What makes a religion "bad"?

[gcol]

Gib65:

 

This actually ties directly into the point I was making in my OP - when is a religion simply different or even "weird" and when is it dangerous?

 

Thanks for the timely reminder of the original question. I am genuinely hard-put to think of a religion which is inherently bad to the point of being dangerous. True, it is not too difficult cherrypick out of context parts of many religions and thus subvert the original philosophy to selfish ends. This does not make the religion bad, just some extremist practitioners.

 

I have many friends of different religions, none of them bad people, or I would not count them as friends. Weird, eccentric, puzzling, mildly crazy, incomprehensible perhaps but I love them all for the variety they bring to the party. None of those things are dangerously bad.

 

I would go as far as to say that the statement "all religions are bad" shows a dangerously bad, extremist, and unbalanced attitude of mind. I know no-one personally who holds such views. There are however a few on these forums, and sometimes I wonder about their overall mental health.

[herme3]

Think twice, you cut away everything of value to you. I remember the thread you started a while ago, where you mentioned you did not need anyone anymore, and you would be happy alone in your own little world. No more contact with college mates, no more contact with your friends. You are cutting off again a possible source of contacts, and I say this, not to annoy you, but only because I see a trend in how you develop. Look at yourself in the past 6 months and how you developed.

 

Well, I was avoiding all contact with other people for a little while. However, that didn't last too long because I started feeling a little lonely. I do have occasional conversations with other people in college, so I'm not a complete hermit now. I also e-mailed my best friend from high school, and she replied. She seems to be doing well and enjoying all of her classes. It was nice to hear from her again.

 

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say I've developed over the past 6 months. I still spend most of my time in my bedroom using my computer. I guess a main difference over the past year is my behavior in these forums. I used to criticize a lot of people here instead of listening to what they had to say. Now, I feel like I fit in better. In fact, the people in this forum seem to understand my opinions better than the people I know in real life.

 

You started out sounding like you thought Christians or any religious person aught to be confined to a mental asylum. But then near the end, I got a different impression. It started sounding like you're saying no one should be confined simply for having different beliefs from the mainstream.

 

I wasn't talking about my own opinion about people with religious beliefs. I was actually talking about what "religion" seems to mean in society. Many people might say religion is a belief in something that can't be scientifically proven. However, it seems like millions of people must share a belief in something supernatural before it becomes an acceptable religion. If millions of people believe a man named Jesus rose from the dead, then it's considered to be a perfectly acceptable belief in society. However, if one person saw his deceased grandparent climbing out of a grave, that person would likely be considered insane if he could not prove what he saw.

 

What I'm trying to say is that today's religions are acceptable only because they are widely believed. If they were not widely believed in society, the few people who believe in those religions would be considered insane. This has nothing to do with my opinion about religion. It's just the way society seems to be.

[gib65]

herme3,

 

Yes, what you say makes sense. But like I said before, I see society moving away from that view and more towards a view that insanity, the kind that warrants conviction to a mental hospital, is marked by harm to others or one's self. But then again, if one's beliefs were radically different, one could still mean no harm to others or themselves but still find living in society to be very difficult given their conflicting practices and all - this might be considered harmful by some.

[husmusen]

the kind that warrants conviction to a mental hospital, is marked by harm to others or one's self.

 

That's not just an approach, it's actually the law.

And even when they are involuntary patients the law specifies that they must be kept in the least restrictive environment that their condition permits.

 

Husmusen

[Severian]

I think any argument for religion (in general) being bad that you can come up with could equally well apply to any ideology. After all, many many people have died and many atrocities commited in the name of democracy.

[Dak]

I think any argument for religion (in general) being bad that you can come up with could equally well apply to any ideology. After all, many many people have died and many atrocities commited in the name of democracy.

 

and often for the same reasons: a bloody-mined refusal to admit the possibility that you might be wrong or that there might be another way, coupled with a presumption that whatever you do is right if it is in furtharance of the thing that you believe in.

 

i doubt that every ideology could have the above said about it, but most seem to be susceptable, including religon.

 

the only problem i have with religon, as such, is that it seems more inclined to the above than other ideologies.

 

so, i guess 'what makes a religon bad' would be an encouragment for the followers to adopt the above presumptions -- that they are, without a doubt, right, and that anything they do is correct and justified, as long as it is religous.

[john5746]

I think any argument for religion (in general) being bad that you can come up with could equally well apply to any ideology. After all, many many people have died and many atrocities commited in the name of democracy.

 

My thoughts exactly. I think we can generalize this discussion to a more abstract level. What makes beliefs or ideas bad ones?

 

Is it belief without proof itself? Or belief contrary to proof?

 

Is it the intolerance of a belief?

 

Is it the perceived consequences of disbelief?

 

I lean toward the consequences. For example, if we decide anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is evil, that doesn't make evolutionary theory incorrect or bad, just the part that considers the non-believer evil.

 

But it isn't quite that simple either. If you have a belief that says any country that is not a democracy is an enemy to democracy, then you must expect violence and hatred to rear its head eventually.

 

I guess it is a combination of:

 

1) How adaptive the belief is to new information

2) How tolerant the belief is to opposing views

3) The perceived consequences of disbelief(the stakes)

4) Actions called to support the belief.

[gib65]

I think any argument for religion (in general) being bad that you can come up with could equally well apply to any ideology. After all, many many people have died and many atrocities commited in the name of democracy.

 

I think you may be right when it comes to competing religions. Any one religion that holds X to be true is going to be more warry and sceptical about another religion that hold NOT-X to be true.

 

But the question I posed in my OP is best understood in the context of one religion in isolation (I know... doesn't exist), and I'm asking what internal elements of a religion make it good or bad, safe or dangerous, healthy or unhealthy. For example, imagine a religion which is currently not at war with any other society of a different religion, and moreover only has a vague awareness of other societies and religions in far off places. Suppose this religion promoted the use of drugs for recreational purposes. What kind of effect would this have on the society internally? Would it be a good effect or a bad one? What if the religion promoted eating well and exercising daily? What then?

[Severian]

I lean toward the consequences. For example, if we decide anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is evil, that doesn't make evolutionary theory incorrect or bad, just the part that considers the non-believer evil.

 

That doesn't really make sense. 'Evil' is just a definition in religion for someone who is opposed to your view. More modern religious people would use the word 'wrong' instead (eg. anyone who believes in evolution is 'wrong') simply because it invokes less of an image of attacking you 'opponent' with a pitch-fork.

 

But what is in a word? I personally believe anyone who doesn't believe in democracy is 'wrong' and I could promote that word to 'evil' if I felt like it, but would the meaning really change? I suppose 'evil' holds a slight connotation that it is the person and not the idea who is at fault, but that isn't really my view either - i am sure an evil person can be correct in some of their ideas and good in some of their views.

 

But the question I posed in my OP is best understood in the context of one religion in isolation (I know... doesn't exist)' date=' and I'm asking what [i']internal[/i] elements of a religion make it good or bad, safe or dangerous, healthy or unhealthy.

 

Again this is just definition. You may define certain 'internal elements' of a religion as bad, but that is just your point of view. The practitioners of the religion will not regard it as 'bad' because then they would then not believe in it. Even Satanists do not regard themselves as evil (go look at their websites).

[gib65]

Again this is just definition. You may define certain 'internal elements' of a religion as bad, but that is just your point of view. The practitioners of the religion will not regard it as 'bad' because then they would then not believe in it. Even Satanists do not regard themselves as evil (go look at their websites).

 

You're absolutely right. We need to decide on a standard by which we can judge a religion or ideology as "good" or "bad", and we have no other recourse to such a standard than our own cultural views. So if someone wanted to judge Christianity as bad because promoting martyrdom leads to a lot of self-inflicted suffering, a Christian might use that same measure to "prove" how Christianity is good.

 

But what I wanted to get at was to distinguish between the view that religion itself is wrong versus the view that it depends on the ideas inherent in a particular religion that aught to be judged as right or wrong. I'm leaning more towards the latter. But even as I do this, the problem you pose is still there. If I wanted to judge idea X from religion A as wrong or idea Y from religion B as right, I can't escape my own cultural bias in making this judgment. But at least I'm picking apart the ideas one-by-one instead of generalizing to all religions. I think that's a good thing, and I'm asking if others agree or disagree.

[mike90]

Anytime you can rationally take two different idealogies and contrast the differences I think that's a good thing, but the problem then becomes how do you accomplish this with something as divisive as religious beliefs?

 

 

Simply teaching people all the different styles of belief sounds good ( to me anyway) in theory, but then you run into the problem that our tolerance isn't the issue, its how rigidly a certain type of person will stick to the dogma inherent in their particular religion.

 

Again I am lost as to how you can reconcile a multitude of belief systems that have it built in that any other belief system is wrong/evil, or have anything written that even hints at that.

 

Again it's down to that stubborn human tendency no matter what the topic to insist that your answer is the only right answer.

[Severian]

Again I disagree. It is perfectly OK to stick to your guns. If you think something is right, then it is wrong to say that it is wrong just to fit in with other people.

 

The problem is when you associate characteristics of an action with a person. By that I mean, there is (or there should be) nothing wrong with saying that a person's action was bad or 'evil' but one should not then imply from that that the person is bad or 'evil'.

[mike90]

I wasn't trying to imply that a person should conform their morality to suit others. Its more the point at which a person feels compelled to force others to follow their views, whatever they may be, that I take issue with.

 

Your second statement is actually basically how I feel about the matter

[gib65]

Mike,

 

What do you think of the prospect that one day average citizens from various countries, religions, and ethnicities will find a more dignifying identity in the company of each other than in their respective country, religion, or ethnicity? I think the internet is already moving people in that direction. Of course, one needs to be somewhat educated and have access to the internet to make this work, but I think there's enough people around the globe to have representatives from nearly all countries, religions, and ethnicities who can speak on behalf of their communities.

 

I don't think we're going to get far by trying to reason with the fanatics and terrorists, and I don't think the prospect of dealing with politicians is much better. I really think it's going to have to be average citizens reaching out to other average citizens. What do you think?

[mike90]

Well its tough on matters like this because what I beileve is tied to my own "religious" beliefs.

 

I basically see the widespread growth of human empathy as the only chance mankind has to attain world peace.

 

I think only when we can understand how others feel because we too can feel exactly how they feel will we reach peace. I also beileve in the idea of a global shared consciousness, but I think were a long way from that.

 

On a practical level however, without empathy I find it hard to imagine things changing for the better. Also certain dictatorships have placed heavy restriction on media and internet access to their people as a means to help them maintain power

 

Id love to imagine humanity banding together and celebrating our differences rather then fighting over them, as they are what make our different cultures unique.

 

But I find that unlikely without superb leadership ( lacking so far with no visible sings of improvement IMO its actually getting worse) or a massive boom in the empathic population

[gib65]

Wishful thinking, I guess. It's one of those things that seems so close yet so far away. I've always had a dream that over the course of my lifetime, I could find people across the internet who are interested in conjuring up good ideas to solve religious and political problems around the world. We wouldn't have to be powerful or even effective - we would just be interested in sharing ideas. It wouldn't even have to be that intensive - just casual discussions every now and then. Even if only one mediocre idea came out of it, that would be better than nothing. At least it would be there, in the open, and so long as it stays written on the internet, it would have the potential to catch the attention of someone else who has the power and means to implement it. It seems so simple - all you need is the internet, a decent set of skills for meeting people over it, and a desire to see it through.

 

Is this just wishful thinking? Do I dream too big?

[mike90]

That sounds a lot like me. I've searched the internet off and on for years to see if theres anybody out there that has thought out a solution that sounds practical. I've met some great people , but I haven't found what I'm looking for.

 

I try to tell myself there is still hope for improvement in human relations, but all the information I've gathered so far tells me that it indeed might just be wishful thinking on my part. Im an optimist be nature and Id like to think mankinds better nature will eventually win out, by I don't see any signs of humankind moving any closer in that direction.

[mr d]

Hello

 

I view most religions as not really being good or bad. Most simply provide a believer with a code of ethical beliefs, historical stories (either based on real events, or more along the lines of morality fables) that serve to give a person a sense of belonging to a community and a easy way to understand concept of the world about them.

 

Some may say this premotes ignorance in a simplistic understanding of the world, but in reality very few people need to have and complex understanding of the world around them. Are they too ignorant to understand? No, they just do not need that information to live their lifes.

 

An example: I know the Christian bibical story of creation, I also know the bigbang/singularity theory of science. Does it really matter which one I hold more faith in in my every day life? No, either one is good enough to provide and explaination of the creation of the Universe. My live and what I have to accomplish everyday can be done with either as my belief, or neither, or if I believe the Universe was created by the Great Cat Tofu when he coughed up the cosmos hairball. For my needs any will do.

 

Rather a this is how it went down, now get on with your life type of approach. It is us thinking ourselves so much more intelligent and advanced, that now we try to pretend these books were written as some form of Social Theory and Scientific Docterine.

 

How proud so many people seem when they can now show how their new found knowledge disputes text written for people living in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

 

I should well hope they can, otherwise it reflects rather poorly on any claim of advancement we report to have made.

 

Can a religion be bad? Yes depending on how that religion exists in a social context with others around it who do not believe in that religion. But a lot of that is not a result of the religion, but in the leadership of the religion.

 

As above most religious text where written during the Bronze and Iron Ages, so much of what is contained with in deals with how people had to deal with life as it existed then. This means that as life has changed into the Industrial and Technoloigcal Ages, leaders for religion must re-interpret to cover life as lived now. And those interpretations by leaders have often had dire consequences on people. But does the blame here lie in the religion or how it was interpreted.

 

I tend to find that the practitioners of a religion tend to determine if it is considered good or bad.

 

Personal problem I find with religion is the fact that many ask you as a believer to surrender your ability for free thought, over to a belief in blind faith.

 

They preach that they alone hold the Ultimate Truth, and they alone can show you the path to obtaining that Truth.

 

A few allow for the questioning of the world around you as a means to discover this truth, for you must come to understand it by yourself.

 

But others would have you adhere to only what they tell you without question. Only they can show you how to obtain the truth, but you must not think on your own only obey. They are the guardians of the Truth, tresspass against them at your own peril. All you need to know is what they tell you, all that needs to be known is what they deem holds true to their Ultimate Truth.

 

Yet often I discover this Truth is the leadership's concept by interpretation of the truth. And many times has little to do with the basis of the religion, but more with maintaining power within the leadership.

 

So I'll continue to be one of those racial individuals out seeking what Truth I can find for myself. I'll listen to what you have to say, for your beliefs may have kernals of that Truth. And if it helps you make it through your life, which is not easy, please go ahead and believe for yourself but allow me my own. And just get on with it.

 

Mr D

 

'There's an invisible man in the sky...' G Carlin

[the tree]

I'm going to assume that as my post hasn't been torn apart whatsoever, that makes me right?

[gib65]

I'm going to assume that as my post hasn't been torn apart whatsoever, that makes me right?

 

Wow, if that's true, I must be right about a whole slew of crackpot ideas I've expressed.

[john5746]

But what is in a word? I personally believe anyone who doesn't believe in democracy is 'wrong' and I could promote that word to 'evil' if I felt like it, but would the meaning really change? I suppose 'evil' holds a slight connotation that it is the person and not the idea who is at fault, but that isn't really my view either - i am sure an evil person can be correct in some of their ideas and good in some of their views.

 

Let's say that you believe the following:

 

Anyone who doesn't believe that democracy is ALWAYS the best form of government in ALL situations is wrong.

 

Ok, that is your belief and it seems to be reasonable. But, lets expand it.

 

 

1) It is inherently understood that Democracy is always the best form of Government.(no true evidence can suggest otherwise)

 

2) All other forms of government are wrong and may corrupt existing democracies.

 

3) Democracies should fight to reach the goal of the world being ruled by Democracy.

 

4) Democracies will promote peace in the world.

 

 

 

Now it is starting to look more like a "bad" religion to me.

[mike90]

I think its safe to say the conversation has moved beyond just aspects of religious idealogies being harmful, but rather the strict adherence to any belief/opinion/point of view to the point that it does not allow for another to have a contradictory point of view without them being bad/wrong/evil and in need of some sort of enforced "correction".

 

To me this then means the ultimate problem lies with human nature itself, or at least some negative aspects of it. This makes the solution a lot more complex.

 

But to try to keep it in context to the original point of the thread, religious idealogies specifically:

 

I do see some signs of a shift, at least in America, as younger members of strictly conservative religions begin to question total adherence to concepts that don't seem to apply socially anymore, and the need to take in the overall theme of religion more then try to interpret everything literally.

 

Perhaps the problem is the isolationism inherent in countries where religous intolerance is so prevalent, maybe if there was a gradual input of other cultural beliefs and ways of thinking over time it could help. How this could be accomplished the way things are now, I am not sure

[gib65]

How 'bout this: any religion that equates disbelief with moral wrongness is dangerous.

[the tree]

Now you see, my post (which still hasn't been attacked, so it must be right) already covered that. It just goes to show, I'm a god-damned genius.

[gib65]

[*]Mechanisms to prevent challenging. For instance, it being a sin to question a superior member.

 

Ah yes - there it is.

 

I agree with this one, as well as your last one ("Any faith in the words of a given individual, without critical reasoning as to their authority").

 

I don't think I can agree or disagree with the other three as they seem to depend on too much IMO.