Religion Voted The New Social Evil

[Astronuc]

The data seems more consistent with the conclusion that using religion to justify tolerance, love, peace and moral act is a corruption of religion.

That conclusion is absurd!

Let us be honest, the only reason religion is still left is because it has been indoctrinated into children for generation after generation.

While that may apply to many, that was not my experience. I learned to question everything.

Let us face it, the major world religions are pretty much mutually exclusive. No matter how much we twist and turn, at least 4 billion people are delusional, in the sense that they are subscribing to a worldview that is entirely factually false.

No more exclusive than nations, or ethnic groups.

 

[Moridin]

That conclusion is absurd!

Can you present any data that is inconsistent with that proposition, or refute the data I presented to support it?

No more exclusive than nations, or ethnic groups.

I do not necessarily consider nations or ethnic groups to be systems of belief. But you do agree that around 4 billion people are simply flat-out wrong?

 

[Astronuc]

Can you present any data that is inconsistent with that proposition, or refute the data I presented to support it?

One has not presented any data to support one's assertion.

I do not necessarily consider nations or ethnic groups to be systems of belief.

Collections of people (e.g. nations and ethnic groups) share a culture, and part of that is a set of similar or common ideas/beliefs.

But you do agree that around 4 billion people are simply flat-out wrong?

Wrong about what? Which 4 billion people?

 

[JasonRox]

Standards? What do you mean?

If you have something in your life that makes you happy, and it doesn't harm you or anyone else, why would removing it from your life necessarily make you happier? In fact, wouldn't that just be likely to make you unhappier?

I would hope that your happiness is not dependent on the existence of God.

If removing faith makes you less happy, you should evaluate why that is. And after you done that, tell me why you became less happy. Because the concept of having faith makes you happier, never made sense and/or no one could explain so maybe you can explain it to me. I would prefer that you can explain your happiness and not just say faith. That's a little scary.

Why is it important to know the true source of happiness? So that you're not driving (driving being "happy") around in a half ass car where the engine is knocking all the time but you don't care because it's still running and like you said, why fix something that ain't broke so really no point in fixing the car. You never stopped to think about why it is running and still running, you chose to ignore the knocking simply because your happy it is running, in fact you might not even hear the knocking. But when it stops running, your car is finished and you'll never know why it just stopped. You're left unhappy and depressed with no reason because of your ignorance towards your own happiness. And what do you do? You bring it to the mechanic ("priest" and "religion") to fix it and they'll you what's wrong.

See, I don't like managing my happiness that way. I prefer to manage my own happiness and NOT put it in the hands of others. A mistake that's done over and over again and religion takes advantage of exactly that.

I wouldn't treat life as simple as getting from Point A (birth) to Point B (death).

 

[BobG]

Why is it important to know the true source of happiness? So that you're not driving (driving being "happy") around in a half ass car where the engine is knocking all the time but you don't care because it's still running and like you said, why fix something that ain't broke so really no point in fixing the car. You never stopped to think about why it is running and still running, you chose to ignore the knocking simply because your happy it is running, in fact you might not even hear the knocking. But when it stops running, your car is finished and you'll never know why it just stopped. You're left unhappy and depressed with no reason because of your ignorance towards your own happiness. And what do you do? You bring it to the mechanic ("priest" and "religion") to fix it and they'll you what's wrong.

See, I don't like managing my happiness that way. I prefer to manage my own happiness and NOT put it in the hands of others. A mistake that's done over and over again and religion takes advantage of exactly that.

I wouldn't treat life as simple as getting from Point A (birth) to Point B (death).

Likewise, you can be left sick and weak because of your ignorance towards your own body. What do you do? You bring it to the doctor to fix it and they'll tell you what's wrong. Your logic suggests that it might be more rational to learn medicine yourself, so that you would be able to manage your own health (improve your nutrition making you less susceptible to disease - good; performing an appendectomy on yourself - bad).

Likewise, you can be flat broke because of ignorance towards investing, trash the planet's environment because of ignorance towards environmental science, etc. To each it's own domain.

It might well be true that life is nothing more than getting from point A to point B with emotions or thoughts you think you have being nothing more than chemical reactions and that those chemical reactions control your actions rather than any sort of free will.

It certainly is an act of faith to believe your emotions, free will, thoughts about the universe, etc are some phenomenon beyond just chemical reactions. While it's true that a lot of religions go beyond their appropriate domain, they serve a very valuable function within their area of expertise.

 

[Alfi]

I learned to question everything.

Exactly. And it was when I started to learn to question everything that I started to have trouble with religion(s).

 

[BobG]

Of course. The problem is you can very easily use religion as a cover for your own evil.

Slavery was defended on the grounds that it was OK in the Bible, not to mention that religious texts are so vague that anybody can interpret it in any way they like.

Your second paragraph implies that slavery was evil. Unfortunately, it was a necessary ingredient in building civilizations to their present state (which some might consider evil, as well). Without slavery, we would still be living in a rather primitive state of civilization. Slavery built the environment in which technological development could make it obsolete. I think it would have been defended on whatever grounds were available regardless of religions.

 

[siddharth]

Your second paragraph implies that slavery was evil. Unfortunately, it was a necessary ingredient in building civilizations to their present state (which some might consider evil, as well). Without slavery, we would still be living in a rather primitive state of civilization.

Really? Why is that?

 

[qspeechc]

Has anyone hard of this- Christians say that Christianity is not a religion, it is the truth, a way of life?
Anyway, extremists on either side of the fence are no good.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Your second paragraph implies that slavery was evil. Unfortunately, it was a necessary ingredient in building civilizations to their present state (which some might consider evil, as well). Without slavery, we would still be living in a rather primitive state of civilization. Slavery built the environment in which technological development could make it obsolete. I think it would have been defended on whatever grounds were available regardless of religions.

I doubt this. I think it is slavery that suppressed technological development in the ancient world. The Greeks especially were well disposed to have an industrial revolution of their own. They understood the principles of mechanization. But why should they have bothered with practical applications. Human labor was nearly free. At any rate, they didn't bother.

This purports to be a list of Greek inventions. They surely were also aware of inventions from earlier civilizations.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Inventions.htm"

 

[Cyrus]

Likewise, you can be left sick and weak because of your ignorance towards your own body. What do you do? You bring it to the doctor to fix it and they'll tell you what's wrong. Your logic suggests that it might be more rational to learn medicine yourself, so that you would be able to manage your own health (improve your nutrition making you less susceptible to disease - good; performing an appendectomy on yourself - bad).

Likewise, you can be flat broke because of ignorance towards investing, trash the planet's environment because of ignorance towards environmental science, etc. To each it's own domain.

It might well be true that life is nothing more than getting from point A to point B with emotions or thoughts you think you have being nothing more than chemical reactions and that those chemical reactions control your actions rather than any sort of free will.

It certainly is an act of faith to believe your emotions, free will, thoughts about the universe, etc are some phenomenon beyond just chemical reactions. While it's true that a lot of religions go beyond their appropriate domain, they serve a very valuable function within their area of expertise.

Exactly what area are they 'experts' in?

 

[siddharth]

The HRW released a report today on the lack of human rights of women in Saudi Arabia

http://hrw.org/reports/2008/saudiarabia0408/

I am not generalizing to all religions or different interpretations of the same religion, but here is a clear example where religion acts as a social evil.

 

[W3pcq]

Slavery built the environment in which technological development could make it obsolete.

Not true. Slavery got some people rich by not having to pay workers. Slavery was not behind any technological development. Without slavery, we would have had a better employment rate, and the majority would have been more prosperous. The industrial revolution was a result of the invention of the internal combustion engine, and the second was the invention of the AC power grid.

In what way are you proposing that slavery made the industrial revolution possible?

 

[JasonRox]

Not true. Slavery got some people rich by not having to pay workers. Slavery was not behind any technological development. Without slavery, we would have had a better employment rate, and the majority would have been more prosperous. The industrial revolution was a result of the invention of the internal combustion engine, and the second was the invention of the AC power grid.

In what way are you proposing that slavery made the industrial revolution possible?

I'm pretty sure ideas of slavery in American schools are skewed. Slavery being beneficial in anyway is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

 

[Adeimantus]

non-revealed vs. revealed religion

In this discussion, should we perhaps make a distinction between religion in general and revealed religion? Although I'm rather alarmed at the excesses of followers of revealed religions, it's hard for me to get worked up about the private, non-dogmatic, sort of mystical faith of men like Freeman Dyson and Martin Gardner. People like that do not hijack airplanes or harass women going into abortion clinics.

Correction: according to Wikipedia, Dyson considers himself a Christian, but it seems evident he is not dogmatic, and therefore not orthodox. It is not clear that he believes in revelation, but I don't know that he doesn't.

At any rate, I think this distinction is helpful in that those who have private, non-dogmatic faith will not feel the need to defend 'faith' in general, just their own personal beliefs. Without the distinction, people tend to talk past each other.

As for those who maintain that their faith gives meaning to their life, or all life in general, I must admit that I wonder how they fail to find sufficient meaning and purpose in a life devoted to exploring the natural world, and the worlds of thought, art, literature, music, and human relationships--a life that has no need of claiming to know what cannot be 'known' in the commonly understood sense. Of course this way of life does not supply a Cosmic Purpose, but who owes you a Cosmic Purpose, anyway? Isn't that asking too much?

 

[NeoDevin]

What do you do? You bring it to the doctor to fix it and they'll tell you what's wrong. Your logic suggests that it might be more rational to learn medicine yourself, so that you would be able to manage your own health (improve your nutrition making you less susceptible to disease - good; performing an appendectomy on yourself - bad).

The problem with this analogy is that there is a very good reason you `bring in a doctor to fix it'. Because the doctor is in fact qualified. I have at least a limited understanding of why a doctor would be qualified to tell me what's wrong with my health. I have no idea why you would put forth that a priest would be qualified to tell me what's wrong with my happiness.

What precisely is the `area of expertise' of religion about which you speak? I presume that (based on JasonRox's post which you quote) this includes individual happiness. If You're not including that, please clarify. If you are including that, please explain why this should be so, as I can see no real reason why a priest (or similar, depending on the religion) should be at all qualified to tell a person how to live a more fulfilling/happier life. That would seem better the domain of psychologists/psychiatrists.

 

[W3pcq]

I think religions' expertise is in providing comfort. People are uncomfortable with the unknown. People are also uncomfortable with the idea that their beliefs are wrong. Joining a group provides comfort in being correct in your views because others support you in that belief. The same thing happens with non-religious aspects. The same is true of popular culture, style, fashion, etc. If you join a group of people who all think they are cool, who act and dress and think a certain way, then you model that and feel cool too. At its' chore we are easily exploited by our insecurity, and religion provides people with security and comfort.

 

[Cyrus]

I think religions' expertise is in providing comfort. People are uncomfortable with the unknown. People are also uncomfortable with the idea that their beliefs are wrong. Joining a group provides comfort in being correct in your views because others support you in that belief. The same thing happens with non-religious aspects. The same is true of popular culture, style, fashion, etc. If you join a group of people who all think they are cool, who act and dress and think a certain way, then you model that and feel cool too. At its' chore we are easily exploited by our insecurity, and religion provides people with security and comfort.

Thats still not an expertise in anything, which is what I am getting at. We have experts for comfort, their called medical doctors.

 

[BobG]

I doubt this. I think it is slavery that suppressed technological development in the ancient world. The Greeks especially were well disposed to have an industrial revolution of their own. They understood the principles of mechanization. But why should they have bothered with practical applications. Human labor was nearly free. At any rate, they didn't bother.

This purports to be a list of Greek inventions. They surely were also aware of inventions from earlier civilizations.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Inventions.htm"

Of those that disagreed with the idea that slavery benefited mankind, yours is at least well thought out. There's obviously a counter current running against progress simply because people generally work as hard as they have to, but aren't enthusiastic about working harder.

It requires leisure to have the time to learn the knowledge already known to a culture, plus the time to develop and create new ideas. Leisure develops gradually, just as most things have.

Domesticating animals creates a little leisure for a lot of humans. The labor of animals is substituted for the labor of humans.

Private property and enslaving captives creates a lot of leisure (and prosperity) for a few that can spread that leisure out as they desire. Some of those gaining a lifetime of leisure spend their whole life learning, teaching, and developing new stuff that please the property owner that provided the academics their life of leisure.

Leisure from working is what also gives a person time to devoting their life to doing nothing but trading objects created by other people's labors. Trade was the main method of spreading knowledge between cultures prior to the printing press and the industrial revolution. (Trade even more so than kings or religions attempting to spread their influence over a greater area).

And, yes, the industrial revolution spread leisure to even more people. Lots of people have nothing but leisure time, which they spend designing new products to be bought by other members of the leisure class, since those furthest removed from physical labor always seem to have the most property, money, and other resources. Other people have so much leisure time that they do nothing all day except keep track of how much money the richest of the leisure class are earning. Other people have so much leisure that they spend their time teaching other folks how to join the leisure class.

Slavery is a little like the debate over the disparity of income in capitalism, except a lot more extreme. It eventually raised the lifestyle of everyone (even if only raised the lifestyle of a few immediately), but the road to progress wasn't very fair to the folks at the bottom of the totem pole - especially since any benefits to their kind were likely to come centuries after their own life ended.

 

[W3pcq]

Thats still not an expertise in anything, which is what I am getting at. We have experts for comfort, their called medical doctors.

Maybe you mean drug dealers?

 

[BobG]

Maybe you mean drug dealers?

You beat me to it.

If you believe there is no part of you separate from chemical reactions in the brain/body, etc, then living a happier, more fulfilling life would be within the domain of psychiatrists since they can alter your chemical balance.

Psychologists tell us a lot about human behavior in general, but I don't think they are as effective at helping an individual person achieve a little balance in their life as a preist.

 

[W3pcq]

Of those that disagreed with the idea that slavery benefited mankind, yours is at least well thought out. There's obviously a counter current running against progress simply because people generally work as hard as they have to, but aren't enthusiastic about working harder.

It requires leisure to have the time to learn the knowledge already known to a culture, plus the time to develop and create new ideas. Leisure develops gradually, just as most things have.

Domesticating animals creates a little leisure for a lot of humans.

Private property and enslaving captives creates a lot of leisure (and prosperity) for a few that can spread that leisure out as they desire. Some of those gaining a lifetime of leisure spend their whole life learning, teaching, and developing new stuff that please the property owner that provided the academics their life of leisure.

Leisure from working is what also gives a person time to devoting their life to doing nothing but trading objects created by other people's labors. Trade was the main method of spreading knowledge between cultures prior to the printing press and the industrial revolution. (Trade even more so than kings or religions attempting to spread their influence over a greater area).

And, yes, the industrial revolution spread leisure to even more people. Lots of people have nothing but leisure time, which they spend designing new products to be bought by other members of the leisure class, since those furthest removed from physical labor always seem to have the most property, money, and other resources. Other people have so much leisure time that they do nothing all day except keep track of how much money the richest of the leisure class are earning. Other people have so much leisure that they spend their time teaching other folks how to join the leisure class.

Slavery is a little like the debate over the disparity of income in capitalism, except a lot more extreme. It eventually raised the lifestyle of everyone (even if only raised the lifestyle of a few immediately), but the road to progress wasn't very fair to the folks at the bottom of the totem pole - especially since any benefits to their kind were likely to come centuries after their own life ended.

Slavery is is a little like the worst aspects of capitalism which is not perfect, and in it's similar aspects it is not linked to general prosperity. The aspects of capitalism that are good for our future are not liken to slavery. Slavery is like a monopoly, and it is only good for few. The people who gain from it don't have a change in leisure activity anyways. The long term results of slavery are a divided and mixed up world. It results in ethnic strife, wars, divided nations and violent and destructive revolutions.

 

[NeoDevin]

If you believe there is no part of you separate from chemical reactions in the brain/body, etc, then living a happier, more fulfilling life would be within the domain of psychiatrists since they can alter your chemical balance.

Do you believe there is more than the chemical reactions of the brain/body? If so, can you put forth any evidence for this proposition. Even if there is more than the chemical reactions, this still doesn't explain why you think a priest would be qualified. Your argument seems to be the classic one used by ID proponents, ``if science can't do it, religion can''. Which is simply a logical fallacy.

Psychologists tell us a lot about human behavior in general, but I don't think they are as effective at helping an individual person achieve a little balance in their life as a preist.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Does this apply to priests of all religions, or just your particular one? My experience with a few (not all) faiths, has been that the priests (or elders, or whatever) tend to encourage an imbalance in peoples' lives, encourageing people to devote all of their time to their religion, which hardly seems balanced to me.

 

[BobG]

I have to be honest. I've haven't given a lot of thought as to whether we could have developed to our present state without slavery. Instead, I've just noticed that we didn't develop to our present state without slavery. Seeing as how it's common to civilizations so physically separated from each other that there couldn't be any interaction between the civilizations, it seems like slavery is a key component in the development of civilization.

I'm not enough of an expert in anthropology to say for sure, but I don't think any major civilization developed without slavery.

Unless you want to say that every major pre-industrial civilization also had a religion and that all religions always promote slavery, then there has to be some deeper reasons for slavery than just one or two particular religions.

 

[Cyrus]

You beat me to it.

If you believe there is no part of you separate from chemical reactions in the brain/body, etc, then living a happier, more fulfilling life would be within the domain of psychiatrists since they can alter your chemical balance.

Psychologists tell us a lot about human behavior in general, but I don't think they are as effective at helping an individual person achieve a little balance in their life as a preist.

I never said living a more fulfilling life is in the domain of a psychiatrist for your or me, but if someone has a chemical imbalance, then in that case it certainly is.

I don't see how a priest gives one 'balance in life', probably because I do not know what you are defining as 'balance in life'. Additionally, I would like you to tell me what 'expertise' a preist has that a normal counselor can't also say without invoking god.

 

[BobG]

Do you believe there is more than the chemical reactions of the brain/body? If so, can you put forth any evidence for this proposition. Even if there is more than the chemical reactions, this still doesn't explain why you think a priest would be qualified. Your argument seems to be the classic one used by ID proponents, ``if science can't do it, religion can''. Which is simply a logical fallacy.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Does this apply to priests of all religions, or just your particular one? My experience with a few (not all) faiths, has been that the priests (or elders, or whatever) tend to encourage an imbalance in peoples' lives, encourageing people to devote all of their time to their religion, which hardly seems balanced to me.

Personally, my statement would apply to few priests within a religion which I've never joined. I would also avoid a few like the plague.

Then again, any reason I might have for talking to a priest is mainly just to talk out my own problems with someone that wouldn't embarrass me. I don't care for the Crocodile Dundee method of problem solving where you tell Wally, he tells the whole town, and no more problem. I also prefer a more "common sense" approach based on having dealt with the problems of a bunch of people rather than an approach that seems almost faddish (I just don't think that much of psychologists). In other words, a lot just comes down to personal taste.

And as far as why I haven't officially joined, there's always the problem of a core belief or two that would require some hypocrisy and outright lying on my part. That doesn't mean I don't like the church overall.

 

[JasonRox]

Psychologists tell us a lot about human behavior in general, but I don't think they are as effective at helping an individual person achieve a little balance in their life as a preist.

I hope your joking because this clearly shows how naive you are about Psychology.

 

[W3pcq]

I never said living a more fulfilling life is in the domain of a psychiatrist for your or me, but if someone has a chemical imbalance, then in that case it certainly is.

I don't see how a priest gives one 'balance in life', probably because I do not know what you are defining as 'balance in life'. Additionally, I would like you to tell me what 'expertise' a preist has that a normal counselor can't also say without invoking god.

One main principle of religion is the acceptance that man does not have the capacity for full understanding of life. I believe this to be be a good lesson which humbles even the most genus mind, for even they a ignorant in the grand scheme of things. Religion then takes it a step further, and says only god is capable of this entire understanding. "God is the all seeing eye" he is the complete and unconfused truth of all things. Whether or not God is real and actively listening to our thoughts, there is a huge grand scheme in the universe that dwarfs us as human beings. This being said, the best we can do is continue to expand our perspectives and try to look outside of our own perspectives to gain a fuller understanding in an attempt to strive closer to "God".

 

[NeoDevin]

Then again, any reason I might have for talking to a priest is mainly just to talk out my own problems with someone that wouldn't embarrass me. I don't care for the Crocodile Dundee method of problem solving where you tell Wally, he tells the whole town, and no more problem. I also prefer a more "common sense" approach based on having dealt with the problems of a bunch of people rather than an approach that seems almost faddish (I just don't think that much of psychologists). In other words, a lot just comes down to personal taste.

You still haven't provided any reason why a priest would have any qualification whatsoever in this area. You can substitute anyone else who you trust not to tell the whole town in the above paragraph, and it's just as valid. Why priests? Why not a homeless person on the street (he may tell people, but not many will listen)? Or maybe a trusted friend? I seems completely arbitrary that you would talk out your problems with a priest, particularly a priest of a religion to which you do not belong.

 

[Cyrus]

One main principle of religion is the acceptance that man does not have the capacity for full understanding of life. I believe this to be be a good lesson which humbles even the most genus mind, for even they a ignorant in the grand scheme of things. Religion then takes it a step further, and says only god is capable of this entire understanding. "God is the all seeing eye" he is the complete and unconfused truth of all things. Whether or not God is real and actively listening to our thoughts, there is a huge grand scheme in the universe that dwarfs us as human beings. This being said, the best we can do is continue to expand our perspectives and try to look outside of our own perspectives to gain a fuller understanding in an attempt to strive closer to "God".

errr....what a load of ahem... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.