A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging

by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thetrueone

  Humanist ethics

  Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature , and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source, therefore rejecting faith completely as a basis for action. The humanist ethics goal is a search for viable individual, social and political principles of conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility, ultimately eliminating human suffering.

  Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. [2]

  Humanism is known to adopt principles of the Golden Rule , of which the best-known English formulation is found in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Also consider the quote by Oscar Wilde : "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." This quotation emphasizes the respect for others' identity and ideals while downplaying the effects one has on others.

  Secular ethics and religion

  There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all. The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."

  Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best. In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient.

  That does not mean secular ethics and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact, many principles, such as the Golden Rule , are present in both systems, and some religious people, as well as some Deists , prefer to adopt a rational approach to ethics.
• 

  NewChapter

  If I understand this sentence correctly, then I would like to suggest that we all do this... shifting and molding to make room for proper understanding of something. Anything. Be that science,

  This would be a mostly correct comment---except when you come to science or using the scientific method, and when it come to the word proper. Humans have flawed logic and are incredibly subject to confirmation bias. The scientific method is meant to overcome this bias---also I disagree with the statement that we shift to make room for PROPER understanding.

  I do not say that we shift to make room for PROPER understanding, but we shift to make room for confirmation bias and belief.

  Take prayer for instance. For a believer, if they get exactly what they wanted, their prayer was answered. If they don't get what they asked for, their prayer was still heard and answered, but answered with a larger wisdom to allow for a greater good or for a lesson to be learned, etc. But the idea that the prayer did not work is not an option. Belief does not work in terms of hypotheses and theories as the scientific method does.

  A scientist will test prayer and try to falsify it---or any other hypothesis or theory---and if it stands up to falsification it gains more credence. But it will never be safe, as science will continue to test as more knowledge and techniques are acquired--always working to falsify. Believers don't even try to falsify prayer, they just seek to confirm it. Confirmation Bias.

  Recently a man told me that he was looking for someone to share his life with. He was having a hard time so he prayed about it. His prayer was answered. He met a delightful, funny, interesting woman. After knowing her for a while, he learned she was a psycho bitch, but that did not invalidate the prayer for him. He didn't even consider the possiblity that praying for that perfect woman and getting a nutcase was not an answer to his prayer, because he decided the initial result was the answer. Now I look at it and kind of reason that the prayer was not actually answered, because he did not find that perfect woman in spite of the initial impression. He dosen't consider that because he is working with his own bias.

  As soon as another believer reads the above they may come back and say perhaps he had a lesson to learn---or perhaps there was something greater being accomplished (like interacting with this guy prevented her from stalking someone else who may have been weaker---or whatever other guess one would like to take). And that is how it works. Prayer never, ever fails---that has already been decided by the believer. There is no room for another possiblity, and so they will adjust their thinking, not based on evidence, but on the assumption they already have made that prayer works and cannot be falsified.

  Now lets compare that to a story about a scientist and professor in England whose name I cannot recall. He worked on a hypthosis for his entire life---I believe 4 or 5 decades. This was his life's work. A scientist from America went over and looked into it. She falsified the hypthosis. The scientist thanked her. Now he had more knowledge than he was able to attain in a lifetime of research. They were closer to an answer. Had this been a prayer instead of a hypothesis, that scientist would have twisted his understanding to confirm the hypothesis anyway. Instead he thanked the person that smashed his life's work, and adjusted his thinking according to evidence---not hope.

  NC
• 

  sabastious

  Take prayer for instance. For a believer, if they get exactly what they wanted, their prayer was answered. If they don't get what they asked for, their prayer was still heard and answered, but answered with a larger wisdom to allow for a greater good or for a lesson to be learned, etc. But the idea that the prayer did not work is not an option. Belief does not work in terms of hypotheses and theories as the scientific method does.

  This is because prayer is a query to the spirit realm. If you query google you get results, every time. You may not be able to figure out why they are relevant, but they are. So it's important to ask the right questions, not question google's relevance system. You could, but you wouldn't get very far with it.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  It doesn't matter if you were in 10 religions and believed in them all. That still doesn't licence you to speak for my or as my God.

  I am pretty sure this constitutes arrogance by definition. I'm sure they all melted away before your powers of reason and evidence like dousing the wicked witch of the west and watching her descend into nonexistence. Do you have matching rings on each hand and a cape?

  You are quite thin skinned. Why are you so threatened by people who state their ideas with certainty? Perhaps these debates are a bit upsetting for you. But seriously, if I criticize an idea, you take it personally. Those ideas have fallen apart under critical thinking. If you still wish to believe, that's nothing to me. And a big LOL to you saying I am speaking as your god. Seriously? I have license to speak about any idea any way I wish. If it upsets you to that degree, perhaps you should just watch.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  This is because prayer is a query to the spirit realm. If you query google you get results, every time. You may not be able to figure out why they are relevant, but they are. So it's important to ask the right questions, not question google's relevance system. You could, but you wouldn't get very far with it.

  No Sab. Google is NOT always relevant, nor does it always answer the right question. It's simply a tool with weaknesses and strengths, and using it proficiently means understanding those weaknesses. In no way is there room for weakness in prayer---of course you have demonstrated exactly what I was pointing out---prayer works---but in mysterious ways.

  And another thing about google--I'm not left to make excuses for why I didn't get helpful results. The information is all there for me, it is not mysterious. I can get better at asking a question, but I don't have to make excuses for google. I have a great deal of evidence to show me how google works and why.

  Your analogies don't make sense to me.

  NC
• 

  tec

  Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

  [2]

  Those two ideas seem to be at odds with one another. Theists are humanists as well, so why e x clude them?

  This, however, I agree with:

  There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all.

  I won't split hairs about religion and faith (though the two are not often the same), but instead will focus on the point. Some do have the law (morality) written on their hearts and consciences; doing good by nature rather than by rules. Those people can be with or without faith. Peace, tammy
• 

  poopsiecakes

  I feel the need to quote someone who used to post here a couple of years ago. I think his name was sabastious...

  "So whenever a Christian cries a little because us non-religious types get snarky about the Bible or Christianity I give little care for the sensitivities of a group of people who hold these attrocities as truths."

  " I'm sorry you Christians feel attacked when I say the Bible isn't true, but guess what ? You get to live forever in heaven/paradise while I will be destroyed in quite morbid fashion."

  " Keep your damn religion out of my laws and get your Holy Handbook's code of ethics out of society, we know what morals are and why they are good, we don't need to be told them."

  " I'll take a swift death any day over living out eternity as a subject of the God of the Bible."

  " there is MOUNDS of evidence that the whole Bible is a pile of crap."

  I'm not really sure what happened...I get that you went through an angry period - we've all been there - but your belief system has done a complete 360 back to where you were before you started questioning things about the WT. This baffles me.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  It's dangerous to lump "most religious theological teachings" into this category and declare a war them. Some beliefs and teachings fall into this category and some don't. It gets old having this caricature of religion shoved down everyone's throats all the time. Think communist/atheist states like the old USSR and China. Extremes are not healthy either way. There is often as much of this kind of "dangerous" fervor coming from this side as there is coming from the extreme fundamentalist right. Where is the balance? We surely could use some.
• 

  sabastious

  I'm not really sure what happened...I get that you went through an angry period - we've all been there - but your belief system has done a complete 360 back to where you were before you started questioning things about the WT. This baffles me.

  I gave up on the God of the Bible. It had to be real, poopsie, for me to be able to truly look at the Bible. When I really started reading the New International Version the Bible just clicked for me. The grey morals smoothed out and I saw the whole picture. I am still very critical of literalist preaching of the Bible. I am just not hard on the Bible as a whole book anymore. Have you read this thread of mine? It was very hard for me to write that because I knew that people were going to be critical of me from that day forward. I thought that I was against the Bible, I really did. But, just like I felt the need to tell my family I was going agnostic, becuse I was a JW, I felt the need to tell you guys I was too hard on the Bible. I hope we can still be friends.

  snare&racket also rocked my world by turning my attention to the article he posted in this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/217925/1/The-Genetics-of-Good-and-Evil-article

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  Take prayer for instance. For a believer, if they get exactly what they wanted, their prayer was answered. If they don't get what they asked for, their prayer was still heard and answered, but answered with a larger wisdom to allow for a greater good or for a lesson to be learned, etc. But the idea that the prayer did not work is not an option.

  Of course it is an option. As is an option that your prayer contradicts someone else's prayer, so both cannot be granted. Or that your prayer is against the will of God. Or that there is no faith behind your prayer. Or that your prayer interferes in someone else's free will. But that the prayer did not work because there is no one listening is also a scientifically valid option.

  How would one go about falisfying something for which science has no tools of measuring, at least not yet?

  As soon as another believer reads the above they may come back and say perhaps he had a lesson to learn---or perhaps there was something greater being accomplished (like interacting with this guy prevented her from stalking someone else who may have been weaker---or whatever other guess one would like to take).

  Or his prayer was not answered, for any number of reasons as stated above.

  Had this been a prayer instead of a hypothesis, that scientist would have twisted his understanding to confirm the hypothesis anyway. Instead he thanked the person that smashed his life's work, and adjusted his thinking according to evidence---not hope.

  Are you certain? Because people of faith adjust their beliefs and thinking and views as they learn and acquire knowledge, life lessons, and experience. Shifting and molding. Not to confirm their belief... but simply because lessons and evidence help them to grow and to learn. Faith allows room for growth and understanding, the same as any other area of life.

  Peace,

  tammy