that you are, and the kind of person you think the rest of humanty is, as opposed to any sort of objective truth.

How about this. I could easily say that you are not a religious believer because religious belief is too difficult for you. I really don't know how helpful the *difficult* label is.

Or, I could say that since you are a skeptic, it was the easiest thing in the world for you to become a skeptic. Because you are a skeptic. Unless you would disagree, and walk me through the process that led you to your belief system. And then I could have an analagous example of someone who had a process that led to religious belief, akin to your personal journey.

Of course it is a fact that most people are relgious, and that most people impart their religious belief on their children, to some extent or another. It's a reality, fortunate or unfortunate, that is no doubt disagreeable to you. In that sense, I can perceive that it is difficult to buck such a system...yet...I reckon you feel empowered by your current belief system, right? You are certainly not ashamed of your skepticism. You certainly feel smarter, more rational, more enlightened, than a hell of a lot of other people. I'm not sure how difficult it is for you to be a skeptic, frankly (me being skeptical of skeptics).

How about this. Why is it difficult for you to be a skeptic, or, why was it difficult for you to become a skeptic?


Man, you are reading way too much into that statement of mine. :)

There are several reasons why skepticism is a difficult path to take:

1) Questioning authority - you have to be willing to do this. Lots of people aren't willing to do so for many, many reasons.

2) Dealing with conflict - again, skeptics will encounter this and have to be willing to endure and/or handle it.

3) Critical thinking - you have to not only question other's beliefs, but your own. You have to examine both their position and yours for logical or or evidential error/inconsistency, often a time-consuming and exhausting effort.

4) Fair-mindedness - it's easy for a skeptic to slip into unthinking cynicism. Skeptics have to continually monitor themselves to prevent knee-jerk reactions. (Which still happen, but skeptics are human, too, after all.)

5) Open-mindedness - while questioning someone's belief or statement, a skeptic shouldn't have his/her mind made up beforehand - unless it's an argument that's been proven false before and no new evidence is forthcoming.

Let me sum it up - skepticism is a difficult path to take because it's a lot of very hard work - as opposed to blind faith, which requires only a willingness to accept things at face value.

BTW - since you've been trying to cold-read my background, belief system and personality preferences - I happen to be an active Roman Catholic and a believer in God. That doesn't mean I agree or buy into organized religious precepts, though - or even agree with the RCC's interpretation of God's will in various areas. :)

And - again, FYI - I wasn't brought up in any particular religion. My father was a Protestant, and my mother is Jewish. Neither of them pushed or prodded me in any religious way whatsoever. My childhood was - regarding religion - pretty much neutral, and I was left to make my own choices.

And no, I am not going to discuss my religious beliefs or experiences with you, or anyone else. My reasons for believing in God are personal, anecdotal, and completely private. :)

You seem to be taking the odd position that I "converted" to skepticism or something, and suddenly felt empowered or enobled. I didn't. I've been skeptical for most of my life... and in fact, didn't become seriously involved in religion until my late teens and early 20's.

What I have experienced through being skeptical is not a sense of superiority, and I apologize if that's how I came across in any way. I find skepticism to be a useful tool in discovering the truth about something - and that, in particular, I find rewarding.

Originally posted by elliotfc
But this goes for relgious people too. Take your poster-boy for religious fervor. Does he challenge beliefs (secular for instance)? Does he deal with conflict and confrontation? See, this stuff is INDEPENDENT of whether or not you are a self-described religious believer or skeptic.

I get the sense that you are trying to nobilize yourself and I'm just not buying it. Yes, I agree that yours is a minority opinion and that many people disagree with you. So what? That's the story of my life, and I'm in church 3 days a week 4 times on Sunday. :)

Does it require any more, or less effort, than young earth Creationist contortionists?

Hell, it could require maximum effort to believe that black is actually white. So what? Effort is not indicitative of inherent worth.

Heh... "nobilize" myself. Man, if you only knew me, my background and what my life's been like. :D

Anyway, I hope my earlier responses have answered the above commentary. And you're correct - effort is not indicative of inherent worth, which is why I value the results of skepticism and put up with the strain of it.

Believe me, it doesn't get easier over time. Each encounter is unique, and some of them are exhausting. And the jury is still out on some topics - for me, at least - so I'll be using my old skeptic's approach in the future to try and determine what I believe in, what is still in question... and of course, what is B.S.

Originally posted by elliotfc
This is an interesting sentence that I have to ruminate about. I'll check back tomorrow, and really look forward to your response.

-Elliot

Well, if it helps you any, critical thinking and skepticism find their roots back in philosophy, which has a reasonably well documented history. It's evolved and split off into branches since the days of Socrates, of course - but one thing's clear, it's not intuitive.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by sackett
Let's remember that the phenomena we call religions are not of really high antiquity. Humans had evolved a moral and ethical capacity long before they were socially organized enough to have priests and temples and theologians and inquisitors. In evolutionary terms, the cults of today have only just come into existence. I was using religion in a broad sense. Humans evolved a belief in god and gave him traits fairly early in our societal evolution.

No, not all deplorable human behavior is attributable to religion. But the bad behavior (how inadequate a term that is) of the religious, i.e., evil motivated by religion, is so peculiarly appalling because it's irrational. It springs from ludicrous beliefs that wouldn't fool a country schoolmarm when viewed objectively. (Or am I failing here "to see religion for what it really is?") Much of it is irrational. However people are irrational.

Here in the Western world we inherit an uncomfortable situation vis-ß-vis religion. I've said on another occasion that surely no religion in history has ever wallowed in images of agony and death the way Christianism does, and particularly the Catholic variety, which after all was the earliest large-scale form of the cult, and which still gives it its peculiar luridness. It's no wonder that a Western man who rejects religion will get heated over it. Here's one Westerner who lets his heat boil, and blows off the steam pretty frequently. Rhetoric. That's fine. I just don't necassarily agree.

And I'm going to stick by my contention that religious institutions are havens for the unscrupulous, larcenous, and sadistic. The destruction of the Cathars comes to mind; I wish it wouldn't. You are certinly entitled to an opinion.

Yes, "Jesuit science" is an oxymoron. If a religious organization is willing to leave its members alone to pursue learning instead of elaborating theology, it can at most be said to make a passive contribution to knowledge. That does not follow. Resources were expended. People were given a task to find the truth. You are bending over backwards to take away any possible credit. I find that a bit un-critical and says more about your feelings than about religion.

Let a Jezzie or other type of brother threaten any part of doctrine, and you'll see the hierarchy land on him four-footed. Recant! Repent! Abjure! bellow the bishops, and the brother will be lucky if he escapes with his life - well, nowadays I suppose they'd just unfrock him; the civil arm no longer tolerates the rigor of old-time religion. (Unless the civil arm is in cahoots with the dominant cult - and it often is, because a powerful religion is a fine ally for those who love tyranny.) More rhetoric. Whatever.

You said, "It is not my desire to defend religion." But I think it is. I think your desire leads you to credit religion with more than it deserves. You are entitled to think whatever you like. I think you are biased against religion (not completly without cause) but your bias prevents you from seeing any positic contributions and there are lots of them.

Thank you for not getting steamed over yet another gentile dragging in Mountain Meadows. Most Mormons are up to the back teeth with MM, and I can see why. There was a time when I would have. Not now though. I don't really see myself as Mormon. My family on both sides is Mormon so I feel its influence but that is all. I have not asked to be excomunicated but I don't personally see the point to that. I could care less.

[jmercer]

Bump.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jmercer
Skepticism (to me) is a methodology of questioning statements or beliefs by requiring convincing evidence to support those statements/beliefs. If the skeptic is already aware of such evidence, then they're not being skeptical, they're being obtuse.

Sounds good to me.

I'm not sure how necessary your caveat is. For example, the ostensible skeptic may be aware of "evidence", but he/she may not find the evidence convincing, and as such, would feel no real reason to bring it up. Convincing being the key word. I don't know if we need to add a moral dimension to skepticism. Not that there would be anything wrong with doing so.

How about willful misrepresentations? That's the thing that really gets me. That's why I'm skeptical of skepticism, too much horse straw. I guess I've been accused of that myself. Sometimes you do it without meaning to.


However, if the evidence is conclusive or authoritative (i.e., the laws of thermodynamics, etc.), then the skeptic should then either accept the statement or belief, or at least consider it as a valid possibility.

That's the thing. What's authoritative to one person isn't necessarily authoritative to another person. And also, my issue with skeptics is generally that they do *not* consider certain things as valid possibilities, because they go against some admitted and accepted *methodology* (let's ditch the science word for now) that they have chosen to use, not by force or unavoidable inertia, but by free will.

As for the science word, I've always believed that limiting objective reality to a canopy of "science" is unnecessary and indicitative of personal preference, as opposed to impersonal inquiry that doesn't need to fit into a constructed box.


Does it make you feel better to think this?

Probably. :)

I think that anytime anybody expresses opinions which encapsulate large groups of people, they get satisfaction in doing so, and that goes for me as much as any of you.

The thing is...I've never claimed that I don't possess faith or self-validating opinions. It's the general air of contrived dispassionate self-evidence that I am skeptical about. As in labeling large swaths of persons as irrational or un-smart or lacking in certain intellectual capabilities. To me such propositions have everything to do with the spreader, and not the labeled.


There are several reasons why skepticism is a difficult path to take:

1) Questioning authority - you have to be willing to do this. Lots of people aren't willing to do so for many, many reasons.

Of course you also have to be willing to accept authority.

I think your statement is completely dependent upon perspective. For example, if a religious kid questions a scientific dogma in a science class, is he questioning scientific authority, or obeying religious authority? Or, if a slacker doesn't do his homework and never goes to college, is he questioning societal and parental authorities while accepting peer pressure authority?

If you can demonstrate that your assertion never has an alter-ego, I'd like to see it. Show me a case of questioning of authority in which the questioner does not obey an ALTERNATIVE authority. This is me being skeptical, and I'm looking for conclusive evidence. :) At the very least, I don't think this is a black-and-white deal as your statement suggests.


2) Dealing with conflict - again, skeptics will encounter this and have to be willing to endure and/or handle it.

Everybody deals with conflict. Some deal with it by sublimating it; that is a way of enduring/handling conflict.

I won't say that skepticism is *not* a way of dealing with conflict. I just don't see how it is necessarily *easier* or *harder* to choose that way of dealing with it, over another way of dealing with it.

If I may insert myself into this, I've always questioned authority regardless of conflicts that arose from that. Was the easy for me to do, or difficult? I don't know, and I don't care! When I was a kid I reckon it was the *easiest* thing to do in the world became it came naturally. I didn't have to *practice* questioning authority, or get myself psyched up to do it. I just did it. It was the easiest thing to do. How can I label it as *difficult*? And based on my own situation, you can probalby understand my skepticism of others who are obviously *good* at being skeptical trying to get me to think that such behavior is *difficult*.

Do the choices that skeptics make lead to conflict that could be avoided? Yes, probably as much as non-skeptics. Non-skeptics also make choices that lead to conflict that could be avoided. Such conflicts are limitless, be they internal, intellectual, familial, etc. Let's say a believer sees his sister marrying an atheist. He belief leads him to call up his sister and make a big fuss about that. That's conflict out of religious belief, that wouldn't be there if the person was skeptical.

Conflict is EVERYWHERE. If your notion really was valid (skeptics open themselves to conflict), why the hell is there so much conflict amongst believers? If this was pure conflict avoidance, non-skeptics surely aren't avoiding conflicts. Right?


3) Critical thinking - you have to not only question other's beliefs, but your own. You have to examine both their position and yours for logical or or evidential error/inconsistency, often a time-consuming and exhausting effort.

I agree with you here. But I know that many religious people do, in fact, question their own beliefs. If they do so, and still maintain their beliefs, how would you judge or evaluate that?

Also, critical thinking is not skepticism in my book. Or, self-professed skeptics don't have the critical thinking market cornered. Hell, I'd say that once they do in FACT believe that they are the only critical thinkers...they are no longer skeptics!



Let me sum it up - skepticism is a difficult path to take because it's a lot of very hard work - as opposed to blind faith, which requires only a willingness to accept things at face value.

Blind faith...accepting things at face value...that's a non-sequitor, isn't it?

I won't argue that skepticism isn't...well, work. I don't know how hard it is. Easier for a skeptic than a non-skeptic I suppose. It's work, it's effort. The suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong) is that belief is not hard work. I'm going to dispose of the phrase "blind faith" if you don't mind; it's a loaded phrase that I'll choose to pretend you didn't say. Let's just stick with belief, or even just plain old faith. Are you assuming that it doesn't take effort to *maintain* faith, or belief? What about people who, at least, claim to have faith issues, claim to wrestle and struggle with their faith, but still maintain their faith? Is that hard work, or just mere delusion (and of course, how would you know it to be delusion?).

I tried to make the point that it would be basically *impossible* for any skeptic here to embrace religious belief. I'm trying to get you to think about this from the outside. Many of you express anything from outrage, to contempt, to frustration in the face of religious belief. Why do you do that? It's easy to understand, isn't it? Why the emotional response? You're responding to something which you're defining as *easy*, and if youre going to ubermensch this, shouldn't you be more at ease with your particular powers that seperate you from the rest of humanity? I'm offering an explanation here. You respond viscerally because your way of thinking would make it *beyond difficult* to think in a different way that you do. You can't escape difficulty. Nobody can. What's difficult for one person is easy for another person, and vice versa. Bringing that fact up as a way of *differentiation* between people is to make a moral statement, when the mere fact is completely and ridiculously obvious.

And if you truly have no emotional response in regards to other people having religious belief, then you should be completely capable of understanding that what's difficult for one person is easy for another person. It doesn't matter if one group is a minority. Some people can roll their tongues and some people can't (I forget which is the minority). So what? Some people are good at numbers and some people aren't. So what? I can multiply 5 digit numbers in my head in seconds, with ease. So what? Is it difficult? How the hell should I know? It's easy for me. Most people can't do it. So what? Does that make it difficult? How the hell should I know. I didn't stay up nights practicing multiplying big numbers in my head. I could care less that I can do something that most people can't. It has nothing to do with difficulty or ease. And if it did, it would have everything to do with *ease*, regardless of my minority status.

I assert that it would be difficult for a fundamentalist Christian to become a skeptic! Duh! And it would be difficult for a skeptic to become a fundamentalist Christian! Right? So what?

So what I'll try to do is the reasonable thing. I'm going to say that it's difficult for a person who thinks and reasons in a certain way to progress into thinking and reasoning in a different way. If you feel the need to define that in a specific way while exculding the other ways of the recognition of that rule, that's just self-validation and a failure to see how you are just a particular manifestation of something that's true for everybody.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jmercer
BTW - since you've been trying to cold-read my background, belief system and personality preferences - I happen to be an active Roman Catholic and a believer in God. That doesn't mean I agree or buy into organized religious precepts, though - or even agree with the RCC's interpretation of God's will in various areas. :)

That's very interesting. To some extent that goes for me...I tend to construct my own interpretations of dogma. Articulations is the word actually. I believe that there are as many theologies out there as there are people (that goes for atheists too). I'm a Catholic because of what I have in common with other Catholics, not because I am in absolute theolgocial lockstep with other Catholics or the magesterium.

It was my attempt to challenge your characterizations of skepticism. I'll stick with my idea that people who elevate it or ennoble it are doing it for personal reasons. I don't even mean that in a bad way.


And no, I am not going to discuss my religious beliefs or experiences with you, or anyone else. My reasons for believing in God are personal, anecdotal, and completely private. :)

That's too bad. Yes, a relationship or belief in God is definitely private, but I believe that sharing personal experiences is a way of bringing people together so we can understand each other better. I ain't do friggin hippie but I really believe that. That goes for atheists too. When I hear about the paths that many atheists travelled in order to reach their beliefs, it helps me to appreciate the humanity and legitimacy of atheism more.

And I suspect that yours would be an interesting one to share, but whatever! :)


You seem to be taking the odd position that I "converted" to skepticism or something, and suddenly felt empowered or enobled. I didn't. I've been skeptical for most of my life... and in fact, didn't become seriously involved in religion until my late teens and early 20's.

That's me! I kind of went back to religion...mid-to-late teens. I'm still not sure why you think it is difficult. I too have been skeptical most of my life, and that's why I actually think it's easy. And my explanation for why other people aren't...well, more skeptical (I think that everybody is skeptical in their own particular ways) has little to do with easiness/difficulty. Mostly to do with personality I think.

So that's what it comes down to. I don't think that skepticism is difficult. Maybe some people just aren't interested in it? Like you'd have to pay me...$200, minimum...for me to watch any of these award shows. It would be, difficult, for me, to watch one of those shows. But what does that mean? Does that mean it's difficult to watch some stupid gratuitous TV show? I don't think so.

I'm saying a whole bunch of nothing now. Sorry. :)

-Elliot

[jmercer]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Sounds good to me.

I'm not sure how necessary your caveat is. For example, the ostensible skeptic may be aware of "evidence", but he/she may not find the evidence convincing, and as such, would feel no real reason to bring it up. Convincing being the key word. I don't know if we need to add a moral dimension to skepticism. Not that there would be anything wrong with doing so.

How about willful misrepresentations? That's the thing that really gets me. That's why I'm skeptical of skepticism, too much horse straw. I guess I've been accused of that myself. Sometimes you do it without meaning to.



Well - first, morality has nothing to do with skepticism in the sense that it's irrelevant. Evidence is the only relevant factor, and it's not the skeptic's job to provide evidence for the other person's position - just for their own.

Regarding wilful misrepresentations - if a skeptic deliberately distorts the facts, then they're no longer being skeptical because they're no longer pursuing the truth.

Originally posted by elliotfc
That's the thing. What's authoritative to one person isn't necessarily authoritative to another person. And also, my issue with skeptics is generally that they do *not* consider certain things as valid possibilities, because they go against some admitted and accepted *methodology* (let's ditch the science word for now) that they have chosen to use, not by force or unavoidable inertia, but by free will.


Sorry, I have to disagree. The key issue isn't possiblities or methodology - it's incontrovertible evidence. (Which, by the way, is self-authenticating and authoritative by definition.) So if inarguable evidence is presented, no skeptic should fail to consider it.

Originally posted by elliotfc
As for the science word, I've always believed that limiting objective reality to a canopy of "science" is unnecessary and indicitative of personal preference, as opposed to impersonal inquiry that doesn't need to fit into a constructed box.


Well, there's no arguing with personal preferences, as they say. :)

Originally posted by elliotfc
Probably. :)

I think that anytime anybody expresses opinions which encapsulate large groups of people, they get satisfaction in doing so, and that goes for me as much as any of you.

The thing is...I've never claimed that I don't possess faith or self-validating opinions. It's the general air of contrived dispassionate self-evidence that I am skeptical about. As in labeling large swaths of persons as irrational or un-smart or lacking in certain intellectual capabilities. To me such propositions have everything to do with the spreader, and not the labeled.


Um... small error, but you're replying to your own quote here, where you said "Does it make you feel better to think this?" I didn't say it.


Originally posted by elliotfc
Of course you also have to be willing to accept authority.

I think your statement is completely dependent upon perspective. For example, if a religious kid questions a scientific dogma in a science class, is he questioning scientific authority, or obeying religious authority? Or, if a slacker doesn't do his homework and never goes to college, is he questioning societal and parental authorities while accepting peer pressure authority?

If you can demonstrate that your assertion never has an alter-ego, I'd like to see it. Show me a case of questioning of authority in which the questioner does not obey an ALTERNATIVE authority. This is me being skeptical, and I'm looking for conclusive evidence. :) At the very least, I don't think this is a black-and-white deal as your statement suggests.


History is rife with examples of people that not only questioned authority, but rebelled against it simply because of their personal convictions. These people recognized no authority higher than their own personal beliefs and/or morals. Do I need to list them, or will you accept the point? :-)

Originally posted by elliotfc
Everybody deals with conflict. Some deal with it by sublimating it; that is a way of enduring/handling conflict.


No - I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There are many, many individuals that do everything possible to avoid conflict and confrontation. Whether or not they're successful at it is one thing; however, these people will avoid anything that may possibly lead to a conflict - especially challenging someone else's beliefs. Good lord, just look at all the "politically correct" idiocy going on these days...

Originally posted by elliotfc
I won't say that skepticism is *not* a way of dealing with conflict. I just don't see how it is necessarily *easier* or *harder* to choose that way of dealing with it, over another way of dealing with it.


Actually, my view is that skepticism often generates conflict as an unavoidable (and often regrettable) side-effect.

Originally posted by elliotfc
If I may insert myself into this, I've always questioned authority regardless of conflicts that arose from that. Was the easy for me to do, or difficult? I don't know, and I don't care! When I was a kid I reckon it was the *easiest* thing to do in the world became it came naturally. I didn't have to *practice* questioning authority, or get myself psyched up to do it. I just did it. It was the easiest thing to do. How can I label it as *difficult*? And based on my own situation, you can probalby understand my skepticism of others who are obviously *good* at being skeptical trying to get me to think that such behavior is *difficult*.


The willingness to question authority is simply a prerequisite to being a skeptic - and it's only one prerequisite, in my opinion. It's perfectly possible to blindly question authority as well as do so in a thinking and skeptical manner.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Do the choices that skeptics make lead to conflict that could be avoided? Yes, probably as much as non-skeptics. Non-skeptics also make choices that lead to conflict that could be avoided. Such conflicts are limitless, be they internal, intellectual, familial, etc. Let's say a believer sees his sister marrying an atheist. He belief leads him to call up his sister and make a big fuss about that. That's conflict out of religious belief, that wouldn't be there if the person was skeptical.

Conflict is EVERYWHERE. If your notion really was valid (skeptics open themselves to conflict), why the hell is there so much conflict amongst believers? If this was pure conflict avoidance, non-skeptics surely aren't avoiding conflicts. Right?


There's conflict among believers due to ideological differences. Skeptics invite conflict because they're not just embracing a different worldview, but they're actively challenging the worldview of others.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I agree with you here. But I know that many religious people do, in fact, question their own beliefs. If they do so, and still maintain their beliefs, how would you judge or evaluate that?


You mean as I do in my own life? I judge it to be healthy and appropriate, if a bit stressful at times. :)

Originally posted by elliotfc
Also, critical thinking is not skepticism in my book. Or, self-professed skeptics don't have the critical thinking market cornered.

Agreed. Critical thinking is a key and necessary component of skepticism, but it's certainly not the sole property of skepticism.


Originally posted by elliotfc
Blind faith...accepting things at face value...that's a non-sequitor, isn't it?

Nah, not really. There are things taken at face value that don't involve faith at all. Ask any good con artist or advertising executive. :)

Originally posted by elliotfc
I won't argue that skepticism isn't...well, work. I don't know how hard it is. Easier for a skeptic than a non-skeptic I suppose. It's work, it's effort. The suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong) is that belief is not hard work. I'm going to dispose of the phrase "blind faith" if you don't mind; it's a loaded phrase that I'll choose to pretend you didn't say. Let's just stick with belief, or even just plain old faith. Are you assuming that it doesn't take effort to *maintain* faith, or belief? What about people who, at least, claim to have faith issues, claim to wrestle and struggle with their faith, but still maintain their faith? Is that hard work, or just mere delusion (and of course, how would you know it to be delusion?).


Heck no. It takes a lot of effort for some people to maintain their faith, blind or otherwise. For some people, it appears to be effortless. But I don't want to drop the "blind faith" issue just yet, because it bears on what I'm going to say next.

For many people, faith is like a pill they take on a weekly basis. Every Sunday, they get up, go to church, mouth the words, and sorta, kinda pay attention to God for about 45 minutes. (I won't even get started on the ones that only show up at Christmas and Easter.)

If you ask them "Do you believe in God", they'll say "Yes". If you begin to challenge them about God (from ANY perspective), they'll either walk away or argue strictly from emotion and from their basic and automatic assumptions. (And they'll eventually get angry, and usually abusive.)

These people have "blind faith". They unquestioningly accept their religious viewponts without thinking or evaluating what they're being told by their own church - or even questioning if they truly understand what they're being told by the church, which is even worse in a way.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I tried to make the point that it would be basically *impossible* for any skeptic here to embrace religious belief. I'm trying to get you to think about this from the outside. Many of you express anything from outrage, to contempt, to frustration in the face of religious belief. Why do you do that? It's easy to understand, isn't it? Why the emotional response? You're responding to something which you're defining as *easy*, and if youre going to ubermensch this, shouldn't you be more at ease with your particular powers that seperate you from the rest of humanity? I'm offering an explanation here. You respond viscerally because your way of thinking would make it *beyond difficult* to think in a different way that you do. You can't escape difficulty. Nobody can. What's difficult for one person is easy for another person, and vice versa. Bringing that fact up as a way of *differentiation* between people is to make a moral statement, when the mere fact is completely and ridiculously obvious.


Well, it's not impossible. I'm a skeptic, and I still embrace my religious beliefs. Of course, I maintain reservations about parts of the dogma and proclamations of my church, and I'm constantly examining my faith to see if its "blind" or not. :)

I think you're confusing atheism with skepticism. Granted, many (perhaps all) atheists are skeptics... but not all skeptics are athiests.

Originally posted by elliotfc
And if you truly have no emotional response in regards to other people having religious belief, then you should be completely capable of understanding that what's difficult for one person is easy for another person. It doesn't matter if one group is a minority. Some people can roll their tongues and some people can't (I forget which is the minority). So what? Some people are good at numbers and some people aren't. So what? I can multiply 5 digit numbers in my head in seconds, with ease. So what? Is it difficult? How the hell should I know? It's easy for me. Most people can't do it. So what? Does that make it difficult? How the hell should I know. I didn't stay up nights practicing multiplying big numbers in my head. I could care less that I can do something that most people can't. It has nothing to do with difficulty or ease. And if it did, it would have everything to do with *ease*, regardless of my minority status.


I can see that you're deeply frustrated over this... and I truly sympathize with you. I'll just leave it at that, since what you're saying is more of a personal nature than of a debate nature.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I assert that it would be difficult for a fundamentalist Christian to become a skeptic! Duh! And it would be difficult for a skeptic to become a fundamentalist Christian! Right? So what?


Well, we can go a bit further. I'd say it would be difficult for a Muslim, Hindi or Buddhist to become a fundamentalist Christian, too. :) And of course, they would find it equally difficult to become a skeptic.

And you're correct, in my opinion - for a skeptic to become a fundamentalist of any kind would be impossible if they were to remain skeptical... but there is one caveat. If a skeptic were provided with sufficient incontrovertible evidence that fundamental Christianity were correct, then many of them would probably find it fairly easy to convert.

Originally posted by elliotfc
So what I'll try to do is the reasonable thing. I'm going to say that it's difficult for a person who thinks and reasons in a certain way to progress into thinking and reasoning in a different way. If you feel the need to define that in a specific way while exculding the other ways of the recognition of that rule, that's just self-validation and a failure to see how you are just a particular manifestation of something that's true for everybody.
-Elliot

I agree with the first two sentences, but not the part when you try to extend it into validation and generalization for everyone. I don't believe it's anywhere nearly that simple. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by elliotfc
That's very interesting. To some extent that goes for me...I tend to construct my own interpretations of dogma. Articulations is the word actually. I believe that there are as many theologies out there as there are people (that goes for atheists too). I'm a Catholic because of what I have in common with other Catholics, not because I am in absolute theolgocial lockstep with other Catholics or the magesterium.

It was my attempt to challenge your characterizations of skepticism. I'll stick with my idea that people who elevate it or ennoble it are doing it for personal reasons. I don't even mean that in a bad way.


Fair enough. I wish I'd seen this before I posted my reply - it would have answered some questions for me. Such is life. :)


Originally posted by elliotfc
That's me! I kind of went back to religion...mid-to-late teens. I'm still not sure why you think it is difficult. I too have been skeptical most of my life, and that's why I actually think it's easy. And my explanation for why other people aren't...well, more skeptical (I think that everybody is skeptical in their own particular ways) has little to do with easiness/difficulty. Mostly to do with personality I think.

So that's what it comes down to. I don't think that skepticism is difficult. Maybe some people just aren't interested in it? Like you'd have to pay me...$200, minimum...for me to watch any of these award shows. It would be, difficult, for me, to watch one of those shows. But what does that mean? Does that mean it's difficult to watch some stupid gratuitous TV show? I don't think so.

I'm saying a whole bunch of nothing now. Sorry. :)

-Elliot [/B]

Nah, it's not a bunch of nothing, it's a nice, open presentation without a bunch of fencing moves like most people end up doing in these forums. :)

I think that skepticism is - like faith - hard for some people and easy for others. I find the hardest part of being skeptical is in keeping an open mind and not having a knee-jerk reaction to people's beliefs. That knee-jerk reaction is the equivalent of what I called "blind faith" - but for a skeptic. :)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well - first, morality has nothing to do with skepticism in the sense that it's irrelevant. Evidence is the only relevant factor, and it's not the skeptic's job to provide evidence for the other person's position - just for their own.

Agreed.

When you say "for their own", what if the skeptic's only position is that the other person's position is wrong? Meaning, they lack an alternative position, and are only tearing down with no desire to build? I'm not trying to start any debate here, I'm curious of what you think about that type of skepticism. That's typically my way of being a skeptic. I'm more interested in eliminating positions, as opposed to advancing them, even though I obviously do advance positions.


Regarding wilful misrepresentations - if a skeptic deliberately distorts the facts, then they're no longer being skeptical because they're no longer pursuing the truth.

They may be, in their own mind. End justifies the means and all that. That's where morality kicks in I guess. Frankly I think that *any* type of person could overlook some form of mistruth in regards to the bigger picture.

Gotta split, I'll get back to this tomorrow. -Elliot