Is religion really that bad of a thing?

[HeatherAnn]

...Even in spite of actions of individuals, it's likely not good to see the religion itself go as a result.
I think most every religion has aspects that remain attractive and beautiful.

Although my beliefs have changed drastically, I still attend church (LDS) every Sunday with my family - and I even teach (common basic beliefs - love one another etc.).
I appreciate the sense of community (lots of friends) and practical application of spirituality - being served and having a sense of purpose in serving others every week.

I'm trying to teach my kids that overall, the church (religion) is good - but there are 2 main problems... 1) Financial corruption (so we don't pay tithing to the church shopping malls etc, but to help those in need directly) & 2) Mental illness (It is estimated that up to 80% of mental illness (depression, anxiety, etc.) stems from misinterpretations of Judaic and Christian doctrine. IE: One cognitive distortion I learned from a Psychologist is "All or Nothing" (Bi-polar) thinking... IE: Claiming that "Religion is either 100% good or 100% bad" - when really, it's a mix of both.

See which other cognitive distortions are common in a particular religion...
http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/0002153

One more point:
A study was conducted to see what, if any, influence religious involvement had on physical healing.
3 groups were involved - of the 3, those who did worse were those who were extremely religiously involved & those who were not involved at all.
Those who did best were those who were moderately involved.
As you implied, I'll add: "moderation in all things" - including religion!

 

[Nakosis]

My Grandmother benefited from her religion. It gave her purpose and a cause.

I think religion is fine as long as it's not used as an excuse for bad behavior.

 

[HeatherAnn]

My Grandmother benefited from her religion. It gave her purpose and a cause.

I see this in many cases, including my own.

I think religion is fine as long as it's not used as an excuse for bad behavior.

What do you mean by "bad behavior"?

 

[Nakosis]

I see this in many cases, including my own.


What do you mean by "bad behavior"?

I would think as a rule of thumb whenever the golden rule is not being applied.

 

[kashmir]

Those holy books are not dangerous, its the man who picks them up that can become dangerous.
IN USA I really can not see an issue, I don't know about the rest of the world, I am not there.

The real dangers in USA and man are drugs and racism.
In poverty, its horrible.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Nowhere Man,

Is religion really that bad of a thing?

How can it be; when everyone follows one; many unconsciously though.

Love & rgds

 

[Straw Dog]

Religions that emphasize personal responsibility may be less prone for abuse. Malevolent actions are sometimes justified through the shifting of responsibility. For example, a group might commit genocide and then deny their own freedom in making those choices. Instead, they'll say that God (religious leaders, etc.) wants or is making them do it. This isn't just a problem in religion, either. Much of mainstream culture is based on the wilful ignorance of freedom.

 

[Looncall]

Religions that emphasize personal responsibility may be less prone for abuse. Malevolent actions are sometimes justified through the shifting of responsibility. For example, a group might commit genocide and then deny their own freedom in making those choices. Instead, they'll say that God (religious leaders, etc.) wants or is making them do it. This isn't just a problem in religion, either. Much of mainstream culture is based on the wilful ignorance of freedom.

Well put. It's clear to me that religions are a way to outsource one's morality: just following rules or clerics instead for bothering with the work of actually doing moral thinking.

For example, I have observed that in many of the muslim outrages (cartoon riots etc), clerics have put their followers up to the violence. That's what submission gets you.

 

[Quintessence]

Personally, I don't see why it matters if someone "outsources" one's ethics or not. The end results - the practical or tangible results - are not particularly different.

 

[Straw Dog]

Personally, I don't see why it matters if someone "outsources" one's ethics or not. The end results - the practical or tangible results - are not particularly different.

That depends on the situation. It is much easy to dehumanize others whenever there is pressure from a "holy" authority figure and herd mentality. Critical independent thinking, empathy, and the affirmation of personal responsibility seem to bring about different results.

 

[HeatherAnn]

I would think as a rule of thumb whenever the golden rule is not being applied.

What about if others are trying to push what they want on you - and that hurts you?
Cognitive distortions can make people feel and act in harmful ways, even when one doesn't mean any harm.

Like Carl Jung, I don't see much difference between pysch-ology (study of the soul) and spirituality.
There needs to be more self-reflection, not just in therapy - but in general - as part of mental and spiritual health.

I see true spirituality as synonymous for true empathy - and compassion based on that understanding.

 

[Quintessence]

That depends on the situation. It is much easy to dehumanize others whenever there is pressure from a "holy" authority figure and herd mentality. Critical independent thinking, empathy, and the affirmation of personal responsibility seem to bring about different results.

Except that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that the source of someone's ethics is irrelevant with respect to the actual tangible results of their behavior. It doesn't matter of some particular person harasses someone because some external authority taught them to or because they concluded that group is worthy of harassing on their own. The end result is still harassment. Furthermore, I think we're kidding ourselves if we think the motivations for our behaviors fall into only one side of this dichotomy... which I regard as a false dichotomy to begin with. Everything we do is governed both by environmental or cultural influences, as well as personal factors. I get that this false dichotomy of "herd mentality" and "free thinkers" is popular in my country, but do not think it is wise to oversimplify what is going on here. Everybody is both.

All that aside, I also disagree with what you're saying here, but that's a whole 'nother tangent that I'm not sure I particularly want to get into.

 

[kashmir]

That depends on the situation. It is much easy to dehumanize others whenever there is pressure from a "holy" authority figure and herd mentality. Critical independent thinking, empathy, and the affirmation of personal responsibility seem to bring about different results.

I don't know about that, fundies seem to have no issues dehumanizing everyone that doesn't agree with them and they have no Holy book to hide behind.

Holy books were written by men in the first place, even if we burn them all up and none are left, men will still be men.
I could be wrong on this one but the leaders of North Korea are not hiding behind religious doctrine to totally dehumanize their people.

Maybe we need a new prophet, someone to write a new Holy book, with one line of text.
"Love your people, not hate them and not starve/torture/rape them to death so say your Lord, Amen"

 

[Straw Dog]

Except that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that the source of someone's ethics is irrelevant with respect to the actual tangible results of their behavior. It doesn't matter of some particular person harasses someone because some external authority taught them to or because they concluded that group is worthy of harassing on their own. The end result is still harassment.

Thanks for clarifying. I hope I understand.

Who is responsible for the harassment?

My point was that people will sometimes justify their actions via appeal to authority in order to evade accountability.

Furthermore, I think we're kidding ourselves if we think the motivations for our behaviors fall into only one side of this dichotomy... which I regard as a false dichotomy to begin with. Everything we do is governed both by environmental or cultural influences, as well as personal factors. I get that this false dichotomy of "herd mentality" and "free thinkers" is popular in my country, but do not think it is wise to oversimplify what is going on here. Everybody is both.

I don't subscribe to that dichotomy. Freedom is shared and a collective 'us' vibe can be used for positive effect, granted it is an all-inclusive vibe and not 'us vs them' or group conflict.

 

[Straw Dog]

I don't know about that, fundies seem to have no issues dehumanizing everyone that doesn't agree with them and they have no Holy book to hide behind.

Holy books were written by men in the first place, even if we burn them all up and none are left, men will still be men.
I could be wrong on this one but the leaders of North Korea are not hiding behind religious doctrine to totally dehumanize their people.

It's definitely not an issue just isolated to religion. People typically try to transcend one another by imposing their personal meanings onto others and the situation. Dehumanization is probably one of the worst forms of this conflict.

Maybe we need a new prophet, someone to write a new Holy book, with one line of text.
"Love your people, not hate them and not starve/torture/rape them to death so say your Lord, Amen"

We don't need another prophet. We just need to grow up and learn responsibility for our existence.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for clarifying. I hope I understand.

Who is responsible for the harassment?

My point was that people will sometimes justify their actions via appeal to authority in order to evade accountability.

Oh boy.

Questions of "responsibility" are problematic to me, and I disagree with how my culture handles it. We seem to turn it into a petty blame game instead of an exercise in mutual understanding and collective betterment. If we were interested in those things, we would approach "responsibility" as a scientist would - by examining all the causal variables that fed into the situation. We also wouldn't fixate on punishment as we do, but instead on how to alter the primary causal variables to change the equation in the desired direction.

I think the reason why we don't do this is because it is difficult and often impractical or impossible; we can't retroactively analyze a situation to the extent necessary to determine causality. What we're left with is educated guesswork, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

There are other complications, such as recognizing that all of this is grounded in subjective cultural norms, the issue of righteousness, and the like. It sometimes gives me a headache.

 

[Straw Dog]

Oh boy.

I appreciate your patience. I'm here to learn.

Questions of "responsibility" are problematic to me, and I disagree with how my culture handles it. We seem to turn it into a petty blame game instead of an exercise in mutual understanding and collective betterment. If we were interested in those things, we would approach "responsibility" as a scientist would - by examining all the causal variables that fed into the situation. We also wouldn't fixate on punishment as we do, but instead on how to alter the primary causal variables to change the equation in the desired direction.

I don't know that this is something science can sort out, but that doesn't mean we should abandon all hope. I agree that there's too much focus on blame and punishment of individuals in isolation. At the same time, I don't think that we can abandon the notion of accountability if we want to have a rational society. Ideally, self-responsibility would become a cultural norm that people just freely take on themselves. Punishing people for lack of responsibility doesn't really teach them how to hold themselves accountable for their actions. We could get into all kinds of nuances about criminal types, etc, etc, but we don't want to give ourselves headaches.

At the end of the day, self-responsibility is a personal endeavor that we must choose.

 

[Looncall]

Personally, I don't see why it matters if someone "outsources" one's ethics or not. The end results - the practical or tangible results - are not particularly different.

The end result is very different. With religion, one winds up with mere inflexible bigotry instead of any real morality: just mindlessly following authority without actual concern for others. That leads to horrific cruelties.

 

[Quintessence]

The end result is very different. With religion, one winds up with mere inflexible bigotry instead of any real morality: just mindlessly following authority without actual concern for others. That leads to horrific cruelties.

I'm still not seeing the difference. You can (and do) get "mere inflexible bigotry" when someone is following their own compass as well. The only difference - and not one I'd regard as practically signifiant - is that instead of primarily following others, they are primarily following themselves. Either one can (and does) produce "horrific cruelty." Emphasis on the primarily, because again, there's no such thing as a person who falls under one or the other, and there is no "mindless" following.

 

[Looncall]

I'm still not seeing the difference. You can (and do) get "mere inflexible bigotry" when someone is following their own compass as well. The only difference - and not one I'd regard as practically signifiant - is that instead of primarily following others, they are primarily following themselves. Either one can (and does) produce "horrific cruelty." Emphasis on the primarily, because again, there's no such thing as a person who falls under one or the other, and there is no "mindless" following.

There's lots of mindless following (submission, remember?). Just think of the murderous mobs set on by clerics: the lot of them boasting how righteous they are.