Theism, some say, is a mental illness
If you do not know what I mean, [URL=http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Theism-a-mental-illness]click here[/url].
Let's not forget the assertion that Christian faith is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Have you noticed what I have noticed? We in the West seem to increasingly like to pathologize everything that we can.
That is not a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. It is an observation about our larger culture.
Frankly, hearing people say that theism/religion is a mental illness reminds me of cultural conservatives saying that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Maybe this is why the mental health services infrastructure is inadequate in some places: mental illness is obscured and trivialized as it is co-opted by every agenda on the political landscape, and people who really do suffer from mental illness are lost in the noise.
Let's not forget the assertion that Christian faith is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Have you noticed what I have noticed? We in the West seem to increasingly like to pathologize everything that we can.
That is not a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. It is an observation about our larger culture.
Frankly, hearing people say that theism/religion is a mental illness reminds me of cultural conservatives saying that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Maybe this is why the mental health services infrastructure is inadequate in some places: mental illness is obscured and trivialized as it is co-opted by every agenda on the political landscape, and people who really do suffer from mental illness are lost in the noise.
Comments (151)
Last I remember Delusion was defined as a strongly held belief that isn't in agreement with the current knowledge and culture. A belief that resists change despite strong counterevidene.
By that definition Theism, being part of culture, is NOT a delusion and so is NOT a mental illness.
If in the future society gets to a point where people don't hold beliefs without empirical evidence like ghosts, gods, horoscopes, etc. at all, then maybe it will be. In that society, people will see someone who is going out of their way praying, and they won't be able to understand what's going on. They might think something is wrong with the person and consider mental illness.
Don't know if society will ever get to that point. Right now though, I don't think it's fair to look at theism as a mental illness.
I guess if theism is a mental illness, then humanity as a whole has moved from a state of complete "mental illness", at the dawn of history/consciousness, whenever that might have been, to a state of..."the majority of the world is still mentally ill"....???
good thing nobody who has a single neuron gives a shit about what these fucks have to say.
i'm not wrong, and you atheist poseurs know it. read a goddamn book and come back once you realize your fucking retarded "secular humanism" is incoherent and groundless. new atheism is a mental illness you shills.
I'm wondering your reply to something I stated a few days back here:
I think the crux of much of theism of Western/Abrahamic variety is very much based on Anslem's ontological argument. This is definitely seen in Christianity (the most "romance novel" of the religions), but also seen in Kabbalistic/speculative aspects of Judaism, and some theological aspects of Islam. It's a very Platonic idea of the Good. It is the idea of the most perfect being. Do you like physical pleasure? God is the most perfect pleasure- in fact it isn't really pleasure but profound mystical bliss that cannot be described with words... or so the ideas would go.. The Platonic notions of the most perfect good. God is the most perfect completeness, the whole, the whole story, etc. etc.
In a way this idea is like the "romance novels" of religion. There is this romantic ideal of the perfect being. This vision is anthropomorphized as experiential reality is projected on a SUPER being that is equated with perfect reality. What of the idea that experienceness is only a quality of animals? How is it a quality of the universe writ large? Just human projection in my opinion.
So, my conclusion then is the superstitious nature of humans, the incomprehensible nature of reality outside our human understanding of it, provides the impetus to speculate about a god with the most perfect nature. We cannot get outside experience and it shows in our theological speculations.
By the way, this has nothing to do with "new atheism" or anything, so is not related to any of those authors.
edit; dont ban me mods luv u bless u be well etc etc etc
So we're not allowed to think other people are wrong now? That's going to make it quite hard to fight of the next Hitler or Stalin. I'm sure they both had everyone's best interests at heart and should have been treated with a bit more tolerance. Damn those interfering allies with their dogmatic beliefs in freedom, equality and justice!
I think you missed this:
Quoting JustSomeGuy
No, just didn't have any issue with the rest of it. Treating Theism as a mental illness is an insult to the many intelligent theists who are fully functional members of society. Vehemently believing they are wrong to espouse their religion is something I strongly defend my right to do without being accused of darkening the future of humanity.
Indeed, calling thought or behavior we don't like 'mental illness' at least can be bogus, especially if there's no physical variation in the tissue. 'All the parts are normal, but we don't like what they're doing in unison. Hmmm. Let's have someone in a lab coat call it a disease. People'll eat that up. And let's come up with a detailed classification system. People love labels for themselves and others.'
This isn't to say that it's all bunk. But it seems clear to me (as your example of homosexuality demonstrates) that non-scientific factors play a strong role in what gets call a 'mental disease.' Or are we too believe that it was a scientific breakthrough and not just a change in mores that got homosexuality reclassified?
*There's a passage in one of Freud's books that indicates Freud being utterly grossed out by oral sex. If memory serves, he was dominated by the assumption that sex was for procreation alone (biologically not religiously speaking.) It seems more likely to me that the size of the human genitals has an evolutionary relationship with the size of the hands and mouth. A more knowledgable person might be able to confirm that masturbation and oral sex are ancient and present in our genetic relatives.
Huh, I must have misinterpreted the exchange, then. But I don't think JustSomeGuy was on board with the idea of theism as a mental illness, but I could be wrong. Carry on.
The following can indicate a delusion:
The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.
It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
The part I underlined shows that delusional people can still function normally and think logically, but throw that logic out the window when it comes to contemplating the veracity of their delusion.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
No, it's not that it's an idea that we don't agree with that makes it a delusion. It's the fact that the beliefs theists hold are held onto because it ultimately makes them feel good and feel important. We were never guaranteed that the truths of reality will be something we like, or makes us feel good. In fact, if you wish to measure someone's lack of delusion, just ask them how many unwelcome beliefs they have.
I want to believe that I will exist forever, but the evidence contradicts that. I want to believe that everyone will get what they deserve in the end but the evidence contradicts that as well. While I want to believe these things, I know that they can't be true because of the evidence. When we eliminate these wants for these particular ideas, where is God?
You said it. Not me.
It has become a big part of all cultures ever since curing disease had become a social function and easily monetized. The more diseases, the more money. Disease had become a marketing tool because we have been convinced to fear everything that is different (abnormal) - and everything is.
I recently heard a lecture given in a "progressive" environment where the lecturer labeled gun ownership a mental disease. The audience took it seriously and more or less agreed.
Satre was right in that if we want to change things, it is up to reach individual to change it. Who is willing the whole effort to make everything a disease a sham?
As an answer to the assertion that there is a God, the proposition 'theism is a mental illness' is therefore question-begging.
It is interesting that the list of symptoms does not specify that the belief is false.
Suppose someone is being followed by the secret police in a country where such things happen and where nobody dares talk about them for fear of persecution. He would probably have all the symptoms listed. But he would not have a delusion.
I don't think it is anything to be concerned about. In the West, both are fringe views, held by very small groups of people that, thankfully, have very little influence.
The fact that, at the date of writing this, ten out of ten people have rejected the claim, is support for that view.
We are not emotionless, unfeeling computers. We are human animals with sometimes irrational, emotional, imperfect brains. Acting as though holding a belief that brings one joy or peace in this world full of suffering and pain is a mental illness shows both ignorance and a lack of maturity.
To be honest, though, you're misrepresenting theists in the first place. Who are you to say why all theists hold their theistic beliefs? That's an extremely egotistical claim to make, that you know why all of these people believe this silly thing (which you, of course, don't believe because you, of course, are not silly like they are). This, again, shows ignorance and a lack of maturity.
Quoting Pseudonym
Quoting Pseudonym
You seem to have had an irrational and emotional response to what I said that caused you to severely misinterpret it. The point I was making was that more and more people view ideas or beliefs as mental illness or evil or wrong for the soul reason that they do not agree. That any idea or belief they themselves do not share is automatically wrong or evil or insane. Nowhere did I state or even imply that we aren't allowed to disagree with each other. The point was that simply disagreeing with something does not render it wrong.
No, you seem to have interpreted it correctly. Pseudonym apparently isolated one small bit of what I said and ignored the context which caused him/her to misunderstand the meaning.
So what exactly do you want people to do when they disagree with a position. Say a new fascist party came to prominence in my country and I disagree with their position on immigrants. Talk me through how I'm supposed to deal with that in a way that doesn't fall foul of your guidelines that I should not in any way infer that it is wrong. I'd quite like the ability to oppose fascism in the strongest possible terms, not sure how to do it without implying they're wrong.
To me, the key to the analysis is that if you start from the Atheist perspective and move towards understanding religion, you get to more right answers than if you come from religion and move towards Science.
But that's not universally true. A lot of useful metaphors that inspired scientists came from religion.
So anything that is believed to be true, and then later shown to be false, is retroactively mental illness? I don't think the ridiculous implications of that need to be pointed out. But even without the implications, that doesn't make any sense. It is perfectly rational to believe something is the case when it actually isn't, so long as the evidence one possesses can reasonably be seen as supporting that said thing is the case. If I have never seen a narwhal and have very little evidence of them existing, so I do not believe they exist, does that make me mentally ill?
Truth and reality have nothing to do with it; only evidence and reason. None of us possesses proof, none of us knows anything for certain (except that "I exist"). All of our knowledge is based on evidence and reason, and every single bit of it could potentially be shown to be wrong at some point.
Well, now... I resemble that remark, although I don't call myself a "secular humanist." I tend to be more sympathetic to a theistic point of view than an atheistic one, not because I am a believer but because they believe in something, right or wrong. They don't define themselves based on the fact that something doesn't exist. What an odd sort of self-identification. On the other hand, I think theists and anti-theists both miss about half the point of it all.
I like that - use the term anti-theists to differentiate them from atheists. I can't be the first to think of that.
"God's Song" by Randy Newman. What a wonderful song, not because I'm against religion. It's just so well written and funny. Listen on YouTube.
Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:
Man means nothing he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind
I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind
The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said
I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind
Seems like a really bad analogy. The specifics of religion are clearly cultural. People aren't born Christians or Muslims. People do seem to be born homo- or heterosexual.
It takes a bit of hubris to think you can explain the motivations of billions of people with whom you disagree in a single dismissive sentence. To think that you're right and most everyone else is completely wrong sounds like a delusion to me. I'm not a theist but it's clear to me you are wrong in your assessment.
So, being wrong means you're crazy? That doesn't make much sense.
You are in desperate need of Stoicism, my friend.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Made me laugh.
Quoting T Clark
I discovered the term around the time of the "new atheism" movement, around ten years ago or so. Someone on a forum used it, and I found it very fitting. I'm surprised it isn't used more often, since in my experience many self-identifying atheists are, in fact, anti-theists. (I, myself, don't identify as a theist or an atheist, precisely because of the baggage that comes along with those terms)
But can't the atheist view be easily rephrased as a positive belief? It's a vision of nature in which nature is unconcerned with humanity.
Atheists vary, and some may call themselves agnostics as a matter of taste. But perhaps the essence is that non-human reality is indifferent to humans and also that death is the end. These are 'positive' beliefs that are acted upon. To deny God and afterlife is to affirm nature's indifference and genuine personal mortality --and the reverse. So theism can be framed as a denial of death and cosmic indifference.
I get it. Yes, there are plenty of robust ways of understanding the world that don't involve God or any supernatural agency. If I were to describe the view of the world that fits me best, the subject of God probably wouldn't come up. I find that I often do end up talking about God because I think there are important areas of common understanding I have with theists and I want to emphasize that.
But that's not the way atheists, or more correctly anti-theists, do it. It seems like the fact that there is no God is more important to them than what there is. It really seems like the hatred of religion came first and the philosophical/scientific superstructure came later.
I hear you.
One of the reasons I like anonymity is because I don't want to broadcast my own worldview to just everyone. I don't think I'm wrong, but I also don't think whether I'm personally right or wrong is helpful or important to others. The implicit social contract here is that members may be exposed to ideas that are even dangerous to them. I mention this because I think I share your sense of distance of evangelical atheism or anti-theism. I don't think that any particular 'ism' will 'save the world' by catching on. Our problems/challenges seem to run deeper than any conscious ideology. (So, for example, I don't want to be Mr. Anti-evangelism either, since that has to be evangelical if projected as a universal solution. I'm a sinner and fool, and I suspect that (in some sense) we all are. When we feel our oats, our favorite ideas sometimes look like the all-purpose cure.
Yes, you're right that false beliefs are not *sufficient* for delusions. You can have false beliefs and not be mentally ill or deluded. My point was that false beliefs are *necessary* in order for a person to be deluded. If you think you're being followed and you *are* being followed then your belief cannot be taken for a sign of illness.
T. Clark: "So, being wrong means you're crazy? That doesn't make much sense."
I would say in the case of believing in God it does. Personally I believe in God and I'm a Christian. If it's a bunch of hokum, as some believe - a delusion, according to Dawkins - then I'd say it's a pretty crazy belief. It's often been mocked as such - the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. It's a risk that theists take. Whether it adds up to a clinical diagnosis, I'm not qualified to say.
First, I didn't say it, Wikipedia did.
Second, I didn't bold that particular line, so it doesn't even come into play.
Third, and finally, if a delusion was an idea that is out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background, then that means that every new denomination or sect of an existing religion that forms is a delusion. This means that Jesus was delusional because his ideas were out of keeping with the social and cultural background he found himself in.
Obviously, thinking differently isn't a symptom of a delusion. It is thinking illogically on purpose, and only in a particular case or for a particular belief, in order to avoid the logical truth, that is a delusion.
Think, people, before posting your comments.
Every time that it mentions the word, "delusion", it is implying that the belief is false. That is what a delusion is - a false belief.
So, I'm still genuinely confused about the agnostic, tolerant position you guys seem to be advocating.
I think that Idolatry is really bad for humanity. I think this primarily because it encourages people to absolve responsibility for moral judgements to someone else and I think that leads people to accept acts that we would almost universally see as immoral because they presume 'someone else' must have allowed it and it's not their place to judge. This obviously makes me extremely anti-religious because religions are almost universally forms of Idolatry which advise absolving moral judgement to another agent. Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that I might be wrong about this, there's very little hard evidence either way and in common with all philosophical theories, it's based on axioms which, if not true, would undermine the whole thing.
But...
The consequences if I'm right are a society which allows immoral acts with relative impunity. We do, indeed have something approaching such a society, where some people are allowed to starve to death while others buy a third sports car. I really don't want anyone to have to live in such a society, I really want a better one.
The consequences if i'm a bit wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, but there's no God either) if pursue my goal to abolish idolatry with vigour, is that some people get offended, and presuming I succeed, people abandon a comforting (but ultimately wrong) practice of moral absolution.
The consequence if I'm really wrong (there's no problem with Idolatry, in fact it's entirely necessary because there is a God and he knows what's best for us) is that some people will make mistakes in moral judgement which could otherwise have been avoided, but by and large the 'good' moral decisions which we all applaud are considered 'good' by theists and atheists alike, so I can't see how this could matter much. God might get annoyed that we've all abandoned him due to my excellent advocacy for atheism, but I'm sure he can handle it.
Obviously I could also be wrong about all these consequences, but then what would be the consequence of me being wrong about them and acting vs me being right about them but failing to act... and so on...
Basically, what I'm saying is how are you reaching your conclusions that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to not act with very much conviction on any of your particular beliefs. To me it seems, like any other risk assessment, to be not only about chance (uncertainty) but also consequence. Those risks with a dire consequences are mitigated with more vigour than those with minor consequences even when the uncertainty is high in both cases.
It is you that is being too dismissive because you don't understand my background and my experiences.
I used to be a believer. I was raised by a religious family. I was surrounded by like-minded believers. As I reached my late teens I began to see inconsistencies and began to realize that I wasn't always right in my thinking and beliefs. I realized that getting at the truth would mean that I would have to put my emotions aside and simply go where the evidence leads me and without trying to expand on any explanation without a good reason for it (Occam's Razor).
It was scary at first. It meant that my existence might be finite, and if that were true, it made me a bit depressed, because I really didn't want to cease to exist and I wanted to be believe that my dead loved-ones still existed somewhere where we'd meet again. There was also the fear of eternal damnation.
What I began to notice was that religion itself tended to scare you into not thinking differently - that to do so would be punishable by eternal torture. I think it was the inconsistent morality of God that really got me questioning things. I also began to realize that there were many more competing religions and ideas, and that human beings were wrong about a great many things and tended to use "group think" (mass delusion), and accepted the beliefs from the culture they developed in, without ever questioning why they believe it.
I asked a lot of questions of my family and friends and received no good answers that made any sense. I explored other religions and other ideas and eventually found that science provided the best explanations and even admitted that it was wrong and accepted alternate explanations that were even better and were consistent with the rest of what we know.
When I questioned the existence of God to other believers, they would respond with questions like, "Well, what happens after we die?" and "Then, how did everything get here?". By asking these questions, they are exposing their premises that they expect to live forever, and that their loved-ones still exist, and that the universe must have a creator and therefore a purpose for it and them. There is also the fear of eternal torture that is brought up. Religion scares people into believing it and it allows a small group of people to more easily control a larger group of people. Religion is a mass delusion.
Science has begun to get at these questions and even questions about consciousness. But these explanations aren't good enough for the theist because it doesn't make them feel important. Many people correlate their having a grand purpose with their importance as an individual. They want to matter in the grand scheme of things and to the greatest entity to exist, God. God's existence proves that they have a grand purpose and that they are more important than being a collection of cells that will eventually die.
Just look at the responses to the non-belief in the supernatural and God on these forums. They are often met with statements equivalent to, "I don't like that idea.", as if the truth is beholden to what they like, or how it makes them feel.
I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. What is egotistical is to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about when you don't know where they've come from and what knowledge they've acquired through life by asking the necessary questions, as I explained in the above post.
Of course we are emotional, and that is when we are irrational. That is my point - that when we consult our feelings rather than the empirical evidence and logic, we become irrational, and irrationality doesn't get at the truth. It only makes you feel better.
It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.
You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill.
On the contrary, I believe with great conviction that none of us knows what is best for humanity, or whether or not a religion is true. It takes great hubris to think you know what would be best for all mankind. We cannot say what the world would be like without religion, but to view it as having a net negative effect so far is ignoring so much of what religion has done for the development of our societies and cultures.
I gather that, but humanity cannot simply stagnate, paralysed with uncertainty so we have to act. You have your own beliefs on which you will act.
But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs.
I would also argue that inaction is no different to action in the extent to which it affects others (I'm not talking about a moral distinction here, just a pragmatic one)
So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it.
To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
I'm not sure you're understood the meaning of the word 'net'. It means taking all the good things and weighing them against the bad. What is it about that process that you think ignores the good religion has done? Are you suggesting that you've already carried out that weighing excersice and anyone reaching a different conclusion to you must automatically be wrong regardless of what arguments or evidence they bring? Doesn't that sound a bit like the great hubris you've been vigorously decrying?
Rereading what I wrote, I wasn't dismissive of your thoughts at all, I just disagreed with them. When I said you were dismissive, I was referring to the fact that you called theist's beliefs "delusions."
Your explanation of how you got to where you are now in terms of belief was well written and clear. It describes an intellectual quest you seem to have followed with determination and persistence. That is an admirable thing. I don't fault the conclusions you have come to, I only disagree with them.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is more of the hubris I mentioned. It is infuriating to me when someone tries to explain my actions or beliefs in terms of their own preconceptions without knowing me. I'm not saying I'm angry at you, I am not a theist so your opinion here doesn't really apply to me, but if I were, I probably would be.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Science's explanations aren't good enough for me either and, as I said, I am not a theist. I'm an engineer who loves physics.
I never said anything about stagnation. Humanity has always acted, and always will act. Nothing that you or I believe or do will affect that.
Quoting Pseudonym
So you agree that this "action" you speak about is a collaborative action between all of mankind? Which means you, as one individual, have virtually zero effect on anything.
Quoting Pseudonym
I'm arguing that inaction is no different to action (in the case of you as an individual) in the extent to which it affects the religious beliefs of all of mankind.
Quoting Pseudonym
No, I am deciding that I cannot say one way or the other that my society would be better off without religion, and that nothing I personally do will have any effect on it anyway.
Quoting Pseudonym
You're not understanding what I'm saying. This is exactly the kind of hubris I'm talking about. You think you have the power to allow/encourage religion in your society. You don't. Clearly you've been trying to, based on what you're saying right now. But considering that around 85% of humanity has some kind of religious faith, it seems you aren't doing a very good job. Apparently you need to try harder.
Quoting Pseudonym
No, I understand the meaning. You just didn't understand the point I was making.
Quoting Pseudonym
My point was that without religion, we would not be living in the world we are living in today. It has shaped nearly every aspect of our various societies. But at an even more foundational level, religion is the origin of our morality, and I don't think it needs to be argued how integral morality has been in developing our societies.
My point was that a rational person, looking at all of the evidence and the history, could only conclude that religion has been a net benefit thus far. This is something that is widely agreed upon by historians and philosophers. So concluding otherwise shows either an ignoring of some of the evidence and history, or a lack of rationality. It seems to me that you are one of many people who allow your personal experience with religion to cloud your judgement.
You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.
Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question.
I've thought about religious belief, trying to be objective. Is it a crazy belief? I don't think it's any less plausible than the big bang or quantum mechanics, keeping in mind that I accept the consensus of physicists as our best current understanding of how the world came into being.
My god, you're prepared to accept that someone might rationally believe that a man walked on water, returned from the dead, parted the seas, but if someone dare suggest that some historians might have reached the wrong conclusion about something as ambiguous as the net value of religion they must be irrational! This is insane, I've nothing left to say to you.
This is a pretty extraordinary statement. Do you really believe that we should forbid people to believe certain things. If so, how are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?
The things you are saying make you seem like more of a zealot than any Christian I've met.
You really seem to have issues with misunderstanding what people say.
This is a discussion on theism. Theism does not imply any of the examples you give.
But even beyond that, you have misrepresented what both you and I have been saying this whole time, so if you want to end the discussion I won't object. You seem to be an irrational fundamentalist, and there's no use arguing with fundamentalists.
What makes him different from ISIS? Are you kidding me? He is clearly just vocalizing that we should discourage religion and express our issues with it. It doesn't mean walk door to door telling religious people they are wrong, let alone killing every religious person.
Why shouldn't we be able to express why we think religion is wrong? How are you different from ISIS? How do you enforce your edicts? Inquisition? Reeducation? Are you from the US? What about the First Amendment? Is it time to toss it out?
Here's what Pseudonym wrote:
Quoting Pseudonym
He is clearly proposing that we do not allow, that we forbid, religion in our society. That means significantly more than walking door to door.
Quoting SonJnana
Where did I say you shouldn't be able to express your opinion about religion? I just pointed out the clear implications of what Pseudonym wrote.
Makes sense to me.
Based on this...
Quoting Pseudonym
...as well as many other things Pseudonym has said, the attitude of intolerance seems to be very blatant, to me.
When you're talking about whether or not to allow people to hold personal beliefs that you disagree with, I don't see how else that could be interpreted.
Of course, we're sort of getting into the "should we tolerate intolerance?" paradox now.
I'm not advocating, though. I am aware that I am conversing with a few individuals. I don't think such conversation will have much of an effect on the world at large. So I'm tolerant of difference here in this little space designed for airing out one's preferences.
I'm sometimes envy those who have the mission of saving humanity from its ignorance via their own wisdom. In retrospect, I'd call that the general structure of religion. It's the confidence and self-importance of the generalized evangelist. I'm not preaching against it. I'm describing it from the outside to share consciousness with a few other word-mongers like myself.
If I thought my posting here really affected the world at large, I might not post. Because I'm not sure what's good for the world at large. It's complex as hell.
"Reminds me of" is not "is analogous to".
It just means that I subjectively sense the same vibe in both cases. Both are creepy to me.
I agree with that, of course. But Pseudonym has so far only referenced Christianity, and he has specifically referenced it.
As you say, though, we're all just going by our interpretations, and any one of us could be wrong.
You're a dog. It must be very complex.
This is insane. Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world, even the pope does not disagree with that as he has condemned past activities of the church.
Some people look at this mixed consequence and conclude that the good stuff outweighs the bad. I'm fine with that. I disagree but I can see these are mostly intelligent people and the data is, as I say, mixed.
Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion.
Thank you for at least attempting to inject some charitable interpretation. No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational.
My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing.
What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception.
I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy.
The point is, these are the normal moral dilemmas society had to face when balancing autonomy with preventing social harms.
My parents believe in god. They are fine with my brother being gay. They are fine with separation of church. They prefer separation of church and state. They are fine with secularism. In fact they have encouraged me to become atheist in a society where it is looked down upon, after listening to my reasons.
Now this is a huge hypothetical (they don't care for preaching), but should they be allowed to preach if they wanted to? Would you say that they should not be able to have schools where, if people choose to, they come to learn because they are interested in their type of religious belief?
I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned?
Anyway, I agree with your position that we should be allowed to tell people they are wrong. I am a huge advocate for discouraging religion.
There is a big difference between tolerating ISIS's religion and tolerating their behavior.
I may have worded it strangely, but I mean we should be allowed to criticize the doctrines themselves, criticize people's interpretations of the doctrines, and not allow people to behave in the ways ISIS does.
I'll say it again - here's what you wrote
Quoting Pseudonym
My interpretation of that statement is that you support forbidding religion. Am I correct or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Criticize it all you want, but you don't get to put limits on the legal expression of religious belief.
I went back and looked at every post you made in this discussion. I didn't see anything that is inconsistent with my characterization of your words in my previous posts. You ask for people to be charitable but I see no charity for others in what you write or what you propose. It seems to me you don't recognize how radical the position you are describing is.
I think you expressing these beliefs on this forum is a good thing. I'm not trying to stop it. I'm actually doing what you suggested earlier in a slightly different context:
Quoting Pseudonym
I am acting because I don't believe it is OK to allow restrictions on people's most deeply held beliefs.
There are laws against conspiracy to promote terrorism or provide support for terrorist organizations. Are the hypothetical schools violating those laws? If not, what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them. That doesn't prevent you from expressing your opposition to the school within the limits of legal restrictions on violence and intimidation.
I don't know how old you are, but your post is riddled with immature remarks that are clearly in reference to me, and you're trying way too hard to victimize yourself. I would strongly advise you to grow up and get used to people disagreeing with you. Seriously, this is a forum for arguing. You need to have much thicker skin if you're going to participate.
Quoting Pseudonym
Clearly I hurt your feelings, which was not my intention, but when someone is saying something irrational I am going to point it out. I tend to assume that the person will be able to handle it, but apparently I was wrong in this case. For the record, though, there is quite a bit of irony in this statement considering it's coming from someone who believes he has the right to decide what other people are allowed to believe.
Quoting Pseudonym
Do you not see the inconsistency here? You begin by admitting that your use of the word "allow" was poorly ambiguous, and then go on to insult me for misinterpreting the meaning you intended by it. Really?
Quoting Pseudonym
We don't allow smoking in pubs because it's illegal. So you're confirming that you are, in fact, suggesting we make beliefs you disagree with illegal? If not, then your example doesn't apply and you need to be more explicit in what you mean by "allow", because nothing you have said yet has given me reason to believe you mean anything other than a use of force. You claim I am misinterpreting your meaning, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you need to make clear what your meaning actually is.
Quoting Pseudonym
Again playing victim. Unbelievable.
I try to avoid speaking to people in a disparaging way like this, especially when having intellectual discussions, but your attitude here has been so ridiculous that I felt justified in ridiculing it.
Now if you actually want to discuss the topic, feel free to respond. If you're just going to whine more, then I wouldn't even bother.
Yes, like with any moral dilemma in a society there will be a balance between respecting autonomy and restricting behaviour that it detrimental to society. It's great in the very clear cases like ISIS because we can practically all agree and the consequences are clear. What I think has not been addressed is that, given the significant effect of education on our children's development, how do we deal with the possibility that fairly benign religious teaching causes harm by its failure to teach critical thinking, moral responsibility etc. I only mention religious teaching here because this is a thread about how to treat theism (although it's strayed quite far off topic already). I would extend the issue to all forms of poor education.
The issue is this. Somehow we've ended up with a society in which millions are starving whilst others live in ridiculous excess and the majority of the population are fine with that. There's a story (maybe fancified, but it serves a purpose) about Sitting Bull when he first toured with Will Bill's Rodeo. After every show, he would give away all of his wages to the destitute he would be faced with in the towns they visited. He didn't preach about it or reprimand the others for not, but he could not believe that anyone would just walk past a destitute person, with money in their hand, and not help them out.
I'm not saying I blame religion entirely for the extent to which we have become so cold-hearted, but I think that the sense, imparted by religion, that some external authority figure provides you with the answers to moral dilemmas allows people to 'switch off' that sense that Sitting Bull had which made it simply impossible for him to ignore these people.
This is essentially the issue I was trying to discuss. What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe?
Of course as soon as ISIS are brought up everyone rallies round agreeing with whatever measures are necessary, but something about modern society (capitalism, greed, culture, religion?) causes ten times as many deaths daily as ISIS have killed in their entire tenure. The question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say "I don't know what that's all about" and just let it carry on or are we going to have a serious conversation about what the root cause might be and try to change it?
How on earth did you get that? The statement was "we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences?" Absolutely no mention of my opinion on the matter whatsoever, just a statement of fact that as moral agents, that is a decision we all must make. In fact, where in any of my posts (up to that point) have I expressed my personal opinion on the matter at all?
To be honest I'm glad I didn't. I've already been called an irrational zealot just for raising the possibility that we should not dismiss out of hand someone who thinks that religion might be a bad thing for society.
Quoting T Clark
This is just insane prejudice. Again, how on earth did you get from a statement that we all have a choice to make, to a conclusion that I'm advocating anything at all, let alone going door to door banning beliefs?
The issue I was discussing is what moral duty becomes incumbent on such a person, holding such a belief? Do they act based on their level of uncertainty alone, or do they consider the magnitude of the consequences should the be right but fail to act?
This is all a reasonable theory, but it doesn't answer the question I posed. You believe this theory of yours to be the case and so you act on it, that's fine because the actions you would need to take consequent to this belief are mild and in-keeping with society's current attitude. But you're not claiming (I hope) that you can somehow conclusively prove this theory, that every geneticist, anthropologist and neuroscientist out there have all reached the same unavoidable conclusion?
So the question is, what does someone do when their deeply held conviction is not the neat status quo theory you espouse, what if they believe that religion has, in fact, harmed society and continues to do so, but they (like any good philosopher) recognise that they very much might be wrong about that. Do they not act on that belief because of the uncertainty, or do they take the risk and act because of the severity of the consequences they fear?
This is nonsense, particularly the bit about "what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them?" Who do you think made the laws? There didn't used to be laws against promoting terrorism, people saw that promoting terrorism was causing, or threatened to cause, harm to society so they exercised their moral agency to decide that the autonomy of people wishing to promote terrorism must be imposed on for the greater good of society. They discussed the matter, campaigned for it, voted for a party which promoted it and it became law.
The first bit is the bit that forums such as this get involved in. Discussing the matter. So it's circular to say that because there isn't currently a law against something we are not morally obligated to restrict it. We're asking the question should there be a law against it? Specifically in this case (the conversation about faith schools) we discussing whether the government should be allowed, by law, to prevent the teaching of certain values, not whether they currently are allowed by law to do so, that's a discussion for a legal forum. To just argue that they shouldn't be allowed because they aren't allowed is silly.
Ahem...
Several points:
Seeing as you're having trouble I will break it down into simple statements.
1. It is possible that religion is harmful to society.
2. Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it.
3. Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt.
4. It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society.
5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory.
6. People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society.
7. It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices)
Therefore;
1. No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard.
2. The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision.
Every statement in this post underlines, highlights, bolds, italicizes my earlier accusations against your position that you characterized as uncharitable. @SonJnana I'd be interested in what you have to say.
I already said that, did you actually read my post? Why are you repeating that there no current laws when I just said that the issue is not the current state of law, but the desired state of law?
Quoting T Clark
A jihadi terrorist's religion is that infidels must be killed in order to bring about an Islamic state. That is the stated intent of ISIS and ISIS is a religious group working on their particular version of Islam. So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief?
Quoting T Clark
This is a risk, but I haven't yet heard an argument that the severity of this risk outweighs the severity of allowing schools to teach doctrines of hatred, for example. Simply stating that the risk exists is not a sufficient ethical argument.
Quoting T Clark
Last I checked the US was a democracy, the government does what it is given a mandate to do by the people. So if the people want to restrict unpopular and vulnerable people (such that they would vote in a government which seeks to do so), then they will do so, law or no law. The power of culture is stronger than any law, so our individual contribution to that culture will determine its course regardless of any restriction put on government.
Great, now I might have a chance of actually understanding your position. Which of the statements do you think are false or do not follow from their premises?
Earlier you intimated I should be more charitable to your ideas. Wondering if you were correct, I went back and looked at the things I had previously written. I concluded that I my inferences from what you wrote had been reasonable and justified. Now it strikes me I have been much too charitable. I think your position is intellectually unjustified, morally unprincipled, and cowardly. Not to mention uncharitable.
I don't think so.
But if we decide to call vaguely defined metaphysical positions we don't like 'mental illness,' then yeah.
And if you disagree with this (or with any of my barks), you probably have a case of silly-itis. It's a contagious disease of the pineal gland.
Quoting Pseudonym
You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. Banning all religious activity is no more reasonable than making it mandatory. Your comment about "private" belief is meaningless, as it is clearly not possible for the government to allow or prevent anything you do in private anyway.
Quoting Pseudonym
This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind.
Quoting Pseudonym
This also isn't accurate. There are plenty of us who believe that society is going to do what it does regardless of anything we, as an individual, choose to do or not do. This is another belief that requires some amount of hubris--that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions.
What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway.
Quoting Pseudonym
Murder is, by definition, illegal. Things that are legal do not cancel out things that are illegal. That's like asking of somebody can get away with vehicular manslaughter because they were driving under the speed limit.
This really gets to the heart of what you're implying with all of this, though, and where I (and it seems T Clark) take issue with your position. You are implying that our current laws are not satisfactory with regard to religion. It follows from this that you think we need to pass new laws, placing more restrictions on religious belief and expression. Seeing as how murder is already illegal, it doesn't make sense to assume that you're referring to religious extremists/terrorists. These extreme forms of religious expression are already illegal, so what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs?
It seems to me that you either didn't think through the implications of what you've been saying, or T Clark and I have been correct in our assessments of your position all along.
Firstly I'm not advocating any position at all, this is the first misconception both you and T Clark have made and I can't understand why. Apart from one mention of my views about faith schools to sonjnana in direct response to a question, I have not once said anything about my personal opinion about the extent to which society should tolerate or restrict religious practices. I honestly haven't the faintest idea why either of you think that you have any idea what I actually think about the restriction of religion.
My entire point I will repeat, is that;
1. it is possible for someone to hold the belief that religion needs to be restricted for the good of society yet to hold this view without any more hubris or certainty than someone who holds the belief that religion is currently restricted to exactly the right extent.
2. If someone were to believe such a thing their moral obligation to act on that belief would be no different to the moral obligation to not act of someone who holds the belief that things are fine as they are.
I repeat, at no point in time have I expressed my own views on the extent to which I think society should limit religious expression.
To the extent to which your post addresses my actual point of philosophy (rather than your wild speculation about my personal judgement);
Quoting JustSomeGuy
No, I have not once said it is reasonable, I have argued it is possible (for public activities) and as such every moral agent has to decide whether to persue such an option.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
No, it does not. It is perfectly possible to have an extremely humble and speculative idea of what might be best for all mankind. For example, one might believe in ethical naturalism which may lead one to a conclusion that the wants of humankind are mediated by biology. They may consider then that what is good for them is probably good for all humanity based on the similarity biologically. Such a person might easily hold this belief with great humility, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that they did indeed know what was best for all humanity. Likewise someone who believes in a very strict religion such as a jehovas witness might hold their belief very tentatively, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that, whilst committed to the belief, they would know what was best for all humanity. It is sufficient for them to say that if their belief was right, then then would know exactly what was best for humanity.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
I don't understand what you are saying here. If each individual decided to take a particular position, then society as a whole will have adopted that position, how have the individuals taking their positions not been responsible for the position adopted by society? What you might be saying (charitably) is that in the specific circumstance where you can see clearly that your belief is very much in the minority you could justifiably reach the conclusion that there isn't any point in campaigning, but that's a very specific circumstance, not a general philosophical principle. Democracy is founded on the notion that each citizen expresses their wishes through voting and campaigning.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
I understand this. I disagree, as above, but I get that it's a reasonable philosophical position to hold. I don't think it's any less hubristic, but it's just as valid as my position.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
As I have repeatedly said, I have not advocated any position in this thread, but since you asked; no, based on my personal assessment of the harms I believe religious practices can cause, I do not think it would be advisable (let alone possible) to restrict praying, worshipping or discussing religion. I do think it would be advisable to restrict religious education and remnant religious influence on the state. But my reasons for reaching the conclusions are an entire thread's worth and totally off topic here.
I wasn't being dismissive. I was providing a scientific explanation for religious beliefs. Being dismissive would be to ignore the fact that anyone has an experience that they call religious. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that they are interpreting their experience wrongly.
Quoting T ClarkAnd your anger would be part of the symptom of being delusional. Didn't you read the list of symptoms? Questioning your beliefs and providing a better explanation shouldn't make anyone angry if they are really trying to get at the truth. It would only make one angry if they have an emotional investment in their belief, the validity of which is being questioned.
Doctors, including psychologists, can explain your ailments, actions and beliefs based on their experience with other patients. The fact is that even though humans are different, we are also very similar.
Quoting T Clark
So, you disagree with what I have said, you'd get angry at calling your beliefs a delusion, and you don't think science provides good explanations, and you say that you aren't a theist? Mmmkkkkkay. If you really aren't a theist and don't want to explain yourself, and would rather just say, "I disagree.", without really explaining why you disagree, then I guess we are done here. Calling it hubris isn't disagreeing because you'd be calling all the doctors that diagnose people's physical and mental conditions by consulting others with similar conditions, hubris.
All I need is actual theists to respond to my posts and answer questions about why they believe what they believe. I find it strange that people who claim that they aren't theists are reacting so strongly to what I've proposed.
So it is rebellious to think logically and consistently? It does seem that way considering that most people don't seem to think that way.
I haven't spoken to just a handful of people about this. Your attempts to discredit my argument by claiming that I don't have the sufficient knowledge or experience to make that argument is ridiculous. Doctors and psychologists do it all the time.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
But we aren't always irrational. Religious people are only irrational when defending and explaining their delusion. That has all been posted before. You aren't paying attention.
This is typical theist nonsense. Did you not read my posts where I explained how I arrived at science providing the best answers? It wasn't without questioning everything, rather because I did question everything.
Science questions itself and it's explanations are only placeholders for better explanations. Science is nothing like religion.
I've not been convinced by anything you've said on the matter at hand, so I'd say it's on you to do a better job at that. You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. Besides, your argument seems to be a tangent from this thread's OP. Perhaps you could start a new thread about religions' value, as theism and religion aren't mutually inclusive terms.
I will be charitable and call this disingenuous. You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your beliefs.
I have to second what T Clark said, you're being disingenuous. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further.
You seem to be an irrational and unreasonable person, at least with regard to this topic, so I see no point on wasting my time trying to have a real discussion with you.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement.
Sounds like utilitarianism.
Sounds like it is the consequences of beliefs, not their correspondence or lack of correspondence to truth and reality, that they are to be judged by.
So if a belief adds 100 units of happiness to one person's experience but subtracts 200 units of happiness from other people's experience we have an aggregate net loss and every morally acceptable action to minimize that belief's presence will be justified, correct?
If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Anecdotal evidence.
Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability.
Quoting Joel Bingham
Theism is belief in the existence of deities.
What truth/reality has science/technology revealed that theists deny?
Theism is not "Belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old", so theists are not in denial of geologic fact or anything like that.
Sounds like the disciples of Ayn Rand I have known, not the disciples of Christ I have known.
And Rand disciples like to make it clear that she was no theist.
And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? Your only evidence seems to be anecdotal accounts of people making the marginal choice not to help a stranger they encounter on the street. How does that prove "fine with that"? They could, you know, among other alternatives to "fine with that", simply not know how to respond to every marginal situation. Overall, rather than in isolated marginal encounters, they could be living their lives in a way in which they are trying to minimize the suffering of others.
Quoting Pseudonym
Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?!
What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?!
If I asked if Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is really an illness would you bring up the number of deaths attributable to ISIS versus other sources?
If I asked if Bipolar Disorder is really an illness would you bring up "I don't know what that's all about" or "are we going to have a serious about what the root cause might be and try to change it?" ?
1. What beliefs? Which of the seven beliefs I have stated as being a summary of my position do you think I am "unwilling to take responsibility for the implications" of? Or are we still playing this stupid game where you second guess what you think I think and then argue against that because if that's the case then have a ball, why not reckon I think some really racist views as well, they'll be really easy to argue against?
2. I've listed what I believe to be a series of facts, some are empirical and others are logical conclusions from the empirical premises. I don't know if you've ever engaged in a proper philosophical discussion before, but generally we look to see if any of the empirical facts might be wrong, or if any of the conclusions might not actually follow. We don't generally look at the implications of what we conclude and then change our conclusions to whatever sounds best.
If you have any serious logical counters to any of the positions I've actually written (rather than the ones from your imagination) then I'd be interested to hear them, otherwise please refrain from making vague generalisation about my character.
And I'm being disingenuous? I wrote what must have been over a hundred words detailing exactly why I disagree with most of the points you made and explained where I accepted you were right about one of them. Every single "no" was fully explained (within the limits of this format). If you disagree with any of my counter-arguments, the general response is to explain why, but if you'd rather join in this wishy-washy generalisation than actually engage with any of the arguments then yes, we have nothing further to say.
Because if they were not they would stop buying the stuff that perpetuates the situation. Fair trade products exist, we don't have to buy trainers made by children, we don't have to buy coffee picked by labourers paid under the poverty line. This excuse of "not k owing what to do" is exactly what I'm talking about, everyone's waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Yes, what other course of action would you advise we take if someone demonstrated something produced an aggregate net loss of well-being? Ignore it and carry on as we were? Why on earth would anyone advise that?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905001601
"The over emphasis on personal faith as the primary route to salvation had the side effect of valuing a stance over rational deliberation about moral choices" - The Neuroscience of Religious Experience, Patrick McNamara 2009.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200903332056?src=recsys - Christian belief is correlated with higher social conformity
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-009 - That rationality derives, at least in part, from the social environment.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x - An article outlining the way religious morality is about protecting social groups and institutions rather than resolving moral dilemmas.
You may disagree with any of these and many very intelligent people have, but please don't insult my intelligence by presuming that I just made up stuff without researching it first.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Not a lot, It wasn't myn intention to hi-jack your thread and I'm sorry, I only asked what I thought might be a simple question arising from some comments here and it's turned into a massive debate only tangentially related. I should have started a new discussion. My apologies.
I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros?
I agree that banning public religious practices would probably lead to worse consequences than allowing them, but I do think we have to be more careful with what we teach our children. It is not possible to teach children critical thinking (as you so rightly point out is important) and teach them that the world is as it says it is in a certain book and that all your moral decisions have been made for you by God. The need to teach critical thinking rules out the possibility of allowing certain classes of faith school.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MOSheesh! Don't you read before posting nonsense like this? The evidence is the religious people's answers and reactions (angrily, hostile, scared) to questioning their beliefs. All you have to do is ASK theists why they believe what they believe. I have done that - more times than I can count, of so many people that I forget how many. Have you?
Are there any actual theists that will honestly answer the question of why they believe what they believe? All I'm getting are people who act like theists, but say they aren't, yet don't explain their own position. Go figure.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
And as I said, twice but you are ignoring it that I didn't change my mind because I'm being rebellious. I did it because there were questions that just couldn't be answered in a consistent way. So I found a better way. Is every scientist that challenges the status quo being rebellious or simply trying to have an open-mind in order to get at the truth?
What does it even mean to move beyond anti-theism? Is that what you think I am - an anti-theist? I'm not. I'm simply someone that needs more evidence to believe something that others find so little need of evidence to believe in.
First off, I don't recall you having to repeat this at all, but I'll "be charitable" as you say and assume I missed it.
However...
Quoting Pseudonym
Why anyone would want to continue engaging with you when you have repeatedly been so intellectually dishonest is beyond me.
I'm sorry, as JSG has pointed out above I have mentioned the my personal view once, please accept my apologies for not noticing. The whole thrust of my argument really has nothing to do with my personal life answer and in all the long posts I had forgotten that I had mentioned it.
Really? One mistake regarding the only mention of my view in six pages of posts and I'm "intellectually dishonest". How convenient that you now have an excuse not to respond to the entire remaining argument.
You are unbelievable.
Quoting Pseudonym
Quoting Pseudonym
[hide]
Quoting Pseudonym
What is your argument, then?
I could be wrong, but it really seems to me as though Pseudonym has been trying his hardest not to share his actual beliefs, because the few times he has slipped up and shared them he has been called on their irrationality.
This would also explain why he has written pages worth of comments and yet doesn't seem to have actually said anything at all.
My argument;
Quoting Pseudonym
My argument again;
Quoting Pseudonym
And again;
Quoting Pseudonym
And again;
Quoting Pseudonym
A brief summary here;
Quoting Pseudonym
One last time;
Quoting Pseudonym
Did you somehow miss all that but miraculously pick up on the two words "myself included" from which to base your entire response?
1. Everyone has to decide whether to restrict religion (further than it already is), encourage religion further, or leave it as it currently is. No one can not make this decision because the options are mutually exclusive. Inaction has no less of a consequence than action (without begging the question by pre-judging that everything is fine as it is)
2. A rational moral agent will make this decision, and therefore act/not act, on the basis of the amount of harm/good they believe religion causes.
3. The extent to which religion has caused net harm/good in any of its particular facets (preaching, praying, faith schools etc) is disputed, it is not a given fact.
Therefore it is not the case (as TC, JSG etc suggested) that someone who reaches the conclusion that things need to change (in either direction) must automatically have done so with hubris and zealotry, whereas someone who reaches the conclusion that things are fine must automatically be humble and skeptical.
Either position (that things must change, or that thinks should remain the same) can be held with great hubris or with great humility. They are both just responses to the evidence about the harms/goods of religion (which everyone agrees is mixed)
At no point does my own opinion (that religious practice is fine as it is but religious education needs to be further curtailed) have any bearing on the matter. If anyone wants to discuss this particular opinion I'd be happy to on a separate thread, but that's not what I'm arguing about here, I'm arguing solely that it is unfair to label those who think that religious activities need to be curtailed (or enforced) hubristic zealots, it is an entirely reasonable conclusion that can be held with any degree of uncertainty and humility.
The positions you have expressed in your posts on this discussion thread constitute advocacy for placing restrictions on otherwise legal religious practices. You try to hide that by playing silly word games saying "I'm not advocating anything." When I called your positions:
Quoting T Clark
And said you seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your positions, that's what I was talking about.
Also, I made no comments on your character at all, only on your positions and statements. It bothers me that you call my statements "vague." I had intended that they communicate a clear understanding of what I think of your ideas.
You're gonna have to explain your understanding of deontology with regard to the discouraging of religion before this makes any coherent sense.
Quoting Pseudonym
Who is we? If you're an American, there's something called the First Amendment - do you know it?
Quoting Pseudonym
I'd find it hard to believe that anyone here has suggested that the allowance of religion in society comes without any strings attached. If you've looked up the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then take a gander at the Fifth Amendment - it ought to clarify what freedom of religion means in a free and civilized Western democracy like the United States of 'Murica.
Quoting Pseudonym
You are claiming here that religion is more bad than good, so please provide me with a response that shows me why you think this. A simple, utilitarian list of pros and cons will do.
Quoting Pseudonym
I dunno, you tell me. On the severity of inaction, I think we both would agree that radical Islam, for example, has no place in civilized Western society and so should be thwarted, but you seem to be lumping Jihadi John in with Methodist Matthew, which is what I find to be so patently absurd with your comments here. The overwhelmingly vast majority of religious practice that goes on around the world does align itself with civilized, Western society and its principles, which is why I do not agree that we ought to discourage the lawful protection of those who practice their religion. You can holler in the street and peacefully protest and discourage religion all you want, but the moment you try and take away the right to religion, you have gone too far.
Quoting Pseudonym
It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too.
Quoting Pseudonym
Okay. I better go to the doctor, then.
Quoting Pseudonym
Yes, just as dozens of Saudi terrorists flew planes into two skyscrapers employing the very same appeals to "duty" and "conviction" as you now are doing here.
Quoting Pseudonym
Join me in the cockpit, will you? Let's do this.
Quoting Pseudonym
I refer you back to the First Amendment.............
Quoting Pseudonym
But not you, seeing as just about everything you've been saying in this thread flies in the face of the civilized principles that guide Western civilization to be different from the North Koreas and Saudi Arabias of the world.
Quoting Pseudonym
Now you're attempting to veer away from discouraging religion in general to discouraging "public religious practices", whatever that means. I honestly think that you're subconsciously backtracking from a position you know on some level is retarded.
Quoting Pseudonym
Pushing society in the direction that you want it to be pushed would entail the ripping apart of what has enabled Western civilization to flourish. If this discussion is pinned upon the veneer of deontology as I think it is, then I very much think it my duty to speak out against fascist-like loons like yourself.
Quoting Pseudonym
A > B = B < A.
I don't understand why, I said 'whatever effect religion is having' so it's implicit that the discouraging will be related to the effect. One might feel that preaching itself causes harm (not me, seeing as my personal opinions are becoming so important) so in that case the discouragement would have to restrict preaching, but other cases would require less intervention if the effects to be mitigated were less.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
The next entire section make the same error, conflating law with moral duty. We are not morally obliged to uphold the law (thankfully for the citizens of repressive States. Your argument about the American constitution have no bearing on whether someone could rationally conclude any religious activity should be curtailed. Are you suggesting that the American constitution is so unaliably right that it would actually be irrational to believe something in opposition to it?
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Cons -
The discouraging of critical thinking
The absolving of moral responsibility to an authority
Religious wars
Child abuse
Psychological abuse
Pros -
Nothing that is not already replicated in atheists
And before you argue that the cons are all present in atheists too, that is irrelevant. We are trying to eradicate cons, we can eradicate atheist cons too.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
So now I'm a fascist too, I can add that to irrational, zealot as bad as ISIS .
Personally, I think we should limit faith schools and discourage religious attitudes by rational debate, if that makes me a fascist, irrational zealot then there's clearly no place for contrary opinions here.
I'm not even going to grace the rest of your facetious response with any serious consideration.
You can spew nonsense all you like, but I won't be entertaining your idiocy any longer than I already have. And if the moderators here want to be consistent in upholding the forum's guidelines, fascist views like yours ought to be a ban worthy offense.
I don't share the same values. I don't want to live in a society that bans public religious practices. Regardless, why would you still support that, even with your values, when you think there would probably be worse consequences?
chill lol
No, I don't support the banning of public religious practices. What I'm speaking out in support of is the right of people to reach that conclusion if they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of society without being branded a fascist irrational zealot. I would disagree with them, but in a complex world where so many factors need to be taken into account I refuse to acknowledge that religion is somehow immune from that possibility.
So if a teacher in a faith school teaches that all non-believers are so evil that they deserve to be tortured for eternity, that's fine, but I'm not allowed to suggest that any religious practices not already illegal might be harmful, without being banned from debate?
Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.
Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum.
This forum isn't a shelter for every nutcase who fumbles through its doors. If Pseudonym wants to peddle his thinly veiled fascism, he ought to go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/
A lot of those circumstances however may be theoretical rather than practical. Like for example I can't think of a practical set of circumstances why choosing a dictator would suit the best interests of America. Doesn't seem like circumstances like that will ever arise, but then again we may never know. I thought you were saying that under the circumstances we have right now, faith schools should be banned. I'm not sure a case for banning faith schools will arise that will suit people's interests, but we will see.
The definition of delusion is so framed as to exclude religion from being a mental illness. I don't know how justified that is but it is clear that those who made the definition wanted this.
Not all people who think differently are delusional, I agree but the definition clearly states that thinking differently and NOT accepting evidence to the contrary is a delusion.
It appears that the people who defined delusion forgot to mention that the belief itself must be well-supported by evidence. Perhaps they were not philosophers.
I'm sorry but that's twice you've openly called me a fascists and that's really not acceptable.
Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
I have advocated none of the above;
I have not even mentioned nation or race (yet you have twice presumed that the laws of America automatically equate with moral virtue).
The only vague reference to the style of government I prefer was my statement that society should be made up of the action of all it's individuals (which is pretty much the definition of democracy).
We already live in a society where economics and culture are highly regulated, they're just regulated by cultural institutions, not governments and I'm advocating giving children the freedom to think for themselves rather than indoctrinating them in some arbitrary cultural value.
As for forcible suppression of opposition, remind who is trying to ban whom?
Finally, someone gets it! I feel like I've been wading through treacle, thank you for sticking with it so calmly, my exposition must be considerably poorer than I hoped it might be.
I do think we are bordering on circumstances where an argument could be made for the banning of faith schools, but then I think the same is true of boarding schools too. Given the unacceptable rate of child abuse in both of these types of institution, I just feel that putting a load of children in any institution where they are told to unquestioningly accept the moral authority of a small number of adults is a recipe for disaster, which is a view shared by many prominent sociologists and child psychiatrists. When you add to this rather toxic cocktail the fact that religious schools teach children that to suffer in this life is noble and will be rewarded in heaven, the 'harms' list starts to look too large for me.
At the very least there should be much stricter regulation of these institutions, with frequent independent checks, but that's not going to happen whilst people blindly associate religion with moral virtue in the face of clear evidence to the contrary like Cardinal Law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/20/cardinal-bernard-law-death-survivors-react
I'm against indoctrinating children in general. I think it's messed up that you can brainwash a kid into having a world view about the ultimate truth, one that isn't demonstrated and can cause traumatizing emotional fear for the rest of their life if they try to escape it. They should be able to decide for themselves when they get older. But of course I know I can't tell parents how to raise their children on this issue.
Regardless even if I did want to ban faith schools and public religion, I think the emotional reaction and divisiveness that would probably arise shuts down any practicality in that. There is no way that's gonna happen anytime soon.
Theism is belief in the existence of deities.
Please address how belief in the existence of deities is a mental illness, not arbitrary things like denial of evolution.
And please tell us that you are not implying that denying evolution is a mental illness.
Furthermore if theism is a mental illness due to distorted reasoning then all people are mentally ill
You’re not ill because I disagree with you.
I'm not sure what relevance this has. We all get colds and flu from time to time too, that doesn't stop us referring to them as an illness. Depression and Anxiety are both metal conditions dealt with by medical intervention. The fact that they're experienced by over half the population hasn't had any impact on that approach.
I don't see any need to medicalise normal, run of the mill religious behaviour because it doesn't objectively get in the way of people's lives, but if a young adult was experiencing some mental pain at the conflict between their normal desire for a sexual relationship and the fear of punishment in the afterlife for having sex outside of marriage, then I'd say the intervention of a therapist would be helpful. The fact that thousands of people have the same delusion shouldn't have any bearing on deciding objectively how best we can help people.
What evidence do atheists ignore?
Religion does not discourage critical thinking. "Absolving of moral responsibility to an authority" is neither a strictly negative thing nor one caused only by religions; every state in the world does that with their legal systems. Wars exist without religions, which are just excuses. Child abuse happens outside religions as well, you might as well say that religious people die and therefore list dying as one of the cons.
That doesn't mean anyone that twists certain evidence to support their belief and ignores other evidence that contradicts their belief is delusional.
It's fine in the faith school, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be tolerated here.
That's just your opinion, mine differs hence my inclusion of it on my list. If you read the posts this list derived from, they are all about personal moral responsibility and the need to choose even when evidence is scarce either way. Your response to this point is a prime example. You say it doesn't, I say it does, where do we go from there?
Quoting BlueBanana
Again, I believe it is, so as far as my personal moral obligation is concerned, it is to act with the best will, based on what I believe to be true. If you'd care to actually present any arguments to back up your assertions I'd be interested to hear them. If not, that's fine, but you'd be crazy to expect me to act based on what you believe. I'm going to act based on what I believe, aren't I?
Quoting BlueBanana
No, most states are democracies which means that each citizen has a part to play in devising and revising these moral decisions. Religion is not a democracy, it does not invite opinion on moral matters from its congregation. There was no vote on the ten commandments.
Quoting BlueBanana
This is a nonsensical argument. Racism exists outside of neo-nazi groups so we shouldn't act against neo-nazis? Sexism exists outside of men's clubs so we should not act to open up exclusive clubs? Corruption exists outside of secret lobbying interests so we shouldn't act to close that particular instance?
Religion gives people an excuse for war, restrict religion, that's one less excuse. Religion gives child abusers a way to access their victims and maintain their silence. Restrict religion, that's one less route for child abusers.
The human race right now does seem to be quite riddled with bad people. If we can't make progress by eliminating as many opportunities as we can for them to get away with doing bad things I don't see how we expect to make any progress at all.
Again, it's fine if you just want to voice your opinion, but without an argument I've got nothing to consider. Why do you think it's fine in faith schools? It seems like a rather problematic thing to teach our young children to me. It seems obvious to me that such teaching is not going to help social cohesion, teaching that an entire group of people are evil. If you think it's fine I'd like to hear why.
No single individual can affect the laws, so they're under the power of their authorities. And that the authority (state, society, laws) is chosen democratically by the people does not make it any less an authority.
Quoting Pseudonym
No, but they have so much space for interpretation they actually leave a lot more freedom for moral decisions and the choices and preferences of the individuals than actual laws.
An authority is needed for morality in any society, because otherwise we're left with pretty much an anarchy or the state of nature with everyone following their own interests. In my opinion that authority should be democratic, but also more open-ended like that of religions'.
Quoting Pseudonym
Statistically neo-nazi groups have proportionally more racists than the general population, whereas priests don't have a higher probability to be child abusers than other men. Let's shut down hospitals and schools as well because then there are less opportunities for child abusers.
The reason the above isn't a good idea, even if stopping child abusers at any cost was the top priority, is that blocking a single way to do that won't stop the abusers, but instead they'll find another way. And on top of that I don't think any pedophile becomes a priest just because it's an easy way to abuse children; they're just priests that happen to also be pedophiles.
Of course it does, it means that any time they no longer represent the will of the people, they can be replaced. Moral laws resulting from democratic governments evolve, moral laws eminating from religions either do not evolve or are not what they claim to be (the word of God).
Quoting BlueBanana
This is just religious apologism. If having moral choice is a good thing then ditch religion, you have complete choice then. If moral authority is good then religious laws being widely open to interpretation is a bad thing. You can't have it both ways unless you're claiming that religion just happens to have exactly the right balance of authority to autonomy, in which case I'd love to hear your argument for that conclusion.
Quoting BlueBanana
And you know this how?
Quoting BlueBanana
No, because hospitals and schools serve some demonstrable purpose without which the well-being of society would suffer (personally I don't believe this to be the case with schools, but that's another discussion). There is no reason to believe anyone would suffer if Sunday schools and faith schools were banned. Half the world are atheist, it doesn't seem to have done any demonstrable harm.
Quoting BlueBanana
Yes they do. There are a greater proportion of child abusers in the priesthood than there are among farmers, or soldiers, or dentists. Just as there are among schoolteachers, paediatricians etc. Groups that have access to children, particularly where they have some significant authority and are implicitly trusted by parents tend to attract abusers. The priesthood is one such institution.
Quoting BlueBanana
Again, it's fine just to hear your opinion on this, but an argument to support this conclusion would be more interesting. Personally I think that most people suppress their more base desires because they simply wouldn't get away with expressing them, they have a lack of facility. Therefore, the more facility we remove the less abuse will take place. If you followed your logic there would have been no child protection measures at all "why bother, they'll just find some other way".
Being delusional is holding beliefs that contradict reality or rational argument. I've posted the symptoms of Wikipedia several times on these forums and theists match up with a vast majority most of them. Look it up.
I'm not saying theists are psychotic. I'm saying religion is a means of coping with stress - a way of covering up what it is that they don't like about reality - a defense mechanism if you will.
Theists typically inject more into the empirical evidence than is necessary to explain it. They are inconsistent. They are defensive. It's emotional for them. They need it to be true.
Actually, some like me, didn't need it to be true. What I needed was the actual truth about everything; not what I wanted it to be. The truth isn't subject to my feelings. I learned about other religions, philosophy and about science's explanations. The bottom-up explanations of science appealed to me over the top-down explanations that ended up being inconsistent in order to explain the existence of God, and what it wants, in the first place.
When they realize that the truth isn't guaranteed to make them content, that is when they can actually start to question their own beliefs and develop an intellectually honest search for truth, where they apply the same rationality they do in the rest of their lives. Delusional people can behave normally and rationally in other aspects of life, but it is only when their delusion is challenged, or questioned, do they become defensive and irrational.
That's reversing cause and effect. People who want to have easy access to children choose jobs where they do and who have enough authority to get away with it. But it is certainly very sad to see how many profess knowledge of the divine and yet allow themselves to do something as vile as to prey on children.
I didn't say that the priesthood or anything about religion caused priests to become child abusers and if that's the impression my comment has left then I'd like to make that abundantly clear. I don't like organised religion, but I'm not in the business of making accusations about it that aren't backed by evidence, it has enough issues that are to go on. All I said was that it is one institution (among a number of others), that allows child abusers access to victims and a means to cover-up their behaviour. The fewer such institutions we have the safer our children will be. It is a simple corollary of that fact that there will be more child abusers in the priesthood than in professions that do not have access to children.
I think the fact that a group supposedly professing knowledge of the divine manage to restrain themselves from abusing children to no greater degree than any other group shows absolutely clearly how utterly useless religion is at instilling moral values. If those at the very top of religious orders who have spent an entire lifetime studying scripture can't even stop themselves from doing something as blindly obviously wrong as abusing an innocent child how anyone could suggest that religion is responsible for morality is beyond me.
Well, the problem could be solved in multiple manners. The Church could be much much better at policing its own members and prosecuting them. There could be advisory standards in place so that priests never have much one-on-one time with children, if at all. Given that we are to trust, for the most part, total strangers on the basis of cloth and position alone, that would not be too much to ask.
I, perhaps, was lucky, but I was raised in a fairly conservative Catholic environment. Boarding private unisex schools, uniforms and all, and I yet I was never once alone with a priest more than, what, 5 minutes? Everywhere there was a mean-looking Sister or Mother watching us like we were vermin, and she was the eagle. So, as such, there is already a semblance of those standards in place.
On the other hand, this is not to say that there could not have been cases of such abuse in my vicinity. The spread of this vileness is always horrifyingly disconcerting.
Quoting Pseudonym
Well, that is the moral problem of Christian religions : for all their claims about morality, the overall moral content of the Bible, once analysed, is, at least to me, relatively trivial. Its only a solid foundation if you give in to the reality of divine punishment, and I think that's not really as widespread amongst Christians as they claim it is.
Absolutely, I think these are all good solutions, but in order to enact them there needs to be a culture that sees priests and nuns as just as much of a threat as other professions with access to children (which means more of a threat than average). With the continued attitude that religion is somehow equated with morality, I don't see how that's going to happen. We see it on this forum in most debates touching on religion, but also in my field, its pretty much automatic that a religious representative is on any board of ethics. Someone representing an institution that can't even prevent its own highest echelons from abusing children doesn't deserve any special treatment with regards to ethics.
Quoting Akanthinos
The trouble is early Christians knew they weren't going to get any takers if the offer was simply 'behave well and you'll go to heaven' that's far to much like hard work. The real advertising scoop for Christianity was the big emphasis on forgiveness. Now you can do whatever the hell you like in life as long as you get in a quick apology before death you'll be fine.
Honestly, Saatchi and Saatchi could not have come up with a better campaign.
Well, I was always taught absolution in Ultime Onction could only be given if the person was truly earnest in his repentance. But then again, it's not like the Church never sold any pardon. :(
Yes, I've always found that an odd tenet. Surely one who is truly repentant, without simply being scared of hell, must therefore know their sins are immoral intrinsically. That means that they committed them with the capacity to work out they were wrong (even if they didn't carry out that calculation at the time).
Someone who does not repent is someone who continues to believe they were right to do what they did.
Who has committed the worse wrong?