The beauty in religion

[Duckman#72]

Couldn't agree more Julia, but I can't help but feel sorry for that 'Motley Collection' for the other 364 days of the year!

Please tell me your religious friends generosity extends beyond one day a year.

Hi Col

That comment is a great example of how religious people are often perceived by others. They are put on a pedestal only for the purpose of being brought down. Nothing is ever quite good enough.

She invites people to dinner one day a year? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than helping people one day of the year."

She invites people to dinner once a month? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than helping people 12 times year."

She helps invites people to dinner 365 days a year? "Surely if she was really religious she would be doing much more than just making dinner for these people."

Often people do beautiful things in the name of religion - it is just that others can't see it. While at boarding school, classmates and I were taken down town by the local parish priest, visiting elderly locals helping them do odd jobs, mending fences, painting, mowing etc. We did it as part of our spiritual learning.

Where some people see religion at work, others just see common decency at work - thats fine, but don't tell me they can't co-exist.

Duckman

 

[Tink]

Good post Duckman#72

 

[Bobby]

Hi Col


Where some people see religion at work, others just see common decency at work - thats fine, but don't tell me they can't co-exist.

Duckman

Hello Duckman ,
Hope your having fun & being a good boy ?

Did you know there was a pope that sold indulgences , thats religion at work also

 

[Duckman#72]

Hello Duckman ,
Hope your having fun & being a good boy ?

Did you know there was a pope that sold indulgences , thats religion at work also

Hi Bobby

Always mate, always.

Actually that isn't religion at work. That is someone hiding behind religion, using religion and tarnishing religion....................... but it isn't religion at work.

People confuse the two.

Cheers
Duckman

 

[MS+Tradesim]

The claim that the world would be more peaceful without religion has been popularised of late by militant evangelical atheists:

“There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds.”

– Richard Dawkins, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...s/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html

"A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper reveal that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our [religious] books..."

- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p12

Sounds good but as with a lot of fundamentalist rhetoric, it is not supported by facts.

“Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these 123 wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare.”

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/war_and_religion.html

(Nb: The Encyclopedia of Wars is not exhaustive but the large sample size provides broad representative coverage.)

In other words, excluding Islam, just over 3% of wars were motivated by religion. Or, even including Islam, 93% of wars were not motivated by religion. So what really causes war and its resultant suffering? Probably politics (and the thesis of Rummel in the Democide Project is that of concentrated, absolute power). Consider some facts just from the 20th Century.

Around 180,000,000 people dead through the numerous atrocities. The largest and most numerically fatal were decisively not based on religion unless one argues that their purpose was to wipe out (a) religion.

Germany:
1) The Nazi Holocaust: @ 5 - 6 million Jews (not counting gypsies, homosexuals, euthanasia of some German subgroups, and prisoners of war)
2) World War II: @ 42 million deaths (includes Holocaust) in Europe where guilt lies largely with Hitler (raised Catholic but grew to hate Christianity – Nazi Germany was arguably pagan)

Russia:
1) Civil war: @ 9 million dead (started with the collapse of the monarchy and ended with establishment of a secular socialist govt.)
2) Stalin’s regime: 9 – 50 million deaths (depending on historian) but probably at least 20 million

China:
1) Chinese civil war: @ 2.5 million dead (resulted in establishment of secular socialist govt.)
2) Mao Zedong’s rule after the war: @ 40 million dead

Cambodia:
@ 2 – 3.5 million deaths (depending on historian) under secular socialist Khmer Rouge govt.

Sources:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

There are many, many other atrocities of the century but taking middle-of-the-road numbers, around 116 million deaths resulted from the above mentioned events only. So out of @ 180m deaths from atrocities in the century @ 64% are directly attributable to just these . If we ignore WW2 as a whole and count only the slaughtered Jews then that figure drops to about 44% of deaths through large-scale atrocity in the century attributable to ideologies directly opposed to freedom and religion.

(Nb. I am not arguing that secularism is the direct influence behind these instances of democide.)

Given that (a) currently somewhere around 84% of the world are religious, and roughly a further 8% are theistic but non-religious, and (b) the low percentage of war/conflict attributable to religion historically where arguably the secular percentage of population may have been even lower, and (c) the massive casualty rate of democide and homocide attributable to overtly secular states in the 20th century....

....I am left to wonder if perhaps religion is a greater inspiration for peace and community than is recognised.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Julia

In the interest of supporting the theme of this thread I've been trying to think of something positive or beautiful to do with religion.

Can't say it's been easy but I do have a friend who is devoutly religious. Somehow we've managed to remain friends over many years, probably because we agree not to discuss religion.

Every Christmas she looks around her neighbourhood, workplace etc for anyone who might not have someone with whom to spend Christmas Day and invites these people to join her and her family. There are often a quite motley collection of people but she makes them all feel welcome and wanted.

So I reckon that's a plus for religion.

Julia's comments are interesting. If you note the comments I have bolded, it is fairly obvious that Julia appears not to be a religious person even though we at ASF know she presents as a good person. (although I Don't know what dastardly secrets she has in her closet).

I did say in my reply to Julia that I couldn't agree more with her friends act of kindness being 'a plus for religion'

My contention is that other people perform similar acts of kindness who are not religious. Refer to my post (27) where it highlights the generosity of Bill Gates and others, who whilst not religious are significant contributers to many charities. One might argue that they can afford it but at the same time there are many other wealthy people who wouldn't part with a cent whether they are religious or not.

My comment that I hoped Julia's friend did something more than on just one day a year was a tongue in cheek remark merely implying that I hoped that her act of kindness was not a feel good religious exercise that would carry her conscience for the next 364 days. I suppose it may have come across cynical but it was not my intention.

Brad (Beamstas) sums it up pretty well with these comments:

'Man is Man, religous or not. Being religous doesn't elevate you from being a Man to being something greater than Man that has a different human nature.

Everyone is made the same, religous or not. Great people can do great things, no matter what their religion.

(and even if they have no religion).

It really is a silly thread. If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion otherwise we may as well have threads like 'The beauty of Daytraders' or 'the beauty of homosexuals' like they're some 'other elitist group'.

I am not religious although I have friends and relo's that are. Like Julia, I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.

Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like

"no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."

is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

It really is a silly thread. If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion...

These are people who have made a difference because of their beliefs. As Gav pointed out, if one can't give credit to religion inspiring good then it is ridiculous to want to debit it just with the bad. No-one has so far as I see, denigrated secular people for humanitarian contributions but that isn't the topic of the thread. This point of this is about balancing the "Religion Gone Crazy" thread. I don't remember you over there telling contributors to separate the individual from the religion and claiming it has no credibility? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.

Then start a thread and try it.

Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like [...] is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.

You are entitled to your opinion but to assume to think you know my experiences and background from which I make such a comment and then call it "rose-coloured glasses" and "seeing only what they want to see" indicates that you're probably not as accomplished at objective debate as you would like to have us believe.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by MS Tradeism

"no-one is so hopelessly lost in depravity that they cannot still discover and fulfill their potential. Each person has inherent dignity and value, not just the ones who behave as we would like others to behave."

So is there hope for Ivan Milat? Would you be happy to have him as your neighbour?

 

[MS+Tradesim]

(1)So is there hope for Ivan Milat? (2)Would you be happy to have him as your neighbour?

Despite the fact this is in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category of questions....

The short answers:
(1) Yes
(2) Unrehabilitated and untreated for psychiatric disorders, no.

What does it mean to have hope for Milat? Is there hope that he could come to experience genuine remorse and accept responsibility for his actions? Yes. Is there hope that in taking responsibility, he could over time come to a place where he may be able to contribute something back (even while incarcerated) despite what he has destroyed? Yes. Is there hope, however small, that he could ever be completely treated and rehabilitated back into society as a functional participant? Yes, but improbable - for societal, emotional and legal reasons. eg. How does one distinguish a genuinely rehabilitated and treated person from a master deceiver? There is inherent risk. How does one balance justice and the victims' (and their families) rights against the right for one become a functional citizen again? Does the perpetrator have such a right?...and so on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7899143.stm
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iw_Ch08W3UAC&printsec=frontcover
http://www.pfi.org/cjr

So posing simplisitic scenarios that are transparently designed to 'trap' someone else into a 'naive' answer only serves to trivialize the issues.

 

[Julia]

Julia's comments are interesting. If you note the comments I have bolded, it is fairly obvious that Julia appears not to be a religious person even though we at ASF know she presents as a good person. (although I Don't know what dastardly secrets she has in her closet).

I did say in my reply to Julia that I couldn't agree more with her friends act of kindness being 'a plus for religion'

My contention is that other people perform similar acts of kindness who are not religious. Refer to my post (27) where it highlights the generosity of Bill Gates and others, who whilst not religious are significant contributers to many charities. One might argue that they can afford it but at the same time there are many other wealthy people who wouldn't part with a cent whether they are religious or not.

My comment that I hoped Julia's friend did something more than on just one day a year was a tongue in cheek remark merely implying that I hoped that her act of kindness was not a feel good religious exercise that would carry her conscience for the next 364 days. I suppose it may have come across cynical but it was not my intention.

Brad (Beamstas) sums it up pretty well with these comments:

(and even if they have no religion).

It really is a silly thread. If the thread is to have any credibility you need to seperate the individual from the religion otherwise we may as well have threads like 'The beauty of Daytraders' or 'the beauty of homosexuals' like they're some 'other elitist group'.

I am not religious although I have friends and relo's that are. Like Julia, I don't discuss religion (much) with these people because most of them can't indulge in objective debate about religion without feeling persecuted or getting all flustered like some on this thread.

Call it blind faith but when you have religious people making comments like is symptomatic of someone looking through rose coloured glasses and simply only seeing what they want to see.

Col, I realised your comment re the other 364 days of the year was a bit facetious and understood the point you were trying to make.
There are indeed plenty of people who pay lip service to the tenets of their religion but in true practice often fail to practise a basic kindness that can be equally seen in atheists or agnostics.

These are people who have made a difference because of their beliefs. As Gav pointed out, if one can't give credit to religion inspiring good then it is ridiculous to want to debit it just with the bad. No-one has so far as I see, denigrated secular people for humanitarian contributions but that isn't the topic of the thread. This point of this is about balancing the "Religion Gone Crazy" thread. I don't remember you over there telling contributors to separate the individual from the religion and claiming it has no credibility? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



Then start a thread and try it.

Oh, please no!! Not yet another thread on religion.

Despite the fact this is in the "have you stopped beating your wife" category of questions....

The short answers:
(1) Yes
(2) Unrehabilitated and untreated for psychiatric disorders, no.

But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?

Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it? i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.

What does it mean to have hope for Milat? Is there hope that he could come to experience genuine remorse and accept responsibility for his actions? Yes. Is there hope that in taking responsibility, he could over time come to a place where he may be able to contribute something back (even while incarcerated) despite what he has destroyed? Yes. Is there hope, however small, that he could ever be completely treated and rehabilitated back into society as a functional participant? Yes, but improbable - for societal, emotional and legal reasons. eg. How does one distinguish a genuinely rehabilitated and treated person from a master deceiver? There is inherent risk. How does one balance justice and the victims' (and their families) rights against the right for one become a functional citizen again? Does the perpetrator have such a right?...and so on.

When victims enjoy the same level of understanding and rights as the perpetrators, then I'll start worrying about the further rights of the criminals.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?

Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it? i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.

No, it doesn't. One lived out their potential. The other hasn't, but could still contribute. If I did not consider them to have the same value I would be an advocate for capital punishment, or throwing away the key and letting them rot.

 

[Julia]

No, it doesn't. One lived out their potential. The other hasn't, but could still contribute. If I did not consider them to have the same value I would be an advocate for capital punishment, or throwing away the key and letting them rot.

But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?

 

[MS+Tradesim]

But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?

See posts 35, 49 and 51.

And if those secularised answers really don't suffice, I'll give a Christian one and that will have to wait a few days.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Julia says:

But presumably you wouldn't hold the same reservations if Mother Teresa (pre-dying) were to come to live next door?

Yes, it's a simplistic approach to your argument, but nonetheless demonstrates the point, doesn't it? i.e. that you don't in fact regard a criminal as having the same value as a saint, as you earlier suggested.

If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.

In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.

I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.

If this is the case it might be easier to understand that there is no inconsistency in what I have stated.

 

[Julia]

Julia says:

MS+Tradesim, why not simply address your comments to me, rather than refer to me as though I'm not participating here?

If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.

Agree. We do not.

In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.

Disagree.

I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.

Yes, I'd say that's pretty much what I believe. My view is that a person's value can be determined by the contribution they make to those around them, including the wider society.

I understand the point you're making about intrinsic value. I think about animals like this. But given the human being's greater capacity for reasoning and decision making, I'd hold him/her to the need for a reasonable standard of behaviour.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Julia says:



If I state that a criminal and a saint have the same value, but my applying different boundaries to interaction leads Julia to think I don't view them as having the same value, I'd suggest we do not mean the same thing by 'value'.

In my worldview, value is an intrinsic property of humans. Being a human means one has value, analagous to being a square means having four sides. Value is a fundamental, indestructible property deriving from the fact that all humans bear the image of God. A person's behaviour cannot change this value and my dislike for their behaviour cannot reduce their value. On the other hand, a person's good behaviour does not increase their value even if I believe their actions to be praiseworthy. My subjective likes and dislikes, and society's arbitrary ascriptions based on economic or social contribution have no relevance whatsoever to any individual's value. In my worldview.

I'm guessing Julia believes that value is acquired. Perhaps believing not everyone has the same value and a person can increase or decrease their value through their behaviour. Or something close to this.

If this is the case it might be easier to understand that there is no inconsistency in what I have stated.

It seems like you are fishing for the big P, `perception`. I had a fun time with 2020 hindsight about how everything perceived by human consciousness is via agreement. As you typed, value is a concept of mind!

 

[Hedders]

But if you consider they have the same value why are you not equally happy to have the criminal living next door?

There are a number of people I wouldn't like to live next door to- it has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. I wouldn't live next door to a bagpipe academy for example. It's not because I hate people who play bagpipes, it's because I would find the noise too invasive! Likewise I wouldn't like to live nextdoor to a family that all smoked cigars and pipes day and night. I think it's okay to use wisdom and common sense to decide what risks you're willing to face, and what you're not. I wouldn't choose to live next door to Ivan Milat because I'd worry about my kids' safety, but let me further explain my view on Ivan-

1. If Ivan Milat asked me to visit him in jail to go through the Bible with him, and there were guards present, I'd go. I have visited people in jail before.

2. If Ivan Milat asked me to meet him in a dark alley to see his brand new axe, I wouldn't go.

Both scenarios involve Ivan, but the decisions are different. I think it's possible to value another human being and still avoid what I consider unnecessary risk. It's a wisdom thing, not a love thing.

Julia, I do agree that religious people, like non-religious people, often consider one human being to have a higher inherent value than another. The Bible asks me not to do this. The fact that I do occasionally stuff up and esteem one person over another is a failing of mine, not God's.

 

[sails]

Is it possible that different interpretations of "value" are being discussed?

Eg most humans are born with equal value or potential (1st interpretation) - however their value to the good of society is generally judged on how they conduct their future lives (2nd interpretation).

Some people can change their ways - either for better or worse. So the perception of "value to the good of society" can fluctuate depending on a persons actions at the time. This is why some caring folk visit prisoners in jail as they see unfulfilled value in those people's lives.

I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has already been discussed...

 

[Julia]

There are a number of people I wouldn't like to live next door to- it has nothing to do with their worth as a human being. I wouldn't live next door to a bagpipe academy for example. It's not because I hate people who play bagpipes, it's because I would find the noise too invasive! Likewise I wouldn't like to live nextdoor to a family that all smoked cigars and pipes day and night. I think it's okay to use wisdom and common sense to decide what risks you're willing to face, and what you're not. I wouldn't choose to live next door to Ivan Milat because I'd worry about my kids' safety, but let me further explain my view on Ivan-

1. If Ivan Milat asked me to visit him in jail to go through the Bible with him, and there were guards present, I'd go. I have visited people in jail before.

Interesting. Care to tell us more about this? Did you know the people?
Was it as part of some religious programme?

2. If Ivan Milat asked me to meet him in a dark alley to see his brand new axe, I wouldn't go.

Oh, what a wuss!

Both scenarios involve Ivan, but the decisions are different. I think it's possible to value another human being and still avoid what I consider unnecessary risk. It's a wisdom thing, not a love thing.

Yep, sensible comment. But the original question was if you were happy to have a murderer next door, and did the murderer have the same value as a saint.
So presumably you regard all human beings, regardless of atrocities committed, as still of value to our society?
And the saint to have equal value to the murderer?

Julia, I do agree that religious people, like non-religious people, often consider one human being to have a higher inherent value than another. The Bible asks me not to do this. The fact that I do occasionally stuff up and esteem one person over another is a failing of mine, not God's.

My remarks haven't been made in the context of God/religion. Just simply on the basis of the value of the individual regardless of his/her religious beliefs.

 

[Hedders]

Interesting. Care to tell us more about this? Did you know the people?
Was it as part of some religious programme?


Oh, what a wuss!


Yep, sensible comment. But the original question was if you were happy to have a murderer next door, and did the murderer have the same value as a saint.
So presumably you regard all human beings, regardless of atrocities committed, as still of value to our society?
And the saint to have equal value to the murderer?




My remarks haven't been made in the context of God/religion. Just simply on the basis of the value of the individual regardless of his/her religious beliefs.

Now there's a key term I overlooked up until now- "value to society". And this is where opinions can differ wildly- on the definition of "society". If our society believes justice is not done after justice is served, then the likes of murderers and child molesters (to take the criminals that probably disturb us the most) will never have a place in society. I would be as worried as the next person if an unreformed murderer/sex offender was leaving jail, but again, that reflects my concern for the safety of others, not an inherent hatred of the criminal. But what about the criminal who genuinely turns away from their life of crime? Do we allow them the chance to show they've changed? What does society offer them?

If we take society as secular society, certain crimes are never forgiven, so these people are indeed less valuable to society. From a Christian perspective, I'm asked to love even my enemies. This is neither easy nor does it make sense to mainstream culture. But hanging on to hate eats away at your insides, so the person you hate ends up having a hold over part of your life, even after they're dead!

I've never killed or assaulted anyone but I've still said and done things that were wrong and/or hurtful to others. Since I'm not perfect, I can't see that I'm in a position to assign a value on someone's life whose shortcomings are simply different to mine (even if some wrongs have a greater impact than others). I'm thankful that I don't have to carry around a complete list of all the wrong things I've done, for everyone to see. I can assure you that "society" would value me less!

As for the jail visits, yes they were part of the ministry of a Church I went to. It took place in Soweto, South Africa, and the jail was a bleak and depressing place. The inmates appreciated us being there, though. I was expecting more hostility. I'm also involved in helping people to overcome addictions to various things, and many people I've met through these kinds of programmes have done time. Seeing people struggle with addictions has taught me that anyone can fall from any "position in society". It strengthens my resolve to avoid judging others. People are capable of amazing falls and equally amazing recoveries.