Is religion harmful to society?

[ughaibu]

its all about the interpretation

My contention is that the interpretation, being text-dependent, is inflexible. The impediment to progress is a consequence of inflexibility, ie respect for the authoritativeness of the texts. If religions held the view that their sacred texts are on approval and will be discarded in favour of other emerging texts, they wouldn't be religions, they would be scientific paradigms.

[Buffy]

My contention is that the interpretation, being text-dependent, is inflexible. The impediment to progress is a consequence of inflexibility, ie respect for the authoritativeness of the texts. If religions held the view that their sacred texts are on approval and will be discarded in favour of other emerging texts, they wouldn't be religions, they would be scientific paradigms.

The Bible is self-contradictory and full of flowery prose that *begs* "interpretation."

 

If I were to take your statement here at face value, it sounds like you're insisting that Genesis can only be interpreted as consisting of 7 (okay 6 if you want to consider only work days) 24-hour days. Many if not most Christians will disagree with that. Does that make them apostate? And who decides?

 

I'll not argue that some of it is clearer and less-equivocal, but you do not have to resort to allowing "superseding texts" in order to allow very broad interpretation.

 

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth, :D

Buffy

[ughaibu]

If I were to take your statement here at face value, it sounds like you're insisting that Genesis can only be interpreted as consisting of 7 (okay 6 if you want to consider only work days) 24-hour days

No, what I'm saying is that if one interprets a text in a certain way, one has undertaken that interpretation. If one's interpretation of any specific text is open to revision, in light of new facts, the initial interpretation is not authoritative. Scriptural religion has no meaning without authoritative value awarded to it's texts, if one revises one's interpretations according to new information, the text was either not authoritative or one's interpretations are unreliable.

[The D.S.]

Hey! I have an even better idea. I think the Bible is merely a really good novel full of moral stories and ideas. To believe that the Bible is a real book full of "real knowledge" would make me gag. Honestly, why are we talking about "interpretation" when the only translation should be lies and false stories.

 

That's MY interpretation. Sorry if it offends anyone but alas, my passion for religions disappearance is just as strong as their supposed "faith". :D

[ughaibu]

I think the Bible is merely a really good novel full of moral stories and ideas

I think it's very limited and essentially boring. Ovid's Metamorphoses was published in 06 A.D. In my opinion, a text with as much scientific relevance, far more psychological and sociological insight and an infinitely more amusing read.

[The D.S.]

I can agree to that. :D

[Buffy]

No, what I'm saying is that if one interprets a text in a certain way, one has undertaken that interpretation. If one's interpretation of any specific text is open to revision, in light of new facts, the initial interpretation is not authoritative.

Remember what I'm saying here though: its your *own* interpretation. Some people will find it possible to change their minds either consciously or even unconsciously, and others will stick to their original interpretation.

 

But in all cases, its about personal interpretation.

 

And moreover:

Scriptural religion has no meaning without authoritative value awarded to it's texts, if one revises one's interpretations according to new information, the text was either not authoritative or one's interpretations are unreliable.

You're assuming that all individuals depend on an outside authority to tell them its legitimate AND to provide interpretation. I'm saying that the act of choosing a religion is identical to giving "authoritative value" on ones own, and people seem to be perfectly capable of doing so.

 

Also, remember I am passing no judgment on whether an individuals interpretation is harmful to society or not: I'd agree that many interpretations are indeed harmful, but apparently I have a much different opinion on the ability of people to choose their own points of view as to what is "true."

 

My argument here is really based on the notion that all of this is about faith, and so many of the justifications, rationalizations, excuses, etc. that people use are entirely illogical and contradictory, thus making it very easy to pick and choose and change your mind at will, all the while thinking that it is all consistent.

 

Neither more nor less, :hihi:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

You're assuming that all individuals depend on an outside authority to tell them its legitimate AND to provide interpretation

No I'm not saying that.

[REASON]

Scriptural religion has no meaning without authoritative value awarded to it's texts, if one revises one's interpretations according to new information, the text was either not authoritative or one's interpretations are unreliable.

 

How is authority awarded to scripture, ughaibu?

[snoopy]

Hey! I have an even better idea. I think the Bible is merely a really good novel full of moral stories and ideas. To believe that the Bible is a real book full of "real knowledge" would make me gag. Honestly, why are we talking about "interpretation" when the only translation should be lies and false stories.

 

That's MY interpretation. Sorry if it offends anyone but alas, my passion for religions disappearance is just as strong as their supposed "faith". :hihi:

 

The bible does contain quite a lot of jewish history which is true, Daniel for instance is backed up by the Qur'an.

 

A lot of it is just jewish propaganda about them being the chosen people and having the one true god.

 

What people forget is that there were a lot of competing religons about in the middle east its just that the jewish religon won by morphing into christianity and spreading throughout the western world.

 

It also inspired the Qur'an, in which the arab nations claim to be the chosen people and have the one true god.

 

God is a mystery in all religons however preferring to keep her distance.

All good things in the world are attributed to God.

 

But if we are to be grown up about it we should attribute all bad things to her as well.

 

Which makes God (if she exists) a twisted so and so.

 

For these reasons I prefer to think God doesnt exist, for what type of deity gives babies leukemia and allows criminals to win the lottery ?

 

So the bible just seems to be the one true word of a fictional character.

 

Peace

[ughaibu]

How is authority awarded to scripture, ughaibu?

I'm not sure what you mean, it follows from the term "scriptural religion". Those who subscribe to a scriptural religion accept the authority of the scripture, if they didn't, it wouldn't be a scriptural religion. Am I missing a subtlety here?

[Galapagos]

All of the Abrahamic scriptures contain parables advocating or implying hatred, bigotry, misogyny, murder, and genocide.

 

As far as people "interpreting" their way through these texts, well, people have done that with texts like Mein Kampf, and Marx's Communist Manifesto, and those people are harmful to society as well.

 

Taking a bit from every text you read and constructing an ethical system is a good idea, and discussing them in an objective and skeptical manner is a better one. Religious people(I'm speaking of the three Abe religions, as they are most relevant and prevalent) pride themselves on basing their moral values from one single book, and not ever critically analyzing them, as all of these texts contain warnings and threats to never do so.

 

Organized religion discourages free, objective, skeptical thought, and thusly is harmful to society. The charitable aid it offers is negligible in comparison.

[Boerseun]

All of the Abrahamic scriptures contain parables advocating or implying hatred, bigotry, misogyny, murder, and genocide.

 

As far as people "interpreting" their way through these texts, well, people have done that with texts like Mein Kampf, and Marx's Communist Manifesto, and those people are harmful to society as well.

 

Taking a bit from every text you read and constructing an ethical system is a good idea, and discussing them in an objective and skeptical manner is a better one. Religious people(I'm speaking of the three Abe religions, as they are most relevant and prevalent) pride themselves on basing their moral values from one single book, and not ever critically analyzing them, as all of these texts contain warnings and threats to never do so.

 

Organized religion discourages free, objective, skeptical thought, and thusly is harmful to society. The charitable aid it offers is negligible in comparison.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Nice one, Galapagos! :)

[Buffy]

How is authority awarded to scripture, ughaibu?

I'm not sure what you mean, it follows from the term "scriptural religion". Those who subscribe to a scriptural religion accept the authority of the scripture, if they didn't, it wouldn't be a scriptural religion. Am I missing a subtlety here?

And there ya go: its still the *individual* that does the "accepting."

 

Its ultimately up to that individual to accept and decide upon their actions based on the text, and any "inconsistency" that you see as an outside observer that you think is evidence of that they are making the scripture "non-authoritative" is merely your own opinion as far as *that* individual is concerned: where you see cognitive dissonance, they see nothing but faith.

 

This is *not* about objective reality: its about how people deal with their own faith and beliefs.

 

All of the Abrahamic scriptures contain parables advocating or implying hatred, bigotry, misogyny, murder, and genocide.

 

As far as people "interpreting" their way through these texts, well, people have done that with texts like Mein Kampf, and Marx's Communist Manifesto, and those people are harmful to society as well.

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, :phones:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

Its ultimately up to that individual to accept and decide upon their actions based on the text, and any "inconsistency" that you see as an outside observer that you think is evidence of that they are making the scripture "non-authoritative" is merely your own opinion as far as *that* individual is concerned: where you see cognitive dissonance, they see nothing but faith

I know, I've specifically addressed this.

1) the individual awards authority to the text, based on their interpretation, no matter how idiosyncratic or inconsistent

2) the texts exist in a written form as produced at some certain date, in the past (I assume nobody has religious faith in their interpretation of texts not yet written)

3) progress consists of changes that occur over time, making the present different from the past

4) texts do not change over time, as one's information changes, with progress, one can a) reinterpret the texts or :doh: one can discard them or c) maintain one's beliefs, based on one's interpretation of the texts, despite the new information.

In the case of a) one never has a reliable interpretation, just a working guide, I maintain that a working guide is insufficient for a scriptural religion (a religion being a system of beliefs), so is a text that can be discarded.

[Buffy]

In the case of a) one never has a reliable interpretation, just a working guide, I maintain that a working guide is insufficient for a scriptural religion (a religion being a system of beliefs), so is a text that can be discarded.

In your ruthlessly logical interpretation, sure.

 

But you've left out the fact that these changes are intergenerational, and the Previous Interpretation is your father's interpretation and not yours. So its easy to see the "different" interpretations as being completely consistent.

 

There's no *logic* about why a scriptural text is considered to be "authoritative," its whatever an individual thinks it is because its all about *faith* that *your* interpretation is the one that is consistent with the "truth" about God, life, the universe and everything.

 

Trying to say its "merely a working guide" because interpretation--in *your* opinion--shifts over generational lengths time is still an opinion that is easily ignored by those whose faiths you're questioning.

 

If you want to say that "objectively" its "non-authoritative," I'd agree that you're right, but this "objective"--and importantly *logical*--viewpoint is entirely irrelevant to just about everyone because its an issue of faith.

 

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing," :doh:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

But you've left out the fact that these changes are intergenerational, and the Previous Interpretation is your father's interpretation and not yours. So its easy to see the "different" interpretations as being completely consistent

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.