Anti-Humanism and the Enabling Power of Religious Dogma

[Mr Spinkles]

The corollary to this is that such dogma reflects the tyranny of intuition and is genetically resistant to corrective measures. If God tells me to love you, I will love you. If God tells me to kill you, I will kill you. Whether or not I understand God's instructions is irrelevant. Even the accuracy of the textual transmission of those instructions is irrelevant. I am guided solely by the Holy Spirit, or my Higher Self, or my Inner Voice - none of whom are answerable to you, to society, to empirical evidence, to reason, to anything whatsoever.

It is intuition run amok, fully empowered, and unconditionally justified.

Well said, well said. One could say that the person who holds such views has been infected with some particularly virulent, codependent memes.

 

[Tawn]

So couldn't you argue that there are certain things we learn about making rational decisions by trial-and-error rather than being taught by culture or society?

Absolutely, the two sortof feed into one another.. I think a child has to understand that high temperature hurts.. but once that is understood the idea can be applied to other things which the parent only tells them is hot. There is definitely a mixture of the two.

So if you would agree with that point, then wouldn't you have to also agree that rational choice and belief do in fact exist?

I do agree, though im not sure how the connection between this and the last statement comes about.

2. What exactly is wrong with being irrational? Look back through history, how many of the people whose names are worth mentioning for making some sort of discovery or inventing some new tool were considered completely rational, center-field, on-their-rocker people?So that makes you wonder who was more irrational, the individual who made himself comfortable with his situation and did nothing or the individual who believed (and proved) his situation could be made better? So whose standards of rationality should a person conform too? Mass societies who repeatedly has sworn their is nothing more than what is now, or his own that he has spent time in actually reflecting on "common knowledge" and finding a hole that needs filled? Any insight from people who feel they understand what I'm talking about and can show a valid answer to my questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.

Im not sure striving for better things is irrational. Exploring the limitations of our reality and attempting to imagine alternatives to what we percieve as reality is perfectly rational. In fact by accepting this reality as true and not accepting the possiblity of it being false you are being irrational. However, the difference here is what you believe - What provisionally you assume to be correct. An inventor who strives for better things doesnt necessarily know if theres anything better to find - but might believe there is based on the fact that countless new things have been discovered before (so why should the end come now?) and also because he might have a hint or clue that something can be different to how most people percieve things.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Assume that you had never heard of the Bible ...

Were I to walk up to any of you and suggest that drowning the world's children was acceptable, or that slaughtering the children of a people was valid, or that killing the first born of an empire was justified, what would you think?

And if I told you that life deserved nothing other that the fact that it's victims deserved what they got, what would you think?

And, if I were to tell you that I hold these views based on a primitive text, but "am not even sure that it has been translated accurately", what would you think?​

​

You are presuming God and man are equal. Your above suggestions do not posit who was performing the drowning, slaughtering, and killing, so of course the person you walked up to is going to assume you are talking about another person. I do not know anyone who thinks they are God, who claims to be responsible for every living creature, is omniscient and knows the outcome for any cause (I have a sneaking suspicion this is going to degrade into a "bad things happen, therefore God doesn't exist" debate.)

As a believer in the dogma you are referring to, my impression is to fear God, as my life is in His hands to serve His purposes. It is certainly not my impression that I can drown lots of children because, hey God did it.

Also, I do not know who you are quoting, but I suspect the notion they are trying to communicate is that we may be given only a small snapshot of the big picture. I believe he or she was trying to express a sense of faith that when horrible things happen, justice will be done in this life or another.

As far as the accurate translation part, I do not share that belief, so I will not try justifying it. If I come across a passage that I do not understand, I tend to think that I am not wise enough, not that the translation is wrong.

The danger of this theology is not that it flies in the face of science, but that it enables the sweeping and brutal dismissal of humanity on the basis of virtually nothing. And the mindset that accepts this dismissal is in principle no different than that which burns witches, coerces conversions, bombs abortion clinics, and perpetrates Islamic terror.

I suppose you might believe that most Christians are simply too casual with their beliefs to reach their full anti-humanitarian potential, and that if we were to become overly obsessed with our religion, the dogmatic teachings of humility, love and gentleness will eventually snap us into a wicked frenzy.

From my perspective, most Christians desire to be obsessed with Christ's teachings, however, it is the draw of pride and fleshly desires that keeps us from doing so. It is quite possible for a Christian to conduct themselves in an ugly way. I certainly do on many occasions. However, it is essential for the Christian to recognize that those who conduct heinous acts in the name of Christianity should not be followed nor imitated, for they do not bear good fruits.

 

[Ormiston]

[/color][/b][/indent]
I suppose you might believe that most Christians are simply too casual with their beliefs to reach their full anti-humanitarian potential, and that if we were to become overly obsessed with our religion, the dogmatic teachings of humility, love and gentleness will eventually snap us into a wicked frenzy.

From my perspective, most Christians desire to be obsessed with Christ's teachings, however, it is the draw of pride and fleshly desires that keeps us from doing so. It is quite possible for a Christian to conduct themselves in an ugly way. I certainly do on many occasions. However, it is essential for the Christian to recognize that those who conduct heinous acts in the name of Christianity should not be followed nor imitated, for they do not bear good fruits.

I don't think Deut's point is that all Christians (or any others who rely on blind faith) are evil. I simply think the point is that they are one step (or more) closer to those responsible for the acts he mentioned.

I'd like to make a comment on potentiality here. I do think that the potential for evil is more prevelant in a group of people that base their morals on a strict code of conduct based exclusively on the beliefs of a handful of men who died thousands of years ago versus those who choose to think things through without prejudice and who rely on the wisdom of those currently alive. I know I can be wrong but you think that the Bible and God are perfect. That's a dangerous combination.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I am guided solely by the Holy Spirit, or my Higher Self, or my Inner Voice - none of whom are answerable to you, to society, to empirical evidence, to reason, to anything whatsoever.

It is intuition run amok, fully empowered, and unconditionally justified.

If the "dogma" behind this intuition were one of selfishness and violence, then I would agree with you. However, wouldn't you agree that it might be beneficial to have someone with an unshakable loyalty to the ideals of humility, love, and courage, despite the possible wickedness impressed on them by society and culture?

 

[Ormiston]

If the "dogma" behind this intuition were one of selfishness and violence, then I would agree with you. However, wouldn't you agree that it might be beneficial to have someone with an unshakable loyalty to the ideals of humility, love, and courage, despite the possible wickedness impressed on them by society and culture?

You don't give us non-believers enough credit.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You don't give us non-believers enough credit.

Please explain. Credit for what?

I am not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand what you are saying.

 

[Ormiston]

Please explain. Credit for what?

I am not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand what you are saying.

"If the "dogma" behind this intuition were one of selfishness and violence, then I would agree with you. However, wouldn't you agree that it might be beneficial to have someone with an unshakable loyalty to the ideals of humility, love, and courage, despite the possible wickedness impressed on them by society and culture? "

And I apologize if I misunderstood you. I know many people with an unshakable loyalty to the ideals of humility, love, and courage and they believe in a great many different things. It sounded to me like you were only giving Christians credit for these things.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't think Deut's point is that all Christians (or any others who rely on blind faith) are evil.

I realize that Deut does not believe all Christians are evil. I added an emoticon to hopefully express that.

Also, blind-faith is generally a term used by atheists and agnostics. Can you explain to me what you think it means?

I simply think the point is that they are one step (or more) closer to those responsible for the acts he mentioned.

Is this based on your attitude towards Christianity or empirical evidence?

EDIT: What I mean is, are Christians more likely to be criminals?

I'd like to make a comment on potentiality here. I do think that the potential for evil is more prevelant in a group of people that base their morals on a strict code of conduct based exclusively on the beliefs of a handful of men who died thousands of years ago versus those who choose to think things through without prejudice and who rely on the wisdom of those currently alive. I know I can be wrong but you think that the Bible and God are perfect. That's a dangerous combination.

If I may ask, what specifically about Christ's teachings that worries you? Your comments of "handful of men" and "died thousands of years ago" are massive generalizations.

Also, from your secular perspective, is there anything that can be harnessed from the philosophy and ideas of people who have lived and died in other cultures?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It sounded to me like you were only giving Christians credit for these things.

Sorry I gave you that impression. Yes, I know many secularists who have these loyalties as well. The thing I am trying to get at is why there is a notion that Christ's teachings are somehow bad for us.

 

[Ormiston]

I realize that Deut does not believe all Christians are evil. I added an emoticon to hopefully express that.

Also, blind-faith is generally a term used by atheists and agnostics. Can you explain to me what you think it means?

Blind-faith to me means "belief with no doubt". The most arrogant aspect of religion is that it does not reserve the right to possibly be wrong. This very fact is what allows for the anti-humanistic acts mentioned in the opening statements of this thread.

Is this based on your attitude towards Christianity or empirical evidence?

It is based on my own conclusion that without reasoning and compromise you have an environment for atrocity.

If I may ask, what specifically about Christ's teachings that worries you? Your comments of "handful of men" and "died thousands of years ago" are massive generalizations.

Also, from your secular perspective, is there anything that can be harnessed from the philosophy and ideas of people who have lived and died in other cultures?

Many aspects of Christ's teachings as well as the Bible as a whole worry me. The main one is that we are here by Gods will to do Gods work (forgive the aweful literation). How many deaths has this idea resulted in? How many wars? This is at the root of the anti-humanism argument. When you take a man's (woman's) life out of his own hands and replace his own thinking with scripture and halleluahs he loses a part of his ability to think for himself. I know most people think that Christianity is all about good and never about evil, but I am one who thinks that this isn't true.

As for the philosophies of all people, I do indeed believe that this is the solution to the problem. We, as a world-wide culture, can only rely on the philosophies of all people, dead and alive, in order to advance socially and peacefully. I absolutely do believe that much good has come from many many Christians and all others included. But philosophy and religion are two different things. Philosophy is thinking and discussing and arguing while religion is taking action, eg. praying, worshipping, preaching, etc...And these things I find little good in.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Blind-faith to me means "belief with no doubt". The most arrogant aspect of religion is that it does not reserve the right to possibly be wrong. This very fact is what allows for the anti-humanistic acts mentioned in the opening statements of this thread.

Christians view faith as a virtue, as we see it as a means to keep us strong in times of weakness.

Many aspects of Christ's teachings as well as the Bible as a whole worry me. The main one is that we are here by Gods will to do Gods work (forgive the awful literation). How many deaths has this idea resulted in? How many wars? This is at the root of the anti-humanism argument.

Which Biblical teachings are you concerned with? I am not aware of any Biblical teachings that tell us that wars and killing are ok if they are done to promote the Christian faith.

I have no doubt that there have been periods of time when the Church has been very corrupt, a slave to political power and money. I am very thankful for our founding fathers who had insight into this corruption and separating the church and state, for the sake of both the church and the state. :jiggy:

C. S. Lewis once said that of all evil men, religious ones are the worst. I think there is some truth to this, and this may be what you are getting at. Christ called these men wolves in sheep's clothing and there is no doubt that He strongly opposed any perverted form of religion.

However, it is important to discriminate what the Bible really says, how the mainstream Christian population interprets the Bible, and realize that the vast majority of Christians are opposed to people who would use religion as a manipulative tool to get what they want. Just because a person claims to be doing something in the name of Christianity, does not mean that is coming from their heart. A person who is capable of performing heinous acts against humanity is also quite capable of deceptively justifying it with religion if they think it will suit them.

 

[Bass04life]

Absolutely, the two sortof feed into one another.. I think a child has to understand that high temperature hurts.. but once that is understood the idea can be applied to other things which the parent only tells them is hot. There is definitely a mixture of the two.
I do agree, though im not sure how the connection between this and the last statement comes about.

Im not sure striving for better things is irrational. Exploring the limitations of our reality and attempting to imagine alternatives to what we percieve as reality is perfectly rational. In fact by accepting this reality as true and not accepting the possiblity of it being false you are being irrational. However, the difference here is what you believe - What provisionally you assume to be correct. An inventor who strives for better things doesnt necessarily know if theres anything better to find - but might believe there is based on the fact that countless new things have been discovered before (so why should the end come now?) and also because he might have a hint or clue that something can be different to how most people percieve things.

Sorry for the confusion, I'll try to clarify what I was trying to point out with the first post. If I understand what your saying correctly, we would both agree that their is a actual objective truth right? The point I was trying to make with the analogy was this, Can a person convince you that fire isn't hot? I should hope not. So couldn't you say that the belief that fire is hot is something that nobody can (or should be able to) convince you otherwise? Of course we can explain it with science by being able to explain why you feel the fire is hot but you can't show someone the effects of a fire burning a person and then try and convince them it isn't hot. So I was trying to give some sort of logical explanation without using God or religion as to why I believe their has to be an objective truth and logical or "rational" choice. So that fed in to my next question of whose standards of rationality should you follow. Thats where you made another interesting point, the idea that an inventor might have a hint or clue that there's something more. When you entered your elementry math classes, did you think that you would be tossed question after question and given no answers? No, you go in with the hint or clue that their is a logical conclusion to the questions you're dealing with. Well, couldn't you call that faith? Please keep in mind I'm not trying to argue any point with you because quite honestly it seems as though were on the same page. I only meant to clarify my opinion. Oh yea and if anyone would like to argue against something I said thats great but do me a favor and try and put things as simple as possible I have to read over everyones comments at least twice nice and slow in order to understand your arguments which is annoying because I enjoy reading them with as little work as possible! Thanks in advance.

 

[lilithu]

Namaste, Ormiston.

Blind-faith to me means "belief with no doubt".

Good definition! Tho I would argue that faith is more than belief; faith is trust. Still, trust without doubt (and reflection) is dangerous as well.

Many aspects of Christ's teachings as well as the Bible as a whole worry me. The main one is that we are here by Gods will to do Gods work (forgive the aweful literation). How many deaths has this idea resulted in? How many wars? This is at the root of the anti-humanism argument. When you take a man's (woman's) life out of his own hands and replace his own thinking with scripture and halleluahs he loses a part of his ability to think for himself.

Liberal Christians believe that they are here by God's will to do God's work, and that work is to alleviate suffering where it exists, to side with the poor and oppressed, to "love your enemy as you love yourself." If one looks at what Jesus actually said and did, it is along these lines. Having that "mandate from God," the corrective influences of humanism are built in to their hermeneutical system. To work for the sake of humans, one must take human needs into account. It's not faith that is the problem, imo, it's blind-faith.

I know most people think that Christianity is all about good and never about evil, but I am one who thinks that this isn't true.

I, otoh, think that people spend too much time thinking about the evils that have been commited in the name of Christianity and not enough time recognizing the good. That would be true for other religions as well. Few people seem to recognize the good done by "the other." The countless soup-kitchens, hospices, etc that are staffed everyday by volunteers moved by their faith. Habitat for Humanity is a Christian organization.

As for the philosophies of all people, I do indeed believe that this is the solution to the problem. We, as a world-wide culture, can only rely on the philosophies of all people, dead and alive, in order to advance socially and peacefully. I absolutely do believe that much good has come from many many Christians and all others included. But philosophy and religion are two different things. Philosophy is thinking and discussing and arguing while religion is taking action, eg. praying, worshipping, preaching, etc...And these things I find little good in.

Yes, religion calls us to act. Should we think, discuss, and argue but never take action? How does true good come without action? What does it mean to think about and discuss the worth of my fellow humans and never act on it? And how can there be little good in praying, worshipping, and preaching if these things help a person to better act for the sake of others?

 

[Ormiston]

Namaste, Ormiston.

Yes, religion calls us to act. Should we think, discuss, and argue but never take action? How does true good come without action? What does it mean to think about and discuss the worth of my fellow humans and never act on it? And how can there be little good in praying, worshipping, and preaching if these things help a person to better act for the sake of others?

Very nice lilithu! You have made me think again! I need some time to think this last part over. I doubt I will ever find anything good about praying, worshipping, and preaching, but you are absolutely right that these things are somewhat more useful than thought without action. I will get back (and now, time for a bikeride with my daughter :jam: ).

 

[Ormiston]

Namaste, Ormiston.

Good definition! Tho I would argue that faith is more than belief; faith is trust. Still, trust without doubt (and reflection) is dangerous as well.

Liberal Christians believe that they are here by God's will to do God's work, and that work is to alleviate suffering where it exists, to side with the poor and oppressed, to "love your enemy as you love yourself." If one looks at what Jesus actually said and did, it is along these lines. Having that "mandate from God," the corrective influences of humanism are built in to their hermeneutical system. To work for the sake of humans, one must take human needs into account. It's not faith that is the problem, imo, it's blind-faith.

I, otoh, think that people spend too much time thinking about the evils that have been commited in the name of Christianity and not enough time recognizing the good. That would be true for other religions as well. Few people seem to recognize the good done by "the other." The countless soup-kitchens, hospices, etc that are staffed everyday by volunteers moved by their faith. Habitat for Humanity is a Christian organization.

Yes, religion calls us to act. Should we think, discuss, and argue but never take action? How does true good come without action? What does it mean to think about and discuss the worth of my fellow humans and never act on it? And how can there be little good in praying, worshipping, and preaching if these things help a person to better act for the sake of others?

I have given this some thought. The action of philosophers is found everywhere in small amounts eg. how we vote, how we communicate, how we lead by example. Putting on a Big Show is no more convincing than quietly trying to help. So, for arguments sake, we are all equal in action. We all WANT to help. And now I will forsake bashing the praying, worshipping, and preaching community for their faults.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hey everyone,

In wading through a mostly existential debate, I had a thought about how it relates to the origin of this thread. It is human nature to rationalize. Therefore, whoever is doing what considers their actions to be based on rational thought.

It is most evident that throughout history people have justified actions, that they were bound to do anyway, as being sanctioned by God. Good or evil. The big three, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have historical events of wanting to wipe out the opposition. They could only justify this as being the work of God, as they defined God. It is shallow to look at this and to reject the core religious concept because of the actions of the authority of a said religion to allow evil actions in the name of God.

It is most interesting to hear about the concept of being hard wired for God. I became of Christian after years of looking inward to find my true self. A sort of Gnostic approach. While I cannot prove anything according to a scientific standard, I did examine the metaphysical scientifically and personally tested all of the insights, instinctual ideas, and other mindsets that one may cycle through. I came to the conclusion that God exists and that Jesus was our representative of God.

My point is, that while religion in general has barely transcended above the base level that Deut is representing in this thread, the search for a definitive set of moral truths and the following and adherance to these ideals is the most noble goal of humanity.