|
|
|
Indeterminacy
New Member
USA
26 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:15:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The reality is that the Catholic Church is both hierarchical and authoritarian as an institution. That means that they do not encourage freethought on the part of their adherents. Instead, they promote obedience. Therefore they have one hell of a responsibility to their poor and uneducated or undereducated adherents. To this date, I'm very unimpressed, and often disgusted, by how the church has uses that responsibility. Catholic missionary work is far less focused on helping people than it is on maintaining the faith. It is loyalty for the sake of loyalty, rather than loyalty for the sake of a real and tangible goal.
Well said. |
If I ask the question with the answer to the question I am after, will it dawn on me? |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 11:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
A few questions, Dr.Mabuse, if I may.... 
(1) Why pander to the mental/emotional state of mind "faith?" What are you referring to when you speak of "intellectual laziness?"
Since English is only a second language to me, maybe my lack of language skills prevent me from making myself clear. I apologise for that in advance.
When I refer to "intellectual laziness" I'm thinking of the post by BigPapaSmurf in the 'Something to chew on..."-thread. Why actually read your religious text when your teacher can tell you what it says?
quote:
Is there a possible relationship between the two? Why does "faith" get a free ride?
Do I let it? What does faith mean? Is faith in God or Higher Power the same 'faith' as the faith in people or humankind?
If I do not have faith in the goodness of my fellow man, what kind of person would I be? I like to believe good things about people I meet. Isn't that faith?
I have a beef with religious faith, and don't intend to give it a free pass.
quote:
(2) Are all "rallying foc[i]" "inherently evil," or just the ones you don't like? Is it something about the nature of a particular "focus?" Isn't science a "rallying focus?"
Ah, but is science an organised religion? Does science require you submit to it's dogmatic authority? Does it offer Absolute Truths? Or does science embrace progress by questioning old truths in light of new evidence?
At this point Marf weighs in..:
quote:
Marfknox wrote:
Mab, I think you've confused authoritarian, dogmatic religion with religion in general.
You have a point, Marf. If we exclude Hinduism, as I don't know that much about their practise, Christianity and Islam makes up of more than 50% of religious practitioners on the planet (see my wiki-link in my reply to Ricky). Of the Christian denominations, Catholicism is the largest. Aren't they authoritarian, and dogmatic? What about the Orthodox churches? What about the biggest protestant denominations, Baptist and Pentecostal? OK, in the last two cases dogma is less strict, but there are more than trivial differences between individual churches.
Though some may claim the Indian caste system is societal in nature as there are caste systems among Indian Muslims and Christian converts, the origin in Hindu religion is undeniable.
quote:
Originally posted by dglas:
(3) Does skepticism have some form of normative content? You speak of it as "undermining the authority of ill-conceived ideas." How does skepticism distinguish between ill-conceived and not-ill-conceived ideas?
By testing it. Questioning it.
I like the skepticism of SFN where we use the scientific method and logic to assign truth value to a statement. Why not use it to analyse ideas to see if they are good and work?
quote:
(4) Is personal "faith" with no external referents really better than a hive mind with no ability to analyse external referents? Or is it just a matter of isolating the radicals?
Can you please elaborate on this?
quote:
(5) "People who are open to the absolute authority of the written texts can easily be manipulated to accept concepts that does not originate in said texts." Now this is interesting. Are you suggesting a flaw in the folks who accept the authority of the text or are you suggesting there might be something about the text itself that is ambiguous and might be interpreted differently by different people?
I think I miscommunicated a bit here. The passage you quoted was meant to be read in the context of the intellectual laziness and unquestioning of authority among the practitioners.
The preacher interprets the passage from the text, and have the opportunity to add meaning into the interpretations that wasn't originally there.
quote:
(6) What do you mean by "inherent evil?" Just asking....
Evil in the same sense I think that a 38special, or a MAC-10 is evil. While someone wielding it may choose not to use it, its primary function is to facilitate murder in an efficient and timely fashion.
While both may be used for good deeds, they bring more devastation when they are abused. |
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. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 15:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote: quote:
Christianity and Islam makes up of more than 50% of religious practitioners on the planet (see my wiki-link in my reply to Ricky). Of the Christian denominations, Catholicism is the largest. Aren't they authoritarian, and dogmatic? What about the Orthodox churches? What about the biggest protestant denominations, Baptist and Pentecostal?
I am not arguing that the majority of religious institutions are not authoritarian and dogmatic. You are the one who criticized all religions as inherently evil. You wrote: quote:
The evil aspect of religion is that Organised Religion puts the loaded gun in the hands of religious leaders, to do as they please.
But then you said that faith can be a good thing. But couldn't I claim that faith is inherently evil by saying: The evil aspect of faith is that when put in an authoritarian human agent (such as the Pope or other clergy) it allows those agents to use the faithful however they choose.
Both religion and faith can be used for human benefit. But mostly in seems they have been used for human harm - the exploitation of a large group of people by a trusted but selfish minority or individual. By arguing that the blame is all on organized religion, rather than the faithful themselves, you are reducing the masses to pawns or parts in some great social machine, rather than individuals with their own minds and will.
That said, I don't think individualism and individual responsibility is a good thing either when taken to an extreme. Which goes back to my point that the real problem is fanaticism. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The evil aspect of organised religion
