Religion: Does It Do More Harm Than Good? (2 Viewers)

[davin]

what do you mean our morals and ethics? it has influence on law, yes, but my morals and ethics, on a personal level, aren't from religion

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i think u could consider atheism as religion - in the sense u have faith that god doesnt exist?

I've explained many times how illogical that is...
A religion requires a belief in a supernatural power - without that condition you do not have a religion. However of course if you want to broaden this definition, you can start to claim that pretty much anything is a religion... the government is a religion, communism is a religion - it takes away from what we know.

i had a feeling you'd do that....and though i find it pointless in attemptin to have a rational discussion with you, i'll try it anyway.

Um yah... ok then.

i didn't say what i said without reason. from what i know, it's extremely hard to correctly define "religion" without missing out on some aspect of it.

Ok I explained how we use operational definitions to make things easier for us... we cannot really define what 'love' is but we can come up with an operational definition of it which is actually of some use to us. You want to make up definitions which make it so that no analysis will be done - I'm not 'presuming' this, I am taking it from what you have expressed.

and i'll thank you to refrain from assuming what i'd "like to" do.

Perhaps 'you want' or 'you'd like' isn't the best language, however I think I conveyed my point reasonably enough - your reasoning is leading you down a path where it's impossible to make any statement about religion because you're unwilling to give it an operational definition.

when a holy scripture emphasises that something should/should not be done, there is a concept behind it. it is this concept which is important to understand. if you say that oh, in islam u have to do such and such, without grasping an understanding of the underlying concept, you are likely to get a distorted image of the religion and its practises.

Ok but how do we get to that underlying concept? It's impossible - only the creator of the text (god) will know how to truely interpret it... so there will always be conflict over what the PURE form of the religion is. For the purpose of any analysis tho, what we want to know is what it operationally is RIGHT NOW, through observation.

, you are likely to get a distorted image of the religion and its practises.

It's impossible to know whether the operational definition we come up with is distorted compared with what the 'pure' form is, because it's simply impossible for us to know - however for the purpose of analysis we have to give it an operational definition.

are you serious? okay so in that case religion could be anything. no wonder people get misinterpreted ideas about what islam is like - becoz according to you, religion is what its followers make of it. so islam would include a whole heap of extremist values which, in fact are condemned in islam.

You don't know what is 'in fact' condemned in islam - islam is for all operational purposes only a product of its followers, so to claim that some of the followers of islam should be excluded from an analysis of islam is to completely miss the point.

Of course the religion is not REALLY what the followers make of it, but for all operational purposes that's what it is - otherwise we can't analyse it at all.

that's kinda like saying a movie is what it's viewers make of it. the viewers' response may be an indication of how the public responded to the movie. it may indicate public tastes and interests. but it is not the movie itself.

A movie is for the most part what it's viewers make of it - we cannot really ever find out what the movie is truely about as the only definitive source would be the creator - even then it could be argued that while his vision of the movie was A the movie actually was B.

one same religion means different things to differnt ppl. but essentially, it is something through which ppl attempt to find meaning in life, and answer lifes' basic questions (eg. who am i? why am i here? is there life after death etc). religion provides people something, with which, they can give meaning/purpose to their life.

I don't think it gives people much 'meaning' or 'purpose'... like the only answer i've heard is usually 'to worship god' (which they normally claim is done by basically leading a good life - amazing revelation there). The main use for religion is to make life alot easier and the hard questions more managable.

the destruction done in the name of religion is not supported by religion....it is done, and supported by people who just need an excuse to destroy/hate. it is supported by people who often misinterpret their religion and then use it to justify their actions.

See you make a claim like this but I don't think you can actually support it - how do you know that the destruction done in the name of the religion is not a part of the religion? You're not willing to give us what you believe is the definition of a religion, you claim it can't be done... nor are you willing to accept any operational definitions - yet you still manage to make statements like this.

Can't you see the problem with that?

religion is not what its followers make of it. religion is a constant: it stays the same no matter what ppl do in its name. it is the followers and their interpretations that are constantly changing.

I hope my post has perhaps clarified exactly what I meant, because I really don't think you understood what I was saying.

i didn't actually have anything against his views, so i should have kept that comment to myself. my apologies NTB

What do you mean nothing against my views? of course you do, you disagree with me lol

just explain how has religion done more harm than good?
Especially if it is the basis of our morals, ethics and laws..

Religion is not the basis of our morals - our morals come from our biology...
We evolved into social creatures, because social creatures tend to live longer than others - we evolved empathy, because creatures that are empathetic to each other tend to live longer....

I mean this idea that ethics comes from religion, think about the following.
- Why do monkeys look after each other?
- Why are atheists also ethical?

 

[funnybunny]

We can give an operational definition of the various religions so we can understand them and analyse them - you'd like to make religion this mysterious thing that can't be defined so you can just reject any analysis of it.

I think by concept, he/she means that you have to learn about the whole religion..not just pick out parts that justify your claims & present them as defining that religion.

can't be defined so you can just reject any analysis of it

How is that different to you rejecting religion because you cant see it in front of your eyes?
ANYWAY, how would YOU define a specific religion?(without knowing the concept/everything about the religion from different perspectives/views)..i mean, u make it sound so easy......

Religion is not the basis of our morals - our morals come from our biology...
We evolved into social creatures, because social creatures tend to live longer than others - we evolved empathy, because creatures that are empathetic to each other tend to live longer....

typical....ur'e looking at it from an evolution P.O.V...i can easily say that we have become empathetic to each other because of our religion and our "god" tells us to look after and help those who are disadvantaged..Our "god" tells us to respect each other equally..
How can you base your argument on something that can be used to prove the opponent's argument?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think by concept, he/she means that you have to learn about the whole religion..not just pick out parts that justify your claims & present them as defining that religion.

What is 'the whole religion' ? When you're setting out to define the whole religion, you can't say 'well look at the whole religion' because that's circular reasoning.

How is that different to you rejecting religion because you cant see it in front of your eyes?

Religion is a social construct, it's not like an atom or whatever if that's what you're getting at.

 

[funnybunny]

When you're setting out to define the whole religion, you can't say 'well look at the whole religion' because that's circular reasoning.

exactly my point....u cant define religion can u?

Religion is a social construct, it's not like an atom or whatever if that's what you're getting at.

no...what i meant was that u accuse us of claiming religion does not have a definiton so that we can dismiss everything u say, but similarly, u claim that religion isnt in front of ur eyes and therefore dismiss everything we say...in other words, u claim that we simply dismiss the fundamental point (that religion can be defined), yet u also dismiss the fundament point (that for something to be real, it doesnt have to be in front of ur eyes)...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

exactly my point....u cant define religion can u?

You can't define it the way you want to... however you can give it an OPERATIONAL definition based on what observations about the religion currently (formed by its followers) is.

no...what i meant was that u accuse us of claiming religion does not have a definiton so that we can dismiss everything u say, but similarly, u claim that religion isnt in front of ur eyes and therefore dismiss everything we say...

I'm willing to use operational definitions.

 

[the.chosen.one]

Ok but how do we get to that underlying concept? It's impossible - only the creator of the text (god) will know how to truely interpret it... so there will always be conflict over what the PURE form of the religion is. For the purpose of any analysis tho, what we want to know is what it operationally is RIGHT NOW, through observation.

no it isn't impossible. i never said we needed to find THE interpretation...the VERY interpretation set out by creator of the religion. i said it's important to grasp the underlying concept. this is just like in english - you are asked to analyse a certain piece of text. your analysis may not be what the original writer meant, but it is an interpretation of the underlying concept of the text - here there is no right and wrong.

the important thing is to go beyond the literal meaning and try to see what its really trying to say. for the purpose of analysis, it is important to be able to try and interpret these texts and also the various meanings people derive from them.

I don't think it gives people much 'meaning' or 'purpose'... like the only answer i've heard is usually 'to worship god' (which they normally claim is done by basically leading a good life - amazing revelation there). The main use for religion is to make life alot easier and the hard questions more managable

firstly i'd like to point out that religion should not be linked with God. though this is the most common belief, religion and God do not necessarily go hand in hand. this can be seen in major religions such as hinduism and buddhism, in which, worship of a God is not the ultimate.

and i'd agree with saying that religion makes life a lot easier, and the hard questions more manageable....since it'd be off the topic though, i won't ask if you could explain how.

I'm willing to use operational definitions.

for the purpose of this thread....seeing as yeah, it'd probably be good to have a base to go off, could you provide the operational definition you've been talking of?

See you make a claim like this but I don't think you can actually support it - how do you know that the destruction done in the name of the religion is not a part of the religion? You're not willing to give us what you believe is the definition of a religion, you claim it can't be done... nor are you willing to accept any operational definitions - yet you still manage to make statements like this.

Can't you see the problem with that?

such a claim cannot be supported with definition. but yes i can support it by saying that from what i have studied of various religions, none encourage violence, hate, or destruction in any form.
yeah i have mentioned i believe it isn't strictly possible to define religion but i never refused to use operational definitions...

actually in previous posts i've actually asked you for these operational definitions - seeing as i don't think i can supply one, and you feel it is necessary

btw i don't think morals come from biology. but that's a different topic

 

[Not-That-Bright]

typical....ur'e looking at it from an evolution P.O.V...i can easily say that we have become empathetic to each other because of our religion and our "god" tells us to look after and help those who are disadvantaged..Our "god" tells us to respect each other equally..
How can you base your argument on something that can be used to prove the opponent's argument?

If you want to throw a supernatural power into it than you can pretty much make any argument.... there is no argument I could make where you couldn't throw in this supernatural power as another alternative because it's supernatural.

I've provided a natural falsifiable solution - there's a huge difference.

i never said we needed to find THE interpretation...the VERY interpretation set out by creator of the religion. i said it's important to grasp the underlying concept. this is just like in english - you are asked to analyse a certain piece of text. your analysis may not be what the original writer meant, but it is an interpretation of the underlying concept of the text - here there is no right and wrong.

Yea ok I get that... different people have different ideas of what their religion really is about, however for definitions sake we can't just take their word on it - we have to look at what in practice their religion is... we do that by analysing the actions of the followers.

firstly i'd like to point out that religion should not be linked with God. though this is the most common belief, religion and God do not necessarily go hand in hand. this can be seen in major religions such as hinduism and buddhism, in which, worship of a God is not the ultimate.

True not all religions have a god, but they do at least have some sort of supernatural force - I was merely giving an example of what answers I recieve when I ask people what meaning they get from their religion, it doesn't have to be incredibly broad...

for the purpose of this thread....seeing as yeah, it'd probably be good to have a base to go off, could you provide the operational definition you've been talking of?

No I can't - we have to analyse the followers however to get to it... I haven't done some big comprehensive analysis of religion, but if I did I am saying this is how we would learn to understand it.

but yes i can support it by saying that from what i have studied of various religions, none encourage violence, hate, or destruction in any form.

No you can't because while you know... you may read the teachings as being against violence, hate etc that doesn't mean that they don't encourage violence - to find out if it does requires a much deeper analysis of the followers while trying to eliminate biases...

btw i don't think morals come from biology. but that's a different topic

Where do they come from then? It's the best naturalistic explanation we have as far as I know... if you say 'god' then I remind you again that it's like me saying 'morals come from a gigantic magical pig in the sky' - you can't use supernatural explanations...

 

[the.chosen.one]

when you put it that way, of course you criticise the person.

when it becomes a collective, you criticise their collective common belief

so in that case, who is to blame/credit for bad/good deeds done in the name of religion would really depend on perspective....right?

when we want to talk about what religion encourages, I say it encourages the "i am right", "non-believers are doomed/different/ignorant", which is a dangerous mentality to promote.

i think this again, is very much relative. becoz this is your interpretation. religion may indirectly suggest various concepts...and this is the concept it suggests to you.
but is this what religion primarily about?


(NTB: couple of things i wanna point out, which i'll do later........cheers)

 

[transcendent]

everyone seems to be having fun arguing each other's points.

it doesn't matter that religion isn't primarily about the religious is right everyone else is wrong. it doesn't matter if it didn't INTEND for that to happen, it happens anyway. you can't argue religion based on one interpretation of it. religion have MANY socio-economical, spiritual and other affects on people and society.

to understand the criticisms of religion you have to understand the comparisons made to it from past experiences. you can have good intentions and yet create bad outcomes. you need to understand that one action does not directly cause a reaction that you had prepared and intended it to be. religion as a concept, ignore god, ignore the texts, what does it do for society? it's a way to justify existence and provide a life plan, a long term goal to live your life. the religious texts are no more important than life manuals, help yourself guides and to a certain extent other forms of media that manipulate your understanding of the world and how you live it. god is no more than some self help guru, some idol by which you dedicate you life to. the only difference is what he is. something invisible force which you believe created the world, gave you that religious text and told you this is how you live your life, i am right and you're not allowed to question my authority. how is it any different from times of old where the emperor of a country was in charge, they believed him to have created the world and everything he said and did was unquestionable and perfect? this is what you fail to understand. so when someone compares religion to a dictatorship with the illusion of choice and freedom you desire, with supposed good intentions as long as you ignore the bad parts of the religious texts then you better at least try to understand where they are coming from.

 

[davin]

just to comment....it doesn't matter what the intent of religion was, imo. harm vs good is determined by how its actually practiced and what actually comes of it, not what someone simply intended.

 

[dilroy]

Religion is just here to occupy the time it takes for science to provide clearer theories on how the universe was created ie Big Bang. For the meantime, let these ignorant minds believe in whatever bullshit superior being they believe there is to be.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Exactly - Davin and Transcendent understand what I'm talking about... to actually analyse a religion - for our fairly 'scientific' purposes - we have to look at what the religion is in practice... make tangible observations... we can't just do an interpretation of a text or try to understand what this 'god' creature is because that doesn't really matter much.

 

[the.chosen.one]

just to comment....it doesn't matter what the intent of religion was, imo. harm vs good is determined by how its actually practiced and what actually comes of it, not what someone simply intended.

i think thats fair enough

but then how do u measure how much good has been done over how much harm?

remembering that often, the harm is more obvious than the good - but that doesn't necessarily give a correct measure.

 

[MiuMiu]

just to comment....it doesn't matter what the intent of religion was, imo. harm vs good is determined by how its actually practiced and what actually comes of it, not what someone simply intended.

Just what I was about to write.....just because someone has good intentions doesn't make the outcome good.


Regardless of the integrity of the intention, we are looking at the merit of the outcome when deciding if religion does more harm than good.

 

[davin]

i think thats fair enough

but then how do u measure how much good has been done over how much harm?

remembering that often, the harm is more obvious than the good - but that doesn't necessarily give a correct measure.

and thats exactly what this is about...what counts as harm or good caused by religion, and subsequently which is the greater effect of religion...that which is good or that which is harmful

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i think thats fair enough

Cool - then stop telling us that we're analysing the religion wrong.

 

[the.chosen.one]

Cool - then stop telling us that we're analysing the religion wrong

i never said that in the first place, and in any case by saying "i think thats fair enough" i obviously "stopped" whatever argument i was previously making...no need to drag the matter further. it's irrelevant.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok good, I'm glad you conceded your argument - and you did claim we were analysing religion wrong because you were saying we have to look at the true meanings behind the scripture etc... which is what started this argument.

 

[funnybunny]

Exactly - Davin and Transcendent understand what I'm talking about

LOL..u should knoe better than 2 put that in ur post....im guessin they're atheists or anti-religion?