Religion - A force for good or evil?

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Mathematics is simply a language used to express something in a clear and concise manner, whether it be an abstract concept, or a characteristic or behaviour of something from our physical universe. Any given mathematics wouldn't exist without the mathematician creating it, any more than a song would exist without its composer. Mathematical expression is no different from any other kind of expression in this regard. The description is not the thing described; the latter can clearly exist without the former.

Existentialism requires existentialists to exist beyond the pages of a tome on philosophy, much like Christianity requires Christians.

But the singularity of your perception is not a point of philosophy.
It is absolutely determined

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

But the singularity of your perception is not a point of philosophy.
It is absolutely determined

But unique is not the same as isolated.

MaxWig

gaynorvader wrote: »

But unique is not the same as isolated.

No, but it implies more than uniqueness surely.

One may occupy a unique house but still have guests.

All we can do is wave out the window

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

No, but it implies more than uniqueness surely.

One may occupy a unique house but still have guests.

All we can do is wave out the window

And shout through the letter box!

Isolated would imply the absence of anyone near our house.

MaxWig

gaynorvader wrote: »

And shout through the letter box!

Isolated would imply the absence of anyone near our house.

Would it?

Meals on Wheels are no good on the door-step

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

Would it?

Meals on Wheels are no good on the door-step

You can still take in/send out mail, that's surely the equivalent of communication in the analogy? (we may be working it a bit too hard )

nozzferrahhtoo

MaxWig wrote: »

I still believe you are over-emphasising the significance of this point.

If you take God/Religion out of the equation, you are still left with subjective differences (morality/idealism) that are akin to religious ideas.

You can believe it but it does not make it true. The significance of the point I was actually replying to when you rode in was that Atheists in my experience reject the notion that there has been evidence for god. There has not. Certainly none shown to me, and certainly by no one on THIS thread.

What I was taking exception to was the implication (intended or mistaken) that atheists would not change their position if evidence was presented to them. This simply is not something I expect to be true or have seen reason to think true. Ever.

nozzferrahhtoo

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

I used to say I was an Atheist until a very head strong intellectual young lad publically embarrassed me and tore strips out of me at a dinner one night and informed me because Im open to the idea of a God Im actually Agnostic.

Then he publically embarrased himself not you. Because he simply made up his own definition of the terms and acted like he was right and you were wrong.

I am with you to a point however. I do not use EITHER the term atheist OR agnostic to describe myself except if I am really pressed for a concise term in a longer piece of prose. Both labels have little meaning or use to me.

Again, all I was taking exception to was your implication (intended or not) that atheists would not be open to changing their position were evidence to be shown to them. It simply is not something my experience has even suggested is true.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

He on the other hand is an Atheist because he absolutely believes and will never convert, no matter how much proof.

No, he is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. Period. Everything you wrote after the word "because" is not the meaning of the word "atheist" nor an attribute of it. What you are describing is not an atheist. What you are describing is close mindedness and fanaticism. Neither of which is limited to atheism as such people exist in any ism.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

But in smaller places like my own parish its the church that does it.

My point does not appear to be reaching you then. My point is just because the church is running it or funding it.... that this is nothing to do with religions or churches per se. They are merely acting as a charity broker. People do these things. With or without a church. There is no reason to expect that such things will not on occasion be run or funded by churches.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Why would I credit anyone else?

Why would you not. People of all kinds every where are doing the exact same things. It is not limited to, or has anything to do with, the church. When a fishing club does it, it says nothing about the utility or usefulness or goodness of fishing clubs. But the people in that club. The same is true if a church does it. The church is just another club, with clubhouses, and club rules and club members.

When any club does these things, that is great. The point I am making is that when a church does it it is just yet another club. So the point being made the "Oh look this church did a nice thing" in no way speaks to the topic of this thread.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

The OP wanted to know can religion be a force for good.

Exactly. Now you are getting it. And the point I am making is that when people come together and form clubs, the potential is ALWAYS there for them to engage in good deeds and charity work and social assistance. All of them. So the fact that some people in churches do the same thing says _nothing at all whatsoever_ about the topic of the actual thread.

If you want to answer the question of whether religion _specifically_ is a force for good then you can not answer it by merely pointing at the things that are true of everything else too. Because if you do then all you are doing is pointing at the utility of clubs in general and not speaking to or about religion specifically.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point is just because the church is running it or funding it.... that this is nothing to do with religions or churches per se. They are merely acting as a charity broker. People do these things. With or without a church. There is no reason to expect that such things will not on occasion be run or funded by churches.

You've used this logic before, and it seems entirely flawed; X performs action A that we deem to be good or bad. If X did not perform action A, Y would most probably perform a similar action. By what logic is X not responsible for A?

We wouldn't acquit a criminal of a crime just because someone else probably would commit the same crime. We wouldn't dismiss a football team for winning the league because if they didn't win another team would have won it.

At best I think you can say just because some religious types work tirelessly for their communities, and I know some that do, this is not necessarily typical, and the efforts are individual rather than organisational. At the same time, I think it is disingenuous to detract from such individual efforts just because you're not a fan of the organisations that sponsor them.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

You've used this logic before, and it seems entirely flawed; X performs action A that we deem to be good or bad. If X did not perform action A, Y would most probably perform a similar action. By what logic is X not responsible for A?

We wouldn't acquit a criminal of a crime just because someone else probably would commit the same crime. We wouldn't dismiss a football team for winning the league because if they didn't win another team would have won it.

At best I think you can say just because some religious types work tirelessly for their communities, and I know some that do, this is not necessarily typical, and the efforts are individual rather than organisational. At the same time, I think it is disingenuous to detract from such individual efforts just because you're not a fan of the organisations that sponsor them.

I think what Nozz is trying to say is that there are charitable groups both religious and non-religious. It is not the religion that causes the groups to be charitable, but rather the acts of the individuals in those groups.

To use one of your analogies (kinda); you wouldn't blame a criminal's action on his/her religious affiliation.

MaxWig

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think what Nozz is trying to say is that there are charitable groups both religious and non-religious. It is not the religion that causes the groups to be charitable, but rather the acts of the individuals in those groups.

To use one of your analogies (kinda); you wouldn't blame a criminal's action on his/her religious affiliation.

So one would assume you believe the same of the evils carried out in the name of religion?

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

So one would assume you believe the same of the evils carried out in the name of religion?

Most of them yes. However there are some evils uniquely religious, such as a relatively recent case of a couple and an infant involved in a car accident. Rather than rushing the child to a hospital to try save its life, they rushed it to a church to be baptised in order to save its immortal soul. That is an example of an "evil" carried out in the name of religion that I would lay at religion's door.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

You've used this logic before, and it seems entirely flawed; X performs action A that we deem to be good or bad. If X did not perform action A, Y would most probably perform a similar action. By what logic is X not responsible for A?

If Y was not already performing the similar action then your point might begin to be coherent, at least a little. But Y already is, so coherence is lost.

The fact is that the types of charitable actions the user listed are being performed daily by many many people. People in or related to churches are only one element in that set.

The point being made by me is that taking an action being performed by many people and acting like it is some kind of point for the church that they are doing it too. It is not.

It is a correlation causation error. To show religion is a force for good you have to show that it is causing actions (or more of a given action) that would otherwise be performed without it. Yet people here seem to think it is enough to build a correlation by saying "X is good and people who are religious are doing X, therefore religion is good".

MaxWig

gaynorvader wrote: »

Most of them yes. However there are some evils uniquely religious, such as a relatively recent case of a couple and an infant involved in a car accident. Rather than rushing the child to a hospital to try save its life, they rushed it to a church to be baptised in order to save its immortal soul. That is an example of an "evil" carried out in the name of religion that I would lay at religion's door.

Really?

I imagine the authorites will lay the blame at the couple's door.

As would I.

Seems like a pretty isolated incident, perhaps carried out by two very disturbed individuals.

I'm not aware of any churches that tell their parishioners that they should get to church after an accident.

I'm not sure how you square off the idea that a bad deed is religion's fault, while a good deed is not.

nozzferrahhtoo

MaxWig wrote: »

I imagine the authorites will lay the blame at the couple's door.

Legally, yes, of course they would. That is not the point being made. The point being made is that this atrocious event is a direct consequence of religion. Not merely someone doing something in the name of religion.... but a horrific action performed directly as a consequence of it.

MaxWig wrote: »

Seems like a pretty isolated incident, perhaps carried out by two very disturbed individuals.

Would that you were right but the incident, or incidents of that category, are more common than I would like. Some children for example die of easily treated ailments because their parents think the treatment is an affront to god.

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm not aware of any churches that tell their parishioners that they should get to church after an accident.

Not directly of course they do not. You are willfully trying to be ridiculous here. The point however is that if you truely believe the eternal well being of your child is related to whether they are baptised or not.... then the choice to take a child with a serious, perhaps mortal, injury to a priest before a doctor is in light of your beliefs a sensible choice to make.

It is easy to do as you did and simply call the parents "disturbed" and with a wave of your hand simply dismiss them and their actions. From the outside it is an easy path for us to simply assume mental derangement, evil, or some other easy to reach for explanation that is palatable.

The truth is that given what they believe their actions were likely performed in sound mind, was a very rational decision, and was done by parents who likely loved their child every bit as much as any other parents you know.

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm not sure how you square off the idea that a bad deed is religion's fault, while a good deed is not.

The trick is to avoid correlation-causation errors which permeate this discussion all too often. You need to differentiate actions (good or bad) done by someone who is religious... or in a religious context or religiously funded...... from actions that are done as a direct consequence or result of religious belief.

Charity goes on all the times by people who are religious as well as non religious. So what basis do we have whatsoever for crediting religion with it? It is simply a truth that human beings are often simply moved to reach out and lend assistance to others. Religion is AT BEST superfluous to requirements in this and at worst positively caustic to the endeavor.

This is starkly contrasted to people who do action as a direct consequence of their religion. So it is a lot more complex than your simplistic summary of it.

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

Really?

I imagine the authorites will lay the blame at the couple's door.

As would I.

Seems like a pretty isolated incident, perhaps carried out by two very disturbed individuals.

I'm not aware of any churches that tell their parishioners that they should get to church after an accident.

I'm not sure how you square off the idea that a bad deed is religion's fault, while a good deed is not.

This was a perfectly reasonable action for a true believer. Why take the risk that their child might die and its immortal soul be damned for all eternity? Better surely to baptise it and ensure it a place in heaven where you will meet it again one day?

The reason this particular bad deed was religion's fault is that it was impossible without religion or some other misleading organisation or individual. A similar event would be if a baby was sick and the parents were convinced by a conman to give it snake oil rather than take it to the doctor. The conman would be in the wrong, not just the parents.

MaxWig

gaynorvader wrote: »

A similar event would be if a baby was sick and the parents were convinced by a conman to give it snake oil rather than take it to the doctor. The conman would be in the wrong, not just the parents.

Except the conman in this instance (their church) would not suggest going to a church rather than a hospital.

Below is a quote from the church spokesman in the case.

“This is superstition, not religion,” an Orthodox Church spokesman told Fontanka.ru. “They should have gone to the hospital, it’s only human.”

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131125/184966751/Baby-Dies-After-Parents-Trade-Hospital-For-Church-After-Crash.html

nozzferrahhtoo

MaxWig wrote: »

Except the conman in this instance (their church) would not suggest going to a church rather than a hospital.

Again: Not directly no. But their teachings very much do suggest that in some cases. If you teach parents than an unbaptised baby will have some lack or horror in the after life if it dies in this state then you very much are telling such parents to take an undying unbaptised baby to a church before the hospital. You are not saying that explicitly, but it would very much be what you are teaching them.

You quote a spokesman who is doing little more than washing his hands of the consequences of the teaching. Perhaps they never foresaw such a consequence, I grant that, but rather than be so dismissive it would be more correct to stand up and say "Actually I can see exactly how what we teach has led these parents to making the decision they did.... and I recognize how it is incumbent upon us to either modify our teaching, or teaching methodology, to ensure this kind of thing will not happen again. We share in the blame here and we are actively working to use this new knowledge to improve ourselves and others".

But as we said this is one isolated example and there are worse out there. Not just implicit consequences of the teachings like in this case.... but religious actively and willfully teaching EXPLICITLY things like the evils of medical interventions. And the results can be horrific like watching tiny little girls die of easily treatable conditions like "mild" diabetes.

gaynorvader

MaxWig wrote: »

Except the conman in this instance (their church) would not suggest going to a church rather than a hospital.

Below is a quote from the church spokesman in the case.

“This is superstition, not religion,” an Orthodox Church spokesman told Fontanka.ru. “They should have gone to the hospital, it’s only human.”

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131125/184966751/Baby-Dies-After-Parents-Trade-Hospital-For-Church-After-Crash.html

Hmm.

Bible King James Version wrote:

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Maybe he was a PR priest?

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think what Nozz is trying to say is that there are charitable groups both religious and non-religious. It is not the religion that causes the groups to be charitable, but rather the acts of the individuals in those groups.

But any action attributed to any group is always performed by individuals in that group. If we attribute wrongdoing to the religion based on the acts carried out by individual members of that religion, we must similarly attribute the good work carried out by those individuals to the religion. We can't say they bugger alter boys while at work and run the meals on wheels in their spare time. IMHO its both or neither, and I tend to think both.

To use one of your analogies (kinda); you wouldn't blame a criminal's action on his/her religious affiliation.

I would and do. By the above logic, we can't blame the church for any criminal actions carried out by priests in recent decades. Personally, I do.

We can and do hold all sorts of organisations at least partially to blame for the actions of their members, whether those organisations be religious orders, armies or banks. Claiming to be following instructions doesn't absolve an individual of their responsibilities, similarly suggesting an employee wasn't acting on an organisations behalf does not absolve the organisation. Responsibility is joint and several.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

{...}
I would and do. By the above logic, we can't blame the church for any criminal actions carried out by priests in recent decades. Personally, I do.
{...}

I think this is a little bit more involved than you are making out. The church didn't commit the criminal acts. However, it did condone them by covering them up and making no attempts to prevent the priests from doing it again or punish them in any real way.

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think this is a little bit more involved than you are making out. The church didn't commit the criminal acts. However, it did condone them by covering them up and making no attempts to prevent the priests from doing it again or punish them in any real way.

Agreed, and on that basis are due significant blame. Similarly, if they pay the wages of a priest who does good work for their community, they are due some part of the credit.

My concern is that by denying what credit is due when it is due, the argument for punishing them for their wrongdoings becomes seriously undermined.

To the opening question, I think that on balance the church is a force for bad rather than good in modern Ireland, but like most arguments, it is not entirely one sided.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

But any action attributed to any group is always performed by individuals in that group.

To a point this is true. Which as I keep saying on the thread moves the conversation to not whether individuals of a group are doing good, because this is true of everything from fishing clubs to churches, but whether something about that group specifically causes those actions. A group specifically setup for the purpose of performing a charitable action for example.

If however the best we can do is say "Individuals who are incidentally members of a church do good things" then we are saying precisely nothing. We should attribute any good actions such people do TO those people not to the church they are members of.

smacl wrote: »

If we attribute wrongdoing to the religion based on the acts carried out by individual members of that religion, we must similarly attribute the good work carried out by those individuals to the religion.

The "IF" is the only useful part of that quote I am afraid. Because we are not suggesting you do either. So the "if you do one then do the other" construct is rendered meaningless. We are not attributing good or wrong doing to them merely based on their membership of a religion. No, we are specifically asking what good or wrongdoing they have engaged in that is specifically caused by their subscription to that religion.

smacl wrote: »

I would and do. By the above logic, we can't blame the church for any criminal actions carried out by priests in recent decades. Personally, I do.

Not many people I know of do blame the church for the perversion of individual priests. What people do blame the church for is the facilitation of those crimes, the silencing of the victims, and protection of the perpetrators and the failures to bring the criminals to justice and to pay out on compensation payments.

Those that actually blame the church or any religion for the actions of those priests themselves however are thin on the ground, except perhaps for those that point out that the unnatural suppression of sexuality incumbent upon those engaged in celibacy based roles is not likely to help matters.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If however the best we can do is say "Individuals who are incidentally members of a church do good things" then we are saying precisely nothing. We should attribute any good actions such people do TO those people not to the church they are members of.

If the person happens to be a priest, they are rather more than incidental members of their church. If the church pays that priest a wage, who then goes on to use his time to the benefit of the community, the church can claim part of that benefit through sponsorship.

The "IF" is the only useful part of that quote I am afraid. Because we are not suggesting you do either. So the "if you do one then do the other" construct is rendered meaningless. We are not attributing good or wrong doing to them merely based on their membership of a religion. No, we are specifically asking what good or wrongdoing they have engaged in that is specifically caused by their subscription to that religion.

As with the previous point, if we're referring to a priest in the employ of a church, we can at least partially attribute the actions of the priest to the church. If we couldn't, either legally or ethically, why would the church even bother to cover up the many scandals of recent decades?

Not many people I know of do blame the church for the perversion of individual priests. What people do blame the church for is the facilitation of those crimes, the silencing of the victims, and protection of the perpetrators and the failures to bring the criminals to justice and to pay out on compensation payments.

Really? From what I've read people are upset both by the actions of the priests and the cover up, and blame both the individual priests and the church for both. Are you suggesting that the church should not be held to account at any level for the monstrous abuses carried out by its priests in their employ, and that their crime was solely covering it up?

Those that actually blame the church or any religion for the actions of those priests themselves however are thin on the ground, except perhaps for those that point out that the unnatural suppression of sexuality incumbent upon those engaged in celibacy based roles is not likely to help matters.

Generally, when an employee of any kind commits a crime against someone availing of their services as part of their work, the employer can and regularly is held liable. For example, if I bring my car to the garage to get serviced, and the mechanic robs the stereo, it is the garage I hold responsible.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, and on that basis are due significant blame. Similarly, if they pay the wages of a priest who does good work for their community, they are due some part of the credit.

My concern is that by denying what credit is due when it is due, the argument for punishing them for their wrongdoings becomes seriously undermined.

To the opening question, I think that on balance the church is a force for bad rather than good in modern Ireland, but like most arguments, it is not entirely one sided.

I agree if the priest offers free counselling, support, etc that some of that is as a direct result of the church and religion is doing good in that case. If the priest is doing charity work outside of his working hours, I wouldn't consider that a credit for the religion.

I never moved to deny credit where credit's due, I think that may have been a strawman thrown out at some point earlier in the thread. I just think that there is too much credit and condemnation attributed to religion for the actions of its followers.

Bloe Joggs

I don't think religion is "evil" per se, evil being a much debated term currently in psychology but I think it's one of a number of bad ideas concerned with its own survival and as such can be very destructive. At different points in time, religions tend to operate in different ways. Since the Mid 19th century, Catholicism has evolved to adopt more psychological and sociological tactics in its quest for survival and it operates in ways that can be hard to get a grip on unless you scratch well below the surface. It's no surprise at all that Sigmund Freud and the church became enemies as I think he was well onto what they were about and how they went about it. He wasn't right about everything but he was on the ball with that.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

If the person happens to be a priest, they are rather more than incidental members of their church.

Not really unless, as I keep saying, you can show a causal link. PEOPLE do these good things and priests are people too. Therefore some priest are of course also going to do the same good things. So yes their being a priest is incidental in this regard.

In fact we could reverse the causal link entirely to even further rubbish your point. The fact is that the church is a successful charity broker. It has the funds. Therefore a person compelled to engage in altruism is going to gravitate towards the capability to realize that desire.

So the good things such people are doing are nothing to do with being a priest or a member of the church. Rather, the person became a priest or a member of the church because that was the obvious path to realize their calling to do those good things. Which means religion is not so much a force for good as a mere facilitator of it and without religion or the church there would simply be someone else facilitating it. Someone, we would hope, not making a career out of selling lies to children and so forth in a more secular fashion.

smacl wrote: »

the church can claim part of that benefit through sponsorship.

Which as I said reduces the claim that religion is a force for good to not much at all as what you do here is agree with my summation of the situation that the church is, at best, merely a broker. A broker that causes much harm, and a broker far from alien to creaming a significant % off the top of the fund they broker.

smacl wrote: »

If we couldn't, either legally or ethically, why would the church even bother to cover up the many scandals of recent decades?

Obviously because the church is a successful business model and they will therefore be more than likely to attempt to cover up any scandal that will harm sales. Get it into your head.... the church is a business. The Pope a mere MD. And businesses are often engaged in the practice of covering up scandals that will harm sales.

smacl wrote: »

Really? From what I've read people are upset both by the actions of the priests and the cover up

Of course they are upset by the actions of the priests. Good grief I did not even remotely imply otherwise. My point however is that what they blame the church for is a lot more than this. Some may of course blame the church for the actions of those priests, but such people are few on the ground, and peoples beef with the church is much more related to their facilitation of those crimes, their treatment of the victims, the cover ups, and the protection of the criminals involved.

But the only way we can intellectually honestly blame the church for the actual actions of pedophiles is to highlight problems with their best practices that leave priests in a situation where they CAN engage in such criminal activity. Clearly safeguards in how priests go about their duty can and should be produced to ensure such activities are prevented in the first place. We can certainly blame the church if this is not done, or if they resist doing so or drag their heels in doing so.

smacl wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the church should not be held to account at any level for the monstrous abuses carried out by its priests in their employ, and that their crime was solely covering it up?

Clearly I am not. ANY organisation that uncovers such activity should instantly move to install safe guards and protections as best they can to prevent such things. This is not limited to the church and it is not limited to the abuse of children. Any organisation discovering any criminal activity should be doing this. Ideally pro-actively rather than re-actively where possible.

If they are not doing this then of course they need to be held accountable for this. Which is what makes the cover ups, protection of the perpetrators, and victimisation of the victims all the more horrific.