Only religion makes people good?

[Varaj]

You know that is one of the things that scares me about a lot of organized religious folks, they regularly say without religion they would be bad people. It is something not backed up at all by research, but why do they think organized religion is required to be good?

[Dr_Avalanche]

You know that is one of the things that scares me about a lot of organized religious folks, they regularly say without religion they would be bad people. It is something not backed up at all by research, but why do they think organized religion is required to be good?

Because only fear (of divine retribution) will get them in line?

If that is the case, I guess I'm happy that religion is there for them. I manage without, but if countless sociopaths are being held back by their belief in the Wrath of God, awesome.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

One of the problems here is that the "how can we be good without God" argument is actually several different arguments misleadingly grouped under the same label.

First, the argument from scripture: How can we know what's good without a book of rules, like the Bible? This is the one that Dawkins is great at squashing with his "cherry picking" point. The Bible is full of horrible acts and examples and recommendations. It also contains some very kind and good acts and examples and rules. Yet most Christians don't follow the former any more but continue to follow the latter. How do they chose? What do they use to cherry pick? It's not something in the Bible, it's something in the reader. And if our moral sense exists in us and allows us to pick the good bits of the Bible from the bad, what do we need the Bible for except as one among many collections of moral propositions on which to use our moral sense?

Secondly, there's the Platonic "by what standard" argument: Granted we have an innate moral sense, but how can we know what's right and wrong if there is no absolute standard of right in the universe? Doesn't our ability to recognise that some acts are good and others evil imply that there must somewhere exist a perfect thing of goodness to be the standard? Doesn't our moral sense itself act as evidence of the existence of God? Here the error is epistemological: of course we can judge degrees of something even though a perfect sample of that something does not really exist. Nowhere in reality is there such a thing a perfectly straight line. Yet we are easily able to judge and even rank the straightness of connections between two points in the real world with relative ease – this hand drawn line on this piece of paper is straighter than that one, this rooftop is straighter than that one, the path of this meteor is straighter than that one, etc.

Thirdly, and related to the second version, is the "origins of morality" argument: Granted we have a moral sense, but where did that come from? It can't have evolved, because it often gets us to do things that aren't selfish, even in the sense of enlightened selfishness. This argument misunderstands Dawkins' "selfish gene" point. We are genuinely altruistic because our genes are "selfish". A gene for genuinely altruistic behaviour will have a reproductive advantage if its carriers live in groups of largely related individuals. By risking its life for the group because of the genuine altruism given to it by the gene, one carrier of that gene will increase the reproductive chances of other carriers of the same gene. That is to say, evolution has given us what Dawkins calls a "lust to be good" much in the way it has given us a lust to have sex. Does this mean that altruism only makes sense if its for relatives? Only in the sense that sex doesn't "make sense" if its not done for procreation and love doesn't make sense if its not being used to solidify a pair-bond for twenty or so years to best ensure the survival of offspring. The evolutionary explanation for an urge is not the same as a justification for why we should, as rational creatures, promote or fight that urge.

Finally, there's the sanction argument: Why be good if there's no comeuppance in the afterlife? The answer hear is really one that was provided by the ancients - virtue or self-respect. We judge the moral acts of others and think well or ill of them as a result. But we also do the same of ourselves. Self-hatred is actually one of the worst psychological tortures one can suffer. An important part of mental health is having a good reputation with oneself. With our reputations with others, we can gain a good one be either actually being good, or by tricking our audience into believing we are good. But with our reputations with ourselves, the latter course involves a level of self-deception that is itself mentally unhealthy. Good deeds really are, as it turns out, their own reward.

Mirror neurones. Recent studies on primates have shown the existence of mirror neurones. When a monkey experiences pain from, say, being kicked in the testicles, several neurones can be observed to fire in his brain. But if the same monkey then observes *another* monkey being kicked in the testicles, a few (not all) of those same neurones fire in the *observing* monkey's brain. It seems these neurones evolved as the means by which primates learn skills from each other: observe the other doing the skill, feel which mirror neurones fire, then try to make the same mirror neurones fire by doing the action, repeat, refine, learn skill. But a side effect was the ability to feel the pain and pleasure of others. This new capacity allowed altruism to develop, and that mutation propagated because of the reproduction-enhancing properties of altruism discussed above. However, in gene's-eye perspective, altruism is a two edged sword. It's great if your carriers sacrifice themselves for other carriers, but it sucks if your carriers start sacrificing themselves for non-carriers. The solution is "taming" of the empathy/altruism characteristic be the evolution of in-group vs out-group thinking. What evolved (one suspects both genetically and culturally) was a distinction between the in-group, where empathy was appropriate (and whose members were likely to carry many of the same genes); and out-groups, where empathy was blocked or even turned into its dark twin antipathy – the tendency of animals to feel the pain of others and *enjoy* it.

Moral progress. The story of moral progress is the story of the marriage between the brute facts of our evolved capacity for empathy and our evolved capacity for reason. As we apply our reason to our urge to be good to others, and as we become more interconnected with strangers, we see fewer and fewer reasons to put people into the "out group". Our psychological "in group" expands and expands until in some people it extends not just to the whole human race, but to sentient animals as well. Of course there are gradations: seeing my wife happy gives me more pleasure (and seeing her in pain causes me more suffering) than seeing, say, Richard Dawkins happy (or in pain). And Richard Dawkins' happiness matters more to me that that of George W Bush (though I'd still feel a little bit bad for him if he were in pain). But there are very few people in my "out-group" and I feel ashamed about the fact that I feel that way even for them.

Christianity's historic role. Has Christianity had anything to do with this moral development? Yes. It's helped. Just as alchemy made some discoveries that were built on by chemistry and astrology made some discoveries (mostly in the field of cataloguing facts, but still useful discoveries) that have been built on by astronomy; Christianity made or widely propagated several moral innovations that modern secular humanist moral philosophy has built upon. But it's also contaminated the stream with some bad ideas. Just as there is no evidence that one can turn lead into gold and there is no evidence that the movements of the planet Venus affect my destiny; there is no evidence that there is an afterlife in which kindness to strangers is rewarded and worship of other gods is punished. But that doesn't change the fact that kindness to strangers is a good idea that was widely propagated by Christianity in the past (just as true knowledge of certain chemical reactions was propagated by alchemy in the past).

[The above is an edited version of something I posted at RichardDawkins.net a few months back.]

[Goblin Girl]

Christianity's historic role. Has Christianity had anything to do with this moral development? Yes. It's helped. Just as alchemy made some discoveries that were built on by chemistry and astrology made some discoveries (mostly in the field of cataloguing facts, but still useful discoveries) that have been built on by astronomy; Christianity made or widely propagated several moral innovations that modern secular humanist moral philosophy has built upon. But it's also contaminated the stream with some bad ideas. Just as there is no evidence that one can turn lead into gold and there is no evidence that the movements of the planet Venus affect my destiny; there is no evidence that there is an afterlife in which kindness to strangers is rewarded and worship of other gods is punished. But that doesn't change the fact that kindness to strangers is a good idea that was widely propagated by Christianity in the past (just as true knowledge of certain chemical reactions was propagated by alchemy in the past).

I'm no religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't actually believe that. OK, maybe Catholics still do, I honestly have no idea. But this was one of Martin Luther's main bugaboos. Grace, not works, gets one into heaven, according to standard protestant doctrine. The reason to do good things is, as I understand it, because it might make bring other people to Christianity, not because the person doing the good works gets anything out of it.

[Goblin Girl]

You know that is one of the things that scares me about a lot of organized religious folks, they regularly say without religion they would be bad people. It is something not backed up at all by research, but why do they think organized religion is required to be good?

I sometimes fantasize that if I wouldn't suffer the consequences for it, I would off a few really annoying people. But the truth is, I am not actually capable of killing someone. It's just a daydream.

I think when people say that only religion is holding them back, it's the same thing. Possibly they are so lacking in critical thinking skills (like 90% of the populace) that they believe what they're saying, but I think it's a daydream nonetheless.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm no religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't actually believe that. OK, maybe Catholics still do, I honestly have no idea. But this was one of Martin Luther's main bugaboos. Grace, not works, gets one into heaven, according to standard protestant doctrine. The reason to do good things is, as I understand it, because it might make bring other people to Christianity, not because the person doing the good works gets anything out of it.

You are correct, that particular crazy unfounded belief is held only by certain sects of chestians' including IIRC, Catholics, Anglicans and the orthodox.

[Goblin Girl]

I wonder if there is still a market for indulgences? I've been looking for an excuse to buy a color laser printer.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

You are correct, that particular crazy unfounded belief is held only by certain sects of chestians' including IIRC, Catholics, Anglicans and the orthodox.

Goblin Girl is correct. In mainstream Christianity, good deeds are supposed to be their own reward. Good deeds will not get you into heaven or improve your standing in God's eyes

Back to the OP: I suspect that one needs an ideology (even if it's something like humanism) to communicate shared values within a community - in order to know whether a deed is "good" or not there needs to be a standard. And a standard requires a religion: theistic or atheistic

[Pigs in Space]

You know that is one of the things that scares me about a lot of organized religious folks, they regularly say without religion they would be bad people. It is something not backed up at all by research, but why do they think organized religion is required to be good?

Maybe they're just not that bright?

Maybe they have never thought it through.

I'm keen on the "morality of consequence". Basically, you ask yourself, "If everyone behaved like this, what would be the end result?" And if it's an end result that isn't causing general mayhem, then go for it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Maybe they're just not that bright?

Maybe they have never thought it through.

I'm keen on the "morality of consequence". Basically, you ask yourself, "If everyone behaved like this, what would be the end result?" And if it's an end result that isn't causing general mayhem, then go for it.

Who do you think you are, Kant? ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Goblin Girl is correct. In mainstream Christianity, good deeds are supposed to be their own reward. Good deeds will not get you into heaven or improve your standing in God's eyes.

That might be the doctrine, but polls indicate most ordinary pew-sitters believe the other version. It's a side-issue though, so we needn't get distracted.

Back to the OP: I suspect that one needs an ideology (even if it's something like humanism) to communicate shared values within a community - in order to know whether a deed is "good" or not there needs to be a standard. And a standard requires a religion: theistic or atheistic

I think that's a dangerously misleading equivocation on the word "religion".

Undeniably a society needs shared story or ideology of cohesion to communicate shared values, but there's no reason for that story to include the necessity to believe in metaphysical entities on inadequate evidence or without good reasons.

Indeed, the liberal democracies (and US states) that exhibit the lowest levels of religious belief tend to have the highest levels of social cohesion and harmony...

[Pigs in Space]

Who do you think you are, Kant? ;)

Like I've got time to read philosophy. I'm too busy being witty and wondering whether or not it's ok to ram people off the road in road rage incidents.

Answer: If I had a bigger car it would be ok. But then only if everyone had bigger cars. That would make this the US. That wouldn't be cool, but I could totally go a 45 liter coke right now.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I guess you're right, Varaj... maybe in my attempts to not villify the church I am over-eager to sing their praises.

[strawberry]

I've always seen it as a bit self-fullfilling. I was taught that humans are innately sinful... so we need god/religion to give us a reason to be good. But if the religion wasn't there would we still be innately sinful, or is that only because we were only human compared to god in the first place? It just goes in circles.

But really, and I don't know why this is, but doing things for their own sake doesn't seem to be very rewarding for a lot of people. I don't know if that's just the way our brains work or if that's what we're taught.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I've always seen it as a bit self-fullfilling. I was taught that humans are innately sinful... so we need god/religion to give us a reason to be good. But if the religion wasn't there would we still be innately sinful, or is that only because we were only human compared to god in the first place? It just goes in circles.

But really, and I don't know why this is, but doing things for their own sake doesn't seem to be very rewarding for a lot of people. I don't know if that's just the way our brains work or if that's what we're taught.

Yet highly atheistic liberal democracies, like Sweden, have extremely low rates of crime and very high rates of generosity...

[strawberry]

Yet highly atheistic liberal democracies, like Sweden, have extremely low rates of crime and very high rates of generosity...

Well that's obviously because Americans are a bunch of assbags. :grey:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Well that's obviously because Americans are a bunch of assbags. :grey:

I don't think so.

[Goblin Girl]

But really, and I don't know why this is, but doing things for their own sake doesn't seem to be very rewarding for a lot of people.

Just the other day I ran across a children's picture book about Martin Luther. According to the book, we aren't supposed to enjoy anything too much, because that will make it harder to long for God in heaven. So I guess if kindness and charity aren't rewarding, that's an even better reason to do them...at least according to Luther. :grey:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Just the other day I ran across a children's picture book about Martin Luther. According to the book, we aren't supposed to enjoy anything too much, because that will make it harder to long for God in heaven. So I guess if kindness and charity aren't rewarding, that's an even better reason to do them...at least according to Luther. :grey:

Quite possibly. Luther was a bit of an asshat sometimes

Undeniably a society needs shared story or ideology of cohesion to communicate shared values, but there's no reason for that story to include the necessity to believe in metaphysical entities on inadequate evidence or without good reasons.

For example: memes

Yet highly atheistic liberal democracies, like Sweden, have extremely low rates of crime and very high rates of generosity...

Coincidence is not causality. It could quite easily work the other way round. If we postulate that Marx was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_masses), then there would be less need for religion in a society with low levels of crime and disorder and high levels of social cohesion

[Northcott]

You know that is one of the things that scares me about a lot of organized religious folks, they regularly say without religion they would be bad people. It is something not backed up at all by research, but why do they think organized religion is required to be good?

That's a commonality among any group that fosters an "us vs. them" mentality. It doesn't make it less scary, it just gives a different perspective to looking at it. A religious nut will tell you that things that are not religion are innately flawed, an atheist nut will tell you that things that are religion are innately flawed, a capitalist nut will get himself into a frothy little orgasm about the evils of socialism, a socialist will... blah, blah, blah.

When the point of their self-identification has become so fixated upon a single philosophy or outside authority, that authority becomes 'the good'. Therefore if they didn't follow their political cult of the day, they would likely be bad -- as they can't imagine what lays outside the bounds.

People freak me out.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

For example: memes

Huh? All ideas are memes. Science and empiricism are memes. (Indeed, if Daneil Dennet is right, consciousness itself is a meme.) Some memes happen to be supportable as truth statements, others aren't.

Coincidence is not causality. It could quite easily work the other way round. If we postulate that Marx was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_masses), then there would be less need for religion in a society with low levels of crime and disorder and high levels of social cohesion

But my point wasn't causality, it was non-causality.

That is to say, my point was that high moral standards and social cohesion can exist within societies that are pretty much atheistic. I wasn't saying "atheism makes people good". I was saying "atheism doesn't make people bad? as demonstrated by this trend for atheistic societies to be very healthy and to get healthier as they get more atheistic.

There might be a common cause. The causality might go the other way (though that's going to be difficult to argue given that, as these societies get more atheistic, the tend to get more healthy). It might be that religion is a useful "barrier crop" until morality grows to a certain level and then it gets in the way of further growth (my personal guess btw). But that doesn't touch my point.

As for coincidence (rather than common cause), I don't think that's a sustainable explanation given the evidence.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Huh? All ideas are memes.

What's an idea if it isn't a metaphysical construct?

That is to say, my point was that high moral standards and social cohesion can exist within societies that are pretty much atheistic. I wasn't saying "atheism makes people good". I was saying "atheism doesn't make people bad? as demonstrated by this trend for atheistic societies to be very healthy and to get healthier as they get more atheistic.

There might be a common cause. The causality might go the other way (though that's going to be difficult to argue given that, as these societies get more atheistic, the tend to get more healthy). It might be that religion is a useful "barrier crop" until morality grows to a certain level and then it gets in the way of further growth (my personal guess btw). But that doesn't touch my point.

I think we're in agreement

[Atticus_of_Amber]

What's an idea if it isn't a metaphysical construct?

So you're a Platonist? Wow.

No. Ideas aren't metaphysical. They're software running on a squishy meat computer - I think.

I think we're in agreement

Not sure about that. You seemed to be saying that religion was necessary for a moral society. Perhaps I misunderstood you?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

So you're a Platonist? Wow

Kind of. Neo-platonist perhaps. Big Alan Moore fan.

No. Ideas aren't metaphysical. They're software running on a squishy meat computer - I think.

Software's also metaphysical construct. As are stories. (and I say this both as a writer and a computer programmer).

You can point to the book, but that's just a recording of the story; you can point to the disk, but that's just a recording of the software; you can point to the CD, but song doesn't really exist until it's played

Not sure about that. You seemed to be saying that religion was necessary for a moral society. Perhaps I misunderstood you?

To communicate what is considered moral and immoral within a society you need a shared ideology, a shared story. I'm choosing to call this shared story "religion" at least in part because it annoys you

[Goblin Girl]

I'm choosing to call this shared story "religion" at least in part because it annoys you
There is now coffee on my monitor. :lol:

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I don't think so.

Tiny, homogenous population all crowded together?

The Irish/Italian/PR/you call it neighborhoods in New York will probably show high degrees of helpfulness within their own areas, but when you mix them up I'm sure everything goes to shit. You only have to look at the Netherlands to see what happens when you mix things up.

[Eliezer]

I'm just going to take a different tack on this one.

Socially, religion is a common component of almost all societies and civilizations. As a matter of fact, the world historians Will & Ariel Durant were led to the conclusion that when philosophy took over religion then a civilization would fall. In their writing they were decidedly atheistic. They acknowledged that religion was unscientific and nothing more than myth, but the believed that the myth played a critical role in the formation of civil society.

I don't know that religion is the only mechanism for teaching morality, but I don't know that as a species we have evolved to the point that religion is no longer necessary even if it isn't for the sake of teaching morality.

But there is on going research into the subject and why religion/myths play such a critical role in the formation of civilization and I'd like to see more of that research before I draw any conclusions.

[Northcott]

But there is on going research into the subject and why religion/myths play such a critical role in the formation of civilization and I'd like to see more of that research before I draw any conclusions.

HOW DARE YOU BRING YOUR RATIONAL THOUGHT HERE?!? :what:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm just going to take a different tack on this one.

Socially, religion is a common component of almost all societies and civilizations. As a matter of fact, the world historians Will & Ariel Durant were led to the conclusion that when philosophy took over religion then a civilization would fall. In their writing they were decidedly atheistic. They acknowledged that religion was unscientific and nothing more than myth, but the believed that the myth played a critical role in the formation of civil society.

I don't know that religion is the only mechanism for teaching morality, but I don't know that as a species we have evolved to the point that religion is no longer necessary even if it isn't for the sake of teaching morality.

But there is on going research into the subject and why religion/myths play such a critical role in the formation of civilization and I'd like to see more of that research before I draw any conclusions.

I don't think that's a "different tack" at all. That's pretty much my view.

If you want a really good discussion of the latest research on the evolutionary, psychological and social role of religion I highly recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural Phenomenon.

[Eliezer]

I don't think that's a "different tack" at all. That's pretty much my view.

If you want a really good discussion of the latest research on the evolutionary, psychological and social role of religion I highly recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural Phenomenon.

I may need to check out that book. He does provide an interesting definition of religion: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought."

In the Amazon.com review (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X) Dennett's take on the subject of calling religion a parasite seems very slanted. I think before we try to take religion apart because we feel that it's doing harm we ought to understand why it has historically been so involved in the formation of civilizations. Why has religion conferred an evolutionary/survival benefit? It takes a lot of time and effort that has no direct survival benefit so the question of what the survival benefit is or was is very critical in my mind. In this regard I am extremely conservative. I'd rather understand the status quo or change it slightly than to try to make the radical changes advocated by many... At least not yet, not until I understand the implications and likely results better.

Will and Ariel Durant firmly held the opinion that the new student of history and sociology should be very, very careful in casting aspersions on religion. Just because it is not a perfect system does not mean it does not serve its purpose.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I may need to check out that book. He does provide an interesting definition of religion: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought."

In the Amazon.com review (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X) Dennett's take on the subject of calling religion a parasite seems very slanted. I think before we try to take religion apart because we feel that it's doing harm we ought to understand why it has historically been so involved in the formation of civilizations. Why has religion conferred an evolutionary/survival benefit? It takes a lot of time and effort that has no direct survival benefit so the question of what the survival benefit is or was is very critical in my mind. In this regard I am extremely conservative. I'd rather understand the status quo or change it slightly than to try to make the radical changes advocated by many... At least not yet, not until I understand the implications and likely results better.

Will and Ariel Durant firmly held the opinion that the new student of history and sociology should be very, very careful in casting aspersions on religion. Just because it is not a perfect system does not mean it does not serve its purpose.

You misunderstand. A meme isn't a parasite. Science is a meme. Liberalism is a meme. Human rights are memes. According to Dennett's other work, consciousness itself is a meme.

Memes are analogous to symbients. They can be helpful, neutral or harmful (parasitic) to their carriers. Indeed, the same symbient can be helpful in some circumstances and harmful in others...

Dennet has several sections on the way religious memes may have been very helpful in the past (his section on shamanism, hypnosis, social reinforcement and the placebo effect is particularly thought-provoking) and even in the present.

[Sobek]

Just the other day I ran across a children's picture book about Martin Luther. According to the book, we aren't supposed to enjoy anything too much, because that will make it harder to long for God in heaven. So I guess if kindness and charity aren't rewarding, that's an even better reason to do them...at least according to Luther. :grey:

I'm not sure exactly what the book says, but I can see a certain interpretation that would lead to that. As a Lutheran, what I've come to believe is that the acts, in and of themselves, are irrelevent to salvation. At least in the most obvious way. There is an oft-quoted meme: "Are good works required? Yes. Are good works required for salvation? No." The idea is that anyone who has true faith would be driven to good works. But, salvation is never given based on works. Also, credit is given to God for any talents He has given you. One shouldn't revel in their talents because they are not one's own, but something entrusted to one in order to serve God.

So, regardless of what works you've done or what abilities you posess, do not "take joy" in them in the sense of swelling your ego. All the good works in the world will never get you into heaven and your talent is only what God has given you. Paul said something similar that I cannot for the life of me find at the moment. Basically, if you're doing good works for the reward of salvation, you're doing them for the wrong reason. Do them because they need to get done.

In answer to the original question: Good works do not come from religion alone. God has even said that his laws are written on men's hearts. He didn't say you had to have a key to get to them.

[The Winslow]

Just as there is no evidence that one can turn lead into gold

I think that must be possible since we can manipulate matter at the subatomic level. It's just that it would be incredibly cost-ineffective and devoid of any interest.

[Creamsteak]

Maybe they're just not that bright?

Maybe they have never thought it through.

I'm keen on the "morality of consequence". Basically, you ask yourself, "If everyone behaved like this, what would be the end result?" And if it's an end result that isn't causing general mayhem, then go for it.

The end of everyone murdering everyone everywhere is peace and quiet.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think that must be possible since we can manipulate matter at the subatomic level. It's just that it would be incredibly cost-ineffective and devoid of any interest.

Dear GOD - I put something like that in a footnote for that post, looked at it and said to myself, "God you're a nerd. No one else's going to care". Seems I was wrong. ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The end of everyone murdering everyone everywhere is peace and quiet.

If there's no one to enjoy the silence, is it really peace and quiet?

[Dacke]

I think that must be possible since we can manipulate matter at the subatomic level. It's just that it would be incredibly cost-ineffective and devoid of any interest.
I thought they had been able to turn lead into gold with various nuclear reactions and stuff. Only problem being (apart from costing more than the gold is worth) that the gold in question is radioactive.

Though that could be an urban legend.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I may need to check out that book. He does provide an interesting definition of religion: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought."

In the Amazon.com review (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X) Dennett's take on the subject of calling religion a parasite seems very slanted. I think before we try to take religion apart because we feel that it's doing harm we ought to understand why it has historically been so involved in the formation of civilizations. Why has religion conferred an evolutionary/survival benefit? It takes a lot of time and effort that has no direct survival benefit so the question of what the survival benefit is or was is very critical in my mind. In this regard I am extremely conservative. I'd rather understand the status quo or change it slightly than to try to make the radical changes advocated by many... At least not yet, not until I understand the implications and likely results better.

Will and Ariel Durant firmly held the opinion that the new student of history and sociology should be very, very careful in casting aspersions on religion. Just because it is not a perfect system does not mean it does not serve its purpose.

You're very smart to take what Dennett says with a critical eye. He's a very biased religion-hater, just like everyone else Atticus will ever recommend to you. :)

[Creamsteak]

If there's no one to enjoy the silence, is it really peace and quiet?

Yes.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You're very smart to take what Dennett says with a critical eye. He's a very biased religion-hater, just like everyone else Atticus will ever recommend to you. :)

If an atheist who tries as hard to be fair as Dennett does can't get a fair hearing from theists, then they're beyond reason.

[The Winslow]

Dear GOD
Sigged.

[Eliezer]

If an atheist who tries as hard to be fair as Dennett does can't get a fair hearing from theists, then they're beyond reason.

Isn't that the definition of faith that most people work with?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Isn't that the definition of faith that most people work with?

Indeed, and that is a big part of why faith is a bad thing.

[Eliezer]

Indeed, and that is a big part of why faith is a bad thing.

I've maintained for a long time that even emotions are rational and governed by logical principles. Faith, religious faith as defined by most people has it's own rationale and logic as well. And I don't see the inherent problem with faith...

Now let's go for an example: Assume that I believe in a flying spaghetti monster who endowed me with a "spirit" that persists beyond death and that my actions today would influence how much spaghetti I get to eat in the after-life. Not just any spaghetti, but really, really good spaghetti: spaghetti so good I'd give anything including my life to eat. The basic tenants of my flying spaghetti monster master are to be nice to my fellow humans, take good care of the earth and help others be happy and good so they can eat spaghetti in the after-life too.

Even if the flying spaghetti monster is total myth and we are nothing more than complex genetically encoded automatons genetic selection would eventually favor people who believed in a myth that encouraged altruism and helped build society, etc. (Sure, not the only source of morality, but historically it's been a big one.)

So is faith bad because it's not true or because you weren't genetically encoded to believe the myth? Or is religious faith bad when it begins to do things that tear down society as is the case with Wahabi Islam or Fundie Christianity?

[Goblin Girl]

As a Lutheran, what I've come to believe is that the acts, in and of themselves, are irrelevent to salvation.
What? For years I've thought you were a Mormon!

[AZRogue]

So is faith bad because it's not true or because you weren't genetically encoded to believe the myth? Or is religious faith bad when it begins to do things that tear down society as is the case with Wahabi Islam or Fundie Christianity?

I don't think faith can be used as a justification to change the behavior of others. Depends upon what you believe (on faith) of course, but that's the gist of it. Basically the reason why I dislike seeing religion mix with politics. I can understand a cultural nod here and there, but it should never have its hand on the wheel, imo.

[PWD]

Goblin Girl is correct. In mainstream Christianity, good deeds are supposed to be their own reward. Good deeds will not get you into heaven or improve your standing in God's eyes

Mainstream God can go fuck himself, to be honest.

In answer to the original question: Good works do not come from religion alone. God has even said that his laws are written on men's hearts. He didn't say you had to have a key to get to them.

This God I can do business with.

[Darkfire]

This God I can do business with.

For the record this is Islam's take on God and on the concept of good deeds as well.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

For the record this is Islam's take on God and on the concept of good deeds as well.

Unless, of course, you decide to leave Islam and start criticising it. Then Islam says you're an apostate and that killing you would be one of those "good works".

[Northcott]

I don't think faith can be used as a justification to change the behavior of others. Depends upon what you believe (on faith) of course, but that's the gist of it. Basically the reason why I dislike seeing religion mix with politics. I can understand a cultural nod here and there, but it should never have its hand on the wheel, imo.

Man, it's good to have you back around! Now I can just type "me too" and be done with it. :D

What? For years I've thought you were a Mormon!

You may be thinking of Username.

Now let's go for an example: Assume that I believe in a flying spaghetti monster who endowed me with a "spirit" that persists beyond death and that my actions today would influence how much spaghetti I get to eat in the after-life. Not just any spaghetti, but really, really good spaghetti: spaghetti so good I'd give anything including my life to eat.

I find myself torn. On the one hand, that sounds like an overload of carbs. On the other, I really like to eat. And if it's got a nice, hearty meat sauce with lots of chopped veggies, I might be able to justify it for eternity...

Damn you for making me question my faith!!!

[Sobek]

For the record this is Islam's take on God and on the concept of good deeds as well.

But isn't Islam without the concept of grace? As in, even a life spent honoring Allah and with an eye to the fellow man potentially without eternal reward?

What? For years I've thought you were a Mormon!

Nope. In fact I've made a couple of comments about Mormons for which I've latter apologized. Generally nice people, but I definitely disagree with their faith.

You may be thinking of Username.

I thought he was born-again or some such. Hobo/Dyal is the person I'm certain is Mormon. Rusty apparently grew up Mormon, too. Those are the two I've eaten crow to.

[AZRogue]

Man, it's good to have you back around! Now I can just type "me too" and be done with it. :D


Me too!