A Chat With The Chaplain?
Posted in Blogosphere, Ethics, History, Religion, Responses on | 2 minutes | 12 Comments →
On a thread at DA, I remarked that,
..improving the condition of the human species and doing things for the
benefit of our fellow living beings is what true religion is all
about,
to which the Chaplain from An Apostate's Chapel replied,
What is the basis of this proposition?
The following post intends to perfunctorily answer her question. Let's refer to the idea that true religion entails improving the
condition of the human species and doing things for the benefit of our
fellow living beings as the Good Will Hypothesis (GWH).
The GWH could essentially be considered as religion's theory of evolution. Though one could probably find some religions and even tenets within individual religions that arguably endorse behavior at odds with the GWH, the hypothesis itself is accepted in nearly all religions throughout history.
The basis for my proposition is most certainly empirical, historical and ecumenical. James in verse 1:27 defines "pure and faultless" religion as "looking after orphans and widows." Buddhism offers us the Holy Eightfold Path, specifically Right Behavior and Right Speech, and reminds us that,
Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time; hatred ceases by love.
–Guatama the Buddha
A Brahmanic Hindu will go to great lengths to avoid bringing harm to even the smallest ant. I could go on but why? I should also add that the proclamations of religion should be judged separately from the actions of the religious, so counters to the GWH on behalf of religious atrocity won't work. I add this because I can envision people thinking, "Well, if religion is so lovey-dovey, why all the fussing, killing and fighting?" That's because people can't read for one, and because there's such a thing as wolves in sheep's clothing, for two.
In the final analysis, it was religion that first reminded us of our fundamental human interconnectedness. Science came long after the fact and proved what we all remarkably seemed to intuitively agree on: That love is mandatory if our species is to flourish or even survive — and that's well — you know… right.
Whether we look at morality through an atheist's filter or a believer's, we end up with good grounding for the GWH.
What sayest thou about the basis of my proposition?
Freidenker
says...I’d say “cherry-picking”. Badly. Looking at the cutesy cuddly bits in some religions is nice, but ignoring the really horrible shit going on in some religions isn’t. I was raised Jewish in a Jewish state, I’ve had Jewish morality crammed hard into my system – the benefit of mankind, I assure you, is NOT the goal of Judaism. The benefit of the Jewish (and sub-categories within that group exist with their respective rivalries) people is the main goal of Judaism.
I find it mind-boggling that you can simply look at the good things about certain religions and possibly deduce that religions are designed to make people happy.
They’re not designed by a coherent entity because lots of people are responsible for shaping religion, some of them are vindictive assholes.
No true Scotsman, though, right?
cl
says...Apparently you either missed or eschewed the following:
“I should also add that the proclamations of religion should be judged separately from the actions of the religious, so counters to the GWH on behalf of religious atrocity won’t work.”
Unless you want to concede that science is responsible for things like Jokela and the Holocaust, I can’t accept your argument. Ideas must be judged separately from those who profess to hold them.
“I find it mind-boggling that you can simply look at the good things about certain religions and possibly deduce that religions are designed to make people happy.”
I didn’t. I looked at the good contained in the core of nearly all religions and deduced that true religion entails love and positive action towards our fellow living beings. I’d think you’d be more happy there was another person like me on the planet, but apparently it irks you that I’ve derived such value out of something you immensely deplore.
“They’re not designed by a coherent entity because lots of people are responsible for shaping religion, some of them are vindictive assholes.”
While indeed those who shape and/or interpret religion aren’t always the most savory bunch, that the core truths in the vast majority of religions didn’t result from a coherent deity presumes the argument (a)theism seeks to prove.
Lifeguard
says...Cl:
You wrote that: “improving the condition of the human species and doing things for the benefit of our fellow living beings is what true religion is all about[.]”
I agree, but you could say the same about true humanism, socialism, behavioral psychology, capitalism, anarchy and any other system of economic, philosophical, ethical, or religious ideas that promises the good life. That’s to say nothing about the various categories the fall under the rubric of “religion.” Couldn’t anyone make the same claim about True Christianity, True Buddhism, True Islam, True Judaism, etc.?
The GWH strikes me as a kind of Good Will Of The Gaps for whatever party wants to invoke it, no? Communism turned out to be oppressive? Well, that wasn’t TRUE communism! Christians are responsible for the Inquisition? Well, that wasn’t TRUE christianity!
There’s no doubt in my mind that you agree with me here, but the point is that the GWH doesn’t tell us much beyond the fact that most people at least perceive themselves as well intentioned. The real bone to pick between you and the Chaplain, however, appears to have to do with outcomes.
“True” communism, as it was idealized by Marx and his followers, is a beautiful, well intentioned thing, but it didn’t– and probably doesn’t– deliver the goods, notwithstanding intentions.
Methinks Chappy’s point was probably along those same lines. Has religion delivered the goods, and, to the extent it has, how much of that has been due to religion itself as opposed to the moderating influence of intellectual movements outside of institutional religion?
Where does the GWH get us in the discussion except to serve as a convenient out for anyone trying to avoid responsibility for the evil their particular belief system has wrought?
What is it they say about the road to hell?
cl
says...Although there are certainly exceptions, the vast majority of belief systems don’t wreak evil – individual people do. Were the inquisitors Christ-like if they went around killing people? Didn’t Christ tell Peter to drop his weapon? If believers have to judge atheism separate from its atrocities, shouldn’t atheists follow suit? Or are you suggesting that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?
To answer your question, the GWH establishes that the vast majority of religious scriptures and doctrines are coherent in their advocacy of what I claim amounts to true religion. Whether we’re talking politics, religion or cooking meth, the impurity never precludes purity.
Freidenker
says...Science is independent of the people professing to use it, religion is not. Religion is defined by people, science is defined by rules. If a scientist fakes evidence, he’s being “unsciency”. If a certain sect retired from the mainstream church, you just have yourself another religion. You seem to find it hard to accept that it’s PEOPLE who say what religion means. There WILL be theists who disagree with you as far as “the good of all mankind” is concerned.
—
“I find it mind-boggling that you can simply look at the good things about certain religions and possibly deduce that religions are designed to make people happy.”
I didn’t. I looked at the good contained in the core of nearly all religions and deduced that true religion entails love and positive action towards our fellow living beings. I’d think you’d be more happy there was another person like me on the planet, but apparently it irks you that I’ve derived such value out of something you immensely deplore.”
Let’s see. There’s two phrases that went through you in tandem:
(A) “you can simply look at the good things about certain religions and possibly deduce that religions are designed to make people happy.”
(B)”I didn’t.I looked at the good contained in the core of nearly all religions and deduced that true religion entails love and positive action towards our fellow living beings.”
So.. in short… you looked at the good things about certain religions… and … deduced that religions are designed to make people happy?
Gosh, that sounds familiar!
the chaplain
says...cl:
Your ecumenical evidence consists of isolated statements from all of three religions. In my book, this comes nowhere close to having “looked at the good contained in the core of nearly all religions.”
Also, you apparently forgot to include historical and empirical evidence.
My conclusion? This statement, “In the final analysis, it was religion that first reminded us of our fundamental human interconnectedness,” is simply a just-so statement. You provided scant evidence, let alone any analysis of said evidence, to derive your “final analysis.”
cl
says...How many different enunciations of the GWH would you like to hear?
Historical and empirical evidence for what? Do you contest that a Brahmanic Hindu will go to great lengths to avoid bringing harm to an ant? Do you contest anything I’ve said about the Holy Eightfold Path or the Book of James? Be specific.
Freidenker
says...No amount of enunciations will relinquish the fact that D’varim promotes the murder of homosexuals.
Any holy book that tells me to murder a guy just because he had sex with a cow is evil, period. Even if the same holy book tells me to not swindle the gentiles.
You’re saying the NT is better? Be my guest. I’d like to know where in the NT does it say that D’varim is old hat. That’ll raise even more problems than it’d solve.
cl
says...I’m not an authority on the subject and you might be right. Funny, though, that you originally accused me of cherry-picking, then come back with this.
cl
says...I’m not an authority on the subject and you might be right. Funny, though, that you originally accused me of cherry-picking, then come back with this.
Brad
says...cl,
Perhaps greater effort should be afforded to providing a clear definition of what the phrase “true religion” actually means. Essentially, explain why religion X can be called true while variant of X can be called false. Pinpoint exactly what can be characterized as a “core” of any religion when they are so fragmented – like original sources of belief and organization (scripture) or mainstream practice and belief, etc., and then perhaps define “false” religion to be that which perverts, distorts, alters, misrepresents, appends or deletes teachings or practices from the “core” to the extent that it is contradictory, incongruous, unintelligible, or simply arbitrary relative to the core. (Fuzzy logic could be utilized here, as perhaps intermediate “truth values” of religion could be taken up as legitimate descriptors.)
Problem is, what if a variant of X claims one of the following three possibilities: (a) that the alleged “core” first laid down was done so incorrectly, haphazardly, awkwardly, etc. and v.o.X is simply compensating for the initial errors and omissions, (b) that v.o.X. is a new and practicable religion in-and-of-itself, which could conceivably happen in cases where the X and/or v.o.X is/are more like a philosophy than a religion, in such a way that the original definition of “false” religion doesn’t apply, (c) new and fresh divine revelation or inspiration occurred, and since then abrogation has resulted from the update accordingly – note that (according to Wikipedia) this is widely debated in Islam, the second largest religion in the world, and some Christian apologists use it to explain away tough spots in the Old Testament as well as between testaments.
Furthermore, what would you say if the “core” of a religion, that is, the “true” religion or variant thereof, does not meet your proposition?
For example, I think that Islam, correctly interpreted from the Quran (however much that is possible with such an incoherent text), does not look towards the condition of humans as its ultimate end goal, but rather Allah’s, uh, mind. Namely, it preaches submission of human will to Allah, which then entails a host of nasty objectionables, such as infringement on what we consider human rights and necessary humane civil institutions, which I would list as equality between sexes, fair political representation, a patient and fair judicial system with proportionate or actually productive punishments, freedoms of speech, thought, religion, (body, dress, location), etc. Fundamentalist Islam is typically totalitarian and sometimes murderous and/or otherwise barbarous. I do not think Islam, in its core, improves the human condition.
To take an even more pronounced turn, what about the Church of Satan descended from Anton LaVey? They call out their own bastard-children as “false” religions. As can be read by the official site of the church, “There are others who would try to mislead you into thinking that they are in some way connected to us, have ‘evolved’ from us, or are in some way taking our place. They are liars.” The Nine Satanic Statements represent indulgence, realism, pitilessness, vengeance, belief in our true but often repressed beastly and carnal (“animal”) human nature – as supported by the Eleven Rules, and finally gratification through so-called sin. Individualism is also an obvious theme. Given these values, do you think their net force could or would elevate the human status? I think that, as a result of its individualism, it would actually just fracture and disconnect us more and thereby lower some of us while raising others in terms of quality of life.
Will you stand by the idea that these constitute “true” religion, because of their reliable representation of original sources and thought, as I do, cl? If they do not constitute true religion, then what else could fill in for definition of “true religion” besides a polarizing filter or Dirac measure that only accepts religions according to their closeness to one’s own religious beliefs?
Brad
says...Addendum for my final metaphors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_measure
(Links didn’t work.)