[TED] Is religion good or bad?

[Shafees]

It's like asking is a knife good or bad. What a silly question, it just depends.

A better question would be "does religion mark people happy!"

Or
"Does it dull their senses?"

As in Marx.

 

[DBT]

If we separate the cultural practices, dances, costumes, music, cathedrals, etc, from the unjustified beliefs related to faith, one would have to say that religion is bad because its unjustified faith based beliefs are not only intellectually dishonest, but at times bordering on delusional.

Because faith is unjustified, and allows a believer to form strong convictions of truth without evidential support, this class of belief is inherently divisive and therefore a source of potential conflict.

History has countless examples of religion (faith) as a source of conflict.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If we separate the cultural practices, dances, costumes, music, cathedrals, etc, from the unjustified beliefs related to faith, one would have to say that religion is bad because its unjustified faith based beliefs are not only intellectually dishonest, but at times bordering on delusional.

I don´t think you can separate them. In my view the core of religion is the dances, costumes, music, cathedrals etc. I think god was just invented as an excuse in order to get to do all the fun stuff.

Check this Islamic group meditation/prayer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5goISKPSH8
I´m sure anybody who has been to a rave party can relate, and has experienced the euphoria we get from this type of active meditation.

Because faith is unjustified, and allows a believer to form strong convictions of truth without evidential support, this class of belief is inherently divisive and therefore a source of potential conflict.

History has countless examples of religion (faith) as a source of conflict.

I challenge this. I think the root of all conflicts is just money and power. Due to religious boundaries often neatly following ethnic or class boundaries it´s handy to blame religion. But given a little closer inspection it´s always bullshit. That´s my impression anyway. War is always about somebody just wanting somebody elses stuff, alternatively somebody wanting to stop somebody trying to take someone else´s stuff. it´s not hard to see how saying that the war isn´t really about someone´s boundless greed... but in reality about the voices in their heads telling them to do stuff... is a handy way to justify immoral acts morally. But it´s always bullshit, and the excuses are always paper thin. I can´t think of a single exception to this rule.

There´s also a long tradition of young men joining wars to fight, because they think it´s exciting. Also... not religion. When I was young young Swedish daredevils traveled to Croatia to fight. Now it´s for or against ISIS.

Anyhoo... this discussion I´ve had several time before. So I´m not going to argue this again. But this is my belief.

 

[DBT]

People have been known to argue over ideas, heated arguments that have resulted in friendships lost, even resulting in physical altercations. Beliefs have been known to cause breakups in families. People have fought in order to spread, maintain or defend their ideologies and religions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

People have been known to argue over ideas, heated arguments that have resulted in friendships lost, even resulting in physical altercations. Beliefs have been known to cause breakups in families. People have fought in order to spread, maintain or defend their ideologies and religions.

But what´s the difference between those kinds of conflicts and political conflicts? This, to me, just sounds like politics. I´m not saying this doesn´t happen within religion. But singling religion out as extra bad in this regard... I just don´t see it. The problem here is a lack of tolerance of differences of opinion, ie everybody who isn´t specifically a liberal. Intolerance is common on all levels of society. I honestly think that religion is irrelevant in this regard. Intolerant people will be attracted to intolerant religion. Liberals to liberal religion. Blaming religion for it... I think is a tad silly.

 

[DBT]

People have been known to argue over ideas, heated arguments that have resulted in friendships lost, even resulting in physical altercations. Beliefs have been known to cause breakups in families. People have fought in order to spread, maintain or defend their ideologies and religions.

But what´s the difference between those kinds of conflicts and political conflicts? This, to me, just sounds like politics.

It's just a matter of conviction, strength of conviction and how far someone is willing to go to defend their faith.

If people have a vested interest in their religious beliefs, as priests, some form of hierarchy, or a believer is attracted to the promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones, ultimate justice, etc, they generally do not like to have the beliefs of their faith challenged.

First comes a feeling of threat, then annoyance, then the need to avoid the threat to faith, and if all fails, some may turn to violence as a last resort. Not everyone of course, but a part and parcel of faith is the range of personalities who are attracted to the teachings and promises of their religion.

I´m not saying this doesn´t happen within religion. But singling religion out as extra bad in this regard... I just don´t see it. The problem here is a lack of tolerance of differences of opinion, ie everybody who isn´t specifically a liberal. Intolerance is common on all levels of society. I honestly think that religion is irrelevant in this regard. Intolerant people will be attracted to intolerant religion. Liberals to liberal religion. Blaming religion for it... I think is a tad silly.

Intolerance is common on all levels of society, but as religion is a major element in many societies people who question the truth of that religion (or religion itself) may be seen as threat to that society and that religion. Plus anyone who does not share the faith is an outsider...the division of 'us' and 'them' - 'self' and 'not self'

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what´s the difference between those kinds of conflicts and political conflicts? This, to me, just sounds like politics.

It's just a matter of conviction, strength of conviction and how far someone is willing to go to defend their faith.

If people have a vested interest in their religious beliefs, as priests, some form of hierarchy, or a believer is attracted to the promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones, ultimate justice, etc, they generally do not like to have the beliefs of their faith challenged.

First comes a feeling of threat, then annoyance, then the need to avoid the threat to faith, and if all fails, some may turn to violence as a last resort. Not everyone of course, but a part and parcel of faith is the range of personalities who are attracted to the teachings and promises of their religion.

Yet, religious people cry at funerals. So their convictions can´t be all that great. Karen Armstrong in the Battle for God makes the argument that fundamentalism and religious extremism comes when a religion is dying. It´s not so much about convincing other people they´re correct as themselves. They have so much vested in the political identity they´re afraid to lose that they cling to the belief all the stronger. But the same thing can be said about any form of political extremism, religious or otherwise.

Very few people like to have their beliefs challenged. This forum has plenty evidence of that.

I´m not saying this doesn´t happen within religion. But singling religion out as extra bad in this regard... I just don´t see it. The problem here is a lack of tolerance of differences of opinion, ie everybody who isn´t specifically a liberal. Intolerance is common on all levels of society. I honestly think that religion is irrelevant in this regard. Intolerant people will be attracted to intolerant religion. Liberals to liberal religion. Blaming religion for it... I think is a tad silly.

Intolerance is common on all levels of society, but as religion is a major element in many societies people who question the truth of that religion (or religion itself) may be seen as threat to that society and that religion. Plus anyone who does not share the faith is an outsider...the division of 'us' and 'them' - 'self' and 'not self'

To answer this I need to explain what religion means to me. I see religion mainly as a tool for emotional management. The religious books are the way they are because they just mirror back whatever their believers project on to them. They are written the way they are to affirm the believers beliefs they held, prior to coming to the religion. That´s why all religious texts are pretty much all over the place, and that you can find stuff in any religion to justify pretty much any activity.

Intolerance is closely related to xenophobia. Xenophobia is the natural state of humans. We´re naturally fearful of that which we don´t understand or identify with. Us vs Them is not confined to religion. It´s rampant in any group of humans. Xenophobia has to be constantly unlearned. Any form of xenophobia that isn´t constantly suppressed will re-assert itself in no time.

Whether or not religion adds to divisiveness between religions, or the faithful and atheists is anyone's guess. We don´t really have a control group. But I´d say it´s beyond question that religion decreases xenophobia between people who have the same religion. Isn´t that a good thing?

 

[DBT]

Whether or not religion adds to divisiveness between religions, or the faithful and atheists is anyone's guess. We don´t really have a control group. But I´d say it´s beyond question that religion decreases xenophobia between people who have the same religion. Isn´t that a good thing?

I don't see it as a guess, there are enough examples of religious intolerance, (including our understanding of human nature), to support the proposition that there is always going to be certain percentage of people in every religion who show their intolerant of other religions, denominations, etc, Sunni's and Shiites, Muslims and Christians and so on.

For example:
''However, the relationship between religion and conflict is, in fact, a complex one. Religiously-motivated peace builders have played important roles in addressing many conflicts around the world. This aspect of religion and conflict is discussed in the parallel essay on religion and peace. This essay considers some of the means through which religion can be a source of conflict.''

''Some groups, such as America's New Christian Right and Jama'at-i-Islami of Pakistan, have operated largely through constitutional means though still pursue intolerant ends. In circumstances where moderate ways are not perceived to have produced results, whether social, political, or economic, the populace may turn to extreme interpretations for solutions. Without legitimate mechanisms for religious groups to express their views, they may be more likely to resort to violence. Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have engaged in violence, but they also gained supporters through social service work when the government is perceived as doing little for the population. Radical Jewish cells in Israel and Hindu nationalists and Sikh extremists in India are other examples of fundamentalist movements driven by perceived threat to the faith. Religious revivalism is powerful in that it can provide a sense of pride and purpose, but in places such as Sri Lanka and Sudan it has produced a strong form of illiberal nationalism that has periodically led to intolerance and discrimination.[1] Some religious groups, such as the Kach and Kahane Chai parties in Israel or Egypt's Islamic Jihad, consider violence to be a ‘duty'.[2] Those who call for violence see themselves as divinely directed and therefore obstacles must be eliminated.''

''Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism, which can be conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers of the flock. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on subject peoples was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonization. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practice their faith. In part, this is out of a desire to minimize beliefs the dominant group feels to be inferior or dangerous. Suppression of Christianity in China and the Sudan are but two contemporary examples. In the case of China, it is not a conflict between religions, but rather the government views religion as a dangerous rival for citizens' loyalties. All of these instances derive from a lack of respect for other faiths.''

Although the article concludes with - ''in the eyes of many, religion is inherently conflictual, but this is not necessarily so'' - I don't think that this is a fair conclusion, or assumption, given the inherit divisiveness of faith based beliefs, which do in fact conflict with each other in terms of the articles of belief, be they political, ideological or religious.

 

[Will Wiley]

Is bad bad or good?
Is good good or bad?
Is bad or good good or bad?
Is good or bad bad or good?
It's hard to tell you something.
It's hard to tell you something.

I'm going to put that to music.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To answer this I need to explain what religion means to me. I see religion mainly as a tool for emotional management. The religious books are the way they are because they just mirror back whatever their believers project on to them. They are written the way they are to affirm the believers beliefs they held, prior to coming to the religion. That´s why all religious texts are pretty much all over the place, and that you can find stuff in any religion to justify pretty much any activity.

You are correct, and the cleverer church goers realize this. Religious ideas attempt to both invoke and explain states of mind that are desirable and difficult to articulate. We are only partially conscious, and religion is one way to attempt to bring hidden things in our mind to light(pun intended).

And don't forget the social aspect. It's critical.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but it seems like some are attempting to get out of the question by defining it away. If I point to a religion you are going to know it for a religion. Yes, it's a broad area. Yes, there's nuance, and yes one has to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. It reminds me of the concept of health. It can mean a lot of things, and the concept of what health is can even change over time, but few argue that health isn't good. If someone asks "On balance, considering all the ways that humans express it, do you think that religion is over all an evil or a good in our world?" I think that's a much more interesting question than the OP video.