Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Belinda wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:
----reality or just a social delusion,----
Nobody can know the answer for sure. My faith is that what we know is a socially constructed reality. However what we can know and the infinite perspectives of nature are not the same .
"The infinite perspectives of nature"? That must be a metaphor for something, but I can't tell what.

Literally speaking, it must be patently obvious that "nature" has no "perspectives," to say nothing of the fact that nothing in "nature" is "infinite." The very phrase hast to be an anthropomorphism of impersonal material forces...nothing more. And as Hume pointed out, we cannot get any "perspective" ourselves from "nature," for "nature" has nothing to say about morality at all.

However, if "nobody can know," that "nobody" surely cannot include God, assuming for argument's sake that He exists. If a Supreme Being exists, there's no longer any reason to rest morality at the level of society. For the right answer will be the one that conforms best to what God knows morality is, not merely to what that society contingently and temporarily happens to want to think it is.

We could then look beyond society, and ask questions like, "Does one society (say Western liberal society) have morals closer to the true ones than another (say ISIL)?"

And that would be a very good question to be able to ask, as I'm sure you'd agree. For the alternative, social relativism, implies that there can be no objective value judgment to make against practices like throat-slitting, throwing people off buildings and raping women at will. Those are socially-approved practices in the locales in which ISIL is the regnant culture. So if social relativism is true, they must all be...."right"? :shock:

I'm sure neither you nor I would think that. But that is the implication of social relativism. We surely cannot rest there.

Belinda replied:

By "the infinite perspectives of nature" I meant realities other than human social realities.We cannot know anything outside of the realities which we make in common with each other. I guess that you, Immanuel, would not agree for you would claim that God has revealed the true and absolute reality. You have a right to your perspective on reality as have I.

However if you claim to be a philosopher in these pages you need to consider alternative perspectives and judge according to probability, not faith tradition. For instance you have failed to argue convincingly that a Supreme Being exists. So far you have argued from an Originator in time(cosmological argument) and you have argued from Design. Neither of those arguments is very sound. Ontological arguments for the existence of God are more interesting.


We both agree that ISIL is unethical and immoral and that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are more ethical and more moral than ISIL. I am not a social relativist and neither are you. My claim that social reality is all that we can know does not imply that no social reality is better than another. Teachers and liberal priests work to teach people how to enlarge, widen, and inform the social realities that they would otherwise be stuck with.

It is an accident of history that western enlightenment science, and all the world class religious ethics, teach the same realities. Your supernaturalist belief, Immanuel, is a narrative which was formed as a rationale for ethics, I guess in your case, Christian ethics. The supernatural myth is now past its usefulness. You may now understand that someone, me for instance, does not have to believe in a Deity in order to support the same ethics as liberal religionists .
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Londoner »

Immanuel Can wrote: Simply because we know what "design" looks like. It has qualities like specificity, designation, repetition, function, interrelationship and so on within it. We actually have no trouble at all differentiating this from chaos. The human mind seems eminently well-equipped for doing so...another evidence of design, it itself.'


Let us try this from another direction; what do you think 'chaos' would look like, such that we could recognise it? Because to recognise something requires us to characterise it, to say 'it is like this', but then it is no longer chaotic in that it has a particular character. For example, when looking at the movement of tiny particles, they are random in that we cannot say where any particular one might be, yet that randomness underlies the regularity of things seen on a larger scale. So is the universe random or regular?

The way we handle that is to simply extend our claim about what has been designed to embrace both; we say the element of randomness was also designed. And we could do that with everything; like 'brain in a box' or 'life is a dream' there is no possible configuration of things, or events, that cannot be described as 'God's design'.

Your description of "design" avoids singling out the one quality that really indicates design; purpose. If design was only about 'specificity, designation, repetition...' then we could agree that the universe has those qualities without needing God. For God, we need to say not only that the universe is a particular way, but that is this particular way for a reason, hinted at by your word 'function'. In that case, what is the 'function' of the universe? How do you know?

The real answer is that since we are part of this universe, we would like to think that the purpose of the universe is 'us'. Hence the argument that it must have been designed by a non-material being who wanted to bring about humans.
I would suggest that the problem is that we are using the 'universe' to mean 'everything'.

That's not a "problem." It's actually the correct definition of "universe." If we mean something smaller, we say "solar system," or "galaxy," or something that refers to something more limited.

But we are also using it as if it was a location, meaning 'where we happen to live', such that their might be other universes.

Well, for my part, I wasn't. If I ever did, it was an accident, and I retract that usage happily.

I don't believe in "other universes," and I think we can rationally show that there are no "everythings" out there other than this "everything." ....
If 'the universe' does mean 'everything', then where in the universe does God live? And if God designed this one, he might equally have designed any number of other ones (God not being constrained by the physical laws that apply in our own universe), and perhaps he has done. Before God designed this universe, there must have been an alternative state of affairs, that did not indicate a designer.

The problem remains that we cannot talk about 'everything' - except from a standpoint outside everything. In which case, if there is such a standpoint, we cannot avoid contradicting ourselves; 'everything' would not be everything.
It would have to be a "something" in a completely different category from the material universe.
Indeed, and the claim is that such a thing exists. But why would we think that? What possible evidence can a material universe provide of something that is in a 'completely different category'?
I think not so. We can deduce it from design and the regression problem, if nothing else. But I think we can also know it by other means.
We can move onto what you call the regression problem, or first cause, but I think much the same problems will apply. We would be using the methods we use to explain things in this material world to posit a realm in which those methods are not valid.

Re: universal theories (everything is by God's will, life is all a dream etc.)
Me: Absolutely it does not make it the exclusive explanation. My point was that there can be any number of universal theories; none of them can be proved or disproved, so that none of them can claim exclusivity.

"Exclusivity" of what? "Exclusivity" of apparent explanatory ability, or "exclusivity" of rightness? The two are very different.


Exclusivity in the sense of being the only possible explanation of that type. I cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is willed by God. I also cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is an illusion created by those who run the Matrix. I can think of lots more.

With such theories 'rightness' does not come into it. Since there is no event that can show them false, there is no event that can show they are right. If they were right, they would be 'right' about 'everything'....yet not 'right' about anything in particular.
A "theory" and a "description" are not opposite terms. Some theories "describe," and some "attribute." Some "explain" and some "evaluate." Theories come in different kinds, and refer to different cognitive challenges.
Yes, the word 'theory' is used in more than one way, but here we are discussing theories which cannot be proved or disproved by observation.
Me: This is what Newton meant when he wrote 'Hypotheses non fingo'; he described gravity, but he could not give a reason for it.
That would be a limitation of Newton and his theory about gravity. He was just honestly admitting the limitations of his personal knowledge, and saying that he would prefer to leave the matter hanging, since he had nothing further to go on, pending a better explanation.

In other words, he would not advance a "feigned" or gratuitous theory. Not that no theory could ever apply to gravity. Nobody could say such a thing, because unless there were a "definitional" or "analytical" reason to prove that no further theory would ever apply, Newton would have been rash to say so much; nobody knows the future. How could he then say what theories might be possible for others in the future?

He wasn't saying there would BE no more theories...just that HE didn't have one, and wouldn't fake one. (This was the point that poor old wtf didn't get on the other strand, and got all bunched up about.)
He is saying that science ('experimental philosophy') cannot ever give us reasons in that sense. There is no possible experiment that can answer 'why gravity?' It can point to correlations between the laws of gravity and other observations, but science does not hypothesise about 'purpose'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote:By "the infinite perspectives of nature" I meant realities other than human social realities.We cannot know anything outside of the realities which we make in common with each other.
Is that really true? How would we know if it was, since that interpretation of reality must be, according to that theory, also nothing more than a social construct?

We can't get away from epistemological realism. We might try, but it keeps coming back. Even societies cannot "construct" their "interpretations" out of whole fiction. They have to be responding to some kinds of reality that transcend the merely social.

Moreover, the social constructionists are still stuck with the ISIL problem: is ISIL moral? What's your answer, since the ethics of ISIL are socially approved by its own social context?
I guess that you, Immanuel, would not agree for you would claim that God has revealed the true and absolute reality. You have a right to your perspective on reality as have I.
We have rights to disagree, of course. But reality will win. It may decide on your side, or it may decide on mine; or it may decide we're both wrong. But one thing is certain: reality will decide. So what you and I merely "think" or take as our "perspective" will ultimately count for nothing if it's not also true.
However if you claim to be a philosopher in these pages you need to consider alternative perspectives and judge according to probability, not faith tradition.
Actually, I am.
For instance you have failed to argue convincingly that a Supreme Being exists. So far you have argued from an Originator in time(cosmological argument) and you have argued from Design. Neither of those arguments is very sound. Ontological arguments for the existence of God are more interesting.
So you say...but, of course, you have also offered no reasons for me to agree as of yet.
We both agree that ISIL is unethical and immoral and that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are more ethical and more moral than ISIL.
I believe we do. But I know why I do. Do you know why you are justified in doing so?
I am not a social relativist and neither are you.
Oh. What are you, then?
Teachers and liberal priests work to teach people how to enlarge, widen, and inform the social realities that they would otherwise be stuck with.
How are they able to do that, if their own view is merely socially-constructed?
It is an accident of history that western enlightenment science, and all the world class religious ethics, teach the same realities.
Are you an ISIL fighter? Are you a Hassidic Jew? Are you a Nazi stormtrooper? Are you a Buddhist monk? Are you a Yoruban shaman? Are you a Quaker pacifist? Are you a secular Humanist?

What "realities" and "religious ethics" do all these teach in common?
Your supernaturalist belief, Immanuel, is a narrative which was formed as a rationale for ethics, I guess in your case, Christian ethics.
That's a pseudo-historical statement. There is no evidence for that.
The supernatural myth is now past its usefulness.
Nietzsche thought that. Nietzsche is now past his freshness date too.
You may now understand that someone, me for instance, does not have to believe in a Deity in order to support the same ethics as liberal religionists .
Actually, Belinda, I do believe it. For all I know, you might be a very nice and extremely moral person. But I don't believe you can say why you are right to do so, or why anyone else ought to be like you, without reference to either reality or to any more specific ideological belief.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Belinda wrote:By "the infinite perspectives of nature" I meant realities other than human social realities.We cannot know anything outside of the realities which we make in common with each other.
Is that really true? How would we know if it was, since that interpretation of reality must be, according to that theory, also nothing more than a social construct?
Bit like religion, then.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Belinda wrote:You may now understand that someone, me for instance, does not have to believe in a Deity in order to support the same ethics as liberal religionists .
Actually, Belinda, I do believe it. For all I know, you might be a very nice and extremely moral person. But I don't believe you can say why you are right to do so, or why anyone else ought to be like you, without reference to either reality or to any more specific ideological belief.
Mr Can, 'Because god says so.' isn't an answer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Londoner wrote:Let us try this from another direction; what do you think 'chaos' would look like, such that we could recognise it?
True chaos would be incomprehensible. No thing would stand in any predictable relation at all to any other thing. Nothing could be interpreted, known or supposed from it.

What would that "look" like? We don't know. Because we don't live in chaos. We clearly live in a world that is orderly, predictable, measurable, experimentable, and reliable in most ways. That's why science is possible here, but would not be possible in chaos.
So is the universe random or regular?
Regular. With only a few specific features left that appear to us "random." However, many of these we have already shown are more regular than ancient man first supposed. How far will that go? We cannot know now.
Your description of "design" avoids singling out the one quality that really indicates design; purpose.
Oh no...I just didn't mention it because "purpose" requires you to believe in teleology, and I suspected you would not believe in that. I thought it would be ill-mannered of me to force that supposition upon you. I, however, do.

But the others...specificity, pattern, predictability, interdependence and so on...those can be observed by anyone. I tried to confine my terms to those sorts of things.
If design was only about 'specificity, designation, repetition...' then we could agree that the universe has those qualities without needing God.
No, we couldn't. I certainly wouldn't accept that theory. And neither would you, actually, if we were not discussing God. If we were only talking about, say, evidence of ancient human habitation, you would be inclined to accept something as uncomplex as a stone arrowhead as evidence of intelligent designing -- and you could rightly call me irrational if I refused to consider it evidence.
what is the 'function' of the universe? How do you know?
Why not ask the Designer?
The real answer is that since we are part of this universe, we would like to think that the purpose of the universe is 'us'. Hence the argument that it must have been designed by a non-material being who wanted to bring about humans.
That's one theory. But the other possibility is that it really IS designed to bring us about, and when we think so, we're on the right track.
If 'the universe' does mean 'everything', then where in the universe does God live?

Your problems in posing this question are twofold: first, that you are essentially asking what kind of "thing" God is, and secondly, that you are placing him within a material universe. Nobody who believes in God believes He's a material "thing" and nobody believes that He is confined to the material universe.

We might as well ask, where does time dwell? Time is not a physical property, so it doesn't "dwell" anywhere. And yet it applies everywhere.
And if God designed this one, he might equally have designed any number of other ones (God not being constrained by the physical laws that apply in our own universe), and perhaps he has done.

Arguably, yes: but if He has, we'll never know: because different "universes" never touch. When they do, they are no longer "universes," but part of "the universe."
Before God designed this universe, there must have been an alternative state of affairs, that did not indicate a designer.
Hard to say. What was it like in the vast halls of pre-history? Nobody knows.
The problem remains that we cannot talk about 'everything' - except from a standpoint outside everything. In which case, if there is such a standpoint, we cannot avoid contradicting ourselves; 'everything' would not be everything.
No, every-thing would still be a collocation of "things." All the "things," in other words. But is God a "thing"?
It would have to be a "something" in a completely different category from the material universe.
Indeed, and the claim is that such a thing exists.
Ah, there it is, you see? A "thing".
But why would we think that? What possible evidence can a material universe provide of something that is in a 'completely different category'?
And again, "a material universe." Material. But God is not a composite of materials. He is, as I say, alone in His category.

However, just as an arrowhead or a clay vase can provide evidence of a hunter or a potter, so can the universe bear the imprint of God, and thus provide evidence for His existence.
We can move onto what you call the regression problem, or first cause, but I think much the same problems will apply. We would be using the methods we use to explain things in this material world to posit a realm in which those methods are not valid.
As above, I think this is not true.
I cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is willed by God. I also cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is an illusion created by those who run the Matrix. I can think of lots more.
No, you cannot disprove those things. But that does not mean they're all equal. Some are much more plausible than others. And one is actually right.
With such theories 'rightness' does not come into it. Since there is no event that can show them false, there is no event that can show they are right.
Not true. "Rightness" is not decided absolutely by human beings. But human beings can think wiser or sillier things, and are quite capable of judging each as such.
Yes, the word 'theory' is used in more than one way, but here we are discussing theories which cannot be proved or disproved by observation.
That is true of all theories, but also of all science. It cannot be proved, even if I run 1,000 tests, that a contradictory results won't appear on the very next trial. However, scientists say "Good enough," and move on. And they're reasonable to do so.
He is saying that science ('experimental philosophy') cannot ever give us reasons in that sense. There is no possible experiment that can answer 'why gravity?' It can point to correlations between the laws of gravity and other observations, but science does not hypothesise about 'purpose'.
Right. Which is why I didn't mention "purpose" in my list of design qualities above. I did not want you to have to accept any assumptions you did not feel comfortable to accept. I trust I was right to respect you in that way.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can posted:
Londoner wrote:

If design was only about 'specificity, designation, repetition...' then we could agree that the universe has those qualities without needing God.
Immanuel Can replied:
No, we couldn't. I certainly wouldn't accept that theory. And neither would you, actually, if we were not discussing God. If we were only talking about, say, evidence of ancient human habitation, you would be inclined to accept something as uncomplex as a stone arrowhead as evidence of intelligent designing -- and you could rightly call me irrational if I refused to consider it evidence.
But a stone arrowhead is evidence of toolmaking. The universe is not evidence of anything except itself. The universe, i.e. everything that is, is existence itself. No artefact or indeed no particular event or thing exists because of itself as Immanuel who is a God-believing determinist would agree.

There is no possible evidence either that Goddidit or that Nature didit. God is supposed to be immanent in nature besides transcending nature. It's possible to believe in God Who is immanent in nature without also believing in God Who transcends nature.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Michael Servetus was the first man to discover Pulmonary Circulation, and had made other discoveries in nature, and human anatomy.
As a man of his times he was also a theologian. And this was to put in in disagreement with the views of other Protestants, on matters we would now find rather esoteric.
Having argued with John Calvin, Calvin invited him to Geneva to talk out their differences over dinner in a friendly manner. Calvin closed his trap and had him arrested by the Genevan authorities.
The trail was certain, and Servetus was burned at the stake, robbing the world of a brilliant mind. His discovery of Pulmonary circulation could have revolutionised human biology ahead of Harvey.
Image
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

A BANE to....

María de los Dolores López (Sevilla - Sevilla, 24 August 1781)
Burned at the stake for taking religion too seriously.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

A BANE to...
María de Bohórquez (Sevilla, 1539 – Sevilla, 1559), was a Spanish protestant. She was executed for heresy by the Spanish Inquisition and was regarded a protestant martyr.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

I wonder if you think these 300+ people considered religion as a boon, when their flesh was crackling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... eformation

And was the argument with this list of over 400+ worthwhile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... eformation
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Londoner »

Immanuel Can wrote: True chaos would be incomprehensible. No thing would stand in any predictable relation at all to any other thing. Nothing could be interpreted, known or supposed from it.
Again, you are not describing the universe but the relationship of a hypothetical observer, who is not themselves part of that universe. 'Prediction', 'interpretation' and 'suppositions' are not features of the material world; such that they are present or absent. They are things that are in the mind of somebody trying to make sense of that world. And so is 'chaos'; it is not a state of affairs, it is a description of our lack of comprehension.

When you describe chaos you write 'No thing would stand in any predictable relation at all to any other thing'. But if that was the case, then there would be no 'things'; we only identify things by their relationship to each other. If you could make the judgement that 'things were chaotic', then you would have described their relationship, hence they would not be chaotic.

'Chaos' is like 'universal' and 'infinite'; an abstract concept that does not - cannot - describe any possible state of affairs. If we try to insert such terms into a description of the physical world we just create paradoxes; our descriptions become self-contradictory. The only way we can resolve such paradoxes is to introduce a meta-paradoxical explanation, like a Being which is not a being in the normal sense. But this is unnecessary since the paradox was only created by a misuse of language.
Me: Your description of "design" avoids singling out the one quality that really indicates design; purpose.
Oh no...I just didn't mention it because "purpose" requires you to believe in teleology, and I suspected you would not believe in that. I thought it would be ill-mannered of me to force that supposition upon you. I, however, do.

But the others...specificity, pattern, predictability, interdependence and so on...those can be observed by anyone. I tried to confine my terms to those sorts of things.
But they are not 'design' in the sense of needing a designer. That we observe these things says something about us, that we look for patterns, that we try to describe the world in a way that makes certain relationships predictable. Our description is artificial and deliberately restricted. If I describe a relationship between A and B, that relationship is a function of my choice to distinguish A from B. And my decision to leave C and all the other letters out of the picture.

To put it another way, I can describe a relationship between any thing and any other thing, since both are part of the same universe. If that was sufficient to show 'design', then no thing could not show design. But since the description 'designed' must apply to everything, then it would be meaningless.
No, we couldn't. I certainly wouldn't accept that theory. And neither would you, actually, if we were not discussing God. If we were only talking about, say, evidence of ancient human habitation, you would be inclined to accept something as uncomplex as a stone arrowhead as evidence of intelligent designing -- and you could rightly call me irrational if I refused to consider it evidence.
But we are not talking about human habitation. I take a stone arrowhead only as evidence of humans. But every stone in the universe is shaped; if you are saying the universe has been designed then every single stone in that universe has been designed in exactly the same way as the arrowhead. But then, (as I said above), since every single thing has been designed, for us to call a particular thing 'designed' is meaningless.
what is the 'function' of the universe? How do you know?
Why not ask the Designer?
Because, even if I could, I could not possibly understand their answer.
Your problems in posing this question are twofold: first, that you are essentially asking what kind of "thing" God is, and secondly, that you are placing him within a material universe. Nobody who believes in God believes He's a material "thing" and nobody believes that He is confined to the material universe.
That is why I could not understand God.
We might as well ask, where does time dwell? Time is not a physical property, so it doesn't "dwell" anywhere. And yet it applies everywhere.
I'd say it doesn't 'apply everywhere', rather we humans apply it. It does not exist in itself, any more that 'a kilogram' exists in itself.
Me: The problem remains that we cannot talk about 'everything' - except from a standpoint outside everything. In which case, if there is such a standpoint, we cannot avoid contradicting ourselves; 'everything' would not be everything.
No, every-thing would still be a collocation of "things." All the "things," in other words. But is God a "thing"?
Saying every-thing is a collocation of things does not solve the problem. Is 'everything' also a 'thing'? If 'everything' was a thing, then the set 'everything' would not be complete, since it would not contain itself. We would need a bigger 'everything', an 'everything that includes 'everything'', and then another... But if 'everything' is not itself a thing, then when talking about 'everything' we are not talking about things, but about an abstract entity.

Again, this is a problem we have created with language. We don't need to posit a mysterious 'thing-that-is-not-a-thing' to resolve it.
Me: I cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is willed by God. I also cannot disprove the theory that everything that happens in the world is an illusion created by those who run the Matrix. I can think of lots more.
No, you cannot disprove those things. But that does not mean they're all equal. Some are much more plausible than others. And one is actually right.
Well, I can only repeat what I wrote before. With such theories, 'being right' does not come into it, again because they do not concern 'things', only this confused notion of 'the universe' or 'everything'. Again, the basic point is that if we discuss 'everything' then we are not discussing 'every thing', we are discussing 'no particular thing'. But all things are particular, so if we are discussing 'no particular thing' we are discussing 'nothing'.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Belinda »

Hobbes Choice, these horrors that you described are caused by politicised religion. Politicised religion is what today causes Islamic terrorism, bigotry, fanatical fundamentalism, and Wahabbi colonisation of poor populations in Central Asia.

Liberal religion acts against politicised religion towards tolerance of others' private beliefs and practices and glad acceptance of religious ethics and practices which are held in common.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Belinda wrote:Hobbes Choice, these horrors that you described are caused by politicised religion. Politicised religion is what today causes Islamic terrorism, bigotry, fanatical fundamentalism, and Wahabbi colonisation of poor populations in Central Asia.

Liberal religion acts against politicised religion towards tolerance of others' private beliefs and practices and glad acceptance of religious ethics and practices which are held in common.
These people died because of religious ideologies. Own it, don't deny it.

Religion is politics. Historically politics is an abstraction OF religion.
The thread implies an historical perspective. This is what religion is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote:The universe is not evidence of anything except itself.
I disagree. I see plenty of evidence of design -- meaning the sorts of attributes I listed before, which everybody recognizes in other objects as proof of design. In fact, it baffles me that others cannot always see it...until I realize that humans tend not to recognize what they are unwilling to see. Then I understand.
The universe, i.e. everything that is, is existence itself. No artefact or indeed no particular event or thing exists because of itself as Immanuel who is a God-believing determinist would agree.
"God-believing Determinist". Not so. Yes to the adjective, no to the noun.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

Post by Belinda »

Hobbes Choice wrote:
These people died because of religious ideologies. Own it, don't deny it.
They died because of a special sort of religious ideology, a special interpretation of religious doctrine. An interpretation that had gone political as a means to increase the power of some elite or would-be elite.Your ability to blame where blame is due is at risk of failure if you don't look at the whole array of facts.
Post Reply