Response to good of religion?
Posted on: September 14, 2006 - 7:24pm
Offline
Response to good of religion?
I posted the "why I hate religion" post I have elsewhere here on another site. Someone posted that it was one-sided, what about religious charites feeding the poor and helping the sick, or religions founding schools in developing countries? I would like some ideas for responses. The only ones I could think of was saying that was like mentioning the Autobahn or Volkswagen when discussing Adolph Hitler, or talking about the charities funded by Hamas.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Along with the "good" things they do, they force those recieving to receive the word of god. Thus adding more to their own number. Its not asmuch charity at times as it is blatant prostelizying to those who just need help.
I had thought of that but hadn't thought it strong enough at the time.
this is a critique and commentary on religious institutions. not religion.
In my opinion, the best response is to point out taht there is nothing unique to religion that allows people to be good. Whether we are talking about charity, being nice, or whatever, it is not religion that makes this possible. Attributing goods of religion to religion is a mis-appropriation of the good that humans do.
There may be a few people that do good for religious reasons, but the vast majority of people would act the same way they do now if they were to bcome atheists today. Good people claim religion as the reason because they have been told that religion is the source of morality; they are simply wrong. The only thing religion adds uniquely is some specific rules that are generally morally ambiguous, such as no sex outside of marriage (which most people ignore).
Thus, religion is not responsible for good. The good stuff people do is due to their own humanist ethics that would exist without religion.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
quote
and that is so true. everything that 'religious institutions' might do that is good, we could do just as good without them being religious. there's many insitutions that do good and do not have religion as their standard or their 'why' they do good... i mean, saying your motivation to do good is purely spiritual is pretty shameful anyways. why not do GOOD because you WANt to do good... not because a religion mandates it.
so if someone wants to be spiritual and doing good is part of being spiritual, how is it not true that the person wants to do good? does the only True Goode come from pure desire for the True Goode? not to mention the fact that this person almost certainly defines 'good' based on the religion, and im not sure youre going to find many people who answer 'purely spiritual' to the question 'why do you do good?'.
maybe they want to do good and, in so doing, believe that they are now spiritual?
perhaps someone concieves that being spiritual IS doing good (or vica-versa), and therefore when they do good works they are satisfying both sides as a duality?
works are neither the judge nor a vital mainstay of religion, only of the institutions which harbor them. the worth of religion lies squarely in the subjective realm. if you want to go do good works, then
however, again, good works is neither the worth nor the merit of religion. religion is purely subjective.
sorry i subplanted the word 'worth' for 'good'.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
"so if someone wants to be spiritual and doing good is part of being spiritual, how is it not true that the person wants to do good?"
there is no logical necessity for spirituality and goodness unless there is a preconcieved idea that goodness is seperate from god/spirituality. see it? people are predisposed to the presupposition that goodness is linked to god, which it is not. they may genuinely desire to do good, but there is no reason they should be linked with god. to give good the highest value, we should WANT to do good without any other reason besides us wanting to.
see, that's pretty much the issue, really. religion is not good. and i'm sure many will agree with me here, but there is nothing good about religion and i'll go even farther, niether is there anything generally good about spirituality. both take the focus off the real and devalue objective truths about reality, when we should be considering right HERE and right NOW. when we do what's good because we desire to eliminate pain of ourselves and/or others, then it's at it's at it's highest value.
and i never said there needed to be. instead, i mentioned aperson who considered that is how it was. and so, it is exactly as that for that person until that person decides otherwise.
this depends how you mean that. if you mean IS in the universal sense, then im going to claim thatyou dont actually know that. if you are saying is in the subjective sense, then i agree from your perspective and disagree from mine.
one reason might be that they desire to be linked with god
im just not sure i see any validity in someone saying a 'why you should do good'. i should do good for whatever reasons i decide to do good for and absolutely none others, as those would not be my reasons and, therefore, the actions would not be heartfelt. not that good done without heartfeeling is less good than others, just that you cant possibly make that distinction.
while i can understand your line of thought here, again, i just dont see a reason why i should take those comments on faith more than any other. additionally, i have been involved with religion my entire life and have never felt pressured to ignore either here or now
good's reason has no effect on good's value unless something external is keeping track
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
The idea that's there's some real difference makes no sense to me. A religious institution is made up of religious adherents.... what religious institutions do represents the religion.
What theists do, represents what theism is. I know that some people cling to the ideal that perhaps a 'true religion' has not yet been properly expressed on the instituational scale, but the reality is that what religious people do, represents what religion is.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
i consider that religion is a personal event while religious institution is the herding of personal religion.
what a theist does is representative of what a theist believes what theism is, though anyone who ascribes to some philosophy surely faulters at one point or another.
and i will certainly grant you that very many individuals simply give religion over to religious institution. i would argue the same is true in personal politics and political institutions
the harm of the abiders of the institution is testiment to what religion can do more than religion itself, though neither can i think of a time in the past when it has been used for actual good on a massive scale. it probably wont be happening anytime soon either.
i would quickly note, however, that i believe the same to be true for government (and in much the same way). it is for this reason that i believe the harmful aspect of the issue is actually demanding the perspective of the individual match some overarching norm rather than there being a system of belief, arbitrary or otherwise
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989