[Eclogite]

dduckwessel, on 11 November 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

I think that religion itself is the cause of ignorance.

I have observed on this forum and others that those who distrust, dislike and even despise religion have a very particular vision of what religion is. I propose that in most instances this vision represents only a sub-set of religion and as such the distrust is incorrectly applied to religion as a whole.

In this specific instance while some aspects of religion may promote ignorance the original intent of religion, as a whole, was to dispel ignorance, while providing a cohesive social framework. So I would fundamentally disagree with your statement.

For similar reasons I would question Bjelke's impassioned appeal. I applaud his positive 'reaching for the stars' approach, the desire to stretch ourselves as individuals and as a species, but I reject his finger pointing at religion. This arises, as chilehed has pointed out, from the painful personal experiences Bjelke had when growing up. That is equivalent to condemning science because some scientists are frauds or incompetent or plagiarisers. It won't wash.

[earthist]

It seems to me that religion is a set of beliefs that is taught as truth. As such, the source for religion is external to the individual who follows it. Science, as I see it, is also a set of beliefs that is taught as truth. The difference is that the scientific truths can be demonstrated by experiment (measured by machines for the most part), while the religious truths are given arbitrarily by god(s). However, as with religion, the source of scientific truth is also external to the individual who follows it.


Buried somewhere under both "isms" is the believer/follower. In other words, there is a wholly subjective and individual side to truth that is often given mere lip service. Most religions seem to say the subjective believer exists, but s/he is incompetent to originate truth. Science, on the other hand, seems to question even the existence of the subjective believer, since s/he can not be experimentally proven to exist (eg: there is nothing that can be measured to change at death except death itself). Even given a stipulation that the believer is there, science seems to say that s/he is incompetent to originate truth bringing us to the same end as religion (see note below).


I think it's likely that there is a deep-seated desire, perhaps even a need, for believers to say, "Hey, I'm here, and I matter." I think it's important to mental health to say that, and to be able to believe it as truth. Since the believer is a subjective entity, I would posit that there is also a need for the non-physical, aka the spiritual, to be true.


As I see it, both science and religion are engaged in attempts to tell believers what to believe, and, as such, they both do a disservice. Both promote, it seems to me, insanity, in the sense that responsibility, ethics, honor, duty, etc, are taught as originating outside the individual.


Furthermore, I don't see that it's necessary for either science or religion (in the sense of spiritual teaching) to continue along those lines. It's JMO, but it seems to me that we all need to acknowledge the importance of the subjective if we're ever going to have a "better," aka "saner" world.



Note: The science of statistics, while acknowledging that it cannot predict individual behaviors, does try to predict large-scale behaviors, thus negating any significance for individual decisions/actions. While I note that these statistical calculations can be demonstrated as truth, they come with an underlying assumption that the predictions will continue to be true. I am proposing that a change in basic assumptions, namely that subjectivity matters, could conceivably result in less predictable results, and that those results might possibly be "better" in the long run if the new basic assumptions became common.

[Rade]

Little Bang, on 14 November 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

Since it is almost impossible to guess what caused the Universe to spring into existence why wouldn't it be alright to surmise that some entity caused it?

Because your argument may be based on a false premise...your "almost impossible" claim. What does this mean ?

[dduckwessel]

Qfwfq, on 13 November 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

That's exactly what we are being. One peculiar feature our species evolved is an impelling need to believe in something, even in lack of factual support. Religions are just the most common kind of thing folks believe in.

Hmmm!! That would hold true if everyone was religious - but not everyone is - certain people seem more inclined to it!

Too, there's spirituality and then there's religion - the two are not the same.

[dduckwessel]

Eclogite, on 15 November 2011 - 01:05 AM, said:

I have observed on this forum and others that those who distrust, dislike and even despise religion have a very particular vision of what religion is. I propose that in most instances this vision represents only a sub-set of religion and as such the distrust is incorrectly applied to religion as a whole.

In this specific instance while some aspects of religion may promote ignorance the original intent of religion, as a whole, was to dispel ignorance, while providing a cohesive social framework. So I would fundamentally disagree with your statement.

Do you mean dispel ignorance in a pre-reformation sense (the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)? Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule? Or, and more recently, do you mean dispel ignorance by the non-sanction of condom use so that much of Africa is devastated by an Aids pandemic - or the rape of innocents by trusted priests!! And that's only one religion...don't get me started on Islam and Evangelicals!

Religion is a political structure: it's a top-on-down hierarchical order that creates elitism. The denial of it produces hypocrisy [what I earlier referred to as pathological lying (it's not wrong to be political - it is wrong to be so but pretend that your supposed benevolence is a pretense for climbing the corporate ladder!]. It does not fit the mandates: "do not do your good works before men to be commended by them" - or - "call no man Father, master, Rabbi (etc.)"!

[Qfwfq]

dduckwessel, on 16 November 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

That would hold true if everyone was religious

Er, no, it would hold if everybody believed in something.

dduckwessel, on 16 November 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

(the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)

This is absolutely false, first because the Bible wasn't written in Latin and, second, when a Latin translation of it was completed everybody in the neighborhood spoke Latin. That indeed is why the translation was called the Vulgate.

dduckwessel, on 16 November 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule?

Seeing as you're in such a hair-splitting mood, it was the Holy Roman Empire that did this and it continued as long as the Vatican was useful as an instrument of state power.

dduckwessel, on 16 November 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Religion is a political structure: it's a top-on-down hierarchical order that creates elitism.

Not all religions are so, at all.

[dduckwessel]

Qfwfq, on 17 November 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

Not all religions are so, at all.

I stand corrected on some of the historical points but I was speaking of mainline religions: which one of those does not have a hierarchical order?

And my original point was that religion is wrong because it has a hierarchy of power, which brings out the political side of people.

[Eclogite]

dduckwessel, on 16 November 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Do you mean dispel ignorance in a pre-reformation sense (the Bible was written in Latin so that only the clergy could read it)? Or do you mean dispel ignorance by burning people at the stake for non-compliance of religious rule? Or, and more recently, do you mean dispel ignorance by the non-sanction of condom use so that much of Africa is devastated by an Aids pandemic - or the rape of innocents by trusted priests!! And that's only one religion...don't get me started on Islam and Evangelicals!

For someone who seems so opposed to politics you have a refined knack for embedding a political agenda at the heart of your response.

Religion is one of the ways humans 'go about their business'. As such it is prone to corruption, abuse, paternalism and misapplication because of the weaknesses of individual humans. To single out examples of these and claim that they represent a failing of the system (religion, politics, philosophy, education, etc) is illogical.

The ignorance that religion sought to dispel was, in part, anti-social behaviour. It attempted to provide a cohesive network of laws and expectations that would enable a society to function to the benefit of its members, constraining selfish acts on the part of individuals. The success of the process is reflected part by our ability to coexist in vast conurbations when we evolved to live in tribes of around one hundred persons. Religion arguably played a major role in that process, until recently.

Elitism is not a product of religion as you seem to be claiming, but an inherent characteristic of humanity that is reinforced by cultural mores. Religion uses the tools that are available to it, just as political structures and business organisations do. Do you condemn charities because they have a polticial structure and an organisational heirarchy?

[dduckwessel]

Eclogite, on 18 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

For someone who seems so opposed to politics you have a refined knack for embedding a political agenda at the heart of your response.

I'm not at all opposed to politics, which is a necessary evil in this world. I'm opposed to calling politics Biblical!

Quote

Religion is one of the ways humans 'go about their business'. As such it is prone to corruption, abuse, paternalism and misapplication because of the weaknesses of individual humans. To single out examples of these and claim that they represent a failing of the system (religion, politics, philosophy, education, etc) is illogical.

The ignorance that religion sought to dispel was, in part, anti-social behaviour. It attempted to provide a cohesive network of laws and expectations that would enable a society to function to the benefit of its members, constraining selfish acts on the part of individuals. The success of the process is reflected part by our ability to coexist in vast conurbations when we evolved to live in tribes of around one hundred persons. Religion arguably played a major role in that process, until recently.

Elitism is not a product of religion as you seem to be claiming, but an inherent characteristic of humanity that is reinforced by cultural mores. Religion uses the tools that are available to it, just as political structures and business organisations do. Do you condemn charities because they have a polticial structure and an organisational heirarchy?

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to point out that certain conditions will produce certain behaviour in people whether you're religious or not.

As a consequence of personally witnessing church behaviour for a long time I came to the conclusion that church structure is inherently political. It encourages people to act for the purpose of advancement (though the motives are often subconscious), which often causes hypocritical behaviour like that of Han's father.

It's not that I think that people are inherently wrong; we are what we are. We are however, animal (survival of the fittest) and that means that political situations will encourage our political side. Again however, it's not the Biblical model as I already quoted, "call no man Father, master, Rabbi".

I think charities are great, but why is it that very often it's church people that are doing it? Why can't we do a good deed for the sake of the deed itself - why does it have to be church sanctioned to be considered truly good?

We simply don't have a natural bent that way (the selfish gene) therefore, I must conclude it's specifically a result of church teaching and not natural to our species. I don't mean that we're incapable of caring but our caring is usually more self-centered and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And again, it's not the Biblical model: "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" - or - "do not do your good works before men to be commended by them".

Don't get me wrong though, when it comes to helping starving kids, they would hardly care about the motive behind the help! But it's all hypocritical isn't it? On one hand the Catholic church (it could be any church it's just that this one has been around the longest and had the most time to make the most mistakes) provides for the needy and on the other creates more problems for them (by a hierarchal decision to ban the use of condoms, which caused Aids to became a Pandemic in Africa)!! To be truly benevolent RC church funds would have been better spent were they initially funneled into finding a cure for Aids.

It's not the people that are wrong but church structure is faulty - as you said, "it's prone to corruption". The reason it's prone to corruption is because it's not the Biblical model as a benevolent God would not put people into such situations knowing it would compromise their behaviour!

[Qfwfq]

dduckwessel, you are really not demonstrating that the problems are due to religion instead of the people, in fact your points even tend to go somewhat the opposite way.

[dduckwessel]

Qfwfq, on 18 November 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

dduckwessel, you are really not demonstrating that the problems are due to religion instead of the people, in fact your points even tend to go somewhat the opposite way.

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to go about this...

Does it help if I say that due to its hierarchical structure, religion is no different from a corporate entity [a benevolent (at times) dictatorship]. Whereas, the Biblical model of rule is a democratic one.

The Vatican is a prime example of a benevolent dictatorship in action; lots of politics. In religious circles however, it's not acceptable to be ruthlessly ambitious, so people have to hide their true motives, which produces hypocrisy. Any man that rises to the Papacy however, is a highly ambitious individual, he must be in order to reach the top!

I do not mean that it's wrong to be ambitious or that religion is all wrong. Religion serves an important role in society (who would officiate weddings and funerals?).

The point I was trying to make is that Bible-based religions are not the Biblical model because they are no different from the way the rest of the world conducts its business.

Regarding present Bible-based religions, a political system causes 'survival of the fittest' behaviour. We are animal and where there are positions to rise to, we will compete, it's the way we are built. If (as the Biblical model) there are no positions, there's no need to compete. How can a person fufill the Biblical mandate to 'love your neighbor' if they have to stomp on another (no matter how nicely that's done) to get that promotion?

Does this help?

[Qfwfq]

dduckwessel, on 20 November 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Religion serves an important role in society (who would officiate weddings and funerals?).

The mayor? The ship's captain?

dduckwessel, on 20 November 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Does this help?

Really dduck, all your points are saying that the largest Christian churches are organized much like politics or enterprise and this is no novelty, neither has anyone here been denying it. Essentially, you are saying it isn't religion per se that at fault. I don't get what your disagreement is.

[dduckwessel]

Qfwfq, on 21 November 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

The mayor? The ship's captain?

I just can't picture the mayor being that helpful at consoling grieving family members after the loss of a loved one!!

Quote

Really dduck, all your points are saying that the largest Christian churches are organized much like politics or enterprise and this is no novelty, neither has anyone here been denying it. Essentially, you are saying it isn't religion per se that at fault. I don't get what your disagreement is.

I said right from the beginning that the problem I had is that Bible-based religion claims to be God's spokeperson but their very structure is a political one, but that is not the Biblical model: "the gentiles lord it over their people but it must not be so among you".

At the same time I said that because churches are really political in nature, I have witnessed that it brings out the worst in people, not the best.

[Eclogite]

dduckwessel, on 18 November 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to point out that certain conditions will produce certain behaviour in people whether you're religious or not

I am at a loss as to why you think you have offended me. You haven't. I just think you are mistaken in your belief that religion promotes ignorance and in your condemnation of political systems.

dduckwessel, on 18 November 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'm not at all opposed to politics, which is a necessary evil in this world. I'm opposed to calling politics Biblical!

No one here has called politics Biblical. It is not a claim I have ever heard before. I understand what you are saying, but you certainly have not made a convincing case for your assertion that the Bible favours democracy (a political concept by the way) over heirarchical structures. Here is a smattering of evidence for the favouring of heirarchical structures in the Bible. A detailed and knowledegable search would reveal many more.

1 Chronicles Chapter 13 verse 27: And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, [and] with every leader

Psalm 68 verse 27 There [is] little Benjamin [with] their ruler, the princes of Judah [and] their council, the princes of Zebulun, [and] the princes of Naphtali.

John Chapter 11 verse 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

1 corinthians Chapter 12 verses 4 - 12

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"

1 Corinthians Chapter 12 verse 28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

I suppose at the root of things I disagree fundamentally with your apparent belief that politics is about personal advancement. Politics is the means whereby disparate views are handled. Good politics generally allows such views to be accomodated, bad politics simply deals with them. The distinction between bad and good politics is down to the people involved, not to their religion. Releigion is taking the blame, too often, for the fraility of human nature.

[dduckwessel]

Eclogite, on 22 November 2011 - 05:07 AM, said:

No one here has called politics Biblical.

That's the entire point! If Bible-based religions are supposed to represent God but are political (which no one here is disputing) then what you're really saying is that the God of those writings initiated a corrupt process of leadership!!

Quote

It is not a claim I have ever heard before. I understand what you are saying, but you certainly have not made a convincing case for your assertion that the Bible favours democracy (a political concept by the way) over heirarchical structures. Here is a smattering of evidence for the favouring of heirarchical structures in the Bible. A detailed and knowledegable search would reveal many more.

I'm not sure the mods will allow scripture rebuttals as they're somewhat off topic but what about the verses I already mentioned:

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." (Matt. 20:25-26)

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have one Teacher, the Christ." (Matthew 23:8)

Quote

I suppose at the root of things I disagree fundamentally with your apparent belief that politics is about personal advancement. Politics is the means whereby disparate views are handled. Good politics generally allows such views to be accomodated, bad politics simply deals with them. The distinction between bad and good politics is down to the people involved, not to their religion. Releigion is taking the blame, too often, for the fraility of human nature.

If we're quoting scripture then I just have the following to add:

“Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which
devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.” (Mark 12:38-40 see also Luke 20:46-47 and Matthew 6:5)