At 12:04 AM -0600 11/29/02, Gametech wrote: >Lydia Nickerson wrote: >> At 12:33 AM -0600 11/28/02, Gametech wrote: >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> however you lose the benefit of them believing >>> other good things as a side affect of that belief >> >> This is religion's Big Lie. People can be moral and kind and decent >> without the least bit of help from any supernatural source or belief. >> I get this constantly. "How do you decide what's right and wrong, if >> you don't believe in God?" Well, actually, roughly the way everybody >> else does, if they were paying attention to the way they really live >> their lives rather than how they think they live their lives. I >> operate on the "if it hurts, I'm probably doing this wrong" >> principal. Empathy is not a virtue instilled by religious practice; >> it is something that is part of the normal experience of being human. >> Wanting to prevent pain is one of the pillars of moral behavior. >> Recognizing that one's behavior has consequences is another. Neither >> one of these needs the least reference to the Invisible world. >> > >What I was saying about losing the benefit of... was an argument why >religion isn't all bad and does help some people towards positive things. I >was in NO way saying people aren't capable of it without religion, not in >the least. I was just stating that as a side affect of people believing in >their religion they often practice positive values in their daily lives. You are also assuming that if those people didn't have religion, they wouldn't be behaving that way. If they would behave in the same fashion without religion, then religion is irrelevant. I think that religion actually does harm by taking credit for the natural good in normal human beings. It diminishes our self esteem, which in turn diminishes our competence. > > >>> >>> What is so Awfully wrong about religion that counter's in it's >>> entirety the good aspects of it? >> >> What does religion have to offer that I wasn't born with, already? > >I hesitate in answering that question because I don't really care if you >believe in *a* religion, but I've been trying to keep the point that >religion itself is not entirely or even mostly a bad thing based on the good >it does. It's like anything else you can take it or leave it. Well, no, not really. Children get raised in religions, and that profoundly affects them all their lives. It informs societal norms and customs, it infects our laws. Religion is not an individual thing, it is a community thing. It affects the way people interact with each other. Which means that I _can't_ take it or leave it. It gets shoved in my face constantly. It affects what I can buy on what days of the week. It is a huge factor in whether or not I have the right to make choices about medical procedures for myself. You are arguing that not everything that was done in the name of religion was evil, and that not everyone who has ever been religious is bad or stupid. That's shifting ground, trying to turn this into an always/never argument. I'm not talking about a binary religious state, on/off, yes/no, always/never. What I'm saying is that religion does not offer any unique advantages. Religion cannot offer humans anything they don't already have in their bones, but it can alienate them from the ownership of those same virtues, as well as teach people to believe in things that they cannot prove, indeed cannot see, to :"reason" using arbitrary givens without reference to the real world. That is such a huge disadvantage that it would overcome many advantages, but religion doesn't even offer any advantages. It's just basically a bad idea. Just to confuse people, and myself, I'll also say that I have several RC friends and I understand their attachment to the Church, and I understand their faith. I can see the beauty and value of liturgy, religious practice, prayer, and faith. I see it more, though, like someone who has taken up a very serious artform. They are practicing something beautiful and important that goes all the way to their center. That view of religion doesn't require a belief in God, actually; it merely requires an appreciation of the artform of religion. That, I have. Inb the same sense that I think that beautiful music is of general benefit, so I think that beautiful religion is of general benefit. I just wish people didn't believe it quite so...literally. > >Maybe Purpose? Something to dedicate their life to? *shrug* Live and love? Such a short time to be here and such a long time to be gone? Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Peace and justice? There are purposes a-plenty. Pick one. >There are people whom >just aren't creative thinking, who need to follow others and who need to >have "don't kill, be nice to strangers, take care of your body, etc." told >to them, I do not believe that. I think that people probably need to be taught about abstracts like property rights, at least in societies that have them, and some of the other social norms, like wearing clothes outside the house, but the serious basics are there, unless a) there's actual brain damage, in which case that person is fucked, or b) that child is damaged while being raised, in which case it depends on how bad the damage is whether or not that person is irrevocably fucked. And this is precisely what I mean about religion taking away our ownership of our own virtues. These are not things that need to be taught. How those virtues play out in the complex lattice of the society in which a person lives does need to be taught. > I think religion may symbolize hope to many people, you were born >with the ability to hope but with no particular purpose. Also people >subscribe to a certain religion because its core beliefs are similar to >their own so it is a way of associating with people whom have some similar >views. They could join their equivalent of fandom. Trainspotters do much the same for each other. Humans are gregarious creatures, we have to live in communities. The key is to gather together and work for a common cause. There's no particular value to having that goal be spiritual or magical, and the spiritual/magical has extra problems that organizing around, say, food aid for Nicauragua does not. > >Religion is a very social thing I don't really see how it can correctly be >compared to what it has that you didn't when you were born, it doesn't >possess anything (avoid the obvious witty comment) it's more like a tool >that is useful for as long as the wielder needs to learn the positive things >and practice them for the rest of his/her life. I am arguing that it is a redundant tool. People can find value, meaning, virtue, joy, purpose, hope, pride, and community without religion, and religion doesn't add anything to the mix of extra value, though it does extract a price. > >Religion isn't responsible for anything People >are. You must not have been raised in a seriously religious family. Trust me. Religion can, indeed, be a profound part of who people are, whether they want to or not. i was raised in a Calvinist church, and I have a very Calvinist outlook on life, fight it though I do. You are taking too narrow a view of what people are and how they interact with the world, in my opinion. Who you are is, in part, who you've been and what you've experienced. -- Lydy Nickerson lydy at demesne.com lydy at lydy.com Dulciculi Aliquorum