Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[AlexanderG]

This is a cool thread and an interesting topic.

As a skeptic and atheist, I think theology can only exist within a fundamentally flawed epistemology.

If you accept that your theology is merely an exercise of your personal imagination, then it can be useful as an introspective tool. You can explore your values, hopes, purpose, and other deep personal insights. However, if you want to claim or believe that these insights have any correspondence to the world outside of your thoughts and imagination, theology lacks any tools to justify such claims or beliefs.

All of the modern tools of reason and logic that we have discovered in our long march of progress, which have demonstrated again and again their ability to lead to accurate conclusions about reality, do not support any theological consideration that I'm aware of. If you accept such theological ideas, and use them as a conceptual scaffold for other ideas you find believable, then you're setting yourself up to believe a lot of false or unverifiable things. And yes, I think that can become a problem that can harm yourself and people around you.

 

[Nakosis]

Many atheists consider belief harmful.

True

They don't like authority.

Certainly they don't like supernatural authority

They argue for anarchy, but it is not real. They would call the police when it suits them.

No, maybe a few would like anarchy but then they certainly shouldn't be hypocritical about it.

They want to make their own version of morality. They want to act immorally if they so desire.
We can see what is happening in the west.
Political correctness is the order of the day.

I don't really make my own version of morality, it is more part of who I am. Some actions I feel are wrong. I don't choose to feel that way.
I'm not a fan of political correctness. Not a fan of anything political really.

I used to live in Eire. As most of you know, it is a Catholic country.
..or was. When I was there [ in 1986 ], laws were based on "what the Pope said", such as abortions were illegal, and contraceptives could not be publicly sold.
I went back a few years ago, and it seems that membership of the EU is more important now than the Pope.

..but I digress.
Theology is not harmful. It is disbelief in G-d that is harmful, imo.
It is hypocrisy that is harmful.

Why do you think non-belief is harmful?

 

[AlexanderG]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.
They argue for anarchy, but it is not real. They would call the police when it suits them.

They want to make their own version of morality. They want to act immorally if they so desire.
We can see what is happening in the west.
Political correctness is the order of the day.

I used to live in Eire. As most of you know, it is a Catholic country.
..or was. When I was there [ in 1986 ], laws were based on "what the Pope said", such as abortions were illegal, and contraceptives could not be publicly sold.
I went back a few years ago, and it seems that membership of the EU is more important now than the Pope.

..but I digress.
Theology is not harmful. It is disbelief in G-d that is harmful, imo.
It is hypocrisy that is harmful.

"Atheists don't like" "they want" "they desire." This false psychologizing is a good defense mechanism for the faithful, because it helps you stereotype everyone who disagrees with you as having ulterior motives and a bad character. It protects you from accepting that reasonable, well-intentioned people can honestly think that you're wrong. That can be a scary idea, I know, and it can get you to think more deeply about your own doubts.

However, I'm sorry to say you are simply projecting. When I drill down with theists, I very often come to the root of the issue which is that you want your beliefs to be true for emotional reasons. You need the hope, meaning and purpose, and you are terrified of how you'd live your life without the beliefs you blindly believe on faith? Maybe that's not you, though.

I honestly don't care if there's a god or not. But if there is, then I would want to know, because I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Unfortunately, there is no evidence or argument that currently indicate any god exists. And so I'm not convinced. And so I don't believe, because I don't believe things that are unconvincing and have no supporting evidence.

 

[epronovost]

@firedragon

Is your question about "theologies" as in religion or "theologies" as in the academical schools of study of religion?

In my opinion, religion, is, in general relatively harmless. Though it does have fewer qualities and than weaknesses, those weaknesses aren't large enough and consistent enough to make religion, in general, something harmful or bad. Theology, as in the academical schools of study of various faiths is mildly useful and most often harmless. Most expression of religion that could be considered downright harmful like violent sectarianism can be disarmed by theological studies.

 

[osgart]

Anything that sets out to paint picture of reality that is not true is harmful. Atheism is an honest position, not a deceitful one. So some theologies are blind to an honest atheist position.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon

Is your question about "theologies" as in religion or "theologies" as in the academical schools of study of religion?

In my opinion, religion, is, in general relatively harmless. Though it does have fewer qualities and than weaknesses, those weaknesses aren't large enough and consistent enough to make religion, in general, something harmful or bad. Theology, as in the academical schools of study of various faiths is mildly useful and most often harmless. Most expression of religion that could be considered downright harmful like violent sectarianism can be disarmed by theological studies.

I meant as religions.

I agree with you about theological studies. I dont wish to elaborate on that here, but that is a seriously deep thought.

 

[firedragon]

Half (49%) in a new global study agree that religion does more harm than good in the world, and 51% disagree,
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-study-shows-half-think-religion-does-more-harm-good

Do you mean like this? Doing more harm than good?

Opinion polls show opinions. Not even correspondence.

 

[firedragon]

I'd think that they say it because they consider them to be false, and holding on to error in the mind is considered harmful.

I voted "no" because I disagree that all of them are erroneous, and I think true theology is (one of?) the greatest thing for man to do.

See, even if some faith system is erroneous, does it really do harm by default?

 

[firedragon]

The philosophers made arguments. Some of them include that if we are prone to believe what we want as opposed to fact checking and basing belief on a firm basis, we can be deceived about others by false reputation and conjecture of people who speak falsehood and harm people. I see this is also confirmed in reality.

I dont know why you are on this tirade really. Anyway, to respect your post, what school of philosophy are from?

 

[Altfish]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.

Where do you get that from?
Belief certainly can be harmful (although not always) but authority can be good - teachers, most police, most armed forces, etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why do you think non-belief is harmful?

I didn't say non-belief .. I said DISbelief.
Disbelief usually entails aggressive opposition to Abrahamic religion.

 

[firedragon]

Anything that sets out to paint picture of reality that is not true is harmful. Atheism is an honest position, not a deceitful one. So some theologies are blind to an honest atheist position.

Do you contend that theology is just dishonest and atheism is just honest? Is not that a huge faith claim? Are you driven by faith?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Many atheists consider belief harmful. They don't like authority.
They argue for anarchy, but it is not real. They would call the police when it suits them.

They want to make their own version of morality. They want to act immorally if they so desire.
We can see what is happening in the west.
Political correctness is the order of the day.

I used to live in Eire. As most of you know, it is a Catholic country.
..or was. When I was there [ in 1986 ], laws were based on "what the Pope said", such as abortions were illegal, and contraceptives could not be publicly sold.
I went back a few years ago, and it seems that membership of the EU is more important now than the Pope.

..but I digress.
Theology is not harmful. It is disbelief in G-d that is harmful, imo.
It is hypocrisy that is harmful.

That is a straw man argument.

 

[firedragon]

"Atheists don't like" "they want" "they desire." This false psychologizing is a good defense mechanism for the faithful,

That itself is a "false psychologising used as a defence mechanism for the faithful". Exactly what you did.

This is the problem with making accusations like that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I very often come to the root of the issue which is that you want your beliefs to be true for emotional reasons. You need the hope, meaning and purpose, and you are terrified of how you'd live your life without the beliefs you blindly believe on faith?

I certainly need faith, but not for the reasons you suggest.
I need faith because I am aware what NOT having faith means.
It means that I will lose something that is valuable. Something that is good for me. It will be replaced with something inferior, which could lead to my downfall.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've heard it in the sense that humanity would be better off without it. That it does more harm than good. That to me is different than saying all theology is bad.

You might have a point. There is a distinction there.
And I'm (obviously) not suggesting atheists are all anti-theists, by any means.
But anti-theists exist, certainly. I guess it is (as you say) the distinction between being against certain beliefs and organisations, and shifting to holistically seeing all theism as bad.

 

[firedragon]

You might have a point. There is a distinction there.
And I'm (obviously) not suggesting atheists are all anti-theists, by any means.
But anti-theists exist, certainly. I guess it is (as you say) the distinction between being against certain beliefs and organisations, and shifting to holistically seeing all theism as bad.

Philosophers dont even get into the a-theist vs anti-theist argument anymore. They are just taking atheism as a given and defining different schools in atheism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

See, even if some faith system is erroneous, does it really do harm by default?

Thats an interesting topic. You may (or may not, which is fine) find this thread interesting.

The Utility of Religious Belief - question for theists (particularly non-traditional)

 

[firedragon]

Thats an interesting topic. You may (or may not, which is fine) find this thread interesting.

The Utility of Religious Belief - question for theists (particularly non-traditional)

Utilitarian?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Philosophers dont even get into the a-theist vs anti-theist argument anymore. They are just taking atheism as a given and defining different schools in atheism.

Which makes sense, to some degree. The majority of atheists I meet on a daily basis in Australia are pretty vague in their atheism, and might not even self-describe as such.

It's cultural, I guess, but you're likely to get a pretty non-committal answer if you asked a random person here about their religion. There are plenty of non-religious folk, but working out if they're still theistic, deistic, agnostic, atheistic...I mean, good luck.

So I'd say the majority don't belong to a school of thought at all.

But, of course, there are also those with a more structured set of beliefs built on top of their basic atheism, who have some common ground or understanding with other atheists, etc.

These could be fairly thought of as 'schools' of thought, I think.