User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 46

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default Problem of religion

    Religion. Defintion. 1. A worldview about ethics or how people should behave. 2. about metaphysics or the nature of the world that is discovered by philosophy rather than science or more by abstract reasoning rather than empirical investigation. 3. About eschatology or matters of life after death and spiritual phenomena. 4. Accepts some principles as incontrovertible. The quantity of principles that are regarded as unquestionable determines how much a religion adheres to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the thesis that some views in the worldview are unquestionable. All religions are fundamentalistic by definition, yet because there are degrees of fundamentalism, some are necessarily more fundamentalistic than others.

    Religions are dangerous on the account that fundamentalism discourages critical thought. Fundamentalism also encourages people to believe that some of their views are unquestionable. Because they are discouraged from thinking critically, their abstract reasoning faculties are frequently weakened severely. In order to construct an interpretation of a piece of literature, one needs critical thinking skills. When one lacks critical thinking skills, one easily succumbs to wishful thinking and merely interprets the literature in a way that appears pleasing to him or her. For this reason, the religious often interpret the text in a way that in the views of many is sacrilegious or an act of distortion of the scripture. For example, many Muslims believe that those who use Islam to justify violence are distorting the scripture. Is Islam blameless?

    No, it is not. Islam has discouraged people from thinking critically inevitably placed them in a position where they are likely to interpret scripture in an undisciplined fashion, or simply put, interpret it however they please. Is Islam intrinsically more objectionable than other creeds? Possibly true, as after all Christians, Jews and Buddhists do not attempt to justify violence nearly as much as Muslims do. However, is this solely the fault of Islam? Possibly because this religion is unopposed by secular authority and the Muslims who commit violence face few intellectual challengers to their views. Christians, however, most prominently in the Western Europe and North America are forced to question their beliefs on a daily basis because they are forced to deal with a separation of a church and state. However, the same could be said with respect to Islam in Europe or in the United States. Notably, Islamic extremists are much more common in the Middle East and Africa than in Europe or the United States. Thus, there are different kinds of Islam and Christianity. Some forms of Islam are more rigid than others, and the same can be said with respect to Christianity.

    As a result, can we conclude that Islam is intrinsically more rigid than Christianity? That is unclear. In order to answer this question we would need to know of a one way correct way to interpret both holy books. At this point, such a feat cannot be accomplished. Language and culture in which both of these holy books were written have changed drastically and we lack much of the important information to construct the proper interpretation of both works. Moreover, even if we did, both works are high on figurative, poetical and ambiguous content which makes constructing a plausible interpretation of either of these books an onerous task.

    Simply put, we do not know if true Islam is in itself more objectionable than Christianity, as we do not know what the true brand of each religion is. Since we have discovered that we do not know what true Islam is, what do we make of the claim of Muslims who assert that their religion is not to be blamed for the acts of violence that have been committed in the name of Islam. As sincere as they may have been, they are simply mistaken to assert that true Islam is against such acts. They merely confused their interpretation of the Koran for the true religion and it may well be the case that the acts of violence disagree with their Islamic religious views. However, it must be clearly noted that all they can legitimately claim is that the acts of violence merely disagree with their views.

    On the one hand, we see that religion, and Islam most prominently, can produce kind and peace loving people, yet on the other, fanatics who are willing to kill thousands in favor of their beliefs. Is religion to be blamed for this? Certainly because this is a result of people believing that their views are incontrovertible. This, however, is not the entirety of the problem. If someone merely believes that their views are indisputably true, he or she will not have the sufficient motivation to kill thousands. After all, a very high degree of aggression is necessary in order for people to behave in such an ignominious manner. Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.

    As a result, they are completely unprepared for the critical thoughts of others whose views disagree with their own. Does this fact lead them to become highly aggressive? Certainly because religion tends to promise great rewards for those who manage to maintain their views. As a result, they become fearful when others question their views and because they lack critical thinking skills, they are unable to approach those who disagree with their views in a civilized manner. Hence, in this respect, religion entails violence.

    In addition to Islam, Stalinistic violence is an example of religion entailing violence. Stalinism propounded rigid ethical views which included the maxim that those who abide by them will be greatly rewarded and those who do not will be punished direly. It also propounds several views about the nature of the world (metaphysical) that are philosophical rather than scientific (empirical) in nature. In addition to that, it advocates a worldview that is commonly regarded as Marxist materialism, thus it comments on eschatological matters by vehemently rejecting the thesis that there is life after death. Certainly, it is highly legalistic or fundamentalistic on the account that it accepts many, if not all of its principles as incontrovertible. Stalinism was arguably as legalistic as many groups of contemporary extremist Islam. It is therefore unsurprising that these were the religions guilty of the most violence in the world.

    Although religion is not the sole cause of violence, and in many violent acts is not the cause of violence, it is certainly striking that the majority of violent acts today are committed for a religious cause. For this reason, it is important to eradicate religion from contemporary education. All that separates religion from philosophy is the last principle, or the incontrovertibility axiom, which is the proposition that some views must be accepted as unquestionable. If this principle is to be eliminated, the religious influence in the contemporary society will decline significantly.

    How can this be accomplished? Should a draconian policy be instituted that bans all educators from teaching religious doctrines or asserting that any particular view is not to be questioned? No, this proposition is likely to violate many fundamental principles of the open society.

    This is to be accomplished by restructuring the program of education where critical thinking is emphasized more and no effort is made to convince the children that any view is unquestionable. Slowly, a society will emerge where people will not have a need to believe in things that are unsupported by arguments but merely feel pleasant to believe in. When that is accomplished, there simply will not be any further need for religion.

    Religion and the cause for the majority of violent acts today can be eradicated only by virtue of fundamental changes to education. Some political theorists such as Slavoj Zizek, for instance, maintain that we should cease patronizing the religious. We should stop pretending that their views are acceptable only for the sake of being polite. Instead, we should subject their views to a respectful, but ruthless critical analysis of their views. Then and only then will we have bestowed adequate respect upon them becuase only at that point will they be treated like serious adults who are genuinely responsible for their beliefs.

    I think that this view is fundamentally wrong-headed. Those adults, especially from third-world countries that are dominated by religious thought have not developed their critical thinking skills. They simply are not adults in the intellectual respect and therefore should not be treated like adults in that regard. Challenging their views will be futile because such persons will not be intellectually astute enough to understand the criticisms of their beliefs, but they will also be enraged. This will only create unnecessary controversy. Unlike their younger counterparts, these people are the kind of children who never grow up. We simply should leave them be and focus on those who truly can be taught to be reasonable and open-minded, namely the youth of today. We may arrive closer to achieving this goal by restructuring our educational program today.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Your time is gonna come. Oom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    IsfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    511

    Default

    I'm going to paraphrase what I got out of your essay so you can maybe tell me what I'm missing (or if I'm not).

    The inflexibility of some religious belief systems have been hampering the critical thinking of the followers of their beliefs. In turn, followers are coming to rely on the inevitability of these beliefs as a crutch to 'not think for themselves'.

    The deconstructing of these beliefs by non-believers causes confusion in these people and thus will eventually turn them to rage. Not understanding how someone could believe they are wrong. They can turn violent.

    To avoid this from happening. We need to gradually bring the inflexibilities of religious scripture out of our education systems and teach our children to be mentally nimble again. Leave the broken, inflexible people as they are and look towards the future.

    This will lessen violence that is affiliated with religious foundations.
    -----------------------------

    You have a great viewpoint! I agree in what you say. Rather the implications of unburdening our children will take time and wont be welcomed. There aren't any easy ways around it, but I feel like you have found a potential solution to the problem of religious violence.

  3. #3
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    The belief that all beliefs are controvertible is itself an incontrovertible belief. Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it? It makes more sense to look at the consequences of certain beliefs and decide which ones are unacceptable. This is sort of what you've done, but you blame the negative consequences on the wrong thing.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  4. #4
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oom View Post
    I'm going to paraphrase what I got out of your essay so you can maybe tell me what I'm missing (or if I'm not).

    The inflexibility of some religious belief systems have been hampering the critical thinking of the followers of their beliefs. In turn, followers are coming to rely on the inevitability of these beliefs as a crutch to 'not think for themselves'.

    The deconstructing of these beliefs by non-believers causes confusion in these people and thus will eventually turn them to rage. Not understanding how someone could believe they are wrong. They can turn violent.

    To avoid this from happening. We need to gradually bring the inflexibilities of religious scripture out of our education systems and teach our children to be mentally nimble again. Leave the broken, inflexible people as they are and look towards the future.

    This will lessen violence that is affiliated with religious foundations.
    -----------------------------

    You have a great viewpoint! I agree in what you say. Rather the implications of unburdening our children will take time and wont be welcomed. There aren't any easy ways around it, but I feel like you have found a potential solution to the problem of religious violence.
    Oom!!! OK, I am SO glad you summarized the novella OP. There's no way I could read it without chuggin half a bottle of Ritalin, which is generally not advisable close to bedtime.

    I must say I concur, and would also like to point out that the same retardation of thought occurs with political parties. At some point in time after an affiliation has been chosen, the beliefs of the party can quickly become those of the followers, despite the inability of the followers to state substantive details of why they believe as such.

    Right?

  5. #5
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    The belief that all beliefs are controvertible is itself an incontrovertible belief. Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it? It makes more sense to look at the consequences of certain beliefs and decide which ones are unacceptable. This is sort of what you've done, but you blame the negative consequences on the wrong thing.
    No, not everyone is a fundamentalist on some level. Not everybody has beliefs that they are not willing to question under any circumstances.


    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    I must say I concur, and would also like to point out that the same retardation of thought occurs with political parties. At some point in time after an affiliation has been chosen, the beliefs of the party can quickly become those of the followers, despite the inability of the followers to state substantive details of why they believe as such.

    Right?
    Many political parties are religious in the strictest sense of the word. That is, they follow a view that informs them about ethics, the nature of the world that is discovered by abstract reasoning(metaphysics), matters of spirituality or life after death (eschatology) and surely accept at least some principles as incontrovertible. In fact, some of these political views are very religious as they comment on all three subjects very thoroughly and embrace many principles as incontrovertible.

    Marxism is a clear-cut example and Stalinism was one of its main applications. Stalinism is analogous to Marxism as many violent religious denominations of Islam are to Islam itself.
    On that note, the retardation of thought in political parties is a result of religion.

    However, some other political views that also entail retardation are less religious as they comment on the three subjects of inquiry less thoroughly. However, the unwillingnes of the adherents of such parties to question their views is a result of a religious component of their views. Namely that of fundamentalism, or the axiom of incontrovertibility. Most individuals who are not willing to question their political views believe that their views are unquestionably correct and simply need no justification.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #6
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, not everyone is a fundamentalist on some level. Not everybody has beliefs that they are not willing to question under any circumstances.
    I agree here.

    What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    I agree here.

    What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?
    Good question. These days I don't know anymore. Because religion is believing in something you can't possibly know. It's having faith. It's ignoring other options.

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Everyone's a fundamentalist on some level, so why criticize people for it?
    Whoa, please explain that.
    I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
    (what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    I agree here.

    What about those who are religious, but also believe themselves to be open-minded? Do you think it's possible to be both?
    To be religious by definition means to hold to a worldview which comments on ethics, metaphysics and eschatology and accepts some of its own principles as unquestionable. Hence, anyone who is religious is necessarily not open-minded about some things (adheres to principle 4, which is accepting some views as unquestionably true).

    In principle, it is possible to adhere to a religion that accepts very few principles as unquestionable and in that respect one can be both religious and open-minded. The answer to your question depends on the kind of a religion one adheres to, if their religion is highly fundamentalistic or accepts most or all of its principles as incontrovertible, then no, one cannot be open-minded while adhering to that religion. However, if one's religion is not very fundamentalistic, one should be able to remain open-minded. (About most things, not all however, as a religion by definition necessitates some degree of fundamentalism.)
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Religion is like sex - when we are in the grip of passion we do things we would not otherwise do. And we think things we would not otherwise think. And believe things we would not otherwise believe.

    So it is quite possible to be a believer and an unbeliever. In the grip of religious passion, I believe. But when the passion passes, as all passion does, I have my doubts.

    And its exactly the same with sex. When I am making love, I put aside all my doubts and give myself to the moment.

    And of course passion drives out reason, and reason drives out passion.

    So reason and passion are mutually inhibitory.

    And why should we be surprised as our whole body works on the same principle.

    At this very moment your heart is only beating under the influence of two mutually inhibitory impulses.

    So how natural that our very thoughts keep time under the mutually inhibitory impulses of passion and reason.

Similar Threads

  1. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  2. Role of Religion in Personal Development
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 05:11 PM
  3. Problems of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 11:12 PM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM
  5. Problem of Problematicality
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO