Religion vs. Religion

[Buffy]

You're assuming that I'm referring to organised religion, and then you're basing your entire reply on that assumption. Of course the whole idea of structure and 'hemming in' comes from organised religion, which I didn't mention. I don't remember referring to any religious texts in my post either.

Well, I jumped ahead of you, because there's a reason to which I mentioned in passing above: The issue is that if you try to define "True Religion" as that not based on a belief system that is laid down somewhere, you're limiting the word to refer to something that almost no one agrees is religion, namely "personal belief systems" created from whole cloth. Now that happens to describe me, but at least I admit that I'm in the minority! Most religious people tell me I "have no religion," and I'm not sure I wouldn't agree with them!

 

So the bottom line becomes that if you're going to say "religion doesn't cause conflict" but you're defining the word religion so that it does not apply to any of the belief systems that are widely agreed upon as being such, you're "defining away the problem."

 

I do believe that the *organizations* that claim to represent these religions can and often are quite corrupt, and especially when you get into these little cults are basically excuses for someone with a big ego to justify pushing people around in order to get their jollies. No question that's a problem.

 

So the reason for pointing to the *texts* is that that is the core of the belief system, that many different *organizations* point to as being the "source of truth" which cannot be questioned without getting into the uncomfortable territory of possibly weakening the structure enough to allow claims that the whole thing is illegitimate.

 

So,

The Bible was written by men so I'm sure there's scope for error. These religious texts were written a long time ago, when the social/political situation was very different. It may be wrong to think all their content still applies today.

...once you start saying stuff like this, where does it end? Did Christ really rise from the dead? Was he really just the leader of a cult that won out because the apostles were really, really good at marketing? Who knows? Maybe 2000 years from now, it will be "David Koresh died for your sins!"

 

At some point, even the most free-spirited interpreters find some line in these texts that they say is "truth" versus "human transcription error."

 

And when you consider that religion is mainly a *social* phenomenon, it is uncomfortable for most people not to have others who agree with their "line" and quite frankly, most would rather simply be told. And the "tellers" must stay within the norms of the social group if the group is big enough. And then in order to keep the social group together, it all of a sudden makes sense for the members to seek mechanisms to "encourage" membership with various things that are in these texts: rewards due only to believers and threats to those who "disbelieve."

 

And that's where the conflict comes from, and its at the core of religions: they are about creating social groups--our political systems were created out of religious notions of hierarchy, leadership and organization--and as such they need these mechanisms.

 

To say that these mechanisms "aren't part of religion" is not supportable.

I'm not a fine individual by any stretch of the imagination. I am, however, an expert in casually tossing off.:)

That's okay! I don't mind! :)

p.s. Faith, experience and knowledge are not neccessarily conflicting values that need to be 'resolved'.

That's quite obvious to anyone who studies sociology and psychology!

 

Its funny to note though that it is one of the *primary* areas of study in Theology!

 

The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people think about us, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[gareth]

There's only one way to break the cycle of hatred, retaliation and vengeance which plagues the planet, and that is through forgiveness, turning the other cheek and all that.

 

That is an essential, undeniable truth. I'd hate to think the apostles were simply 'good at marketing'. You can argue untill you're blue in the face about whether Jesus actually did many of the things that were claimed, it doesn't matter. The fact that the scriptures state how important forgiveness is cannot be looked upon cynically, even by the most hardened cynic/scientist. Even Dawkins concedes this.

 

I wouldn't consider forgiveness as 'a marketed product' either. That debases one of the finest human virtues. Look at Northern Ireland, look at Gandhi (although he did only make one good movie). Its the driving force behind much of the progress that has been made on this planet.

 

 

"Without God anything is permissible"

 

Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamozov*

 

*Einstein's favourite book, for all you science buffs out there.

[InfiniteNow]

There's only one way to break the cycle of hatred, retaliation and vengeance which plagues the planet, and that is through forgiveness, turning the other cheek and all that.

Actually, no. Unless every single person in your population turns the other cheek (which just won't happen), then those who continue killing and being ruthless will wipe out the group of your population who was engaging in forgiveness.

 

It's unfortunate, but those who forgive and turn cheeks will be completely selected against, since they will have failed to defend themselves against attack, meaning they will fail to pass on their genes, meaning they will be completely selected out of the population.

 

It's unfortunate, but true. Your scenario only works if every single population member adopts it, which will never happen. I appreciate your point, and hope much for the same thing, but when you look at this logically instead of emotively, you see the precariousness of such a proposition.

[gareth]

Actually, no. Unless every single person in your population turns the other cheek (which just won't happen), then those who continue killing and being ruthless will wipe out the group of your population who was engaging in forgiveness.

 

It's unfortunate, but those who forgive and turn cheeks will be completely selected against, since they will have failed to defend themselves against attack, meaning they will fail to pass on their genes, meaning they will be completely selected out of the population.

 

It's unfortunate, but true. Your scenario only works if every single population member adopts it, which will never happen. I appreciate your point, and hope much for the same thing, but when you look at this logically instead of emotively, you see the precariousness of such a proposition.

 

I admit that genes are an overwhelming factor, but I think stating that forgiveness and turning the other cheek are somehow inbedded in genes is precarious assertion.

 

If we follow your line of thinking, whereby there is a group that 'defends' itself from attack by wiping out every last one of their enemies, then surely the members of this group (whose genes are inclined to ruthlessness and killing) will eventually end up fighting among themselves and wiping themselves out. Then the insects can have a go at running the planet! :eek:

[InfiniteNow]

If we follow your line of thinking, whereby there is a group that 'defends' itself from attack by wiping out every last one of their enemies, then surely the members of this group (whose genes are inclined to ruthlessness and killing) will eventually end up fighting among themselves and wiping themselves out.

 

Actually, no (again). :bow_flowers:

 

 

Some will be better at wiping out competitors than others, and the ones that are better will begin to dominate the gene pool.

 

But, what was I thinking bringing natural selection discussion into the Theology forum? We all know that this isn't a place of science. :eek:

 

 

 

Btw... the insects already DO run the planet. Many people are just too insecure to acknowledge it.

[Southtown]

Actually, no. Unless every single person in your population turns the other cheek (which just won't happen), then those who continue killing and being ruthless will wipe out the group of your population who was engaging in forgiveness.

 

It's unfortunate, but those who forgive and turn cheeks will be completely selected against, since they will have failed to defend themselves against attack, meaning they will fail to pass on their genes, meaning they will be completely selected out of the population.

 

It's unfortunate, but true. Your scenario only works if every single population member adopts it, which will never happen. I appreciate your point, and hope much for the same thing, but when you look at this logically instead of emotively, you see the precariousness of such a proposition.

That is exactly the way things are in reality, Inow. Those people who are more concerned with personally adhering to a subjective code of ethics than enforcing that subjective view on others are more susceptible to adopting the ideas of more charismatic or otherwise persuasive leaders. Therefore the insights of the gentle forgiver are less likely to be passed on than the dogmas of the forceful persecutor.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/3468-religion-vs-religion-32.html#post207563

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/14108-religion-harmful-society-13.html#post210441

[Southtown]

As for idol worship, I think people do not really worship the idols as such, but use them as a means of focussing attention on God.

What people are doing and what people think they are doing are often very different things.

 

ALTHOUGH, when we hear about over half the population of the US believing in the rapture and Armageddon and the like, it makes me wonder why things have got to that stage. Surely some of the seeds for this were sown with the fervant religious beliefs that came to America during its embryonic phase.

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)

[gareth]

Actually, no (again). :bow_flowers:

 

 

Some will be better at wiping out competitors than others, and the ones that are better will begin to dominate the gene pool.

 

 

Will the ones that wipe out competitors have a ''ruthless streak', meaning they will also perceive any 'better' genetic mutation to their own genes as a threat, and wipe them out too, to the ultimate detriment of their own genes?

So they may well end up wiping themselves out in the end, or do you think they will suddenly get all benevolent when they've destroyed the competition, and then be able to recognise any genetic differences (which may well have been present in their competitors) which will allow them to improve their own stock and consolidate their position?

 

Insects may already run the planet, but I'm confident I could take any one of them on in a fight. :eek:

[REASON]

Insects may already run the planet, but I'm confident I could take any one of them on in a fight. :eek:

 

The one's that like to fight the most will not be agreeable to a one-on-one fight though. :bow_flowers:

 

Dorylus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gareth]

If I had some kind of flame thrower/pheremone spray combination weapon, I reckon I could down the whole damn nest.

 

Hmm. Perhaps this thread doesn't belong on the theology forum.

[Buffy]

There's only one way to break the cycle of hatred, retaliation and vengeance which plagues the planet, and that is through forgiveness, turning the other cheek and all that.

So sayeth....game theory....rational choices as exemplified by the , lead to conclusions that irrational, survival-based instincts are superior. What Dawkins and others are pointing to is that these rational choices have indeed become genetically ingrained over time and this is evidenced in studies of both small children as well as many higher mammals! The whole notion of social groups is that individual desires are suppressed for the good of the group, and it doesn't take being human to get there.

 

As a result,

I admit that genes are an overwhelming factor, but I think stating that forgiveness and turning the other cheek are somehow inbedded in genes is precarious assertion.

...is hardly precarious, its pretty well evidenced! :cheer:

I'd hate to think the apostles were simply 'good at marketing'. You can argue untill you're blue in the face about whether Jesus actually did many of the things that were claimed, it doesn't matter. The fact that the scriptures state how important forgiveness is cannot be looked upon cynically, even by the most hardened cynic/scientist.

No argument with that at all. Of course the issue isn't that scriptures do in many cases promote moral behavior, its that in other cases they do not!

 

Simply saying that some of it is good doesn't make the bad stuff go away...unless you're going to engage in that bete noir of most Fundamentalists, "moral relativism"....

 

"Without God anything is permissible"

Dostoevsky firmly believed in the inherent evil of men and the moral guidance of redemption provided by religion. This is of course a philosophically powerful statement, but its unfortunately not *proof* that man is inherently evil. In his milieu of mid-19th century Czarist Russia in which he was imprisoned and exposed to the darkest side of humanity, it was quite justified. So was Franz Kafka's dark vision of reality.

 

Its of course fascinating that Dostoevsky strongly influenced the clearly anti-religious existentialists like Camus and Nietzche...

 

So....

I admit that genes are an overwhelming factor, but I think stating that forgiveness and turning the other cheek are somehow inbedded in genes is precarious assertion.

 

If we follow your line of thinking, whereby there is a group that 'defends' itself from attack by wiping out every last one of their enemies, then surely the members of this group (whose genes are inclined to ruthlessness and killing) will eventually end up fighting among themselves and wiping themselves out.

...I think you and I are in agreement: it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution! :cheer:

 

I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity, :phones:

Buffy

[REASON]

...it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution! :phones:

 

I have been arguing against this concept in another thread, since I tend to believe that moral, or amoral behavior, is learned.

 

How do you support the claim of morality as a genetic trait?

[Buffy]

How do you support the claim of morality as a genetic trait?

I will admit I've seen this claim in many places, although its a relatively recent area of research, and needs more for wider acceptance, but things are pointing that way....

 

Google "cooperative behavior" inheritance or genetic... here's one on the first page of results....

[quote name=Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game

by: David Cesarini, Christopher T Dawes, James H Fowler, Magnus Johannesson, Paul Lichtenstein, Bjorn Wallace

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 10. (11 March 2008)]Although laboratory experiments document cooperative behavior in humans, little is known about the extent to which individual differences in cooperativeness result from genetic and environmental variation. In this article, we report the results of two independently conceived and executed studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, one in Sweden and one in the United States. The results from these studies suggest that humans are endowed with genetic variation that influences the decision to invest, and to reciprocate investment, in the classic trust game. Based on these findings, we urge social scientists to take seriously the idea that differences in peer and parental socialization are not the only forces that influence variation in cooperative behavior.

While I agree that this has to be supported, its been shown that many behaviors are genetic, and I see not much counter-evidence to discount this hypothesis either! :cheer:

 

Also, apropos to gareth's statement above, I stumbled upon this:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

...of course that has nothing to do with your question Reason....

 

The doctrine of innate ideas is one of the most admirable faiths of philosophy, being itself an innate idea and therefore inaccessible to disproof, though Locke foolishly supposed himself to have given it "a black eye." Among innate ideas may be mentioned the belief in one's ability to conduct a newspaper, in the greatness of one's country, in the superiority of one's civilization, in the importance of one's personal affairs and in the interesting nature of one's diseases., :phones:

Buffy

[gareth]

 

So....

...I think you and I are in agreement: it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution! :phones:

 

Buffy

 

I'm afraid I don't agree with you Buffy. Science is on very shaky ground when it comes to accounting for altruism and benevolence. Religion makes a much better fist of it.

 

Surely helping someone who does not have your genes, or comes from a different creed or social group is in direct conflict with the fundemntal tenets of evolution, which suggest to me that morality is not somehow ingrained in our genes.

 

"Everything you need to know about life is in The Brothers Karamazov-but damn it! It's just not enough!"

 

Elliot Rosewater, Slaughterhouse Five .

[InfiniteNow]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you Buffy. Science is on very shaky ground when it comes to accounting for altruism and benevolence. Religion makes a much better fist of it.

 

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

 

You seem to be picking and choosing data, ignoring that which runs counter to your preconceptions and only looking at that which reinforces it.

 

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.

 

 

Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

[Southtown]

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.

 

Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

Gareth is not talking about religion so much as personal ethics. Hopping back and forth leads to lots of circle-talking.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/3468-religion-vs-religion-40.html#post230113

[Buffy]

Surely helping someone who does not have your genes, or comes from a different creed or social group is in direct conflict with the fundemntal tenets of evolution, which suggest to me that morality is not somehow ingrained in our genes.

Actually, that's exactly the argument: our genes aren't specific enough in that respect, and it takes social structures such as religions and families to *teach* inter-tribal conflict!

 

See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys with love, :phones:

Buffy