I know this guy in Nigeria who has an enormous sum of money he can let you have a percentage of, for a small fee. Trust me. Have faith. It’s a virtue.
What if a believer feels led by their god to “help” teenagers by withholding sex ed and preaching abstinence because that’s what their faith tells them to do. And what if they keep doing that because their faith is strong, and ignores rising rates of unwanted pregnancy and teenage sex?
In each example, yours and mine, the religious person just did what their faith told them. Whether it worked out OK was due to luck.
Cute. I didn’t say faith in anything or everything did I? All people operate with a certain amount of faith. Sometimes misplaced sometimes not.
Either the believer or the non believer can be misguided in what they feel constitutes helping since that is a very subjective concept. I doubt that all believers would agree on the proper solution to certain problems and neither would non believers Your example may be realistic but it doesn’t prove the point.
Believers also look at case studies and try to find a better way to deal with social issues. I don’t agree with Dr. James Dobson’s solutions but
from Wikki
so agree or not it’s a mistake to claim he or other believers doesn’t actually think about their proposed solutions even though they are influenced by his faith.
Not agreeing with them doesn’t make what positive contributions they make any more or less luck than any non believer.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I don’t think I said I didn’t think any religion was dangerous. Some religions, and some beliefs are very detrimental and even dangerous. I read most of The End of Faith and enjoyed it. I strongly agree with Sam that we need to challenge people’s beliefs, especially now when those beliefs have such an affect on others. The question for me is what beliefs do we challenge and what is the most effective way to challenge them?
Challenging beliefs doesn’t mean all religion should be done away with or that there isn’t any value in the spiritual search. That’s the generalized dismissive attitude I object to.
You may have noticed in the final section of the End of Faith Sam talks about exploring our consciousness, the wisdom of the east, and meditation. He doesn’t dismiss all aspects of the inner search.
I’m discounting religions that make factual claims that can not be substantiated, namely those that cite the existence of a personal god. Not “spirituality”, which I regard as bunk but don’t really have a problem with.
Watch me as I manage to get myself beat up by everyone.
Someone whose name begins with C is skating awfully close to what is commonly derided as “moral relativism.” Who cares if some people do good because they believe? John Wayne Gacy was not excused because he ALSO dressed as a clown and made children happy.
As a practical matter, I take one look at the history of faith- or the history of the faithful, if that’s more accurate- and recoil with horror. Xianity (for example) is one long VICIOUS criminal spree, with occasional tears shed at the graves of the victims. After this long, we can safely assert that the behavioral trends of this belief system are well established. How could efforts to stamp out this evil disease POSSIBLY make things worse? If all I can do is injure some xian’s (or other faithful’s) feelings by shooting off my mouth, then I’ll do that. Maybe I’ll get lucky and they’ll all drop dead from the sheer grotesqueness of my blasphemy.
With a slightly slower heartbeat…so this guy in LA wised up. Good for him; he’s a plus for the nice column. But I have to wonder, why did he have to be slapped so hard, in his case with the most recent priest rapist scandals, before he, y’know, noticed? And so many Catholics still attack the victims. Not as directly, perhaps; now it takes the form of, “Of course we feel sorry for the victims, but asking for money from the Church is…”
Deep breaths…I’m with testy. No matter how gracefully or otherwise they put their cherished notions, this stuff is threatening and terrifying.
There are people I like a lot who happen to be religious, of course. My aunt is one. I don’t really hold it against individuals, that they think something silly. But what is there to debate? In the face of the historical record, the details of doctrine and the sincerity of the few kind ones seem kind of irrelevent.
You can all attack me for my incoherent post, now. I’ve calmed down.
That sounds reasonable to me. For me the problem is people who still insist on embracing beliefs for which their is ample evidence against. Belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is a key one IMHO. Now more historical information is commonly available and we can make efforts to get that to as many people as possible. Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” is a good resource.
The other issue IMO is to get those who are so very sure they know the “truth” to realize that it’s okay to admit they don’t. It’s indeed very morally questionable to insist that one’s perception of what’s right or “what God thinks” is so correct that we can try to impose it on others.
God belief varies from person to person and their concept of what God is or might be. IMO it can be a part of the path to personal growth so I won’t automatically dismiss it.
In thinking about this my own conclusion is that we can’t look into the minds and hearts of others to gauge their sincerity, intent and direction. What we can do is observe their actions. Atheist or believer, a jerk is a jerk, and a good person is a good person.
If I’m the C {no need to be subtle} then let me clearly state that I do believe there is a universal standard. Since we are beings made up of intellect and the sometimes irrational and unconscious motives of our emotions we won’t all agree on what that standard is. We strive together to find something that works.
We must take responsibility for our actions, the good and the bad. Any positive acts by Gacy are what they are. If he fed a hungry homeless person then great. That does not add or subtract from any other act and he {and all of us} must bear the responsibility and the consequences for each act.
I don’t think you’re suggesting that the kind hearted generous christian bears the responsibility of the prejudice asshole christian, are you?
I too am horrified by some of the history of Christianity. Having come from a Christian background I’ve also seen the generous loving hearts of many Christians. Considering the millions of believers down through the generations and the contributions they have made I don’t think the historical record is as clear as you think. I don’t think the kind hearted ones are as few as you think. IMHO the problems people see in religion are problems within humanity. The issues go deeper than religion and faith based beliefs, and the solutions are harder to put our finger on. They exist within the believer and the non believer.
If I said history shows governments commit heinous acts of war and destruction so we should get rid of all governments the idea would be dismissed as goofy, yet historically speaking, isn’t that correct?
I see an essential part of humanities growth and a real connection within our very nature as beings between the desire to know and understand from which superstition springs, and real understanding. We can’t be rid of it so we must turn our energies to trying to understand it and direct it.
I got time this morning to watch the full video. Thanks for the link. I like seeing SH and hearing his points live. I don’t agree with all of them but I certainly see the need for the discussion and he makes some great points with clarity. There are other good videos of him. I got mad at fox network again as they did their usual distortion job. One lady pundent/reporter/host even called him a liar about stem cell research and then ended the interview.
Now I’m watching a four part one from Beyond Belief.
