Questionable ideas that flourish through religion, but are deeper than religion

[openingmind]

Can you think of negative ideas that flourish through religion, but are actually more fundamental than the purview of metaphysics?

For instance, take the idea that "Man has fallen." It's an idea that replicates through religious narratives like the Garden of Eden, but non-religious variations of the same idea exist too -- and may be as detrimental. Beside the notion that "Man is a born sinner" is the notion "Man is inherently selfish." It could be, even, that the religious idea came out of the non-religious idea.

Both ideas can have a negative impact, personally and interpersonally. There might be scientific support for the latter, but can it be pronounced as stony fact? Or is it more of a shaky hypothesis? Is it, perhaps, a belief that's almost as unprovable as the belief in "sin"?

What ideas can you think of that are receptive to, but independent of, religion that might be as deleterious as religious ideas themselves?

[Trent Wray]

The idea of justice.

[TragicMonkey]

The idea that there is something bad, wrong, or dirty about sex. This idea seems to flourish just about everywhere, both inside religion and out of it. Most of the major religions either hold it as a tenet or place lots of restrictions on what is "acceptable" sexual practice. You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel doesn't seem to be an idea welcomed in many cultures, religious or not.

[Bikewer]

My wife and I were discussing this just the other day.... People of all sorts and religious persuasions are doing it like crazed weasels almost constantly....Yet it's still seen somehow as "dirty", shameful, and the source of scandal.
The spectacle of the public figure railing against pornography or homosexuality or whatever and then getting caught doing the very thing has become so commonplace as to become a cliche....

[openingmind]

Explain the comment about justice, please. I'm curious.

[Trent Wray]

Originally Posted by openingmind

Explain the comment about justice, please. I'm curious.

I think, at it's most basic level, justice is the idea of "getting what we deserve," whether good or bad ... and it's something we think is a "right" owed to us, and one we can enforce on others often times.

If I do good, I deserve to be rewarded.

If I do bad, I deserve to be punished.

If my neighbor does good, he deserves to be rewarded.

If my neighbor does bad, he deserves to be punished.


But with us, it is NEVER this simple, imo. It falls apart at the seams, because

1) We are selfish. We don't want to suffer punishment. We usually only want reward. We like mercy for ourselves.
2) We think we are able to assess what we "deserve" or others deserve. We are quick to condemn others while giving ourselves a free pass.
3) We make the mistake of assuming we "deserve" anything whatsoever. Even if we are the ones providing it for ourselves. We don't care that it's usually at the expense of others, in some form or fashion ... even if they agree with what is happening.

The idea of justice is all throughout religion and society both, and arguably attempts to answer the obvious idea that there is something "good" or "bad" about us in the first place, arbitrarily, on a day to day level.

It's our attempt to ascribe a system to handle a "fallen man" as well as "one who stands well".

It's great when it works in your favor. It can destroy your life when it doesn't. It is like gambling.

[randman]

As far as man as fallen, isn't it obvious?

Now if you want to say some take that concept too far and ignore other aspects of man, such as the idea of being made in the image of God, etc,.....fine.

But don't pretend evil, excessive selfishness, harmful lusts, delusion, deception, and all sorts of things do not lurk or lurk as possibilities in man's nature. They do.

[Piscivore]

Afterlife

[The Fallen Serpent]

Originally Posted by randman

But don't pretend evil, excessive selfishness, harmful lusts, delusion, deception, and all sorts of things do not lurk or lurk as possibilities in man's nature. They do.

That these qualities exist in humanity is not in dispute. That humanity has fallen is what is in dispute.

[Halfcentaur]

Animals seek pleasure and survival. They rub their pleasurable bits against things, and consume without abandon. They will fight to the death with anything that stands in opposition to this, and or they flee when enough fear or pain is induced. This is all a product of instinct and survival.

People have developed consciousness to the point that we are aware of these processes, but only recently relatively to the time before we understood this. Moronic primitives and feeble emotional minds are unable to recognize that humans are not favored by the universe and believe there is something more complicated or mysterious than the obvious. Take Randman for example, deluded by the idea that evil forces cause people to desire pleasure over empathy, and not the fact that we're animals.

While we walk, talk, wear clothing and think, we are forced to consume dead animals and plants, leak waste from our innards and produce milk, fertilize through depositing sperm and incubating fetuses in eggs, and we grow fur.

If anything, that we are aware of these base desires and able to resist them suggests we are exactly the opposite of "fallen". Otherwise, we'd be filthy apes flinging poo and cannibalizing the weak and feeble. Or rubbing our genitals constantly.

The idea of tainted humanity or fallen nature is connected with the human need to blame and single out threats and dismiss the humanity of those who harm and abuse, to reconcile with the questions these behaviors present and explain why we seem so different than the other animals if we too are only animals.

If Giraffes were able to reason, they would see their magnificent necks as further proof of their favor I think.

[fishbob]

The idea that a 'leader' is more wise than the rest of us and should be listened to, contributed to, or respected.

A great scam, nice work if you can get it.

[Mojo]

The idea that we're not really responsible for our own decisions or their consequences - there's always a higher authority to pass the buck to.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by openingmind

Can you think of negative ideas that flourish through religion, but are actually more fundamental than the purview of metaphysics?

For instance, take the idea that "Man has fallen." It's an idea that replicates through religious narratives like the Garden of Eden, but non-religious variations of the same idea exist too -- and may be as detrimental. Beside the notion that "Man is a born sinner" is the notion "Man is inherently selfish." It could be, even, that the religious idea came out of the non-religious idea.

Both ideas can have a negative impact, personally and interpersonally. There might be scientific support for the latter, but can it be pronounced as stony fact? Or is it more of a shaky hypothesis? Is it, perhaps, a belief that's almost as unprovable as the belief in "sin"?

What ideas can you think of that are receptive to, but independent of, religion that might be as deleterious as religious ideas themselves?

Pretty much all of them fit this description.

Religion didn't invent itself...all of these ideas, prejudices, etc go deeper than religion. Religion is just the application of lack of reason that allows people to be subjugated into believing these things.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by openingmind

Can you think of negative ideas

I can think of many ideas, just need a measuring stick for assessing their negativity.

Originally Posted by openingmind

"Man is a born sinner" is the notion "Man is inherently selfish." It could be, even, that the religious idea came out of the non-religious idea.

Both ideas can have a negative impact, personally and interpersonally. There might be scientific support for the latter

Many ideas, and true facts, can have a negative impact on someone or in someone´s opinion. Lack of belief in afterlife, and a punishment or reward for what you did in life, can have a negative impact on a person´s moral behaviour. Knowing how sick you are and when you will die can have a negative impact on your happiness during your remaining lifetime.

[Halfcentaur]

The funny thing about religion is that were it true I would expect the truth of it to become more and more evident as time passes, the the messages and teachings would become more and more uniform and widely accepted. And yet this is not what happens. The more time that passes, the more sects split off interpreting their own versions of these man made institutions.

Christians like to think their wide range across the Earth due to their missionary work is somehow evidence of their assertion being correct. Yet more and more interpretations and contradictions arise with each new denomination.

The evolution of religion is just as evident as the evolution of morality.

[Trent Wray]

Originally Posted by randman

As far as man as fallen, isn't it obvious?

Now if you want to say some take that concept too far and ignore other aspects of man, such as the idea of being made in the image of God, etc,.....fine.

But don't pretend evil, excessive selfishness, harmful lusts, delusion, deception, and all sorts of things do not lurk or lurk as possibilities in man's nature. They do.

See Fallen Serpent's quote below ...

Furthermore, many of those traits you listed (if not all of them) can also be brought down to a matter of persepctive only. "evil" "excessive selfishness" "harmful lusts" "delusion" perhaps, etc.

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

That these qualities exist in humanity is not in dispute. That humanity has fallen is what is in dispute.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

The funny thing about religion is that were it true I would expect the truth of it to become more and more evident as time passes, the the messages and teachings would become more and more uniform and widely accepted. And yet this is not what happens. The more time that passes, the more sects split off interpreting their own versions of these man made institutions.

Christians like to think their wide range across the Earth due to their missionary work is somehow evidence of their assertion being correct. Yet more and more interpretations and contradictions arise with each new denomination.

The evolution of religion is just as evident as the evolution of morality.

I wonder if there is a religion that actually has, as part of it's "clause" if you will ... the idea that things change over time and that religious ideas/ideals should change with it?

I've actually heard this claimed about Christianity before ... that it is a continuation of Judaism "evolving" so to speak, that the foundational ideas and concepts of Judaism were meant to evolve into Christianity, which in turn was meant to evolve into new areas as well (like the ending of traditions and the preaching to the Gentiles, etc and so forth). It's rare to hear this argument. But is there anything else like this that comes close?

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by fishbob

The idea that a 'leader' is more wise than the rest of us and should be listened to, contributed to, or respected.

A great scam, nice work if you can get it.

Are you implying that Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin didn't do the best things possible for their people? How absurd.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Animals seek pleasure and survival. They rub their pleasurable bits against things, and consume without abandon. They will fight to the death with anything that stands in opposition to this, and or they flee when enough fear or pain is induced. This is all a product of instinct and survival.

People have developed consciousness to the point that we are aware of these processes, but only recently relatively to the time before we understood this. Moronic primitives and feeble emotional minds are unable to recognize that humans are not favored by the universe and believe there is something more complicated or mysterious than the obvious. Take Randman for example, deluded by the idea that evil forces cause people to desire pleasure over empathy, and not the fact that we're animals.

While we walk, talk, wear clothing and think, we are forced to consume dead animals and plants, leak waste from our innards and produce milk, fertilize through depositing sperm and incubating fetuses in eggs, and we grow fur.

If anything, that we are aware of these base desires and able to resist them suggests we are exactly the opposite of "fallen". Otherwise, we'd be filthy apes flinging poo and cannibalizing the weak and feeble. Or rubbing our genitals constantly.

The idea of tainted humanity or fallen nature is connected with the human need to blame and single out threats and dismiss the humanity of those who harm and abuse, to reconcile with the questions these behaviors present and explain why we seem so different than the other animals if we too are only animals.

If Giraffes were able to reason, they would see their magnificent necks as further proof of their favor I think.

You've met my family?

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by tsig

You've met my family?

I escaped them after days of pursuit.

One would think if there were truth in the message of Christ, it would not splinter into endless interpretations. But if truth is whatever you want to pretend it is, then this would indeed assert the golden shining truth that is Jesus.

I just wish he would have cleared up the matter of his divine origins before leaving it up to his followers to debate. The Ebonites could have really gotten their act together.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by randman

As far as man as fallen, isn't it obvious?

Now if you want to say some take that concept too far and ignore other aspects of man, such as the idea of being made in the image of God, etc,.....fine.

But don't pretend evil, excessive selfishness, harmful lusts, delusion, deception, and all sorts of things do not lurk or lurk as possibilities in man's nature. They do.

And to expand on your missing the point, man has not fallen, I should like to point out how poorly you are stereotyping the human species here.

The percentage of people who are really evil is very small. And for the rest of us, most people are decent who maybe do small things that fit your description but it by no means 'makes' the person who they are. So if I don't return the extra dollar someone accidentally gave me in change once when I was a teen, but I return it now if it happens, so what? If I lied to my parents where I was going, so what. These kinds of behaviors don't define humans as inherently liars or thieves.

And a lot of people adopt the morals they are surrounded by. That too does not make it inherent in the species to be evil. It makes it inherent that we are a social species. For example some of the people working at ENRON and working in Nixon's cabinet and the bulk of the German people during the Nazi reign were not inherently evil but got caught up in something they went along with. So humans have the fault of sometimes following without speaking up against what they feel is wrong, but the thing they cave in to because of social pressure or because they got caught up in the moment is not necessarily something that is lurking in their nature ready to come out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I went to an author's talk the other evening. The book was, "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind.

The paradigm shift I got from the talk was to stop thinking of behavior as things we do because we enjoy them or things we avoid because we don't. Rather we should look to explain behavior as things that may have been acted on by a selection pressure. So look for what advantage there is in hypocrisy, for example, rather than just looking at the hypocrisy directly for an explanation.

So regardless of the appearance that a behavior is deleterious, perhaps there is something about the behavior that isn't as deleterious as it appears.

"Man has fallen" is the concept that we are better because all those other people have not corrected the problem. It also says, we must maintain these rituals and beliefs because [x bad thing] will happen if we don't. This concept in particular is suspected to result in cohesion of the group and allows the group to disregard members of competing groups. It's then OK to take all the food, or land or make slaves of the 'others', fo example.

That means that the underlying concept is group cohesion, not the specific way it is manifest.

[Fnord]

a. People are evil - women moreso than men.
b. Evil causes pain and suffering.
:: Blame the women.

[Trent Wray]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I went to an author's talk the other evening. The book was, "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind.

The paradigm shift I got from the talk was to stop thinking of behavior as things we do because we enjoy them or things we avoid because we don't. Rather we should look to explain behavior as things that may have been acted on by a selection pressure. So look for what advantage there is in hypocrisy, for example, rather than just looking at the hypocrisy directly for an explanation.

So regardless of the appearance that a behavior is deleterious, perhaps there is something about the behavior that isn't as deleterious as it appears.

"Man has fallen" is the concept that we are better because all those other people have not corrected the problem. It also says, we must maintain these rituals and beliefs because [x bad thing] will happen if we don't. This concept in particular is suspected to result in cohesion of the group and allows the group to disregard members of competing groups. It's then OK to take all the food, or land or make slaves of the 'others', fo example.

That means that the underlying concept is group cohesion, not the specific way it is manifest.

Hmm ... interesting.

So is (the summary of the author talk) more about looking at choices as a circumstantial "hive mind/group think" sort of thing, instead of an individual benefit kind of thing?

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Are you implying that Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin didn't do the best things possible for their people? How absurd.

A variation on a theme.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Hmm ... interesting.

So is (the summary of the author talk) more about looking at choices as a circumstantial "hive mind/group think" sort of thing, instead of an individual benefit kind of thing?

No. It was more of a, look for a different causality for a behavior than personal gratification.

His research was rather narrow. He looked at how the compartmentalized brain could think a particular behavior was wrong, and not think one was a hypocrite to behave that way himself. That part of the talk was about the brain's compartmentalization. We take it for granted that all the areas of the brain are somehow integrated and perhaps they are not as integrated as we think.

The second issue he spoke of was what the benefit was of people thinking very highly of themselves. He suggested there was a survival benefit in projecting your beliefs as facts even if you were wrong. Rather than a person getting some kind of gratification for the self esteem, he suggested we consider instead why such unjustified high self esteem might offer a selection advantage.