Why focus on the negative

[stvdv]

I feel like focus is the wrong word here, and that a different word could possible expose/reveal what I perceive as an inherent problem

Interesting point about focus

Example from my life illustrating your point

I have quite a few physical challenges (doctors wanted to "cut it out", but I decided to surrender to Sai Baba, to God and not to worldly doctors)

My focus is on living Dharmic, enjoying God's Love and care, God being my refuge and my chosen doctor, and on keeping (sticking to) a healthy diet. This way I even forget about the physical "problems" (I leave the worries about that to God so to speak: not that God worries of course).

This way I have at least no mental problems nor emotional problems. Works very well for me. God and Sai Baba is the best what happened in my life...Surrender to them is my best choice I ever made in life

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I feel like focus is the wrong word here, and that a different word could possible expose/reveal what I perceive as an inherent problem. I don't think we should 'focus' on the negative, however we should absolutely remain vigilant in all endeavors to raise awareness of the negativity we see and promote solutions. Our 'focus' should be on any realistic or achievable improvements that we become aware of. We often become embroiled and consumed by that which we focus on, so I suggest we avoid directing the spotlight onto the problem, and instead search for ways to improve the situation.

No, I really did mean "focus" when I said it.

Edit: to expand, I'm not religious. It's not my job to improve religion; my job is only to mitigate its harm. Whether that harm is mitigated by religion improving itself, or by leaving it just as nasty as it is but taking away its ability to inflict harm, or by it disappearing altogether makes no real difference to me.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

If a box of a dozen chocolates offer many wonderful, delicious experiences but have one poisonous chocolate in every box we wouldn't allow the box of chocolates to be sold. A lot of good intention doesn't cover over a bad outcome. Especially if you opt to ignore the poisonous chocolates piece in favor of the ones that were palatable. If you only had good chocolates, your positive experience is of little comfort to someone who was poisoned.

I think this is a very potent analogy. If we take into account that there IS poison in every box of chocolate. Sugar is one of the most addictive and deadly substances we consume as a species. Diabetes and other health deficiencies are doing a number on our population.

Self-awareness, discipline, and moderation should be practiced. I think.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

You have not given an example of something good that is exclusively religious.

Marriage?

To play devil's advocate: They statistically fall apart more often than they remain intact, they can be avenues to or used as justification for violence and abuse, they have been historically used to treat women as personal material property. Thusly, is the institution of marriage actually 'good'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree because religion has given me so much good in life

As a non-religious person, here's how I see what religious people describe as "good":

1) Some of it I see as actually good, but not dependent on religion. For instance, lots of religious people donate food to their church food bank, but I think they'd just as happily donate to a secular food bank if it was as convenient to do so, even if they stopped being religious.

We can compare this sort of religious good to Movember: lots of people will spend the month of November growing moustaches and raising money to fight cancer. Still, even though Movember exists, we wouldn't say that growing a moustache is inherently associated with doing good works, or that moustache-growers necessarily do more good than non-moustache-growers.

Likewise, religious belief isn't inherently associated with doing good works, and religious people don't necessarily do more good than non-religious people.

If you want to wrap your charitable works in a theistic aesthetic, that's fine and all, but I'll credit your good works to you, not to your religion.

2) Some of it is stuff that is dependent on religion, but isn't demonstrably good.

At best, some of this just seems benign... extreme meditation, for instance. But in the worst cases, we have religious people actively doing evil and inflicting great harm in the name of their religion while calling it "good."

What I've never seen is: 3) anything that's demonstrably good that requires religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a box of a dozen chocolates offer many wonderful, delicious experiences but have one poisonous chocolate in every box we wouldn't allow the box of chocolates to be sold. A lot of good intention doesn't cover over a bad outcome. Especially if you opt to ignore the poisonous chocolates piece in favor of the ones that were palatable. If you only had good chocolates, your positive experience is of little comfort to someone who was poisoned.

When I hear people say that their religion is a force for good, I kinda wonder if this isn't just their conclusion from observations like "I really enjoy church activities" (ignoring that other people there might have very different experiences) and "my community has few if any secular charities" (ignoring that this fact might be thanks to any of a number of negative pressures from religion).

 

[wellwisher]

Often in religious discussion or even worse in debate, it seems like the focus are on finding all the "negative" in religious beliefs instead of focus on all the good religion does for many people.

You can change bad situation by using goodness.

Negativity can be used by the ego to create a relative reference illusion. I can rise above by doing or saying something good. One might get a plaque. Or, I can appear to rise above, if I can place someone else in a hole. In both cases the top of the others person's head will be at my chin level. Hole digging; downhill path is easier, then climbing to the high road. This is why negativity is more common. Both can appear to bring the ego to the same relative place; chin to the top of the head.

If Atheism could not rag on religion, it would be stuck in a hole. It is not a philosophy of positives, but defines itself by what it is not; mirror of religion. Like in a mirror, the left hand appears to be the right hand; opposites. Religions often teach one to sacrifice the ego for the higher road; heaven. The opposite of that will need to boost the ego via a lower road; digging holes for others so the ego can feel like it is rising above.

Morality is where the ego submits to laws that are bigger than itself. Relative morality is where the ego decides the rules based on it own agenda. These are opposites. Relative morality often digs holes for others since relative means anything goes and not everyone can benefit. Criminals have their own relative morality which does not benefit or help others to rise above. It digs holes for others.

 

[Goldemar]

Often in religious discussion or even worse in debate, it seems like the focus are on finding all the "negative" in religious beliefs instead of focus on all the good religion does for many people.

You can change bad situation by using goodness.

If I see something as negative in a religion, then I'll critique it. If that comes across as focusing on the negative in that religion, so be it. I don't see how focusing on the positives in said religion will help in that regard.