How do you account for tolerance found within religion and religious communities throughout the world and throughout history, then? How can intolerance be inherent to religion if it is not universally observed?
And for clarity, I’m not trying to no-true-scotsman out religious communities that harbor hatred and shut off diversity and the like. They totally exist and they are a problem. But to suggest religiosity itself is the issue, to me at least, is missing a sound foundation.
The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can’t be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.
It’s not that they’re a monolith of bigotry or anything, it’s that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don’t.
But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There’s no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because “that’s the old testament.” The Bible also doesn’t say anything about trans people and it doesn’t oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.
Firstly, I am assuming that “they” is referring to Christians, which the op did not specify, and my subsequent commentary is interpreted to generalizing to all presentations of religion. While I explicitly pointed to Christianity, that was because I was referencing my personal faith journey.
Secondly, we are in agreement that the Pentateuch, in its literal form, calls for and endorses a society which does not privilege equality for all races, genders, or creeds. I would assume we are also in agreement that the epistles of Paul and Timothy and other early Christian writers have some pretty messed up opinions of who God is and what God wants.
But you yourself drew attention to the agency Christians, and all other faithful people, have. There is choice, and people do choose, to interpret scripture as non-literal. By the virtue of this existence, one cannot simply label all religious expressions as backwards or at issue, as I originally posited.
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
Christianity is inherently problematic, or all religions are inherently problematic? You’ve made a case for Christianity (and probably Judaism and Islam), but those are just two (very large) religions. I’m taking about, and I feel the op’s essence was, the idea of religion and people being religious. Not just the Christians. Can you also point to the Taoists, the Universalists, the Zoroastrians (just to name a few) and say that their faiths are all inherently problematic?
Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn’t problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It may not be universal but you’re certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still “problematic” even if the consequences aren’t as blatant.
And I guess this must be closing in on the root of our disagreement: I don’t see that religion requires uncritical belief.
I don’t know what your litmus test is for “standards of evidence.” Can you elaborate on what good standards of evidence looks like to you and how you know they are good?
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality in the backwards-ness and issue of religion, it seems to me you can’t argue for religious thought to have inherit nature to that kind. Rather, there are expressions of it, religiosity, being backwards and bad. The part does not account for the whole.
I don’t think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole “just have faith” thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it’s true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me “I got a pet goldfish” the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc…
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality …
The majority of people who smoke don’t die from it but that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t problematic. I’m not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we’d normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I’d also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Yeah, these things all make sense, again, with the implied idea that “all religions” use fallacious logic like circular reasoning, which I think we both agree is a common feature but not a rule of religion.
And sure, there are plenty of things that I trust on faith, like my Creator and my Savior, or the concept of sin. For me, the faith is critical for my psyche, but I’m of the world and in the world, so I am called to work good in this world now, which grace and guidance.
I would be careful with the smoking analogy. The only control someone really has in their outcome from smoking is deciding heavily limit or to quit early enough to not have a high risk of health complications of death. Religious expression is the interface between the divine and the worldly. It’s socially controlled and always has been. There are so many things people of faith can do to prevent allowing their expressions and works from causing harm, alienate “others,” and ultimately do things incongruent with their proclaimed beliefs.
I think of it more like democracy: a social phenomenon many feel confident in being “the best,” but also one that can fall victim to abuses that prevent it’s ideal in such a way as to disenfranchise and deliver results many, if not most, are unhappy with, if not harmed from. But I don’t think either of us would call for a monarchy or autocracy in order to “prevent the ills of democracy.” We, collectively, have to be better at making democracy better.
And yeah! It has been fun to discuss with you. I appreciate hearing your perspectives on this and allowing me to better understand your line of reasoning.
How do you account for tolerance found within religion and religious communities throughout the world and throughout history, then? How can intolerance be inherent to religion if it is not universally observed?
And for clarity, I’m not trying to no-true-scotsman out religious communities that harbor hatred and shut off diversity and the like. They totally exist and they are a problem. But to suggest religiosity itself is the issue, to me at least, is missing a sound foundation.
The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can’t be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.
It’s not that they’re a monolith of bigotry or anything, it’s that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don’t.
But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There’s no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because “that’s the old testament.” The Bible also doesn’t say anything about trans people and it doesn’t oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.
Firstly, I am assuming that “they” is referring to Christians, which the op did not specify, and my subsequent commentary is interpreted to generalizing to all presentations of religion. While I explicitly pointed to Christianity, that was because I was referencing my personal faith journey.
Secondly, we are in agreement that the Pentateuch, in its literal form, calls for and endorses a society which does not privilege equality for all races, genders, or creeds. I would assume we are also in agreement that the epistles of Paul and Timothy and other early Christian writers have some pretty messed up opinions of who God is and what God wants.
But you yourself drew attention to the agency Christians, and all other faithful people, have. There is choice, and people do choose, to interpret scripture as non-literal. By the virtue of this existence, one cannot simply label all religious expressions as backwards or at issue, as I originally posited.
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
Christianity is inherently problematic, or all religions are inherently problematic? You’ve made a case for Christianity (and probably Judaism and Islam), but those are just two (very large) religions. I’m taking about, and I feel the op’s essence was, the idea of religion and people being religious. Not just the Christians. Can you also point to the Taoists, the Universalists, the Zoroastrians (just to name a few) and say that their faiths are all inherently problematic?
Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn’t problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It may not be universal but you’re certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still “problematic” even if the consequences aren’t as blatant.
And I guess this must be closing in on the root of our disagreement: I don’t see that religion requires uncritical belief.
I don’t know what your litmus test is for “standards of evidence.” Can you elaborate on what good standards of evidence looks like to you and how you know they are good?
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality in the backwards-ness and issue of religion, it seems to me you can’t argue for religious thought to have inherit nature to that kind. Rather, there are expressions of it, religiosity, being backwards and bad. The part does not account for the whole.
I don’t think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole “just have faith” thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it’s true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me “I got a pet goldfish” the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc…
The majority of people who smoke don’t die from it but that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t problematic. I’m not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we’d normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I’d also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Yeah, these things all make sense, again, with the implied idea that “all religions” use fallacious logic like circular reasoning, which I think we both agree is a common feature but not a rule of religion.
And sure, there are plenty of things that I trust on faith, like my Creator and my Savior, or the concept of sin. For me, the faith is critical for my psyche, but I’m of the world and in the world, so I am called to work good in this world now, which grace and guidance.
I would be careful with the smoking analogy. The only control someone really has in their outcome from smoking is deciding heavily limit or to quit early enough to not have a high risk of health complications of death. Religious expression is the interface between the divine and the worldly. It’s socially controlled and always has been. There are so many things people of faith can do to prevent allowing their expressions and works from causing harm, alienate “others,” and ultimately do things incongruent with their proclaimed beliefs.
I think of it more like democracy: a social phenomenon many feel confident in being “the best,” but also one that can fall victim to abuses that prevent it’s ideal in such a way as to disenfranchise and deliver results many, if not most, are unhappy with, if not harmed from. But I don’t think either of us would call for a monarchy or autocracy in order to “prevent the ills of democracy.” We, collectively, have to be better at making democracy better.
And yeah! It has been fun to discuss with you. I appreciate hearing your perspectives on this and allowing me to better understand your line of reasoning.