Is Love The Root Of All Evil?

[DarkSun]

Now, I am not denying inductive, deductive, or any other kind of reasoning. Obviously for practical reasons, we have to use our natural intuitions when making day-to-day judgments (how much should I give to this charity? should I call my Mom today?) The problem with religion, as I said, is the commitment to having certainty without evidence. I agree with you we should employ all the tools at our disposal--inductive reasoning, intuition, natural instincts, logic, science and facts. But we do not have to make a dishonest religious commitment to use these tools.

I agree with everything previously said until this point, but here''s the thing. There is no lack of evidence to the religious person, just as there is no lack of evidence to a scientist making a deductive claim.

I think there is a slight difference in our lines of thinking. You see, you are saying: "There must be a certain, specific amount of empirical evidence for something to be considered true, and otherwise it is not." And while I agree with this in general, I'm more inclined to alter that phrasing to: "There must be a certain, specific amount of some form of evidence for something to be considered true to each individual, otherwise it is not true for that individual."

And yes, there is a significant difference between the two. By your line of thinking, anything but deductive reasoning has the potential to be illogical, irrational and simply wrong. But what I'm saying allows more room for shades of grey, where someone can genuinely believe something to be true, that would be truth for them, and such truth would not be invalid.

Of course, then we get down to concepts like intersubjective verifiability which states that the more people who believe something to be true, the greater the probability is of it being true. But I don't like this line of reasoning either. Personally, I view truth as something that is subjective to the individual, and that every form of reasoning used to get to that truth is equally valid.

Am I making much sense? In science, we take the bare, raw facts and analyse reality objectively through the use of deductive reasoning. The scientific method excels in providing irrefutable and well-substantiated models for reality, but fails in that it cannot prove or disprove the religious views of an individual. Because in religion we use a different line of reasoning altogether: a mix between intuitive knowledge and personal inductive reasoning.

While there may be flaws in this reasoning to other people, to the individual, their beliefs are infallible. And in actuality, religious beliefs, viewpoints and morality in general are notoriously improvable through deductive reasoning. But they are still valid.

First of all, virtually no one in the history of the world has simply said, "I advocate racism, sexism, and tribalism". They have advocated other things (patriotism, family values, duty, honor, faith, piety, morals, Christian civilization, God's law) and their critics accuse them of supporting racism, sexism and tribalism. Even white supremacists at stormfront.org will refer to themselves as "racialists". The point about religion is that it is a commitment to pre-judgment, or prejudice. Even "good" prejudices, like "Asians are good at math" or "Blacks are good at basketball" are ultimately harmful and irrational, they shackle the mind and they must be rejected.

Secondly, Stalinism consisted of pseudoscience, condemnation of heretics, dogmatism, indoctrination of children, apologetics, authoritarianism, and worship. When all of these appear together, I call that "religion" and I reject it whether it is atheistic or theistic religion.

Now, perhaps Stalinism was just a bad example. I am sure you could point to many, many, many human problems that do not involve religion. That is why, as I said: once we commit ourselves to using evidence and reasoning, all our work is still ahead of us. We will still have serious problems; but we have to shake off religious bondage of the mind to tackle these problems properly.

But prejudices such as: "love one another as yourself," are polar opposites to, "All Asians are going to bomb us, so are the Muslims and black people are subhuman." One form of prejudice advocates respect and equality, while the other advocates disrespect and inequality. So I don't see how placing racism (and other problems which stem from human nature) on the same bar as religion is exactly fair. But to each their own opinion, I guess.

 

[linwood]

DarkSun,

What is your definition of "Valid"?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with everything previously said until this point, but here''s the thing. There is no lack of evidence to the religious person, just as there is no lack of evidence to a scientist making a deductive claim.

I think there is a slight difference in our lines of thinking. You see, you are saying: "There must be a certain, specific amount of empirical evidence for something to be considered true, and otherwise it is not." And while I agree with this in general, I'm more inclined to alter that phrasing to: "There must be a certain, specific amount of some form of evidence for something to be considered true to each individual, otherwise it is not true for that individual."

And yes, there is a significant difference between the two. By your line of thinking, anything but deductive reasoning has the potential to be illogical, irrational and simply wrong. But what I'm saying allows more room for shades of grey, where someone can genuinely believe something to be true, that would be truth for them, and such truth would not be invalid.

Of course, then we get down to concepts like intersubjective verifiability which states that the more people who believe something to be true, the greater the probability is of it being true. But I don't like this line of reasoning either. Personally, I view truth as something that is subjective to the individual, and that every form of reasoning used to get to that truth is equally valid.

Am I making much sense? In science, we take the bare, raw facts and analyse reality objectively through the use of deductive reasoning. The scientific method excels in providing irrefutable and well-substantiated models for reality, but fails in that it cannot prove or disprove the religious views of an individual. Because in religion we use a different line of reasoning altogether: a mix between intuitive knowledge and personal inductive reasoning.

While there may be flaws in this reasoning to other people, to the individual, their beliefs are infallible. And in actuality, religious beliefs, viewpoints and morality in general are notoriously improvable through deductive reasoning. But they are still valid.

Yes, what you are saying makes sense. But I also think you're spending time on subtleties, exceptions and nuances while ignoring the larger problem staring us in the face. Yes, religions can tolerate a special form of "reasoning" that allows shades of gray, orange, turquoise--whatever color is necessary, in fact, to affirm the basic conclusions of the chosen religion, while tacitly rejecting those of all other religions. You could argue that this is a form of "reasoning" except for one problem: put a Quran in front of a Christian, or the Hindu scriptures in front of a Jew, and suddenly the rules of "reasoning" seem rather different. Suddenly everything becomes questionable, no great effort is made to rationalize all the contradictory passages, nothing is assumed correct or morally good until proven. You might call this "reasoning" but it is reasoning that is colored, twisted, shackled and debilitated by, as I say, prejudice. The necessary corollary to having "faith" in something is rejecting books that contradict your faith; in other words, rejecting books you have not even read, or ideas you have not even considered. Again, prejudice.

But prejudices such as: "love one another as yourself," are polar opposites to, "All Asians are going to bomb us, so are the Muslims and black people are subhuman." One form of prejudice advocates respect and equality, while the other advocates disrespect and inequality. So I don't see how placing racism (and other problems which stem from human nature) on the same bar as religion is exactly fair. But to each their own opinion, I guess.

I think the caricature of prejudice, and the caricature of religion, which you describe is virtually nonexistent in the real world. Even slavery and segregation were justified by people who believed they had justice, love, fairness, and God on their side. Look at the modern anti-gay movements. Read the graduation speech one Mormon president delivered to BYU, how he preached love and kindness and in the same breath gently reminded the students that interracial relationships were probably not a good idea; how another time he mentioned that foreign Mormon converts were becoming "white and delightsome"; this is subtle and well-intentioned prejudice, i.e. real prejudice, and where do you think he got these ideas? He embraced them on faith from the Book of Mormon, and Church authorities, which like all real religions cannot be summarized by "love one another as yourself"; and like virtually all religions promotes prejudice of the mind. And like all prejudice (even "positive" prejudices, as I said, like "Blacks are good at basketball") it ought to be opposed, not embraced.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, what you are saying makes sense. But I also think you're spending time on subtleties, exceptions and nuances while ignoring the larger problem staring us in the face. Yes, religions can tolerate a special form of "reasoning" that allows shades of gray, orange, turquoise--whatever color is necessary, in fact, to affirm the basic conclusions of the chosen religion, while tacitly rejecting those of all other religions. You could argue that this is a form of "reasoning" except for one problem: put a Quran in front of a Christian, or the Hindu scriptures in front of a Jew, and suddenly the rules of "reasoning" seem rather different. Suddenly everything becomes questionable, no great effort is made to rationalize all the contradictory passages, nothing is assumed correct or morally good until proven. You might call this "reasoning" but it is reasoning that is colored, twisted, shackled and debilitated by, as I say, prejudice. The necessary corollary to having "faith" in something is rejecting books that contradict your faith; in other words, rejecting books you have not even read, or ideas you have not even considered. Again, prejudice.

I don't see how I'm ignoring the bigger picture. Instead, I think you are targetting a mindset that you don't agree with, simply because it seems to cause problems on the surface level.

People who have a certain outlook on reality will not only have come to their understanding based on some form of reasoning, but they will obstinately see their viewpoint as right. No argument. I mean, would you be inclined to look at Islamic scripture and perceive it as right? No? What about Christian scripture? No? What about a "well-established, well-supported" scientific article? Yes?

By your own reasoning, I think you might just be prejudiced, my friend. You seem to see the scientific method as the only right form of reasoning, and you base this ideology on the very premise of deductive reasoning. Wouldn't you say that this logic is rather circular? Science is no different from religion in that it is proven by itself.

I think the caricature of prejudice, and the caricature of religion, which you describe is virtually nonexistent in the real world. Even slavery and segregation were justified by people who believed they had justice, love, fairness, and God on their side. Look at the modern anti-gay movements. Read the graduation speech one Mormon president delivered to BYU, how he preached love and kindness and in the same breath gently reminded the students that interracial relationships were probably not a good idea; how another time he mentioned that foreign Mormon converts were becoming "white and delightsome"; this is subtle and well-intentioned prejudice, i.e. real prejudice, and where do you think he got these ideas? He embraced them on faith from the Book of Mormon, and Church authorities, which like all real religions cannot be summarized by "love one another as yourself"; and like virtually all religions promotes prejudice of the mind. And like all prejudice (even "positive" prejudices, as I said, like "Blacks are good at basketball") it ought to be opposed, not embraced.

It sounds as if you are against Fundamentalism and Exclusivism. While many people in religion will enact these frameworks, you will find that the religions themselves do not. It is a universal religious framework to accept one another, to treat everyone with respect and to maintain a basic sense of human dignity. It is only when people who twist their own scripture to best suit their own agenda that we have problems. It's the same with science, by the way. Have you heard of the Zimbardo study in 1970? This shows that even a researcher can contribute to human suffering by allowing people to harm others. Read up on it if you need more information.

As far as I know, Zimbardo was not acting on any traditionally religious beliefs, but instead, he was seeking knowledge. Just like a religious extremist, he was acting on the belief that the end justified the means. World problems such as racism, tribalism, fascism, war -- these are not caused by any one aspect of life such as religion or prejudice. I would argue that they are caused by certain innate faults in human nature. Apathy, Fundamentalism, hatred, jealousy, greed, revenge -- these are the enemies of humanity; not necessarily religion. Yes, religious Fundamentalism can cause these problems, but it is not the cause.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't see how I'm ignoring the bigger picture. Instead, I think you are targetting a mindset that you don't agree with, simply because it seems to cause problems on the surface level.

People who have a certain outlook on reality will not only have come to their understanding based on some form of reasoning, but they will obstinately see their viewpoint as right. No argument. I mean, would you be inclined to look at Islamic scripture and perceive it as right? No? What about Christian scripture? No? What about a "well-established, well-supported" scientific article? Yes?

You've put words in my mouth. I perceive some Islamic scripture as correct, some Christian scripture as correct, and some "well-established" scientific articles as correct.

By your own reasoning, I think you might just be prejudiced, my friend.

I know for a fact I am prejudiced, irrational, ignorant, etc. much of the time. I merely think the commitment to question, mitigate, and occasionally overcome one's own prejudices is a necessary first step. As I said, even when we make that first step, all our work is still ahead of us.

For example I used to believe very strongly the Bible was historically accurate. I felt certain there were WMD in Iraq and that the US would never capture and torture innocent people. I thought homosexuals were immoral deviants who had no right to marry. But I was committed to changing my mind even about dearly-held beliefs, if that is where the best information I could find, lead me. I have since changed my mind about all these things, not because I wanted to (far from it), but because I had to admit my positions weren't being born out by the best facts I could find. Whether my "flip-flopping" has lead me closer or further away from the truth, I can't claim to know, but isn't this at least the right idea? Isn't this, at least, a good way to form one's beliefs, if (necessarily) imperfect?

You seem to see the scientific method as the only right form of reasoning, and you base this ideology on the very premise of deductive reasoning. Wouldn't you say that this logic is rather circular? Science is no different from religion in that it is proven by itself.

A valid question, but I really think it's beside the point. The authorities of religion (Bible, Quran, churches, preachers) concede that "faith" involves a commitment to belief on insufficient evidence (even by their own conceptions of evidence--and I noted exceptions). The issue is whether or not this is a good thing, or (as I say) problematic. Issues about what counts as evidence, what is the best form of reasoning, etc. are separate questions; before we even look at those questions, we must address the issue of whether or not our beliefs should be based on evidence in principle.

Let me just ask you two questions:

In general, do religions value, promote, or strive for certainty that does not depend strictly on evidence and reason? (Keeping in mind the exceptions and self-contradicitons I noted in post #66.)

In general, is this certainty something we should strive for, or something we should try to overcome (even if we don't always succeed), in your opinion?

It's the same with science, by the way. Have you heard of the Zimbardo study in 1970? This shows that even a researcher can contribute to human suffering by allowing people to harm others. Read up on it if you need more information.

Again, as I've said: once we commit to using reason and evidence, all our work is still ahead of us. I am not saying this commitment is a sufficient condition, I am saying it is a necessary condition.

World problems such as racism, tribalism, fascism, war -- these are not caused by any one aspect of life such as religion or prejudice. I would argue that they are caused by certain innate faults in human nature. Apathy, Fundamentalism, hatred, jealousy, greed, revenge -- these are the enemies of humanity; not necessarily religion. Yes, religious Fundamentalism can cause these problems, but it is not the cause.

I completely agree, if by "non-Fundamentalist" religion you mean the best traditions of Unitarianism, Buddhism, reform Judaism, and other tiny minorities. There's no reason "faith" (as I've defined it, not the broader definition) must be implicated in community togetherness, beliefs, goals, charity drives, etc. But it IS, even in "mainstream" religion like the LDS Church or virtually all of Islam or the Catholic Church, right there I've just ticked off like 40% of Earth's population. There are gradations of "fundamentalism" but they all contain the seed of it, and just like racism it must be rejected even in its "mild" forms.

 

[DarkSun]

You've put words in my mouth. I perceive some Islamic scripture as correct, some Christian scripture as correct, and some "well-established" scientific articles as correct.

I know for a fact I am prejudiced, irrational, ignorant, etc. much of the time. I merely think the commitment to question, mitigate, and occasionally overcome one's own prejudices is a necessary first step. As I said, even when we make that first step, all our work is still ahead of us.

For example I used to believe very strongly the Bible was historically accurate. I felt certain there were WMD in Iraq and that the US would never capture and torture innocent people. I thought homosexuals were immoral deviants who had no right to marry. But I was committed to changing my mind even about dearly-held beliefs, if that is where the best information I could find, lead me. I have since changed my mind about all these things, not because I wanted to (far from it), but because I had to admit my positions weren't being born out by the best facts I could find. Whether my "flip-flopping" has lead me closer or further away from the truth, I can't claim to know, but isn't this at least the right idea? Isn't this, at least, a good way to form one's beliefs, if (necessarily) imperfect?

A valid question, but I really think it's beside the point. The authorities of religion (Bible, Quran, churches, preachers) concede that "faith" involves a commitment to belief on insufficient evidence (even by their own conceptions of evidence--and I noted exceptions). The issue is whether or not this is a good thing, or (as I say) problematic. Issues about what counts as evidence, what is the best form of reasoning, etc. are separate questions; before we even look at those questions, we must address the issue of whether or not our beliefs should be based on evidence in principle.

Let me just ask you two questions:

In general, do religions value, promote, or strive for certainty that does not depend strictly on evidence and reason? (Keeping in mind the exceptions and self-contradicitons I noted in post #66.) In general, is this certainty something we should strive for, or something we should try to overcome (even if we don't always succeed), in your opinion?

Again, as I've said: once we commit to using reason and evidence, all our work is still ahead of us. I am not saying this commitment is a sufficient condition, I am saying it is a necessary condition.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because even though I do have my own views and opinions, I do not see any one line of reasoning as inferior to another. Sufficient evidence and reason are subjective viewpoints which depend entirely on the individual.

By the way, the self contradictions listed on post sixty-six were not caused by religion or any form of reasoning, but through ignorance. It seems to me that most problems that have been linked to religion are instead caused by human faults such as this.

I completely agree, if by "non-Fundamentalist" religion you mean the best traditions of Unitarianism, Buddhism, reform Judaism, and other tiny minorities. There's no reason "faith" (as I've defined it, not the broader definition) must be implicated in community togetherness, beliefs, goals, charity drives, etc. But it IS, even in "mainstream" religion like the LDS Church or virtually all of Islam or the Catholic Church, right there I've just ticked off like 40% of Earth's population. There are gradations of "fundamentalism" but they all contain the seed of it, and just like racism it must be rejected even in its "mild" forms.

So we should get rid of science?

Definitions thanks to Dictionary and Thesaurus - Free Online at Your Dictionary

1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals
2. the 20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs
3. a strict adherence to or interpretation of a doctrine, set of principles, etc., as of a social, legal, political, or religious group or system.

Yes, I am against fundamentalism because it encourages the individual to reject new evidence which might have otherwise deepened their mindset. It also encourages Exclusivism to some extent, which means the outright ostracism of any person with differing beliefs, and this is even more detrimental. But, I don't think that people should reject their views simply because someone else perceives them as illogical.

 

[DarkSun]

You've put words in my mouth. I perceive some Islamic scripture as correct, some Christian scripture as correct, and some "well-established" scientific articles as correct.

Sorry about that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fair enough Dark Sun!

I think we largely agree, but we have a semantical difference.

You call it "Fundamentalism" and I call it "Religion". To me, the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, Sunni and Shiite Islam, and Hinduism do constitute "a strict adherence to or interpretation of a doctrine, set of principles, etc., as of a social, legal, political, or religious group or system." But we agree such a thing is problematic, and progressive forms of religion which reject this "Fundamentalism" are valuable.

 

[jaiwhowalks]

so your saying that love is only love if it is directed towards god, and that towards anyone or anything else it is mere lust?

Mundane love or lust is in forgetfulness of God. Therefore, it does not last. It is always followed by suffering or misery. Love for God is the highest platform of conscious existance. God - The Sweet Absolute is the root of all that exists. Once we begin to love the root, there will be perfect love for all that is conscious. This is the ultimate conclusion of all religious processes.

 

[DarkSun]

YouTube - Final fantasy 7 Dirge of Cerberus Part 12 The end