If I had to take WAG, perhaps it feels more significant when they’re acting as part of a group? Sense-of-fellowship kind of thing? Or maybe they just don’t see (either innocently or willfully) the evil that is done in their religion’s name? I honestly don’t know. However, I do know that many people who otherwise wouldn’t be bothered to get involved in charity do so because it’s expected of them in their social circle, often church/synagogue/mosque-based. Whatever their motivations, personally I’m glad that they’re doing something good for other people. My own charitable acts are conspicously few and far between, I must confess… :o
It’s funny - even though I don’t like to gratuitously insult other posters, which is ostensibly one of the main points of the Pit’s existence, I feel much more at home here than in GD. There seems to be, ironically enough, a much higher signal-to-noise ratio here than there.
However, that’s not to say I don’t enjoy watching the occasional flamefest or trainwreck.
So… FUCK right back atcha. 
To my mind, if religion never existed in the first place I doubt humans would have developed as they have, for good or ill. In terms of cultural and even physical evolution, “religion” appears to be a quite necesary step in terms of the creation of humans as social creatures - the ability of humans, as animals, to transcend the immediate kin-group appears at least in part to depend on religion.
That it does no longer is a factor of the increasing sophistication of societies. The danger as I see it is that in the absense of religion, other organizing principles - socialism or nationalism to name two - have their own issues and problems.
“Human compassion” tends towards the particular - it is the old story of universal love (of humanity as a whole) vs. graded love (of kith and kin). I think the natural human impulse is to tend to one’s own first and strangers a very distant second - and in modern urban society, where bonds of kinship are weak, to tend to one’s self first and others a distant second.
Religion has in the past performed a valuable function in the creation of large-scale human society. It continues to do so today. There are other things which have in large part taken its place in importance. Both religion and these other things are associated with the ills, as well as the good, of large-scale human society - the persecution of the different, conflict with other large-scale human societies, personal unhappiness at forced conformity, corruption in high places, etc. I suspect that anything used as a human unifier would have these problems. They are inherent in the nature of attempting to organize a society full of what are, in point of fact, rather competitive and often violent mammals.
This is all true quite apart from the issue of whether any particular God happens to actually exist (I think that none do). Almost any organizing principle requires an un-provable mythology - whether it be based on an omnipotent god, the notion of patriotism (the unique goodness of one place over another), or simply the inherent goodness of humanity. “Mythology” doesn’t need to be literally true to be potent and even meaningful.
That’s what the UU organization is for (even though it identifies as such, I hesitate to call it a church…absent the god requirement and all…). A sense of belonging, an umbrella under which you can pull together with your fellow man and combine the group’s strengths and talents to make a better world. My extended family’s affiliation with the UUs also gives them a platform for discussion and debate. God plays no part in the official platform of their charitable efforts.
Regarding the innocent or willful ignorance of the bad that a religion does…when you label your leader as infallible and perfect, there’s no room for discussion of shortcomings. The fact that the catholic church hasn’t removed Archbishop Condom Fever from his position, and the fact that the church would rather see it’s followers die than accept their human weaknesses and let them use condoms, speaks volumes about their unwillingness to spread truth to their flock.
But until recently–which I define as sometime in the last few thousand years–we have made a giant step forward: we have been able to affirm, to more or less complete satisfaction that there are demonstrably inaccurate assertions in all sorts of Holy books, mythologies, religious rituals, etc.–that have rendered them almost completely symbolic in nature, and literally either untrue or impossible to prove true. We have, therefore, been capable of moving on, leaving behind the falsehoods disseminated for the so-called benefit of those unable to argue back, if they had wanted to.
People who see some sort of stake for themselves in identifying as members of a particulalr religiouos sect continue to resist this advancement, which I suppose is only a natural stage in letting go something as tenacious as religion. But that’s what’s going on in such threads as this, and in such discussions generally, which perhaps explains why thesits and atheists are such utter dicks to eac h other–because this is not an easy transition to make, from primitive, fear-motivated irrrational beings to more civilized and rational beings. The theists claim “Look at all the civilized stuff stuff we’ve done–don’t you dare call us primitives,” not realizing that religion played a much more pervasive role in earlier stages of civilized man than it does now, and an even larger role than it will play as rational thought makes more inroads. They will always have a legitimate claim that they were performing civilized acts long ago. As we progress, though, less and less. The appendage that is religion will fall away, but not in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Excellent post, though I’m not sure that religion will ever fall away altogether. The impulse to look beyond is too strongly rooted in humanity for that to ever happen, I think.
In my opinion, religion is what limits man. The impulse to look beyond is what will free man from the trappings of institutions that claim to have all the answers.
We, or rather our descendents, shall see, Grasshopper. We shall see…
Point out where in this thread I claimed that religion only has influence over people when they do something good.
Answer: I never said it. I SAID, religion was not the only reason for evil, that it was sometimes AN EXCUSE, not the cause. Yet you chose to ignore, and not even address a goddamned thing I said.
Basically-is religion the way it is because of us-or are we the way we are because of religion? If it’s the latter-if it’s religion that makes us act like cunts-then what’s your excuse?*
*I still stand by my theory that Der Trihs is a hardcore fundie in disguise from the Left Behind boards, trying to make all atheists look like total moronic dickheads. Fortunately, I think, most of us know that he’s in the minority.
This, I think, is the direction I hoped the discussion would go in when I started the thread. Admittedly, I have started no religious discussion threads before and though I read most of them, I rarely if ever participate - so I should have known it would derail. When I read the article, I wasn’t reading with a broad brush of all religions. It’s more like utter amazement at the complete hysteria of the reaction in this instance amoung these people. Transubstantiation or no, I cannot believe this incident elicited such a bizarrely disproportionate response. I don’t think this is exclusive to religions, or a particular religion. I do think it is exclusive to the types of siuations noted above - on a grand scale or a small scale.
Regarding the atheists/religious folks acting like dicks issue: I get a little persnickety when I hear about stuff like this. Militant atheists (of which I am certainly not one) can be dicks at times, but the worst it gets is accusations of stupidy, verbal jarring etc against their philisophical opposites. For militant religious types, the reaction to disbelief/non-adherence to the tenants of the faith- can be (can be, not always are) violent, hurtful and ultimately more than a little frightening. That can bring out the asshole in me when I’m chatting with a fundamentalist. Thankfully, most of the faithful people I know are moderates.
i also think the earlier point (can’t remember the poster) that the more rational religious people do not seem to adhere to the all the tenants of their religion is really interesting in this context. The more flexible the rules of adherence, the more personal the faith becomes, and its seems there is less need (desire) to force the rules of their faith on everyone else. I tend to think that faith, or lack there of, should be a personal and private experience. I’ve no wish to evangelise atheism, and I do hate to be evangelized by militant religious types. I love a good discussion about religion though.
ETA grammar
While it is true that other things have in large measure taken the place of organized religion, at least in the West, in terms of advancing the project of civilization - such as forming the basis of social cohesion - the questionable part is whether this has really been a “progress” or not in terms of humanity.
Consider the history of the 20th century just past. Have nationalism and communism, the two great movers of that era, really been an improvement?
It seems to me that the more things change, the more they stay the same - the 20th century within the “civilized” West were no better, and arguably worse, than the calamitous 16th century - which featured the worst excesses of religion. The witch-hunts and inquisitions of that period pale in comparison to the purges and holocausts of our own immediate past; the wars of religion which depopulated Germany in the 16th century were not worse that those which afflicted Europe in the 20th century.
Moreover, there is no evidence that ethno-nationalism or Communism was really any more rational or favourable to human reason than religion.
To my mind, it is those elements of a faith that are if you like part of its organizational matrix - those which cause belivers to cohere into a group - which cause the trouble; but these aspects are not really different from their secular countrparts.
For example, the same person who finds it absurd that desecration of a waifer causes a violent reaction may not find it so silly that burning a flag causes a violent reaction, but they are not really different - in each case it is the manipulation of symbols of group adherence and the perceived (or overt) attack on the group that is at issue; it has nothing necessarily to do with the faith aspects of “religion” per se (a violent patriot may well be an atheist).
My own opinion of faith (aside from religion) is that it is a person’s personal quest for meaning, which may or may not involve supernatural elements or mythology gleaned from history - but it is of necessity a personal matter, not translatable to others. “Religion” writ large is all about a shared meaning.
Edit: atheism per se can never, by its nature, have as violent a reaction to perceived outrages as religion, because “atheism” isn’t a group endeavour; there is no “larger collective self” subject to attack. The real issue is whether atheists can react the same way when groups they are part of are under attack, such as tribe or nation. The answer I would submit is obviously “yes”.
One more point - I think the relative civility of a discussion on religion depends on the intentions of those involved. I’m genuinly interested in how people come to have and sustain faith. It utterly flabbergasts me. Take this recent business of the Host. I can grasp, on a metaphorical level, what it would mean to take in the body and blood of Christ. I cannot, however, mentally grasp the literal transformation that is supposed to be occuring. I am interested to hear people explain this to me. Having been raised without any religion, there have been times in my life where I envied my friend’s faith. I say this without any sarcasm. I often think it must be nice to believe, surely and strongly, that someOne is backing up your game, somehow. Now, my thread was not a discussion in this vein. It was more a “hey, look at these assholes”. Not “Hey look at these assholes, all religions suck!”
I’m less interested in how they came to believe than I am with the reason for continuing to believe. My three closest friends throughout my life are catholic. One simply says she cannot picture herself being anything but catholic. She goes to church once a year, to appease her mother. Other than that, she disagrees with much of her church’s official stand on the issues of our day. She had premarital sex with multiple partners, practiced birth control, and generally broke the rules. I don’t think the church considers her a true catholic, but she definitely considers herself one. Just thinking about it baffles me to no end.
The other two also behaved in decidedly uncatholic ways, but consider themselves part of the faith. Their brains cannot let go, even though their choices are blatantly against everything they’ve ever been taught.
Group identity.
A religion consists of many things - a shared mythology, an ideology, a culture, rituals, a way of acting, a code of morality.
Some religions emphasize some aspects more than others - for example, some forms of Christianity place a lot of emphasis on belief. Others stress culture more (for example Judaism).
Nonetheless, it is perfectly possible to identify with a religion in some ways but not in others - for example, to participate in Catholic rituals and Catholic culture but not follow a Catholic code of morality. The important thing, for them, is that they self-identify with being Catholic.
I’ve never been much of a joiner. Too limiting for my taste.
What standards do we have to determine the level of a persons religiosity? Is it the amount of ‘good deeds’ they do in a year? The amount of times they pray sincerely? How often they go to a place of worship each week?
I’ve heard accusations about “CINO”, and how they are somehow less worthy of basking beneath the glory of God, but what exactly is a good Christian, Catholic, Muslim, whatever, and do how do they differ exactly from a good non-theist person?
With regard to non-theists, I don’t think you can compare. The atheist doesn’t have a set of rituals, commandments, or any other official criteria to be measured by. Christians and jews are measured by the umbrella religion and then again by the splinter group they belong to. Way too much pressure, as far as I’m concerned.
Is spiritualism a form of religion? People can believe in a transcendent something more without embracing specific doctrine. People can believe in a spiritual life without embracing myth and superstition. We can have a religious belief system and still embrace scientific discovery, factoring new information into our belief system.
When tradition and doctrine compels people to deny solid evidence concerning specific beliefs I’d call that choosing myth and superstition.
It doesn’t matter if the words have “no superior meaning” to you, whatever the hell that means. Proper nouns are capitalized in the English language. Do you see anyone over the age of seven posting about barack obama, ted kennedy, or france?