What makes a religion "bad"?

[gib65]

This is not a religion bashing thread. This is more like a religion reconciling thread.

 

I see a lot of anti-religious sentiments on this forum from time to time. This is expected, of course, being a science forum and all, and its not always unjustified. After all, religions, particularly pre-modern western religions, have a bad track record for making life miserable for people.

 

But what I wonder is what makes a religion "bad"? A lot of people hold the view that religion itself is bad - plain and simple. One must defining "religion" first before making such a bold claim, of course, but I guess what the view boils down to is that any kind of ideology that is meant to be taken dogmatically is a dangerous thing. Fair enough. But is this equivalent to "religion" proper?

 

Can you have a religion that is open to scientific advancement, or the freedom of speech, or the right to question authority? Would this kind of religion be "bad"? I guess my view is that religion, overall, is not inherently bad, but the ideas it espouses may be. For example, a religion that demands blind obedience or that says suffering is good is dangerous. On the other hand, a religion that says one should meditation once a day or that one should help others in need might be good. What do others think?

[mike90]

I don't think the concept itself of religion is bad at all. I think the problem is that some people take it far to literally, and the source material was created hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago so its insane to think that everything written would apply to today's society.

 

And I think most people intelligent people wether or not they beileve in god would agree the text itself came from people. And people used it to explain things they were unsure/afraid of at that particular time. Thus leading to problems due to issues like:

 

passages relating to men being superior to women, having a divine mission to kill people of a certain ethnicity or who beileve in a religion other then yours, certain sexual practices being evil ( which is STILL screwing over gay people even in a modernized country like america just to show the influence) and etc etc other nutty things.

 

If more people could be rational and take their particular holy book as a guideline on how to behave and separate the good out from the bad then we wouldn't have the problems we have right now.

 

There certainly seems to be a correlation to education as well, as it seems to be a more widespread problem in poor and poorly educated countries.

 

im not sure if theres anything that can be done about the fanatics. There seems to be no way to reason with them as they are so close minded due to trying to define there entire world by taking one incredibly old book out of context. And I dont beileve in voilence as a solution either, so I'm really stuck as to how to solve the problem. As its a built in part of every faith to bring your children up with it as well, there seems to be no way to stop the problem from continuing indefinately

[JesuBungle]

Well scientology is F'd up. That's all I know. Any religion that makes you sit in a sauna after consuming vegetable oil and niacin is a little...weird.

[the tree]

The Philosophy Board Is Not The Philosophy And Religion Board

[woelen]

The tree was perfectly clear with his statement. I will leave this thread open, but I'll move it to General Discussion for the time being. This definitely is not Philosophy of science, as described in the sticky topic in the philosophy subforum.

 

So, for now, I'll leave this open, but I'll keep an eye on how the thread evolves over time.

 

THREAD MOVED TO GENERAL DISCUSSION

[padren]

I think it boils down to what is "good" or "bad" and those are pretty subjective terms, but for myself I would say that "promoting good will and general health among all people" is good and things that run against that are bad. Some would add more than "people" and include all animal life, while others would say all animal life that has the brain capacity to (as best as we can tell) experience consciousness and/or pain etc.

 

 

So going on the simple "good will" rule, any religion or philosophy that teaches its followers to selectively disregard groups of people and allow or cause them suffering (or cause themselves needless suffering) would be "bad" in my books.

 

 

Regarding a religion that teaches meditation and charity like you mentioned is on the whole fairly good, but I can't help but to wonder if accepting any basic principle on faith (the essense of religion) is all that healthy for a person's mind - so would that religion be as "good" as a general philosphy of thought that included those precepts without any religious connotation?

I personally think the same practices in a non-religious framework would be healthier in any matched comparison between a general philosphy and a religion.

[gib65]

The Philosophy Board Is Not The Philosophy And Religion Board

 

Oops. My bad. Sorry.

[the tree]

OK, now that this thread is in appropriate context, here are some things that a religion could possibly have attributed to it and that I would deem bad.

• Internal inconsistency. For example, contradictions on the matter of there being one or many Gods.
• External inconsistency. For example, a claim that there is literally a physical temple atop Mount Ólympos when there demonstrably isn't.
• Inconsistency between faith and practice. For instance, "all are welcome in the house of God", no women in place the place of worship.
• Mechanisms to prevent challenging. For instance, it being a sin to question a superior member.
• Any faith in the words of a given individual, without critical reasoning as to their authority.

That was my two cents, I have nothing else to say on the matter.

[bascule]

If you believe you're going to have an eternal afterlife, what does that make this life? Just a pretense? Disposable? (radical Islamacists demonstrate that idea every day with suicide bombings)

 

That's one of the worst aspects I can imagine.

[christian]

I am a christian hence my name and i have seen with my eyes actual healing taken place. I have seen a man with cancer healed, a lady with a bad foot made to walk again and i have heard God talk to me. You may call me crazy but i can show you the people and witnesses. Now if you tell me there is no God i will say you are wrong, if it wasn't God who did those things than who did?

[gib65]

If you believe you're going to have an eternal afterlife, what does that make this life? Just a pretense? Disposable? (radical Islamacists demonstrate that idea every day with suicide bombings)

 

That's one of the worst aspects I can imagine.

 

I think you hit the nail right on the head, Bascule. Focusing your attention on an afterlife takes mental energy away from focusing on this world - the world that needs tending to the most.

 

I think it boils down to what is "good" or "bad" and those are pretty subjective terms' date=' but for myself I would say that "promoting good will and general health among all people" is good and things that run against that are bad. Some would add more than "people" and include all animal life, while others would say all animal life that has the brain capacity to (as best as we can tell) experience consciousness and/or pain etc.

[/quote']

 

That sounds like a medical approach to me - that is, it sounds like an approach that places more value on health and well being than truth or fact (even though health and well being still depend on truth and fact). It could work.

 

Regarding a religion that teaches meditation and charity like you mentioned is on the whole fairly good' date=' but I can't help but to wonder if accepting any basic principle on faith (the essense of religion) is all that healthy for a person's mind - so would that religion be as "good" as a general philosphy of thought that included those precepts without any religious connotation?

[/quote']

 

I guess a "religion" could be defined as necessarily faith based, but then we're getting into definitions here, aren't we? Personally, I'm not so sure it has to. I can imagine someone believing in God because he/she feels he/she has some fairly good reasons which he/she thinks are logical. This person wouldn't need to believe based on faith, but I would still categorize him/her as religious. Likewise, one could feel they have very good reasons to practice meditation or charity.

 

I don't think the concept itself of religion is bad at all. I think the problem is that some people take it far to literally' date=' and the source material was created hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago so its insane to think that everything written would apply to today's society.

[/quote']

 

I agree with this. Religions are at their healthiest when they are allowed to adapt to the current world. If anything in the religion encourages sticking to a particular standard or way of life for all time will eventually get into trouble. They may have worked for the pressures the society faced at that time, but there always comes a time when those pressures go away and new ones come in. The key is to be able to track what pressures are changing and which are not, and then maintain an attitude of openness to new ideas that work well with the new pressures.

 

im not sure if theres anything that can be done about the fanatics. There seems to be no way to reason with them as they are so close minded due to trying to define there entire world by taking one incredibly old book out of context. And I dont beileve in voilence as a solution either' date=' so I'm really stuck as to how to solve the problem. As its a built in part of every faith to bring your children up with it as well, there seems to be no way to stop the problem from continuing indefinately

[/quote']

 

He, he... I like this part: "I'm really stuck as to how to solve the problem." You sound like you're trying to take on the problem all by yourself.

 

Anyway, yes it's a real mess. I don't see any easy solution either. How do you deal with people who don't listen to reason?

 

I've got a question though - although it might generally be true that you can't reason with a fanatic, what about a politician? Are they all fanatics too? Of course, not all of them are, but what about the ones in religiously fanatic or corrupt societies? Are they the same kind of zealots as the fanatics you have in mind, or are they simply controlling the beast, making rational and well calculated moves towards some end? And are those ends always selfish or for the good of humanity?

[Phi for All]

If you believe you're going to have an eternal afterlife, what does that make this life? Just a pretense? Disposable? (radical Islamacists demonstrate that idea every day with suicide bombings)

 

That's one of the worst aspects I can imagine.

I could never get along with the idea that a few decades of being good on Earth got you eternity in Paradise. To me, if there is an afterlife then this life is more like preschool and there will be harder tests in the higher grades (dimensions? universes?). No learning is disposable and consciousness without a body (or at least THIS body) could be the ultimate in evolution.

 

I think a religion is bad when it tries to give finite answers to infinite questions.

[Guest Greenkey]

Like any religion, even Christianity has it fanatics and lunatics. Like anything else subject to the rantings of fanatics and the media, Christianity has become more and more misunderstood. Just like candidates in political parties, people claiming to be Christians, come in all shapes and sizes. True Chrisitans are not judgmental or intolerant, but they are Bible-believing lovers of the teachings of Jesus.

True Christians do not promote the killing, punishment, or belittling of people of other beliefs or faiths. Yet they are called to defend the teachings of the Bible and sometimes this is misperceived as intolerance. It is not our right to judge, but to warn others of God's judgment. Unlike Islam, we do not force others to convert or kill those who refuse. The only true demand of Christianity is the belief in, and acceptance of Jesus and the sacrifice and work He did on the cross to defeat the sin that exists in us all. True belief and accepance of Him, will begin all the changes in one's life that is necessary.

Oddly, it is the people who claim Christians are intolerant (Atheists, Gay Rights proponents, etc.) that are the intolerant ones. True Christians would be open to anyone attending a church service or living lives that do not interfere with others beliefs. Yet those condemning Christianity, are intolerant of our existance.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, when you consider the intricacy of the human mind, nervous system, circulation system, digestive system, not to mention the intricacies of this world and environment; is it really hard to believe in a Divine Creator? To believe it all happened by chance is a bigger stretch of rational thought than anything else.

[Guest Greenkey]

One thing that is definitely finite is the abilities of the human mind and human understanding. The problem is, modern humans believe they have the ultimate understanding and ability to reason. This is the same species that once "proved" the world was flat or that the sun revolved around us. One day, most of today's beliefs will be thought to be ridiculous as well.

[herme3]

I just recently made some decisions regarding my own religion, so I don't think I should state my own opinion yet. However, Richard Dawkins believes that religion is an enemy to science. He says that people often ignore obvious scientific evidence simply because their religion tells them to. This is simply an opinion of someone else, but I can't find any reason to disagree with it.

 

I am a christian hence my name and i have seen with my eyes actual healing taken place. I have seen a man with cancer healed, a lady with a bad foot made to walk again and i have heard God talk to me. You may call me crazy but i can show you the people and witnesses. Now if you tell me there is no God i will say you are wrong, if it wasn't God who did those things than who did?

 

Now, this is interesting. If you really did witness these events, what made you come to the conclusion that it was the God of the Christian Bible? How do you know it wasn't Allah, one of the gods from Hinduism, or even a god who has chosen to keep himself hidden from us?

[bascule]

Oddly, it is the people who claim Christians are intolerant (Atheists, Gay Rights proponents, etc.) that are the intolerant ones.

 

Oh really...

 

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

[bascule]

I am a christian hence my name and i have seen with my eyes actual healing taken place. I have seen a man with cancer healed, a lady with a bad foot made to walk again and i have heard God talk to me. You may call me crazy but i can show you the people and witnesses. Now if you tell me there is no God i will say you are wrong, if it wasn't God who did those things than who did?

 

Ever see an amputee's limb spontaneously regenerate?

[JesuBungle]

Ever see an amputee's limb spontaneously regenerate?

 

No, but apparently there's mice that can do this;)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am a christian hence my name and i have seen with my eyes actual healing taken place. I have seen a man with cancer healed, a lady with a bad foot made to walk again and i have heard God talk to me. You may call me crazy but i can show you the people and witnesses. Now if you tell me there is no God i will say you are wrong, if it wasn't God who did those things than who did?

 

I've heard that God has made anecdotes turn into evidence before.

 

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. That was a bad one. But honestly, anecdotes do not make evidence of any kind.

[woelen]

Again, I want to state my concern about this thread. Don't let it evolve in a fight between christians and non-christians.

 

No evangelizing please, on the other hand also no mocking or ridiculing of one's believe.

[padren]

 

That sounds like a medical approach to me - that is, it sounds like an approach that places more value on health and well being than truth or fact (even though health and well being still depend on truth and fact). It could work.

 

I didn't mean to propose my definitions of "good" and "bad" are especially valid, just that definitions are required to examine the question you posed because they can be ambigious. I believe truth and fact are very important (if a lie was needed to save a child's life I'd still utter it) but when a lot of the questions in religion are unanswerable here on Earth I think the "health of the least of us" isn't that bad of a measure in gauging how close we come to being in harmony with the true nature of the universe - whatever that is.

 

I guess a "religion" could be defined as necessarily faith based, but then we're getting into definitions here, aren't we? Personally, I'm not so sure it has to. I can imagine someone believing in God because he/she feels he/she has some fairly good reasons which he/she thinks are logical. This person wouldn't need to believe based on faith, but I would still categorize him/her as religious. Likewise, one could feel they have very good reasons to practice meditation or charity.

 

I think if someone believes God exists in the same way that someone may believe that we decended from apes (ie, based on a collection of facts and logic) then its subject to criticism and not "sacred" but just part of a theory that has led someone to some conclusions for the time being.

 

Personally I would not classifiy such a belief in God as a faith in God, and categorize that as a philosophy instead of a religious belief.

 

 

I am a christian hence my name and i have seen with my eyes actual healing taken place. I have seen a man with cancer healed, a lady with a bad foot made to walk again and i have heard God talk to me. You may call me crazy but i can show you the people and witnesses. Now if you tell me there is no God i will say you are wrong, if it wasn't God who did those things than who did?

 

I know you don't have the expectation of convincing us that your observations are sound - but that you want to put them out there because you witnessed them.

For me, its impossible for me to make any use of them because from my perspective they are just anecdotes and there are millions of those out there that say any number of different things. If I gave credence to yours, it would have to be out of a momentary bias or I would have to give credence to so many other claims my head would explode.

 

The only true demand of Christianity is the belief in, and acceptance of Jesus and the sacrifice and work He did on the cross to defeat the sin that exists in us all. True belief and accepance of Him, will begin all the changes in one's life that is necessary.

 

I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I hope you can understand my position on this matter: I actually feel that sentiment is harmful.

All the evidence I have witnessed in my life has led me to the conclusion that its when people decide they need to do the work themselves and actively make the changes in their lives that they want, that it will begin all the changes in their lives that are necessary.

By contrast, putting your trust into someone that is talked about but isn't even another living flesh and blood person among us I can only believe leads to distraction from taking care of things yourself, and I think that causes more suffering than is nescessary for people.

 

I don't say it to put you down or your beliefs, but if that is a core aspect of christianity, I would still have to put it in the "bad" camp for that reason.

 

Whether you believe in evolution or not, when you consider the intricacy of the human mind, nervous system, circulation system, digestive system, not to mention the intricacies of this world and environment; is it really hard to believe in a Divine Creator? To believe it all happened by chance is a bigger stretch of rational thought than anything else.

 

Its easy to believe in a Divine Creator, but its equally easy to believe in any number of possible Divine Creators or the absense of one. There is a lot of rational arguments that support the "happened by chance" position but I won't rehash those, since thats a different debate and played itself out many times in the now archived areas of this site.

 

 

Perhaps my largest resistance to organized religion is that I can't help but to feel that, if there is a God that would choose to grade us at death, that its more important that we measure ourselves by our own personal standard (ie, how we live with our own actions) than going on His standard, even if we had clear knowledge of what that standard was. If we are to be judged, either we are good or we are not, but as long as we are true to who we are we'll be judged rightly as one or the other.

[Severian]

I guess what the view boils down to is that any kind of ideology that is meant to be taken dogmatically is a dangerous thing.

 

Would you include the scientific method as a dangerous ideology if taken dogmatically?

[gcol]

My position:

 

Any religion is bad to the extent that it disagrees with your own.

 

Works every time for me.

[husmusen]

If you believe you're going to have an eternal afterlife, what does that make this life? Just a pretense? Disposable? (radical Islamacists demonstrate that idea every day with suicide bombings)

 

That's one of the worst aspects I can imagine.

 

Why do you assume people will kill if they think they have an afterlife?

Why not refuse to kill because you have an after life?

Why not refuse to cooperate with evil, because you have an afterlife?

Why not refuse violance and violent authority because you have an afterlife?

 

As for not believeing in an afterlife, the upright person will try to improve things, the selfish person will decide that their life is by far the most important life by virtue of it being theirs and happily sacrifice others for a little more of it.

 

What you see here is that it's not the afterlife, but the state of a persons soul. Is it full of hate? Is it full of love? Is it self centered or people centered?

 

Actions do not come from theological conferances on the afterlife, but from the persons heart.

 

Husmusen.

[Dak]

Would you include the scientific method as a dangerous ideology if taken dogmatically?

 

no. two main differences:

 

1/ the scientific method is self-correcting, with an actual emphasis on critical examination and identification and remedy of any crap bits; compair to the unwillingness of religons to change their fundamental bits -- not a problem specific to religons: forms of govournance generally have the smae problem (democracy is teh one true way!!!!!!!!!7)

 

2/ the scientific method revolves around ways to cautiously and logically/emperically discern the truth. religon generally (but not allways) centers around an acceptance of intuition over logic. this, i think, is dangerous. with a logical person, you can demonstrate to him when he is wrong; it is not allways possible to do the same with an intuit.

 

so, my problems aren't with religon per se, rather with some things that are (not exclusively nor neccesarily) part of religon.

 

so... religon, not neccesarily bad. a clinging to intuitively held and unchanging beliefs in the face of evidence (which, unfortunately, is what religon all too often means) is bad.

 

I also think that, when present, the above flaws tend to be worse in religous people than in atheists that have the same flaws: if you feel that your intuitive beliefs are put there/agreed with by god, your not going to change them, and if you think that you are unnacountable to ethics/other humans due to your Absolute Guaranteed Acess To Heaven For Following Your Random Intuitive Desires Gods Rules, then people are in the very dangerous position whereby they can act with percied inpunity, and unstoppable conviction.

 

like i said: the above dont 'have' to be part of religon; they just all too commonly are