• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"The solution to bad religion is good religion, not no religion."

sealchan

Well-Known Member
If good religion is the answer then that suggests that there is a basic need being fulfilled that applies to all, believers and non-believers. This is my thought.

To oversimplify things I would say that for many, the practice of religion involves the regular act (ritual) of sitting down and watching someone tell stories that are a part of a long developed epic and teach moral lessons and then getting back up and proceeding about their normal day.

Might this also apply to all those who routinely watch Star Trek?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Personally I think it's very individual. Some people find religion helpful, some are "spiritual but not religious" and some don't have any such beliefs.

From another angle, I find most people don't really 100% believe their religion or believe in God. They basically go to services etc because of how they were brought up or to fulfill society's expectations in various nations. The also follow the rituals and ceremonies superficially without thinking about the deeper meaning.

Some believe deeply and try to work on themselves to align their thoughts words and deeds with their beliefs. Some of those take a positive path, good religion, of compassion, brotherhood/sisterhood, service etc. Others, what I would call "bad religion" bash people over the head with their beliefs either verbally or literally.

So I agree with your basic thesis but with the thought that religion is not for everyone.

Something interesting I learned a while back is that divorcing "spirituality" from "religion" is a fairly modern (within a few generations) phenomena. That is, spirituality is the domain of religion, but for various reasons, folks started thinking that their personal religious practices weren't religion, but something else. One of the reasons relates to dissatisfaction with religious institutions and wanting to disassociate with churches. I certainly sympathize with that, but I don't really follow the distinction between "spirituality" (personal practice) and "religion" (public/community practice).

That notwithstanding, it's still true that religion is not for everyone. The same or similar functions of religion can be had through activities that an individual or culture characterizes as irreligious. We have things like birthday parties and graduation ceremonies, rituals that are generally considered non-religious. We have a rich tradition of the arts, which may or may not be mythological but is typically understood as non-religious. We have communities centered around common values, which also may be viewed as non-religious. And, of course, we have ideological systems that are labeled as non-religious too. Honestly, labeling something as religion or non-religion strikes me as fairly arbitrary in general, but the point stands there are plenty of things out there folks enjoy that they don't place under the auspices of religion. :D
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science."

- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

This is one of the greatest, most comprehensive and sound quotes I've seen in philosophy. This sums up so much I and others have tried to say in a simple, short paragraph. He is right. Sure religions has caused bad, it has caused good as well. Heck, the State Atheism of the USSR unfortunately stuck the atheists in a position most of us are too familiar with: people doing something terrible in the name of our philosophies. And likewise atheism has done good, I've seen it with my own eyes, we can show people who have benefitted from atheism.

It's also become impossible to discuss religion online without the behavior mentioned by the rabbi. "...criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity...". You see this absolutely everywhere, from here to Reddit, YouTube to Facebook, Kindle to Vastne and Noble. I've often argued in favor of the term "new atheism", and it's specifically because "Atheism deserves better than the new atheists ..."

Finally, I love the quote about science. Far too often do people hold positions they disagree with to different standards than their own. This is the best possible metaphor For why we need "good religion" rather than "none".

Thoughts?

You speak of intrinsic, personal, non-hypocritical religion. I applaud you, and I always applaud quotations from one of the Chosen.

Thank you.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science."

- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

This is one of the greatest, most comprehensive and sound quotes I've seen in philosophy. This sums up so much I and others have tried to say in a simple, short paragraph. He is right. Sure religions has caused bad, it has caused good as well. Heck, the State Atheism of the USSR unfortunately stuck the atheists in a position most of us are too familiar with: people doing something terrible in the name of our philosophies. And likewise atheism has done good, I've seen it with my own eyes, we can show people who have benefitted from atheism.

It's also become impossible to discuss religion online without the behavior mentioned by the rabbi. "...criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity...". You see this absolutely everywhere, from here to Reddit, YouTube to Facebook, Kindle to Vastne and Noble. I've often argued in favor of the term "new atheism", and it's specifically because "Atheism deserves better than the new atheists ..."

Finally, I love the quote about science. Far too often do people hold positions they disagree with to different standards than their own. This is the best possible metaphor For why we need "good religion" rather than "none".

Thoughts?

Sure, the main purpose or point of religion is controlling the masses. That control can be either good for them or bad. It depends on the motivations of those that create and control the religious ideology.

The problem is getting people to accept that control. Fear of God, promise of reward etc...

Atheism is fine individually but there is nothing there to exert any control over people. The "New Atheists" see the bad control cause by religion which they want to criticize but they really have nothing to replace it with.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
What does good religion look like? It looks like the one Adam and Eve had in the garden of Eden.....:)
Didn't that story end up quite badly for them and caused pointless suffering for everyone that followed? If you believe it literally that is.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Because a secular institution can do everything that a religious one can do.
Arguably it does them better.

Can they? And even if so, for everyone? Humans are unique individuals with vastly different needs and affected in vastly different ways from different things. Even if we take truth out of it, Pragmatism tells us atheism simply won't work for people. Wether it's cause they need belief, community, certain practices or what, some people just won't thrive under atheism like some won't thrive under theism. So you see, while atheism may give YOU the same benefits, it's not true of everyone. And as an atheist, what betters ones only life here and now should be good in your eyes.

New Atheists - can't wait for the Modern and Post-Modern varieties - how will they be demonised? Religions feeling threatened somewhat? When it might just be declining belief from other causes than any efforts by New Atheists.

But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.

As if these are equivalent. :rolleyes: And who gets to choose the 'good' religion or what is a 'good' religion?

Well, what makes science or a philosophy or an economic practice good? Growth, freedom, happiness, peace, community, support, and so on. So apply that to religion.

Sure, the main purpose or point of religion is controlling the masses. That control can be either good for them or bad. It depends on the motivations of those that create and control the religious ideology.

The problem is getting people to accept that control. Fear of God, promise of reward etc...

Atheism is fine individually but there is nothing there to exert any control over people. The "New Atheists" see the bad control cause by religion which they want to criticize but they really have nothing to replace it with.

But that's just a bias of yours, plenty of people don't believe their religion out of fear and control. Hell an entire type of ideology - left hand path religious - explicitly oppose such a thing.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science."

One might be tempted to agree that “the cure of bad science is good science,” until one realizes that “bad science” is simply not following the rules and procedures of the scientific method. Good science adheres to the scientific method, and is thus, simply, “science.” So the cure for bad science is to stop doing it. Period.

But I am always fascinated with this idea of “theology” as the study of something. Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) defines it as "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity." You will note this requires two assumptions: the existence of “the Deity” and that “evidence” for and about it may be found via personal spiritual experiences or historical records of such experiences as documented by others.

Neither of those is remotely demonstrable. No evidence whatsoever can be provided for the existence of a deity with some determinable characteristic(s), and we know that “spiritual experiences” are indistinguishable from any other forms of hallucination or mind-caused experience, and that thus no such experience can be shown to have anything to do with anything other than the experiencer’s brain.

I’m fond of what Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason: “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”

Or, as a more modern philosopher, A.J. Ayer puts it in his essay “Critique of Ethics and Theology” showing that all statements about the divine are nonsense and any divine attribute unprovable: “It is now generally admitted, at any rate by philosophers, that the existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved... [A]ll utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical.”
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
But that's just a bias of yours, plenty of people don't believe their religion out of fear and control. Hell an entire type of ideology - left hand path religious - explicitly oppose such a thing.

But... but... the trees! They're dangerous! They fall on houses and people and kill them! And oh, the splinters! We must worship trees because if we don't they will hurt us, and that's why I'm a Druid! The Chosen Chief shall protect and guide us all!

...

*bursts out laughing*
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Good religion,now thats something to ponder, would it be a religion that doesn't cut something from a child without its permission or maybe not giving that child an indoctrination into a religion without any choice.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
"The solution to bad religion is good religion, not no religion."
Thoughts?
I agree. Far too many people rely on religion to keep them from breaking down, or at least stop them from becoming emotionally crippled. This why although I consider Christianity to be a regrettable fabrication it does have a pragmatic function.

.

.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
But that's just a bias of yours, plenty of people don't believe their religion out of fear and control. Hell an entire type of ideology - left hand path religious - explicitly oppose such a thing.

Not all control is bad and fear is just one means of motivating folks, there's reward too like promises of heaven or power.

You may see a benefit in your beliefs but the core of any religion is controlling behavior.

The Satanic Temple has a set of tenets to control behavior. People may see these tenets as good or beneficial to themselves but it is still control.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science."

- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

This is one of the greatest, most comprehensive and sound quotes I've seen in philosophy. This sums up so much I and others have tried to say in a simple, short paragraph. He is right. Sure religions has caused bad, it has caused good as well. Heck, the State Atheism of the USSR unfortunately stuck the atheists in a position most of us are too familiar with: people doing something terrible in the name of our philosophies. And likewise atheism has done good, I've seen it with my own eyes, we can show people who have benefitted from atheism.

It's also become impossible to discuss religion online without the behavior mentioned by the rabbi. "...criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity...". You see this absolutely everywhere, from here to Reddit, YouTube to Facebook, Kindle to Vastne and Noble. I've often argued in favor of the term "new atheism", and it's specifically because "Atheism deserves better than the new atheists ..."

Finally, I love the quote about science. Far too often do people hold positions they disagree with to different standards than their own. This is the best possible metaphor For why we need "good religion" rather than "none".

Thoughts?

Funny how there appears to be absolutely no concern about whether or not this 'good' religion is actually true.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Didn't that story end up quite badly for them and caused pointless suffering for everyone that followed? If you believe it literally that is.

What religion did Adam and his wife have? The answer is.....NO religion. It wasn't necessary. They had no complicated laws to adhere to and everything in their surroundings to enjoy to the full with only one small restriction.

Every tree of the garden would provide a delicious variety of food for them, but just as a small test, God planted just one tree that was his. The humans were not deprived in any way by this restriction and the penalty for touching that tree, which was God's exclusive property, was death. It was a no-brainer really. It was a test of their love for their generous Creator and respect for what belonged to him, especially when he had provided so bountifully for them in so many other ways.

Why did it end badly? Because a rebel spirit decided he wanted to be "like God" and grab worship for himself. The only way he could get the humans to treat him as a god was to separate them from the real one. He did this by deceiving the woman into believing that the forbidden fruit was beneficial, making her "like God"....and it was appealing, so she ate. She was alone at the time so there was no balancing of Adam's input into the discussion. Satan was going to get to the man, through the woman. The Bible says that she was "thoroughly deceived"....but Adam wasn't. When she offered the fruit to her husband, he had choices....refuse the offer and lose the love of his life....or join her and become party to the rebellion. We know what he chose because we have all been living with the ramification ever since. "Sin" causing death came through the man, not the woman. (Romans 5:12)

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Adam had chosen differently? What if he had refused his wife's offer? What outcome do you imagine may have taken place? Nothing was pre-determined because the outcome really was governed by their choices.

Giving humans "free will" makes them "like God"...that is one of the ways that we are 'made in his image' reflecting his qualities. Free will is not totally "free" however. It was to be exercised within the boundaries set by the Creator. Satan challenged those boundaries and called them into question....so rather than just snuff out the rebels, (as he had every right to do) God gave them all an opportunity to see and experience what living in the world without him would mean. He allowed both humans and angels to experience what 'freedom of choice' can mean in both realms. This object lesson would provide precedents that would last for all eternity if ever free willed beings wanted to challenge God's Sovereign right to set reasonable limits for his creation in the future. It is a powerful teaching tool.

The suffering is not pointless because it is all part of the consequences. God has not stepped in to lessen the impact of the lesson because it would negate the reason for it. We will never want to repeat this result.

Through his prophet Isaiah, God promised a "new heaven and a new earth" (not literally but figuratively) This will result in the heavens being free of satan's influence when all rebel spirits are ultimately eliminated....and a cleansing of the earth when all those who display the same rebellious spirit as the devil, will be eliminated from existence as well. God will then only have faithful and obedient children in both realm who have passed the most difficult test there will ever be......

Isaiah wrote....

"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart."
(Isaiah 65:17)

The apostle Peter also spoke of this "New heaven and new earth" that was in the future. (2 Peter 3:13)

The pain and suffering will not be remembered so as to cause pain of heart in the new world to come. It will be a restoration of all that Adam lost for his children....with an eternity to enjoy it, just as God purposed in the beginning.

This is what JW's believe.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It is really interesting how defensive some people are.

Even as he admits that religion needs to fix its act, that Rabbi blames the critics for it.

It is rather childish when you think about it.
 
It is really interesting how defensive some people are.

Even as he admits that religion needs to fix its act, that Rabbi blames the critics for it.

It is rather childish when you think about it.
Hi Luis! Long time no see?

As a long time atheist and a sometimes fan of the "new atheists" criticized in the OP, I will say, I think that last sentence deserves real consideration: "But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science"

I would not be quick to dismiss that statement. If religion is understood as having principles, and believing that there are things greater than oneself, and perhaps some rituals that help call on us to remember these things every now and then ... if that is religion, then I am all for some good ol' religion.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Hi Luis! Long time no see?

As a long time atheist and a sometimes fan of the "new atheists" criticized in the OP, I will say, I think that last sentence deserves real consideration: "But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science"

I would not be quick to dismiss that statement. If religion is understood as having principles, and believing that there are things greater than oneself, and perhaps some rituals that help call on us to remember these things every now and then ... if that is religion, then I am all for some good ol' religion.
I agree, but that is hardly justification for the Rabbi's atittude.

If anything, he should encourage criticism of bad religion. But he is going the opposite direction.
 
Top