Why is religion...

[Dill]

(07-09-2017, 02:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: As usual, interesting take. I think there is a chicken and egg thing though, and I would be willing to flip your line of thought around a bit. Rather than identity being threatened and people rallying around religion I think it often goes in the opposite direction. People rally around religion and it is their identity, and part of the operative system of keeping it that way is to convince the faithful there are constant threats to their religious identity. Godless communism will destroy our church if we don't fight them over there before they come over here and Sharia Law will destroy our superior faith if we don't fight them over there... don't those sound like familiar ideas that set people up to back Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? If the faithful weren't in constant fear of some "bear in the woods" that was gonna come and poop in their temple I am not so sure they would be so quick to send Johnny marching off to battle (again and again and again). I have a degree of respect for religion, particularly the more universal themes running through it as highlighted most effectively and beautifully by Joseph Campbell, but I think you and Bels are letting institutional religion off the hook too easily in this discussion.

I'm not a big supporter of institutionalized religion either, or religion in general. I just think it is overrated as a "cause" of so many misfortunes like war. Or worse than overrated, focusing on religion obscures the real causes. People treat religions in monolithic, ahistorical terms, when all the world religions are multifarious and changing over time and space and mixing with other religions and "isms."

Also, religion is rarely separable from identity. People don't see a need to "rally" unless they feel threatened in some way. Your examples seem to me of people using religion to garner and maintain political power. But the people convincing the faithful of a Communist threat may not be religious at all, just as, back in the 80s and 90s, many Republican leaders who were not particularly religious or pro-life nevertheless immediately recognized the value of becoming so. In every religious country, people who want power, or feel genuinely threatened, understand this and appeal to religion by elevating fear of threats to that religion.

But to continue your "flip" tactic, once people are embedded in some religious beliefs, and those beliefs are in some way challenged, then yes, it makes sense to see religion as a cause.  E.g., in the Middle East, there is a great hostility to the theory of evolution among Muslims. That sometimes makes it hard to teach science in some universities. It also helps cast Western influences as threatening, to be opposed. I can't imagine Buddhists being rallied by opposition to modern biology. So which religion people embrace, which variety or sect, can certainly determine what they perceive as a threat.

[xxlt]

(07-09-2017, 04:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not a big supporter of institutionalized religion either, or religion in general. I just think it is overrated as a "cause" of so many misfortunes like war. Or worse than overrated, focusing on religion obscures the real causes. People treat religions in monolithic, ahistorical terms, when all the world religions are multifarious and changing over time and space and mixing with other religions and "isms."

Also, religion is rarely separable from identity. People don't see a need to "rally" unless they feel threatened in some way. Your examples seem to me of people using religion to garner and maintain political power. But the people convincing the faithful of a Communist threat may not be religious at all, just as, back in the 80s and 90s, many Republican leaders who were not particularly religious or pro-life nevertheless immediately recognized the value of becoming so. In every religious country, people who want power, or feel genuinely threatened, understand this and appeal to religion by elevating fear of threats to that religion.

But to continue your "flip" tactic, once people are embedded in some religious beliefs, and those beliefs are in some way challenged, then yes, it makes sense to see religion as a cause.  E.g., in the Middle East, there is a great hostility to the theory of evolution among Muslims. That sometimes makes it hard to teach science in some universities. It also helps cast Western influences as threatening, to be opposed. I can't imagine Buddhists being rallied by opposition to modern biology. So which religion people embrace, which variety or sect, can certainly determine what they perceive as a threat.

Often it seems what religious identity fears is the other, in any form. You ain't got you're salvation from our baptismal waters, you ain't saved! Kind of ironic, since some think religion should be about bringing people together, but in such cases it absolutely keeps people divided. We're Baptists, they're Lutherans: lock them up! We're Catholic, they're Quakers: isolate them! Etc.

[Dill]

(07-09-2017, 04:38 PM)xxlt Wrote: Often it seems what religious identity fears is the other, in any form. You ain't got you're salvation from our baptismal waters, you ain't saved! Kind of ironic, since some think religion should be about bringing people together, but in such cases it absolutely keeps people divided. We're Baptists, they're Lutherans: lock them up! We're Catholic, they're Quakers: isolate them! Etc.

Yes, it does. But it also does the opposite. Some strains of Christianity and Buddhism, for example, have been massive supports for pacifism.

If we got rid of religious identity groups, others types would replace them. Human require group identities. I do think that we can be smarter about how we "group" up though, if we learn from history.

[xxlt]

(07-09-2017, 05:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, it does. But it also does the opposite. Some strains of Christianity and Buddhism, for example, have been massive supports for pacifism.

If we got rid of religious identity groups, others types would replace them. Human require group identities. I do think that we can be smarter about how we "group" up though, if we learn from history.

The not accidental dismantling of labor groups you mentioned in another thread is the handmaiden of the dismantling of education that the good Ms. DeVos is undertaking even as we chat.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-09-2017, 05:57 PM)Dill Wrote:
Yes, it does. But it also does the opposite. Some strains of Christianity and Buddhism, for example, have been massive supports for pacifism.

If we got rid of religious identity groups, others types would replace them. Human require group identities. I do think that we can be smarter about how we "group" up though, if we learn from history.

I read an article one time that was talking about the topic of this thread and the author said something at one point that caught my attention. I don't remember it word for word but he basically said that those who criticize religion have the advantage of being able to say who has killed in God's name because no one can really say how many people decided not to do bad things because they believe in God. 

He was essentially begging the question of how do you count the amount of bad things that didn't happen because of a belief in God vs the amount of bad things that did happen because of a belief in God? And really you can't. It's a variable that is impossible to account for.

[Beaker]

(07-10-2017, 05:08 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I read an article one time that was talking about the topic of this thread and the author said something at one point that caught my attention. I don't remember it word for word but he basically said that those who criticize religion have the advantage of being able to say who has killed in God's name because no one can really say how many people decided not to do bad things because they believe in God. 

He was essentially begging the question of how do you count the amount of bad things that didn't happen because of a belief in God vs the amount of bad things that did happen because of a belief in God? And really you can't. It's a variable that is impossible to account for.

Another variable you can't account for is how many people don't do bad things whether they believe in a religion or not.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-07-2017, 10:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Why is religion the cause of most wars and the most death and the most suffering in the world?

I read and hear this claim all the time, even though it is completely untrue.

I would just like to know why people make this claim.

The deaths from non-Religious wars in the 20th century alone put a lie to that.  

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2017, 05:15 PM)Beaker Wrote: Another variable you can't account for is how many people don't do bad things whether they believe in a religion or not.

And if people actually believed that they wouldn't be so adamant about how "bad" religion is.

[BmorePat87]

Nationalism is the cause of most wars in the last 150 years. In the case of the Middle East, that nationalism comes in the form of a religious identity since there's no homogenous ethnic identity.

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 05:08 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I read an article one time that was talking about the topic of this thread and the author said something at one point that caught my attention. I don't remember it word for word but he basically said that those who criticize religion have the advantage of being able to say who has killed in God's name because no one can really say how many people decided not to do bad things because they believe in God. 

He was essentially begging the question of how do you count the amount of bad things that didn't happen because of a belief in God vs the amount of bad things that did happen because of a belief in God? And really you can't. It's a variable that is impossible to account for.

This reminds me of two stories I sometimes tell folks.

1. About 10 years ago, I dined with friends at harbor restaurant in Doha, Qatar. Our waiter was Bedouin, a poor desert Arab come to the city where he landed a great job.  Later that evening, when we arrived home, I realized my wallet was missing. I presumed I left it at the restaurant, perhaps at our table. When I told my friends I would go back tomorrow to check with the waiter, they laughed and told me I was crazy If I had left it there it was gone for good. I told them the waiter was Bedoo so I was pretty certain he wouldn't steal it, at which they laughed even harder.  This was not an Islamophobic thing either, as all three of my friends were "secular" Muslims from Albania.

Next day I went to the restaurant. Not only did the waiter have my wallet, but he would not accept a finders tip. What he had done was "good in the sight of Allah" and not to be tainted by profit.

2. Several years later I was at the Dead Sea with my family, at a day resort on the Jordanian side.  My son came to me in the evening distraught--he had lost his wallet, left it on a table. There were a number of young serving boys working at this resort. He assumed one had snatched it, and our table was rather isolated from traffic. I told him the boys were Bedoo, very unlikely any would steal it. Rather, more likely they would turn it in to the management. Like my friends previously he was skeptical. Also the resort was closed, since it was late evening. Who to ask?  I went to the back door and knocked. The  door opened to a dressing room for male workers. I asked if anyone had found a wallet and immediately a kid of about 13 ran to a drawer, pulled out my son's wallet, and returned it to him. Again, no tip.

I could multiply stories here--both of Muslims and Christians who have helped out a poor atheist in need when his car broke down or some other misfortune struck.  Beaker is right to point out there are non religious people who do good works too. I just want to mention that, in the total scheme of things, religions have also enabled people to interact ethically with strangers, sometimes on a vast scale. Not defending religion here so much as just stumping for descriptive accuracy.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-10-2017, 06:04 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And if people actually believed that they wouldn't be so adamant about how "bad" religion is.

See use of the adjective 'Muslimy' on these very boards as example here. The absolute religion haters are the ignoramous few who cling to theirs so tightly in an attempt to justify their own disillusioned self worth.

[Bengalzona]

I got one for you.

What is the difference between organized religions and nationalism?

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 11:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I got one for you.

What is the difference between organized religions and nationalism?

I'll bite, what?

[Bengalzona]

(07-10-2017, 11:11 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll bite, what?

I don't know. They seem pretty darn similar to me. Maybe that's why some feel the urge to combine them.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-10-2017, 11:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I got one for you.

What is the difference between organized religions and nationalism?

Organized Religion - wants everyone to go to Heaven or wherever that religion's utopia is. Yes, homosexuals as well, It's not the person but the sin. Also, all sin is the same to God, homosexuality is not a unique sin.
Nationalism - wants only their nationality to survive and to destroy the rest.

If you can't see that, there is no hope for you.

[Bengalzona]

(07-11-2017, 02:19 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Organized Religion - wants everyone to go to Heaven or wherever that religion's utopia is. Yes, homosexuals as well, It's not the person but the sin. Also, all sin is the same to God, homosexuality is not a unique sin.
Nationalism - wants only their nationality to survive and to destroy the rest.

If you can't see that, there is no hope for you.

That is what most of the religious doctrines and theologies espouse. And some individuals get that. It is rarely how the religious organizations behave. The group dynamic changes things.

The transition of changing a religion from a set of guidelines for an individual to read, elect and absorb to a set of guidelines for running a group, community or even a country befouls the original intent of the message. For example: sin is something and individual does, not a group. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-11-2017, 03:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: That is what most of the religious doctrines and theologies espouse. And some individuals get that. It is rarely how the religious organizations behave. The group dynamic changes things.

The transition of changing a religion from a set of guidelines for an individual to read, elect and absorb to a set of guidelines for running a group, community or even a country befouls the original intent of the message. For example: sin is something and individual does, not a group. 

There is a whole lot of Collective Salvation going around that is for sure but I know of no Baptist churches that I've belonged to or have visited that teach that a man or woman as evil because of the sin in their lives. I do see Baptist and Evangelical churches turning Calvinist though and that is truly alarming.

[GMDino]

The problem with any religion/ideology is that it is so easily perverted and how easily followers will go with that.

I often say if I didn't have morals/ethics I just would have been a televangelist or started an off-shoot cult and made my millions by now.

Still thinking abut it actually....

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2017, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: This reminds me of two stories I sometimes tell folks.

1. About 10 years ago, I dined with friends at harbor restaurant in Doha, Qatar. Our waiter was Bedouin, a poor desert Arab come to the city where he landed a great job.  Later that evening, when we arrived home, I realized my wallet was missing. I presumed I left it at the restaurant, perhaps at our table. When I told my friends I would go back tomorrow to check with the waiter, they laughed and told me I was crazy If I had left it there it was gone for good. I told them the waiter was Bedoo so I was pretty certain he wouldn't steal it, at which they laughed even harder.  This was not an Islamophobic thing either, as all three of my friends were "secular" Muslims from Albania.

Next day I went to the restaurant. Not only did the waiter have my wallet, but he would not accept a finders tip. What he had done was "good in the sight of Allah" and not to be tainted by profit.

2. Several years later I was at the Dead Sea with my family, at a day resort on the Jordanian side.  My son came to me in the evening distraught--he had lost his wallet, left it on a table. There were a number of young serving boys working at this resort. He assumed one had snatched it, and our table was rather isolated from traffic. I told him the boys were Bedoo, very unlikely any would steal it. Rather, more likely they would turn it in to the management. Like my friends previously he was skeptical. Also the resort was closed, since it was late evening. Who to ask?  I went to the back door and knocked. The  door opened to a dressing room for male workers. I asked if anyone had found a wallet and immediately a kid of about 13 ran to a drawer, pulled out my son's wallet, and returned it to him. Again, no tip.

I could multiply stories here--both of Muslims and Christians who have helped out a poor atheist in need when his car broke down or some other misfortune struck.  Beaker is right to point out there are non religious people who do good works too. I just want to mention that, in the total scheme of things, religions have also enabled people to interact ethically with strangers, sometimes on a vast scale. Not defending religion here so much as just stumping for descriptive accuracy.

I agree that non-religious people do good works, however the argument isn't ever about how "non-religion" is the cause of wars. Religion is specifically targeted as the cause for so much turmoil whenever someone wants to talk about all the conflict that has happened in the world. But I can't say that I'm surprised, because it's easy to pick on something that's immediately identifiable such as Christianity or Islam. You can't really identify "non-religion" as a cause. That's why I felt the need to make the point about how no one can really account for all the bad vs good that religion has really created, and if people could really see that they would understand how grand of an assertion is to blame religion for "most" tragedies.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-11-2017, 08:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: The problem with any religion/ideology is that it is so easily perverted and how easily followers will go with that.

I often say if I didn't have morals/ethics I just would have been a televangelist or started an off-shoot cult and made my millions by now.

Still thinking abut it actually....

It seems that you're alluding to the theory that "One cannot/can be moral without God" that both atheists and believers argue about. I'd like to say that even though someone may be doing something immoral does not mean that they are void of any morality. It bugs me that people talk about morality in absolutes as if to say you are either moral or immoral and there is no in-between. Well truth is no one is completely moral or immoral. Morality to me is not a permanent attribute that one has, but is instead something that is applied situationally. People like to act like they are infinitely moral because they believe/don't believe in God but this is simply not the case.