Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is religion good for us?
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 16 of 181 (576590)
08-24-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
08-24-2010 11:28 AM


I see the "crutch for the weak" and "intellectually lazy" canards have been dropped all ready.
I will retract that. It serves no good purpose. It is an expression of anger.
But faith is irrational. If one chooses this path for themselves that is up to them. The problem for me comes when it seeps out into their relations with others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2010 11:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 17 of 181 (576591)
08-24-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Larni
08-24-2010 11:29 AM


Here's the thing: that warm fuzzy feeling is actually good for people to have. It is good way to stave off several debilitating psychological problems from stress, to depression, to reaction adjustment.
Personal faith is valuable and its benefits can be seen. I was careful to single out organized religion as opposed to personal faith. Are they inseparable?
I see religion as a problem when it rejects every other religion and cannot live in harmony with the out groups.
I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 08-24-2010 11:29 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 08-25-2010 7:48 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 18 of 181 (576592)
08-24-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
08-24-2010 11:50 AM


Does a life saved in a charity hospital cancel out a life lost in a religious war?
No it doesnt. Just because I save you from being hit by a bus doesnt mean I can throw the next guy under it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:00 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 19 of 181 (576593)
08-24-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
08-24-2010 11:56 AM


The problem with your list, is that it's not at all clear that any of them are examples of organised religion causing a problem. Let's have a look
quote:
-the Israel/Palestine conflict
-the sunni/shia conflict
-India/Pakistan conflict
The key thing here is just the notion of different identities. Yes, in these cases those identities are tied to religions, but this is in no sense essential to create these conflicts
I am not saying religion is the only cause but if we could magically remove religion from these conflicts what would be the basis for the conflict. Israel/Palestine is convoluted no doubt. The problem may be that we look for differences instead of similarities.
Even though opposition to scientific research such as this often comes from religious groups, Luddism also crops up outside organised religion. Consider the attitude of many green groups to things like GM-food. They stem from the same revulsion of man meddling in things he should not wot of, but these arguments can come without any religious terms from people who wouldn't consider themselves religious.
And this is the point I'm trying to make, I think. Your beef isn't with organised religion at all. It's with human irrationality and illiberal ideologies which are present all over the place, with and without organised religion. You're mistaking causes, I think.
I agree. Notwithstanding, religion is a major contributor to the suppression of knowledge.
but I don't see any religion in the drug war
You may be right. Most of the people I hear defending the war on drugs have a sense of moral superiority. I suspect that it is mostly based on economics. Nobody wants everyone to stop taking drugs. They just want you to take their drugs. So I will concede that the drug war/policy is not religiously based. I will maintain that without a religious input it would be a different thing altogether.
You're mistaking causes, I think.
What would you put on the list?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2010 11:56 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2010 6:37 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 20 of 181 (576594)
08-24-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
08-24-2010 12:40 PM


The major negative of religion is actually not on your list at all - in fact your list consists only of symptoms of the on real problem: religion does not significantly change, because it is not at its core a rational approach to determinign the real state of the Universe.
That is well said and I agree. That is religions greatest problem. The fact that it is so slow to adapt. But are symptoms not evidence of the affliction? Part of my reason for the OP was to identify the benefits of organized religion. As Stile said, take the good and leave the bad.
I also wanted to discriminate between religions effect in the past and the present. What do we see now and what should we do about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 08-24-2010 12:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 21 of 181 (576595)
08-24-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Stile
08-24-2010 3:03 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
But let's be clear that "getting rid of religion" is not a solution to the problem. In fact, it's a very large part of the very large problem that created the mess in the first place.
You made a bunch of good points and I agree with you.
I am not suggesting that we be rid of religion. That is most likely an impossibility. I am suggesting that by identifying the places where it does harm we can work towards mitigating that harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 08-24-2010 3:03 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 22 of 181 (576596)
08-24-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coyote
08-24-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
How about getting rid of religious fundamentalism, in all forms?
That seems to be where the real problem lies.
It shows up most there but the cancer is much deeper. I agree with the idea that the greatest problem with religion is that it is not a viable means of knowing the world. All the myriad problems stem from this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2010 3:14 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 23 of 181 (576597)
08-24-2010 5:45 PM


So can we populate the list? What belongs on it? What should be removed? What goes on the list for the positive effects of religion? Is it still my list against the warm fuzzy feeling?

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rahvin, posted 08-24-2010 6:33 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 24 of 181 (576598)
08-24-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
08-24-2010 5:35 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
The phrase "getting rid of" has some scary connotations.
Yes it does but surely there is a point where tolerance reaches an end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 5:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:06 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 181 (576602)
08-24-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 5:44 PM


Dogmafood writes:
ringo writes:
Does a life saved in a charity hospital cancel out a life lost in a religious war?
No it doesnt. Just because I save you from being hit by a bus doesnt mean I can throw the next guy under it.
So how do you measure good vs. evil if not by body count?

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:44 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 6:10 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 26 of 181 (576604)
08-24-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 5:47 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
Dogmafood writes:
ringo writes:
The phrase "getting rid of" has some scary connotations.
Yes it does but surely there is a point where tolerance reaches an end.
At that point, does the end justify the means?
This comes back to my original question: How do you measure good vs. evil? How evil can you be in "getting rid of" another evil? It seems to me that getting rid of things (people) is the problem, not the solution.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:47 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2010 6:11 PM ringo has replied
 Message 31 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 6:49 PM ringo has replied
 Message 32 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 6:55 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 27 of 181 (576606)
08-24-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
08-24-2010 6:00 PM


So how do you measure good vs. evil if not by body count?
I see what you mean. If I am a policeman who has done a lifetime of good deeds and then I murder someone. My lifetime of good deeds may help reduce the sentence but I am still guilty of murder. If I am a serial killer who saves someones life I still deserve prison. I would say that it takes alot of good to equal a little bad. At least that is what a court would say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:00 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 181 (576608)
08-24-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
08-24-2010 6:06 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
This comes back to my original question: How do you measure good vs. evil? How evil can you be in "getting rid of" another evil?
If someone wants to cut my head off I won't stop to consider the good/evil problem.
I'll take it for granted that they're evil. Close enough for my purposes anyway.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:40 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 29 of 181 (576610)
08-24-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 5:45 PM


So can we populate the list? What belongs on it? What should be removed? What goes on the list for the positive effects of religion? Is it still my list against the warm fuzzy feeling?
The list exists as an oversimplification. It's rather like trying to analyze the individual adaptations of an organism as "good" or "bad" - what are we comparing it to?
For example, one of the primary effects of religious indoctrination today is the propagation of moral instruction. Now, you or I would argue that the moral instruction offered by religious dogma is less than optimal, it's not the best possible system, but it is better than no moral instruction at all. On top of that, it's extremely varied - the ethics I learned from my parents as a young Presbyterian would be different from the ethics taught by, say, Fred Phelps, and we'd call them both "religious."
I'd rather have someone learn "love thy neighbor" from religious indoctrination, even at the risk of possibly including some of the nonsense (not all Christians buy the whole "homosexuality is an abomination" thing, for example), than have that person receive no early moral instruction at all, or to have outright negative moral instruction. It could possibly be argued that an innate sense of empathy could serve the same goal while bypassing the possibility of the potential negative side effects, but I'm not sure that's really the case.
Ideally, I'd like to see children taught from a relatively young age about various systems of ethics, and how to rationally decide which course of action is the best possible in any circumstance under each system - as well as exposing the flaws inherent in some systems, such as Authoritarianism.
Do you see what I mean? You can;t wrap this one up and say "religion does all of this bad stuff in exchange for some warm fuzzies." It does serve some objectively positive functions - it's simply the case that for the most part those positive functions tend to be not quite as good as other possible solutions. And that's without even touching the fact that there are thousands of extant religions, each of which occupies its own space on the benefit/harm spectrum for each individual topic that's up for consideration.
Because religious thought exemplifies a method of thinking that is significantly inferior to more rational approaches, I think it;'s perfectly fair to say that religion is less than optimal and carries a high risk of very significant pitfalls.
But I feel very uncomfortable labeling all religion as "evil" and thus lumping theocratic mass-murdering terrorists in with some Wiccan lady from New York who does little more than pray privately over some multicolored candles. Neither may be optimal, both may be irrational, but one is most certainly evil while the other is much closer to harmless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:45 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 7:11 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 181 (576612)
08-24-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
08-24-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Part of the Problem
Coyote writes:
ringo writes:
This comes back to my original question: How do you measure good vs. evil? How evil can you be in "getting rid of" another evil?
If someone wants to cut my head off I won't stop to consider the good/evil problem.
I'll take it for granted that they're evil. Close enough for my purposes anyway.
Most religions don't have cutting off your head as a major tenet, so you're not adding much to the discussion.
What about fundamentalists who oppose gay marriage? How to you propose to "get rid of" them?

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2010 6:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2010 2:56 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 12-18-2013 10:00 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024