i am confused and i don’t know waht to believe in anymore
Check this reference:
www.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html
“If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.” (Friedrich Nietzche)
“Use your mentality, wake up to reality” (Cole Porter)
Religion is neither more nor less than one of many forms of superstition (Pigliucci 1998). Furthermore, although the unshakable atheistic position is not defensible on scientific or rational grounds, one can safely conclude against Pascal’s wager and consider the probability of the existence of god as minuscule and therefore irrelevant. But as much as the rational person should not seriously entertain the question of the existence of god, a very interesting and closely related question deserves the attention of even the staunchest secular humanist. What if religion, in spite of being not true, is actually good for (some) people?
The case against religion is indeed compelling. Of course, no one can blame all the evils of society on one kind of practice or behavior. Equally true is the fact that many (indeed most) religious people are not directly harmful to other individuals. In fact, religious charities can be credited with numerous actions that clearly have benefited humankind. So, what is the problem?
I argue here that intrinsic to the belief in a supernatural power and its worship are a series of inevitable negative consequences that impact individuals and society. You can think of religion as a very powerful medicine with too many side effects. The best thing that can be said about it is that it should be taken with caution, and only in cases in which nothing else has worked.
Some of these side effects of religion have been briefly summarized by Haught (1993), who has actually authored a whole book documenting them in more details (Haught 1990). Religious riots and “holy wars” have been with us since the beginning of recorded history, and they do not seem to go away in our enlightened century. Conflicts between religious groups inhabiting the same geographical areas are everyday news (e.g., Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Serbs and Muslims in Yugoslavia, or Palestinians and Jews in Israel). Cult leaders who bring their followers to mass suicides, or at least sexually abuse and rob them are certainly known to the American public. The generally abject condition of women whenever fundamentalist religion (especially, but not limited to, the Islamic flavor) takes hold are well recognized. Christian extremists in the United States have bombed medical facilities and killed doctors because of dissenting beliefs. Religious zealots have assassinated great political figures: among them, Egyptian President Sadat, Indian Premier Indira Gandhi, and Israel Prime Minister Rabin.
And these are just crimes that have been on the front pages of 20th-century newspapers. The fact that the Holy Inquisition burned an estimated 200,000 women, that 20 million people were killed in the Taiping Rebellion in China, that Anabaptists were exterminated by both Catholics and Protestants, or the thousands of victims of the Crusades are just a few of the examples that come to mind.
How can we doubt that there is at least something wrong with religion? More in general, I would argue that there is something wrong with any ideology which is blindly followed. Religion simply happens to account for the overwhelming majority of ideologies that humans have adopted through history. Things are quite different for humanism and science. As Bertrand Russell once put it, “Persecution is used in Theology, not in Arithmetic.”
From a rational perspective, one cannot avoid feeling that Fagan’s article presents religion as a sort of supernatural equivalent of Prozac. The argument seems to be that regardless of the truth of religion (which is very sagely never expressly advocated), if it does good, it should be supported. Of course, Karl Marx had the same idea in mind (albeit with a different take) when he said that religions are the people’s opium. Should we buy into this utilitarian argument? It sounds like the Heritage Foundation is proposing a non-chemical alternative to mass use of Prozac. It is something that can make people happy and content, regardless of the objective reality upon which such feelings may rest. Notice that I am not for a moment suggesting that Prozac or other similar medicines are intrinsically bad. They are of tremendous help for sick people who suffer from depression or other mental illnesses. What I am saying is that no sane society would apply Prozac to anybody just so that person would feel “content” about her/his life.
There are two main arguments against the religion-as-Prozac approach. First, religion, like Prozac, can have undesirable side effects. We have already seen that increased church attendance is not correlated only with desirable life styles, such as decreased alcoholism or drug abuse. It seems to bring along definitely negative attributes as well, increased childbirth and obedience to authority being the most striking ones. Of course, from a conservative point of view these are not negative side effects, and they only reinforce the main argument. But a large portion of Americans do not seem to think that way, and in fact unconditional obedience to authority is one of the most un-American attributes one can think of.
Second, a side effect of religious affiliation seems to be social stagnation. By not questioning authority, one is led not to question the social status quo. While embracing “conventional morality” one is restrained to explore alternative, possibly better, moral systems. These attitudes would maintain our society in a static limbo, forever stuck in its current status. It can be argued that not even a much better and fair society than our own should be static, because conditions change and societies and human beings need to adapt to the new conditions. But we are a far cry from any universally desirable societal state (assuming that such a thing is anything more than a naive utopia)! So, any force that stifles progress and change should be seen as a negative, not to be encouraged, social entity.
bionic, then believe nothing, its ok I promise
thanks for the site. a couple clarification questions- are you saying that religion stifles change and is therefore a negative? and are you saying that one believing in a higher power of some sort or another is ignorant?
God exists and you should believe in him for your own safety or “just in case.” Think about it, the universe seems to be designed specifically for the emergence of human life. The ratios in physics and chemistry are obviously engineered by a higher being. And also, when considering how all this got here, don’t think in coporeal terms…time does not exist outside of this little universe and is not a factor (spend a few moments to think about a reality above ours without time), it is hard to comprehend but time is local. God has always existed and it is hard for me to try and convey things in terms outside of what our human lives and ‘time’ (past preseant and future) limits us to. See, god didn’t just appear magically but has always existed, even the word ‘always’ in that sentence refers to something that doesn’t exist wherever god lives. By the way these are not facts but simply things that have came into my mind from time to time (usually in english class while day-dreaming…so boring…) On your question on why humans were created i have not addressed this question but i will think about it, who knows, maybe god wanted to have fun or something so he created our universe. I try not to think of god as a thing that can be touched or spoken too but as something that just ‘exists’ and knows everything, and is supreme. Just imagine the sheer amount of knowledge god has…pick a random peice of grass off your front lawn, god knows where ever molecule and every subatomic particle is in that blade of grass and how many there are and EXACTLY what is going to happen nextto every thing in that blade of grass…now multiply that by all the blades of grass in all the universe and all the matter in the universe and that doesn’t even come close to all that this omniscient being knows. Kinda makes you a little less cocky if you think about it. well, if i have any further thoughts i will post them for ya, just consider what i have said and organized religion isn’t really important as long as you believe in something higher than yourself. ~PorchDawg
I can’t believe that i just wrote all that STUFF. This is the first time that i have EVER shared something like that with anyone. Usually i prefer to keep those thoughts in the dark by myself. Of course, all that stuff i said makes sense TO ME but it may agrevate some hostile responses…if anyone can elaborate or explicate some more things like the info in my previous post I would love to hear it.
I don’t have much knowledge of the Koran except I do know that Muhammed was a prophet. So the Ego State Disorder theory would hold water with his prophetic writings. As far as the New Testament, it was written by many different writers, none of which claim to be or should any one consider prophets. Therefore, one can say that there is human error and these texts cannot be verbatim from God. The stories, miracles, and quotes of Jesus are not verbatim because they were oral traditions that were handed down to these writers who wanted to write them down. It can be also noted that these oral traditions are differ slightly in each Gospel.
Anyway, maybe a better comparison would be the Koran and the Hebrew Bible (Old Test) which did contain prophetic writings. You are right about one thing though, nearly all of the religious writing that is used today is not verbatim due to many mistranslations since they were first written, human error of the scribes, and not every religious faith can be correct. Bill, did I understand your post correctly? Let me know…
you’re right that religion isn’t important, however faith is. most people need organized religion in order to keep their faith alive and strong. believing in one higher god, or monotheism, for the sake of “just in case” won’t ever give you spiritual satisfaction, nor would it be looked favorably upon if there was a God. i really doubt many people believe “just in case” there is a higher God who will judge all of mankind. i liked your post though, some very good thoughts. let me know what else you think…
wow, dawg, that is very profound. I usually try to stay away from the time and space continuim stuff, cuz it tends to get kinda deep and I lose a lot of people w/ the discussion. I absolutely agree w/ you and the view of our trying to understand a higher being. He is as far ahead of us as we are of single celled organisms. incomprehendable. as far as the or else situation- i dont think i like that too much. fear of repercussion how we teach children to behave. it is no reason to do anything. you do things because the are good and right- that is altruism. and that, imo, is the way to live. you do things that are necessity, of course, and then things becuase you should and they are good and right. I agree, scott, that many people do need some kind of mainstream religion to keep their faith alive. and that is the only good service an organized religion serves, imho. spirituality is the key, not religion. A group of imperfect humans will screw almost anything up, given enough time. and organized religion is just another case of that.
In my opinion, we need religion to contain the animalistic impulses of uncivilized people.
I wish there was a God but I don’t believe there is one. However, I have the deepest respect for those who believe, and I expect the same respect for not believing.
karl- thanks for the clarification. I was unsure if you were paraphrasing or quoting- you have a very elegant writing style for an internet forum. I thank you for the respect, and return that respect.
We should proud of ourselves, we managed to have a pretty calm and civilized discussion about religion without any personal attacks. A lot of talks about religion get ugly.
I think you’re right. Religion is a business.
The chances you will ever go to a church that is “good” to the core is slim to none.
Preachers are college graduates intent on making their paychecks like every other college graduate. They have a degree, not goodness or wholesomeness.
The more skeptical you are of religion (expecially Christian denomonations in the US) the better off you are.
It’s a shame but it’s true.
karl marx (why take the name of that a-hole?) and DA-MAN are both wrong. TV is the opiate of the masses. Now, if you will excuse me, I think there’s a Mama’s Family marathon on TBS.
Believe whatever you want all of you. The only thing I ask is that people stop pushing there religion down everyone’s throats. People in general should stop involving religion in everyday society. Religion or sprituality should forever remain a private thing. Its one thing to go to a house of worship or a meeting of some kind where everyone there is there to learn or pray the same way but nothing is worse that shoveling your beliefs in everyone’s face.