quote:
Originally posted by Faith:
There seems to be some idea here that all "religion" is the same thing, whereas the differences in belief among the religions are as varied as their number. Some are not exclusivistic at all for instance. Hinduism is known to be very syncretistic, able -- or at least willing -- to absorb just about any other belief system into itself.
quote:
No, I made no such claim in the question. Religion though is a definable concept. {--lbhandli}
Sorry, I think I tried to answer too many different posts at once. I don't think I thought you made such a claim, but as this topic unfolded "religion" was being used in a very generic sense. I think a clearer statement of my objection is not that religion is being treated as generic, however, but that all religion is being treated more or less as myth, with little or no truth value.
Falsecut and Redwing were objecting to any religion's claim to exclusive truth as the most detrimental element of religion, apparently irrespective of whether any is true. It seems to me obvious that one doesn't object to a claim to exclusive truth if you are a believer in a religion's claim to truth, and to object to it seems to simply define the objector as an unbeliever.
As to your response specifically, as I've been thinking about it I realized that simply to ask the question whether religion is detrimental or healthy seems to imply that its truth value is negligible in the same way objecting to claims of exclusivity does, as I've just said.
Or as E.J.Dionne, Jr. says in the article you linked to: "If faith is reduced to its uses and misuses, a profound skepticism is inevitable." It does seem to me that to ask the question whether religion is healthy or detrimental is to reduce religion to its uses and misuses, and that Dionne is right, a profound skepticism is the inevitable result.
Dionne goes on to ask: "But does this discredit faith?" Yes, I would say, it certainly does. If "a profound skepticism is inevitable" when you speak of faith or religion in terms of its uses and misuses, and I believe it is, what sort of "faith" can be left? Faith is a belief in the truth of something. Faith and skepticism are mutually exclusive with respect to that question of truth.
quote:
----Meaning, I guess, that the question about whether "religion" is "healthy" or "detrimental" seems meaningless to me. The kind of question that could only be asked by somebody who didn't truly believe in any religion. {--Faith}
quote:
Can a system of faith and worship be healthy or detrimental? I think we can all identify examples of where it is either, so I'm unclear as to how you come to such a conclusion.{--Larry}
I believe the main point is, to me, that to raise this question is to treat all religion as mere myth, as I'm trying to say above, and as I believe the quote from Dionne also says, though he may not take that step himself.
If it is all myth, then I'm for objecting to anything about any of it that doesn't fit my own ideas of how the world should be run, my own ideas of what's "healthy" for instance. This seems to be the spirit in which the question is being discussed here and this is mostly what I wanted to highlight though I may have been imprecise in my concepts.
A pertinent example of this kind of difference in emphasis may be the very Great Debate itself. I could list some consequences of evolutionism that I believe to be very unhealthy and detrimental to the human race and to social institutions, but a confirmed evolutionist would certainly -- and rightly, I believe -- respond that truth trumps such questions.
quote:
And I am a Christian so you are wrong above. {--Larry}
I'm trying to find a way to respond to this that is neutral and friendly. I think you may be a Christian of the Bill Moyers school? I have found out recently that I have to call myself a "fundamentalist" in order to have discussions about evolution and other matters of belief. To a fundamentalist Bill Moyers is a liberal who rejects a great deal of Biblical revelation. I doubt that you would identify yourself as a "fundamentalist" in this sense, am I right? Help me find a better definition if I'm off here. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Faith (edited 11-01-2001).]
™ Version 4.2