I believe that everything in this world is strangely connected to each other, like a huge ecosystem. So even though terrible thing have being done in the name of religion around history. The world in where we live in was in part mold by religion and wars. Whether we like it or not, this is our world and it is up to people to choose weather to "use" religion either for good or evil. I think a most important question is how much faith do you have on your fellow human beings? :P In a totally unrelated note:
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what the poll topic has to do with this thread. Are you saying that religious belief is necessarily disingenuous or untruthful? That people are religious either because they have been lied to by those in positions of power OR because they need religion to cope with their lives and that there is absolutely no other option? I also wonder what relevance this question has. Why does it matter whether religion has on the whole benefited or harmed the world?
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what the poll topic has to do with this thread.
Then you clearly have not read the entire thread. It's clearly relevant, and came out of organic debate.
Are you saying that religious belief is necessarily disingenuous or untruthful?
One of the last arguments logical people will use in the defense of religion is that it helps some people through rough times that they could not get through on their own, regardless of the veracity of its tenants. This argument is usually made by atheists who otherwise find value in the religious beliefs of others even if they see them as false themselves.
That people are religious either because they have been lied to by those in positions of power OR because they need religion to cope with their lives and that there is absolutely no other option?
No, but there is a question as to whether the latter is a valid excuse. Knowing that a particular, specific belief is untrue, can a rational person ethically lie to or allow others to blindly believe it anyway for some perceived boon it provides?
I also wonder what relevance this question has. Why does it matter whether religion has on the whole benefited or harmed the world?
Do you use truthful and factual as the same thing or truthful in the subjective sense?
Truth shines... ^_~
There are two truths, though. One is the truth of independent observation, and another is the personal belief of truth. The former denies all supernatural religious beliefs outright, for they have never been observed. The latter proves nothing save that the person professing said belief is not himself willfully lying to others.
So while a religious belief can fall under the second of these "truths," this lends no credence to its veracity.
I believe that everything in this world is strangely connected to each other, like a huge ecosystem.
The worldisa huge ecosystem, by definition. It's not strange. It's not mystical.
It's actually very thoroughly explained using empirical observation and experimentation.
Yeah, I know that. In an ecosystem the smallest change will disturb its equilibrium. I think the same goes for the earth. The life on single person (does not matter how renown or obscure he or she is) and his or her decisions can also change the history of earth. Many people do not believe that, so that is why I wrote the word "strange". What I wanted to express is that everything is connected everything.
Then you clearly have not read the entire thread. It's clearly relevant, and came out of organic debate.
I'm not sure I agree. You asked the question in response to the statement that "Some people don't have the strength to change on their own." Your immediate response was
This sentiment bothers me. It implies that some people are powerless to effect change in their own lives without being lied to or lying to themselves. It justifies a false means to a positive end. If we're OK with the use of trickery to change the behavior of problematic members of society, then that's fine, but it opens a large number of options in regard to societal control, several of which are dubious, dangerous, or unethical. We need to agree right now as to whether or not such means should or should not be universally abhorred before we can continue any further in this debate. (I've made a poll). This is a very important underlying point of contention on the issue of religion.
Viga seemed to imply that religion could provide strength, motivation, and willpower to those who otherwise lack it so that they could effect positive change in your life. You equated religion to a method of social control, religion as something used by those in power to regulate the behavior of those out of power. Further, you implied that this social control must necessarily be deceitful and disingenuous. The two positions are not connected particularly well. While religion can change people's behavior, that does not mean that religion is a form of social control; many types of religions which promote many different and conflicting codes of behavior exist. Religion and power are also not necessarily as closely connected as you might think. You also implied that religion and religion as social control would be dishonest and "trickery"; no one had mentioned those terms before you jumped in and started asking about "disingenuous social controls."
One of the last arguments logical people will use in the defense of religion is that it helps some people through rough times that they could not get through on their own, regardless of the veracity of its tenants. This argument is usually made by atheists who otherwise find value in the religious beliefs of others even if they see them as false themselves. No, but there is a question as to whether the latter is a valid excuse. Knowing that a particular, specific belief is untrue, can a rational person ethically lie to or allow others to blindly believe it anyway for some perceived boon it provides?
Alright, you believe that religious belief is untrue. Thank you for clearing that up.
Why does anything matter? Nonetheless, we debate.
I'm worried that people intend to use the effects of religion, although they are not necessarily connected to religion, to malign religion and promote atheism.
I think I'm done with this argument and probably this forum as a whole. Thank you for clearing these things up, though.
Viga seemed to imply that religion could provide strength, motivation, and willpower to those who otherwise lack it so that they could effect positive change in your life.
This implies that these people couldn't have had said motivation without basing them on falsehoods. No one has ever presented a reasonable argument that any supernatural religious beliefs are anything but. It's very simple.
You have a not so great person. For whatever reason it is difficult or impossible for them to do good. They are fail. They lack will, make wrong decisions, or have some other fault(s) that keep them from succeeding. The world is a worse place for it.
You have the option of manipulating this person. You can manipulate them by threats or bribery, but we're not discussing that. We are specifically discussing manipulating someone with lies. Because this person believes in those lies, they are now doing good. They are achieving their goals. They are getting ahead in life. The world is a better place, at least for them. However, some or all of their free will has been sacrificed. They aren't having a good life because they did it for themselves. They are having a great life because a smarter person is lying to them, and controlling them. They are doing good because someone is pulling their puppet strings with lies and making it happen.
Is it ok to pull a person's puppet strings with lies, if it means better things for the world and/or that person, or is the loss of freedom too much of a price to pay? Better is, of course, mostly subjective, but we'll hold off on that for now.
Let me give an extreme, yet simple example. You have a person who won the lottery. They are a stupid person, and they will soon waste all of their money and be bankrupt. All the money will go to beer and hookers. You go to them and give them sound, and truthful, financial advice. They refuse to listen. You go to them again, and you lie. You tell them that if they don't do as you say, they will go to hell. This, they believe, and they change their actions, and good things happen. On the one hand, things are "better." On the other hand, you took away this person's freedom. You manipulated another human being, and made them your tool. A tool for good, but a tool none the less. Is it justified?
It is not justified. However, that person that is advising by lying did it knowing that he or she was lying. Most religious group deeply believe that what they believe is true therefore in their eyes they are not lying. I am glad the no matter what my believes are I keep my free will.
Is it ok to pull a person's puppet strings with lies, if it means better things for the world and/or that person, or is the loss of freedom too much of a price to pay? Better is, of course, mostly subjective, but we'll hold off on that for now.
Try to ask a Christian, "if God is both omnipotent and benevolent, why is there evil in the world?" If they are smart, they will give Milton's answer: God believes that goodness that is compelled rather than freely chosen is not a sign of virtue, and thus gave his creations free will. There are some religious people who believe in the kind of manipulation you dislike, but those are the bad ones.
This implies that these people couldn't have had said motivation without basing them on falsehoods. No one has ever presented a reasonable argument that any supernatural religious beliefs are anything but. It's very simple.
Scientists requiring disprovability or measurability of a religious belief makes about as little sense as a mathematician requiring a scientific theory to be positively provable. Religion is a different matter entirely, and should be judged by different standards. No one has presented these things, and nor should they have to.
One very minor point, but one that has always bugged me is the incredible waste of time that's involved with certain aspects of religious practices. There are some religions that require you to interrupt your day multiple times and get down on the ground and pray. Who has time for that? Some of the other stuff, like weekly services, some people enjoy for the social value. That's fine. However, if the truth is that we just stop when we die and nothing we do here by way of praying amounts to anything, all those Sundays standing there sending wishful thoughts to a non-entity probably could have been better spent doing other things. Pretty much anything has more value than a non-ironic group delusion session. Parishioners could do things such as helping people, or if you are more cynical, playing WoW.
One very minor point, but one that has always bugged me is the incredible waste of time that's involved with certain aspects of religious practices. There are some religions that require you to interrupt your day multiple times and get down on the ground and pray. Who has time for that?
I would submit to you that there are better ways to spend time. When you add all that time up for all those people, I wonder how many man hours per year that is? I wonder what could be done with that time that might improve the lot for folks among the living?
One very minor point, but one that has always bugged me is the incredible waste of time that's involved with certain aspects of religious practices. There are some religions that require you to interrupt your day multiple times and get down on the ground and pray. Who has time for that?
About a billion people, apparently.
The only reason that's the case is that people are raised to believe that it's a worthwhile expenditure of their time. Religions work by first crippling somebody's sense of self, and then handing them a crutch so that they may continue. It's not done maliciously, but the net effect still creates a dependency in the mind of the devout.
Ignoring the validity of religious beliefs for the moment, most of those beliefs incorporate benevolent social controls. Society benefits when people believe that their deity would be displeased if they steal and murder, especially in the case of early societies that have poor police control. Society is stabilized when people believe that their bad lot in life may be reversed or ameliorated in an afterlife and therefore put aside notions of violent revolution.
Also, even though a rationalist might wish that it were not so, the awful truth is that most people are stupid and fearful. If they aren't given something to believe in, I submit that they'll go and find something to believe in on their own. The belief that they find on their own might not have benevolent social control. It might be a chaotic belief in demons, say, that makes them a burden to society. That would be bad. It's probably better on the whole, then, that there are socially acceptable beliefs that enforce benevolent social control.
Also, even though a rationalist might wish that it were not so, the awful truth is that most people are stupid and fearful. If they aren'tgivensomething to believe in, I submit that they'llgo and find somethingto believe in on their own. The belief that they find on their own might not have benevolent social control. It might be a chaotic belief in demons, say, that makes them a burden to society. That would be bad. It's probably better on the whole, then, that there are socially acceptable beliefs that enforce benevolent social control.
So do these people even have free will in the first place?
gnoring the validity of religious beliefs for the moment, most of those beliefs incorporate benevolent social controls.
Most of those beliefs also incorporate malevolent social controls, such as condoning slavery, subjugating women, capital punishment for tiny, tiny offenses, etc., and it takes the steady march forward of secular thought to get people to leave behind the most unsavory bits of their scriptures.
The problem with any religion is that it claims to be immutable. Religions claim that values and universally inherent and eternal.
This is why every time that society inches forward, religion is the anchor dragging itself behind, clanging against the rocks of intolerance and oppression. Religion both endorsed and condoned slavery, and when we wanted to get rid of that institution the Bible was used in defense of it. When we wanted to recognize the natural rights of women, it was the Christian element that bucked the hardest. Voting rights, civil rights, the rights of children, the right to die, the rights of homosexuals, cloning, stem cell research, abortion, freedom from theocracy - every time "immoral" society wants to progress, it must first baby along the clouded minds of the religious.
The bible has one very good idea that it preaches but does not practice: Mutual respect. The character Jesus promoted the golden rule, or the ethic of reciprocity, which was a common Greek philosophy at least 600 years before the supposed messianic birth. The same principle was the backbone of Hammurabi's code circa 1750 B.C. Unfortunately, religions have not historically obeyed the command, instead using scripture through the centuries to justify war, murder, slavery, human rights violations, rape, and prostitution.
Anyone who claims religion is necessary to give the masses a moral code has clearly not read their own religious texts; to put it mildly, God is not moral.
This reminds me of a conversation last night that looking back, I regret getting into with my supervisor. His 15 year old daughter from a previous marriage was coming up here to stay with him for a while. The girl is a teenager, so a bit rambling and questioning things. I offered to let her borrow one of my books on zen buddhism to give her a different perspective. He let me know in no uncertain terms that the only thing his daughter needed to straighten herself out was to start going to church and believe in god. *sighs* This is why I try not to have conversations with my supervisor.
This reminds me of a conversation last night that looking back, I regret getting into with my supervisor. His 15 year old daughter from a previous marriage was coming up here to stay with him for a while. The girl is a teenager, so a bit rambling and questioning things. I offered to let her borrow one of my books on zen buddhism to give her a different perspective. He let me know in no uncertain terms that the only thing his daughter needed to straighten herself out was to start going to church and believe in god. *sighs* This is why I try not to have conversations with my supervisor.
This is why when I am at work, I only talk about Unitarians :-p It's always safe!
This reminds me of a conversation last night that looking back, I regret getting into with my supervisor. His 15 year old daughter from a previous marriage was coming up here to stay with him for a while. The girl is a teenager, so a bit rambling and questioning things. I offered to let her borrow one of my books on zen buddhism to give her a different perspective. He let me know in no uncertain terms that the only thing his daughter needed to straighten herself out was to start going to church and believe in god. *sighs* This is why I try not to have conversations with my supervisor.
How is replacing one religion (Christianity) with another any better (Buddhism)? It is just one dogma for another.
Comments
I think a most important question is how much faith do you have on your fellow human beings? :P
In a totally unrelated note:
Give me any example of a religious (supernatural) belief that can be shown to be truthful. ^_~
There are two truths, though. One is the truth of independent observation, and another is the personal belief of truth. The former denies all supernatural religious beliefs outright, for they have never been observed. The latter proves nothing save that the person professing said belief is not himself willfully lying to others.
So while a religious belief can fall under the second of these "truths," this lends no credence to its veracity.
I think I'm done with this argument and probably this forum as a whole. Thank you for clearing these things up, though.
peace
You have a not so great person. For whatever reason it is difficult or impossible for them to do good. They are fail. They lack will, make wrong decisions, or have some other fault(s) that keep them from succeeding. The world is a worse place for it.
You have the option of manipulating this person. You can manipulate them by threats or bribery, but we're not discussing that. We are specifically discussing manipulating someone with lies. Because this person believes in those lies, they are now doing good. They are achieving their goals. They are getting ahead in life. The world is a better place, at least for them. However, some or all of their free will has been sacrificed. They aren't having a good life because they did it for themselves. They are having a great life because a smarter person is lying to them, and controlling them. They are doing good because someone is pulling their puppet strings with lies and making it happen.
Is it ok to pull a person's puppet strings with lies, if it means better things for the world and/or that person, or is the loss of freedom too much of a price to pay? Better is, of course, mostly subjective, but we'll hold off on that for now.
Let me give an extreme, yet simple example. You have a person who won the lottery. They are a stupid person, and they will soon waste all of their money and be bankrupt. All the money will go to beer and hookers. You go to them and give them sound, and truthful, financial advice. They refuse to listen. You go to them again, and you lie. You tell them that if they don't do as you say, they will go to hell. This, they believe, and they change their actions, and good things happen. On the one hand, things are "better." On the other hand, you took away this person's freedom. You manipulated another human being, and made them your tool. A tool for good, but a tool none the less. Is it justified?
I am glad the no matter what my believes are I keep my free will.
If they are smart, they will give Milton's answer: God believes that goodness that is compelled rather than freely chosen is not a sign of virtue, and thus gave his creations free will.
There are some religious people who believe in the kind of manipulation you dislike, but those are the bad ones. Scientists requiring disprovability or measurability of a religious belief makes about as little sense as a mathematician requiring a scientific theory to be positively provable. Religion is a different matter entirely, and should be judged by different standards. No one has presented these things, and nor should they have to.
Also, even though a rationalist might wish that it were not so, the awful truth is that most people are stupid and fearful. If they aren't given something to believe in, I submit that they'll go and find something to believe in on their own. The belief that they find on their own might not have benevolent social control. It might be a chaotic belief in demons, say, that makes them a burden to society. That would be bad. It's probably better on the whole, then, that there are socially acceptable beliefs that enforce benevolent social control.
This is why every time that society inches forward, religion is the anchor dragging itself behind, clanging against the rocks of intolerance and oppression. Religion both endorsed and condoned slavery, and when we wanted to get rid of that institution the Bible was used in defense of it. When we wanted to recognize the natural rights of women, it was the Christian element that bucked the hardest. Voting rights, civil rights, the rights of children, the right to die, the rights of homosexuals, cloning, stem cell research, abortion, freedom from theocracy - every time "immoral" society wants to progress, it must first baby along the clouded minds of the religious.
The bible has one very good idea that it preaches but does not practice: Mutual respect. The character Jesus promoted the golden rule, or the ethic of reciprocity, which was a common Greek philosophy at least 600 years before the supposed messianic birth. The same principle was the backbone of Hammurabi's code circa 1750 B.C. Unfortunately, religions have not historically obeyed the command, instead using scripture through the centuries to justify war, murder, slavery, human rights violations, rape, and prostitution.
Anyone who claims religion is necessary to give the masses a moral code has clearly not read their own religious texts; to put it mildly, God is not moral.