What is a "good" religion?

[Politesse]

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.)

I'm not your "opponent". We're two people on a discussion forum, and disagreement on a discussion forum is neither a crime nor a war. I'm asking you to justify your argument, because there's not really much to talk about otherwise. You made a list of things you feel religion fails at, declared it "good", and then declared religion bad because it fails (in your view) at all of the criteria you concocted specifically to be an example of what you think religion doesn't do. You see how this seems a bit circular from a logical perspective?

It's not that the list is bad per se, plenty of the items merit some sort of discussion, but there isn't going to much of a discussion if our starting point is a strawman and you have no interest in considering any "opponent's" persopective on it.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. From your perspective, how did you generate the list?

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

Well, "most people" belong to one of the faiths you seem to have created the list specifically as an attack on, so this doesn't seem very likely to me. But I suppose that's why you included the proviso "if they are honest". Am I to infer that if I disagree with any of your points, that will be evidence as to my dishonesty, in your view?

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

Are you actually intending to portray religious people as vermin through this metaphor? Rude. Also, the implied death threat? Morally indefensible.

Yes, I know what rhetoric is and that you didn't mean this literally, but even as a vague metaphor I don't recall ever in my life threatening to murder everyone who disagrees with me. Execrable habit. First "opponent's position" then "death of all"... you would benefit from some hard thinking about what metaphors spring most readily to your lips, and how your eagerness for symbolic violence makes you appear to others.

Rats have saved your life more times than you know, by the way. Its their very proximity to human environments that makes them both an irritant (to those who don't think the matter over very clearly) and an irreplaceable resource in medical research due to their extremely similar physiology to our own. Perhaps instead of idolizing science, you would do better for yourself by studying it.

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.

It's the "obviously good" part I'm questioning. Haven't you at some point stopped to think whether there is any rational support for your personal system of ethics? It's not necessary to do so, but it is beneficial.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

By all means continue to read my posts. It's one of those more important things to do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

I just use cases in point to illustrate the harm religion does. That said, I haven't failed to notice that the defenders of religion tend to hate "generalizing" which appears to me to be a tacit admission that they are well aware of harmful religious people and don't want to be associated with them.

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.

On the contrary, I'm very capable of seeing that religion comes in different degrees of evil.

Usually I skip over how some atheists bash fundies but say "religion" while doing it, as if fundies represent all religion.

I tend to avoid using the term "fundie" because it's poorly defined if it's defined at all. It also suggests that only some religions are bad. Of course, I don't see it that way.

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.

Is that the best you can do? If you wish to claim that some religions are good, then you have the burden to prove it. You haven't even bothered to do that.

There are good things in religion and that's why I "steal" from a few of them.

Like what?

Which is why "all religion is bad" posts look to me like just another sort of fundy-ism.

You can call it whatever you wish, but as long as you don't meet your burden of proof, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.)

I'm not your "opponent". We're two people on a discussion forum, and disagreement on a discussion forum is neither a crime nor a war. I'm asking you to justify your argument, because there's not really much to talk about otherwise. You made a list of things you feel religion fails at, declared it "good", and then declared religion bad because it fails (in your view) at all of the criteria you concocted specifically to be an example of what you think religion doesn't do. You see how this seems a bit circular from a logical perspective?

It's not that the list is bad per se, plenty of the items merit some sort of discussion, but there isn't going to much of a discussion if our starting point is a strawman and you have no interest in considering any "opponent's" persopective on it.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. From your perspective, how did you generate the list?

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

Well, "most people" belong to one of the faiths you seem to have created the list specifically as an attack on, so this doesn't seem very likely to me. But I suppose that's why you included the proviso "if they are honest". Am I to infer that if I disagree with any of your points, that will be evidence as to my dishonesty, in your view?

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

Are you actually intending to portray religious people as vermin through this metaphor? Rude. Also, the implied death threat? Morally indefensible.

Yes, I know what rhetoric is and that you didn't mean this literally, but even as a vague metaphor I don't recall ever in my life threatening to murder everyone who disagrees with me. Execrable habit. First "opponent's position" then "death of all"... you would benefit from some hard thinking about what metaphors spring most readily to your lips, and how your eagerness for symbolic violence makes you appear to others.

Rats have saved your life more times than you know, by the way. Its their very proximity to human environments that makes them both an irritant (to those who don't think the matter over very clearly) and an irreplaceable resource in medical research due to their extremely similar physiology to our own. Perhaps instead of idolizing science, you would do better for yourself by studying it.

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.

It's the "obviously good" part I'm questioning. Haven't you at some point stopped to think whether there is any rational support for your personal system of ethics? It's not necessary to do so, but it is beneficial.

If you refuse to engage the subject matter, then I will move on. I'm not here to wage a troll war.

 

[Politesse]

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.)

I'm not your "opponent". We're two people on a discussion forum, and disagreement on a discussion forum is neither a crime nor a war. I'm asking you to justify your argument, because there's not really much to talk about otherwise. You made a list of things you feel religion fails at, declared it "good", and then declared religion bad because it fails (in your view) at all of the criteria you concocted specifically to be an example of what you think religion doesn't do. You see how this seems a bit circular from a logical perspective?

It's not that the list is bad per se, plenty of the items merit some sort of discussion, but there isn't going to much of a discussion if our starting point is a strawman and you have no interest in considering any "opponent's" persopective on it.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. From your perspective, how did you generate the list?

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

Well, "most people" belong to one of the faiths you seem to have created the list specifically as an attack on, so this doesn't seem very likely to me. But I suppose that's why you included the proviso "if they are honest". Am I to infer that if I disagree with any of your points, that will be evidence as to my dishonesty, in your view?

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

Are you actually intending to portray religious people as vermin through this metaphor? Rude. Also, the implied death threat? Morally indefensible.

Yes, I know what rhetoric is and that you didn't mean this literally, but even as a vague metaphor I don't recall ever in my life threatening to murder everyone who disagrees with me. Execrable habit. First "opponent's position" then "death of all"... you would benefit from some hard thinking about what metaphors spring most readily to your lips, and how your eagerness for symbolic violence makes you appear to others.

Rats have saved your life more times than you know, by the way. Its their very proximity to human environments that makes them both an irritant (to those who don't think the matter over very clearly) and an irreplaceable resource in medical research due to their extremely similar physiology to our own. Perhaps instead of idolizing science, you would do better for yourself by studying it.

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.

It's the "obviously good" part I'm questioning. Haven't you at some point stopped to think whether there is any rational support for your personal system of ethics? It's not necessary to do so, but it is beneficial.

If you refuse to engage the subject matter, then I will move on. I'm not here to wage a troll war.

You refuse to answer any questions about your own thesis, then? What's the point of starting thread after thread after thread if you're not going to engage in conversation?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Buddhists aren't intentionally misleading anyone.

I don't know about that, but accidentally misleading people is bad enough.

On the whole, the effort is to lessen suffering in the world.

Then Buddhists should take care not to mislead people. It's ridiculous to argue that doing so is good for people.

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.

What exactly is it good for?

The world would be missing some important insights if it didn't exist.

Like what? Religion tends to hijack good ideas claiming those ideas for its own. Personally, I don't know of one good insight that I can say originated in any religion.

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.

You need to substantiate these claims.

 

[abaddon]

Personally, I don't know of one good insight that I can say originated in any religion.

Yeah. I know. I feel like I'm talking to an extremely snooty know-it-all 10 year old.

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.

You need to substantiate these claims.

Only enough to punch a hole in your totalistic claim. When someone says "all swans are white" then finding just one exception means they're wrong.

I'm going to substantiate this one claim about Buddhism's beneficial influence. Though only to provide a "black swan" exception to your "all swans are white" totalizing claim about all Buddhism. The limitation is it'd would require a book to discuss in detail. But I can give an article that's one of many out there: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18344250/

My input on this will not be more extensive than that. Because the comment above, that you're not arguing in good faith, is correct... you play a rigged game by setting up arbitrary standards that no belief-system (religious or secular) can pass, and which you don't either. I'm just the naive goof who thought it might be possible to converse with you. Buddhism has had a positive impact on psychology. And, again, an exception to the "it's all bad" claim is enough to refute it. Nobody has to prove all-goodness as a counter to your all-badness claim.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Personally, I don't know of one good insight that I can say originated in any religion.

Yeah. I know. I feel like I'm talking to an extremely snooty know-it-all 10 year old.

You're not talking to me if you resort to insulting me this way. It's a sure sign that you're losing the argument. <edited>

 

[TomC]

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

I see this as a huge problem. The reason that these sorts of conversations are usually frustrating and futile.

What you think is commonly understood about "religion" isn't what everyone means, especially in a particular context. It's not just that the word religion is vague. Almost all the words are vague. From God to bad to theism to atheist to moral, the list of words which don't have a "common" meaning is huge. But people use them as though the meaning, in context, is obvious, when it usually isn't.


And before anyone goes there,

Arguments from the dictionary are extremely aggravating and useless. Dictionary committees do their best to explain usage. But dictionaries are not Holy Writ. OED and Merriam-Webster and such don't define words, they try to explain how words are used.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

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

I see this as a huge problem. The reason that these sorts of conversations are usually frustrating and futile.

What you think is commonly understood about "religion" isn't what everyone means, especially in a particular context. It's not just that the word religion is vague. Almost all the words are vague. From God to bad to theism to atheist to moral, the list of words which don't have a "common" meaning is huge. But people use them as though the meaning, in context, is obvious, when it usually isn't.


And before anyone goes there,

Arguments from the dictionary are extremely aggravating and useless. Dictionary committees do their best to explain usage. But dictionaries are not Holy Writ. OED and Merriam-Webster and such don't define words, they try to explain how words are used.
Tom

Well said.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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

I see this as a huge problem. The reason that these sorts of conversations are usually frustrating and futile.

What you think is commonly understood about "religion" isn't what everyone means, especially in a particular context. It's not just that the word religion is vague. Almost all the words are vague. From God to bad to theism to atheist to moral, the list of words which don't have a "common" meaning is huge. But people use them as though the meaning, in context, is obvious, when it usually isn't.


And before anyone goes there,

Arguments from the dictionary are extremely aggravating and useless. Dictionary committees do their best to explain usage. But dictionaries are not Holy Writ. OED and Merriam-Webster and such don't define words, they try to explain how words are used.
Tom

I really haven't noticed many problems in my debates resulting from the meanings of words. Most people, for example, understand what religion is and can discuss it without confusion over its meaning.

 

[Politesse]

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

I see this as a huge problem. The reason that these sorts of conversations are usually frustrating and futile.

What you think is commonly understood about "religion" isn't what everyone means, especially in a particular context. It's not just that the word religion is vague. Almost all the words are vague. From God to bad to theism to atheist to moral, the list of words which don't have a "common" meaning is huge. But people use them as though the meaning, in context, is obvious, when it usually isn't.


And before anyone goes there,

Arguments from the dictionary are extremely aggravating and useless. Dictionary committees do their best to explain usage. But dictionaries are not Holy Writ. OED and Merriam-Webster and such don't define words, they try to explain how words are used.
Tom

I really haven't noticed many problems in my debates resulting from the meanings of words. Most people, for example, understand what religion is and can discuss it without confusion over its meaning.

This is manifestly untrue. The frequently-challenged definition of religion is one of the foremost debates in religious studies, and has been since the Victorian era when Eastern "religions" first came to be considered valid topics of study.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I really haven't noticed many problems in my debates resulting from the meanings of words. Most people, for example, understand what religion is and can discuss it without confusion over its meaning.

This is manifestly untrue. The frequently-challenged definition of religion is one of the foremost debates in religious studies, and has been since the Victorian era when Eastern "religions" first came to be considered valid topics of study.

It's odd that people who complain that they aren't being informed what religion is are spending a lot of time in a forum entitled "General Religion." Does that title leave you wondering what we're supposed to be discussing here? Anyway, contrary to what you say, it is quite true that most people know well what religion is, and if they're game, they might end up here in this forum to defend it tooth and nail against naysayers like myself.

 

[Politesse]

I really haven't noticed many problems in my debates resulting from the meanings of words. Most people, for example, understand what religion is and can discuss it without confusion over its meaning.

This is manifestly untrue. The frequently-challenged definition of religion is one of the foremost debates in religious studies, and has been since the Victorian era when Eastern "religions" first came to be considered valid topics of study.

It's odd that people who complain that they aren't being informed what religion is are spending a lot of time in a forum entitled "General Religion." Does that title leave you wondering what we're supposed to be discussing here?

Do you think that someone who says "this topic is more complicated than most people realize" is less educated than someone who says "I know everything I need to know about this topic"?

The problem isn't that I've never heard of religion before, but that there are multiple, competing definitions of religion out there.

If in fact you had never heard about religion before, you might think to look it up on wikipedia. In which case, the contested definition of the term is literally the second thing you would learn about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I really haven't noticed many problems in my debates resulting from the meanings of words. Most people, for example, understand what religion is and can discuss it without confusion over its meaning.

This is manifestly untrue. The frequently-challenged definition of religion is one of the foremost debates in religious studies, and has been since the Victorian era when Eastern "religions" first came to be considered valid topics of study.

It's odd that people who complain that they aren't being informed what religion is are spending a lot of time in a forum entitled "General Religion." Does that title leave you wondering what we're supposed to be discussing here?

Do you think that someone who says "this topic is more complicated than most people realize" is less educated than someone who says "I know everything I need to know about this topic"?

The problem isn't that I've never heard of religion before, but that there are multiple, competing definitions of religion out there.

If in fact you had never heard about religion before, you might think to look it up on wikipedia. In which case, the contested definition of the term is literally the second thing you would learn about it.

Yeah. Like, personally I use "religion" to bundle up "everything that is believed without doubt, and attempts to verify through clever (or not so clever) attempts at disproof."

Or some similar statement in the downward spiral towards the discovery of it's root of intent, depending on the time.

Or, "uncritical belief".

This differs from "mythologies" and even "heritage" or "cultural stories". It does not assign truth value to such things, because in this worldview those are accepted as "stories, for what they are worth", and sometimes they are worth quite a lot.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The problem isn't that I've never heard of religion before, but that there are multiple, competing definitions of religion out there.

I asked what a good religion is in the OP. If you would actually address that topic, then you have your opportunity to define religion. Now, I'm not here to argue semantics, but if I told you that I'm gay, then would you be left wondering what "competing definition" of that word I'm using?

We all know what religion is. Let's stop splitting hairs with red herrings and get back to the topic, please.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

• Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
• Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
• Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
• 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.
• Never interferes with science or education in general.
• 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.
• Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
• Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
• 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.

I've received some complaints about this list of criteria which I think are the traits of a hypothetical good religion. The first complaint I'd like to address is that these criteria are unfairly difficult or even impossible for any religion to maintain. Anybody who feels that way lacks faith in whatever God(s) a religion believes in. If so, then that religion's God(s) don't exist, and the members of that religion are being misled which I hope I don't need to explain isn't good. Even if we lower the bar a bit and assume that any religion is honestly mistaken about its God(s) existing, I submit that it is very humanly possible to live up to these criteria. I live up to them every day, for example.

The second criticism raised about these criteria is that I haven't made the case that they are truly good in an objective sense. Obviously, to say something is "good" is a subjective evaluation, and I would think that most people would understand that. I'm not sure why I would need to explain that knowledge/education, respecting people, encouraging social harmony, honesty, etc. are good. If anybody disagrees with the goodness of any of these criteria, then please explain why those criteria are not traits of a good religion.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem isn't that I've never heard of religion before, but that there are multiple, competing definitions of religion out there.

I asked what a good religion is in the OP.

It does address the topic, by showing that the topic is ill-formed.

It's like asking "what is an ethical rape?" If there is consent, it's not rape, and the ethical boundary line is consent.

There is no point where it is good to abandon doubt, so by the trust-based definition of religion at least, there can be no such thing!

I even doubt my axioms. The only thing I don't doubt is that there is a voice I hear inside my head and I can make it speak and when and how I make it speak makes the meat that I see with my eyes move, such that I call that meat "me", but really, I am the voice that speaks to it, and I unequivocally exist so as to speak!

I reject solipsism on the basis that I am apparently not alone and even were I, I am then together with "myself", and that version of me does not always consent, and I don't know their safe word anyway. So I must accept some other things like "universe" and so on which seem to be the only alternative to "all ever just me". I'm open to alrernatives.

There's no religion there. There isn't even religion in my theories on faeries, or of demons (what good wizard doesn't have a few chapters in their head on demonology!).

So there is no good way to ask whether there is good religion. To me it is a dumb question, and so speaks to Politesse's point: you can find definitions of religion which can find exceptions in any direction, but then you're just fishing for a definition by which you can say "my religion is good" despite the fact that your definition of religion is sloppy and doesn't hold up, and is really just a special pleading.

 

[Politesse]

• Encourages general knowledge and discovery and discourages ignorance.
• Encourages social harmony by characterizing people both within and without the religion as worthwhile, respectable persons.
• Is openminded toward views that may not be consistent with what it tells its followers.
• 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.
• Never interferes with science or education in general.
• 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.
• Encourages people to enjoy life and seek purpose in their lives according to what they see as worthwhile ventures.
• Never interferes with anybody's sex life unless that person's sexual activity is illegal or obviously risky or harmful.
• 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.

I've received some complaints about this list of criteria which I think are the traits of a hypothetical good religion. The first complaint I'd like to address is that these criteria are unfairly difficult or even impossible for any religion to maintain. Anybody who feels that way lacks faith in whatever God(s) a religion believes in. If so, then that religion's God(s) don't exist, and the members of that religion are being misled which I hope I don't need to explain isn't good. Even if we lower the bar a bit and assume that any religion is honestly mistaken about its God(s) existing, I submit that it is very humanly possible to live up to these criteria. I live up to them every day, for example.

The second criticism raised about these criteria is that I haven't made the case that they are truly good in an objective sense. Obviously, to say something is "good" is a subjective evaluation, and I would think that most people would understand that. I'm not sure why I would need to explain that knowledge/education, respecting people, encouraging social harmony, honesty, etc. are good. If anybody disagrees with the goodness of any of these criteria, then please explain why those criteria are not traits of a good religion.

You didn't invite anyone else to comment on what a "good" religion is, you made an argument about what it would be to you, and a further argument that no religion could meet those criteria. You have continued to insist that only liars and trolls would disagree with your categorizations.

I'm not a black-and-white thinker myself, and would not expect something like an altogether "good" or altogether "evil" religion to exist in the first place. People are complicated, capable of both empathy and cruelty, and both sides of our nature are necessarily reflected in our social institutions.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You didn't invite anyone else to comment on what a "good" religion is...

I wasn't aware that it was necessary for me to explain to anybody that they should comment on the OP. Seeing I assumed too much, allow me to officially invite one and all to offer their two cents on what a good religion is.

...you made an argument about what it would be to you, and a further argument that no religion could meet those criteria.

I didn't really post arguments but posted what my position is on the merits of a good religion. I wasn't expecting everybody to agree with me, of course.

You have continued to insist that only liars and trolls would disagree with your categorizations.

Where did I say that? It's possible that liars and trolls might disagree with me but not necessarily.

I'm not a black-and-white thinker myself, and would not expect something like an altogether "good" or altogether "evil" religion to exist in the first place.

Then what constitutes a religion falling short of being "altogether 'good'"? You keep dodging that issue.

People are complicated, capable of both empathy and cruelty, and both sides of our nature are necessarily reflected in our social institutions.

That may be true, but what does it have to do with goodness in a religion? It doesn't logically follow that if people are often bad, then they cannot be good.