poliphilo

I think he's doing important work. Someone needs to be knocking religion-

This is what I don't get: why?

From:

I'm guessing because it's responsible for war, child rape, witch beating, the stoning of women, the murder of homosexuals - I could go on.

From:

No, it's an EXCUSE for war, child rape, witch beating/hanging/stoning/burning, and so forth. The responsibility for those things is with the people who did them. The existence of religion doesn't shift the responsibility -- and I believe that, absent THAT excuse, they would have found another one.

From:

I'm sure you are correct in the last part of that.

But let's remove the EXCUSE, and try them as criminals.

From:

That sounds like an excellent idea. And when that's being done, there's no reason to be hostile to religion.

From:

The excuse IS religion. So let's remove it,

Why don't you try coming up with a reason it should remain?

I want to see all organised religion dismantled, and I believe it will inevitably happen. I think we're evolving away from it, and it can't happen fast enough.

From:

Because it gives an organized focus and structure to some people's lives.

Because it is one route to meaning.

Because it is one manner in which people can feel a connection to a larger community, and thereby to feel a connection to something larger than their own existence.

Because it has the ability to be a method for transmitting ethical and moral tropes, and training people into pro-social behavior.

Because it can be a source of inspiration for artwork.

Because it can be a connection to history, and give people a sense of context.

Because it can be a way of spiritually understanding the world.

Is religion the ONLY way to do any of these things? No, absolutely not. But it is one way to do these things. Similarly, is religion the ONLY way to justify murder and abuse? No, but it one way.

So, religion is a conduit to many things, some negative, but many positive. And, in fact, in its modern forms, it tends to be generally slightly better at its positive manifestations.

From:

Tell that last statement of yours to the women and children being burned to death in some parts of Africa as "witches", or to any of the women in any society which regards women as lesser than men because their religious book says so. Which is all of western society and the Muslim world. Tell it to the women who are not permitted to use condoms to protect themselves against HIV. Religion is - always has been - and always will be - a boys' club, forcing the rules of men and the destruction of humanity on the rest of us, based on a belief that is essentially psychotic (giant sky fairies are watching and judging you!).

Humans are inherently moral. Lessons can be as effective provided in a secular way.

Everything inspires art.

Community is about people participating - that is not peculiar to religion.

If you had any other activity that made people believe something essentially psychotic; that opened children up to sexual abuse and then shielded their abusers so they could continue to abuse; that resulted in people committing mass murders not just once, but regularly and for the last two thousand years; that separated people and made it impossible for them to come together as human beings (Yugoslavia, anyone? Genocide, anyone? Ireland? Anyone want to mention what happened to the millions of Aztecs?); and that protects the people who do the murdering, and places them in unassailable positions of power; that bases its precepts on an invisible magic being, but expects to be included in decisions of government - If you had any other organisation of which this was true you would stand back and call it what it is: it is mad. It is dangerous. It is poisonous.

And religion - those crusty books handed down by crusty men who so fear women - has NOTHING whatsoever to do with god or with any understanding of humans' position in the great order of the universe. I believe that that is the lie which

poliphilo referred to. That religion has nothing to do with the spiritual truths which may be keenly felt by some and not others. That it's a layer of confusion pasted over the top of something beautiful, a rule-book where no rule-book can be anything but counterproductive, and an organ of misery where there should be joy.

From:

Yes that is exactly what I meant. :)

(no subject)

From:

chiller.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-06-19 04:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

michaleen.livejournal.com

Humans are inherently moral.

And to all appearances, inherently immoral as well. Any more certain statement in either direction is a matter of faith, I think.

(no subject)

From:

ibid.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-06-22 09:07 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

I've been thinking about this in the back of my mind since yesterday, and it's just not holding together for me.

It seems to me that we've now agreed that Bad Things can be done in the name of religion, but that they are generally not done because of religion -- that religion exists as an excuse to do the bad things that people otherwise wanted to do -- enslave people, rape people, take people's land, and so forth.

And it seems to me that we've also agreed that good things, such as community service, artistic expression, and finding meaning, are also done in the name of religion, and that those things can also be done without religion.

So we've agreed that good things and bad things are often done in the name of religion, and that the exact same actions are also done without the motivation of religion. I think that it's quite likely that there are cases where religion was a deciding factor in the good or bad action -- that it is NEVER the only reason, but that the existence of religion can change the odds.

And we don't have any evidence as to whether it tends to change the odds more in a positive or negative direction.

I just don't buy your first point, that religion is inherently patriarchal. I can see that patriarchal cultures will use religion as one of the tools which they will use to maintain patriarchal control, but I think we have a lot of evidence that religion CAN be more egalitarian. I don't see the inherency that you're stating as fact -- indeed, I see quite a few counterexamples in my own immediate family.

(no subject)

From:

chiller.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-06-20 10:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

xiphias.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-06-20 10:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

oakmouse

Good points, all.

Also, of course secularism has nothing to pat itself on the back about when compared to religion. When rationalist atheists are in charge, they're every bit as bad as the worst religious fanatics. What about the millions of people tortured, enslaved, and murdered during the Terror, during the reigns of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, during Pol Pot's time in power? All of those were secular, rationalist atheist regimes.

From:

methodius.livejournal.com

Is the record of irreleigion any better? Did such things never happen in Enver Hoxha's Albania? Was that the true earthly paradise?

From:

Regimes that attempt to suppress religion are by definition tyrannical- and usually powered by some ideology or personality cult that borrows the methods and trappings of religion. I don't regard such regimes as truly secular. The secular state is one that separates church and state. Regimes like Hoxha's don't do that; instead they reinvent the State as a Church- with the "dear leader" as its god-king.

Secular isn't the same thing as irreligious or atheistical. The USA- one of the most religious countries on earth- has a secular constitution.

From:

methodius.livejournal.com

The question is not whether secular is the same thing as irreligious or atheistical. It has nothing to do with "secular" or what "secular" means.

I was querying the statement that religion is responsible for all the evils in the world. If that were true, then the abolition of religion should remove those evils. The fact that irreligious regimes have proved to be just as tyrranical as religious ones seems to indicate that it is a questionable assertion.

It equally, of course, throws into question the claims that religions are the cure for such evils.

But the point is that both those assertions are simplistic, and reality isn't quite as simple as that.

From:

I have never said that religion is responsible for all the evils in the world. Obviously that would be absurd. What I believe- and may or may not have
said in these posts- is that religion is false (some religions falser than others) and we would be better off without it.

From:

methodius.livejournal.com

I didn't think you had said that. It was

chiller's point that I was responding to.

From:

See polipholio's comments about secularism.

Any cult is bad. A Mao cult is no less bad than a Jesus of Mohamed one.

From:

Because religion lies about things that are`too important to lie about.

Because it messes up people's lives in all sorts of ways.

From:

To your point A: theology is specifically about the metaphysical, and therefore is not subject to physical analysis. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether it is lying or not.

To your point B: while it's quite possible to point to ways in which specific people, and cultures, have been messed up by religion, it is ALSO quite possible to point out ways in which OTHER people, and cultures, have had their lives ENHANCED by religion. I've never seen any real analysis about whether the net effect is positive or negative. Have you?

From:

I'm talking about religion, not theology. Religions assert all sorts of things as "fact" which we can be fairly certain are untrue- for example that the pope, speaking, ex cathedra, is infallible, or that the Koran is the final and all-sufficient authority on life the universe and everything. The function of theology is to make some sort of philosophical sense of the "revealed" truths of religion- an endeavour bound to result in futility.

I take your point B. Clearly there's no way of quantifying the positive and negative effects of religion. There are times and places in which it has had a civilising effect. Gothic architecture or the crusades- which weighs more? But we're talking about the past- about a time when religion was so closely woven into the fabric of society that it's impossible to separate out. Things changed at the end of the Middle Ages and religion, still clinging to a world view that is no longer credible- has become a drag on the intellectual and spiritual development of humanity.

From:

michaleen.livejournal.com

Actually, there is a theory kicking about, these days, that religion may have been the impetus for civilization as we know it. A growing body of evidence seems to imply that, contrary to conventional wisdom, agricultural may have arisen in support of organized spiritual activity and not the other way around.

So, there may be good reason why religion has been an inseparable part of society and often remains so today.

From:

That's interesting.

If you can direct me to the evidence I'd be very grateful.

From:

michaleen.livejournal.com

Göbekli Tepe

It's an article crafted for popular consumption, yet still lays out the gist of the idea. I found out about it through this site, just recently, but precisely when and in what context escapes me now.

From: