|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2011 : 19:26:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
We are hundreds or thousands of years behind where we could have been had the concepts behind religion never entered our monkey brains. |
On the other hand, we might not be here today if it weren't for religion. It almost certainly existed as a survival mechanism. And it's so universal, it would be hard to argue that it has served no purpose other than to cause us harm. Hundreds of thousands of years of something that doesn't work, doesn't really work.
Also, I would argue that wars fought for a religion were mostly land and power and wealth seeking grabs that would have happened anyhow under some flag or other. Equally irrational, but there you go... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2011 : 20:27:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
But are you suggesting that some parents should have their children forcibly removed for teaching their kids that hell is real? If so, how do we decide which to prosecute and which to leave alone? |
Why not just leave religion out of the equation and look at the harm done to the children? Don't courts already sometimes decide that parents cause harm to their offspring and forcibly remove them? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2011 : 20:32:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave:| Believing in things for which there is no evidence is itself morally bad. |
Morally bad? Irrational, yes. But immoral? According to what objective basis? Gee, you might as well just say (in an ominous tone of voice) religion is evil. I'm reminded of my college freethought group's faculty adviser Richard Garner, a PhD in Philosophy who has spent much of his career arguing that the concept of morality is based on bullshit. He even has a website about it. And I tend to agree with him.
| Teaching kids such things basically teaches them to be gullible, leaves them open to con-men both religious and secular, and the kids can't say "shut up" to their teachers, who are usually their own parents. |
Oh really? You going to back that up with evidence or just rely entirely on armchair theorizing? Because what I've seen is that religious people are incredibly good at compartmentalized thinking that prevents their irrational thinking about crap that doesn't really matter (like if we have souls, afterlife, whether there is a God, etc.) from seeping into areas that do matter (should I see a doctor when me or my kid is sick, are embryonic stem cells a good thing to use in some medical research, should I be tolerant of my neighbors who are a different race/religion from me, etc.) That's how we manage to have great scientists, teachers, activists, journalists, etc, who happen to also be religious.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2011 : 20:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Hawks| "Why not just leave religion out of the equation and look at the harm done to the children? Don't courts already sometimes decide that parents cause harm to their offspring and forcibly remove them? |
Okay. Only one problem. If there is harm done, why isn't it already attracting the attentions of child services and law enforcement? When kids are injured or die from parents who do faith healing, there are arrests and investigations and trials because clear harm has been done.
There are many cult-like, fundamentalist religious communities who manage to fly their abuses under the radar of law enforcement. One good example is girls and very young women in certain Mormon communities in Utah who are taken out of school and forced into loveless, illegal polygamous marriages, and then force through social pressure and often physically into popping out babies like a machine. However, do the perpetrators of these atrocities get away with it because religion in general has an elevated status, or rather, do they get away with it because they are isolated in small communities where they as an institution and set of traditions (that happens to be religious) has a certain amount of prestige and pull with local law enforcement. Not to mention that being isolated they are protected by internal support (it's hard for these women - if they do manage to escape - to make a case for rape and coercion when there is an army of witnesses who consistently refute their claims.) This is not all that unlike the secular problem of human trafficking, which is much more widespread in the United States, and also mostly ignored by law enforcement.
I would argue that religion has a special standing in mainstream society only until scandals involving abuse perpetuated by religious doctrine and/or authorities comes to light. At that point, the public turns against that religion. The Catholic Church has lost a great deal of standing in the general public in recent years due to such scandals. Basically, I'd argue that if any religion is inherently abusive, it will eventually shoot itself in the foot as far as public opinion goes. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2011 20:56:54 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 06:02:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by marfknox
But are you suggesting that some parents should have their children forcibly removed for teaching their kids that hell is real? If so, how do we decide which to prosecute and which to leave alone? |
Why not just leave religion out of the equation and look at the harm done to the children? Don't courts already sometimes decide that parents cause harm to their offspring and forcibly remove them?
|
And some times based on religious discrimination based on lies told by a powerful religion on minority religions.
Wiccan parents have lost custody in Arkansas in 2008 strictly on the basis of the parent's religion. Two Wiccan parents were ordered not to expose their children to their religion by a judge in Indiana in 2007. (overturned on appeal and neither parent requested this)
We already have practices which are independent of religion which are basises for prosecution which a very tiny minority of religious sub-sects (of which Jenny McCarthy hangers on will claim adherence to so that their child is not exposed to the imagined risk of autism due to non-existent mercury in the vaccines) which include manslaughter due to forcible exorcisms, denial of medical care, and the rather bizarre religious rites concerning drinking stricknine(sp) and handling venomous serpents.
Lets keep to those basises instead of adding religion to the mix.
Dave, humans are herd critters. Few leaders and a lot of followers. Religion was one of the methodologies for the leaders to direct the herd. As leaders struggled for dominance, some of them likely infented religions which allowed multiple leaders to peacefully co-exist and share resources. Can we not also make a criticism of some cultures independant of religion can do harm such as the foot binding practices.
It is abused. So is everything by various leaders. Doesn't make it universally bad/immoral. Irrational, yes. But humans seem to need a little irrationality time and again. (Parachute pants, the mullet, flare bottoms, the sack dress, Lady Gaga)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 06:59:21 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps a more practical discussion related to the influence of religion on not only children, but anyone in society, is of whether religious exemptions, which allow religious groups to skirt secular law that applies to everyone else and which are typically only given to larger and more powerful sects, should be discarded. For instance, religious exemptions for immunizations, or ones that allow children of religious families to ignore certain regulations in education and truancy laws. That I would agree with.
Edited to clarify: I'm saying I would agree with getting rid of such religious exemptions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/29/2011 07:14:54 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 15:54:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Okay. Only one problem. If there is harm done, why isn't it already attracting the attentions of child services and law enforcement? |
I don't know. Perhaps because "religion has a special standing in mainstream society"? And this is a standing that it shouldn't have.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 19:31:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Morally bad? Irrational, yes. But immoral? According to what objective basis? |
From what I see, believing things for which there is no evidence causes more harm than good for society as a whole. Isn't that what I've been saying?| Gee, you might as well just say (in an ominous tone of voice) religion is evil. |
Faith is a net harm to society. A religion may or may not be "evil," depending on how steeped it is in faith and how pushy its adherents are that people require faith to be considered upstanding members of society.| I'm reminded of my college freethought group's faculty adviser Richard Garner, a PhD in Philosophy who has spent much of his career arguing that the concept of morality is based on bullshit. He even has a website about it. And I tend to agree with him. |
Great. I certainly can't argue against a whole book I haven't read, can I? The summaries I've been able to find don't actually explain what Garner might mean by "bullshit," but a not-very-enthused reviewer says,His alternative to morality simply honors a variety of its values without presupposing their objective legitimacy. If true, Garner doesn't offer an alternative to morality unless one defines "morality" to mean "only dogmatic and absolutist sets of ethical guidelines." I don't.| Teaching kids such things basically teaches them to be gullible, leaves them open to con-men both religious and secular, and the kids can't say "shut up" to their teachers, who are usually their own parents. |
Oh really? You going to back that up with evidence or just rely entirely on armchair theorizing? Because what I've seen is that religious people are incredibly good at compartmentalized thinking that prevents their irrational thinking about crap that doesn't really matter (like if we have souls, afterlife, whether there is a God, etc.) from seeping into areas that do matter (should I see a doctor when me or my kid is sick, are embryonic stem cells a good thing to use in some medical research, should I be tolerant of my neighbors who are a different race/religion from me, etc.) |
The fact that they need to compartmentalize is abhorent to me. You're defending faith by telling me that people are excellent at creating coping mechanisms to deal with it in an otherwise rational world. They shouldn't have to do so in the first place. You're doing nothing more than magnifying its flaws.
So I retract my comment about faith making people more gullible. You, marf, have said more than enough that everyone should see it as pathetic and wrong, without my "armchair theorizing."| That's how we manage to have great scientists, teachers, activists, journalists, etc, who happen to also be religious. |
Again: they shouldn't have to. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 20:00:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
We are hundreds or thousands of years behind where we could have been had the concepts behind religion never entered our monkey brains. |
On the other hand, we might not be here today if it weren't for religion. It almost certainly existed as a survival mechanism. |
I'm not so sure about that.| And it's so universal, it would be hard to argue that it has served no purpose other than to cause us harm. Hundreds of thousands of years of something that doesn't work, doesn't really work. |
Good thing I'm not arguing that. On the other hand, evolution has given us plenty of things which we'd probably be better off without. Inverted retinas, the veriform appendix, our screwed up knees and backs. The fact that we've had some trait for a long time doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off without it.| Also, I would argue that wars fought for a religion were mostly land and power and wealth seeking grabs that would have happened anyhow under some flag or other. Equally irrational, but there you go... |
Equally irrational, perhaps, but still more honest. Religion clouds these issues, it makes it harder to resolve the underlying conflicts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 20:28:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Good thing I'm not arguing that. |
I know. I was just musing on how ubiquitous religion is.
| Equally irrational, perhaps, but still more honest. Religion clouds these issues, it makes it harder to resolve the underlying conflicts. |
I think patriotism does exactly the same thing as religion does. And I do mean "exactly." |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2011 : 21:47:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think patriotism does exactly the same thing as religion does. And I do mean "exactly." |
An evidence-free belief in "our country, right or wrong" or other such nationalistic baloney is faith, which is why it's exactly the same as religion. Our current governmental woes appear to be due to a clash between political faiths.
This is why I've been making a distinction between "religion" and "faith" in this thread and others. Faith is a huge, pervasive problem. A faithless religion, like Humanism, doesn't bother me.
But even Tibetan Buddhism (an atheistic religion) relies upon faith. The Dalai Llama once said that if science disproved reincarnation, he'd stop believing in reincarnation. But that's faith: he'll believe in something for which there is no evidence up until someone disproves it. That's the opposite of what a rational person should do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2011 : 07:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | From what I see, believing things for which there is no evidence causes more harm than good for society as a whole. Isn't that what I've been saying? |
Yes. That's where we disagree. I don't think we have near enough data and understanding of religion, how societies function, and the human mind to make that claim with any certainty.
| The fact that they need to compartmentalize is abhorent to me. |
Your feelings are irrelevant.
| You're defending faith by telling me that people are excellent at creating coping mechanisms to deal with it in an otherwise rational world. They shouldn't have to do so in the first place. |
Why? You talk more about theory than outcomes. Is there evidence that religious upbringing makes a person more irrational in their thinking in areas of life that actually make a difference? If not, why does it matter if they compartmentalize (other than that you find it abhorent?)
| You're doing nothing more than magnifying its flaws. |
I'd say I'm dealing with the real world. We're talking about one extremely strong human tendency that we don't fully understand. And you want to ignore our lack of sufficient understanding of that tendency because of your feelings and theories about rational and irrational thinking. How exactly are you measuring the good of irrational, compartmentalized thinking against the harm?
| So I retract my comment about faith making people more gullible. You, marf, have said more than enough that everyone should see it as pathetic and wrong, without my "armchair theorizing." |
*rolls eyes* I disagree with you, based mostly on the contention that we don't have enough data to come to your conclusions, so therefore I'm gullible? Whatever.
| Again: they shouldn't have to. |
But they do! That's the point! This is the real world, with real humans who have flaws, at least according to rationalist ideals. Not some kind of rationalist utopia. How often in human history have we identified a problem (that we didn't thoroughly understand), only to create much worse problems by implementing a solution that at the time sounded like such a sound, rational idea? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2011 : 09:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Parents will:
Teach their children what political party they should align themselves with.
, |
My parents raised me strictly non-partisan. Any
political affiliation I currently have, I chose late in life based on the values instilled in me as I was raised: the strong should protect the weak, the wise and smart should inform the less knowledgeable, cooperation most often creates synergies. Being truthful wins in the long run. The Golden rule...
They were both very secretive about their affiliations but I'gleaned as much to confidently guess they are both right from me.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2011 : 13:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Emotionally, people need religion (I am not saying it is right). Death is scary and life can be fuckin' difficult. Believing in a god or heaven can alleviate fears of death, fears of being insignificant, of being alone, etc. It takes a lot of emotional strength to not believe in god or an afterlife. Parents, of course, influence their children's beliefs and view of the world.
So to say all religion is bad or is child abuse is ignoring the reality of humans' weaknesses and needs. Compartmentalizing is probably the best strategy to deal with the scientific world and dealing with an indifferent universe.
Religion can bring a lot of problems, but that is because it reflects human behavior (aggression, us vs them beliefs, and often male dominance). Fortunately, we have also evolved to be charitable, rational and accepting.
(I was just listening to some colleagues talk about their Catholic school experiences. They say they are still dealing with the traumatic aftereffects from the guilt and shame instilled in them by the nuns. I am glad my parents were not very religious.)
Fortunately, I do think the world is gradually moving away from religion being in control of all aspects of life. Religion is becoming less influential in a lot of ways, which of course scares the fundamentalists to death |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2011 : 14:35:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | From what I see, believing things for which there is no evidence causes more harm than good for society as a whole. Isn't that what I've been saying? |
Yes. That's where we disagree. I don't think we have near enough data and understanding of religion, how societies function, and the human mind to make that claim with any certainty. |
Forget religion in particular. Believing anything without sufficient evidence causes net harm to society. Religion is a subset of that, but an especially virulent one because it generally includes the idea that believing things without evidence is a virtue.| The fact that they need to compartmentalize is abhorent to me. |
Your feelings are irrelevant. |
Not when we're talking about morality.| Why? You talk more about theory than outcomes. Is there evidence that religious upbringing makes a person more irrational in their thinking in areas of life that actually make a difference? If not, why does it matter if they compartmentalize (other than that you find it abhorent?) |
If faith is diametrically opposed to rationality, then every time someone engages in faith it reduces the amount of rationality being engaged in, worldwide.| You're doing nothing more than magnifying its flaws. |
I'd say I'm dealing with the real world. We're talking about one extremely strong human tendency that we don't fully understand. And you want to ignore our lack of sufficient understanding of that tendency because of your feelings and theories about rational and irrational thinking. |
I'm talking about an extremely strong human tendency that I think the world would be better off without.| How exactly are you measuring the good of irrational, compartmentalized thinking against the harm? |
Actually, I don't really see an upside to faith at all. Like the appendix, I think we'd do just fine without it.| So I retract my comment about faith making people more gullible. You, marf, have said more than enough that everyone should see it as pathetic and wrong, without my "armchair theorizing." |
*rolls eyes* I disagree with you, based mostly on the contention that we don't have enough data to come to your conclusions, so therefore I'm gullible? Whatever. |
Yeah, whatever. When did I call you gullible?| Again: they shouldn't have to. |
But they do! That's the point! This is the real world, with real humans who have flaws, at least according to rationalist ideals. Not some kind of rationalist utopia. |
I know they have flaws. Faith is one of them. One that we can work to eliminate without (so far as I can tell) any downside. Do rationalist ideals suggest that we should NOT seek solutions to human flaws?| How often in human history have we identified a problem (that we didn't thoroughly understand), only to create much worse problems by implementing a solution that at the time sounded like such a sound, rational idea? |
A fear of unintended consequences should keep a person trapped in indecision about whether or not to get out of bed, if held consistently, so I generally find such arguments uncompelling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religious indoctrination of children child abuse?
