What is wrong with religion?

[UnTheist]

Why are people blaming religion? Isn't it the Humans' fault?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While any of these may pose problems in some cases, they cannot generally be applied to all religions. Therefore, they cannot be a list of "what is wrong with [all] religion." Only "what may be wrong with some religions."

Which gets to a tricky question (which I won't get into answering, since I know there's at least one other thread for it): what are the key characteristics that constitute a religion?

I know that many religious people would not call UU a "religion", despite claims by its membership to the contrary. I also know that many people who I would consider to be extremely religious claim that they aren't religious at all (instead preferring terms like "personal relationship with God" to describe their beliefs).

Because there are so many varied beliefs and practices claiming the title of "religion" (and many seemingly religious systems that eschew the term), I doubt you'd be able to find anything at all in common with all religions, to speak nothing of a problem that's shared by all of them.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Why are people blaming religion? Isn't it the Humans' fault?

What are you saying? Religion is a man-made organization. You mean that 'they' are not humans? What are they, robots? aliens? or monkeys?

 

[UnTheist]

I was asking why many feel religion was the source of all evil wrather than the Humans themselves.

 

[rojse]

10) Why should this pose a problem? There's no way to falsify Saturn, either. It just is what it is.
11) Hmm. Seems to me that some bodies base their beliefs upon a tripod that includes reason.
12) Lack of Tolerance? Have you been to a UU service?
13) Then you're relatively unaware.

Thank you to Sojourner for replying to my post. I have stated, fairly regularly, that my complaints do not apply for all religions, on some of them. I do not try to be specific in my accusations, because I do not want to offend people of one faith, or leave other faiths out who are just as guilty.

10. We can disprove the existence of Saturn. Imagine if we tried to send satellites to Saturn, except that they did not find anything. Or there was no gravity influence where Saturn is supposed to be.
11. As I have said before, not all bodies of faith base their beliefs on reason. Some faiths dismiss scientific evidence, some faiths make statements that are only logical when people state "God can do whatever He wishes". I do grant that some do, but I have never claimed that this is not the case.
12. As I have often stated, my complaints are not applicable to all religions. I am aware of the UU church, and quite like it's ideas on tolerance and teaching all faiths.
13. Thank you for mentioning this, I have been informed, given examples, and links to several official apologies.

 

[Popeyesays]

10. We can disprove the existence of Saturn. Imagine if we tried to send satellites to Saturn, except that they did not find anything. Or there was no gravity influence where Saturn is supposed to be.

Too late! We've already used Saturn to slingshot deep space probes on at least two occasions.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Eraser Salad]

Something universal to faith is that it is primarily concerned with furthering itself. If you believe that what a religion teaches is factually wrong, then it's natural to see a religion as an institution dedicated towards spreading misinformation.

This is not unique to atheism. This is how religions tend to see each other, except more recently, as some theists have tried to popularize the idea that the world's religions don't all have wildly differing principles in an attempt to gang up on atheists.

 

[Booko]

Well, if the Bible is not a literal account of God's deeds and will, then it has an element of falsehood about it.

Rojse, saying that the Bible has to be a literal account of God's deeds or be false is like saying a poem has to be literally true or it's false.

What you're presenting is a false dichotomy here. The BIble is a work of religious literature, not a technical manual from God. And as literature, it needs to be read as we would other works of literature. It's subjective, but subjective does not translate to "useless" either.

According to that logic, if the Bible is correct in this instance, God ordered the slaughter of that city. If the Bible is a fabrication in this regard, then we cannot accept it's authenticity in any regard whatsoever, because if that one book is full of lies, then the rest of it could be too.

Parts of the BIble are history, though I cannot stress enough that historiography today is really quite recent. Historians of the past did not strive for objectivity, and to hold them to our standards is akin to thinking the ancients stupid because they had not yet invented computers.

We would not have computers today if we did not stand on the ancients' discoveries and knowledge about the physical world.

And we would not have modern history if we did not stand on the ancients' knowledge about the world of humanity and methods of record-keeping and communication.

Other parts of the BIble like a code of laws and description of proper social behaviour.

Yet other parts of the Bible are pure poetry.

To speak of "the Bible" as if it's one monolithic text is inaccurate. It's an anthology.

To interpret and understand some passage, you first have to look at what the intent is. History? Law? Poetry?

"true" and "false" are in themselves subjective terms. What is "true" in science cannot be applied to poetry in exactly the same way.

Bible texts, and indeed all religious texts, are not one-size-fits-all.

 

[Booko]

11) Hmm. Seems to me that some bodies base their beliefs upon a tripod that includes reason.

Not to take this off topic, but a quick question...what are the other 2 elements of that tripod?

I usually think in terms of these:

reason
empiricism (observation)
tradition (a.k.a. history)
intuition (which some call "Spirit")

I'm guessing that it pretty much comes out the same, but you piqued my curiousity.

And to try and get back on topic here, I've studed all of the major religions to some extent, and have yet to find any of them devoid of reason.

They rely on methods that extend beyond reason, yes, but then so do many valuable things in life.

(Wonders how one would "reason" ones way to composing a truly fine opera...say like "Hansel & Gretel & Ted & Alice)

 

[Booko]

Why are people blaming religion? Isn't it the Humans' fault?

It may or may not be, Nihilo.

The question is, is a religion set up so that, if everyone followed it really well, would it create a better world or a worse one?

And the other question is: are the followers actually following it well?

These two questions are often smushed into one, and that leads to much misunderstanding.

 

[lunamoth]

Not to take this off topic, but a quick question...what are the other 2 elements of that tripod?

I usually think in terms of these:

reason
empiricism (observation)
tradition (a.k.a. history)
intuition (which some call "Spirit")

I'm guessing that it pretty much comes out the same, but you piqued my curiousity.

I believe the tripod Sojourner is referring to is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, which is the Anglican approach. The Catholic version I think is Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. The Methodist quad (I've read) is Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.

 

[Booko]

Because there are so many varied beliefs and practices claiming the title of "religion" (and many seemingly religious systems that eschew the term), I doubt you'd be able to find anything at all in common with all religions, to speak nothing of a problem that's shared by all of them.

Is there a religion that lacks some sort of moral code?

All of the "major" religions at least have a statement of the Golden Rule. If you want to read it I can dig it up, or there are a few others here who would have it handy.

And quite frankly, regardless of religious tradition, the mystics sound like they're singing the same tune.

 

[doppelganger]

Is there a religion that lacks some sort of moral code?

Arguably, mystics in all traditions aren't dealing in a world governed by a moral code. Why this is so is a difficult matter to explain.

 

[Booko]

11. As I have said before, not all bodies of faith base their beliefs on reason. Some faiths dismiss scientific evidence, some faiths make statements that are only logical when people state "God can do whatever He wishes". I do grant that some do, but I have never claimed that this is not the case.

Which faiths dismiss scientific evidence? I know there are some segments that do so, but I hadn't run across entire religions that do that yet.

And is it an issue with the religion per se or when the original teachings are examined, is a rejection of scientific evidence found to be missing?

There certainly are religious literalists out there who reject science, but I would not blame that on the text they follow, but on poor human interpretive choices.

 

[Booko]

10. We can disprove the existence of Saturn. Imagine if we tried to send satellites to Saturn, except that they did not find anything. Or there was no gravity influence where Saturn is supposed to be.

Too late! We've already used Saturn to slingshot deep space probes on at least two occasions.

No, Sojouner was correct in his first post.

Saturn is not falsifiable. Neither is Chronos, his father.

 

[Booko]

This is not unique to atheism. This is how religions tend to see each other, except more recently, as some theists have tried to popularize the idea that the world's religions don't all have wildly differing principles in an attempt to gang up on atheists.

Uh...Eraser Salad (love that name!) my religion is based on the idea that the world's religions come from the same source (not that they don't have differences, though).

Is this what you call ganging up on atheists?

The third teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is that religion must be the source of fellowship, the cause of unity and the nearness of God to man. If it rouses hatred and strife it is evident that absence of religion is preferable and an irreligious man better than one who professes it. -- Abdu'l-Baha

Seriously, maybe the atheists are the ones most in concert with the Divine Will.

 

[Booko]

Arguably, mystics in all traditions aren't dealing in a world governed by a moral code. Why this is so is a difficult matter to explain.

For the Sufis, the idea of the path was broken into 3 parts:

1. Shariat (religious laws)
2. Tariquat (the search for the One)
3. Haqiqat (the goal, as it were)

Sufis believed that having reached Haqiqat, they would necesarily be in tune with God's Will, and so paying attention to laws at that point would be moot.

It would be like asking an adult to pay attention to how they zip up their pants. Well, by that point it's become automatic.

Is this the sort of thing you were referring to?

(When it comes to mystics, I'm more acquainted with Sufis and Catholics, well and the mystic texts of my own tradition.)

 

[doppelganger]

Sufis believed that having reached Haqiqat, they would necesarily be in tune with God's Will, and so paying attention to laws at that point would be moot.

Yes, but that the laws actually get in the way of the mystic, too. They are an incomplete shadow that obscures direct experience of what they incompletely signify.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm still trying to figure out if religion is just ligion done over again.

I strongly suspect that it either is or isn't.

 

[Eraser Salad]

Uh...Eraser Salad (love that name!) my religion is based on the idea that the world's religions come from the same source (not that they don't have differences, though).

Is this what you call ganging up on atheists?

What, your religious beliefs or the quote? Neither, as far as I can tell.

But in regard to the quote, unity among peoples is often based in the exclusion of somebody else. The devout of all faiths have become much more tolerant of each other in this century thanks in part to the idea that all religions teach the same set of moral guidelines, for example that Buddhists and Christians should get along because the Buddhist God and the Christian God are one in the same. The logical implication of this is obvious - all faiths are on our side, atheists aren't. RF won't let me post a link to the polls showing American prejudice towards atheists, but I'm sure they've been posted here before, anyway.

I'm sure to some it feels like a fantastic, progressive viewpoint; to me it feels like when Israel's Jews, Christians, and Muslims united against Jerusalem's gays. Uniting the intolerant with a common pariah.

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. Just for clarity's sake, I think that's more a cultural thing, not something caused by religion universally.