Is religion harmful to society?

[Buffy]

Ask yourself, what is harder to do, keep a tough marriage together or get a divorce?

You're absolutely right Hydro: its far easier to just blindly keep believing in a religion than to go through all the difficult and scary decisions necessary to embrace science!

 

That's kind of been my point in this whole thread: its so much easier to just keep doing what you've always done, and as a result it is going to be a Herculean effort to "stop religious belief," because most people when faced with such a hard choice--one that according to everything they've been told means that there's nothing special about us, and there's no God who will answer our prayers and is thus *extremely scary*--will choose not to make the decision, and in fact will rail against anyone who tries to push them to change, no matter how rational the argument might be...

 

Ebbing men, indeed, most often do so near the bottom run, by their own fear or sloth, :phones:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...it is far easier to just blindly keep believing in a religion than to go through all the difficult and scary decisions necessary to embrace science!...

or the difficult and scary decision to burrow every more deeply into one's religion to prove (or falsify) it from within.

 

The latter is what I did. In an attempt to absolutely prove my religion, and buttress up my flagging faith, I spent an inordinate amount of time reading the bible and books about the bible.

 

And that undermined everything. Raised disturbing questions. Faced me with inexorable paradoxes. Called into question tenets and interpretations.

 

And so I ...

paddled right out of the mess. :)

[Galapagos]

 

YouTube - Daniel Dennett: Freedom of information and toxic religions

 

Question- does anyone foresee any solid constitutional or legal opposition to this proposal? Does this violate church/state rulings? I'd guess it wouldn't because it isn't paying particular respect to any one creed, but could someone argue based on separation of church/state?

[Southtown]

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.

No. You made the statements. Adherents are yours to provide.

 

Edit. I should clarify. As a bible thumper, I believe adherents to the hell theory and especially the "sprinkle" theory are biblically adjunct. So comments made to them should not be directed toward bible thumpers.

[Galapagos]

No. You made the statements. Adherents are yours to provide.

 

Edit. I should clarify. As a bible thumper, I believe adherents to the hell theory and especially the "sprinkle" theory are biblically adjunct. So comments made to them should not be directed toward bible thumpers.

 

I'm still not following you. Are you asking me to provide evidence that people believe in Hell?

What do you mean by "bible thumper"?

I don't really understand anything in your post, what point are you trying to get across specifically?

[Southtown]

Southtown,

 

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

Nice to meet you. I'm a boob. :doh:

 

I'm still not following you. Are you asking me to provide evidence that people believe in Hell?

What do you mean by "bible thumper"?

I don't really understand anything in your post, what point are you trying to get across specifically?

Sorry. I'm stupid. I thought you were saying that "sprinkling" and "hell" were in the book. But re-reading, the "Abraham" and "Hell" sentences were merely adjacent. Feel free to laugh at me like Inow. He knows me pretty well.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at religious morality, apart from the mythical symbolism of God and the Devil, etc., the purpose of morality was to develop will power. Although repression of instincts is not healthy, this is tougher to do and takes more will power than just following the impulses.

 

For example, gluttony was a sin. If a person had the propensity to overeat and get overweight, they had to use will power to fight this sin. Once you take away this sin, life does not require the same level of will power. Now the same person can follow their impulses to overeat. Because they don't have to practice the same level of will power, they can get stuck in the eating loop, until culture gives them a drug to compensate. Since these drugs don't always work, we may need to set up social awareness, maybe using the fear of health problems, social stigmatism or the fear of rising medical costs, etc., as a way to help them regain some will power. The sin worked the same way, only it was a way to give the person inner strength apart from the need of the group hug.

 

Back in the old days, if a person was impulsive, one was not given the option of blaming this on a chemical imbalance. The chemical imbalance would have been called an evil spirit. They had to achieve the same final healing affect, as a modern drug treatment, using will power. If you were an alien, and you saw one person using their mind and other relying on some chemical, which would appear to be using more brain power?

[Southtown]

Yah overeating ≠ immoral... Hebraically, at least. I dunno which Levitical stipulations you're referring to.

[Southtown]

What it primarily depends on is whether the religion is scriptural, does it have texts as it's ultimate authority. Scriptural religions are by their nature a hinderance to progress generally and science in particular. This shouldn't even be a matter of dispute, such religions are averse to any refutation of their claims and as their claims are from the past, such claims are by nature antagonistic to progress.

Define progress. Whose progress? You assume that all strive toward the same end. My beliefs can hinder your progress while your beliefs also hinder my progress. Obviously, facts are facts, and opinions are opinions.

 

Also I would say that inanimate scriptures don't perform any verbs whatsoever, the readers do. Furthermore, what the readers do is not necessarily a function of what they read. Many undefined variables in your post.

[ughaibu]

1) progress involves change define:progress - Google Search

2) authoritative texts do not change

3) if one awards ultimate authority to that which doesn't change, any change that threatens that authority, for example debunking of flood myths, must be rejected on the grounds of insufficient authority. By definition, scriptural religions are antagonistic to progress.

[Southtown]

You assume all change is positive. Texts don't change but they are subject to interpretation. Any change relative to said authority would also be subject to interpretation given my first sentence. Define progress. Also you didn't comment on my second paragraph.

[ughaibu]

You assume all change is positive

No I dont, because it's irrelevant.

Texts don't change but they are subject to interpretation

If you change your interpretation, then your previous interpretation was false, so your text was not authoritative.

Define progress

I have done.

My premises are true by definition and my reasoning is valid, therefore my argument is sound, not only is it sound but it's also simple, and a simple sound argument really should be uncontentious. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by further calls to expand on this, it's tiresome and wastes my time.

[Southtown]

No I dont, because it's irrelevant.

Incremental changes in random directions will tend to cancel each other over time.

 

If you change your interpretation, then your previous interpretation was false, so your text was not authoritative.

What? More like, "If you change your interpretation, then your previous interpretation was false, so your [interpretation of the] text was not authoritative."

 

I have done.

My premises are true by definition and my reasoning is valid, therefore my argument is sound, not only is it sound but it's also simple, and a simple sound argument really should be uncontentious. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by further calls to expand on this, it's tiresome and wastes my time.

Change toward a goal can only be described with respect to the knowledge of that goal. Changes without a predetermined endpoint cannot be relatively described. Scripture acts as an endpoint toward which changes are made. The validity of said authority can be argued, but not apart from a more authoritative frame of reference. Define progress.

[Reaper]

Incremental changes in random directions will tend to cancel each other over time.

 

No, it does not. And it's contradictory to your earlier statement.

 

What? More like, "If you change your interpretation, then your previous interpretation was false, so your [interpretation of the] text was not authoritative."

 

And wrong again. If you must change your interpretation in order to fudge it with our current knowledge or understanding or ethics, then you know something is wrong with the text itself. Changing your interpretation of it doesn't make it correct or factual or authoritative.

 

Change toward a goal can only be described with respect to the knowledge of that goal. Changes without a predetermined endpoint cannot be relatively described. Scripture acts as an endpoint toward which changes are made. The validity of said authority can be argued, but not apart from a more authoritative frame of reference. Define progress.

 

Do you mind being a bit less vague? And, that is wrong is so many ways. Change doesn't have to have any particular goal or endpoint whatsoever. Organisms change overtime via evolution without any clear purpose or goal. When earthquakes happen, things also change, in particular the landscape and the cities around it; you will be hard pressed to show that something like that had any particular goal or purpose...

[Buffy]

And wrong again. If you must change your interpretation in order to fudge it with our current knowledge or understanding or ethics, then you know something is wrong with the text itself. Changing your interpretation of it doesn't make it correct or factual or authoritative.

Just as the religious try to force their interpretation of what "science" is, you're engaging here in forcing a scientific definition of "faith" and "authority" here.

 

Believing a book is "authoritative" in the religious sense is to have faith in its provenance and ability to guide. It is always open to interpretation, and even those who proclaim that their book is the Infallible Word of God, spend hours "interpreting" it and even changing the interpretations.

 

All religious texts are wildly vague and allegorical. They're almost impossible to read *without* interpretation.

 

And you need to note that while religious advertising in America and the Islamic world are horridly biased toward the fundamentalist notion of infallibility, the vast majority of the religious and religious institutions have no problem going so far as to pick and choose which bits are "no longer relevant" to present society.

 

You'll also note that none of the people arguing against this issue have ever actually promoted the use of the word "authoritative": your using it in this context (and I've scolded ughaibu above for it too), is tantamount to using the sentence "evolution is *only* a theory."

 

Seriously, you sound like one of those wacko right-wing, Constitutional strict constructionists...

 

Maybe most people were fundamentally contradictory. The real people at any rate,

Buffy

[Reaper]

Just as the religious try to force their interpretation of what "science" is, you're engaging here in forcing a scientific definition of "faith" and "authority" here.

 

So you would prefer that people make up their own definitions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong? It isn't just a "scientific definition" I'm alluding to....

 

Believing a book is "authoritative" in the religious sense is to have faith in its provenance and ability to guide. It is always open to interpretation, and even those who proclaim that their book is the Infallible Word of God, spend hours "interpreting" it and even changing the interpretations.

 

Right, and that's what's in dispute over here. And as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the guy making the claim that it IS authoritative, or correct, or the source of morals, or all of those wonderful things that people with deeply religious faith claim it to be. In my experience, I've come to realize that flinging around terms like "interpretation" is really nothing more than rhetoric or just plain irrelevent.

 

After all, if our ideas, theories, hypothesis, explanations, etc. about anything (such as in science) are shown to be wrong or inadequate (or unnecessary...), you discard them or don't include them, not interpret them in a different way. Why shouldn't we expect the same of religious texts or ideas too?

 

All religious texts are wildly vague and allegorical. They're almost impossible to read *without* interpretation.

 

The bible doesn't make any literal sense to begin with. And even if you do try to look at it in any other way there are still a great many of contraditions and absurdities. Even worse, large parts of it have been shown to be ripped right out of earlier mythology. It's overall historical accuracy is also very shaky, both in the latter chapters in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

And you need to note that while religious advertising in America and the Islamic world are horridly biased toward the fundamentalist notion of infallibility, the vast majority of the religious and religious institutions have no problem going so far as to pick and choose which bits are "no longer relevant" to present society.

 

Ah, so it's just simply better to ignore or trivialize parts that are inconvenient to the establishment. And, you are going to have to provide some stats on this particular claim, because I'm pretty sure that there are a few more hundreds of millions of people who do believe in the literal word of their religious texts (and the prejudices thereof). If you go down to Latin America or in large parts of Africa, for example, you'll find quite a lot of that.

 

Also, I used to be religious too, and I'll tell you this from experience; some of these "institutions" can be likened to a global mafia....

 

 

You'll also note that none of the people arguing against this issue have ever actually promoted the use of the word "authoritative": your using it in this context (and I've scolded ughaibu above for it too), is tantamount to using the sentence "evolution is *only* a theory."

 

Really? As far as I was aware I was just responding to:

 

What? More like, "If you change your interpretation, then your previous interpretation was false, so your [interpretation of the] text was not authoritative."

 

and

 

You assume all change is positive. Texts don't change but they are subject to interpretation. Any change relative to said authority would also be subject to interpretation given my first sentence. Also you didn't comment on my second paragraph.

 

.................................

 

Seriously, you sound like one of those wacko right-wing, Constitutional strict constructionists...

 

Also been called one of those extreme environmentalist, a wacko left-wing liberal, a pessimist, a realist, too overly optimists, a reductionist, an idealist, an anarchist (or state socialist, depending on what the issue was), and, well, any other label they could slap at me in order to avoid actually discussing the issues at hand.

[Reaper]

Oh, and Southtown, when we say progress, it is usually meant to mean moving away from superstition, bigotry, ignorance, etc. I am not sure if you are one of those people as well, but, well, religion for almost as long as it had existed has been strongly supportive of those.