I agree.  MrsDOF attends a Mennonite church and they’re a very good bunch of people with values I can endorse.

Thoreau said; “Men have become the tools of their tools” or something like that.  It could be the inspiration that eventually wound up as your friend’s quote.

“People in Africa who can’t afford their AIDS medication...”

It’s so common for African men to visit prostitutes that it is a major factor in AIDS transmission.  If they loved their wives enough to be faithful to them… The wife and her children become victims to the husband’s horndoggedness.

Or for that matter, if a man won’t even don a condom to protect his wife… Sometimes love is an ounce of prevention.

And yes, once they’re infected, they need medication too - I’m not pullin’ a Falwell here.

Easy for it to turn into a list of annoying things; if people had more love for their fellow man they wouldn’t speed or tailgate, etc.  But while the teachings of organized religion are usually pretty positive, how often do they filter down to daily cognition?

While I can agree with alot above, I do see this as a difference between spirituality and ‘organized’ religion.

I am spiritual, but if pressed to define what my religion is, I would have to say I am a Deist; which does not explain anything to 99.9% of humanity.

All of the values that are mentioned are spiritual values that the churches (crutches?) by and by have ignored, forgotten, or tout when in their best interest.

Now I am painting with a wide brush here, and acknowledge my own predispositions and prejudices ...

All Organized Religion is not bad, although I have not found many that are not… but statistically there must be some that arent

Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t those things be part and parcel of being a decent human being, rather than part of an organised religion or belief structure?

I agree with what you’re saying, it’s just a shame that people need religion to be nice to each other, rather than just being nice people.

Nice article, Schweinchen.  I suspect that we would all have a better impression of organized religion if we had less contact with those representatives who are trying to drag us into their particular fold, or who are trying to suppress other groups.  Interesting how many religions stress being nice to your neighbor, but once you get into the neighbor’s philosophical differences, it all goes to pot REAL fast.

Check out the Ethical Societies.  To my mind, they keep the good parts and toss out the bad ones.

Although peace, love and goodwill to all men is espoused by organised religions like Christianity, it is often preached more than it is practiced. The amount of death, destruction and misery throughout our history which can be attributed to organised religion is shocking. All the time we hear so-called Christians spewing hate and attempting to restrict the freedoms of others. How much love and compassion do you hear from the likes of Jerry Falwell?

We should all be striving to be more compassionate, more peaceful, but religion just gets in the way of that.

Yes, nice work, Ferkel.  Many things must be considered, when trying to figure out how we all can live in peace, but it all basically comes down to love, to extending the boundaries of self.

jamesx said: but shouldn’t those things be part and parcel of being a decent human being, rather than part of an organised religion or belief structure?

James- how can we expect those things to become part and parcel of being a decent human being, if not through some kind of belief structure, religious or otherwise?  True, we’re not born evil, but we’re also not born decent in this respect- without “belief structures” (and even with them) our love tends to be limited to the family and tribe, which makes sense in terms of evolution.  Trouble is, we now fill the earth, and we’re well armed; if we don’t learn to recognize that we’re one tribe now, we will continue as we are, destroying each other and destroying the earth that gave and gives us life.

Religions can help us here, whether organized or not, sacred or secular.  In this sense I consider myself religious: there’s no logical reason to want, for example, blue whales to survive, but it’s important to me.  And despite all our foolishness, it would be a pity if humans died out too.  We need all the help we can get, from atheists and believers alike.

James- how can we expect those things to become part and parcel of being a decent human being, if not through some kind of belief structure, religious or otherwise?

My apologies, I tend to oversimplify things.

Looking back on my comment I wish I’d just commented on organised religion and left “belief structure” out of it.

In hindsight I would say “shouldn’t it be part of everyone’s belief structure to be decent human beings rather than as part of a religious belief?”

People can be “good” outside of religion.

People can be “good� outside of religion.

Thank Darwin.

Using religion to inspire moralistic behavior is a bit like using the invasion of Iraq and the murder of uncounted numbers of innocent Iraqis to illustrate democratic values. In both cases the participants/victims are pawns with no real control over the outcome of the venture and no real understanding of why they will be/ are being sacrificed. The threat and dispensation of force merely indicates the superiority of the punisher/ liberator but does little to explain why this indomitable might has the right to be a threat in the first place.

In other words, shock and awe tactics are utilized in both situations to bring about acquiescence but, for the defeater, it is destined to be a hollow victory.

Anytime you choose to threaten someone with death in order to inspire conscientious behavior, whether that death will entail a momentary bit of suffering or burning that never ends, you’ve won the recognition as most threatening but you’ve lost the moral high ground.

Good entry and thought provoking but aren’t the morals religions claim to be the sources of simply logical observations and advisements dressed up as divine Revelations and mandates.

Can we get there from here without an angry guide?

I think religion has to many detractors to cast it in a positive light.  While spirituality is a good thing, religion can only serve as a catalyst in achieving or destroying it.

Most of the violent acts of Christianity have gone by the wayside, but even today it continues to be passively destructive.  IMO, anytime you have a guilt based relationship, in this case god, driving your spirituality there is more potential for harm than good.

Any religion that has a doctrine built around you must do this or else becomes a breeding ground for resentment or indentured servitude.  So I would say spirituality good, religion, eh, not so good.

This very thing is one of the reasons I’m generally opposed to organized religion. Every religion I was ever personally exposed to presented the doorway into all this goodness ONLY through the religion. In other words, you could be truly good ONLY if you accepted the existence and teachings of the (for instance) Methodist-flavor Jesus. If you were a Presbyterian or a Buddhist or an atheist, you might still well be headed for a flaming hell, good acts or no good acts.

Religion always seems to me to be a black hole with near-infinite gravity for people’s attention to the subject of goodness. For some people, you can’t talk about, you can’t even THINK about Good without talking about their god first. Goodness gets mixed up with, and polluted by, the sectarian nonsense ... because the people trapped in it can’t imagine anything else.

I just realized I could express the core of my objection in a rough equation: X - R = G

If you have X amount of energy and attention to give to good acts, and if sectarian religious demands, R, use up some of that energy and attention, you end up with a maximum goodness output of G.

It sure seems to make sense to me that G has to end up being some lesser value than it could be, in individuals as well as in societies, the more sectarianism sucks up people’s time and energy. Considering that religious people have frequently throughout history produced hugely evil acts, you can clearly see that G can be a negative value.

This is not because the people of those times and places were bad people, but because they were actually restricted from doing broad good, or commanded to participate in acts of wickedness, by the dominant religious paradigm of their time and place. (Note that I’m specifically addressing religiously-inspired acts of wickedness, and not implying that people can’t be just as mean outside religions.)

A good example of this less-good-than-possible might be the very existence of churches. The city I live near, Schenectady, New York, has a very large number of huge, imposing churches that tie up shitloads of value just in their soaring stonework-and-stained-glass structures alone, to say nothing of the tax-free land they occupy.

Sure, people need a place to meet, to get their weekly dose of reminders to be good, but they hardly need these multi-million dollar cathedrals, set on some of the most expensive (and un-taxed) land in the city. Especially considering that, right alongside those structures, poverty and ignorance, environmental destruction and government graft still exist.

As to “spirituality,” I never use the word. It makes me think of bliss-ninnies wearing beads and feathers and gabbling vapidly about Energy and oversouls and such.

“Spirituality” always seems like Religion-Lite to me, something for people who want all the flavor of religion but half the sectarian calories.

something for people who want all the flavor of religion but half the sectarian calories.

Love it, Hank.

Geek(and don’t get me started on spiritual carbs)Mom

Interesting post.  As much as I don’t like organized religion, especially when thinking about how much destruction it has caused, I believe that a majority of people cannot think for themselves.

It is easy for a group of individuals, such as those that write into this site, to espouse their views on how we can be moral without religion (as I believe I can be).  But how many people can behave the same way without the threat of some kind of retribution?

Let’s not forget that religion in its extreme also produces people like the KKK and people who fly planes into buildings.  As much as many religions teach ‘good’ morals, the extremes of most religions tend to go in the ‘bad’ direction.  The Bible has got to be the most violent book I have ever read.  The god of the Bible does not seem to have much problem killing off those he does not approve of.

Intestingly enough, I don’t think most people who go to church today are even aware of what their religions are really based upon.  They think the ten commandmants are the primary basis of their morals without even understanding where they come from or what the true punishments are supposed to be.  They think that their church is simply about teaching positive morals and raising their kids the way they were brought up; and perhaps that is all most churches today teach.

Chad,

I wholeheartedly agree that most people cant think for themselves ... if at all, but…

It is easy for a group of individuals, such as those that write into this site, to espouse their views on how we can be moral without religion (as I believe I can be).  But how many people can behave the same way without the threat of some kind of retribution?

We have enough threats of retubution… jail, lawsuits, loss of property, loss of life, etc to handle the retribution end of the bargain w/out a religion to scare people…

Man is scary enough, he does not need to invent gods to further scare the sheeple

If all religion is is a threat to hell and damnation it would not be something that caught on… there is a carrot with that stick too…

You should all know that there are many Christians who almost never think of hell, yet they’re very decent people.  The media only notices them when they’re protesting a war, or when they show up with tools and lumber after a flood or a fire, but often not even then. 

My working hypothesis is that they’re decent people already, and they would be regardless of what religion - or non-religion - they had.  Religion isn’t what made them the way they are. Likewise Christian jerks would probably still be jerks if they were atheists, Muslims, or Jews.  It isn’t within the power of a religion to make a jerk into a decent person, or vice versa. 

We have enough threats of retubution… jail, lawsuits, loss of property,
loss of life, etc to handle the retribution end of the bargain w/out a
religion to scare people…

The worst threat of retribution for me is having to live with myself.  It doesn’t bother me to think of another person as a lying scumbag, but it would be very painful to have to think of myself that way.  The most reliable way to avoid that pain is to behave in a way that I would approve in other people.

It isn’t within the power of a religion to make a jerk into a decent person, or vice versa.

Agreed, but it is within the power of religion to focus latent jerkiness and give it scapegoats.

Or to give jerks reasons to withold their wrath.

You should all know that there are many Christians who almost never think of hell, yet they’re very decent people.

Indeed.  Much of the good in the world comes from such people.

When I was young, many years ago, two Buddhist monks visited my home town and I had long conversations with them.  I then found the publications of Paul Carus and his group and read avidly of Asiatic religion.  The most impressive and lasting memories were of reading in early Buddhism (Hinayana) trying to get back before the followers of Siddhartha Gautama made him a deity, which of course is ironic as he warned against belief in such entities. I found his Way and Path to be extremely logical, perhaps difficult. On reading on his life experience I concluded that he was a much more admirable a figure than Jesus..no boasting about being the son of a god, etc. no crap about the Father, no ascending into clouds.
I liked your review of the main points concerning the Golden Rule, rejection of material excess,and love. That makes for better religion than hatred of unbelievers, disdain for family, and illusions about future life. Buddhism has much to say about these points.

Wow, I’m surprised that anyone had anything to say about this topic.  However, given that people are talking about it I thought I should say something in reply to some of the questions people have asked.

Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t those things be part and parcel of being a decent human being, rather than part of an organised religion or belief structure?

I agree, I do think the qualities I discussed should just be something that we strive for independent of what we believe.  I was just noting that not everything that is taught by religious institutions is crap (this is not to say that I think it isn’t mostly crap.  I do think organized religion is fairly silly, but I acknowledge there is some good in religion).

Although peace, love and goodwill to all men is espoused by organised religions like Christianity, it is often preached more than it is practiced. The amount of death, destruction and misery throughout our history which can be attributed to organised religion is shocking. All the time we hear so-called Christians spewing hate and attempting to restrict the freedoms of others. How much love and compassion do you hear from the likes of Jerry Falwell?

I completely agree with those sentiments.  I do think that in practice doctrinal religions tend to lead to a whole lot bastardliness.  However, they do say that people should try to be nice to each other.  I was just trying to find some middle ground where the people here (both theistic and atheistic) could find some agreement for the sake of discussion.

Good entry and thought provoking but aren’t the morals religions claim to be the sources of simply logical observations and advisements dressed up as divine Revelations and mandates.

Can we get there from here without an angry guide?

Yes and yes.  I do think that religion is, or at least should be, a superfluous institution.  However, if it takes angry guides and implicit threats to get some people to be nice to each other, I think that’s better than nothing.

Any religion that has a doctrine built around you must do this or else becomes a breeding ground for resentment or indentured servitude.  So I would say spirituality good, religion, eh, not so good.

I would agree with that, but I would even question the need for spirituality.  I think people should just recognize some inherent worth of those around them and as such treat one another with respect and consideration.

Every religion I was ever personally exposed to presented the doorway into all this goodness ONLY through the religion. In other words, you could be truly good ONLY if you accepted the existence and teachings of the (for instance) Methodist-flavor Jesus. If you were a Presbyterian or a Buddhist or an atheist, you might still well be headed for a flaming hell, good acts or no good acts.

I agree, I think this is why I personally reject religious belief as well.  I tend to think that dogmatism is a sure way to get things wrong and to make poor decisions.

My working hypothesis is that they’re decent people already, and they would be regardless of what religion - or non-religion - they had.  Religion isn’t what made them the way they are. Likewise Christian jerks would probably still be jerks if they were atheists, Muslims, or Jews.  It isn’t within the power of a religion to make a jerk into a decent person, or vice versa.

You might be right, it would be nice if there were fewer jerks though. 

I liked your review of the main points concerning the Golden Rule, rejection of material excess,and love. That makes for better religion than hatred of unbelievers, disdain for family, and illusions about future life. Buddhism has much to say about these points.

Oddly enough I was raised a Buddhist, and remain a heretical Buddhist onto this day.

I find this kind of funny in that I spend a lot more time proselytizing within my church for the very reason that they often behave worse than many I know outside the church. My favorite spiritual writer is a Quaker, Richard Foster http://www.renovare.org because I see his message as attempting the same from many sources.

Iambic - [religion] is often preached more than it is practiced. The amount of death, destruction and misery throughout our history which can be attributed to organised religion is shocking

Chad - a majority of people cannot think for themselves...most people who go to church today are even aware of what their religions are really based upon

I would modify that to WON’T think, & if you extend that to a time when people couldn’t read, well, you’ve got the violence & greed inflicted in the Catholic church’s name, interestingly at the same time as thinkers like Aquinas, Dante, etc… I see the problem as a failing of education rather than religion.  The intelligencia has never been able to digest things for the common person without corruption by the middle man, & you see this outside religion all the time.  Michael Moore anyone?

DoF is my HERO!

Christian jerks would probably still be jerks if they were atheists, Muslims, or Jews

zilch - it is within the power of religion to focus latent jerkiness and give it scapegoats. Or to give jerks reasons to withold their wrath

I think the problem more lies within a lack of experience: they were raised culturally around

Christians who almost never think of hell, yet they’re very decent people

& would never understand the jerk urges in others, therefore can’t teach them how to struggle with it rather than give into it.  So these jerks see atheists (having probably never met one) as people who just want an excuse to be the kind of jerk the jerkChristian feels restrained from behaving as, so they are jealous.

Going to what I had proposed on the interconectedness thread...How much of our identity as a being is based on our actions anyway?  My understanding has evolved to be that very little of our identity is created by our actions; they are an outpouring of that identity. Kind of like the visual symptoms of an illness.  Given this, I think DoF’s hypothesis sounds somewhat accurate.  I’ve chosen Christ as a route to the triune omnimax God as revealed in the Bible because it is a way to work out my identity with forgiveness, which I haven’t found extended to me with the support of a community of believers anywhere else.

Umm, let me rephrase, I’ve got access to Christ as route...& I like it better than options without forgiveness.

I’ve been watching Luther (since he was my favorite in college) & it really is awesome in the way it addresses a lot of this...http://lutherthemovie.com

& would never understand the jerk urges in others, therefore can’t teach them how to struggle with it rather than give into it. (Ellie)

Not sure if they understand jerkness, but they’re trying to teach the struggle.  The Mennonite church here is involved in the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (which has the attractive acronym VORP,) where criminals and their victims meet in a controlled, mediated situation and try to understand each other.  I’ve never volunteered for that as I’m not sure I have the courage or self-control.  It’s pretty intense stuff.

I read Foster’s Spiritual Disciplines a long time ago and liked his emphasis on self-mastery over trying to stop other people from sinnin’.  It lines up pretty well with Jesus’ statement; “Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the splinter out of your neighbor’s eye.”

Unfortunately organized religion tends, that is tends to ignore statements like that, and focus on sayings that seem to give them license to harass sinners.

I think the reason many organized-religious people think atheists can’t be moral is a failure of imagination.  And an analogous failure of imagination affects many atheists whose experience with religious people has mostly been unpleasant.

If we’re ready to be offended every time anyone mentions God we’ll be offended all the time and religious people pick up on that.

Religious people generally don’t try very hard to proselytize me because 1) I’m not offended when they try, but 2) it’s obvious they’re just getting nowhere.  Behavior that is not reinforced undergoes extinction. It also helps that I realize all their “Praise God"s and such aren’t usually directed at me.  It’s the cognitive frame they use to give meaning to their experience.

ellie,

How much of our identity as a being is based on our actions anyway?  My understanding has evolved to be that very little of our identity is created by our actions; they are an outpouring of that identity. Kind of like the visual symptoms of an illness.

I’m interested with this notion that you introduce, but I’m not sure what you’re asking.  Are you asking if we learn about ourselves, or develop personal or personal narratives, as the result of us somehow watching our actions and drawing conclusions about ourselves?  If that is what you’re asking I find it to be a rather interesting thesis, similar to the views proposed by behaviorists (the philosophical ones not the psychological ones).  As for the answer, I’m not sure where I stand, I’m interesting in hearing what other people think about it though.

It always occurs to me as I hear/read the “free will!” “NO! ILLUSION of free will” debate that the whole thing seems based on an assumption that our actions define us.  Why else would it matter?

watching our actions and drawing conclusions about ourselves

sounds somewhat right, although I know those conclusions also somehow affect our future actions.  I don’t know much of behaviorists (defined as such).  It’s something I’m kind of thinking about on my own.