Lovesong's seven deadly sins of religion.

[lovesong]

A while ago I devised what I call my seven deadly sins of religion. It's basically a list of seven tests to determine whether a religion is "bad" or overall harmful. @Quintessence requested I make a thread to discuss them, so here we go:

A religion is harmful if:
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

Thoughts? Do you disagree with any of these? If so, why?

 

[Riverwolf]

There are several warning-sign lists that are designed to help people know if the organization they're in is a "cult." (In the colloquial sense.)

You've pretty much nailed some of the key ones.

 

[Quintessence]

The contention I have with lists like this is that what constitutes "bad" or "harm" hinges on personal value judgements to a non-insignificant extent. I think this list mostly reflects the value of the person who writes it, and should be understood as such. I'll aim to compose a more thorough criticism later.

 

[lovesong]

The contention I have with lists like this is that what constitutes "bad" or "harm" hinges on personal value judgements to a non-insignificant extent. I think this list mostly reflects the value of the person who writes it, and should be understood as such. I'll aim to compose a more thorough criticism later.

I'm interested in how you come to that conclusion. How can any of those seven things be good?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

All this sounds a lot more like an atheist/ socialist state, like North Korea, than any religion I'm aware of.

 

[Father Heathen]

There are several warning-sign lists that are designed to help people know if the organization they're in is a "cult." (In the colloquial sense.)

You've pretty much nailed some of the key ones.

The problem with this is that sometimes the only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of adherents.

 

[Father Heathen]

1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

All this sounds a lot more like an atheist/ socialist state, like North Korea, than any religion I'm aware of.

Because atheists totally hate free thought, science, and sexuality.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem with this is that sometimes the only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of adherents.

Indeed.

Because atheists totally hate free thought, science, and sexuality.

Not so much the free thought one, but I do know of atheists who are just as sex-negative as any puritan, and hate science if nothing else because they're still bitter about Pluto and hate feathered dinosaurs.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not so much the free thought one, but I do know of atheists who are just as sex-negative as any puritan, and hate science if nothing else because they're still bitter about Pluto and hate feathered dinosaurs.

These sort of issues are due to personal hang-ups rather than with any sort of ideology or belief system.

 

[Riverwolf]

These sort of issues are due to personal hang-ups rather than with any sort of ideology or belief system.

Eh, the effect is still the same. At least in how it manifests externally to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A while ago I devised what I call my seven deadly sins of religion. It's basically a list of seven tests to determine whether a religion is "bad" or overall harmful. @Quintessence requested I make a thread to discuss them, so here we go:

A religion is harmful if:
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

Thoughts? Do you disagree with any of these? If so, why?

I would say that 6 and 7 may be far too general. After-all, someone could "really want to" murder, and religion preventing them from doing that could hardly be considered harmful. The inverse is, of course, true of number 7, as someone could "really not want to" give to charity, for example. I would probably elaborate that the specific activities would be directly harmful/not-harmful to the individual or others. For example:

6. It makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing the things they want to do, even if said activity harms nobody or is even beneficial to the individual and/or others.
7. It makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do, even if said activity is harmful to someone or is not beneficial to the individual and/or others.

These would probably still run head-first into Quintessence's objection on the grounds of defining "harm" and "benefit" in an objective manner, though.

 

[lovesong]

I would say that 6 and 7 may be far too general. After-all, someone could "really want to" murder, and religion preventing them from doing that could hardly be considered harmful. The inverse is, of course, true of number 7, as someone could "really not want to" give to charity, for example. I would probably elaborate that the specific activities would be directly harmful/not-harmful to the individual or others. For example:

6. It makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing the things they want to do, even if said activity harms nobody or is even beneficial to the individual and/or others.
7. It makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do, even if said activity is harmful to someone or is not beneficial to the individual and/or others.

These would probably still run head-first into Quintessence's objection on the grounds of defining "harm" and "benefit" in an objective manner, though.

Yes I did sort of mean it in that way. The things I had in mind were every day things. "I really want steak but it's friday and my Catholic religion says I'm in trouble if I eat it." "I really don't want to do this volunteer work but my religion says if I don't then I'm going to hell!" These are the kinds of things I'm talking about, where religion steps in and makes people feel bad about themselves for going about daily life as they please.

 

[Riverwolf]

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about, where religion steps in and makes people feel bad about themselves for going about daily life as they please.

That can be a sign of a dangerous organization, but it also does depend on what "daily life" means, since it can vary wildly from culture to culture. Many of these taboos are rooted in practices that were once solutions to problems that don't exist anymore. Their presence isn't necessarily a sign of anything unhealthy.

A cult, however, is far, far more insideous. They seek to control people to the point of dehumanization, stalking, emotional abuse and manipulation, and/or cutting them off from all things "outside", "not in line", or "evil." They also tend to be ruled by highly charismatic leaders who either claim to be deities, or have the ability to speak for deities. They also frequently ask for money under the guise of various metaphors.

 

[Sees]

I agree for the most part.

For 6 and 7 - I think some in society are actually better off with accepting micromanaging...they don't have the will or capability to flourish without a high level of authoritative guidance - the conditioning necessary for it will vary. I can instantly think of dozens upon dozens. Being idealistic it's bad juju but realistically...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree with all of them in a general sense when making a decision of what religion or spiritual lifestyle to follow. These two below kind of went off the path of objective criteria to determine if any religion is worth following.

3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.

As a general criteria to determine what religion to follow, in my honest opinion, the only religion I know that denies science to the point of not tending to a person's well being is Quakers (that or another Q name. It's on the tip of my tongue). However, that is what I heard they depend only on god and no medical treatment whatsoever to help with their ailments.

Most nuns in monasteries have medical. A lot of vocations have to do with tending to the health of others.

Maybe it would make more sense to say it's a deadly sin if any religion denies medical treatment as opposed to any source as a substitute for cure. Eastern religions included.

In other words, other than Quakers and maybe other religions I don't know in other countries, even folk religions, no other mainstream one seems to deny technology and medical advancements. They just know, for example, it wasn't the doctor that cured the patient but god who gave the doctor the skills to do so, type of thing.

4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.

This one maybe for Abrahamic religions. However, to say objectively when finding what religion is healthy and what is not, this one is a bit more towards a certain audience not religions in general.

Instead of "eternal torture" since that's only specific to a few religions, maybe any religion that promotes bad consequences (cant' think of the right word) for not following the rules of that given faith.

The rest sounds general so we can safely judge whether a religion is healthy or not by looking at those criteria of whether it falls under being a sin (or cult?) or not.

That's my thoughts.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

Suggested revision, is all. Nos. 6 and 7 are a bit trickier and more subjective than the others; but not so much as the relativist would try to make them out to be.

A couple points I'd add to 6 and 7:

• I'd include "harmful" in the statement
• Unless you're a philosophy major or an ultra-liberal/ultra-conservative (or whatever), it's really not that hard to figure out what is and is not harmful.
• One should not be shamed for "wanting" to perform harmful actions. *gasp*!! No, really. I mean that. Recovering addicts and alcoholics, former criminal offenders who resist their urges to he harmful towards others, a normal person who encounters that shocking intrusive thought that all people have from time to time; they should not be shamed for having psychological issues provided that their efforts and behavior are focused towards doing no more harm.

So, I would personally rewrite Nos. 6 and 7 as thus:

6. It makes people feel bad for thinking, doing or wanting to do unharmfull things and stops them from doing it.
7 It makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, harmful things.

 

[Nous]

A religion is harmful if:

6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.

So, if a person wants to commit rape or arson or cheat on his taxes or destroy the environment for his own pleasure, a religion shouldn’t preach against it? A religion is harmful for discouraging people to engage in these behaviors?

I think you need to re-think #6.

3. it . . . discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.

A religion is harmful if it discourages the development of nuclear weaponry or the use of ineffective or harmful drugs?

Many scientists have discouraged genetic engineering or modification of the germline in humans, and some 40 countries ban it by law. The FDA has a policy against approving such proposals. Are these laws and policies harmful?

Just because humans can develop a technology definitely doesn’t mean that the technology is good. I certainly don’t consider the Amish “harmful” for shunning the use of much modern technology. Indeed, I think their lives are enviable in many ways for it.

 

[Nous]

Unless you're a philosophy major or an ultra-liberal/ultra-conservative (or whatever), it's really not that hard to figure out what is and is not harmful.

The FDA and other countries' regulatory agencies have often demonstrated the inability to determine what drugs cause more harm than benefit.

Just a few years ago, hardly anyone understand how harmful it is to pour massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or how harmful it is for humans to raise, use, slaughter and eat other animals.

 

[Revoltingest]

A while ago I devised what I call my seven deadly sins of religion. It's basically a list of seven tests to determine whether a religion is "bad" or overall harmful. @Quintessence requested I make a thread to discuss them, so here we go:

A religion is harmful if:
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

Thoughts? Do you disagree with any of these? If so, why?

It looks like Revoltifarianism survives your scrutiny.

 

[lovesong]

A religion is harmful if it discourages the development of nuclear weaponry or the use of ineffective or harmful drugs?

Many scientists have discouraged genetic engineering or modification of the germline in humans, and some 40 countries ban it by law. The FDA has a policy against approving such proposals. Are these laws and policies harmful?

Yes. Religion should not discourage any scientific or medical advancements. The FDA is not a religious organization and makes its decisions based on trials and research, not religious reasoning. It shouldn't take threats of an angry god not to use a harmful drug, it should take studies showing that the drug is harmful.

Just because humans can develop a technology definitely doesn’t mean that the technology is good. I certainly don’t consider the Amish “harmful” for shunning the use of much modern technology. Indeed, I think their lives are enviable in many ways for it.

No the Amish themselves are not harmful, but their way of life based on their religion is. They reject all science and technology and teach submission or else you'll face torture. This lifestyle puts their children at a huge disadvantage if they decide they want to join the rest of society two blocks over and at times does scare them into obeying the Amish rules. Have you ever spoken to an ex-Amish? I've seen documentaries on the subject and have actually talked to one. They find it incredibly hard to catch up with the society they're escaping into and can find themselves scared and almost betrayed by the strict religious views that were imposed on them.