The pros and cons of Theism and other religions
As a person who tries to adhere to the idea of subjective morality and accepting any and all religions/systems of belief as being more or less equal to each other in most ways, I have some reservations about why a religion may be better (or worse) than other religion for whatever reason. However even if I feel this way about people's beliefs, I think it is fruitful to have such a discussion in the kind of context that is when one is studying or doing research for comparative religions. In such a context it is usually accepted that even if various religions/systems of beliefs have pros and cons, such discussion isn't necessarily about using such information to show why one is better or worse than another but about understanding other religions; although if one wishes to it can later be used within some metrics to determine which ideology is better or worse than another but it isn't a given that it will be used as such.
Anyways I just wanted to get that out of the way in the hopes that if people reply to the OP that this thread doesn't descend too much into a shouting contest between people with different beliefs
I guess my biggest problem for theism, or it's biggest 'con' as I see it is that a large part of it just doesn't make sense on some fundamental level. Of courser this is likely because I'm an atheist and with theism being the biggest religion in influencing Western society, it is practically a given that people that think and believe like I do will be uncomfortable with theism for various reasons. But I'm not sure if that is all that it is. To me it is harder to grasp why people believe in God and go to church (other than social acceptance and being part of a group which I understand is part of the reason), but for someone who can not believe in God even if they try (which I have) the entire thought process on "HOW" someone can eventually go about believing in God is something that is virtually impossible for me without some kind of major brain rewiring which would make me into someone that I am not while I'm writing this.
Even as I say this I can not say that it is a problem with theism (although I imagine it could likely be broken up into several issues with each pointed out/argued independently) when taken as a whole I'm unsure if this is a problem with me or with theism itself since to the best of my understanding is that if what I thought was true, it would be hard for a predominate religion to get as big as it has if at it's heart there was so many issues with it. Because of this I'm sort of uncertain since my position as just someone who studies philosophy is not enough to merely pass such judgement on such issues without a little pause.
The only other issue I have with theism that I will mention in this post is that some schisms of Christianity (and likely Judaism and Islam as well) seem to tend to be more exclusive than inclusive;m although this doesn't apply to Unitarian Universalists and similar churches for obvious reasons. To me the problem here seems to be that at it's core it requires someone to believe in God (in a way that is difficult for people in the modern age may have difficulty doing) and it requires one to believe in God in the way that is prescribed by their church on how they believe one 'ought' to believe. While I imagine there are some benefits to such measures, for people who have trouble believing in God in the first place (such as myself) it makes Christianity even more hostile and aggressive than it might seem otherwise. While I know that not all churches are exclusive, as a child and a teenager in the south and mid-west I was often very uncomfortable with having to deal with such people to the point where it almost felt like I was a character in the movie "The Children of the Corn" when I was around to many of them, although I guess I could say the same when I have been around too many Wiccans as well but for different reasons.
I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place.
Anyways I just wanted to get that out of the way in the hopes that if people reply to the OP that this thread doesn't descend too much into a shouting contest between people with different beliefs
I guess my biggest problem for theism, or it's biggest 'con' as I see it is that a large part of it just doesn't make sense on some fundamental level. Of courser this is likely because I'm an atheist and with theism being the biggest religion in influencing Western society, it is practically a given that people that think and believe like I do will be uncomfortable with theism for various reasons. But I'm not sure if that is all that it is. To me it is harder to grasp why people believe in God and go to church (other than social acceptance and being part of a group which I understand is part of the reason), but for someone who can not believe in God even if they try (which I have) the entire thought process on "HOW" someone can eventually go about believing in God is something that is virtually impossible for me without some kind of major brain rewiring which would make me into someone that I am not while I'm writing this.
Even as I say this I can not say that it is a problem with theism (although I imagine it could likely be broken up into several issues with each pointed out/argued independently) when taken as a whole I'm unsure if this is a problem with me or with theism itself since to the best of my understanding is that if what I thought was true, it would be hard for a predominate religion to get as big as it has if at it's heart there was so many issues with it. Because of this I'm sort of uncertain since my position as just someone who studies philosophy is not enough to merely pass such judgement on such issues without a little pause.
The only other issue I have with theism that I will mention in this post is that some schisms of Christianity (and likely Judaism and Islam as well) seem to tend to be more exclusive than inclusive;m although this doesn't apply to Unitarian Universalists and similar churches for obvious reasons. To me the problem here seems to be that at it's core it requires someone to believe in God (in a way that is difficult for people in the modern age may have difficulty doing) and it requires one to believe in God in the way that is prescribed by their church on how they believe one 'ought' to believe. While I imagine there are some benefits to such measures, for people who have trouble believing in God in the first place (such as myself) it makes Christianity even more hostile and aggressive than it might seem otherwise. While I know that not all churches are exclusive, as a child and a teenager in the south and mid-west I was often very uncomfortable with having to deal with such people to the point where it almost felt like I was a character in the movie "The Children of the Corn" when I was around to many of them, although I guess I could say the same when I have been around too many Wiccans as well but for different reasons.
I guess one thing that is a positive aspect of theism and Christianity is that they seem to 'work' on some level in regard to making people feel content and allowing them to just go about their lives. Although this is also true of many other socially accepted/large organizations such as Shintoism,Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as an atheist it just seems odd that it actually works for theism as well. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that my gut instincts tell me that a system is fundamentally flawed then it should tear itself apart somehow although I don't know if Murphy's Law (ie something that can ruin a existing functional system) apply to such conditions since allowing such a system to work may cause things to be worse. Perhaps it is just that whether a system works or doesn't make much a difference when it comes to the process which allows it to exist in the first place.
Comments (46)
So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".
The pros- Religions can be a force for good.
The cons- they can also cause people to harm others based on prejudices or rules that their religion promotes.
So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".
The pros- Religions can be a force for good.
The cons- they can also cause people to harm others based on prejudices or rules that their religion promotes."
--anonymous66
I guess this is a common perception among people that are neither really religious nor anti-established religion, but I'm not really sure if it is either here or there. What I mean by that is your 'good' is kind of it better for there to be some hope whether it is false or real than no hope and/or desperation that might exist without it and the 'bad' is that people often use religion as an excuse for carrying out harmful acts that might not do otherwise. However there is not a lot to go on as to whether either of it is true.
First, if a religion gives false hope then at times I believe this could be counterproductive in that more often than not it is better for us to face truth than to hide from it and even if religion gives us some reprieve from negative aspects of reality, this reprieve could be either counter productive or give a net result of neither being really productive nor counter productive. If either of these are the case than this false hope isn't a 'good' thing really.
As for religion allows people to harm others, even though I'm an atheist I'm not really sure if this is just a hasty generalization and this is true.What I mean by this is that all societies have either some kind of religion or system of beliefs that helps explain the world around them and what they 'ought' to do so it is more or less a given that some of these religions or systems of beliefs may make the groups more aggressive/hostile than others EVEN if almost ALL of them preach peace and tolerance of some kind. Because of this, I believe it is more accurate to point out the aspects of what makes a religion or system of beliefs more aggressive/hostile than others than to just say that some of them are. Or at least that is my two cents on the matter.
--Sapientia
Could you expand on that a little since it might be helpful to know a little more about this.I know that sometimes it is better to say less than more but your post almost takes that idea to the extreme. :D
There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena.
Strange that there are such disciplines as mathematical physics, then.
Strange that you don't know the word "rational" encompasses and/or denotes more than mathematical physics and other such disciplines.
--Thanatos Sand
In what context are you using this in since it could be from a variety of paradigms and it doesn't sound like a thing that most Christians would say since if there is no "rationality" or "good" that it is sort of a given that there is no God, but than again your definition of rationality or good may be different than what is commonly used.
One thing, if you make it as simple as you don't believe in god - or any god - i shall have to ask you what you imagine god to be, because I do not know what that is, either."
--tim wood
That is a great question and I will try to answer the best I can in order to give it the justice it deserves.
As with many atheist, some of my beliefs are more agnostic (ie unsure if there is a God) than atheist, but since it is difficult to argue something when you tell people you don't know it is a given it will undermine your own argument. However even if I am an agnostic I'm very certain that even if there is a God that the theism/church doesn't do whatever the will and/or word of God any justice in how they go about spreading what they believe is what he wants. One of the things theism promises to those that consider whether to believe in theism is the true word or not is some kind of coherency. Part of the reason for this is because any institution can claim that God tell them his word through whatever "God talkers" they have used or listen to but it isn't a given that all "God talkers" hear his words correctly or are really even talking to him when they think they are. Since some people have no idea as to which books have the real word from people who have been directly contacted from God and have written his word correctly they submit to blind faith and believe the church in what it say, however I am not one of these people.
Before I go further I think I should mention two types of theism that are kind of exceptions to this problem with one being Unitarian Universalist and the other being Gnosticism. Unitarian Universalist are more or less open to people of all faith (which is kind of hard for me to wrap my head around if they are a really a Christian faith) and Gnosticism is sect or schism of Christianity that got wiped out by the main church hundreds of years ago because they talked about tolerance toward all religions and the creator of this universe is evil (because it is imperfect) which of course is heresy according to main stream Christianity. Not much is known about Gnosticism really believed (since most of it comes from Christian sources), but I believe their beliefs are not that much different than what you might have if you mix Dharmic and Christian belief, and/or something like modern day Unitarian Universalists if such a group could exist hundreds of years ago without being immediately wiped out.
I guess at some sort of instinctual/gut level, what Christianity says doesn't add up since the church and the people who are part of the church seem to be more interested in protecting the church and their own interest (which amounts to some form of materialism if you think about it) than to think and/or perform some actions that are transcendent in any way.
Also I guess part of it has to do with the fact that when I was a kid there seemed to be no middle ground with the church, you either was a believer or you were not a believer and I was told even if I tried to be 'good' it didn't matter since God only care about whether someone believed in him (ie. believed in him as he was described by the church and the bible) and if you didn't accept it than it was your problem not theirs. Since I had trouble believing in God since before the time I even attended preschool, it only got hard to believe as I got old and started questioning things more often than before.
I don't have any source I quote from but there was a book that I remember reading as a teen that mentioned why most religions believed in many gods and/or limited gods was because of the problems that exist in the world (ie such as the existence of dukkha) make it VERY difficult to explain how the world is the way it is yet there to also exist a all powerful, good god. This is similar to the problem of evil but more along the lines as to why we just can't pretend there is something like God out there when there is nothing to why things are so messed up down here. The book I read this from went on to describe that even the most primitive people understood this paradox and would experience distress when they encountered people who claim they had (or at least heir church had) DIRECT ACCESS TO A god BUT TO THE "GOD". In fact in many places before Christianity started really spreading, it was punishable by death to talk about such things and/or to try and spread such heresy. This obviously seems a bit harsh, but in theory a person or persons who have direct access to God doesn't have to obey any rules (or moral codes for that matter) other than what "God" tells them is right or wrong. And while it may seem a bit paranoid to think that even one person who "talks to God" can cause complete social upheaval/mob rule when too many people follow this person, but history has shown it to happen and even during the times when Christianity was at the height of it's power they where just as ready to kill someone who talks to God (such as Joan of Arc who they claimed was a witch) than to reconsider that what Joan believed was more in line with what God wanted than what the church was doing.
If there was a God I think he would be closer to what some people call "collective conciseness", and a being that would want us to learn how to be more emphatic to each other than a God that has no understanding or consideration for the human condition, collecting as much money as possible, and a God that is interested in creating hierarchical organization and bureaucracies. To me it seems hard to see anything divine in all of it when everyone is told it is "ok" to be wrapped up in their own tiny world as long as they believe in God. I guess I'm just more comfortable with Buddhism and certain Dharmic beliefs and philosophies than that which is in Abrahamic religions.
The one person who studied and wrote about it who is sort of ht exception to this is Soren Kierkegaard since he took a more rational approach to it than those who tried to guess at what God might want them to do or become. Kierkegaard himself was someone who didn't really agree with the church of his time and in a way created his own "bible"/manual on how he thought one ought to live in which morality become just as important if not even more important than believing in God. To me when I sort of read between the lines, it is more about someone being able to put something above themselves (whether it be family, a work of art, a book, some goal,etc) than about worshiping God in any way and for him such people who could be completely dedicated to their cause he thought of them as "knights of faith". One of the examples of these is Abraham from the bible while another example I have seen used is Don Quixote. On one small note it is uncertain if it is even possible for such people to exist since it is plausible that our human inhibitions, vices, weaknesses, etc may allow one to try but never really become a "knight of faith" without going insane and at which point one would merely be an insane person doing things because they are crazy and not a knight of faith. If there is one example in history where a real person became a knight of faith, I like to think it was Joan of Arc but t is hard to know if she was the real thing or just a bit crazy.
Well it is 2 am and I need to punch out. I hope I answered some of your question and haven't been just droning on since 12 pm like I fear I have..
No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition.
--Thanatos Sand
It is pretty much a given that your statement (or any statement coming from anyone) is coming from some context/paradigm unless all you are doing is trying to blow air past your teeth and waste your time as well as our own. As a person partial to nihilism, I'm aware of how the whole "God", "morality" and "rationality" stuff are loaded words and mostly made up (or at least I'm aware of it on my better days), so I'm not entirely interested in it unless you really have something to add that I haven't really come across or perhaps even come across not that often. Even if someone is a nihilist they have to subscribe to some sort system of beliefs because it is part of the human condition to do so, and when doing so they adhere to some kind of "morality"/"rationality" even if it is merely hedonism or some kind of fabricated set of rules.
No, that isn't clear at all, and you haven't shown it to be. So the only one trying to blow air past their teeth and waste their time as well as our own is you.
No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that. And I don't care what you have interest in as I don't predicate what I say on what other people want to hear, particularly when they are people whose intelligence I don't particularly respect, as your last few posts have made you one of those. As to your last sentence starting with "even," it is an irrelevant nonsequitur that doesn't address what I wrote In any way.
--Thanatos Sand
I'm well aware of the fact that I may only blowing air past my teeth as well as all my other actions are for nothing, but at least I try to make them count which is just about all one expect another human being to do. And while wasting ten years in studying/debating philosophy may not be enough for me to have learned any better by now, it isn't a for lack of trying or for giving some thought to certain matters. Just saying...
--Thanatos Sand
Actually I dropped out of high school and got a GED so my education may be lacking a little in certain area, although I guess I'm about as much a product of American society/education system but I'm pretty sure that is true of you too more or less. Even if I claim to be a person "partial to nihilism" it doesn't mean I'm able to avoid aspects of the human condition which it seems that you are implying I'm saying which I think is due to you mis-reading my posts.
"And I don't care what you have interest in as I don't predicate what I say on what other people want to hear, particularly when they are people whose intelligence I don't particularly respect, as your last few posts have made you one of those. As to your last sentence starting with "even," it is an irrelevant nonsequitur that doesn't address what I wrote In any way."
--Thanatos Sand
If you really don't care what interest people have or what they think how do you hope to successfully articulate your posts and/or have people return the empathy you likely expect them to return which you do not give in the first place? I think the term "forum trolls" is used for those who wish to rant and rave about that which interest them while at them same time while at the same time ignoring the interests of everyone else; and this seems to be the kind of mentality you have. My two questions for you is if you don't care at all what I have interest in, why should I have any interest in what you think is important. I for some reason I acted in a manner similar so you, then we are be so disinterested in each others positions (as well as anyone that did the same thing) then what is there to discuss on this forum?
I'm not saying you have to have a lot of empathy to have a discussion, I'm just saying you have to have enough to be willing to articulate your position well enough so that someone else may be able to understand it, and perhaps re-articulate it again if you left something out or if the way you worded it in some way was hard for the people reading it to absorb: without freaking out or getting too upset in the process.
I don't know if what you are trying to say is important, but I can trying to find out feels like I'm trying to pull teeth from you. You may not appreciate the aggressive/ interrogative like tone of my reply posts when I need to extract information or meaning from you or sometimes with other people, but if you or someone else is unwilling to explain your position than all I can do is either ignore it or try to interrogate (lightly interrogate you that is) whatever it is out of you.
I imagine as a third option I could also try to blow enough sunshine up your backside until you feel like telling me more, but I very rarely feel like going through that in order to just find out what it is that you are thinking so don't blame me if I chose the second option instead of this one.
Atheists don't reject the good of religion; they reject the existence of God. Many atheists, including myself, recognize the good Christian abolitionists and other ethical people drawing strength from religious faith. Most of us just don't believe there's an omnipotent--or any-potent--supernatural source behind it all. That is not a mistake, since there is no substantial evidence such a being exists or that such a being needs to exist. Theres' much more wisdom in the world than religious wisdom; the mistake is to reject wisdom--religious or not--but not to avoid rejecting religious belief itself.
Agnosticism is simply the inability or refusal to commit to theism or atheism. It's neither immature nor unattractive and has its own wisdom, since atheism itself cannot be proven and arguments can be made, if not convincingly, for the existence of God.
No, it's not true of me more or less since I correctly recognize those words have specific functional meanings and are not "loaded" words, as you erroneously claim. And I never implied any such thing, so the one who is mis-reading posts is you.
The incoherent ranting and raving you did in your last four paragraphs shows the only forum troll in our exchange has been you. And you described your own mentality perfectly. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading or responding to anymore of your posts.
P.s. You may want to add to that GED of yours.
No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.
That has nothing to do with anything I said.
"I agree with this - except that I believe that he/she/it/they just are personifications of collective wisdom and nothing else. This not as empty as it sounds: for example, numbers are products of collective wisdom, knowledge of which is unquestionably useful. Organized religions, then, are just codified metaphoric wisdom - sometimes pretty wise, more often not, historically most often not. And it's my guess that religions express their respective wisdom in the ways that they do because that the best way wisdom can manage it."
--tim wood
Part of the reason I'm late in replying is that sometimes it is harder to address a post that I agree with than one I disagree other than of course simply remarking about that I agree. I think one small nuance I might add is that sometimes religion/philosophy (to me good religion isn't that different than philosophy) can add a kind of wisdom that goes above and beyond common sense or is counter intuitive but I guess even that kind of wisdom doesn't really require religion itself so I guess you might be right about that too.
Also I think western religions express their wisdom the way they do is so one either has to go through them to obtain it so in a way they seem like "they own it", much like how corporations (and their army of lawyers) own and protect the protects and intellectual property since if anyone could have easy access to it and/or have access to it from multiple sources it might undermine their organization in some way.
But still if they are the keepers of wisdom I guess that is better than the keepers of hypocrisy which is what sometimes they are thought as by atheists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, I understand atheism to be the declaration of non-belief in supernatural beings. That is, a rejection of certain ideas or their particular expression. Clearly this a limited belief, which is fair enough."
----tim wood
I personally think of it as the belief in processes(ie everything is made of of simple mundane processes) vs the belief in spirits (before we understand how to control/manipulate processes for ourselves we use to think "spirits" and "magic" made everything in our world possible. I personally think that most religious people often think in terms of 'spirits" when dealing with the unexplained while people like atheists think that those things we can not account for yet are merely processes that are not well understood yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some folks get carried away and proclaim their non-belief in anything. To my way of thinking, such claims are completely foolish, and the people who make them fools. Doesn't Anselm say, "Even the fool knows in his heart...".
--tim wood
I can say that I pretty much agree since this was a topic of conversation with....um another forum member I replied to and although I was willing to say that my beliefs and perception of the world are greatly influenced by the human condition and the narrative I follow, the other forum member thought it was insulting to suggest that the same thing applies to them and/or that their views are biased in any way. To me this is usually a means to test the experience and/or wisdom of the person I' talking to since more senior debaters are "ok" with saying they are as flawed as any other human being but since it is true of us all then it doesn't undermine their own position. However sometimes a person I'm talking to gets upset with calling them and their position "flawed" in any way shape or form and they just about go ape you know what on me.
When this person is a fellow atheist it makes me wonder if atheism as a system of beliefs can ever have enough of a unified voice to contend with the problems caused by theism and/or the fact that theism is organized and we are not quite so yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it."
--tim wood
I think it might be that sometimes atheist when they get tired of theism that they often go off on a tangent and just reject and rebel against that seems like it is somewhat like religion even if it is more about common sense than religion per say. I think part of this is caused by theism acting like they control everything to do with religion and/or certain aspects of common sense which I mentioned earlier. Also it might help to know that Abrahamic religions for hundreds of years now have been practicing evangelicalism and the cleansing of other types of religions to the point they nearly have a monopolistic powers when if comes to the business of helping those who seek guidance in the form of religion.
I guess what I'm saying is without some easy release from some other type of religion that some (or perhaps many) will turn a deaf ear on anything to do with theism even if some of their teachings are not that harmful and/or are useful in someway. I think this was even true of me at one time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult."
--tim wood
I'm not sure of this since it is a rational position to believe one isn't experienced enough in any way to know whether there is or isn't a God, but I might agree that it isn't an easy position to really take since in Western society we are usually force into a "YES" or "NO" stance on many positions and jsut saying "I don't know" doesn't cut it unless you are talking to other people who study and debate philosophy which is almost never the case outside of forums such as this. You could mean something else than this but I don't know at the moment..
It is getting kind of late (after 2am right now) so I better cut out before I get even more incoherent than I already am. Hopefully my posts don't suck as much as I fear they do from me being tired and not getting a chance to post earlier than I did.
No, my answer perfectly answered your question and showed how ridiculous your argument is.
In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument. And no expression is literally univocal but Santa Claus does have a particular meaning and points to a particular mythic/cultural figure. So, I clearly know more than you here.
If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument. So, the only infection of flawed reasoning is in your argument above, and those before.
Are you with me so far? There's more, but not worth the rehearsal if you're not up for the trip.
[b]I don't make any point of yours, but you definitely make my point that flawed reasoning has infected your arguments on this thread. Your unfounded inference is completely incorrect. And I have read and thought before I replied. Given the "tenor" and irrationality of your replies, you have done no such thing.
So, show some rationality, and actually read my arguments, for once, or we are finished...although you've never really gotten started.[/b]
I suspect we both agree that religions have caused and sometimes do cause harm. I'm sure we also agree that virtually everything that man is involved with has been used (misused?) in ways that cause harm.
I suspect neither of us want to promote the idea that "if something a group of people practices has the potential to cause harm, and/or has caused harm in the past, then that thing ought to be censured".
Doesn't it seem like most religions operate on the principle that there is some good force greater than ourselves? and that we can learn to understand its goodness, and emulate it? (That's what I understand Socrates to be saying, as well).
It seems odd to me, that given our propensity for violence and selfishness, man also has this idea that there is something better, that man can become better than he is.
That is another pro: Religions help us focus on becoming better.
Outsider test (Iron Chariots Wiki article)
Ignosticism (Wikipedia article)
I suspect neither of us want to promote the idea that "if something a group of people practices has the potential to cause harm, and/or has caused harm in the past, then that thing ought to be censured."
---anonymous66
I think I agree with you about some part in that in any group there are going to be some bad apples and it is unfair to blame an entire group on the actions of just a few, HOWEVER if a group has a tendency as a whole to be more hostile/ aggressive/ violent than others and/or preach the same thing then that should be pointed out too.
While Christianity does teach some piety and humanity it also often instills the ideas of the superiority of their beliefs the aggressive spread of such beliefs (sometimes through force if needed), or other things which more or less the reason they wiped out almost all other religions in western civilization including some schism of Christianity itself. As far as I know of Abrahamic religions (although I believe Judaism is excluded from this) are lot about evangelizing other people (ie converting through preaching or through threats), which isn't a common theme in other religions such as those in Dharmic religions. I believe in Dharmic religions they either believe in some kind of peaceful co-existence (such as in Jainism or Buddhism) or sometimes settling things through force. I know the settling through force isn't the greatest idea, but if one group takes over another they don't really expect that group to just convert. I guess what I'm trying to say is if you can't get believers through wars, then it kind of takes some incentive out of going to war in the first place.
I agree that any religion or system of beliefs shouldn't be censured, but I also think that even if a group is the majority (or thinks they are a majority) then their beliefs and will shouldn't be used to represent the beliefs and will of everyone in that society; and IMHO I think Christian organizations in the US try to influence politics and our society to such a point that they marginalize every other religion and system of belief that doesn't agree with what they believe.
It seems odd to me, that given our propensity for violence and selfishness, man also has this idea that there is something better, that man can become better than he is.
That is another pro: Religions help us focus on becoming better."
--anonymous66
Religions may operate on such principles but it isn't a given that it is true. To me it is as or more plausible that "WE" ourselves define what is "good" and "evil" based on what is either useful or counter-productive to us than the idea there is some external metric of "good"/"evil". As far as I can tell, what we perceive as some kind of external power and/or standard of morality and good is merely our superego playing head tricks on us.
While some religious beliefs may help us to become better, this is true of any religion or system of beliefs as a whole. The real problem is what makes a religion/system of beliefs any better than any other religion or system of beliefs. I believe that it isn't really all about what religion or system of beliefs they subscribe to but more about HOW they believe and go about their lives. Of course such an idea I imagine could be seen as harmful to many organized religions based on Abrahamic beliefs where they expect someone to follow a certain doctrine and not just make up things for themselves.
Great post! :D
I will have to look at it some more, but it is stuff like this that makes me interested in reading up and philosophy and religion. :)
That's why I speak out against New Atheism.
Quoting dclements
If there is no standard of morality, then why make an issue of what religions (or anyone for that matter) are (is) doing? It seems to me that if no standard by which to judge, then all we can comment on is differences in behavior.
If no standard, then aren't you just reduced to saying, "Religions sometimes cause people to act differently than I, dclements, want them to act."?
Quoting dclements
It seems to me that if people believe there is a God who influences us and at least some of that influence comes from religion, then it stands to reason that people of different religions will have different perceptions of and about that God, and tolerance is required of religious believers. Jesus had a lot to say about tolerance.
---anonymous66
Ok, what do you feel is bad about it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there is no standard of morality, then why make an issue of what religions (or anyone for that matter) are (is) doing? It seems to me that if no standard by which to judge, then all we can comment on is differences in behavior.
If no standard, then aren't you just reduced to saying, "Religions sometimes cause people to act differently than I, dclements, want them to act.?"
---anonymous66
That is a good question since if morality purely subjective nearly anything might go. To be honest as a person partial to nihilism I can not say with any real certainty that people "ought" to do one thing instead of another, but in a way it doesn't really matter since if morality happens to be purely subjective then it is not likely much lost if we sometimes treat it to be objective.
Or to put it another way, IF morality is purely subjective than there is NO REASON to sacrifice (either oneself or their hedonistic desires) for some GREATER GOOD since there really isn't anything really better than another or better than anything else better in the long term. However if there is some kind of objective morality and we don't know it, maybe sometimes we have some chance of doing the right thing and I'm guessing that trying to be a moral agent one stands a better chance of doing the right thing than doing whatever they feel like; although it isn't a given this is the case.
In a nutshell, most human beings hedges their bets by sometimes trying to be a "moral agent" and other times just doing what they feel like. While this still doesn't mean that morality is objective or that we have any clue as to what objective morality is, it isn't going to be a negative thing if we treat certain situations as if we know what objective morality is and make moral judgement in such cases. While it may only be a "best guess" as to what is right, it is better than nothing at at; or more accurately MAY be better than nothing at all.
Obviously, it would be better if we knew what objective morality was and/or knew if morality is objective or subjective but since we don't all we can do is encapsulate some of this issue in order to not deter us from our normal sane lives (since pondering too long on whether morality is objective or subjective can fry one's mind if they let it) and do our best until we understand the issue better.
Or at least that is IMHO on the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It seems to me that if people believe there is a God who influences us and at least some of that influence comes from religion, then it stands to reason that people of different religions will have different perceptions of and about that God, and tolerance is required of religious believers. Jesus had a lot to say about tolerance."
---anonymous66
I imagine you would believe this but as hard as I might try, I can not believe in God or at least the type of God that has been describe to me since I was a kid so the paradigm in which many Christians may see the world is very alien to me.
I can believe in the god/God which is sort of described in Gnostic teachings (a schism of Christianity that was purged centuries ago) which is spiritual/mental and not one which created this world or any physical aspects of it. I can believe in the possibility of limited god/Gods and/or God-like beings which use either technology or some technology that seems like "magic" but really isn't magic itself. I can also believe in a social or collective conscience (which may be partly guided by our super-ego) and what we perceive as God's will emanating from such a spiritual/mental being; although it is a given that if such a thing existed it would either turn existing religion upside down and or undermine it in several ways.
I even believe that one can become somewhat "enlighten" or "talk to God" (both of which may more or less be the same thing) where they enter some kind of altered conscientiousness and have a one on one with our collective conscience as if it was itself a living breathing being, even if in many was it is really not a being as we usually think of one.
I probably should stop preaching and just say tolerance is a good thing no matter whether one is Christian or an atheist (I don't know if "atheist" need to be capitalized so I won't since it looks funny to me to do so) and that I hope that for both our sakes that more Christians and atheists follow that path than intolerance; however it is a given that this is not easy since either or both sides can claim that the other is committing heresy by following their beliefs. Although then again heresy at certain times isn't the worst thing there is.
IMHO it might be good for you to either study and/or take a college course in comparative religions I will admit that "Comparative Religions" itself is sort of like religious ideology (which isn't that much different than Unitarian Universalist, which I'm about 98% ok with) where one reads about and tries to understand different religions and system of beliefs than their own. I believe that by trying to understand other people's beliefs, it becomes a little be easier to become tolerant to them. Of course this is just a suggestion.
Chris Hedges says it better than I can.
Here are some of the similar attitudes present in both the Radical Christian Right (fundamentalists) and the New Atheists:
I was attracted to atheism for a while and spent some time w/ atheists I found through groups I met through meetup.com. From what I have experienced, it appears that Chris Hedges is making some relevant points about New Atheism.
This is worth reading, as well.
Quoting dclements
Your main points seem to be:
1.You want to understand other religions (I take this to mean you want to understand other religions beside Christianity.
2. Religions don't make sense to you
3. You have an issue with Christian schisms
4. You have an issue with people who insist that others must believe in their God (but you see similar issues in practices like Wicca)
5. Your gut instinct is that if a system like Christianity were fundamentally flawed, then it should have torn itself apart.
Islam- There was golden age of tolerance and scientific advancement. The Quran speaks of tolerance.....
Buddhism (assuming it's being labeled as a religion). - teaches that one is in danger of ending up in hell. I got to be friends with someone else in the Modern Stoicism movement. He was involved with Buddhism for years. I asked him why he left Buddhism and he said, "I got tired of reading about hell."
Hinduism- It's actually a monotheistic religion.. (okay, there is some debate over that characterization).
Here are some of the similar attitudes present in both the Radical Christian Right (fundamentalists) and the New Atheists:
Us vs Them (all religions are bad, vs all non-fundamentalists are bad).
Evil is not something present in all humans, but rather evil is only present in the "other", the one's picked out for vilification. (see above)
A utopian vision (if only everyone were to become Christians, or atheists, then the world would be a better place)
Ignorance of world history. (including an ignorance of the history of religion)
Hatred of Islam (or at least vilification of Islam).
I was attracted to atheism for a while and spent some time w/ Atheists I found through groups I met through meetup.com . From what I have experienced, it appears that Chris Hedges is making some relevant points about New Atheism."
---anonymous66
This might be an oversimplification of this issue but I'm guessing that it is plausible that this problem with radical Christian right and new atheists is a bit of a hasty generalization "If" the amount of people that really have these views are overestimated.
I'm pretty sure that there are atheists that are jerks as well as Christians so it is more or less a given that any religion or system of beliefs can produce "bad apples" (or perhaps these people only claim to follow certain beliefs but don't in their day to day lives), but the loud obnoxious people in a group shouldn't tarnish the reputation of everyone else that follows such beliefs but tries to be tolerant and not a jerk or at least not as much of a jerk.
Of course this is just IMHO and some jerks in a group may spoil it for all in certain situations, but as I rule of thumb I believe it usually isn't the case.
1.You want to understand other religions (I take this to mean you want to understand other religions beside Christianity."
---anonymous66
I wish to understand ANY AND ALL RELIGIONS AND/OR SYSTEM OF BELIEFS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
In fact I want to understand any religion and/or system of belief that contradict my own than those that are not that different than what I already believe since there is a better chance of being able to better understand any other religion and/or system of belief that also contradict my own beliefs.
By doing so it is plausible that I might be able to understand a new paradigm/perception of the world that is alien to me and believe it or not I have spent a decent amount of time trying to wrap my head around Christianity although maybe not as much as most Christians understand it . I believe I have spent as much time trying to understand ALL religions/system of beliefs as the average Christian understands Christianity(ie I have spent more time reading and discussing such issues more than the average Christian goes to church or studies the bible) but I don't think it necessarily makes me better since it is more grueling to try and understand dozens of religions and such efforts may not really be productive. More or less I did it because it was what I wanted to do more than I knew it was the thing to do, but now that I look back I don't think it was that bad of a choice.
"2. Religions don't make sense to you"'
---anonymous66
Certain aspects of various religions sometimes don't make sense or seem counter productive to me, but as far as I know this is fairly common; this is not the same thing as religions do not make sense to me.
As a person who studies religion and philosophy as a hobby, it can be tricky to do anything more than just skim the surface of what some of the beliefs of the dozen to two dozen major religions or systems of belief that exist in the world. And since it sometimes takes nearly a lifetime for some of the members of these religions to understand certain aspects of their beliefs, I don't think it is any fault of my own to not always be able to make sense of them as well as their own believers do.
However even after I have said all that I personally think I have a better handle on religions and other systems of beliefs than the average person who does study them and/or does not approach them with the idea of tolerance in mind.
"3. You have an issue with Christian schisms"
---anonymous66
Just like with certain other religions certain aspects Christian sometimes don't make sense or seem counter productive to me, but this is sort of TO BE EXPECTED FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO A RELIGION BUT DOESN'T FOLLOW IT. Think of it this way if I DIDN'T have ANY ISSUES with Christianity and was in complete agreement than more or less I would be a Christian don't you think? But since I'm not a Christian it is more or less a given that there are some things in their beliefs I have issues with and/or they have issues with mine. To me that is just part of the baseline of which makes up what religious and systems of beliefs, but such things doesn't mean one can't move past them.
It is also more or less true that even Christians themselves have some issues with other Christian schisms (such as Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, etc) otherwise they would likely follow that Christian schism than their own. Also although it might be weird to say it, both Christianity and Islam are really schisms of Judaism so I would be correct to point out that the schisms from Abrahamic/Judaic often have major issues with each other (often enough to go to war/kill each other), so me being an atheist it shouldn't be a surprise that I too sometimes have issues with various beliefs in Abrahamic religons since they often have problems with themselves..
"4. You have an issue with people who insist that others must believe in their God (but you see similar issues in practices like Wicca)"
---anonymous66
Trust me, I often have problems with Wiccans as well even if I, myself often studied the occult, collected graveyard dust, played with Ouija boards, etc when I was a teen. If you could sell your soul, if there was "magic", etc maybe I could respect it more but I more or less don't To me it is just something to believe other than Christianity and allow someone to believe they are a special snowflake for one reason or another. To be honest a lot of times it is easier for me to be disgusted by Wiccans and/or atheists that are too narcissistic than with Christians but that is mainly when they are selfish and/or intolerant of others.
The one exception of this are people that believe in primitive religions (who may not have a grasp of modern science) and who's paradigm of the world allows them to believe in things like magic even if they are not some kind of special snowflake. Or the people who believe in certain basic Wiccan practices (such as "good luck charms") for merely psychosomatic/ placebo effect reasons. Placing a plastic Jesus on top of a slot machine, carrying around a rabbit's foot or four leaf clover, or whatever the Wiccan or Voodoo is ok in my book since I have myself sometimes carried small items for good luck or hope they might have some small placebo effect, but obviously they in of themselves do not solve problems and relying on magic and/or angels/"God" too much both are forms of escapism and about equally counter productive.
"5. Your gut instinct is that if a system like Christianity were fundamentally flawed, then it should have torn itself apart."
The fundamental flaw is that it has been common sense since ancient times for a person that it is impossible for mortal to know the nature of a all powerful/all knowing good being and any person claiming otherwise is a real secret squirrel (or a liar) so to speak. HOWEVER all Abrahamic religions and the bible foundations are built on the works of such people and the other parts are built on the assumption that what they said was true. This may not seem like a big issue, until you meet someone who themselves THINK THEY TALK TO GOD, AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE GOD TELLS THEM IS HIS WILL. A person who thinks they talk to God and is charismatic can be a force to contend with if what the person claims is God's will is hardly that much different than their own, as well as any organization that appears after they are gone which tries to profit from their following.
There is a theory called Bicameralism (mostly talked about in a by Julian Jaynes book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that talks about in our early human evolution which talks about how our mind us to broken into two parts where one was the talker and the other listener/do'er. The "talker" (which I personally think as a kind of Super-Ego on steroids, but others have disagreed with me on whether it is like the Super-Ego) either would reinforced what one of the tribe leaders said or would sometimes reinforce something told to them in the past. To the listener part, the talker was almost like a separate entity (to the point where it's voice would be 'heard') and the listener was more or less hard-wired to merely do what it said and not think for itself. I could go into more detail about this but that would take some time. The important part of the theory if it is true or even slightly true is that our minds are already hardwired/preconditioned to believe in either gods,"God", angels, spiritual animals, etc and various religions throughout time have tried tapping into older, dormant aspect of ourselves (ie the bicameral mind can not function either today or even at a certain point in ancient times when there was too many "chiefs" and/or life started becoming to complicated for this relationship to function). I'm not sure exactly what might happen if for some reason these dormant parts of the mind get tapped in a powerful way but I imagine it might be something like what Buddhist call becoming "enlighten", in the west is sometimes called "talking with God", or if a charismatic leader triggers it what is considered a fanatic. This also might be an assumption, but I believe if someone's talker/listener functions do become active again in a powerful way, they would be both more driven than average and their behavior/appearance could be ..unsettling for a variety of reasons if one has to deal with them on a one on one basis.
Again I'm unsure if it is even possible to happen but one of the best cases of this happening (if it indeed has happen or can happen) was Joan of Arc. To the best of my knowledge ,Joan of Arc was nothing more than a teenage peasant girl when she had experience where what she said was an angel gave her a sword and the angel said something to the effect that she must liberate France from England at the time where they were fighting each other during the hundred year war. I'm not sure if it was due to her personality/command presence or out of the desperation of the French or perhaps a bit of both, but when she demanded to become a general they gave it to her and luckily for them they did because she was probably THE most influential person at the time(at least on the battlefield, and in the hearts and minds of the people). I think her biggest effect on French troops was they were afraid of showing cowardice around her since she herself was fearless to the point of being reckless, and for the English troops they were afraid of fighting the "witch of Orleans" perhaps because she might be an actual witch or perhaps some of them believe what she said about the angel might be true (which meant God was on the side of French and she was acting as his agent) and that they might go straight to hell if they hurt/killed her or the soldiers she was leading.
Of course much of this is just my speculation, and it is unknown if Joan did encounter an angel or what really happen when she got that sword. One of the funny things about her change was that unlike some "fanatics" (which some thought Joan had become) who become more mindless,think less for themselves, easier to control, etc. the same couldn't be said of Joan as she appeared to be much more intelligent and rational than it was possible for a peasant girt of her age at that time. Another thing worth noting is that the church at the time, really didn't want to get involved with whether she was or was not acting as agent from God (at least when she was acting as a french general) but after getting captured she was given to the English who did everything they could to charge her with heresy and sentence her to death, and of course after her death she was the title martyr and eventually saint as well I believe. Although she didn't behave as a typical believer (her desire to free France was the same goal as her soldiers, and her talk about God, angels, etc seem not that much more than a pretense for this vision) while alive, her fearlessness/ selflessness /drive /etc was a model example of how a God fearing Christian should be, except of course with the goal of being in favor of God than fighting in a war. I believe it was also noted somewhere that since the church "goofed" in not doing anything to help her (or more accurately working against her) during her trial and execution, it showed the hypocrisy of the church in that they acted more to protect themselves than her, and since they were kind of 50/50 in whether she was either a heretic or martyr they decide they would rather risk sin in making a heretic a martyr than sin twice by marking a martyr as a heretic who they may of help put to death.
I'm probably already getting too long winded here, but many of the aspects of Joan of Arcs life kind of tie with the work done by Kierkegaard as he both wrote about Christian ethics and the problems with it as well as the church itself. It may sound weird but Kierkegaard could tie certain aspect of Christian beliefs in with rationality as well as explorer some of the irrational aspects in a semi-rational way.As I think about it right now I realize this topic is a big more than I can continue on at the moment..
Anyways I already understand why Christianity doesn't tear itself apart is that they focus enough time and energy on taking care of their flock through giving them a group to belong to and a feeling that their is meaning in their lives, which is true of many other religion including primitive ones. However just because a institution can preach to and hold the attention of it's followers (even for centuries at a time), it doesn't mean that it's core beliefs aren't messed up in any way. Although I'm pretty sure some of the core values of Christianity still work there are other core values I'm equally sure are messed up, and since I've dealt with enough hypocrisy from the church and people from it. It may be my fault because of it, but with certain things you got to trust your gut instincts, and since I often hear Christians claim their belief in God comes from their gut instincts than I guess it merely is what it is.
1) I'm not sure why your 'gut' feelings and subjective/psychological/emotional antagonisms with theism give you anything like a strong epistemic reason for the non-truth of theism.
2) To carry on the theme of your post, I myself operate on the converse notion: not believing in God, or in a transcendent cause of Being is intuitively repugnant to me.
3) What bothers you about exclusivism? Truth is exclusive by its very nature, it rules out or negates falsehood. Of course the term 'exclusive' needs here to be defined, because the Abrahamic religions are all inclusive in one clear sense: God desires and accepts the prostrations of any one of his servants. God is not out to 'get you'. He created us all, theists, agnostics, and atheists alike. He knows why we choose what we choose and he judges us on our authenticity and consistency.