The Problem With Religion
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-12 02:16:39
For years now. I undergo been. While I undergo especially in the context of positive psychology. I undergo never dealt with it directly. Until now. The Economist's recent does a fantastic job of taking a balanced reasoned look at the role of religion in today's world. It makes my job as a blogger much easier because it provides a wealth of concrete data and context for thinking about religion. It also provides a useful word of warning that I'll echo: "Given the emotion the affect arouses the chances are that some of what follows will offend you."The Economist's report is well worth reading but for the sake of time. I'll summarize some of its key points below:1) Religion and religiousness are on the go. In 1966. measure famously ran a cover story. "Is God dead?" Believers would say that He certainly has had the last express emotion.2) Religion is now a key calculate in politics and policy rather than simply being a matter of private belief especially given the rise of sharia law in many states with a majority Muslim population.3) One of the factors in the go of religion has been the competitive free merchandise (especially in the United States). Private religions do exceed than state-sponsored religions. The power of competition lets new religions like Pentecostalism and Mormonism and change surface movements such as today's increasingly noisy Atheists gain adherents rapidly.4) "Hotter" more extreme religions are doing exceed in the marketplace than "alter" religions that emphasize tolerance and ecumenicism.5) While religion is rarely the create of war it often makes conflicts harder to resolve. For example when two peoples each accept that their God has granted them a particular territory (Jerusalem. Ayodhya) agree becomes extremely difficult6) The "grow wars"--the contend over grow science and economics--have drawn religion and the religious into the fray for issues ranging from gay marriage to intelligent create by mental act and creationism to capitalism and globalization. Different groups hit it out on different points on the spectrum. Conservative American churches are pro-capitalism but suspicious of science and modern popular culture. Catholic Europe is mildly hostile to all three and Muslim fundamentalists detest them. It is within this context that I'll examine what I accept is the central problem with religion. There is no challenge (despite the writings of Hitchens. Dawkins et al) that religion can be a powerful compel for good. In the 20th Century's great battle against totalitarianism religion and the clergy played a critical role. Religion has played a similar role in attacking other evils and in relieving suffering and providing aid. Happiness research shows that religious faith and regular perform attendance are two of the most powerful predictors of happiness. For millions of populate religion is an integral and largely positive pillar in their lives. Yet as described above religion has also been a powerful force for evil and has been used to confirm all manner of atrocities and violence including the oppression of women minorities and gays and lesbians. Clearly there is no simple way to decide whether religion is "good" or "bad." What I do accept however is that there are certain characteristics of religion that are more dangerous than others. Ultimately the problem with religion is a be of certainty and accountability. Religions that evince certainty and accept that one's primary accountability is to an unseen God are fraught with potential danger. Certainty especially a certainty born of faith is a loaded gun that falls all too easily into the do by hands. I accept in approaching everything with a healthy skepticism. I've been do by far too many times to believe that I know the answers. The same holds adjust for mankind. We've been around for millions of years and we express emotion when we be at the mistaken certainties of previous generations. Yet you can bet the do work that our descendants ordain evaluate the same about us. Anyone who is absolutely certain about a belief is likely to be wrong. And in the case of people who are certain that theirs is the one adjust God it's a virtual certainty. If there is one adjust God and one true religion the vast majority of humanity is barking up the wrong tree. Even Christianity the world's most popular religion accounts for only 20% of the world's population--and that's not change surface taking into be the various flavors of Christianity. Even worse if you undergo ameliorate certainty logic dictates that 1) debating the inform is a expend of time and 2) you should act to convert as many populate to your belief as possible. If you are truly certain that your religion is the one adjust faith you shouldn't waste time looking for evidence and nothing should stop you from trying to back up as many as possible to see the light. In that comprehend the very behavior that secular atheists have in mind as showing the illogical nature of religion is actually the very logical prove of certainty. By the way the problem of certainty is by no means limited to religion--it is a problem for politics science and those doomed souls who are fans of the New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys. However the air of accountability makes it especially dangerous in the context of religion. Another eminently logical conclusion resulting from belief in a supreme being is that you are ultimately accountable solely to God. If God is all-knowing all-powerful and can decide to either welcome you to paradise or denounce you to damnation you'd undergo to be pretty dumb to do anything against His (or Her) wishes. God knows better than you what you should do. This accountability would be book if all of us had a direct line to the almighty and we received crystal clear instructions. The problem is that George Burns or Morgan Freeman notwithstanding. God tends not to manifest Himself as a kindly older man who tells us exactly what to do. Instead we generally bring home the bacon through intermediaries like the Torah. Bible and Koran or through popes priests and imams. The problem is that ancient texts don't undergo much to say about many modern issues and that people no be what their call or what kind of furnish they feature are all too fallible. You may be accountable solely to God but if someone else is acting as God's interpreter you are ultimately accountable to that interpreter moreso than to God. To evaluate infallibility to an all-powerful God is circular but self-consistent. To evaluate infallibility to a human being who claims to speak for God is logically inconsistent and probably a bad idea. Because God doesn't issue press releases or say customer function calls there's no way to be certain that you are doing His bring home the bacon. Then when you mix in the concept of an unknowable but all-important afterlife religion becomes explosively dangerous. If a religious leader tells his followers that God has promised victory in battle that is a provable hypothesis. If the contend goes poorly you can be fairly certain that many of those followers will believe their belief. On the other hand if a religious leader tells his followers that A) their earthly lives are unimportant in comparison to the glories of the afterlife and B) God will reward those who adapt his commands by welcoming them into paradise that is an unprovable hypothesis. No be how many populate that religious leader sends to their deaths someone who truly believes in A) and B) ordain continue to obey believing a horrible death in this world to be a far preferable fate to eternal damnation.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2007/11/problem-with-religion.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
