What is a "good" religion?

[Unknown Soldier]

Some of the people here have disagreed with my characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense. Some religions, at least, are arguably good--aren't they? To address this issue, we should define a good religion by listing its traits. A good religion:

1. Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
2. Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
3. Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
4. Never solicits funds without fully disclosing what the funds will be used for and avows that the human limitations of the religion make fundraising necessary.
5. Never interferes with science or education in general.
6. Tells its members that they have every right to judge the religion according to what they see fit and never ridicules nor denounces its critics especially if those critics are former members.
7. Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
8. Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
9. Is always honest with its members never pretending to know what it doesn't know and corrects its errors dropping any doctrine if there is insufficient evidence for it or good reason to doubt it.

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions. It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

 

[steve_bank]

Religin is not about rationim r knowledge or anything like that. In fact it is emotional not intellectual and it fllls a need that scintific facts can not meet..

The mistake I've seen atheists make on the forum is to assume all things must fit into a neat logical scientific rational formula. Anythng else has no value.

In the 90s I watced a panel discussion on CNN between Chetians and scientists. Bill Nye was one of the science side, and he looked like a fool. Those representing science made logical fact based arguments and were bewildered they did not prevail.

The RCC was always n odd mix of theology and science.

 

[abaddon]

It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

Buddhism has your nine traits in it and it's ancient.

Unitarian Universalism does as well, even more explicitly. It's younger in its current form, but it's not clear that it's a good religion that "won't last long".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The mistake I've seen atheists make on the forum is to assume all things must fit into a neat logical scientific rational formula. Anythng else has no value.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "all things must fit into a neat logical scientific rational formula," but I do tend to prefer logic and science over the alternatives. How am I going wrong? I think almost all religions tend to frown on those two insofar as the religion's tenets are not logical or science based.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

Buddhism has your nine traits in it and it's ancient.

I don't think so. Buddhism fails criterium 9 because it makes claims about reincarnation and nirvana that it can't know to be true. I've also met at least one Buddhist who didn't seem very happy with my criticisms of Buddhism.

Unitarian Universalism does as well, even more explicitly. It's younger in its current form, but it's not clear that it's a good religion that "won't last long".

Yes, I've heard about Unitarian Universalism. It's like a church for atheists who like the social aspects of a church. Is it really openminded about views that are opposed to its views?

 

[Elixir]

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions.

That’s where I differ with religious people. They tell me evolution is a religion, I disagree. I tell them evolution is good, they disagree.

 

[abaddon]

I don't think so. Buddhism fails criterium 9 because it makes claims about reincarnation and nirvana that it can't know to be true. I've also met at least one Buddhist who didn't seem very happy with my criticisms of Buddhism.

Are we talking about religion in a "broad sense" (your words)? Or is it only "broad" when talking about reasons to view religion as bad?

There's inconsistency with your "characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense", but any examples of religion as good "in a broad sense" can be dismissed by finding a doubtful belief or two -- examples that do not characterize the whole religion.

There are two doubtful beliefs among some Buddhists, and there was a fellow who didn't like your criticisms, so therefore the whole religion is "bad"... That's over-generalization.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some of the people here have disagreed with my characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense. Some religions, at least, are arguably good--aren't they? To address this issue, we should define a good religion by listing its traits. A good religion:

1. Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
2. Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
3. Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
4. Never solicits funds without fully disclosing what the funds will be used for and avows that the human limitations of the religion make fundraising necessary.
5. Never interferes with science or education in general.
6. Tells its members that they have every right to judge the religion according to what they see fit and never ridicules nor denounces its critics especially if those critics are former members.
7. Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
8. Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
9. Is always honest with its members never pretending to know what it doesn't know and corrects its errors dropping any doctrine if there is insufficient evidence for it or good reason to doubt it.

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions. It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

The Satanic Temple is most of these, I think, if not all of them.

 

[southernhybrid]

It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

Buddhism has your nine traits in it and it's ancient.

I don't think so. Buddhism fails criterium 9 because it makes claims about reincarnation and nirvana that it can't know to be true. I've also met at least one Buddhist who didn't seem very happy with my criticisms of Buddhism.

Unitarian Universalism does as well, even more explicitly. It's younger in its current form, but it's not clear that it's a good religion that "won't last long".

Yes, I've heard about Unitarian Universalism. It's like a church for atheists who like the social aspects of a church. Is it really openminded about views that are opposed to its views?

Unitarians aren't all atheists. They are people who take a very liberal view of whatever version of religion they feel is right for them. There are plenty of very liberal, even non theistic Christians, Pagans, Buddhists, etc. who identify as UUs. There are also atheists, usually Humanists who also identify as UUs. UU fellowships usually do a good deal of charity work, and social justice work as well as providing the opportunity to form a close knit community for its members. I'm not a UU, but I've known some UUs and view it as a positive religion. Below are the 7 principles of Unitarianism.

I see no harm in such religions and consider liberal believers to be allies of atheists for the most part. We often hold similar values, which are far more important to me, than whether or not one believes in some aspect of supernaturalism.


https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

1. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I would call that list idealistic, but morally positive.

Secular Humanism is the atheist version of religion, although I suspect that most Humanists don't like being referred to as being a part of a religion. I was the treasurer of such a group for 3 years and I had to ask the IRS how to file when the rules changed regarding non profit non religious groups. I was told that we didn't need to file a tax return because the IRS views Humanism as a religion. Humanism is another very idealistic philosophy, regardless if one wants to think of it as a religion or not. There is a large Secular Humanism headquarters in Indianapolis as well as some smaller groups scattered around the country.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Religion is founded on "faith", a belief in the absence of evidence, and therefore religion is antiscientific.

 

[Politesse]

Some of the people here have disagreed with my characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense. Some religions, at least, are arguably good--aren't they? To address this issue, we should define a good religion by listing its traits. A good religion:

1. Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
2. Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
3. Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
4. Never solicits funds without fully disclosing what the funds will be used for and avows that the human limitations of the religion make fundraising necessary.
5. Never interferes with science or education in general.
6. Tells its members that they have every right to judge the religion according to what they see fit and never ridicules nor denounces its critics especially if those critics are former members.
7. Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
8. Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
9. Is always honest with its members never pretending to know what it doesn't know and corrects its errors dropping any doctrine if there is insufficient evidence for it or good reason to doubt it.

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions. It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

On what basis have you formulated this list? Just your personal preferences, or what? You say "we" should define a list, but it's really just you making the list, right? Are you trying to take a page from Mr Gnostic Bishop, referencing your own personal views as though they were representative of some kind of group consensus via the liberal use "royal we"? If so, I question the motives of someone who claims to be seeking to define the "good religion", but also openly desires the death of all religions. Why would we believe that there is anything remotely non-polemic about your list?

 

[rousseau]

Religion is founded on "faith", a belief in the absence of evidence, and therefore religion is antiscientific.

One of Durkheim's thoughts on religion was an interesting one here. He argued that our investigation of reality started within religious practice, but gradually evolved to become more methodical. So in his view religious thought underpins the beginnings of our inquiry into the world. So in practice it's more of a precursor to science, than dichotomous with it.

The more you know.

 

[rousseau]

Some of the people here have disagreed with my characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense. Some religions, at least, are arguably good--aren't they? To address this issue, we should define a good religion by listing its traits. A good religion:

1. Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
2. Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
3. Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
4. Never solicits funds without fully disclosing what the funds will be used for and avows that the human limitations of the religion make fundraising necessary.
5. Never interferes with science or education in general.
6. Tells its members that they have every right to judge the religion according to what they see fit and never ridicules nor denounces its critics especially if those critics are former members.
7. Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
8. Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
9. Is always honest with its members never pretending to know what it doesn't know and corrects its errors dropping any doctrine if there is insufficient evidence for it or good reason to doubt it.

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions. It looks like a religion cannot be good, or if it is good, then it won't last long.

On what basis have you formulated this list? Just your personal preferences, or what? You say "we" should define a list, but it's really just you making the list, right? Are you trying to take a page from Mr Gnostic Bishop, referencing your own personal views as though they were representative of some kind of group consensus via the liberal use "royal we"? If so, I question the motives of someone who claims to be seeking to define the "good religion", but also openly desires the death of all religions. Why would we believe that there is anything remotely non-polemic about your list?

This is a good point. I'm not opposed to responding to some of Unknown Soldier's posts, but they don't appear to be written in good faith. Given that, I have more important things to do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Religion is founded on "faith", a belief in the absence of evidence, and therefore religion is antiscientific.

I'd call that blind faith, and yes, religious faith is often blind. It seems to me that a religion must be based on blind faith to survive.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It looks to me that a good religion isn't much of a religion at all, or at least there are no such religions.

That’s where I differ with religious people. They tell me evolution is a religion, I disagree. I tell them evolution is good, they disagree.

The Theory of Evolution is very good and very important. Not only does it inform us about the history of life on earth, but it enables scientists and medical researchers to track deadly diseases like Covid 19. Millions of people including creationists owe their lives to the Theory of Evolution. So yes, "evolution is good," and their religion of willful and dangerous ignorance is very bad.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't think so. Buddhism fails criterium 9 because it makes claims about reincarnation and nirvana that it can't know to be true. I've also met at least one Buddhist who didn't seem very happy with my criticisms of Buddhism.

Are we talking about religion in a "broad sense" (your words)?

I'm referring to religion in the sense that religion is commonly understood.

Or is it only "broad" when talking about reasons to view religion as bad?

I only know of one way to view religion: accurately and fairly. If upon such examination it turns up looking bad, and it does, then I'm not going to whitewash it. If all religions are bad, then they're all bad.

There's inconsistency with your "characterizing religion as bad in a broad sense", but any examples of religion as good "in a broad sense" can be dismissed by finding a doubtful belief or two -- examples that do not characterize the whole religion.

You'll need to cite a specific example so I can address the objection you're raising.

There are two doubtful beliefs among some Buddhists, and there was a fellow who didn't like your criticisms, so therefore the whole religion is "bad"... That's over-generalization.

I don't know about you, but to me any system of belief that claims it knows what it cannot possibly know is being dishonest and in the case of Buddhism is misleading millions of people. Misleading millions of people is pretty darned bad if you ask me.

But if I'm wrong then by all means send one of those good religions my way. I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to arrive to bless me.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

On what basis have you formulated this list? Just your personal preferences, or what?

Yes, I prefer to be encouraged to seek knowledge and social harmony. I also like to be free to judge and be sure people are honest with me, etc. What on my list do you think isn't a trait of something that is good? (Yet another question that will go unanswered because to answer it will expose a fatal flaw in my opponent's position.)

You say "we" should define a list, but it's really just you making the list, right?

Right. Do you want me to post somebody else's list?

Are you trying to take a page from Mr Gnostic Bishop, referencing your own personal views as though they were representative of some kind of group consensus via the liberal use "royal we"?

I think most people, if they're honest, will agree with what I listed.

If so, I question the motives of someone who claims to be seeking to define the "good religion", but also openly desires the death of all religions.

Well, I openly desire the death of all vermin too, but I will relent if I discover a good rat.

Why would we believe that there is anything remotely non-polemic about your list?

You can believe whatever you wish; I'm not a religion, remember? If you think my list is an "attack" on religion, then religion is being attacked for lacking or being in active opposition to that which is very obviously good.

 

[abaddon]

Unknown Soldier,

As one of the persons (or maybe THE person) who said in some other thread that you generalize about religions too much from too few samples, I want to be clear.

None of the major religions are wholly good. None are wholly bad. It's way more complex than that. You're too much a black/white and all-or-nothing sort of thinker so I don't know if this point can even register on your brain.

Usually I skip over how some atheists bash fundies but say "religion" while doing it, as if fundies represent all religion. But when it's blatant they DO really mean to extend their upset with fundies to ALL religion, then now and again I'll say that's being overly general.

There are good things in religion and that's why I "steal" from a few of them. Which is why "all religion is bad" posts look to me like just another sort of fundy-ism.

 

[Jarhyn]

So to be fair here, evolution is not good. It's actually quite bad, when you really get down to it, insofar as it follows a model of genetic solipsism when it is the only method a population has to self-modify across time.

It sucks to be a pure Darwinian, pure Darwinians make terrible neighbors, and is in fact one of the reasons we consider most insects to be so fucking awful, I would imagine.

I don't like Darwinian evolution.

I fucking hate it, and everything in my life is designed around finding a better way to self modify through time for everyone and everything.

But it is absolutely real, no matter how much I loath the evolutionary model that is "darwinism".

 

[abaddon]

I don't know about you, but to me any system of belief that claims it knows what it cannot possibly know is being dishonest and in the case of Buddhism is misleading millions of people. Misleading millions of people is pretty darned bad if you ask me.

Buddhists aren't intentionally misleading anyone. On the whole, the effort is to lessen suffering in the world. On the whole, the religion is about psychology. The metaphysical flotsam is not the main point in this religion. So, on the whole, I think this religion is more good than bad. Therefore, if we're going to judge the whole as either "good" or "bad" based on that measure (it's more one than the other), then IMV Buddhism is a good religion. Not in every detail but, overall, it's good enough to rightly judge as good. The world would be missing some important insights if it didn't exist. Actually its beneficial influence in psychological sciences has been immense. Probably other sciences have picked up some important new perspectives from the east-west encounter.