Is religion harmful to society?

[Eye Sky]

Are religions harmful to society? Tall Tales are harmful to everyone if they are taken as truth. Given that the general population has an IQ of under 120, that accounts for about 75%. That segment doesn't appear to have critical thinking, to question whether anything is harmful or not. It accepts what is told, and follows blindly, contributing funds to the prefered religion. As all religions are money based, other than the Amish.

[Buffy]

I dont think this is important. My contention is that scriptural religions impede progress, this contention requires that there be relevant progress, if nothing changed, one's interpretation wouldn't be threatened.

I'm agreeing that the interpretation changes, but that it doesn't threaten anyone solely because the believers in the scripture don't see this as inconsistent!

 

As long as people continue to reinterpret--even ignore: see my point elsewhere about the fact that believers have no problem repudiating scriptural exhortations that Gays should die--the scriptures, progress--yes scientific progress--may proceed apace!

 

If there are some that--in line with your interpretation--do not change, they will indeed impede progress, but that is the act of the *individual* and not the scripture....

 

Although some people do go both ways, :phones:

Buffy

[Buffy]

It accepts what is told, and follows blindly, contributing funds to the prefered religion.

I know lots of completely irreligious people who fit that description! :evil:

As all religions are money based, other than the Amish.

Ha! You're kidding right? I have a friend who has built a huge business as a distributor for Amish arts and crafts. I can assure you they're in it for the money: the fact that they share it is really nice, but are you gonna argue that greed is exclusive to Episcopalians?

 

Dude, where's my car? :phones:

Buffy

[Eye Sky]

No argument there, greed is greed.

[Southtown]

Speaking of scripture,

 

If I were to contrast "In the day that you eat [the fruit] from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die" (Gen.2:17) with "Judge not lest you be judged" (Mat.7:1), would anyone understand, or am I deranged?

 

Is there anybody out there,

Southie

[Galapagos]

Sure they have "evil" stuff in them! And it does not prevent people from deciding what to follow in them.

 

If you are a non-believer, it sure is easier to pick Fundamentalist Biblical-inerrancy as the only way that *all* "religious" people think, because it allows you to tie together "religious behavior" and "sources of religious belief," which makes it easier to make the categorical statement "all religion stuff is evil."

 

But the fact is that even in Mein Kampf, there's stuff that I have trouble disagreeing with, even if 99% of it is evil rubbish: "The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." Sound like politics in America today? You bet! Does the fact that I think Hitler is right about this make me a Nazi? Hardly. Marx and Engles have much more that is actually easy to "believe" in, and I'd hold it up as an *excellent* example of a "scripture" that people hold as "authoritative." Its the ones who do not "interpret" that get tied up in defending indefensible positions.

 

So sure the Bible says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death." But that sure doesn't prevent the vast majority of religious people I know to fully support Gay Rights! If you find their position "inconsistent" or somehow "invalidating the authority" of the Bible, that's your business, but it doesn't bother *them*.

 

I don't disagree that this argument would be very clear cut if the only religions were Wahabi Islam and extreme Fundamentalist Christianity, but that's *not* where most religious people are, and when you think about it, if you really want to eliminate the "evils of religion" (and remember I'm not arguing that there aren't any!), then you're going to have to seek some more accommodating methods of getting there.

 

I really don't see much difference between "all religious beliefs are inherently bad and people who have them are severely harming society" and "kill all the Infidels."

 

Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality,

Buffy

 

If people start congregating every Sunday to talk about how Mein Kampf is more sanctified than any other book ever written, people, including myself will begin to worry. To avoid getting into semantics here, it doesn't even have to come to congregating, just believing this at all in your own garage is a dangerous and deluded thing to do. If a large number of people were worshiping Freidreich Hayek as a holy man and The Road to Serfdom as a sanctified book, I would be concerned as well, even though it is a violent book that preaches hate. It would be because worshiping one book as holy or sanctified without evidence is a dangerous and foolish thing to do in and of itself. I'd like to move away from these analogies, because neither of the texts mentioned above are regarded as convincing or immune to criticism by the majority of people on this planet; they just don't seem to do justice to the reality of religious belief.

 

As far as trying to defend the indefensible, at the very root of the largest religions of the world, the story of Abraham is indefensibly immoral and odious, and any reasonable modern person should be able to see this.

The belief that people around you will go to Hell if they don't splash water on them, or that Hell exists at all is indefensible. The belief that you will survive your own death or that "miracles", magic, invisible spirits, or any of the supernatural has a basis in reality beyond the misunderstanding of physical laws is indefensible.

 

Can you define religious moderation? Believing that one text was co-authored or "inspired" by the creator of the universe wtih no evidence, or that Jesus or Mohammad are going to rise from the dead and end the world with their magical powers is not a moderate belief to hold, and is a euphemistic bastardization of the word moderate.

 

In regards to sexual intolerance, I also realize most modern theists in developed nations aren't burning sacrifices at altars and stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath either.

The evil of religion lies in its undermining of reason, skepticism, objective thought, and rationality. The denominations Wahabbi Islam or abortion clinic-obliterating fundamentalist Christians are marginal and incidental, buttressed foremost by the divisive irrational belief in the superiority of one invented god or man-made book over another.

 

"I really don't see much difference between "all religious beliefs are inherently bad and people who have them are severely harming society" and "kill all the Infidels."

Turn on your television, people aren't blowing themselves and others up because they lack a belief in something. There has never been a war fought over a lack of belief to my knowledge. There is a colossal difference between voicing the opinion that religion is invented by man(not any imaginary god) and the source of much misery, and believing you have the right to murder someone because it is deemed reasonable by your "interpretation" of a specific work of literature.

[Buffy]

I'd like to move away from these analogies, because neither of the texts mentioned above are regarded as convincing or immune to criticism by the majority of people on this planet; they just don't seem to do justice to the reality of religious belief.

I agree! The only useful thing here is to realize that "religious" people do pick and choose what they wish to believe.

 

Which leads us to:

As far as trying to defend the indefensible, at the very root of the largest religions of the world, the story of Abraham is indefensibly immoral and odious, and any reasonable modern person should be able to see this.

Sure the story is odious, and if you have a classical literature education, you run into the story of Abraham all over the place. And the literary verdict is pretty harsh, even going back a couple of centuries! And gosh, read some Faulkner!

Can you define religious moderation? Believing that one text was co-authored or "inspired" by the creator of the universe wtih no evidence, or that Jesus or Mohammad are going to rise from the dead and end the world with their magical powers is not a moderate belief to hold, and is a euphemistic bastardization of the word moderate.

"Moderate" comes from the word "mode" meaning "majority": it can be completely wacko, but if "everybody does it" its moderate! Yikes! :eek:

 

I'm not saying that "moderate" is necessarily good, but its main effect is to pull people away from "extremes," and then one hopes that the "moderate" over time becomes kinder and more rational!

 

Now to get to your question, the application of moderate here really refers to the fact that belief in God or some religious/metaphysical world view is *common*: everyone does it, therefore its "normal." The opinion that there should be no religions or religious beliefs is not only radical but there's a lot of evidence (see Dawkins) that Man is programmed to want metaphysical explanations of the world, and thus clings to the norms in spite of "illogic" and even "harm" that can be seen in many old scriptures. Thus the "moderate" interpretation rejects the story of Abraham even if it is "authoritative."

 

Its interesting that you bring up this story because I've always tied my Fundamentalist friends in knots with the question "would you kill your own son? What would it take to be sure that the request was 'from God?'" Most other "moderate" religions see the story as "metaphorical" and "unreal" but useful in helping define the word "faith." That "faith" is a good thing is taken by them "on faith" so there's not point in getting into *that* argument here!

The evil of religion lies in its undermining of reason, skepticism, objective thought, and rationality.

And I'll continue to argue that you're barking up the wrong tree on this one: really, would anti-intellectualism, lazy logic, the desire for instant answers really go away if religion were to disappear tomorrow? I look at the neo-cons who currently are a plague on the Republican party and quite frankly most of them are only nominally religious: what they really believe in is the superiority of their intellect and the cause and effect of their Machiavellian real-politik.

 

We're talking about *societal* problems, and in my view, attacking religion is a wild goose chase that actually *weakens* the argument that society should become more rational and analytical!

 

If y'all are wondering why someone as irreligious as I am is "defending religion" here, that's *really* the bottom line!

 

Pick your battles folks! :evil:

 

Abe said "God you must be puttin' me on," :)

Buffy

[The D.S.]

Buffy, your arguement that we should pick our battles, and that...

 

"We're talking about *societal* problems, and in my view, attacking religion is a wild goose chase that actually *weakens* the argument that society should become more rational and analytical!"

 

..is purely genius. I could not have said it better myself. I personally have thought that religion should go away, yet you have managed to change my mind. What good would it really do? Kudos.

[REASON]

If y'all are wondering why someone as irreligious as I am is "defending religion" here, that's *really* the bottom line!

 

That's funny you say that. I don't hear you defending religion at all. You're simply observing the reality of it.

 

My first inclination as I read Galapagos' last post was, "so what are we going to do about it?" Even if we can come to a general consensus that "Religion is harmful to society," by what means are we to try and eliminate it? Can't you feel the resistance just from imagining trying to get rid of religion? It won't happen that way.

 

My contention has always been that rational thought will win over religious dogma in time by attrition. It's already been happening. The first amendment to the Constitution was a huge step toward rationality.

 

The disagreements are going to continue, like it or not. It is up to those who are rational minded and scientifically oriented to ignore or refute ridiculous notions and press on with their work. Don't let the religious intrusion stop the progress. Intellectuals have allowed religious leadership to take the stage in this country.

 

Quit whining about it. Take it back!

[Galapagos]

I agree! The only useful thing here is to realize that "religious" people do pick and choose what they wish to believe.

 

Which leads us to:

Sure the story is odious, and if you have a classical literature education, you run into the story of Abraham all over the place. And the literary verdict is pretty harsh, even going back a couple of centuries! And gosh, read some Faulkner!

"Moderate" comes from the word "mode" meaning "majority": it can be completely wacko, but if "everybody does it" its moderate! Yikes! :beer:

 

I'm not saying that "moderate" is necessarily good, but its main effect is to pull people away from "extremes," and then one hopes that the "moderate" over time becomes kinder and more rational!

 

Now to get to your question, the application of moderate here really refers to the fact that belief in God or some religious/metaphysical world view is *common*: everyone does it, therefore its "normal." The opinion that there should be no religions or religious beliefs is not only radical but there's a lot of evidence (see Dawkins) that Man is programmed to want metaphysical explanations of the world, and thus clings to the norms in spite of "illogic" and even "harm" that can be seen in many old scriptures. Thus the "moderate" interpretation rejects the story of Abraham even if it is "authoritative."

 

Its interesting that you bring up this story because I've always tied my Fundamentalist friends in knots with the question "would you kill your own son? What would it take to be sure that the request was 'from God?'" Most other "moderate" religions see the story as "metaphorical" and "unreal" but useful in helping define the word "faith." That "faith" is a good thing is taken by them "on faith" so there's not point in getting into *that* argument here!

And I'll continue to argue that you're barking up the wrong tree on this one: really, would anti-intellectualism, lazy logic, the desire for instant answers really go away if religion were to disappear tomorrow? I look at the neo-cons who currently are a plague on the Republican party and quite frankly most of them are only nominally religious: what they really believe in is the superiority of their intellect and the cause and effect of their Machiavellian real-politik.

 

We're talking about *societal* problems, and in my view, attacking religion is a wild goose chase that actually *weakens* the argument that society should become more rational and analytical!

 

If y'all are wondering why someone as irreligious as I am is "defending religion" here, that's *really* the bottom line!

 

Pick your battles folks! :)

 

Abe said "God you must be puttin' me on," :)

Buffy

Just out of curiosity, do you ever ask your 'moderate' religious friends about the idea of surviving their own death, or believing that [insert prophet] is going to return to the Earth and end the world with his magical powers?

 

Also, as to not ignore it, I appreciate you correcting my error involving the etymological root of the word "moderate", I was thinking of it more as how I have understood it intended colloquially, "in moderation", or to be reasonable, which you have demonstrated is not necessarily an accurate way to look at it.

 

As far as barking up the wrong tree, I beg to differ. People believing things about the nature of the universe without evidnece is a large social problem in my opinion. People carrying an irrational and superstitious belief about a "soul" to the ballot box and voting on euthanasia, stem cell research, abortion, and many other lesser issues that I'm sure we are all aware of, based on this "soul" concept, is a societal issue.

I think we agree on this, but why is it requisite that our politicians to pretend they know things that no one ever possibly could in order for them to hold office? This is a societal problem, and statistically speaking, there is no way the 99% of politicians claiming to be religious are in fact religious. This is a societal issue.

The correlation between these *societal issues* appears to be incredibly strong, take that as you will.

 

I had a longer and more in depth response I was working on, but I realized how many people had reached where my argument was inevitably leading: "Well, what do we do about this?"(note: I also just got back from oral surgery/wisdom teeth removal, so sorry if this isn't the most well articulated response, I'm feeling pretty loopy right now)

I was going to write, but I think Dan Dennett probably does a better job at explaining this idea than I do:

 

 

YouTube - Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, Religion (Daniel Dennett) http://youtube.com/watch?v=8F0upp0cGHo

YouTube - Daniel Dennett: Freedom of information and toxic religions http://youtube.com/watch?v=hQk7jBjOI8A

 

I disagree with your view Buffy, in that I think critically analyzing(barking up the tree at) these ideas is in fact the right thing to do. It might look abysmally hopeless in some ways, but that doesn't mean we should just not think or talk about it, we've done that for at least the past 2000 years, and I don't think it is working yet.

 

I'm really interested in what people think about Dennett's idea, because it seems to me like a reasonable response to the question "If religion is not necessary, and is indeed harmful, what changes can we realistically make to help the situation?".

This sort of reinforces for me that we shouldn't brush the problem aside as incidental or un fixable, as more great ideas like Dennett's may come about if people keep speaking about this in a critical manner.

[InfiniteNow]

How can anyone really disagree with a post that references Dan Dennett? Come on!!

 

 

 

There is no polite way to say 'With all due respect, sir, have you considered the possibility that you have blighted your whole life with fantasy and are polluting the minds of defenseless children with dangerous nonsense. :)

 

 

I'm really interested in what people think about Dennett's idea, because it seems to me like a reasonable response to the question "If religion is not necessary, and is indeed harmful, what changes can we realistically make to help the situation?".

I love his idea of teaching about religion in the classroom... all religions, treated like an archeological dig or objective history lesson. The four R's indeed!

 

 

Thanks to C1ay, who, under a different username on another forum, introduced me to Dr. Dennett. :)

[REASON]

I think Dennett's ideas are great. It may be a part of the attrition process I spoke about.

 

But again I'm afraid there is going to be the problem of implementation. If you think people don't like that their child is learning evolution in public schools, wait until you see the uproar when the state is forcing their kids to learn about other faiths and religions, even if it's done in a forensic manor. It won't be difficult for people to figure out the overall motive behind teaching children in this way. It will be made clear by the religious protectors that this is being done in an effort to bring skepticism and corruption into the minds of their children not only about their orientation of faith, but about religion in general. It will be seen as an effort by the secular world to eradicate religion from our society. The work of evildoers. You want to talk about Holy Wars?

 

I think if this type of program is going to be implemented, it is going to have to be done another way. The information is going to have to be presented in a way that is attractive to families and children. Something event oriented, or social in nature. A place where kids can go that is safe and instructional and fun. Something similar to Wednesday night youth meetings and bible study at the church, but geared around Dennett's methodology. It would have to be voluntary. I imagine it would start off with attendance by non-religious children, but in time could spread to kids that are on the fence. As numbers grew, maybe the attraction would become greater for kids in more deeply religious families to come and learn some objectivity in a fun environment.

 

I guess I just don't really know the reality of making something like this work. But I agree it could be effective.

[The D.S.]

After listening to Dennets video, I can see points I agree with and see concern about.

 

First off, incorporating religion into schools is a good idea in my book. Learning about the various types and their cultures would certainly aid in educating younger students. I can definitely see how through time, religion would come under scrutiny by those better educated through the schooling system, and given long enough, we could see less "toxic" versions of religion come through the smoke, or even better, the ultimate conversion of society to a reasonable, scientific form.

 

But...I also can see how some people would want to disregard this idea. Throwing religion into school is certain to make someone mad in the process and this is certainly going to come under fire. I personally think this is a good idea for the school systems to undertake, yet, I know this isnt going to be an easy thing to accomplish and may very well never come to pass.

 

Overall, I like Dennets idea, but, I wanna know exactly how such a thing is going to come to pass and how he intends on making it last.

[Southtown]

As far as trying to defend the indefensible, at the very root of the largest religions of the world, the story of Abraham is indefensibly immoral and odious, and any reasonable modern person should be able to see this.

The belief that people around you will go to Hell if they don't splash water on them, or that Hell exists at all is indefensible.

Can you provide sources for those assertions please?

[InfiniteNow]

Can you provide sources for those assertions please?

 

Southtown,

 

Seriously? Which part? That's a rather... interesting... request considering the nature of the comment. Clarify? :naughty:

[Galapagos]

Can you provide sources for those assertions please?

 

If you're asking me to prove that Hell doesn't exist, or the inefficacy of Baptism, I believe the burden of proof lies on the adherents of these beliefs.

 

If you're asking how I know that people believe this, according to this 2007 Gallup poll:

 

Americans More Likely to Believe in God Than the Devil, Heaven More Than Hell

 

69% of Americans believe Hell exists. I suppose you can question the accuracy of this specific poll, but it doesn't seem too outlandish to me.

Assuming those who believe in this Hell also believe in the qualifications for admittance in the Christian Bible, 7/10 of my neighbors have no problem imagining me burning indefinitely for a lack of belief.

I can't find a poll on belief in the efficacy of Baptism, but I assume it wouldn't be too far off from the above statistic, being that they both have similar evidence to support them(none).

As far as the world view, assuming the idea of Hell is held by most Christians and Muslims:

Image:Worldwide percentage of Adherents by Religion.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also, Britannica, but I can't really read this table. It's kind of scrunched up:

Worldwide Adherents of All Religions, Mid-2005 -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

It would seem that 50% of the people on this planet believe that I am going to suffer indefinitely for holding the beliefs that prompted me to enter this thread.

 

I hope this is what you were asking for. If I made any unjustified assumptions, let me know. I'm open to discussion, whatever gets us to the truth more quickly.

[HydrogenBond]

The cradle of modern science was connected to the alchemists. They were mostly educated men who were doctors and priests, who had to work in secret less the church misunderstood their work. Turning lead into gold may have been the goal, but the goal led to the basis of mixing chemicals. From that early work there was a logic seen in the various combinations, which helped allow the human mind to begin looking at physical reality in a logical way. The fathers of modern science followed the path of these pioneers. But even they were still part of the church, with an alchemist's spirit.

 

If you look at what happened to the church after science appeared, they were two paths occurring at the same time. Science led us up a good path since it helped us to know the truth about physical reality. But the parallel path was regressive. For example, the Church of England separated from the Catholic Church so the King could get a divorce. He added an easier path for himself. He did away with something too diffiucult for him. He did not have the willpower or ingenuity to make his marriage work. The goal to remove religion from cultural is because it sets the bar too high. By watering it down a lower common denominator can pretend will power.

 

Ask yourself, what is harder to do, keep a tough marriage together or get a divorce? What is harder to do, have a baby or an abortion? The easier path tries to lower the bar so it is not obvious what constitutes will power. If we can finally place the bar on the ground, by removing religion, than anyone can step over the bar and pretend to be highly advanced.