Challenge to Athiests - is Religion a Pox on Mankind? (page 15)

jgnat

Ruby, embarrassing to say, but I haven't read either Dawkins or Kant. My opinon of DST is based soley on a quick read of wiki. There may be more there. As soon as I hit the "not testable" line, I admit, I lost interest. I want to discoveries of how we are made and how we got here to continue and that can only come by relentless inquiry. I enjoy the complex mathematical models that pit various scenarios, say, at selfish and altruistic reproducing blobs. I wish I could find a video to demonstrate. Thanks to computer modelling, the mathematician can set the model to reproduce for generations and see what comes out. Influences like environment do have an effect on the outcome. We do live in a complex environment.

About losing unused brain power. I wish I did not have examples. But we know that if an infant does not acquire language by age three, their ability is impaired permanently. A person without the power of language does not have an inner dialogue to anticipate, evaluate scenarios, or to plan. It's gone.

On the other hand, we have underestimated the brain's generative power and it's ability to repurpose sectors of the brain for new use (neuroplasticity). Stroke patients who receive intensive therapy can regain a great deal.

jgnat

Paralipomenon, if the church were a one-note orchestra I would agree. I do see among the Witnesses the personal paralysis you describe. They defer living indefinitely for that "future hope", trudging from door-to-door, poorly fitted to this one task assigned them. They are unprepared for old age, disability. They are unprepared for the end of their lives.

But religious people, especially those who don't have their role assigned by a high-control group, can be inspired to acts of kindness and other sorts of greatness. There are all sorts of religious charities and not all of them are driven by evangelism. For many religions, the very act of charity is divine. To continue with your quicksand analogy, we may all be sinking, but some may be reaching to others to lift them higher.

Qcmbr

The flaw I find in your arguments jgnat is the isolation of acts and their evaluation alone as good or bad. Using this process we can describe Nazism as having many good features. Poison , as I understand it, isn't simply about ruining one act , it is ruining the totality, the whole thing. Many aspects of the JWs clearly appeal to people but their overall impact is detrimental and sub optimal (had all that effort been directed at more authentic activities more would be achieved .) It is not simply enough to do a good act if the overall cost of that good act is negative.

jgnat

Qcmber, are you suggesting that by parsing good, I am suggesting that any "good" that a high-control group gives them a "get out of jail free" card? That's not my position.

My position is that all good is good regardless of the source. The good is not poisoned by association. The association however is not redeemed by the little good it may accomplish.

Qcmbr

If we see good in a utilitarian way we could argue that filtering good through an organisation such as a religion reduces the overall utility which must be balanced against the question of whether the good would occur without the organisation (for example giving $10 to a charity that only uses $5 on the actual needy - loss of utility - but has made a connection to help those needy that may not have occurred otherwise.)

If we seek to separate the act from the institution have we not then agreed that the institution is unecessary and therefore a parasitical form?If however, we argue that the organisation is necessary for the act then we cannot identify a good act without invoking the cause. Under one definition death camp hypothermia experiment data is good and we can ignory the bad way it was gathered , on the other we are forced to confront the idea that the good is poisoned by the cause. I would argue that the cause , religion in this thread , no matter whether its local result is beneficial to some, is a negative drag on mankind overall. To argue otherwise is, to me, to always push the fat man in front of the train to stop it so saving the workers further down the line.

Band on the Run

This thread is refreshing. I find it frustrating that so many posters believe that all Christian religion is fundamentalist or contains JW beliefs. It is not true. Mainstream Protestant churches and even most Roman Catholic churches accept evolution. The Bible is viewed as a collection of sacred scriptures that may contain wisdom concerning our lives. I have yet to meet an Anglican who believed the Bible was inerrant. The communities have outreach programs to the community. No one except the priest must follow any rules. No one takes attendance. One is free to comment. Well, one is free to comment in universtiy settings. When I commented in rural PA concerning the history of the gospels, one man told me I was dangerous. He had absolutely no power to make me shut up, however. The priest would constantly side with my interpretation. I suppose I had a blunt way of phrasing things. It was funny b/c I don't have a creative brain. I was merely repeating what superstars in the church said when I was present. I don't know the breakdown of Christians active in manstrea denominations. I do know that it is sad but the growth is in the fundamenalist and pentecostal churches. This is an American phenomena. It seems we seek out churches that are more controlling and judgmental. Why? I have no idea.

I see churches doing good things. Feeding the hungry, running housing programs, etc. In fact, I am enamored of weekly coffee hours for socialization. It is very hard when I first attend a church to go to coffee hour but I do. Churches where members wear name tags are so much easier to join. I meet individuals. We chat. Slowly, over time I make friends. I also like small group study b/c it is more intimate. There is a nice, comfy feel. I feel many of the bad excesses of religion happened when political power and church power were combined. I've been in small worship groups. There is dissent. Different people believe different things. I've attended many Roman Catholic churches where freedom existed. Science is viewed as valid.

It is not fair to condemn all religion by mistakenly thinking it is like Jehohvah's Wtnesses. When I was a child, my relatives would take us to a suburban hall. It seemed a different experience than our urban kH. One can believe in Christ and evolution. Granted, one cannot as a Witness. I wonder if the Witnesses could exist without being so high control. They are very aggressive and arrogant.

jgnat

We have not yet established that the institution is unnecessary. It is still pervasive. We still imperfectly understand the dynamics.

jgnat

BOTR I appreciate your contribution.

Ruby456

I haven't read all of Dawkins work and I've only read some of Kant - just the bits that are relevant to tracing the history of certain political and religious ideas and how these ideas then can stymy and stunt more freeing relationships with science and its limits. I have also been very interested in the relationship between Jehovahs witness TRUTH and Dawkins TRUTH and feel that so long as Dawkins TRUTH remains a path and not an end it can be enriching for refuting JW TRUTH. I suspect that jwn atheists are very aware of this but fear seems to replace trust - the fear being that anything that smells like religous thinking ought to be excised from the discussion speedily.

thanks for introducing me to Thoreau.

jgnat

I've got a book of Kant's on my bookshelf that I am avoiding.

Challenge to Athiests - is Religion a Pox on Mankind?

Share this