"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

Dr, Sheldon,
Are you actually talking about the world we live in or some wonderland of your imagination?.

North Korea is threatening nuclear war, several nations have the means to ruin the earth as we klnow it, every day in what should be normal families with nothing to do with any religion you find murders taking place children being ill treated and abused not to mention several wars taking place that have nothing to do with any religion but drugs etc; along with fear.

Climate change will occur irrespective of what mankind does as the past has proven time and time again.

Christianity does not have a problem with birth control so far as I am aware.

It may also be reasonable to consider just how HIV and other sexual deseases originated.

The most dangerous thing regarding the future, until God takes over is mankind.

"Name me an ethical statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by an unbeliever?"

Can you name one?

Polyglide wrote:Climate change will occur irrespective of what mankind does as the past has proven time and time again.

This doesn't alter the fact that drastic climate change is being affected right now by our use of fossil fuels emitting carbon into the earth's atmosphere. All the scientific evidence, and the entire scientific world is as one on this. I cannot of course speak for the fantasy world of the religious nutjobs who would rather assign every calamity to a red faced, horned demon. People who think vulcanology is less efficacious that stuffing virgins into volcanoes are seldom receptive to reasoning or facts. If YOU think I live in a fantasy world then I can think of no more glowing recommendation that I am on the right track, as many of the ideas you espouse on here are nothing short of barking mad lunacy.

Polyglide wrote:Christianity does not have a problem with birth control so far as I am aware.

Then this displays your usual awareness of reality and facts, and is quite possibly one of the funniest pieces of idiocy you've ever posted. A real belly laugh there, thank you.

Polyglide wrote:It may also be reasonable to consider just how HIV and other sexual deseases originated.

It might, but it is not even remotely salient to my point, that the Christian church, the one that claims moral ascendancy, has for years preached that latex condoms are evil in countries where HIV+ runs at almost 50% of the population, and where few have access to proper medical treatment or scientific research, or even a basic education and are therefore largely defenceless against the pernicious hokum of religion. It's diseases ffs, how many times.

Polyglide wrote:The moon is made of cheese.

Well that makes about as much sense, and is as amply evidenced as...

Polyglide wrote:The most dangerous thing regarding the future, until God takes over is mankind.

Why do I bother, seriously, someone have a word with me, I should surely know better than to persist here.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am sure many Christians use birth control, far better to be able to look after the children you breed than otherwise.

Where do you get the opinion that Christians do not believe in birth control, taking into account we are talking about present times and not prior to Jesus?.

I cannot think of any English Chritian church that says birth control is wrong.

You have little understanding of lunacy, so I will give a perfect example.

Someone who thinks because a set of people intent on making a name for themselves are able to solve a few of the worlds problems and cure certain illnesses are the bees knees when in fact the same species of humans have created the most henious methods of mass destruction imaginable and pose the geatest threat to the human race, if one does not believe in God who will sort matters out irrespective of the stupidity of mankind.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I am sure many Christians use birth control,

I never said otherwise.

Polyglide wrote: Where do you get the opinion that Christians do not believe in birth control?.

You're joking right? Good god tell me you're joking. The all around ignorance displayed in many of your posts of some of the topics you pour forth on is astonishing enough, but this level of ignorance of your own religion is quite breathtaking. The largest Christian denomination which has literally billions of adherents considers birth control of any kind to be a mortal sin, did you seriously not know this?

I notice you didn't address this:

"the Christian church, the one that claims moral ascendancy, has for years preached that latex condoms are evil in countries where HIV+ runs at almost 50% of the population, and where few have access to proper medical treatment or scientific research, or even a basic education and are therefore largely defenceless against the pernicious hokum of religion."

Or this:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:17 pm
"Name me an ethical statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by an unbeliever?"

Can you name one?

Dr, Sheldon,
What I do know is that millions of Chrsitians do believe in birth control and the Catholic Church are, I believe, now of the same mind, I feel you are not up to date.

Name one, a dedicated Christian undergoing babtism.

So you know full well that birth control is and always has been considered a mortal sin by the largest christian church, and were simply lying. Now you're trying to pretend they've changed that stance, another lie, or are you simply ignorant of yet another fact surrounding the dogma of your own religion?

I never said every single christian considered birth control a sin. So a third lie, or more evidence you simply can't read?

Still ignoring my two questions I see. How very predictable you are. 

the Christian church, the one that claims moral ascendancy, has for years preached that latex condoms are evil in countries where HIV+ runs at almost 50% of the population, and where few have access to proper medical treatment or scientific research, or even a basic education and are therefore largely defenceless against the pernicious hokum of religion."

Or this:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:17 pm
"Name me an ethical statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by an unbeliever?"

Can you name one?

Dr, Sheldon,
I did name one.

A none believer could not be babtised in the name of God if he/she did not believe in God, unless pretending and that would not be the same thing.

Most of the religious organisations, as I have stated previously, have compromised on so many different matters that it makes mockery of their belief.

That is why I have little time for the established churches.

Even the Catholic Church have compromised on abortion and birth control etc;

I feel very few people who profess to be Christians would object to birth control.

polyglide wrote: I did name one. A none believer could not be babtised in the name of God if he/she did not believe in God, unless pretending and that would not be the same thing.

I asked for an ethical statement or action that a believer can do that non-believer can't, that's a statement of faith, there's nothing ethical about it, do you not know what ethical means?

Polyglide wrote:Even the Catholic Church have compromised on abortion and birth control etc; I feel very few people who profess to be Christians would object to birth control.

How you feel isn't evidence. RCC doctrine considers birth control and abortion a mortal sin, in what way have they compromised this stance? Are you suggesting birth control and abortion are immoral or sinful? You're not being very clear here on what your position is.

The fact is that people are decent or not irrespective of whether they hold religious beliefs. There is no evidence that atheists are less moral than believers. Nor have religious beliefs ever been a check to immoral behaviour, and invoking logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't really address that fact.

                       

Dr, Sheldon,
Ethics, brings systems and issues of morality and principles into conflict.

Exactly what I have answered, an action as requested.

I feel that both birth control and abortion are for the person/persons involved to decide, I feel both are wrong according to the Bible as are many other matters pertaining to sex.

I am sure there are many good and honest upright people who are as good as gold and no doubt they will be judged accordongly who hold no religious belief and no dount they will be judged accordingly, just as there are many who profess to be religious and yet are pretenders.

Being baptised is not an ethical action. It's a declaration of faith.  The rest of your post is showing that no religious beliefs are necessary to be decent or moral,  and that conversely religious beliefs don't guarantee decency or morality. I agree as I have said this myself already. 

The RCC opposes birth control as a mortal sin,  and always has. It's the largest christian church by some considerable margin and it's influence in spreading such pernicious dogma is as vast as it is harmful. That was my only point and I made no comment on your personal view on this.  However since you've already acknowledged that christian beliefs are no guarantee of decency or morals the point is moot.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is a slight difference between agreeing that some people who profess to be Christians do not act like a Christian is slightly diffrenent to acknowledging that Christian beliefs are no guarantee of decency or morals.

No there isn't. You're  trying to use the No True Scotsman fallacy again. It's spurious logic as we know.

Dr Sheldon,
In fact it is pure logic.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a well known common logical fallacy. Anyone with any knowledge of logic would now this. Just as they'd know you've used it here again.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am in England and am not realy interested in what a Scotsman thinks.

Nor do you appear to have any interest in the thread topic, or honestly addressing it. You used a well known logical fallacy, and you've used it may times, and this type of obfuscation is pretty puerile. The fact is that decency and morality are not derived from religion, religious people can be decent and moral, as can the non-religious, but religion doesn't guarantee this any more than atheism prohibits it.

Dr, Sheldon,
What we realy need is people to start acting in the best interests of all instead of self, self, self.

There will be just as many people in the world who live decent and caring lives from all walks of life, all have a choice although through circumstances many have less choice than others.

I feel without religion the world would be in a far [if that is actually possible] worse state than it is presently in.

The police are only as effective as the people allow them to be.

Who are these people who acting only in self interest, and what evidence have you? You should bear in mind that the vast majority of people are theists, and this has beenthe case throughout recorded human history.  

We all know by now how you feel about religion, what you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that your opinion is hopelessly subjective, I've not seen any indication that you are interested in objective , let alone critical, analysis of religious belifs. In fact you claimed to be 100 % certain, and it's impossible to imagine a more closed minded position.

Dr, Sheldon.
Believe me along the way I have had doubts, many, however, every time I have had the doubts removed by one event or another.

Who says that most people are theists?.

Dr, Sheldon,
The list of self interested parties is too long to list, just look at the state of the world and what it could be like if there was no self interest.

Many people claim many things.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:25 pm
Who are these people who acting only in self interest, and what evidence have you?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The list of self interested parties is too long to list, just look at the state of the world and what it could be like if there was no self interest. Many people claim many things.

So you can't name any then, I'm not surprised as these threads abound with you making up claims to suit your own jaundiced view of the world. The last sentence is too funny for words given your penchant for claiming things you have absolutely no evidence too support, as we see here again.

The fact is that the majority of the world's population are theists, you first claimed this wasn't the case, an astonishing level of ignorance in itself, but are now even more astonishingly trying to claim that people have lied, of course this latest lie of yours to deny real evidence is what you always do when confronted with facts that don't support your beliefs.

The world is filled with altruism and self sacrifice, charitable actions abound, bot collective and individual. Many of them are not religious as well, and behave altruistically with no hope of reward. The truth is that decent people behave morally, some happen to be religious and some not, and despite it's long-standing claim to moral ascendancy religion has never been a check to the most appalling and immoral behaviour. As I said most people empathise with other people and animals that are suffering, but if anyone can't do this without divine diktat then they're just shitty human beings.

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, just look at the state of the world and what it could be like if there was no self interest.

Like a simpler time perhaps, when religion was universal and Christianity in the ascendancy? Well lets take a look at how the STATE OF THE WORLD was so "improved" when Christianity was making an offer that could not easily be refused.

good point

A little subjective I felt, but the idea that religion is a panacea for all ills is not just biased, it's demonstrably absurd.  Now from there to claim to be 100% certain which religion is the true one, which of the estimated 40000 sects of that religion is the true one, and then finally which parts of that are true. Well I think my subjective selection bias is largely insignificant by comparison. 

Of course I'm not suggesting our species will enter a post religious utopian existence either. Merely that humans have to accept responsibility for their own actions in an objective way. That religious belief or the lack thereof won't take that responsibility away. Simply blindly following a set of "moral" absolutes is not the answer.  Hell, surely Nazism taught us that lesson, you'd hope.

The problem is it'seasier for people like Polyglide to accept absolutes, or the idea that there are moral absolutes, otherwise the complex moral relativity and ethical dichotomies are never ending and require each person to agonise over what they do and say. Can any of us really live like that without some psychological construct to ignore the danger the violence and indifference of existence? Let's not forget that post industrialised societies allow such luxurious free critical thinking. Grinding poverty and depravation tend to produce credulity in the majority of the population, no accident surely.

To expand on the last post, (as I was watching Wales beat Uruguay in WC.) I think our morals must always be driven by whether what we do or don't do causes harm. "Primum non nocere"...It's a broad assertion for a reason, as morals and ethics are driven by circumstance and are therefore relative. That''s to say if they are to be good morals they must be so, moral absolutes are what drove Nazism, the inquisition, and Stalinism, so neither belief nor the lack of it are any check to moral absolutes.

It's not all bad news of course, our evolved intellect enables choice, albeit relative, and our instincts have also evolved behaviours like altruism and empathy, some of these behaviours may according to anthropologists have "piggy-backed" on other behaviours that added evolutionary benefits to reproduction, but we are not bound to evolutionary mechanisms, as our evolved intellect that enabled us to learn things like language and making & using tools, has also enabled us to question the morality of our own behaviour.

Dr, Sheldon,
All humnas are influenced by where they were born and how they were brought up in their formative years.

Some never have the chance to get out of their restrictive parents influences and cannot therefore make a choice based on the real wordl and God will take this into account.

We then have the majority who, after they leave home, can decide for themselves the choices in life based on what they learn.

The more educated and informed a society becomes the more of the least desirable attributes towards an ideal society become the most preverlant.

Jealousy, desire for wealth, health, stature, sexual abnoramlities, [ child abuse etc;] land grabbing, killing, stealing, battering old people for a few pence, the list is endless, the animals of the field would be able to show how to live a better life.

Polyglide wrote:All humnas are influenced by where they were born and how they were brought up in their formative years.

Of course, though that's not the only influence of course, it is however the reason most people "choose" their particular god/religion. Which is to say they don't in the vast majority of cases choose at all, but are indoctrinated from birth by a wide variety of cultural and family influences.

Polyglide wrote:Some never have the chance to get out of their restrictive parents influences and cannot therefore make a choice based on the real wordl and God will take this into account.

This is of course why many people are religious, parental influence. I'd love to see you evidence your claim that the god you've picked (or was picked for you?) would make an allowance for those that reject it's existence or remain entirely ignorant of it's existence. Are you forgetting this:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

That doesn't sound like your god is offering "get out of jail free cards" to anyone, but then you offer no evidence for your claim, as is always the case with your brash bizarre claims.

Polygllide wrote:We then have the majority who, after they leave home, can decide for themselves the choices in life based on what they learn.

Yet another brash un-evidenced claim, and no we don't "have" this at all. There is however a great deal of evidence that suggests humans are extremely reluctant to relinquish beliefs established forcefully when they are children. That  said here's at least one who did grow up to think for themselves and here are some of their thoughts: LINK HERE.

Polyglide wrote:The more educated and informed a society becomes the more of the least desirable attributes towards an ideal society become the most preverlant.

Are you really making the asinine assertion that the more ignorant a society is the better behaved it is? Wow! I have to say that not for the first time I seriously wonder if you're being serious, or are trolling, and I genuinely hope it's the latter as that is one of the most imbecilic claims I've ever encountered. Do try and imagine what you're claiming for a moment....seriously... it's prevalent by the way, but perhaps you think appalling spelling creates better morals in the same way you are now trying to claim ignorance does, the mind truly boggles.

Polyglide wrote:Jealousy, desire for wealth, health, stature, sexual abnoramlities, [ child abuse etc;] land grabbing, killing, stealing, battering old people for a few pence, the list is endless, the animals of the field would be able to show how to live a better life.

Firstly you show your usual and rather disturbing inability to differentiate between appalling crimes and simple human fallibility, this is very worrying if you genuinely can't see how different these things are.  Secondly you are yet again making a brash but wholly un-evidenced claim, as you show absolutely no shred of evidence for causation between your incongruous list of attitudes and behaviours, and being educated. The reason is of course obvious, as there is no evidence that education drives those behaviours at all, on the contrary as ignorance is far more likely to cause them.

I noticed you didn't address the points in either of my last two posts. Any thoughts?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:47 pm
I think our morals must always be driven by whether what we do or don't do causes harm. "Primum non nocere"........moral absolutes are what drove Nazism, the inquisition, and Stalinism, so neither belief nor the lack of it are any check to moral absolutes.......evolved intellect enables choice, albeit relative, and our instincts have also evolved behaviours like altruism and empathy, some of these behaviours may according to anthropologists have "piggy-backed" on other behaviours that added evolutionary benefits to reproduction, but we are not bound to evolutionary mechanisms, as our evolved intellect that enabled us to learn things like language and making & using tools, has also enabled us to question the morality of our own behaviour.

and....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:55 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, just look at the state of the world and what it could be like if there was no self interest.

Like a simpler time perhaps, when religion was universal and Christianity in the ascendancy? Well lets take a look at how the STATE OF THE WORLD  was so "improved" when Christianity was making an offer that could not easily be refused.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:25 pm
Who are these people who acting only in self interest, and what evidence have you?

by polyglide on Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:12 pm
The list of self interested parties is too long to list,

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Sep 04, 2015
So you can't name even a single one then?

Dr, Sheldon,
A joke that befits:-

A vicar has a son and he and his wife were wondering what he would do in the future.

So he set a table out and put a Bible on it, he said if he picks up the Bible he will be a vicar and what a joy that would be.

He then puts on a £5 note and says if he picks up the note it will not be too bad as he will be a banker.

He then puts on a bottle of wine and says unforetunately if he picks that up he may be a drunkard.

He than puts on the table a copy of Playboy with all the nudes in etc; and says if he picks that up he will be lost.

The son walks in, picks up the Bible and puts it under his arm, he then picks up the note and puts it in his pocket, followed by drinking the wine, he then picks up the Playboy and starts readind it.

The vicar nearly collapses and says My God he is going into politics.

Relevance? Have you nothing salient to add?

Dr, Sheldon,
I thought it may be beyond your scope of understanding.

So having made an irrelevant post,  you now resort to petty ad hominem. Quelle surprise. ...Again, have you anything salient to say?

Dr, Sheldon,
No offence meant, I thought you would realise the significance involved.

Even after I posted that I saw no relevance? Well are you going to share it's relevance or are we to remain in the dark?

Dr, Sheldon,
It was an attempt to show the shallowness of humankind.

Include all those involved in politics, their self interest is exposed on a daily basis.

The fact that many people are suffering from hunger etc; when there is plenty of food in the world to feed everyone is a disgrace and it can only be self interest that prevents the food from being distributed etc;

We attack other countries for self interest etc; etc;

Relevance to the thread? I suppose it's hopeless to even expect you to evidence that broad sweeping assumption.

Dr, Sheldon,
What assumption are you talking about?.

The broad sweeping, un-evidenced one, in your post.