h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

J:

PC:

J:

Yes, it is getting boring. I gave you a very clear example of what I mean, but you elided it from your response:



J:

Neither. I'm a pantheist. I'm sure I've told you this before. I'm not arguing my personal perspective, I'm opposing your unreasonable criticisms of something you cannot help but show your contempt for.

J:

Must? Then football is responsible for racism on the terraces (and all the other examples I can't be bothered to list)?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

J:

I don't think that is true or fair. There is a general consensus in this forum that there are many problems associated with religion. But whenever you refer to religion, you use loaded or offensive terms, half-truths, and rarely miss an opportunity to insult religion and/or religious people. For example:

"fairly-tales about a monster-god under the bed ready to send us to hell"

I do *not* say that there is no truth in this. I *do* say it is worded so as to ridicule religion, and offend religious people. And you are clearly far too intelligent to be doing this unintentionally. To some, *your* views are nonsensical and stupid, but no-one here says so. Not because we're shy or unable to counter your argument(s), but because the exchange of insults and abuse achieves nothing except bad feeling(s). This is a discussion forum, not a lets-knock-religious-people society.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I gave you a very clear example of what I mean, but you elided it from your response"

You gave an example asking if religion should be blamed for what its followers do when they neglect its teachings.

The problem with your example is that you are still only recognising the good stuff in religion.

Christianity, for example, demands absolute pacifism. It also demands retaliation. Sometimes, the omnibenevolent God demands the massacre of enemy civilians, perhaps sparing virgin girls to become sex slaves. So whatever you do, fight or try to make peace, you can find scripture to support your actions. It is your bias that ignores the bad teaching and credits the bad behaviour to ignoring the good teaching.



<"fairly-tales about a monster-god under the bed ready to send us to hell"

I do *not* say that there is no truth in this. I *do* say it is worded so as to ridicule religion, and offend religious people. And you are clearly far too intelligent to be doing this unintentionally. To some, *your* views are nonsensical and stupid, but no-one here says so. Not because we're shy or unable to counter your argument(s), but because the exchange of insults and abuse achieves nothing except bad feeling(s). This is a discussion forum, not a lets-knock-religious-people society.>

The intention was to emphasise incredulity, rather than cause offence. But there is a problem here. If I said that a socialist wanted to wreck the economy by stealing from the rich, or that a conservative wanted to steal from the poor to further enrich their rich paymasters, or whatever, they would be legitimate, if crude, political arguments. Why is the equivalent in religion not acceptable?

Why, in fact, is it not acceptable to express this sort of opinion in opposition to religion, but perfectly acceptable, it seems, to express it in favour. I found out yesterday that my 4 year old at pre-school nursery says a prayer (the Grace) before lunch! How dare they! They are willing to push this shit down the throats of my beautiful, kind, trusting children, but it is wrong to critise their fairy-tale doctrines to adults because it is "offensive". There's a gross double-standard here.

If you said a socialist wished to alter the structure of the economy by redistributing wealth in a more evenly-spread fashion, you would be relating the facts without offering opinion or offence. The words "wreck" and "steal" are judgemental, and your judgements are nothing more than your opinions. To those who disagree, your way of expressing yourself can often appear offensive.

The same applies to the second example you gave, of course. The criticism applies to the political left and right equally. "Steal" and "paymasters" inject controversy and bad feeling into your contribution, even before the subject is fully clear!

You are particularly savage toward christianity:



1. Please submit evidence that "Christianity demands absolute pacifism".

2. Please submit evidence that "Christianity demands retaliation".

3. Please submit evidence that "the omnibenevolent God demands the massacre of enemy civilians".

4. Please present an example of "sparing virgin girls to become sex slaves".

I do not say that such evidence doesn't exist, but when you make such strong criticism, I really think it should be accompanied by some supporting evidence, don't you?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

1. Please submit evidence that "Christianity demands absolute pacifism".

Easy.
"Thou shalt not kill."
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/20.html#13 (I.e. Exodus 20:13)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/5.html#17
Also something about turning the other cheek. I forget the verse.

2. Please submit evidence that "Christianity demands retaliation".

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,..."
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/21.html#24 (whole of Exodus 21 is, er, instructive)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/24.html#20
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/19.html#21


3. Please submit evidence that "the omnibenevolent God demands the massacre of enemy civilians".
4. Please present an example of "sparing virgin girls to become sex slaves".

Nice illustrated version at:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/20.html#14

Hmmm doesn't specifically refer to virgins, that one. I'm sure I saw it somewhere. I'll keep looking.

OK, fair enough. And thanks for toning down the offensive vocabulary. I think you're pushing it, though, when you submit pictures of Lego people as evidence for your criticism of christianity!

I do not support double standards (never intentionally, anyway ); I support criticism with courtesy: "be excellent to each other" (or "love thy neighbour as thyself", if you prefer ).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Jowot,

"Why, in fact, is it not acceptable to express this sort of opinion in opposition to religion, but perfectly acceptable, it seems, to express it in favour. I found out yesterday that my 4 year old at pre-school nursery says a prayer (the Grace) before lunch! How dare they!"

This shouldn't be acceptable either, unless the school is a religious one, but then no state school should be religious. I agree that there is a double standard, or simply a bias, in favour of religion, but it's not coming from P-c (or myself), but from our backwards social institutions.

Found it. The specific reference to virgins only being spared, for sex slavery, is in Numbers 31.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/text.html#c31

God even has 32 virgins as his share of the spoil.

Moses and Jahweh are clearly among the worst war criminals of all time if this is taken literally.

<<J:

Must? Then football is responsible for racism on the terraces (and all the other examples I can't be bothered to list)?>>

How about what they do in it's name or in responce to it's teachings.

So, football is responsible for fans who trample each other to death to get into games, but not racists who just happen to be present at games if they are just as racist in other cases.

So Christianity is not responsible for a Christian murderer unless the person commits murder because they believe Jehovah wants them to or that the Bible teaches them they should.

(keeping the noise down following recent badinage on another thread)

Assuming for the moment that 'faith' and 'religion' are interchangeable (are they? comments welcome?), can we maybe characterise individual faiths as having some or all of the following properties:

1) Belief in a creative/ prime-mover entity
2) Eschatology
3) Belief in a non-physical component to human beings and/or other animals, and/or other objects, which in the case of animate objects may also exist before and/or after the biological lifespan of the creature.
3) Existence/ Study/ Interpretation/ Acceptance of a body of narrative(often written)
4) Ritual behaviour
5) Communication with the creative/ prime-mover entity
6) Individuals with specialist roles in the conduct of faith-related activities
7) Norms of behaviour for the conduct of life
8) Taboos and/or abstinences
9) Shared custom, language and/or mode of dress
10) Custom, language and/or mode of dress specifically to identify adherents from non-adherents
11) Support for members of the faith community and, sometimes, for outsiders
12) Eschewal of the tenets (and sometimes members) of other faiths


Are there others? Is this an overly-anthropological view of religion? Am I, as an atheist, misunderstanding something abstract yet central?

In general, I think this is a good starting point. But, referring to the title of this thread, I wonder what it has to do with evaluating a belief system? To describe and to evaluate (i.e. determine the value, or not, to a human being) seem quite different to me....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

But related, surely.

The difficulty with religions is that they encompass a collection of characteristics (I guess meme theory is tangentially relevant here: www.memecentral.com).

A question for the outsider is "which characteristic of the religion are we evaluating"? Is it the scientific credibility of its creation stories? Its moral code? The quality of its literature? Its cuisine? (Hinduism and Islam win hands down here!).

A counter question is "can we evaluate these characteristics in isolation?" To the insider, it seems to me that a faith's characteristics form part of a cohesive whole. For example - I've heard it said by religious people that their moral beliefs are informed by their spiritual values. Which I as an atheist don't get. How does the existence of God lead to a moral code, unless maybe via divine writ in the form of scriptures? But I don't accept that God wrote the Bible or the Qu'uranThen, neither do Sikhs believe that God actually *wrote* the Guru Granth Sahib. So, in evaluating a faith, which part of the bathwater can we throw out without losing the baby? Some muslims drink. Some Christians are not pacifist. Not all Rastas smoke the lamb's bread. The quondam Bishop of Endinburgh doesn't see God as necessary for a moral code....et. etc.

But what I'm getting really getting at is that I suspect that for the religious, I'm missing something out here along the lines of "how close does it get to the eternal verities/ the meaning of the universe/ the essence of God/ whatever?" The problem is that to an anthropologist or an atheist, there is now sensible way of evaluating this characteristic. Alternately - are all religions equally valid/ equally stupid in this respect?

It is my belief that the only worthwhile characteristic to evaluate is the effect a religion has on its believers, and their *actions*. From the outside, it doesn't matter *why* believers do whatever they do (i.e. the 'reasons' they do what they do), just that they do it.

So do Christians (for example) behave differently to others? If so, how? Are these differences considered good or bad? And so on.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

OK....so Roman Catholicism is a good religion because it inspires its adherents to fight injustice (I'm thinking Liberation Theology) and work for the starving peoples of the third world (I'm thinking CAFOD).

Roman Catholicism is a bad religion because its leadership are venal, they made a pact with fascists in WWII, they continue to cover up child abuse, they are sexually oppressive, they exploited young Irish women (I'm thinking the Magdalene Laundries), burnt Galileo, massacred the Incas etc. etc.

Islam is a good religion, because one of its five pillars has inspired many charitable organisations and inummerable acts of casual charity, it has historically been tolerant of other faiths (It wasn't the Moors that expelled the Jews from Spain!), it encourages law-abiding behaviour amongst its emigrant communities, some (admittedly, by no means all) muslim societies are tolerant of homosexuality, etc. etc .

Islam is bad because...well...you've seen the news.

So the wider question: Just *how* is faith related to moral behaviour? Is there anything central to a faith that leads people to be good? Or is it merely coincidence?

Or...are we making a circular argument about a belief system unrelated to any of the organised religions and consisting of "Thou shallt be good?"

hi P-c,



"So do Christians (for example) behave differently to others? If so, how? Are these differences considered good or bad? And so on."

The problem with answering such a question is that there is no-one collecting the data. We can discuss theoretical Christians (how they 'should' behave) and we can produce anecdotal evidence to support our own particular biases. We can point to historical evidence and current news stories of the activities of the Pope but we cannot point to a genuine census of 'Christian' activities.

We also need to consider the definition of a Christian: does their behaviour define their Christianity or is it sufficient that they claim to be so? Adelaide and Justin both have excluded certain 'Christian' groups from their own definition of Christians for example. If their behaviour is the defining factor then all Christians must behave in a particular way that is different to non-Christians; by definition.

F

So again we have a set of circular arguments.

If we look at "thoretical" versions of Christianity, we can probably identify various good and bad theories. The good ones are good and the bad ones are bad.

Or...we can define Christianity as a set of good behaviours and beliefs which we can evaluate as ....er...good.

Or...we can espouse a pic n' mix religion which takes the good bits from wherever they can be found. So, we have built up a religion from the foundation of goodness. That religion is good.

So what's the faith? Goodness? Gracious!

You don't need a religion for that; just a moral code. Is a belief system evaluated purely on its moral code? is that really all there is to it. All the heaven and soul stuff doesn't affect anyone in life (i.e. whether I go to Heaven or have a soul doesn't affect anyone but me) but behaviour does. Should we simply evaluate the religion on the behaviour of its adherents? Do we already?

This raises some questions:
1) Is the specified behaviour good for humanity?
2) Is it also satisfactory for the individual?
3) Is it good for their immediate peers, family and offspring?
4) Does the belief system strictly enforce or merely encourage such behaviour?
5) By what means - threats of eternal torment, say or promises of eternal joy?
6) How does this affect the mental health of the adherents? viz Q1
7) Can it cope with changes in society, technological advances etc?

I'm sure we could devise more questions which could be used to test any belief system and provide some kind of score. Of course the importance of some of the parameters is open to interpretation but the seven questions above don't look too contentious to me.

F

Yes, this approach has definite merits.

But I'm not sure that it has any real value in evaluating religions, so much as pic n' mix belief systems. For any religion I can think of, you'd get a whole range of responses for all of the questions (with the possible exception of 7, which is not the same kind as the others and is maybe related to the mental health one).

So...do you take the mean? Or the median? Or the mode? This is an important issue. For example, lets accept that Christianity has, on balance, been very bad on most of the parameters (Relax, all. I'm being provocative! ). Ah...but look at Rev. Wilberforce and Dr. King and all the happy, clappy Christians in churches. Ah...but look at the Christian justifications for slavery and colonialism that Wilberforce was fighting against in the first place and look at the fundamentalist churches in the US South and look at the dour, Calvinist Free Presbyterians and psychologically damaged Catholics.

I'm not convinced that the scale gets us anywhere in evaluating anything that we can identify as a belief system, other than at the level of *personal* beliefs. If that's the case we get back to the circular argument. Is it not really a *prescription* for a belief system?
1) Though shallt behave in a good way for humanity
2) Thou shallt satisfy thyself
3) Thou shallt be good for your immediate peers, family and offspring
4) Thou shallt stick to these commandments to the best of your ability
5) (Thou shouldn't worry too much about eternal joy or eternal torment, because they're a bit abstract)
6) Thou shallt look after thy mental health
7) Thou shallt keep up with changes in society, technological advances etc?

F

8) Thou shallt wear sunscreen
9) Thou shallt always get thy round in
10) Thou shallt remember to signal on roundabouts
11) Thou shallt not comment maliciously on thy neighbour's ass. She's just big boned.
12) Thou shall stop posting and get on with some work.