The God Delusion / Root of All Evil - Richard Dawkins

[SVMc]

AJ: So the urge to promote one’s religion on others is a natural phenomenon.

What can we expect out of humanity, without a godly influence?

John: I'm not angry at God, but at the idea of attaching Him or His spirit to demonic Church actions.

Sorry to be reductionist here, my reading of this is basically a "yeah-but" argument.

Yeah: People are going to feel compelled to promote their religion (to the point that AJ argues this is a natural phenomena).

But: Those people / institutions who did bad things in the name of their religion aren't really following their religion.

It's easy to concede that the people / institutions that do bad (hideous) things in the name of religion are at best likely misguided, and are at worst purposefully wrapping themselves in the shroud of a religion to try to justify self serving (yet violent, bad and hideous) actions.

Why people and institutions do this is a struggle that each religion should challenge itself to overcome, but not the topic here.

What I, Dawkins and others can easily see is that there is a clear pattern that where religion is involved, the pre-disposition of religion to claim a moral authority without any evidence creates a social environment that allows people to commit these bad and hideous acts either individually and / or (more detrimentally) collectively . These people can under the religious influence commit these acts because they believe the acts morally justified by the religion.

The atheist example is that where there is no religion to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions the individual either needs to accept responsibility for their own actions, or find a different motivator. Now, we're not claiming there are not other motivators... but, it would seem to me none quite as powerful, or as easy to claim moral authority with.

For example, there is an argument to be made that political idealism can be equally as motivating to allow people / organizations and states to commit horrible acts. The difference I would put out here is that political ideology (however flawed it is) generally needs to at least attempt to base itself in some sort of tested fact. For example, Kenysian economics vs. Smith economics. Also, people in general tend to be more skeptical about politics than religion. Finally, even though politics can commit some horrific acts the commission of those acts are usually framed in the language of necessity, collective preservation, collateral damage etc... When politicians go to war they motivate the masses by telling them that they are protecting their families, their homes, their land from a menacing other. The masses need to be convinced in some way by some (faulty though it may be) proof of this other. There is a basic acknowlegement that terrible acts will be committed, and they are accepted rightly or wrongly based on the proof of need and proof of threat.

To contrast religion allows people / organizations / institutions to commit horrific act without even accepting the horror of them, as they are pre-determined to be morally justified by the moral authority of the religion.

Again, little of this comes down to if they who committed the bad act should have or should not have based on what followers think the religions actually does or does not teach, but the proof is there, widespread religion has produced widespread violence.

So, is religion the root of all evil? Or, is it possible to have religion that does not create conflict?

However peaceful the intentions of the religion it seems that this does not preclude the ability to turn the religion into a moral bludgenoing tool with which to beat down those who do not agree with the religion.

I would argue that the only way that it seems possible for a religion to exist in a state / mass population without creating conflict is for the moral obligations of the religion to remain internal to that religion.

So, this is how we arrive at the question of if it is in fact human nature to (if that human has a religion) promote religion.

If it is, then we can assume religious conflict is inevitable as long as religions remain, and perhaps we need more atheists like Dawkins who aim to see the end of religion.

 

[look3467]

Gee you guys, what level thinking. I’ve got to give it to you for seeing what the masses don’t see.
Sorry that religion has to take the bad rap and for it to be denied as a just and wonderful vehicle.
But, I for one was raised in the thick of it and was blinded by it all. Don’t get me wrong, blinded innocently of any evil intention.
For example, that verse where Jesus says “I am the way"………, is used as a dividing line by the Christian masses as been the point where believers are going to heaven and non-believers are going to hell.
Most of you guys would fit the going to hell crowd if I still held to that belief.

Now, I admit that religion can be just as evil as it can be good, as Dexter and others pointed out.
But if religion was a gun, then who pulls the trigger? We can all have guns, belong to the NRA, yet do no evil with our guns.
Human nature is such that whether it is religion or not, gun or not, there are trigger pullers all the way around.
So, what is the answer than, or is there one.
Leaving God out of the mix seems to me to accomplish nothing since there are trigger pullers everywhere, anyways.

I think the answer lies in the content of each individual heart influenced by a higher standard not of human quality.
Yes, humanity posses the ability to love apart from a Godly type of love, but without hope of an afterlife, would one be willing to lay down one’s life for a neighbor, much less a stranger? Who would want to end ones life if there is nothing after?
God promises an after life giving hope, which breeds boldness, self-sacrifice and willing to lay ones life down for another if need be.
In the wrong hands a monster can be created. (Trigger pullers)
Such as those who gave their lives to destroy the twin towers. (Misled)


So, I consider the heart of the matter to be the heart, to be ruled by the heart, because in there, if Godly, there is no discrimination, and no desire to hurt, harm or destroy, but to let live, give and help the neighbor.

That is my religion of which there is no name, except that which is the church, the body of Christ, invisible and seen only in the heart of mankind.

Nuf-said.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[SVMc]

Human nature is such that whether it is religion or not, gun or not, there are trigger pullers all the way around.
...
Leaving God out of the mix seems to me to accomplish nothing since there are trigger pullers everywhere, anyways.
...
but without hope of an afterlife, would one be willing to lay down one’s life for a neighbor, much less a stranger?
...
So, I consider the heart of the matter to be the heart, to be ruled by the heart, because in there, if Godly, there is no discrimination, and no desire to hurt, harm or destroy, but to let live, give and help the neighbor.

These are really three different yet related questions:
1. If religion did not exist would the "trigger pullers" still exist.
2. If religion were out of the equation would people still act morally, and to the same capacity as religion teaches them to?
3. Does religion teach people to act morally.

Dawkins argument leads from a premise that religion does not teach people to act morally, in fact religion as it is insitutionalized encourages a lack of though and blind following which leads to people committing morally reprehensible acts in the name of religion.

I think that we can agree that there has been a significant amount of evidence to support Dawkins position.

What is less clear is if religion uninstitutionalized would create the same atmosphere that encourages the blind faith the leads to the blind following and bad things happening (to put it mildly).

If we accept that individuals and groups of individuals can act morally in a religion then we can jump into the current debate as to how it is possible for the religious to be good citizens and religious citizens at the same time.

The issue is not so much religion teaching people to act morally, but religion allowing people to claim a moral authority and then acting immorally due to the authority.

If we go back to the original three questions you illuded to, then I think that we can show that while they are concerns they do not directly contribute to the dilemma above (which does not mean I think they are irrelevant).

Let's look at the trigger pullers first. I think it is easily agreed that it is not only institutionalized religion that has been a powerful negative force in parts of history, but there are also many other reasons that people act against other people as individuals or groups. Eliminating religion will not solve the issue of violence in society, terrorism or genocide.

However, if we identify religion as a key contributor in any of the above then would it significanly reduce incidents of, then there is a case to be made to look at how to either eliminate religion or mitigate the negative impact of it. One of which may be looking at the difference between religion and religious institutionalism (back to original debate again).

The final question is if people will act morally without religion. This is really where I think we get into a secondary debate on another thread on the moral capacity of athiesm which, I think has a very strong case, but this thread is almost the opposite of that debate, not acting if we can act morally if we do not believe in god / religion but if we can act morally if we are religious. Of course the word morally carries some weight and meaning there beyond the surface but now we are back to the original debate.

Given that institutionalized religon has caused such a great deal of harm in this world is is possible to have uninstitutionalized religion that does not compell followers to impose a moral authority on the rest of society which seems to be the pattern.

 

[look3467]

Darn SVMc, you are good! I almost feel ashamed to even find an audience with you. But, because you have been kind and patient, I have found some self-worth in you.
Others, well they have made me feel like I am nobody.
You don’t know how appreciative I am of you.
Well, that enough butter, without adding the jam.

T

hese are really three different yet related questions:
1. If religion did not exist would the "trigger pullers" still exist.
2. If religion were out of the equation would people still act morally, and to the same capacity as religion teaches them to?
3. Does religion teach people to act morally.

Dawkins argument leads from a premise that religion does not teach people to act morally, in fact religion as it is institutionalized encourages a lack of though and blind following which leads to people committing morally reprehensible acts in the name of religion.>>>SVMc

I guess I have been arguing the defense of institutionalized religion as a religion, rather than meaning a personal relationship with God as an individual being a religion.

Institutionalized religion corrupts the masses verses individual religion (Beliefs) stand on it’s own.
And that is what I have been trying to say but just didn’t know how to.

I think that we can agree that there has been a significant amount of evidence to support Dawkins position.

What is less clear is if religion uninstitutionalized would create the same atmosphere that encourages the blind faith the leads to the blind following and bad things happening (to put it mildly).>>> SVMc

That question is addressed in the bible during the times of the judges in Israel.
They were King-less for a time which cased them to experience not being institutionalized (Have a leader) as meaning that each individual was its own temple of worship. And it indicates that God was not pleased with their request for a king.

So, God granted them a king and guess what? That’s right, he became corrupted and his followers suffered.

This leads into your next question below.

If we accept that individuals and groups of individuals can act morally in a religion then we can jump into the current debate as to how it is possible for the religious to be good citizens and religious citizens at the same time.>>>SVMc

My take is that I can be religious because I am not governed by any leader of any religious institution, but am as like the Jews when they had no King.

I relate directly to God via Jesus Christ. I can serve in secular government, religious institutions and still hold my own, since I am accountable only to God and not man.

The issue is not so much religion teaching people to act morally, but religion allowing people to claim a moral authority and then acting immorally due to the authority. >>>SVMc

Trigger pullers are the radicals on all sides.

If we go back to the original three questions you alluded to, then I think that we can show that while they are concerns they do not directly contribute to the dilemma above (which does not mean I think they are irrelevant).

Let's look at the trigger pullers first. I think it is easily agreed that it is not only institutionalized religion that has been a powerful negative force in parts of history, but there are also many other reasons that people act against other people as individuals or groups. Eliminating religion will not solve the issue of violence in society, terrorism or genocide.>>>SVMc

Agreed!

However, if we identify religion as a key contributor in any of the above then would it significantly reduce incidents of, then there is a case to be made to look at how to either eliminate religion or mitigate the negative impact of it. One of which may be looking at the difference between religion and religious institutionalism (back to original debate again).>>>SVMc

Also agree, but eliminating religion is like saying you need no king. It is a human nature thing that desires to be led rather than to assume personal responsibility for their spiritual welfare.
Jesus refused to take leadership while on earth, but did say follow me and I will make you fishers of man.
Which I take it to mean: that Jesus after His resurrection would become the leader (Head) of His church, a high priest.
On earth, than I am leaderless and without a king, but spiritually, I am led by Christ my King.
Am I making sense in conveying my point?

The final question is if people will act morally without religion. This is really where I think we get into a secondary debate on another thread on the moral capacity of atheism which, I think has a very strong case, but this thread is almost the opposite of that debate...>>>SVMc

That question is also answered in the bible, where it says that the Gentiles are a law unto themselves, meaning without the moral code of the law of the Jews. (Ten Commandments)

not acting if we can act morally if we do not believe in god / religion but if we can act morally if we are religious. Of course the word morally carries some weight and meaning there beyond the surface but now we are back to the original debate.>>>SVMc

Given that institutionalized religion has caused such a great deal of harm in this world is possible to have uninstitutionalized religion that does not compel followers to impose a moral authority on the rest of society which seems to be the pattern.[/quote]

The answer is yes. Take away the king, let each individual take on its own moral responsibility with or without religion and the world will change.

But a word of warning is in order, leaving God out is not a very good idea, because the harmony of the planet depends on the hearts attitudes of the people. After all, in my opinion, God rules.


Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm trying to look at the basic premise first. Is it fundamental to religion that where there is social organization (government) that religion must due to it's moral / ethical components interject a claim on moral authority into the wider social organization in which it exists.>>> SVMc

The very existence of life has in its fabric an element a spiritual nature.
This nature throughout the history of mankind has been demonstrated by many a variety of gods incorporate into their lives.

Get a grip, Looky. Trees have spirits? Carrots have spirits? Nuts. Everything to do with life on this planet has to do with biology, period. Your mind, its thoughts and ideas, reactions, feelings, etc. all come from the mush inside craniums. It's all biological functions and nothing more.

In the name of these gods, wars have ensued, pitting one god against another as if these gods had the same human desires, mainly greed.

So the urge to promote one’s religion on others is a natural phenomenon.

What can we expect out of humanity, without a godly influence?

If people used some self-control instead of letting their emotions and whatnot run rampant, no-one would have any thought of needing outside influences like imaginary "all-powerful" beings.

I can answer that question with one verse from the bible but I will let that ride for now.

Good thing, because we all know how accurate that wad of baloney is, don't we? Perhaps not.

And Thanks SVMc for your gentleman like attitude towards us less-articulate response.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

??? what the hell does that mean? "...... attitude towards us less-articulate response"?
Looky, a word of advice, don't try and appear literate and use words, grammar, syntax, etc. that are beyond your grasp; no-one understands gibberish here.

 

[L Gilbert]

It seems to me that there are no answers with man alone.
If mankind new its origin apart from God, than perhaps there might be some answers.
But, there is no answer to the origin except for theories, but no concrete evidence.

Lots of evidence but there's nothing conclusive, you mean. As I've said several times in the past, there is more probablitities pointing to life happening by chance than some "all-powerful" being poofing itself from nothing into something, and then poofing the rest of the universe along with it. That is simply an inane idea.

There is however, an answer to our origin on Gods side, but must be accepted in faith. ....

lmao And as I said, it is inane. (That means ridiculous)

If we used numbers to paint a picture, heres what I think it would look like: 1=man, 2=women, 3=God and 4=the world.
Leave number 3 out, and all you have is mankind and his world.
Number 3 is the invisible agent, known as the Holy Spirit.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

Oh, yeah, the mythical entity with the multiple personality syndrome. roflmao

 

[L Gilbert]

AJ,
You are all heart, big-hearted with your heart in the right place, and pumping. Was the Holy Spirit really there in the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics and Catholic-Protestant wars? Did the Spanish priests have more heart than the Aztec sacred-heart clergy? Do Japanese feel grateful for the sun-brilliant atom bombs from faithful Church-men and women? Will Russian Orthodox nukes be used before Anglican or French Catholic nukes? Is that nice for our kids?
chimera

Of course, it was John. What happens is that when good things happen, it's a god's will, if bad things happen, it's man's will. That's why, according to the holey book, this god killed way over 9 million people in the few hundred years of its conception. (Satan only killed 10). It's a pretty convenient crutch is this matter of "will" that the faithful always lean on it; as they do their god.

 

[L Gilbert]

Insofar as atheism is not relevant to the motive, yes. That sentence would be better without the last three words. But that's not what SVMc started this thread to talk about. The point, at least from my perspective, and Dawkins' if I've understood him correctly, and I think I have, is that the God delusion is a uniquely pernicious and destructive motive because of the absolute certainty of moral rightness it gives its followers, the pervasive and quite unjustified respect claimed for anything with the label 'religious belief,' and the assumption by many believers that they are therefore entitled to force their views on others, because of course they're absolutely correct. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, they do horrible things to each other, and as far as I can tell from my reading of history, they do it every time. That's what The Holocaust was about, what Communism was about--as it was implemented, not as Marx and Engels envisaged it--what the Armenian genocide was about, what every instance of 'ethnic cleansing' is about, what Al-Qaeda is about, what 9/11 was about, what Islamic suicide bombers are about, what all the strife and terror in the Middle East is about... It's people thinking that they're absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with them is therefore absolutely wrong and thus expendable.

The U.S. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg once made a remark to the effect that normally, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things takes religion. Note that that doesn't suggest religion is intrinsically evil, obviously it's not, as our good Father sanctus, and AJ, and karrie, and selfactivated, among many others, have amply demonstrated here. I think what he meant was that religious belief is too easily perverted to evil ends. If all believers were like sanctus and AJ and karrie and selfactivated and the others, there wouldn't be a problem.

But they're not, so there is.

Quite right, Dex.

 

[L Gilbert]

Now, I admit that religion can be just as evil as it can be good, as Dexter and others pointed out.
But if religion was a gun, then who pulls the trigger? We can all have guns, belong to the NRA, yet do no evil with our guns.
Human nature is such that whether it is religion or not, gun or not, there are trigger pullers all the way around.
So, what is the answer than, or is there one.
Leaving God out of the mix seems to me to accomplish nothing since there are trigger pullers everywhere, anyways.

And leaving the myth in the mix seems to me to accomplish nothing since there are trigger pullers everywhere anyways.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You mentioned communism and nazis equally. If they have that dogmatic rightness and zeal to destroy the damned, then churches are no more and no less dangerous.

Possibly, in those two cases, though that hardly excuses the churches, and I'd also argue that Nazism and Communism were fundamentally religious in nature. They tried to replace the religious impulse with something else, but they were working on the same parts of the human psyche religion does.

But I think in general that I would strongly dispute that. Mere ideology does not provide the same degree of moral certitude and righteousness that the God delusion does, with the possible exception of people like Ann Coulter, but they usually also suffer rather badly from the God delusion and bring it in to justify their ideological positions. Most ideologues, though, will concede that their positions are not immune to criticism. At least they don't often suggest that people who disagree with them should be converted or exterminated.

I think ideologies exploit the same psychological weaknesses that the God delusion does, particularly the presumption that it's possible to have absolute knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge beyond the trivial, which is obvious to anyone with any understanding of how science works. I put it this way once in a letter to my mother, whose head was full of mystic nonsense: This may seem paradoxical at first, but any true claim must in principle be falsifiable. That means it must be possible to conceive of information that would prove it to be wrong. This really just amounts to saying that the evidence must matter. If no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then whatever evidence there is in its favour doesn’t matter either, the claim is completely invulnerable to any kind of evidence. That doesn’t, however, mean it must therefore be true, it means the claim is meaningless in any factual sense. Or to use a wonderful phrase from one of my teachers at university, it is ‘propositionally vacuous.’ An unfalsifiable statement is simply an emotive claim that says something about the claimant’s view of the world, so it may contain some useful or interesting information, but it can’t be labeled true or false.

 

[John Welch]

Hitler and Stalin exterminated counter-revolutionary thinkers, as did Mao's Red Guards. Not all Churches teach that, and not the Catholics all the time..(you can kill some of the people some of the time, but not...)
But what exactly does this thread object to? Democracy has quite happily stumbled along since Cromwell's Puritan times, (or Greek Olympian gods' time), with the dreaded PPProtestant and CCCatholic politicians in power. The devil you know is not what you fear, so wot 's the prob?
John

 

[SVMc]

AJ Quote #1: I guess I have been arguing the defense of institutionalized religion as a religion, rather than meaning a personal relationship with God as an individual being a religion.

Institutionalized religion corrupts the masses verses individual religion (Beliefs) stand on it’s own.
And that is what I have been trying to say but just didn’t know how to.

AJ Quote #2: Also agree, but eliminating religion is like saying you need no king. It is a human nature thing that desires to be led rather than to assume personal responsibility for their spiritual welfare.

When I read these two parts of your argument this is where I get confused. It seems at one point that you recognize that institutionalized religion can corrupt and cause significant damage to society, but then it's almost as if you double back and begin to accept that institutionalization is needed because it is human nature to need a leader.

It is this last set of quotes that I am taking for the crux of your argument:

AJ Quote #3: I relate directly to God via Jesus Christ. I can serve in secular government, religious institutions and still hold my own, since I am accountable only to God and not man...
Jesus after His resurrection would become the leader (Head) of His church, a high priest.
On earth, than I am leaderless and without a king, but spiritually, I am led by Christ my King...
But a word of warning is in order, leaving God out is not a very good idea, because the harmony of the planet depends on the hearts attitudes of the people. After all, in my opinion, God rules.

So, if I have your argument correct you are arguing that:

You agree that institutionalized religion has caused significant harm to both it's followers and wider society, the solution you propose is that followers of a religion need to instead of following a church and church leaders develop a personal relationship with God and to see God as their personal moral guide in life on how to lead a good life.

Where I'm trying to take this debate is generally in the direction of this question, but I steer away from reaching this conclusion on two levels. The first is to ask this question in a more general way, what I mean by this is to differentiate asking this question in the context of only the Christian religion.

The second is to avoid automatic acceptance that if a person accepts God / Goddesses / Dieties as a personal spiritual leader / king / motivator that this acceptance is wholly a personal effect.

Where we opened the debate was really on what likely should have been the second question: can religion exist in an uninstitutionalized form?

The reason I say this should be the second question is that through discussion it has become apparent that before we question if an organization can maitain it's own agency we need to ask if the individual can.

If we accept, which I think we all do, that institutionalization does not take place until there is a critical mass then we first need to ask how is that critical mass accumulated.

This is where we get into a discussion about Wicca and neo-paganism and examples of communitarian religions, which are currently not institutionalized and indoctrinated.

If an individual chooses to subscribe to the ideals of a religion is it possible for that person to maintain a moral agency that is secular that runs counter to their personal / spiritual moral beliefs. For example if a personal / spiritual / religious belief leads a person to a moral code that would prevent them from doing X... that person can then choose not to do X... but can the person also realize that others in secular society may think it is perfectly acceptable to do X and allow those people to act on their personal choices, so long as those choices do not affect the person who is choosing not to do X.

To further illustrate this lets replace X with a few examples.

Where X is eating meat: a person could choose to believe that as part of their moral code the God which they believe in does not want them to eat meat. So the person chooses individually not to eat meat. The question is does this person feel satisfied and like they are fulfilling their spiritual and moral code themselves by not eating meat, or do they feel that in addition to not eating meat themselves they also need to advocate against meat farmers, producers, packagers and sellers... do they need to go further and through possibly violent actions free animals from farms that raise animals for meat, and labratories, and vandalize or destroy meat producing plants.

If X is homosexuality: a person could choose to believe that their God does not condone homosexuality, and as a result choose not to enter into a homosexual relationship. Again, we need to ask, will that person feel satisfied to have fulfilled their personal moral code, or will they also feel it necessary to speak out against and condemn homosexuals, will they feel it is necessary to act violently against homosexuals, will they feel it is necessary to ask the government to rid their town, city or country of homosexuals, to hang them as a public shame?

If X is abortion: a person could choose to believe that their God does not condone abortion, and as a result take measures to ensure they are never party to an abortion. Again we need to ask if that person will feel satisfied having taken these measures, or if they will also feel that it is their moral obligation to prevent others from having abortions, to ask for legislation preventing others from having abortions, to bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.

If we carry these examples through the thought experiment beginning with the individual who subscribes to a religion alone, then we can assume that if that individual carries through their morality into the public sphere in the extreme examples and no one (or very few) in society thinks the way that they do, then they will be arrested and jailed for crimes.

Where it become more difficult to wrestle with is when these personal beliefs become shared public beliefs. If we get a critical mass of people who share a vision (delusion) of the same God / Goddess / Diety and they all are not satisfied with keeping their morality at a level of personal choice and they all want to see it carried forward into the personal realm then at best we have religious based lobby groups and at worst we have religiously motivated terrorism.

So this is why I ask the questions not in the context of any given religion, it's easy to say "but my religion doesn't teach me to hurt people", and that may be true for you as an individual, but it is a different dynamic when there are large groups of people with shared beliefs that act publically on those beliefs.

Which is why we arrive at the second question of if it is possible to have uninstitutionalized religions that do not allow a moral authority that allows people to feel fundamentally justified in committing what may otherwise be seen as horrible acts.

 

[SVMc]

John: But what exactly does this thread object to? Democracy has quite happily stumbled along since Cromwell's Puritan times, (or Greek Olympian gods' time), with the dreaded PPProtestant and CCCatholic politicians in power. The devil you know is not what you fear, so wot 's the prob?

I'm not really approaching this question from a problem solving direction. One of the reasons that I put this discussion in the spirituality and philosophy section is because I wanted to take the direction of the "big" questions. The "big" philosophical questions that we have been largely unable to answer since the time of Socrates, but nevertheless (I choose to believe) hopefully make us wiser in trying to explore.

It's really a question of "what is the good life" or "what is the good society". For a long time (millennium even) one of the corner stones of "the good life" has been adherence to a religion. Adherence to which religion has changed over time, and place, but generally speaking it has been assumed that to lead a good life you need to honour your God(s).

So, here we are in the 21st century looking back on a couple of millennium (at least) of religious strife (not that we're saying it has been the only strife, or even that it has been completely separate from politics and other strife). And, if we look over history and see the changes from Emperors declaring themselves God(s) on earth, to Monarchies claiming Divine Right, through to a legal separation of church and state, and now to an age where there is a growing secularist / atheist movement I think a fundamental question has bubbled up.

Is religion really part of the social good?

Dawkins would say no, and I think he has a strong argument. But, as Dexter has said any true claim must in principle be falsifiable. I think Dawkins as a scientist would agree.

So here we are, is there a case to be made where we can see how religion could be a positive force overall, is there such a thing as a scenario where religion would not be corrupted for violent purposes?

I think we're stalled on the issue of personal moral agency when there is a religious motivation behind that agency.

An atheist generally accepts their personal moral agency as their own, and because the see no one else on which to base their moral views they need to be accountable to everyone for their moral choices, and perhaps change their moral choices if proved to be faulty.

Where if a religion gives the believer a sense of moral authority, as in their morality cannot and will not be changed because it is based on the unshakable "law" of God(s) then, is it possible for that person to keep their own moral agency, or is founding their morality in a source that is not themselves do they give up their moral agency.... and if they do what does that mean for their actions both as an individual towards themselves and towards society at large... then the next question is what happens when this moral authority becomes shared by a critical mass.

I think we're still circling this one, but coming up with no good answers to believe that religious moral authority can be easily contained within a personal moral agency.

 

[look3467]

Because of it's length, I will divide this post into two sections. Readers, I apologize for its length but I feel that this is an important issue of discussion.

When I read these two parts of your argument this is where I get confused. It seems at one point that you recognize that institutionalized religion can corrupt and cause significant damage to society, but then it's almost as if you double back and begin to accept that institutionalization is needed because it is human nature to need a leader.>>>SVMc

Here is where I make the distinction; humanity has two choices, good or evil period.

Institutional religion is good if it’s individuals remain independent to it and dependent to God.
I can be a government employee (Soldier, president etc.) and still retain my individualistic belief in my God.
I can also belong to the largest religious institution and still retain my individualistic belief in my God.

Nothing changes with me as far as my God is concerned because I am independent (Free) from this world’s power, be that of secular or personal desires.

My whole point in this discussion is that having God born into my souls heart makes me and independent creature to this world’s affairs.

I will all ways argue from that stand point to believers and un-believers alike, for to me there is no difference unless they themselves are new creatures as I am.

Does that help clarify things abit?

So, if I have your argument correct you are arguing that:

You agree that institutionalized religion has caused significant harm to both it's followers and wider society, the solution you propose is that followers of a religion need to instead of following a church and church leaders develop a personal relationship with God and to see God as their personal moral guide in life on how to lead a good life.>>> SVMc

Absolutely!

Where I'm trying to take this debate is generally in the direction of this question, but I steer away from reaching this conclusion on two levels. The first is to ask this question in a more general way, what I mean by this is to differentiate asking this question in the context of only the Christian religion.>>>SVMc

I can’t see any possible way of you finding an answer to that question, because there is no knowledge of how we were created other than guess work.

But there is knowledge of who created us (to believe it, optional) is available, and to add to that is the hope of a life hereafter, after this journey is complete, where as the other has none.

The second is to avoid automatic acceptance that if a person accepts God / Goddesses / Dieties as a personal spiritual leader / king / motivator that this acceptance is wholly a personal effect.>>> SVMc

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members/svmc.html

OK, I think I understand what you are referring to by the word “Automatic acceptance” which is a clog in the wheel of many religious folk.

Elementary example is an empty glass. There can no service be rendered by the empty glass unless first it is filled with a liquid for which it was intended for.

Similarly, this vessel of mine, which is a body consisting of 3 parts, spirit, body and soul.

The soul is who I am, the body is the glass and my spirit is the body’s life support.

All things considered, this person (me) though alive in this world am dead to eternity unless, I am re-created into an eternal soul creature while still in this body.

Re-creation of my soul, is as like the glass filled with the Spirit of God which makes me independent of this worlds affairs.

Thus: no longer eternally death but eternally alive.

Now though hard to believe, that part is automatic upon acceptance of God’s promise.

After which He begins to clean house, meaning begins to make of me a better person.

Where we opened the debate was really on what likely should have been the second question: can religion exist in an uninstitutionalized form?>>> SVMc

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members/svmc.html

Yes it can, but human nature won’t allow it because it is a weak vessel and unless God is in it to strengthen and fortify it, the next best thing is to join some institution for refuge.

The reason I say this should be the second question is that through discussion it has become apparent that before we question if an organization can maintain it's own agency we need to ask if the individual can.>>> SVMc

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members/svmc.html

My answer is yes to the individual being able to stand alone is based on the message which Jesus gave us; Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

If we accept, which I think we all do, that institutionalization does not take place until there is a critical mass then we first need to ask how is that critical mass accumulated.>>> SVMc

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members/svmc.html

It takes a founder. And earthly founder breeds earthly followers. A heavenly founder (Jesus) breeds heavenly followers.

Take for instance, The Pope, Ellen White (Seventh Day Adventist), Joseph smith (LDS), Martin Luther (Protestant) and so on.

These are all earthly institutions started by individuals and gathering root.

Continued>>>AJ:love9:

 

[look3467]

Continued from last post

If an individual chooses to subscribe to the ideals of a religion is it possible for that person to maintain a moral agency that is secular that runs counter to their personal / spiritual moral beliefs. For example if a personal / spiritual / religious belief leads a person to a moral code that would prevent them from doing X... that person can then choose not to do X... but can the person also realize that others in secular society may think it is perfectly acceptable to do X and allow those people to act on their personal choices, so long as those choices do not affect the person who is choosing not to do X.>>>SVMs

To rightly answer that question, I think that we have to take our selves out; I mean adhere to something higher than ourselves in order to accomplish what you are asking.

The key word is “Freedom”. Freedom from: what? Freedom from all governments and religious institutions which about covers everything.

Jesus came to liberate us from the hold (power) that this world had/has over us.

The Jewish Nation was under rule of it’s high priests of which corruption was evident by Jesus and addressed as such. The people were burdened by the demands placed on them by the priesthood.
Jesus came to liberate them from that which produced segregation and death for many of His followers.
Liberation came with a price, death in many cases.

T

o further illustrate this lets replace X with a few examples.

Where X is eating meat: a person could choose to believe that as part of their moral code the God which they believe in does not want them to eat meat. So the person chooses individually not to eat meat. The question is does this person feel satisfied and like they are fulfilling their spiritual and moral code themselves by not eating meat, or do they feel that in addition to not eating meat themselves they also need to advocate against meat farmers, producers, packagers and sellers... do they need to go further and through possibly violent actions free animals from farms that raise animals for meat, and labratories, and vandalize or destroy meat producing plants.>>>SVMs

What you are asking is what I have already found.
The church made up the rule of not eating meat, thus the followers must follow its teachings or else you sin.
But you see, the Apostle Paul addressed that issue as well as the issue of Sabbath day worship.
His understanding to us is that in freedom, we don’t have to abide by those rules because they are man instituted rules. Rules are as a result of interpretation.

But Jesus allows the freedom from all those instituted man made rules as we take His rule over us, which is higher rule because He is in heaven ruling us by His Holy Spirit.

I can eat meat, worship on Monday instead of Saturday because I am free to worship God any, place anytime and if need be, lock my self in a room to pray.

It is between me and God and He guides my steps in this life.

If X is homosexuality: a person could choose to believe that their God does not condone homosexuality, and as a result choose not to enter into a homosexual relationship. Again, we need to ask, will that person feel satisfied to have fulfilled their personal moral code, or will they also feel it necessary to speak out against and condemn homosexuals, will they feel it is necessary to act violently against homosexuals, will they feel it is necessary to ask the government to rid their town, city or country of homosexuals, to hang them as a public shame?>>>SVMs

Typical situation in any religious organization is to reject what is not for the stated rule.

If you’re a Baptist for instance, you don’t believe in homosexuality, so you reject it.
To what degree you reject it depends on your church rule, and what your conscience allows.
If that rule goes against your conscience, then you just don’t accept it. That is freedom.

If X is abortion: a person could choose to believe that their God does not condone abortion, and as a result take measures to ensure they are never party to an abortion. Again we need to ask if that person will feel satisfied having taken these measures, or if they will also feel that it is their moral obligation to prevent others from having abortions, to ask for legislation preventing others from having abortions, to bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.>>>SVMs

I don’t believe in abortion, and I would never condone bombings or any violent behavior.
I would lobby against it but never would I revert to violence.
I would encourage not to have an abortion, but would never demand it of anyone.

What happened there in that clinic is what happens many times in many instances, where there is a radical gone wild.

If we carry these examples through the thought experiment beginning with the individual who subscribes to a religion alone, then we can assume that if that individual carries through their morality into the public sphere in the extreme examples and no one (or very few) in society thinks the way that they do, then they will be arrested and jailed for crimes.>>>SVMs

No people regardless of who or what they are, are guaranteed to be outstanding citizens and with out any evil tendencies. For it is not possible unless there is an intervention.

Where it become more difficult to wrestle with is when these personal beliefs become shared public beliefs. If we get a critical mass of people who share a vision (delusion) of the same God / Goddess / Diety and they all are not satisfied with keeping their morality at a level of personal choice and they all want to see it carried forward into the personal realm then at best we have religious based lobby groups and at worst we have religiously motivated terrorism.>>>SVMs

We need a system of checks and balances both secular and in the religious.
Good and evil is an ingredient that is essential to our existence.

It is a constant battle between the two as has been since day one of human existence.
This is all addressed in the bible.

There were times when a religion was the ruler of kingdoms, and it became corrupted, causing God to act against it.
There were times when secular kingdoms ruled that became corrupted, and caused God to act against it.

So, there is no end to it unless we all come to the point where we understand what love is.

W

hich is why we arrive at the second question of if it is possible to have uninstitutionalized religions that do not allow a moral authority that allows people to feel fundamentally justified in committing what may otherwise be seen as horrible acts.>>>SVMs

Yes, I believe it is possible. I bet you think you might have me stomped on this one, but I have a way out.
And here it is; if god was never mentioned in history of mankind again, all souls will still be saved!
On that statement, I stand firm, that is why I can not condemn any soul for what they believe.
I can have compassion, but never condemnation of their soul.

I can make my dissatisfaction known on these issues, abortion, homosexuality, and religious dogmas, but never would I force my conscience on anyone.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

I read his book. He said it all in the first chapter. After that I thought he was repetitive and espousing personal opinion more than scientific fact.

Not a very good read.

 

[look3467]

And leaving the myth in the mix seems to me to accomplish nothing since there are trigger pullers everywhere anyways.

That's what I said, either or, you still have trigger pullers because that is a nature that mankind possess that had to be managed, with or without God.

Regardless of how you want to look at it, whether mankind came from an amoeba or God, the fact still remains that our nature has the ability to do both good and evil.

By the way, if God was never mentioned, where did the word evil come from anyways? Or how would we even know to call it evil?

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[John Welch]

This question blurs "democracy" and "party". For example, if Animal Rights became a critical mass populist party with dogma (ha ha!) , would it impose its will? Yes, if people so choose. The problem is not the party, which people may support with mature judgement, but democracy which invites expressed opinion to become Law. Should educated people be compelled not to have ridiculous, compulsive opinions? Will love for animals always lead to violent attacks? Will an Animal Rights government allow medical experiments? The answer is the level of human pragmatism, as with all government by a sectional party. The level ranges from a Christian group which chooses never to promote any political party, to states where the religious leader is king (Vatican, Tibet). The evidence is that if this Christian group was 51% or more of the population, it would remain non-political.
John

 

[mrgrumpy]

"As I understand the Christian religion it was, and is, a revelation.
But now it has happened that millions of fables, tales and legends have been blended with Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed."

John Adams, 1816
2nd US President

 

[Scott Free]

Possibly, in those two cases, though that hardly excuses the churches, and I'd also argue that Nazism and Communism were fundamentally religious in nature. They tried to replace the religious impulse with something else, but they were working on the same parts of the human psyche religion does.

But I think in general that I would strongly dispute that. Mere ideology does not provide the same degree of moral certitude and righteousness that the God delusion does, with the possible exception of people like Ann Coulter, but they usually also suffer rather badly from the God delusion and bring it in to justify their ideological positions. Most ideologues, though, will concede that their positions are not immune to criticism. At least they don't often suggest that people who disagree with them should be converted or exterminated.

I think ideologies exploit the same psychological weaknesses that the God delusion does, particularly the presumption that it's possible to have absolute knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge beyond the trivial, which is obvious to anyone with any understanding of how science works. I put it this way once in a letter to my mother, whose head was full of mystic nonsense: This may seem paradoxical at first, but any true claim must in principle be falsifiable. That means it must be possible to conceive of information that would prove it to be wrong. This really just amounts to saying that the evidence must matter. If no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then whatever evidence there is in its favour doesn’t matter either, the claim is completely invulnerable to any kind of evidence. That doesn’t, however, mean it must therefore be true, it means the claim is meaningless in any factual sense. Or to use a wonderful phrase from one of my teachers at university, it is ‘propositionally vacuous.’ An unfalsifiable statement is simply an emotive claim that says something about the claimant’s view of the world, so it may contain some useful or interesting information, but it can’t be labeled true or false.

I would like to add to this that the impulse for nationalism and religion seem fundamentally similar. It does not matter if allegiance is pledged to a flag or to a god the result seems to be the same. I agree too that the psychological weakness that allows such blindness is equally exploitable.

This being said, however, nationalism is somewhat more adaptable, in that, if an error is found or a nation gets off coarse there is some hope it may correct itself. Religion on the other hand is less adaptable because it is steeped in dogma and fundamentalism which can make correction very much more difficult.

It makes as much sense to be loyal to ones country as it does to be loyal to a god, which I would argue is no sense at all because loyalty to such man made processes causes the process to slow in its adaptive capacity which in turn leads to stagnation and puts the process in peril of loosing relevance. If a process loses relevance it will become vulnerable to extinction because it no longer serves the organism which created it.

This is why I oppose constitutions in democracies. Such a thing is an attempt to stagnate the community in a dogma and forces fundamentalism. Also I would argue that by defining rights and liberties people lose more than they gain. Left undefined people can be assumed to have all liberty but defined it is instantly limited.

So in this way democracies around the world are starting to fail much like religion is failing because they have lost their adaptive capacity and relevance required for a proper symbiotic relation with the organism that created it.