Draw up a list of perversions caused by religion:

Post Reply New Topic

Before I launch into the next round, perhaps I should clarify two different types of cause, which might serve to narrow our argument.

causa causans is the immediate cause of a result.

causa sine qua non literally "cause without which not" is a more remote cause, that is a necessary but not immediate cause of the result.

Consider a person who falls from a building because a balcony railing was improperly installed. The causa causans of that person's injuries is blunt force trauma caused by the person's impact on the ground. But that tells us the nature of the person's injuries, but not why those injuries occurred. Looking farther back to the causa sine qua non we understand that the faulty installation, and the failure to properly inspect are the real causes of injury.

I think our argument has a similar aspect. I see the perversions that are caused by religion (and I don't deny that they exist--I only deny their universality) as causae causans, which are masking more fundamental causes, rooted in tribalism.

I am not sure that this analogy is helping us get to your original thesis (which is my fault). You claimed that religion causes the perversion of intellectual stagnation as false sources are held up as inerrant works of truth.

While I agree with you that some religious traditions indulge in this perversion, I do not accept a claim that religion, in general, is the cause of this perversion. Nor do I accept that all religious traditions cause this perversion.




But I am not trying to exonerate either of them. In fact, I am coming much closer to the question of whether there is a common flaw than you are. You claim that religion causes intellectual stagnation--I claim that religious impediements to scientific inquiry are a symptom of a deeper human failing that manifests not merely in religion, but in other aspects of civilized society.

When religion seeks to inhibit scientific inquiry, it seems to me that religion is seeking to exercise political control. When corporations seek to inhibit scientific inquiry, it seems to me that they are seeking to exercise commercial control. The common root is the desire of these institutions to exercise control over people.

Now, religion is blameworthy when it seeks to do this--but I do not accept the premise that all religions seek to do this.

I am not here to pretend that all, or even some religions are fine upstanding things. I am here to attack the proposition that religion is the cause of these symptoms that you highlight.



An interesting distinction. But if that is the case then you rebut your own argument suggesting that religion causes stagnation, since the cultural effects of religion are felt strongly in our society. Look at the counter-revolution that is underway in the United States today. The impact of evangelical Christianity on American public life is undeniable--launching a full-frontal assault on secularism.

Again, we come back to the issue of control--religion becomes blameworthy when religion wades into politics.



Fair enough. But we are still left with the circumstances of the number of guns that do not cause people to die--indeed the number of guns that are specifically designed so that they will not cause death.

There are plenty of religious traditions that are free of the perversions that you claim--but it seems to me that you seek to tar all with the same brush.



At what point does historical activity become irrelevant? 1000 years? 100 years? 10 years? 10 minutes? I'm listening to Bach right now--is his music no longer relevant?

There are artists producing visual art, literature, drama and music at this very moment on religious themes. And while you might not like all of it, the purpose of art is not to please, but to provoke. All of it adds to our accumulated culture.



You are still left with the gaping hole that Roman Catholic clerical celibacy is exceptional, Protestant and Orthodox Christianity do not maintain it, Judaism does not maintain it. Islam does not maintain it.

Clerical celibacy is wrong, in my view, and has led to a great deal of harm. But this is a perversion of one, single church, not a perversion of religion in general.



But not all of them do, and you make no acconting for those that don't. This isn't picking at semantics, this goes directly to your use of the general term "religion" rather than directing your attacks at the specific examples of the general to which your attacks properly apply.

If you want to excoriate the Roman Catholic Church for its myriad sins, then by all means do so. But do not pretend that what you complain of from Roman Catholicism can be uncritically ascribed to the United Church of Canada, Reform Judaism or the Society of Friends (for examples).



Does aspirin cause crime? Aspirin is a drug, after all.

Or perhaps only illegal drugs cause crime? Well, that's a classic example of begging the question.

Let me repeat my counterthesis: There exist religious traditions that do not display the perversions of which you complain.

So long as even one bona fide religious tradition exists without these perversions, your thesis doesn't stand.



May. Speculation is not proof.

You claim Y (religion) causes X (perversion). Now, I will grant you that X existing independent of Y only disproves exclusivity. But what of Y existing independently of X? That is the cornerstone of my disagreement with you.



Your stating it does not make it so.

If you claim that religions cause dogmatism, then you have to explain the existence of religious traditions that are not dogmatic. They exist.



Taking the issuing back from the analogy to the case at hand--is your intent just to bash religion for the sake of bashing religion, or do you have a more meaningful intention here?

Can religion ever, in any circumstances, act for a positive purpose? Is this purpose worth preserving? Is it possible to excise the perversions that are caused by some religions and to preserve the positive benefits created by some religions?



With respect, I disagree. You have made no account in your argument for the examples of these perversions that exist outside a religious context. If, taken together with those that exist within a religious context, a common cause could be found--then religion in se would no longer be the culprit. I don't suggest that this is necessarily the case--but I do suggest that it is incumbent upon you to to address it.



I never claimed that no religion causes perversities. I have always conceded that some religious traditions are causae causans of perversion. My argument is that they might not be the causae sine qua non. This argument follows from two observations--the first is that X exists independently from the causation of Y, and there exist Y which do not cause X.



All well and good--but do you notice that you drop into my argument nicely here? The racism of Timmy's family may have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Bob and Sue's issues of heterosexism may be completely disconnected from religion. Even when religion appears to be a defining characteristic--such as anti-Semitic violence, the true nature of the violence is racist, not religious. When we blame religion without taking the underlying racism into account, we fail to properly understand the violence, which means that we can equally fail when trying to take steps to address it.

Now, it may well be that Timmy's family and Bob and Sue are all devoutly religious, and that their racism and heterosexism arise from religion. But what about Tom and Dick, the Quakers down the street, and Miriam and Esther, the Reform Jews nextdoor, who invite both Timmy and Jimmy to their childrens' birthdaty parties, and who treat Bob and Sue's children with respect and affection?



Well, if people ought to be given the truth, then that truth must be identified, and that's where epistemology rears itself.

I believe in the truth of evolution. I gather that you do to. Were I to have children, I would insist that their education included learning about our understanding of natural selection and evolution. But I do not for one moment believe that my understanding on any subject is relevant to other peopele and their children.

If I were to live in a jurisdiction where the teaching of evolution was banned, I would insist on the right to exercise control over my children's education. How can I insist on that right, and deny the same right to the parents who believes otherwise? I may not like what that other parents believe, and I may believe that the other parent are harming their children--but as you so rightly point out, we cannot legislate away all harm. We have to understand that harm may take place, and that we must mitigate it as best we can in a free and open society.



At the end you have nothing but denial to stand on?

I acknowledge that perversity exists. I acknowledge that some religions have been responsible for a great many wrongs.

Come back to me when you acknowledge that some religions are capable of good things, and can free themselves from the wrongs displayed by other religions.

Then we can get down to attacking the perversities, and confining religions to their proper spheres.

Pros and cons of religion topic

I am grouping all beliefs in god together for a contrast with its opposite, atheism.

Visagrunt's and AG's arguments each have merit. And In VG's case I would not throw out all theism. It works for him.
AG's atheism works for him, and it works for me, though in a different way.

The worst case scenario in religion is that it is narrow, bigoted, bullying (self-righteous) sexist, cruel (human sacrifice) and hateful of others' ideas. We all know this, though some people do not see themselves as practicing these negatives. Religious belief without self awareness is to me a perversion of justice and human decency that leads to violence and death. And belief in creationism and young earth silliness is absurdly ridiculous. VG's ideas about religion are sadly, quite rare, and so evolved, that I am surprised at their decency. And they are so far removed from fundamentalism it seems hard to believe that the same creator god is at the helm of each.

As it stands in my book, though, I am staying with my ideas of atheism for now. But both AG and VG have places at my table any time.

I am not a theist. I have no belief in a supernatural entity.

I defend religious belief not because it is personal to me, but rather because I believe that it is irresponsible to uncritically blame all religious practice for the faults of specific types of religious practice.



Thank you sartresue. I would be delighted to take up your invitation sometime.

Except this still isn't a relevant distinction at all. The idea that all problems stem from exactly ONE cause is just stupid. Let's just look at cancer, does it have ONE cause? Not in that deeper sense, no. It is caused by genetic factors making a person prone to it. It is caused by normal diet. It is caused by smoking. It is caused by radiation. Do I accept that religion is actually a deeper cause of the problems? Yes, yes I do.



Well, the issue is that non-religious instances of this are basically non-existent. This suggests that something about religion is quite likely the the source, even further, given that ideas of inerrant truths have arisen in multiple religious expressions relatively independently, we have good reason to think it is religion itself. (After all, Islam has an inerrant text, conservative Protestantism has an inerrant text, Catholicism, even if lacking an inerrant text, has an inerrant set of revealed truths)

Now, a major issue is that religions have historically focused around privileged truth claims and idols, which are given special power. In a number of religions, this happens to be a set of truth-claims. Is this just tribalism? Not really.... as sports teams are also sort of "tribalist" but no similar impulse ever arises in such frameworks.


Except that I am not actually looking towards that question. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Even further, you're likely not closer. You still seem pretty confused on the intellectual requirements you actually need to make your case.


Err..... no.

Corporations seek to make money. They don't seek to exercise control, they get control because they seek money.

Religions do not just seek political control either. In fact, often they aren't seeking political control ANYWAY, but instead want popular adherence to a dogma of theirs that is scientifically rejected(creationism) and/or to protect something they believe is somehow special(stem cells). In no sense are they seeking control for the sake of control. In fact, your analysis is so vague and broad that *literally* anything we talk about would fit into that category. There is no creature on earth that does not seek some control over its environment.


Ok? But religion is seeking to hinder science for non-monetary reasons, just saying "they want control" is.... empty and pointless.


No, the cultural effects of religion are actually waning. I apologize, but you're being fooled by bluster, as a major issue is that non-religion is on the rise probably to a greater extent than evangelism. As well, the cultural protections traditionally extended to religion are very obviously historically reduced, as most media openly violate issues sacred to Christians.

I mean, really this age is more defined by the full-frontal assault of atheist naturalism as the 4 horsemen are major public figures and protected ones when in past ages, they'd be struck down and not given the same attention.


Except that's not my claim at all. I somehow think you've reduced down reality to neat categories without any real connection to that reality. There is a society outside of politics, and things can screw it up without directly impacting the political arrangements.


Except that we aren't at all. Even further, unless we're stretching the label "gun" to include squirt guns, guns are specifically designed to cause death. We can say that they are controlled by a steady hand, or that guns game theoretically prevent excess in violence. I am not trying to take a political stand here, but the language is CLEAR, and you are being obtuse, likely due to some ideological motivation.(which I really do think you have)


Well, because I am focusing on current effects. "Current" isn't a difficult word. I already told you that I was focusing on current things. You somehow chose not to listen.


Actually the Orthodox do in some sense, they just allow people who have already married to maintain that marriage. Priests cannot get married though. Even further, it isn't a gaping hole once you realize that religions do warp sexual relations as part of their general nature. Most religions have odd sexual teachings. In Islam this includes female coverings. Just because an effect only happens in a specific religion doesn't mean that the cause isn't religion.


Except that this really is semantics. Your entire position is "I don't understand how English works and I'm too much of a f*****g pedant to get a clue". The attack works if the cause is religion. Catholicism is a religion. The restriction is religious in nature. Etc, etc.


Or perhaps by "drugs" I am referring to drugs in the colloquial sense as recreational chemicals that one inserts into the body, which as a category usually excludes medicines, but includes non-illegal chemicals such as alcohol. Could I just justifiably say that alcohol causes crime? Yes.

How about this: What if I still say "drugs" and admit that aspirin is a drug that does not cause crime. Is my claim now debunked? No, because my claim isn't likely intended in an overly pedantic manner where I have meticulously evaluated every drug, but rather the claim is meant as a blanket claim as we are not speaking in loglan.


Your counterthesis isn't a counterthesis. You simply do not understand language. I shouldn't have to educate somebody how the English language works. You're wrong. Period.


But correlation suggests causation. It doesn't require it. It can involve third variables. However, it certainly suggests.


Still doesn't necessarily do anything. Complex causation makes the entire matter more difficult in both situations. Multiple causes means that traits don't have to emerge in every single circumstance. Genes can cause obesity, but that gene doesn't entail everyone receiving it be obese. Your framework on this is still a failure.


You're right, you having it makes it so. I am not confusing my statement with reality. My statement is in accordance with a perceived reality.


No I do not. Just as I don't have to explain smokers without cancer, drinkers without cirrhosis of the liver, or any of these other things. My point here is just basic.


No. Religions are false. If we regard truth highly, we cannot just excuse falsehood. We have to condemn it.

Is it possible for religions to have positive impact? Yes, in certain places, instances, and circumstances. Just as drinking can have a positive impact on mental health if done right. But this doesn't mean that we ought to have every person with problems get way the hell drunk, as it can also cause problems, and is very likely to in many circumstances. (Note: Alcohol causes alcoholism, BUT one can drink without alcoholism occurring)


Ok, but we're talking about socially identified truths here.


Except that it does. If little Peter wants to become a biologist when he grows up, he needs to understand the most important biological theory. Same with geology. If he wants to understand science, we need to dissuade him from bad science. If he's to vote on topics, where evolutionary theory may be relevant, we need to make sure he has the right answer so that way people like him don't screw everybody else over. Finally, if he's a member of my community, I benefit from not having people who are miseducated around me, simply because stupidity is irritating.

I mean, even if we say it is a right, that doesn't mean we can't blame people for exercising it. I mean, it may be a right to objectify women, but that doesn't mean it IS right.


I believe children are being harmed if they do not learn it in public education, AND if public education is supported by my money, it should teach the truth, and as such, it will trample on parental beliefs.

Even further, I do not unconditionally believe in the right of parents to dominate their children's lives. While I regard it as important to respect parental rights, this is only on issues where variance is legitimate and where parental teachings have minimal threat to harm their children in the future in any form or fashion. So, as such, child abuse laws will still hold. Even further though, denial of education(which seems to follow from parental rights to control education) would have to be considered a form of abuse. (Note: I did not actually claim denial of evolutionary knowledge is abuse, only that denial of education is)


I genuinely think your arguments are terrible. Every time I ever engage you, I think the same thing. It's likely due to how your brain processes things, and I consider that processing issue to be a perversion. You miss reality but are so blind to the fact that you miss it, talking to you is a waste. If I weren't so compulsively argumentative, I'd actually be ignoring you right now.

In any case, I have nothing more to say to you. Your methodology is crap because you don't really understand how to read a language or how to deal with instances of complex causation which exist in multiple subject areas. You act as if the idea is somehow beyond your understanding. I don't like dealing with people like that.

Listed topic

I agree with your list, AG, if all these are forced, and if the religion is so cult like as to trap a person.

I see what Visagrunt was attempting to accomplish. There are some faith communities in which the above do not occur, as in the Metropolitan Community Church (special ministries for LGBT and other devalued peoples, which does not support celibacy, and a few other of the rest of the nine points).

Complex causation of perversions in religion works for the more oppressive cults and fundamentalist sects like the WBC, and in any politicized religious dogma. But people really want to belong, and engage in ritual that makes them feel special and comfortable, and will often choose the most harmful churches in which to accomplish this. Perhaps discovering and being aware of this tendency toward group nastiness, people can avoid this opiate of the masses. But I have no answers to this, as yet.

Yeah... Buddhism causes none of those 10 perversions. Nor does it cause the sinister perversion of the teleological/dysteleological argument.

I think the problems you talk about are just a result of unevolved thinking, which isn't really dependent on religion. There is unevolved thought everywhere, even among atheists (as you have clearly demonstrated regularly on these forums).

Of course.... atheism is a religion in a very meaningful sense.

Not so. Atheism offers no positive views. It is a denial of one kind or another.

ruveyn

I find myself often defending words from being pigeon-holed on this forum...

The first dictionary I checked had a definition for "religion"... "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Another has a definition that says "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Another will say " Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself."

I think you get the point.

Many atheists, including some here, pursue it with a religious fervor, and are consumed with a proselytizing mania. To deny this is foolish.

Atheism is not a religion. Misuse of dictionaries and attempts to reflect your own religious pursuits on atheists is not going to change that.

Words have many uses. They're neat.

Actually, Buddhism as it is really practiced in the countries where it comes from DOES have its own bad tendencies.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/

It's not perfect, but it is hardly equivalent to Catholicism. The author is entitled to his opinion, but it is clearly colored by his bitterness and resentment.

Nevertheless, I don't think you will ever find a group of people, philosophy, or tradition that doesn't have "bad tendencies". It's part of the human condition.

Of the ten perversions you listed and I was referring to, it would be a hard sell to claim that Buddhism caused any of them in a meaningful way.

That source looks just an opinion from a former buddhist, and it looks as a poor criticism, and that's about it, I was actually expecting it to better than that, such as how Buddhism is practiced in Asia and wether it relates to asian cultures more so than western culture and values, and the source doesn't get in to that as I was expecting it to be, given that you stated "practiced in the countries" in your post.

I don't know much about Buddhism, though, I do know that a religion can be changed to fit cultural changes or different cultural values, it has happened with Christianity, and I wonder how relevant cricitizing where the religion comes from is, actually.

Pointers topic

The "religion" to which AG referred in his OP is the sort of practical belief system that postulates a creater god as its driving force, including rituals, rules, rites and such that come with the system that support this being. Atheism does no such thing. None of the ten points raised by AG is practised by persons or groups who hold no belief in a supreme being/creator of life.

Atheists like AG are fed up with religious bullying of ideas that are unproven and silly, often fundamentalist literal thinking that leads to stagnation, dogma, threats and even death to those who do not repent and believe in a true saviour of humanity. All this would be as laughable as a Monty Python sketch if it were not for the violence and harm done to those who do not buy into such hype.

I am not as strident an Atheist (but an Atheist I am, and will be, for now) as many on WP. I think that other ideas, even beliefs, if not causing harm or leading to violence and can be shown to be positive, can co-exist peaceably with each other.

Honestly, I was looking for another source when I typed it out. It's just I couldn't find it, but found this source to be shorter and less informative, but still suitable.