|
|
#31
05-25-2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
This is incredible. Thank you, Revots.
[ QUOTE ] For every person comforted by religion there's probably a closeted priest, self-hating homosexual, or guilt-ridden masturbator/pre-marital-sex-participant/lesbian porno fan/etc. [/ QUOTE ] This is a meaningless statement in that you have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. It is, however, obvious that believing this statement makes you feel better about what you choose to believe about God's existence. Oh wait...look at this. Revots uses his next paragraph to address exactly that, the problems that come with believing something is true in order to feel better about your other beliefs. [ QUOTE ] I think self-deluding yourself into believing that something imiaginary is true, in order to feel better during tough times, only exchanges some problems for others. That's not to say belief doesn't have it's benefits, only that you can't ignore the downsides that come along with it. [/ QUOTE ] Well said Revots. You should listen to your own advice. 
|
|
#32
05-26-2007, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
The analogy that works from my experience is that when life surrounds you like a raging storm, God's power can comfort you in such a way that keeps you calm in the midst of the storm. This what Paul spoke of when he instructed the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in your heart.
|
|
#33
05-26-2007, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People use religion to justify just about anything. Religion is a force for good and bad. So is every other ideology on the face of the planet. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly right. What most "crusading atheists" are claiming is that in the end this ideology is useless, pointless. Just like we would be attacking a political ideology which is based on little or no evidence whatsoever we surely can and must attack a religious ideology. [/ QUOTE ] How can anyone claim that religion is useless? First of all, it's pretty much impossible to prove. Second, it's pretty arrogant. [/ QUOTE ] Why can one not argue that religion is useless? Let's imagine an ideology which states that all money should be burned and that we have to pay "in nature" only. Most people would say that the idea is stupid and that the ideology supporting that is useless in a sense that it doesn't do any good to society or to our world. It might have good side effects but wouldn't it be better to just try to take the good side effects to practice and discard the useless ideology? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I agree that religion isn't a root of all evil and even Dawkins has said that himself. He found that title unfortunate (though his one aim is to be provocative to raise discussion IMO). I also agree that if religion vanished from the face of the Earth on this moment a huge number of religious people would go into personal chaos. That isn't of course possible since religion by its very nature is something that nothing can simply and suddenly destroy but hypothetically that would be devastating to the world. However, what Dawkins is arguing and with which I agree is that if children were brought up in a non-religious way, encouraged to be critical and rational, if they would be taught many religions and not just one of them as a truth I'm sure that a large number of these children wouldn't need religion when adults. [/ QUOTE ] This is probably true, and I agree with it. I would slightly disagree when you say these children wouldn't need religion. Again, there is no way to know. They might want the community aspect, or they might enjoy the mystery. It would clearly be much better if they were taught to be critical and rational about their faith though. [/ QUOTE ] Well, probably some would "fall" into superstitions like the serious hardcore astrologists today but it would be quite minor, I'm sure. There are people living today who don't need religion and they live in a world full of religion. What if the world wasn't full of religion? Children simply wouldn't have the need to build their world views around a Creator if they are taught the things I mentioned. This is of course a huge task. What I'm stating here is that the world should become more sophisticated and intelligent. It's not a coincidence that most top scientists don't believe in a Creator. Do you have to be very intelligent in order to be non-religious? I think in some way you have to be more enlightened simply because non-religiousness requires analytical, critical thinking and not all people today are capable of that. That should be our goal, though. Just as we try to make the whole world able to read we should try to make the whole world able to be non-religious. Some sorts of superstitions will always be around, I'm sure, but anything we can do to help the situation is good. People can enjoy the mystery without religion. Again, Einsteinian sense of God etc. The community aspect is strong, sure. People have a need to belong. Hopefully the world doesn't become so individualistic that the only place to do that is a place to worship a Creator. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Religion can be used for good and evil. Why only attribute good things to religion and say that "these are products of religion" and when bad things happen in the name of religion why say that "these things would happen anyway"? Both good and bad things would happen anyway. Then why not get rid of this ideology? [/ QUOTE ] I never claimed that only good came from religious belief. I see religion as more of a language that people use to describe and justify their experiences. [/ QUOTE ] I was responding generally, I know you didn't claim that. The analogy of religion as a language is not good though. Language is just a mean to communicate. It is by its nature trying to be neutral. Religion isn't neutral, it has substance which it is trying to spread. I agree that religion has probably been born from a need to discuss this aspect of our emotions but I don't think it is as harmless as you make it sound to be. I think it would be better if we talked about that stuff "in another language", in a language of analytical thinking for example. Generally I'm not saying that feelings or sense of a mystery is useless or stupid or whatever. Far from it. I'm saying that we should be able to discuss about that stuff without superstitions/dogmas. We should not be uber-rational robots uncapable of emotion or appreciation of love and beauty. We should strive to discuss and view those things in another way than a religious dogmatic way. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People who haven't brought up in it can live without it. Tolerance, rationality, critical thinking, ultimately the truth - these are the things Dawkins is after and an ideology called religion really doesn't have a positive effect on any of them. One could argue about tolerance but I'm sure people can be tolerant/compassionate without religion. I have "faith" that humans can evolve and rise above superstitions. We are not moral because of religion - we can live without it. So let's get rid of one useless ideology which divides the world in a dangerous and unnecessary way. [/ QUOTE ] Again, you have a long, long way to go before you prove that religion is useless. Or that you can even do away with religion altogether without negative consequences. [/ QUOTE ] Well, why don't you tell me why we would need religion? Religion isn't the only way to talk about the mystical experiences we have like I stated in the last paragraph. If we continue to compare religion to an ideology, what inherently good stuff can an ideology contain that isn't otherwise reachable? Ideologies are human made. They are packages that we have created. They contain stuff that we put there. Can we be good and moral and nice and compassionate and tolerant without religion? Yes. If someone claims otherwise he's saying that all atheists are bad or some other nonsense and he must not be taken seriously. Religion isn't a source of our morals. Religion didn't build our moral codes, I'd say it's the other way around and that our moral codes help built religion. Like I previously said, if religion would vanish now at this very second many people would go into personal chaos and as a result the world would go into chaos. But as you agreed with me before, children should be taught differently. They should not be encouraged to build their world views and personal images around a Creator. If we take away this belief in a Creator, why it would have negative consequences? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And what comes to religious people being happier than other people, well, I don't buy it. I'm not sure if there are studies somewhere but like I said in other thread, religion can cause both misery and comfort. The point is that we can be comfortable without religion and get rid of the ideology of religion and its bad side effects. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think I ever claimed that religious people are happier than atheists/agnostics. Some are, some aren't. Why don't we just try to get rid of the bad side effects instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water? It would be much easier to accomplish than trying to do away with religion altogether. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] You're right, it's much easier to try to modify religion to be better than to get rid of it. The difficulty of the task is still not an argument against the idea that religious ideology is useless. Useless in a sense that even though some people find it useful it isn't necessary. So maybe the better word would be unnecessary. In any case, what I'm championing here and what most "crusading atheists" that I've heard of are promoting is that we should be able to criticize religion and that we should get rid of religion's special status which does not belong to it. A dogmatic religious belief system is bad because people can live without it. If it didn't have any negative side effects I'm sure nobody would mind religion but it has side effects and it's a huge force in our world. Therefore the goal should be to get rid of this unnecessary ideology. How to prove that religion is "useless"? Why not try to make the world non-religious, non-dogmatic and let's see what happens? We are fighting against racism, intolerace, ignorance etc. You agree that religion has bad side effects. If we try to modify religion to be better ultimately we're trying to modify it to be not a religion anymore. If this comes off as arrogant that's not my purpose but I guess it cannot be completely avoided either. I just don't see any inherently positive effects that only dogmatic religion can provide us.
|
|
#34
05-26-2007, 08:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
[ QUOTE ]
The analogy that works from my experience is that when life surrounds you like a raging storm, God's power can comfort you in such a way that keeps you calm in the midst of the storm. This what Paul spoke of when he instructed the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in your heart. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, txagoo7, your god is a puny one, mine is capable of getting rid of the storm rather than just calm me with some inane babbling, in my heart or in my head. Others, have gods that, presumably, guide you so that you can avoid storms. They are navigators type gods. I was a navigator at one point in my life, blue water racing.. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Anyway, your god is a god of delusion... he keeps you calm and placid when you should be fast and acting.
|
|
#35
05-27-2007, 04:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
[ QUOTE ]
Why can one not argue that religion is useless? Let's imagine an ideology which states that all money should be burned and that we have to pay "in nature" only. Most people would say that the idea is stupid and that the ideology supporting that is useless in a sense that it doesn't do any good to society or to our world. It might have good side effects but wouldn't it be better to just try to take the good side effects to practice and discard the useless ideology? [/ QUOTE ] You're free to try to prove that religion is useless. But we are so far away from knowing that that I think it's kind of ridiculous to state it as fact. I wouldn't object if you wanted to claim that certain specific beliefs are useless. But humanity has always had religion throughout it's history and it's pretty silly for you to step right up and dismiss the whole enterprise as useless. Obviously we've had a need for it for ages. [ QUOTE ] Well, probably some would "fall" into superstitions like the serious hardcore astrologists today but it would be quite minor, I'm sure. There are people living today who don't need religion and they live in a world full of religion. What if the world wasn't full of religion? Children simply wouldn't have the need to build their world views around a Creator if they are taught the things I mentioned. This is of course a huge task. What I'm stating here is that the world should become more sophisticated and intelligent. It's not a coincidence that most top scientists don't believe in a Creator. Do you have to be very intelligent in order to be non-religious? I think in some way you have to be more enlightened simply because non-religiousness requires analytical, critical thinking and not all people today are capable of that. That should be our goal, though. Just as we try to make the whole world able to read we should try to make the whole world able to be non-religious. Some sorts of superstitions will always be around, I'm sure, but anything we can do to help the situation is good. People can enjoy the mystery without religion. Again, Einsteinian sense of God etc. The community aspect is strong, sure. People have a need to belong. Hopefully the world doesn't become so individualistic that the only place to do that is a place to worship a Creator. [/ QUOTE ] It's weird because I pretty much agree with you on every point here. My only adjustment would be to change the phrase "non-religious" to "non-dogmatic". I guess this gets back to the definition of "religion". [ QUOTE ] The analogy of religion as a language is not good though. Language is just a mean to communicate. It is by its nature trying to be neutral. Religion isn't neutral, it has substance which it is trying to spread. I agree that religion has probably been born from a need to discuss this aspect of our emotions but I don't think it is as harmless as you make it sound to be. I think it would be better if we talked about that stuff "in another language", in a language of analytical thinking for example. [/ QUOTE ] I think you misunderstood me slightly or maybe I was unclear. People use their religion to describe experiences for which they have no words. I don't know if you've ever had any spiritual experiences before, but people don't know how to describe them other than "God spoke to me" or something similar. We also use religion as metaphor and to describe our relationship with the unknown. I realize that this is a hard thing to grasp, but people use religion to describe what they don't know or don't have words for. Obviously I think it's necessary to educate people about the world so they don't keep interfering with what we currently know about the world. [ QUOTE ] Generally I'm not saying that feelings or sense of a mystery is useless or stupid or whatever. Far from it. I'm saying that we should be able to discuss about that stuff without superstitions/dogmas. We should not be uber-rational robots uncapable of emotion or appreciation of love and beauty. We should strive to discuss and view those things in another way than a religious dogmatic way. [/ QUOTE ] We're in complete agreement. [ QUOTE ] Well, why don't you tell me why we would need religion? Religion isn't the only way to talk about the mystical experiences we have like I stated in the last paragraph. If we continue to compare religion to an ideology, what inherently good stuff can an ideology contain that isn't otherwise reachable? Ideologies are human made. They are packages that we have created. They contain stuff that we put there. [/ QUOTE ] Again it depends on your definition of religion. I would counter, how are you sure they we don't need it on a societal scale? Again, I'm not talking about specific dogmatic beliefs, just the language, principles, and community of religion. We might be able to replace it with some other system, but it would still be what I call a religion. [ QUOTE ] Can we be good and moral and nice and compassionate and tolerant without religion? Yes. If someone claims otherwise he's saying that all atheists are bad or some other nonsense and he must not be taken seriously. Religion isn't a source of our morals. Religion didn't build our moral codes, I'd say it's the other way around and that our moral codes help built religion. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but often the best morality of a time is codified by a religion. By spreading this religion you are spreading this version of morality. Again, it's not particularly relevant now, but this is how things have gone historically. [ QUOTE ] Like I previously said, if religion would vanish now at this very second many people would go into personal chaos and as a result the world would go into chaos. But as you agreed with me before, children should be taught differently. They should not be encouraged to build their world views and personal images around a Creator. If we take away this belief in a Creator, why it would have negative consequences? [/ QUOTE ] That wouldn't eliminate religion necessarily. [ QUOTE ] You're right, it's much easier to try to modify religion to be better than to get rid of it. The difficulty of the task is still not an argument against the idea that religious ideology is useless. Useless in a sense that even though some people find it useful it isn't necessary. So maybe the better word would be unnecessary. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I think we should try to modify because elimination on any relevant time-scale is impossible IMO. [ QUOTE ] In any case, what I'm championing here and what most "crusading atheists" that I've heard of are promoting is that we should be able to criticize religion and that we should get rid of religion's special status which does not belong to it. A dogmatic religious belief system is bad because people can live without it. If it didn't have any negative side effects I'm sure nobody would mind religion but it has side effects and it's a huge force in our world. Therefore the goal should be to get rid of this unnecessary ideology. [/ QUOTE ] I am all for criticizing the dogmatic and harmful elements of religion. But that is hardly eliminating religion as a whole. People are always going to be organizing their beliefs and coming up with names for these belief systems. I guess I don't understand what the difference between a personal philosophy and a religion is.
|
|
#36
05-27-2007, 05:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
I'm seeing that we're pretty much agreeing on everything except on the definition of 'religion'. You're right this all gets back to the definition of it.
This is Webster Online Dictionary's definition of religion: [ QUOTE ] 1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality". 2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him". [/ QUOTE ] There's a divine power involved. If the point you're making is that if one uses God in a metaphorical sense he's still religious, I think you're using the word 'religious' way too liberally. We agree that we should enlighten people and get rid of religious dogmas. If we take those dogmas out, what is left of religion? a) the spiritual element. A feeling that there's something bigger than us. Usually related to mystical, spiritual experiences (which I've had in my mind). And if we want people to be reasonable they must be agnostic about God. What we're left with is a mystical, agnostic way of talking about the mystery of the universe. This is basically the Einsteinian way of using the word 'God'. Maybe I should've been more clear what I mean by Einsteinian. b) the community aspect. You're right, people have a need to belong to a community and discuss about their feelings to a degree. But I'm not sure if there's any sense for these "enlightened, modified" Christians to pray to a higher power since they don't believe at least in a personal one anymore. The communities will find other ways of functioning. Besides, do you see atheists/agnostics gathering together? I don't. Some may go to a church because of their social network but if all people think like those few the church loses its meaning. I wouldn't say religious communities or gatherings are necessary at all. People can find ways to happiness without chruch meetings. It's happening right now. I know that you think we should try to modify religion instead of trying to get rid of it. What I'm saying to you is that we agree and are just talking about the different sides of the same coin. I'm all for making current religions more liberal. That's the only way, nobody can make religion vanish. What I'm saying to you that you're proposing a gradual modification of religion to a point where I would be not calling it a religion anymore. We both have the same goal basically. Where we differ is the definition of religion and perhaps the community aspect of religion. If people are mystical and agnostic and they are using the word 'God' metaphorically I wouldn't call them religious. You say you don't see the difference between a personal philosophy and a religion. Maybe that's the source of our apparent disagreement (even though we think very much alike I think). You should see the difference. A liberal, agnostic, mystical, metaphorical, personal philosophy about God is a completely different animal than the current religions.
|
|
#37
05-27-2007, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm seeing that we're pretty much agreeing on everything except on the definition of 'religion'. You're right this all gets back to the definition of it. This is Webster Online Dictionary's definition of religion: [ QUOTE ] 1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality". 2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him". [/ QUOTE ] There's a divine power involved. [/ QUOTE ] If only it were that easy. There is a HUGE debate on what the definition of religion is. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion in the following way: In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture." And I'm sure there are countless people who would disagree with this definition as well. [ QUOTE ] If the point you're making is that if one uses God in a metaphorical sense he's still religious, I think you're using the word 'religious' way too liberally. We agree that we should enlighten people and get rid of religious dogmas. If we take those dogmas out, what is left of religion? a) the spiritual element. A feeling that there's something bigger than us. Usually related to mystical, spiritual experiences (which I've had in my mind). And if we want people to be reasonable they must be agnostic about God. What we're left with is a mystical, agnostic way of talking about the mystery of the universe. This is basically the Einsteinian way of using the word 'God'. Maybe I should've been more clear what I mean by Einsteinian. b) the community aspect. You're right, people have a need to belong to a community and discuss about their feelings to a degree. But I'm not sure if there's any sense for these "enlightened, modified" Christians to pray to a higher power since they don't believe at least in a personal one anymore. The communities will find other ways of functioning. Besides, do you see atheists/agnostics gathering together? I don't. Some may go to a church because of their social network but if all people think like those few the church loses its meaning. I wouldn't say religious communities or gatherings are necessary at all. People can find ways to happiness without chruch meetings. It's happening right now. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're quite mistaken that atheists and agnostics don't congregate. There are many "liberal" congregations of the various world religions and there are many atheist organizations. People will naturally congregate and associate with people who share their experiences and interpretation of the world. When these shared experiences and interpretations have to do with anything spiritual, mystical, or beyond our current knowledge I would see that as tending toward religious belief. [ QUOTE ] I know that you think we should try to modify religion instead of trying to get rid of it. What I'm saying to you is that we agree and are just talking about the different sides of the same coin. I'm all for making current religions more liberal. That's the only way, nobody can make religion vanish. What I'm saying to you that you're proposing a gradual modification of religion to a point where I would be not calling it a religion anymore. We both have the same goal basically. [/ QUOTE ] Which is why it is so frustrating to me. I don't think you realize that many people would agree with you but still call themselves "religious". When you rail against "religion" and "God" they perceive it as an attack on them and they tune you out. Or worse yet, they circle the wagons and actually do protect some of the more ridiculous beliefs. There are also those who consider themselves religious, but haven't really thought about or evaluated some of the supernatural claims of religion. They don't even know half of the claims their religion makes. I guarantee that if you poll Christians, you'd find that many of them don't even know about all the deplorable sections of the Old Testament. That's why it's insane for atheists to say, "your religion says X is true." Their religion DOESN'T say that it's true. That doesn't make it less of a religion in my view, it's just a different religion. Everyone's religion is their personal philosophy. EVERYONE picks and chooses. Do you understand where I'm going with this? You don't need to eliminate Christianity to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. And trying to eliminate Christianity makes your end goal even harder to achieve.
|
|
#38
05-27-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
Sorry, I don't have time to answer right now even though this is very interesting.
I'll edit my answer to this post tomorrow or whatever ten or so hours from now is where you live.
|
|
#40
05-28-2007, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Religion is a source of comfort.
[ QUOTE ]
If only it were that easy. There is a HUGE debate on what the definition of religion is. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion in the following way [/ QUOTE ] Ok, sure. Like I said, we've clearly had different definitions of religion in mind. If you want to use the largest definition possible that's fine but I don't like it. I guess we have to make a distinction between a-theism and a-religiousness. I'm a strong advocate of the first but if the latter is an agnostic, mystical, non-dogmatic and personal version of religion then I don't think that's a problem in the world. [ QUOTE ] think you're quite mistaken that atheists and agnostics don't congregate. There are many "liberal" congregations of the various world religions and there are many atheist organizations. People will naturally congregate and associate with people who share their experiences and interpretation of the world. When these shared experiences and interpretations have to do with anything spiritual, mystical, or beyond our current knowledge I would see that as tending toward religious belief. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say you still overemphasize the community aspect of religion. Secularization has been a strong force at least in Europe so I don't see how atheists have this urgent need to congregate at least very often. Sure, people love to speak about their experiences and again people have a strong tendency to be apart of a community but individualism and secularism are strong forces too. If only the community aspect of religion survives you're still free to call it a religion. I wouldn't because it would be completely different from other religions of the past. A better word for it would be nice. I understand your frustration. One thing you have to bear in mind is that I'm talking to you here on this board way differently than I would be talking to a stranger or someone religious. I know that by attacking God and religion directly and strongly it doesn't bear good results. The main "disagreement" we have between us isn't the goal we want to achieve. You like to call the end goal as a sort of religion too. Ok, fine. Definitions are definitions. I don't like to use the word religion there. The main disagreement isn't even the mean by which we want to achieve that goal. Your psychological points make sense and I agree. I know people have very personal faiths and it's usually awful to put words into other person't mouth in this instance. I understand where you're going with this. You like to call the end goal Christianity too. Again I wouldn't. The main point of Christianity is a belief in Christ. If you don't have that belief the whole word loses its meaning. I guess you want to keep that word alive for tactical reasons. That's fine and that's probably the only way to achieve the goal we have. Just undestand that we're both trying to eliminate Christianity in every sense possible except for the name part. I don't think we have any main disagreements at all. That's kind of sad actually, have we really been dancing around the issue and not been getting what the other has tried to say? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
