Why can't Religious people take Criticism?

[RamaRaksha]

Hmm, I'm not sure i agree with you there. I've seen political discussions get pretty explosive leaving all parties offended.

I'm going to suggest that you're running into problems because of the way you phrase things. Telling people that they have zero facts, nothing to fall back on and that they've been brainwashed isn't a good way to approach a subject. It immediately puts people on the defensive. If you feel that no religion has anything to do with facts and that they're all solely about belief, why not try discussing what people believe and why? They may have no facts in your opinion, but their reasons for belief might just extend beyond brainwashing.

Good post

yes political discussions can get heated but my point is that the discussions start with facts - people can use them to make a point - there are none in religion

As for brainwashing - it took me some to come to embrace this word - for i see way too many things that are unsaid and that too by bright, educated people

1. See a guy who threatens to kill his kids, you call the cops - put him in a religious book and suddenly the "great man" was ready to obey his God
2. When ISIS started separating christians and torturing and killing them, almost every letter writer and columnist called them evil - the very same people can't see anything wrong with Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists being set apart and thrown into hell - tortured and killed for their religion
3. I have an african-american co-worker who i thought was my friend - had no problem telling me i was going to hell - same guy would raise hell if he was discriminated because of the color of his skin - no problem in preaching why people should not be judged by the color of their skin, yet can't see anything wrong with his discrimination
4. So many muslims here in the US protesting discrimination - yet go back to their own countries - will turn around and think nothing of putting down non-muslims

 

[Madhuri]

Bro. You must understand that Criticism is not saying "Your science is a load of rubbish". Thats false slander.

Criticism is constructive. and if you have faith, knowledge etc you will not get offended for criticism, rather respond constructively.

Ok I agree but not every religious person will get offended by criticism. However obviously they will if the criticism is an attack.

 

[Madhuri]

OMG. This is the biggest problem I have. One day I called a bro by "sis" and he got offended.

But then again, I should have realised by the name. So quick to respond to a person we tend to not look at the fine print of the name. Quite nonsensical of me.

Sorry sis Madhuri. I bow down and say sorry.

Cheers.

It's ok you're not the first to make that error and I've certainly made the wrong assumption about others too

 

[Madhuri]

oh yes sure but there are facts to go by are they not? Saying one's art is not true is a first step, there is more to the conversation after that - for eg a dancer might have his or her head in the clouds thinking he or she is the best there is and some teacher might prove that they are not. Same thing with a Scientist - Einstein first thought that what Bohr was saying was rubbish but eventually everyone came around to what Bohr was saying because he proved he was right

That's the problem with religion - there is no proof that one can give - there are no facts - everything is simply based on a feeling - a belief - and this is where you are partly right - when its all about one's feelings and there is no way one can prove that one is right, anger comes quick?

I think that there is truth to the statement that when something is based in feels alone or mostly, we are more likely to get offended. Well, when ego is at the centre then we get offended
This is why someone who follows science only or puts themselves into their art etc. might get offended just as easily. And by that token, a religious person who is reasonable enough may also not get offended. So the key here is emotion and it happens that religion will have more people who are emotionally attached.

 

[psychoslice]

Most so called religious people believe they have the truth which is ridiculers, and so we have many arrogant believes thinking they know it all, and hence the feeling of criticism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We can discuss and criticize everything under the sun - politics, Science, art, life - well almost everything except religion. We have to be careful not to offend religious sensitivities - i have never heard of anyone saying
"you offended my scientific sensitivities or my political sensitivities" - why should religion be exempt?

Is it because religion, at its core, is empty? It has no facts or evidence to back it up except for fervent belief? A belief that rests on fear of death and greed for the good, easy life which religions are happy to promise that awaits members?

This is not that hard - it is quite easy to figure out - If you had ever cornered a Bernie Madoff making tall claims of wonderful returns and asked him to show you what his system was and how he is able to beat the market, and since all he has is a ponzi-scheme, would he not respond with threats? Isn't that what we see from religions? Threats of hell to non-believers? Talk of not offending religious sensitivities etc?

Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 ESV / 5
Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you. Your heart knows that many times you yourself have cursed others.

 

[atanu]

Well. What will a professional scientist say about repeated gross generalisation such as "Science is about facts but religions junk facts and latch on to feel-good fantasies".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Science is about facts but religions junk facts and latch on to feel-good fantasies".

That's what atheists used to say about the universe having a beginning in a specific creation event. they called it 'religious pseudo-science' and mocked it with the label 'big bang'

Overwhelmingly, our greatest scientists have stood out as staunch skeptics of atheism

 

[atanu]

If there's a common thread that runs through everyone who can't take criticism of something perhaps it's this: They are all relatively unskillful at managing their egos.

Most will agree. But can we take it a step further? Broadly, there may be three kinds of understanding/belief regarding source of one's ego (I sense):

1. The "I sense" arises through unconscious (yet unknown) process in brain. This is the view of materialists such as Harris et al., as exemplified by the following statement of Harris from a book of his:

“The problem is free will is just a non-starter, philosophically and scientifically. Unlike many other illusions, there is no way you can describe the universe so as to make sense of this notion of free will.” Sam Harris

(Sam Harris seems to be making an objective and free statement. I do not understand how that is possible).
​

2. The "I" sense is created by God (or a vastly superior conscious entity). In this view, there is a realisation that one is not the creator of one's "I" sense but that one has some free will to do good. This is usually the belief of most monotheists across the world.

3. The reality of the nature of awareness is unborn. Time, space, and objects are appearances on the unborn awareness. So-called ego-s ("I" sense/s) are unborn manifestations of various desires that come and go. This is approximately the understanding of advaitins and Buddhists.
..................​

Votaries of the first case, while believing their intelligence to be created, swear that their intelligence can unravel the objective truth about its source. In the second case, there is a realisation that ego-s are not the masters. In the third case, the awareness is understood as unborn core of so-called ego-s that have no real reality of their own. Ego-s are appearances.

Which belief system is likely to lead to most unskilled management of the ego?

 

[McBell]

We can discuss and criticize everything under the sun - politics, Science, art, life - well almost everything except religion. We have to be careful not to offend religious sensitivities - i have never heard of anyone saying
"you offended my scientific sensitivities or my political sensitivities" - why should religion be exempt?

Who says religion is exempt?
Please provide an example.

Is it because religion, at its core, is empty?

Define "empty" in this context.
I can argue the "empty" claim either way.
Thus I ask for clairification.

It has no facts or evidence to back it up except for fervent belief? A belief that rests on fear of death and greed for the good, easy life which religions are happy to promise that awaits members?

For some: yes, yes
for others: yes, no
for others: no, yes
for others: no, no

This is not that hard - it is quite easy to figure out - If you had ever cornered a Bernie Madoff making tall claims of wonderful returns and asked him to show you what his system was and how he is able to beat the market, and since all he has is a ponzi-scheme, would he not respond with threats?

Did he respond with threats?
I have not heard anything that he did.

Isn't that what we see from religions? Threats of hell to non-believers?

Ah, so you think Bernie saying something like "if you don't follow my plan you will not make a bunch of money" is a "threat"?

Talk of not offending religious sensitivities etc?

Some people are thin skinned when it comes to their beliefs.
There are likely as many reasons for the thin skin as there are people with thin skin.