Organized religion = evil.

[rojse]

If a religion wishes to accept the accolades for all of the good things that it's members do in it's name, it should also accept the bad things it's members do in it's name, just as any business, social group, or charity must.

 

[Quiddity]

*bump*

 

[Storm]

If a religion wishes to accept the accolades for all of the good things that it's members do in it's name, it should also accept the bad things it's members do in it's name, just as any business, social group, or charity must.

It goes both ways, though, rojse. If you want to blame a religion for all the bad it's done, you should also give credit for the good. And lumping all religion together as the OP does is just ludicrously unfair.

 

[Autodidact]

While much organized religion has reflected such qualities, organized religion at its best is characterized by the drive and capacity to transcend these human tendencies. What, for example, is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" in the religion of the Society of Friends? And what is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" in the workings of thousands upon thousands of liberal churches and synagogues whose members engage in daily acts of charity, tzedakah, and community support and simple kindness?

Well, at its best the mafia is characterised by strong family values. Not really fair to judge something by what it does at it s best, is it?
The Society of Friends is a rather small, anti-hierarchical, un-creed based, and some would say unreligious religion, isn't it? The exception rather than the rule.
I'll go with you on the liberals. Now, Sam Harris argues that their crime is facilitating/enabling/justifying the extremists.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course, the quote you posted totally ignores the fact that some religions are not the least like that description; indeed, some are the exact opposite of it!

The guy clearly needs to do some more research. . . .

Bruce

Couple of thoughts:
1. Which?
2. Hitchens is a polemicist. He is not writing the definitive history or scholarly evaluation of religion. He is giving the opposing view, the critical perspective. The pro-religion view is trumpeted everywhere, every day. He is trying to make a statement from the point of view of the opposition. Therefore, it is not his job to speak for religion, but against.
3. His point is that these actions predominate, but religion has such good PR that we tend to forget it.

 

[Autodidact]

Also, my religion is organized, but could hardly be called intolerant and violent. It insists on free inquiry, asserts the need for equality of men and women, decries racism as the "Most Challenging Issue", and if it's coercive to children, I'd be interested to see how.

What religion is that?

 

[Quiddity]

If a religion wishes to accept the accolades for all of the good things that it's members do in it's name, it should also accept the bad things it's members do in it's name, just as any business, social group, or charity must.

Stalinism or Maoism is hardly "religious" in nature. But I wouldn't attach that to an atheistic world view. Both theist and non-theist can be evil. That's the truth, and if we attach the actions of either side to our world views then no one is right and no one is wrong. We get no where with that non-sense. Instead cultivate, discuss, clarify, what can work with real people.

The best place to start is in opening up the doors to dialogue and scrutiny of particular dogmas and creeds. You aren't going to get anywhere in pointing out the actions if they don't reflect what they themselves claim to believe.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't completely agree. Religion is a strong motivator, but I'd certainly say that other ideologies can motivate just as much and can go just as bad if not worse. Nationalism, communism, cults of personality, all can result in equally vile excesses to the worst that have ever been done in the name or religion. I think the only reason people think that the religious excesses are so bad (when often they are actually on a smaller scale than non-religious eqiuivalents) is that we know deep down that part of the purpose of religion is to make individuals and societies more moral. When the opposite happens this impacts on us, I feel, rather more deeply than when a political ideology such as communism does the same. We simply don't have the same high expectations for political movements as we do for religious ones.

James

Not a very good defense of religion is it, to say it's no worse than Stalinism, with the added vice of hypocrisy.

 

[Quiddity]

Not a very good defense of religion is it, to say it's no worse than Stalinism, with the added vice of hypocrisy.

He was only conceding the worst theist with the worst non-theist. He wasn't using their actions as a form of defense and argument. Simply saying "yes we sin".

 

[lunamoth]

What religion is that?

Booko is a Baha'i. I believe she is on vacation for a few more days.

 

[Autodidact]

Booko is a Baha'i. I believe she is on vacation for a few more days.

Thanks, luna, you're a helpful kind of person. I'll just point out that Baha'i is rather a small religion. The bigger ones seem to go in more for this sort of thing.

I mean really, to find a religion that isn't about bullying and tribalism, do we have to dredge up Quakers and Baha'i?

 

[lizskid]

I would agree that Christianity's biggest fault is inadvertantly enabling and supporting hatemongers, etc. However, that the Bible is able to be interpretted by many with a living word for many is also one of it's greatest positives, so that it reaches out to all who wish to embrace it. To lump all the negatives and call that the end of the day is somewhat rash. There are many faiths, some I see value points in, others I do not yet understand, but they do not have all the same faults OR positives.

 

[Storm]

Thanks, luna, you're a helpful kind of person. I'll just point out that Baha'i is rather a small religion. The bigger ones seem to go in more for this sort of thing.

I mean really, to find a religion that isn't about bullying and tribalism, do we have to dredge up Quakers and Baha'i?

Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and I'm fairly sure Hinduism. Neopaganism, reconstructionalist paganism, Native American spirituality. Deism, pantheism and panentheism, monism. At their best, the Abrahamic monotheisms, as well, as demonstrated by the aforementioned Quakers and Baha'i.

Better?

 

[logician]

A pacifist delusion is still a delusion.

 

[Storm]

Delusions are falsifiable.

 

[rojse]

It goes both ways, though, rojse. If you want to blame a religion for all the bad it's done, you should also give credit for the good. And lumping all religion together as the OP does is just ludicrously unfair.

I do give credit to religion when it is due. I do believe that there are good things about all religions. I have pointed this out in many of my posts, and I even made a contribution to a thread that asked people to post what they thought were the good things about religion. If you ask me to, I'll go and find it, and bump it so that we can add more posts to it.

Secondly, I say that if the members of any religion do bad, that the religion itself should at least be partly responsible, especially if the religion has claimed the credit for the good work that those same people have done. This should be the same for all religions, regardless of their beliefs or social acceptance.

I did try and equate this to social organisations, where members are not paid. If an organisation has a negligent worker, for example, the organisation takes responsibility for their actions. It must fix what the negligent person has done, it pays compensation, if required, and it takes responsibility. Yes, the group may sue the person later, for damages to the company and so forth, but the company shoulders the burden of what has been done in it's name. I do not see why this should be different for a religion.

 

[rojse]

Delusions are falsifiable.

Delusions are not falsifiable; the deluded can make up all sorts of reasons why they were wrong. I'll list a couple of obvious ones - there was a conspiracy, the persons did not check thoroughly enough, or they have a bias against the deluded person's ideas.

 

[Storm]

I do give credit to religion when it is due. I do believe that there are good things about all religions. I have pointed this out in many of my posts, and I even made a contribution to a thread that asked people to post what they thought were the good things about religion. If you ask me to, I'll go and find it, and bump it so that we can add more posts to it.

Secondly, I say that if the members of any religion do bad, that the religion itself should at least be partly responsible, especially if the religion has claimed the credit for the good work that those same people have done. This should be the same for all religions, regardless of their beliefs or social acceptance.

I did try and equate this to social organisations, where members are not paid. If an organisation has a negligent worker, for example, the organisation takes responsibility for their actions. It must fix what the negligent person has done, it pays compensation, if required, and it takes responsibility. Yes, the group may sue the person later, for damages to the company and so forth, but the company shoulders the burden of what has been done in it's name. I do not see why this should be different for a religion.

We're agreed, then. :yes:

 

[Storm]

Delusions are not falsifiable; the deluded can make up all sorts of reasons why they were wrong. I'll list a couple of obvious ones - there was a conspiracy, the persons did not check thoroughly enough, or they have a bias against the deluded person's ideas.

The word was ill-chosen. However, you make my point for me: the deluded have to "make up" reasons why the falsifying evidence is wrong. It's not simply a belief that is in error.

de·lu·sion
–noun
1.an act or instance of deluding.
2.the state of being deluded.
3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.



American Heritage Dictionary :

1. 1. The act or process of deluding.
   2. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Ever since Richard Dawkins decided to be inflammatory, it's been a trend among atheists to call all religious belief delusional. Problem is, it was incorrect when he said it, and it's just as incorrect now.

 

[rojse]

The problem with that logic is that all people could be deluded, and be so far out of touch with reality that they are unable to comprehend this fact.