Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[icehorse]

Greed is a whole lot more divisive and damaging than religion. So is ego; fostering all kinds of social bigotry and willful ignorance just to protect one's delusions of 'righteousness'. And yet who in our society is working to counteract these social poisons? I mean who as a large collective entity? That would be religion. It may fail more often than it succeeds, but at least it's there, and it's trying.

Largely agreed. I would say that environmental issues and the oligarchy are two first order problems, and religion is not.

BUT, anything that fosters divisiveness (like religion), is making solving these problems just that much harder. I can guarantee you that religion is the friend of the oligarch!

 

[icehorse]

Politics is divisive also but the same applies, not everybody can be right about opposite views.

Agreed that politics is divisive.

But religion is divisive about identity and at least politics has the possibility of being divisive about ideas. Debating ideas is WAY better than identity politics.

 

[Augustus]

1 - I'll add a third possibility - wealth and income inequality. So I've offered three possibilities, when you include, the golden rule and climate change. Of those, I agree that the golden rule - while powerful - would probably be the hardest to get people to rally around.

Without any attempt to address the "how", the "what" is pretty meaningless though. This is my point.

Communists and free-market capitalists have different ways to reduce poverty/increase wealth for all. That they both share the goal of increasing human well-being doesn't unite them one little bit

2 - I would say there are degrees to which you can attempt to change people to your way of thinking. "stop digging" is still a very open-ended suggestion compared to something like "focus on the climate" which is much more constrained request.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I think a good general rule would be to challenge dogma and to support non-divisive projects. In other words some people might choose to fight climate change, others might tackle fresh water, others might try to defang oligarchs. Those are all first order problems, and if they're approached without using dogma as a tool, I'd say we'd be making progress.

How do you put "getting rid of religion" in the non-divisive column though?

If goals are things like the environment and poverty, is it really religion that is causing the problems here?

3 - I think tackling environmental issues and economic issues can be viewed as selfish projects. Sure, they'll benefit others, but they'll also benefit "we the people", no?

Depends on which people.

If my region makes a lot of money from fracking then my interests are different from a tech worker in the city. You often end up telling the former to sacrifice their quality of life to benefit the latter.

If I own a business and environmental regulations mean I can't compete with Chinese firms, I might see them as problematic, even if I support green initiatives.

If I'm the leader of Sudan, I might resent Western leaders telling me to reduce emissions given they have caused a lot more pollution than me historically.

 

[PureX]

Largely agreed. I would say that environmental issues and the oligarchy are two first order problems, and religion is not.

BUT, anything that fosters divisiveness (like religion), is making solving these problems just that much harder. I can guarantee you that religion is the friend of the oligarch!

I agree. Anything that pits us all against each other for our own well being is fundamentally evil and potentially catastrophic.

 

[icehorse]

Without any attempt to address the "how", the "what" is pretty meaningless though. This is my point.

Communists and free-market capitalists have different ways to reduce poverty/increase wealth for all. That they both share the goal of increasing human well-being doesn't unite them one little bit

George Patton would disagree:

Patton: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity”.

We need to foster productive discussion. And dogmatic divisiveness as frequently seen when religion is invoked squashes productive discussion. We've seen on this very thread, several claims that we can sit back and do nothing because god will fix it for us. yikes!

Depends on which people.

If my region makes a lot of money from fracking then my interests are different from a tech worker in the city. You often end up telling the former to sacrifice their quality of life to benefit the latter.

If I own a business and environmental regulations mean I can't compete with Chinese firms, I might see them as problematic, even if I support green initiatives.

If I'm the leader of Sudan, I might resent Western leaders telling me to reduce emissions given they have caused a lot more pollution than me historically.

Agreed that it isn't an easy problem. But apparently some native americans pulled it off before europeans arrived by coming up with the "7 generations" test. So we see evidence that such long term thinking is possible at the societal level, hooray!

 

[PureX]

Largely agreed. I would say that environmental issues and the oligarchy are two first order problems, and religion is not.

BUT, anything that fosters divisiveness (like religion), is making solving these problems just that much harder. I can guarantee you that religion is the friend of the oligarch!

Religion is a big category of ideas and behaviors. And as a result can be both good and bad, simultaneously.

That which divides us against each other is our real enemy. While that which unites us for our mutual well-being is our salvation.

 

[Left Coast]

Humanity is facing enormous problems these days. Climate change will likely displace a BILLION people from their homes in the next few decades. We're running out of fresh water and topsoil. We're likely to face huge crop failures and food shortages.

We need to work together, if we're to survive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive. Either you're a Muslim, or you're not. Either you're a Christian or you're not. This "us vs. them" worldview is exactly what we DO NOT NEED at this critical juncture.

We need inclusive, critical thinking. We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

And while I'm at it, most identity politics these days shares a lot in common with religion. The most important / destructive way in which this is true is in the establishment and defense of DOGMA. We need new dogma like we need a hole in the head.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used to say "question authority". It's still good advice, but I'd amend it a bit and say:

"Question authority and question dogma".

Allow me to challenge this idea by asking this: isn't the truth divisive? I mean, whatever the truth is about the "big questions" of God, the meaning of life, how we ought to live, etc., the one thing that's clear is that people are going to strongly disagree with each other on these questions. So whether you're religious or not, we're all stuck defending positions that by their nature are going to be in some way...exclusive. Everyone isn't right. Somebody in these debates is wrong. I'm not sure how anyone avoids that, no matter what religion they do or don't follow.

 

[icehorse]

Religion is a big category of ideas and behaviors. And as a result can be both good and bad, simultaneously.

That which divides us against each other is our real enemy. While that which unites us for our mutual well-being is our salvation.

It's already become a long thread

As I said elsewhere, Christians and Muslims and Hindus (and probably others), could CHOOSE to excise the divisive components from their religions, that's all this OP is really addressing.

 

[icehorse]

Allow me to challenge this idea by asking this: isn't the truth divisive? I mean, whatever the truth is about the "big questions" of God, the meaning of life, how we ought to live, etc., the one thing that's clear is that people are going to strongly disagree with each other on these questions. So whether you're religious or not, we're all stuck defending positions that by their nature are going to be in some way...exclusive. Everyone isn't right. Somebody in these debates is wrong. I'm not sure how anyone avoids that, no matter what religion they do or don't follow.

I would say it's more the case that "the quest for truth" is often divisive. But as I just said to @PureX , the religious could CHOOSE to pursue the truth and drop the divisiveness. For example, couldn't we do without the notion that the "other" person is going to hell?

 

[Left Coast]

I would say it's more the case that "the quest for truth" is often divisive. But as I just said to @PureX , the religious could CHOOSE to pursue the truth and drop the divisiveness.

But by saying this, you're already being divisive by implying that the religious arent pursuing the truth. It seems to me most of us are pursuing the truth, we just reach differing conclusions about it. But whatever conclusion you reach, it will be "divisive" in some way: it will exclude some number of possibilities of what the truth is or isn't.

For example, couldn't we do without the notion that the "other" person is going to hell?

You could argue that, but imagine that there actually is a hell. How should we communicate that information to others? Again, no matter how you slice it (even if the answer is, there is no hell) your view is going to exclude some percentage of people who disagree with you.

 

[icehorse]

But by saying this, you're already being divisive by implying that the religious arent pursuing the truth. It seems to me most of us are pursuing the truth, we just reach differing conclusions about it. But whatever conclusion you reach, it will be "divisive" in some way: it will exclude some number of possibilities of what the truth is or isn't.

You could argue that, but imagine that there actually is a hell. How should we communicate that information to others? Again, no matter how you slice it (even if the answer is, there is no hell) your view is going to exclude some percentage of people who disagree with you.

Isn't largely the case that the truth is only divisive for those who hold a position dogmatically?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Allow me to challenge this idea by asking this: isn't the truth divisive? I mean, whatever the truth is about the "big questions" of God, the meaning of life, how we ought to live, etc., the one thing that's clear is that people are going to strongly disagree with each other on these questions. So whether you're religious or not, we're all stuck defending positions that by their nature are going to be in some way...exclusive. Everyone isn't right. Somebody in these debates is wrong. I'm not sure how anyone avoids that, no matter what religion they do or don't follow.

Well, it is even worse than that. What objective reality really is, seems to relative. Never mind what truth is.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Koldo]

There are billions of people all around the world honestly using their religion to try and be better people. I don't think you're trying to see this. I think you're trying not to.

People using their religion to try and better people? I certainly see that happening.

People using their religion to combat social bigotry, willful ignorance and greed specifically though? Nope, I just don't see it happening in general. Perhaps when the Catholic Church willfully ceases to be billionaire, when pastors become as rich as the poorest member of their churches, when tithing is a word of the past, when saying that having a homosexual relationships is a mortal sin becomes a taboo within religious circles, when speaking in favor of YEC just because it is written in the bible is no longer acceptable... Maybe on that day I will agree with you.

 

[Left Coast]

Isn't largely the case that the truth is only divisive for those who hold a position dogmatically?

"The truth" is another way of saying "the ways things are." The way things are is going to leave some people out in the cold, so to speak. If Jesus is God, all who don't believe that are simply wrong. If Jesus never existed, all who believe he did, including all those who revere or worship him, are simply wrong. We can't have it both ways. So in either case, the truth is in some way "divisive" - it does not allow for the legitimacy of all opinions.

"Dogma" means a few different things depending who you ask, but what I take you to mean here is some proposition that someone asserts that they insist they can't possibly be wrong about. Particularly if they do so with meager evidence. And yeah, it's a problem to be close-minded in that sense, or reach conclusions too hastily. And I think most religious people would agree with me on that basic idea.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm all for DEI as long as it's truly those things and the conversations and solutions are not dogmatic.

Marriage (not just gay) amd medical treatment (not just trans amd abortion) have long been considered too much and too dogmatic. Things in this field have changed so very little that even Dr. Martin Luther King complained about those who thought black people must wait and integration and civil equality must be a slower process so no one feels pushed, rushed or forced. We see that same exact thing today, even on RF, in regards to LGBT.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"The truth" is another way of saying "the ways things are." The way things are is going to leave some people out in the cold, so to speak. If Jesus is God, all who don't believe that are simply wrong. If Jesus never existed, all who believe he did, including all those who revere or worship him, are simply wrong. We can't have it both ways. So in either case, the truth is in some way "divisive" - it does not allow for the legitimacy of all opinions.

"Dogma" means a few different things depending who you ask, but what I take you to mean here is some proposition that someone asserts that they insist they can't possibly be wrong about. Particularly if they do so with meager evidence. And yeah, it's a problem to be close-minded in that sense, or reach conclusions too hastily. And I think most religious people would agree with me on that basic idea.

The same is the problem with being rational, logical, objective and justified to name a few. Or even knowledge.
Ever been in a debate with an Ayn Rand Objectivist? That is no different than any other dogmatic belief system. And even I am dogmatic in some sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Marriage (not just gay) amd medical treatment (not just trans amd abortion) have long been considered too much and too dogmatic. Things in this field have changed so very little that even Dr. Martin Luther King complained about those who thought black people must wait and integration and civil equality must be a slower process so no one feels pushed, rushed or forced. We see that same exact thing today, even on RF, in regards to LGBT.

Or talk about my tribe, the crazy ones.

 

[Left Coast]

The same is the problem with being rational, logical, objective and justified to name a few. Or even knowledge.
Ever been in a debate with an Ayn Rand Objectivist? That is no different than any other dogmatic belief system. And even I am dogmatic in some sense.

I don't see it as a "problem," honestly. I see it as just the way it is. It is only a problem if you view "divisiveness" as a more fundamental problem in the pursuit of understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see it as a "problem," honestly. I see it as just the way it is. It is only a problem if you view "divisiveness" as a more fundamental problem in the pursuit of understanding.

Yeah, you are right.

 

[icehorse]

Marriage (not just gay) amd medical treatment (not just trans amd abortion) have long been considered too much and too dogmatic. Things in this field have changed so very little that even Dr. Martin Luther King complained about those who thought black people must wait and integration and civil equality must be a slower process so no one feels pushed, rushed or forced. We see that same exact thing today, even on RF, in regards to LGBT.

I don't think these are issues that have to wait. But I do think that when activists work on these issues, any dogma they bring to the fight hurts their progress in in the long run.

Dogma pretty much inevitably leads to violence.