Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   weekly question: Religion: when is it good and when is it bad
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 16 (422)
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


As I've been travelling a lot, I didn't get around to a question last week and the beginning of this week was spent in front of my monitor and tv.
It seems that current events are close to us and not being able to get them out of my mind, I thought I would ask a question regarding when is religion healthy and when is it detrimental?
The obvious example of the Tuesday is a bit of a strawman. While religion can certainly be the root of such acts, it is often the impetus to amazing acts of humanity such as in the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition. Bill Moyer has often discusses this subject and I think it is fitting here.
What are the elements of religion that are beneficial and good, and when does it become dangerous or unhealthy?
Larry

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 09-18-2001 2:33 PM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 10 by bansidhe, posted 11-03-2001 7:22 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 11 by bansidhe, posted 11-03-2001 7:22 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 9:11 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 15 by Metalpunk37, posted 04-10-2002 11:40 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 16 (423)
09-18-2001 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


In a dialogue with myself I found this article interesting as a follow-up. It is by E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47108-2001Sep17.html
Comments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 09-13-2001 4:32 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Falsecut, posted 09-30-2001 12:35 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
Falsecut
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 16 (426)
09-30-2001 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by lbhandli
09-18-2001 2:33 PM


Religion is a powerful force for good and evil. Most often, damage gets done when people see their way as the one and true way and refuse to see another side. This can happen even if the source of their 'rightness' isn't religious. I found his statement that the relationship between religion and psychology is close to be most interesting. Certainly, the leaders use psychology to insert religion into their justifications for whatever they wish to see done. I disagree with the statement that the the Egyptian minister's statement was political in the sense that if one states that the sky is striped, and it isn't, pointing that out isn't political.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 09-18-2001 2:33 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Redwing, posted 10-06-2001 11:06 PM Falsecut has not replied

  
Redwing
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 16 (431)
10-06-2001 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Falsecut
09-30-2001 12:35 PM


I absolutely agree--religious exclusivism causes most if not all of the religious strife that is so painful and so visible to us today.
--Redwing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Falsecut, posted 09-30-2001 12:35 PM Falsecut has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:39 PM Redwing has not replied

  
ShannonMay
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 16 (435)
10-12-2001 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Redwing
10-06-2001 11:06 PM


I personally think that religiosity can be dangerous. I also think that spirituality can be very good and very healthy. I think that there really is a God and that he really did create the beautiful world we live in. However I don't agree with the fanatasism that is going around.It is healthy in the sense that being spiritual gives people and sense of morality and purpose. I also think that if you take the spirituality and don't go using it as an excuse to hurt and kill people and instead help them, it is a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Redwing, posted 10-06-2001 11:06 PM Redwing has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 16 (446)
10-25-2001 3:19 PM


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.
And what if one of the belief systems just happens to be true? That would of course mean all those which disagree with it would be false, and it would also justify its sense of exclusivism. Methinks some of you prejudge the case with little in the way of facts at hand.
ShannonMay's "spirituality" is probably the most popular "religion" of the day, but what claim does it have to truth? Or does truth matter?
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.
[This message has been edited by Faith (edited 10-25-2001).]
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-07-2005 23:39 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by lbhandli, posted 10-25-2001 3:41 PM Faith has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 16 (447)
10-25-2001 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
10-25-2001 3:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Faith:
[b]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]
[/b]
No, I made no such claim in the question. Religion though is a definable concept.
[QUOTE][b]
And what if one of the belief systems just happens to be true? That would of course mean all those which disagree with it would be false, and it would also justify its sense of exclusivism. Methinks some of you prejudge the case with little in the way of facts at hand. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
How so? Could you be specific?
[QUOTE][b]
ShannonMay's "spirituality" is probably the most popular "religion" of the day, but what claim does it have to truth? Or does truth matter? [/QUOTE]
[/b]
How is this relevant to conditions under which religion is positive and when it is detrimental? I'm not following why a claim on truth is relevant to the question necessarily. It may be, but the above isn't clear.
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.

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.
And I am a Christian so you are wrong above.
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-25-2001 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 11:26 AM lbhandli has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 16 (452)
11-01-2001 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by lbhandli
10-25-2001 3:41 PM


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).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by lbhandli, posted 10-25-2001 3:41 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 11-02-2001 6:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 16 (459)
11-02-2001 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
11-01-2001 11:26 AM


quote:
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.
I guess I'm unclear on how it treats all religions as myth. I'm not simply discussing it on the basis of its uses and misuses, but asking when religion has detrimental effects and when it exerts positive influence on people. This is a much more subtle question and one that Dionne answers for himself at the end.
The logical result of not addressing the question is to remove reason from any consideration of faith. Faith isn't something that exists with no checks. Indeed, when unchecked you get rather horrific events from faith if it doesn't include reason. While skepticism may not be the same as reason, it certainly is a result of using reason.
The traditions if Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a great deal of scholarly work done to understand those faiths in more than a simple reading of each of their holy texts. And within all of these traditions are concepts of when faith can go to far. While such standards may all be violated from time to time, the faithful have asked these questions since the beginnings of the religions.
quote:
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.
Here you are confusing a scientific theory with something that approximates truth or a faith. Science describes a physical phenomenon using specific techniques. Saying evolution has negative consequences is similar to saying that gravity has negative consequences when you fall from a tree.
quote:
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?
Last I checked Bill Moyers doesn't have a denomination named after him. To put it simply, I'm a mainstream Presbyterian.
quote:
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?
I do not accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is the historical meaning of fundamentalism in Christian sects in the United States.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
bansidhe
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 16 (462)
11-03-2001 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


i don't think that its religion that is the force for 'good' or 'evil', its the people that come out of it.
i personally think that christianity is a beautiful religion, but some of the people within it have blemished its record. i know its only a very small minority, and it happens in every religion, im just using christianity as an example.
im a very religious person, and im a celtic pagan. nowhere is there anything that im aware of that gives celtic pagans the right to slam othere religions. however, there is unfortunately a minority that think they should and can, which gives a bad name to the whole group.
i guess the point im trying to make is that a religion shouldnt be judged as 'good' or 'evil', its the people within it who should be examined instead.
hope that made sense!!!
bans.
------------------
action without thought is anarchy, thought without action is stasis, action and thought result in change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 09-13-2001 4:32 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
bansidhe
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 16 (463)
11-03-2001 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


i don't think that its religion that is the force for 'good' or 'evil', its the people that come out of it.
i personally think that christianity is a beautiful religion, but some of the people within it have blemished its record. i know its only a very small minority, and it happens in every religion, im just using christianity as an example.
im a very religious person, and im a celtic pagan. nowhere is there anything that im aware of that gives celtic pagans the right to slam othere religions. however, there is unfortunately a minority that think they should and can, which gives a bad name to the whole group.
i guess the point im trying to make is that a religion shouldnt be judged as 'good' or 'evil', its the people within it who should be examined instead.
hope that made sense!!!
bans.
------------------
action without thought is anarchy, thought without action is stasis, action and thought result in change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 09-13-2001 4:32 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 16 (491)
11-27-2001 10:07 AM


Religion is just like the little girl in the poem:
When shes good,
Shes very, very good,
But when shes bad,
Shes fucking awful....

  
ekimklaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 16 (1175)
12-23-2001 8:45 PM


Madeline Murray O'Hare's oft quoted postulation that religion has killed more people than any other thing is bogus. The truth is GOVERNMENT's have killed more people than any other thing. Especially those based on Religious extremism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Metalpunk37, posted 04-10-2002 11:41 PM ekimklaw has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 16 (6557)
03-11-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
As I've been travelling a lot, I didn't get around to a question last week and the beginning of this week was spent in front of my monitor and tv.
It seems that current events are close to us and not being able to get them out of my mind, I thought I would ask a question regarding when is religion healthy and when is it detrimental?
The obvious example of the Tuesday is a bit of a strawman. While religion can certainly be the root of such acts, it is often the impetus to amazing acts of humanity such as in the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition. Bill Moyer has often discusses this subject and I think it is fitting here.
What are the elements of religion that are beneficial and good, and when does it become dangerous or unhealthy?
Larry

Religion is neither good nor bad.
Only people can be good or bad ... and that's subject to
societal norms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 09-13-2001 4:32 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
Metalpunk37
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 16 (8433)
04-10-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
09-13-2001 4:32 PM


Religion Can be good, it can like someone before said motivate people to do great acts of humanity such as Martin Luther King. However, when religion gets governed that is when it is horribly bad case in point the catholic church was a staunch ally of both italy and Germany in WW II . Tell me, how can a supposedly religious organization who promotes humanity and non-violence turn their head on the activities of a government who is coldly murdering Millions of people. people who share close ties with their religion. I will tell you how, In 1935 the Catholic church signed the treaty of latran making the city a sovereign nation. When Mussolini invaded ethiopia, most of the munitions were provided by the vatican's factories. The church which is supposed to be the protector of the oppressed recieved 100's of Millions of dollars from a tax imposed by germany in 1935. The Vatican recieved this bloody money from a nation who was ruthlessly murdering Jews. This money was accepted in the "name of God" tell me does this make you proud to worship a religion whose leaders are corrupt and hypocritical
------------------
Metalpunk (Metalpunk37@yahoo.com)
[This message has been edited by Metalpunk37, 04-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 09-13-2001 4:32 PM lbhandli has 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