Does Religion Alter or Destroy the Human Spirit?

[lilithu]

I'm not sure what your point is here, but the notion that, because religion is not the only cause of an evil, it is somehow excused from being responsible for the evil it does cause, makes about as much sense as the notion that because Smith isn't the only man to have ever shot someone to death, he is somehow to be excused from having shot someone to death.

My point is the same that others here have made. Religion is a human venture, and as such is subject to the same pitfalls AND the same achievements as any human venture. Blaming human bad behavior on religion solves nothing. It's the human part that is behind it (just as it is the human part that is behind the good).

Ah, but it is so human to pick a scape goat. :sarcastic

 

[Sunstone]

My point is the same that others here have made. Religion is a human venture, and as such is subject to the same pitfalls AND the same achievements as any human venture. Blaming human bad behavior on religion solves nothing. It's the human part that is behind it (just as it is the human part that is behind the good).

Ah, but it is so human to pick a scape goat. :sarcastic

I think you are overlooking the manner in which religion seems to be a powerful enabler of both good and evil.

By the way, I also think you were misunderstanding MidnightBlue's remarks, since your remarks didn't really address his.

 

[lilithu]

I think you are overlooking the manner in which religion seems to be a powerful enabler of both good and evil.

So is politics. So is philosophy. So are film and literature. So is science for that matter.

By the way, I also think you were misunderstanding MidnightBlue's remarks, since your remarks didn't really address his.

I don't think so and I think I did.

 

[Sunstone]

So is politics. So is philosophy. So are film and literature.

Again, that fails to address the point that religion seems to be a powerful enabler of good and evil.

I don't think so and I think I did.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then.

 

[Alla Prima]

My point is the same that others here have made. Religion is a human venture, and as such is subject to the same pitfalls AND the same achievements as any human venture. Blaming human bad behavior on religion solves nothing. It's the human part that is behind it (just as it is the human part that is behind the good).

Ah, but it is so human to pick a scape goat. :sarcastic

Blaming human bad behavior inspired by bad religion can force positive changes within the religion.

 

[lilithu]

Again, that fails to address the point that religion is a powerful enabler of good and evil.

How does that fail to address the point? (I added science to the list, btw.)

Besides which, what is wrong with religion being a powerful enabler of good and evil? If it were only a powerful enabler for evil, then I could understand the problem. But if you concede that it is a powerful enabler for both good and evil, which I assume you do since you've said it several times now, then what is the problem?

 

[Alla Prima]

So is politics. So is philosophy. So are film and literature. So is science for that matter.


I don't think so and I think I did.

Apples and oranges. People for the most part take religion far more seriously than science or philosophy.

 

[lilithu]

Blaming human bad behavior inspired by bad religion can force positive changes within the religion.

That I completely agree with. That is not the same thing tho as asking whether religion destroys the human spirit.

 

[Alla Prima]

How does that fail to address the point? (I added science to the list, btw.)

Besides which, what is wrong with religion being a powerful enabler of good and evil? If it were only a powerful enabler for evil, then I could understand the problem. But if you concede that it is a powerful enabler for both good and evil, which I assume you do since you've said it several times now, then what is the problem?

I'm taking a wild guess here and saying the problem is the evil.

 

[lilithu]

Apples and oranges. People for the most part take religion far more seriously than science or philosophy.

I don't agree but I think the statement is irrelevant anyway. The charge was that religion is a powerful enabler of good and evil. I am saying that science and philosophy are equally powerful enablers of good and evil (regardless of how "seriously" people take them).

 

[lilithu]

I'm taking a wild guess here and saying the problem is the evil.

Yes, evil is a problem. I too would like there to be less evil and more good. So?

 

[Alla Prima]

I don't agree but I think the statement is irrelevant anyway. The charge was that religion is a powerful enabler of good and evil. I am saying that science and philosophy are equally powerful enablers of good and evil (regardless of how "seriously" people take them).

I don't agree. The common person (most everyone) doesn't give themselves over to say - science the way they do religion. Religion is very powerful. We're talking eternal afterlife here.

 

[Sunstone]

How does that fail to address the point?

See post #99, please.

Besides which, what is wrong with religion being a powerful enabler of good and evil? If it were only a powerful enabler for evil, then I could understand the problem. But if you concede that it is a powerful enabler for both good and evil, which I assume you do since you've said it several times now, then what is the problem?

I think Religion is a powerful enabler (or facilitator) of good and evil. Because that's what I believe, I find it difficult to accept the notion that religion is never in itself a factor in causing good or evil. Specifically, I reject the notion that it's people who do good and evil and that religion has absolutely no roll in helping, enabling, or facilitating those people to do good or evil. In other words, I reject what seems to be a notion you endorse: " Blaming human bad behavior on religion solves nothing. It's the human part that is behind it (just as it is the human part that is behind the good)." To me, that's a bit like saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It's a nice slogan, but it doesn't stand up to examination.

 

[Alla Prima]

Yes, evil is a problem. I too would like there to be less evil and more good. So?

You asked what the problem was. I told you.

 

[Alla Prima]

That I completely agree with. That is not the same thing tho as asking whether religion destroys the human spirit.

So blaming human bad behavior on religion does solve something.

 

[Sunstone]

Do religions alter or destroy the human spirit? If people were free of religion would they excel more, accomplish more, achieve more, and be happier? Why or why not?

I don't think these questions can be properly answered simply by excusing religion as not the only cause of evil in the world.

 

[Sunstone]

So blaming human bad behavior on religion does solve something.

Perhaps it could lead to better religions.

 

[lilithu]

See post #99, please.

I've already addressed post #99. If you are dissatisfied with my response, you can point out explicitly the way in which you believe it fails to address your point. Merely telling me that you think I have not addressed the point is not helpful, because obviously I think I have.

I think Religion is a powerful enabler (or facilitator) of good and evil. Because that's what I believe, I find it difficult to accept the notion that religion is never in itself a factor in causing good or evil. Specifically, I reject the notion that it's people who do good and evil and that religion has absolutely no roll in helping, enabling, or facilitating those people to do good or evil. In other words, I reject what seems to be a notion you endorse: " Blaming human bad behavior on religion solves nothing. It's the human part that is behind it (just as it is the human part that is behind the good)." To me, that's a bit like saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It's a nice slogan, but it doesn't stand up to examination.

First of all, I suspect that we don't view guns the same way. While I think there should be some regulation for safety's sake, I also think that blaming guns for people shooting each other is myopic. If someone picks up a stick and hits you with it, you don't blame the stick. Or at least I don't. It's true that a gun can cause a lot more damage than a stick, but that still doesn't make it the gun's "fault." Honestly, how can an object with no volition or intent be at fault?

And what volition or intent do you ascribe to religion that is not actually in the humans who are practicing it?

Secondly, I don't think you addressed my previous point. I will endeavor to spell out what I mean by that. I was asking, if you concede that religion is a powerful enabler of both good and evil, if you concede that religion also plays a role in "helping, enabling, or facilitating" people to do good, then again I ask, what is the problem?

 

[lilithu]

So blaming human bad behavior on religion does solve something.

No. :sarcastic Blaming human bad behavior on bad religion solves something.

(I love how you inserted that crucial word, to which I agreed, and then deleted it as if I was agreeing to something that I wasn't. Was that intentional?)

 

[Alla Prima]

Perhaps it could lead to better religions.

It has for Christianity.