Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[icehorse]

Not sure, but I'm thinking tribalism is similar to nationalism now, to an extent.

Could well be. And nationalism also might once have been a fine strategy, but the world situation is too dodgy now to use it - it's too fragile.

 

[YoursTrue]

Could well be. And nationalism also might once have been a fine strategy, but the world situation is too dodgy now to use it - it's too fragile.

Yes. Well, nationalism is a shaky enough doctrine as it is anyway. And then put religion in the mix, all I can say is it's a big mixup. No wonder Jesus told his disciples to pray what is called the "Our Father" prayer. "Let your kingdom come..." For the whole earth, not just Israel, which is another subject anyway. Nice talking with you, have a good evening.

 

[PureX]

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.

How would you see it? How woukd you know what's going on in someone else's heart and mind? How would you know who they would be without their religious path? And yet you seem to imagine that you do know. What does this say about you?

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.

You are confusing religion and it's effect on individuals with a single religious institution. Do you also think all the worlds people think and act according to the dictates of the U.S. government?

 

[Koldo]

How would you see it? How woukd you know what's going on in someone else's heart and mind? How would you know who they would be without their religious path? And yet you seem to imagine that you do know. What does this say about you?

Why would I need to need to know what's going in someone's mind/heart or who they would be without their religious path to state that I don't see people, in general, using religion to combat social bigotry, willful ignorance and greed?

Conservatives, which are fairly more religious in general than liberals, are quite more likely to be bigots than liberais.

Outspoken scientists frequently fight against willful ignorance, and scientists are less likely to be religious than the rest of the population.

You are confusing religion and it's effect on individuals with a single religious institution. Do you also think all the worlds people think and act according to the dictates of the U.S. government?

A single religious institution? Not at all. I used the word 'pastor', rather than priest when I typed that post to include protestant/evangelical churches too.

 

[PureX]

Why would I need to need to know what's going in someone's mind/heart or who they would be without their religious path to state that I don't see people, in general, using religion to combat social bigotry, willful ignorance and greed?

What is it that you think you would see?

Conservatives, which are fairly more religious in general than liberals, are quite more likely to be bigots than liberais.

Bigotry and self-righteousness are part-in-parcel. So religion is a good mask for it to hide behind.

Outspoken scientists frequently fight against willful ignorance, and scientists are less likely to be religious than the rest of the population.

Education often provides relief from the kinds of cognitive difficulties that people use religions to help them deal with.

A single religious institution? Not at all. I used the word 'pastor', rather than priest when I typed that post to include protestant/evangelical churches too.

Religion is a much bigger category than those.

 

[Koldo]

What is it that you think you would see?

Religious leaders not saying that homosexuality is a sin, and being outspoken against YEC, just for starters.

Bigotry and self-righteousness are part-in-parcel. So religion is a good mask for it to hide behind.

And an excellent ground to foster bigotry.

Education often provides relief from the kinds of cognitive difficulties that people use religions to help them deal with.

Religion is a much bigger category than those.

Sure, but I am speaking about what I have seen (or not seen). Hindus, Muslims and Jews, just to cite three examples, are very hard to come by in Brazil.

 

[PureX]

Religious leaders not saying that homosexuality is a sin, and being outspoken against YEC, just for starters.

What do the 'leaders' have to do with it? They preach bigotry because it attracts people that want to pretend their bigotry is righteousness. Bigotry is all about feeling righteous and superior. Who doesn't want to feel righteous and superior?

But religions preach lots of other messages, too. And they invite lots of other kinds of people in, as well. Why aren't you looking at those messages, and those people? I was raised Catholic and even went to a Catholic grade school and I never heard a word against any race or even any sexual orientation from any priest or nun. I heard a lot about love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, and compassion, though.

I think you're way too focused on what makes YOU feel superior and righteous. And it's causing you to condemn millions of people that you know nothing of.

 

[Augustus]

Wrong on two counts:

1 - No, Patton is giving goals, not tasks.

The military gives well defined groups of people with a clear hierarchy and power to enforce cooperation and with common interests specific tasks to be achieved (goals if you prefer) with specific resources over a clear time scale, etc.

They don't just wave a platitude about and let the chips fall where they may. You are comparing apples with oranges.

2 - Dude! Let me try this yet another way.. I've offered a few suggestions FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY - I haven't made any claims in this thread that I have any sort of fleshed out plan. In yet other words, the suggestions I've made I do not consider to be fleshed out to any degree whatsoever

Yes, I know this. My point is that saying "religion is divisive we must get rid of it" requires one to offer less divisive alternatives, and no one seems able to do that.

The problem is not that they are "not fleshed out", but that I don't think any such alternatives can exist at a global level given scale and diversity so I see the inability to identify any as the crux of the issue.

I'm okay with "think of the future".

We're not struggling for our short term survival like they might have been.

Many people are struggling worldwide, and most people are concerned about keeping their current status. Crises also happen frequently and blow systems apart.

Also you are talking about a small scale society governed by personal relations not an impersonal global scale phenomenon. Communism can work very well on a small scale governed by personal interactions and trust, it cannot work at the macro scale across diverse societies with different values, cultures and interests.

"I can do X therefore everyone should be able to do X", or "X works in this localised situation therefore it should work on a global scale too" are faulty lines of reasoning.

Complexity rises exponentially with scale, and again with diversity, and again with time scales and this quickly rises beyond a level that can be controlled as unified movement.

And.... you're back to variations of "it's hard" again.

Yup, saving civilization is gonna be friggin' hard.

Iif you think all I'm saying is "it's hard", you are completely missing the point.

Do you not see any difference between "it's hard", and "based on all available scientific, historical and anecdotal evidence, what you are proposing in unrealistic, especially as it gets the cause and the effect the wrong way round"?

So I'm not saying "it's hard", I'm saying "it is better to try to work with humans as they actually are rather than chasing rainbows and wishing we were working with a different, more rational species that is less prone to factionalism. As such focusing on something like religion which, as well as being mostly peripheral to the big problems we face, is one of the few things that unites people across boundaries and thus can potentially be of help in solving these problems. There is no silver bullet, no way to unify the world and advocating for something as divisive as getting rid of religion is completely counterproductive to your stated goals, especially as you have no idea what you could replace it with."

You'll probably disagree, but most western atheists are really just godless Christians and can help but retain a dream of salvation, recast in secular terms of course. Religions just plays the role of the devil, and as soon as we triumph over the devil we will reach the promised land. Of course, most aren't overtly utopian, but still believe we can start to transcend our collective nature if we just do a few more things. Like the 2nd coming, the fact that humans continue to be the same old humans doesn't dampen their optimism that this time, it really is in our reach. As such, they keep on chasing rainbows instead of looking at what can be achieved while also accepting our fundamentally flawed nature (which includes accepting significant degrees of division as intrinsic to large scale society).

 

[Koldo]

What do the 'leaders' have to do with it? They preach bigotry because it attracts people that want to pretend their bigotry is righteousness. Bigotry is all about feeling righteous and superior. Who doesn't want to feel righteous and superior?

How exactly do you reach the conclusion that religion is a very relevant factor, a driving force, in the combat against willful ignorance, greed and bigotry when the speech of religious leaders doesn't support this conclusion?

But religions preach lots of other messages, too. And they invite lots of other kinds of people in, as well. Why aren't you looking at those messages, and those people? I was raised Catholic and even went to a Catholic grade school and I never heard a word against any race or even any sexual orientation from any priest or nun. I heard a lot about love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, and compassion, though.

First, let me point out that I am talking specifically about the three points you have brought up before: greed, social bigotry and willful ignorance.

Second, the fact that you never heard a word against any race or sexual orientation from any priest or nun doesn't mean everyone had the same experience. That much should be obvious.

And third, being silent on social issues still doesn't entail support in favor of the socially oppressed.

I think you're way too focused on what makes YOU feel superior and righteous. And it's causing you to condemn millions of people that you know nothing of.

I am not condemning anyone. Are you projecting or something?

 

[PureX]

How exactly do you reach the conclusion that religion is a very relevant factor, a driving force, in the combat against willful ignorance, greed and bigotry when the speech of religious leaders doesn't support this conclusion?



First, let me point out that I am talking specifically about the three points you have brought up before: greed, social bigotry and willful ignorance.

Any fool can preach any foolishness and find an audience. Calling it religion doesn't make it religion. Because anyone could also be preaching wisdom and call that religion, too. You're trying to use a small subset of religiosity to define and condemn all religiosity. But it doesn't work that way. Religions offer a whole array of ideas and tools people can use to achieve their ideals, both good and bad.

Second, the fact that you never heard a word against any race or sexual orientation from any priest or nun doesn't mean everyone had the same experience. That much should be obvious.

All the more reason to stop trying to paint religion with one color and one brush.

And third, being silent on social issues still doesn't entail support in favor of the socially oppressed.

Religions have no voice. Only people can speak against oppression, or for it. And they do. Some religious and some not. So I don't know what your point is, here.

I am not condemning anyone. Are you projecting or something?

You are condemning religion based on your limited understanding and experience of it. Sounds very similar to the very thing you are condemning.

 

[Koldo]

Any fool can preach any foolishness and find an audience. Calling it religion doesn't make it religion. Because anyone could also be preaching wisdom and call that religion, too. You're trying to use a small subset of religiosity to define and condemn all religiosity. But it doesn't work that way. Religions offer a whole array of ideas and tools people can use to achieve their ideals, both good and bad.

All the more reason to stop trying to paint religion with one color and one brush.

Religions have no voice. Only people can speak against oppression, or for it. And they do. Some religious and some not. So I don't know what your point is, here.

You are condemning religion based on your limited understanding and experience of it. Sounds very similar to the very thing you are condemning.

Either reading comprehension is getting in the way or you are intentionally building a strawman just to beat it down, so which one is it?

I am not condemning all religiosity. I am just saying that I don't see religion as a driving force to combat greed, bigotry and willful ignorance. The speeches I hear against those things generally come from the groups that tend to be less religious.

This is not the same as saying that no religious person ever speaks against bigotry, for example. Nor is it the same as saying that religious groups don't ever promote good values.

 

[PureX]

I am not condemning all religiosity. I am just saying that I don't see religion as a driving force to combat greed, bigotry and willful ignorance. The speeches I hear against those things generally come from the groups that tend to be less religious.

What is the point of this statement if not to condemn religion for not being a driving force for the betterment of humanity? And I still disagree with the observation. We never see how religions change people for the better. Mostly because we never look for it. And we never ask anyone about it. And we can never see what religious people would have been without their religions.

This is not the same as saying that no religious person ever speaks against bigotry, for example. Nor is it the same as saying that religious groups don't ever promote good values.

So what exactly IS it saying?

 

[icehorse]

The military gives well defined groups of people with a clear hierarchy and power to enforce cooperation and with common interests specific tasks to be achieved (goals if you prefer) with specific resources over a clear time scale, etc.

They don't just wave a platitude about and let the chips fall where they may. You are comparing apples with oranges.

I would agree that what you describe is typical. I believe Patton did not use that typical approach. As a parallel, all across the world of teaching and learning we're seeing a shift away from detailed "how" instructions to an external focus of "what".

Yes, I know this. My point is that saying "religion is divisive we must get rid of it" requires one to offer less divisive alternatives, and no one seems able to do that.

The problem is not that they are "not fleshed out", but that I don't think any such alternatives can exist at a global level given scale and diversity so I see the inability to identify any as the crux of the issue.

One thing I've mentioned several times in this very thread is that the religious could choose to reform their doctrines and excise the divisive messages.

==

Gotta run, I'll address the rest of your post later..

 

[Koldo]

What is the point of this statement if not to condemn religion for not bring a driving force for the betterment of humanity? And I still disagree with the observation. We never see how religions change people for the better. Mostly because we never look for it. And we never ask anyone about it. And we can never see what religious people would have been without their religions.

So what exactly IS it saying?

At this point, I simply refuse to further engage into this conversation with you. You are either willfully misrepresenting what I am stating or unable to understand what I am saying (even though I have explained myself multiple times already). In both cases, I am no longer interested in talking to you. Good bye.

 

[icehorse]

Iif you think all I'm saying is "it's hard", you are completely missing the point.

Do you not see any difference between "it's hard", and "based on all available scientific, historical and anecdotal evidence, what you are proposing in unrealistic, especially as it gets the cause and the effect the wrong way round"?

So I'm not saying "it's hard", I'm saying "it is better to try to work with humans as they actually are rather than chasing rainbows and wishing we were working with a different, more rational species that is less prone to factionalism. As such focusing on something like religion which, as well as being mostly peripheral to the big problems we face, is one of the few things that unites people across boundaries and thus can potentially be of help in solving these problems. There is no silver bullet, no way to unify the world and advocating for something as divisive as getting rid of religion is completely counterproductive to your stated goals, especially as you have no idea what you could replace it with."

You'll probably disagree, but most western atheists are really just godless Christians and can help but retain a dream of salvation, recast in secular terms of course. Religions just plays the role of the devil, and as soon as we triumph over the devil we will reach the promised land. Of course, most aren't overtly utopian, but still believe we can start to transcend our collective nature if we just do a few more things. Like the 2nd coming, the fact that humans continue to be the same old humans doesn't dampen their optimism that this time, it really is in our reach. As such, they keep on chasing rainbows instead of looking at what can be achieved while also accepting our fundamentally flawed nature (which includes accepting significant degrees of division as intrinsic to large scale society).

Throughout this conversation I'm inferring that you have a very "throw in the towel" mindset? I'm coming from a sort of incremental solution mindset. I'm not claiming that we can come up with a silver bullet / one size fits all solution to our problems. Rather I'm seeing we have to chip away at the thinking that's keeping us from solving our problems. I don't claim that there are any perfect, 100% solutions. But marketing and advertising do work, and memes do spread. For example, I'm hoping that of the hundreds of people that have glanced at this thread, a few might think to themselves: "You know, I've never explicitly thought before about how divisive some of my religion's teaching are."

Another example of this is that when we're trying to win close elections, we can succeed if we focus our messages on the fence sitters and ignore the entrenched.

We can chip away at these problems and make incremental progress. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and you seem to me to be shooting down any idea you don't think is perfect?

Am I reading you correctly?

 

[Augustus]

Am I reading you correctly?

Not at all.

I just think solutions need to be based on understanding humans how they are, not how we would like them to be.

As such, striving for unity is a pipe dream that often causes more harm than good.

Think of it as the difference between: how can we create a unified world where we all get along, how can we mitigate the harms of living in a world where we don't get along, have incompatible interests and often hate each other.

I'll reply to the other stuff a bit later

 

[icehorse]

I just think solutions need to be based on understanding humans how they are, not how we would like them to be.

As such, striving for unity is a pipe dream that often causes more harm than good.

Think of it as the difference between: how can we create a unified world where we all get along, how can we mitigate the harms of living in a world where we don't get along, have incompatible interests and often hate each other.

Our solutions don't have to work for how ALL humans are. We need just enough humans to move the needle. I understand that no solutions will be universally applicable - again, that feels like the perfect being the enemy of the good.

So, for example, I'm NOT saying we have to strive for 100% unity. All we need are coalitions that are just big enough.

 

[Augustus]

or example, I'm hoping that of the hundreds of people that have glanced at this thread, a few might think to themselves: "You know, I've never explicitly thought before about how divisive some of my religion's teaching are."

Maybe someone will read it and think "You know, I've never explicitly thought before about how divisive my desire to get rid of religion is and how it impedes our ability to focus on more important goals"

Our solutions don't have to work for how ALL humans are. We need just enough humans to move the needle. I understand that no solutions will be universally applicable - again, that feels like the perfect being the enemy of the good.

So, for example, I'm NOT saying we have to strive for 100% unity. All we need are coalitions that are just big enough.

This seems incongruous with the idea that we should strive to remove religions from society as they are divisive.

If religions are not any more or less divisive than the alternatives what does it matter? They might even be helpful for creating transnational links and commonalities.

In theory, a pan-Islamic environmental movement funded by Gulf countries would be a "big enough" coalition. Without a common religion they have less to unite them. I'd say Islam is neither particularly beneficial or particularly harmful when it comes to building acceptance for environmentalism.

I don't really see how religion is stopping us from dealing with major problems, or what the better alternative would look like.

 

[icehorse]

This seems incongruous with the idea that we should strive to remove religions from society as they are divisive.

I believe this will be the 3rd time IN THIS CONVERSATION that I've suggested religious reformation or evolution, not elimination.

If religions are not any more or less divisive than the alternatives what does it matter? They might even be helpful for creating transnational links and commonalities.

I don't really see how religion is stopping us from dealing with major problems, or what the better alternative would look like.

And this will be at least the 2nd time in this conversation that I've said I do NOT view religion as the only divisive force the world is grappling with. Of course there are many, and they all ought to be undone. But religion is a big one.

Again, I'm going to bring up incremental improvements. We can chip away at many sources of divisiveness, and any incremental gains will add up.

 

[Augustus]

I believe this will be the 3rd time IN THIS CONVERSATION that I've suggested religious reformation or evolution, not elimination.

It makes little difference.

An “outsider” lecturing you about how you need to buck up your ideas is divisive, especially when these ideas form a core part of your identity and are not directly relevant to the important issues you are seeking to build consensus over.

So whatever phrase you prefer, it’s divisive and for no real benefit to your stated goals and helps contribute to an "us v them" mentality.

This is why it is incongruous.

And this will be at least the 2nd time in this conversation that I've said I do NOT view religion as the only divisive force the world is grappling with. Of course there are many, and they all ought to be undone. But religion is a big one.

Again, I'm going to bring up incremental improvements. We can chip away at many sources of divisiveness, and any incremental gains will add up.

You still seem to be missing my point completely.

Chipping away at religion doesn’t reduce division. This is the thing I’ve been saying since the start.

You can’t remove religion you can only replace it with something else. The something else you replace it with (ideology/worldview) will be divisive.

When you say religion is fundamentally divisive, then this seems to give them special qualities not present in other worldviews. There is no meaningful difference between religious ideologies and irreligious ones in general though imo.

You think dogmatic religion causes division, I think dogmatic religion is simply one manifestation of human cognition and people prone to such views are prone to such views and will find an ideology that fulfils their needs.

The diversity of human belief systems and cultural traditions is divisive, so either we aim to reduce cultural diversity, or start to find solutions that accept we will have to try to work with those whose ideologies we do not particularly like.

If it is the latter, the very last thing we should do is tell them their beliefs are an impediment to progress, so they should buck up their ideas and be a bit more rational, like we are.

Could well be. And nationalism also might once have been a fine strategy, but the world situation is too dodgy now to use it - it's too fragile.

Or we have to accept that our world, as long as the nation state exists, will contain nationalism. We then have to find a way to make it less fragile while accepting divisive ideologies will always exist.