Well, if we’re going to entertain the idea that this god-thing is real (and hey, look, we’re in a debate thread!) then it’s perhaps worth looking at this from a step further back - which includes that god created the world and the society in question. Presuming we’re still talking about an all-powerful dude, he could have solved the need for slavery at any time. Which suggests (suggests, proves, whatever) that if slavery is happening, then God wants it to happen.
Which casts the whole discussion in a different light. An unchanging god might be crafting shifting edicts to create the result it wants - and the result might not be what the edicts actually say, or anything to do with the god’s personal morals or direct desires. It paints a picture of a god who is gaming humanity rather than giving it clear orders. (And, being a clearly non-omnibenevolent god, handily sidesteps the Problem of Evil too.)
But that wasn’t organized religion. Pretty overwhelmingly, it was individual Christians (and others), not organized Christianity, that acted to save relatively small numbers of Jews in the face of Nazi horror. Pretty overwhelmingly, organized Christianity in Europe failed to save Jews.
And the story in America is similar – pretty overwhelmingly, organized Christianity served the powers that be, including slave owners, during slavery. And in the South, after slavery, organized Christianity generally supported Jim Crow and oppression. Some Christians, and some churches, helped slaves escape, and helped advance Civil Rights, but these were generally exceptions to the larger inaction and toleration-of-oppression of organized Christianity in America.
Well, a number of Mainline liberal Protestant denominations in the US were for same sex marriage before it was legal. The Episcopal Church quite famously had a gay bishop in 2003 (Bishop Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire).
Is that what you mean by flouting majority public opinion? Or is that adapting to changing society? because different people of different persuasions may have a different answer to that.
Ahh - if your take is people were making it up, I agree. But someone who claims morality comes from god and the Bible reflects the will of God can’t use that argument, since supposedly God’s moral sense is more developed then ours, even today.
The Biblical passages on slavery are complicated and nuanced in the difference between how you treat Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, for instance. If God were involved, he could much more easily have said “Slavery is wrong, don’t do it.” That isn’t so hard, and if God cared about the morality of slavery that’s what he’d do.
Let me summarize here and try to get back to the basics.
Religion is a social activity. As such, it evolves, it adjusts to the ethos of the larger society to a big extent, and if it is successful it has benefits for its adherents. I’m not sure I’ve heard any atheists who would disagree with this, I certainly don’t.
Religion has good stuff and bad stuff - if it is in the main good or bad for society is a discussion for another day.
What distinguishes religions from other social groups is the claim that at some point the religion had a connection to the divine. That could be the Covenant, that could be words from God’s son, it could be revelation to Muhammad, it could be golden plates. Buy into the religion, and you buy into the revelation.
You can believe in god and not believe in any revelations, like deists do. All laws are clearly human deductions of what they think a god would want - like Jefferson’s in the Declaration of Independence. So deists don’t have the problem of changing their mind as in the OP - that’s to be expected.
The other thing I heard is that the rules are so confusing changing one’s mind about them just means you’ve figured them out better. But if they mean anything at all, God could have made them clear. And there are plenty of rules that got changed that are perfectly clear. I’m just talking about rules that come from God, like the Kosher laws. Rules that develop by church tradition, like meatless Fridays, can be changed with no problem.
When we go far back enough we have the problem of human created rules getting mixed in with rules from God. How do we distinguish them? Why did God let rules not of his liking get in?
It’s a big mess, and the hypothesis that resolves everything is that the divine was not involved at all. The holy books were created by humans. Not goat herders like an atheist canard goes - more sophisticated priests for the Torah, at least. They did a great job, mostly, but they were people of their time. We know better morally than they do. The problems described in the OP just reflect this.
If you think the divine is responsible, than you could explain why the divine is so incompetent? Or is it because these laws are not all that important? Or is our advance morality wrong, and we should be stoning people to death?
If you say that the point of a religion is to be a social club, good answer. If you say the point is to connect us to God’s desires, then I still think you have a problem.
Abrahamic religions are indeed social activities. Reclusive monks (many monks go for a solitary lifestyle) are accepted and celebrated in Hinduism. Many Hindus believe in the concept of “Tat twam asi” Sanskrit translation to - “That you (and your truth) is”. The concept of universal truth in itself is of western invention.
Yet again this is one definition of religion, and certainly true, but not the only one. I am a Hindu Atheist and may argue that this is very much a nature versus nurture debate if you think of religion as an organism.
It’s not a definition of religion, it is the characteristics of a religion. Chosen so that I can’t be seen as saying that religion is evil.
All religions spring from their environment, and develop from there. Is that nature? Mormons believe that Jesus came to America - that is a blatant example right there of this.
I’m a Jewish atheist and I’m tempted to buy Matzo at Passover from tradition. Indians at work threw cool parties during various holidays - no religion involved, and I’m not sure what religion is under the hood, like there would be at a secular Christmas party. And culture associated with a religion is not necessarily a part of that religion - it is very unlikely that Moses ever ate a bagel.
Okay - agreed, my choice of wrong wording. But it’s one characteristic and may not be the defining characteristic.
Precisely. You see “Evil” itself is an Abrahamic construct. I have a tough time debating this since the thought processes involves religiously charged/influenced words.
Good point. I should have said religions are not necessarily primarily harmful to their adherents and others. Though I suspect evil predated religions also.
I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes organized religion has United people and have had many social, economic and cultural breakthroughs, but it has had downsides also. For example, in Hinduism, Women’s exploitation, Caste System, Not using contraceptives etc etc are correlated with organized religion, if not caused.
Hinduism in itself has evolved over the last 5000 years or so and it has to evolve, IMO.
IMO, Like science, religion is a framework. The real essence of science is not the scientific principles, but the scientific community that reviews, criticizes and changes concepts as new data emerges. Again, IMO religion should be the same.
Trust me, I agree about the harm that religions have caused. Being Jewish my ancestors suffered a lot of it. They didn’t leave Russia for New York to enjoy the green pastures of the Lower East Side. But when some atheists say “religion is evil” it turns off those who are involved in a religion which isn’t even close to being evil.
As for science, the community of scientists is different from other communities by being driven by certain principles. Part of getting a PhD is being mentored in these by your advisers.
Consider the community of creationists who claim to be scientific. They aren’t because they are driven by other principles than science and the quest for truth, that is belief in the Bible comes first. Their papers may look scientific but aren’t unless by accident.
Doesn’t your question answer itself. And remember there will most likely be one thing we cannot answer and that’s life after death. Religion fills that gap. We might not need it to explain the weather but it’s still useful and timeless in many ways. As a atheist who doesn’t want to be one I wish I still believed like when I was a child
That really doesn’t make sense. If I said that in my belief system there are giant purple invisible krakens that live on cheese crackers, would you say you needed my belief system because there was one thing we cannot answer, namely giant purple invisible krakens that live on cheese crackers?
Religion proposes something for which there is no evidence whatever. You don’t need something to explain something that isn’t.
It does make sense. It’s extremely unlikely and there is zero evidence for life after death. But most people don’t look at their mortality logically. It’s human nature. That’s the roll religion or spirituality fills in. Also physiologically we need something higher than ourselves and our physical lives to fill a human need. Religion and spirituality fills this gap in perfectly. It literally releases endorphins.
There is also zero evidence against the theory that the universe was created last Thursday. Life is too short to bother with theories that are not supported by any evidence at all.
I’ll agree that life is too short if one looks only at the period between birth and death. Whether there’s anything beyond that, well, that’s exactly what we are discussing.
Not quite. We have lots of evidence that our thoughts, memories and even personalities come from the physical structure of our brains (and associated organs.) Changes to brains change personalities.
We have zero evidence that there is anything else. Scientific efforts to prove that NDEs represent some kind of soul flying free have failed. Claims of reincarnation have been debunked.
I know the response to this is that the brain is some kind of receiver for thoughts of a soul located somewhere else - but if that were so, I’d like to see a prediction of what part of the brain does the receiving that is distinct from what science has shown so far.