Problem of religion

[Take Five]

There are religious pacifists. Attributing a push to violence and blind following to religion is too much of a generalization. It is more likely that people will use the pretext of religion to justify their violent aims.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think poki's suggestion was that religion encourages people to follow doctrines blindly because it urges them to accept religious doctrines regardless of whether or not in his judgment they are congenial. Rick Warren has famously stated that a good Christian is one who obeys God's commands even if doing so makes no sense. Throughout the Purpose Driven Life and a variety of other writings we keep on seeing the message that a true believer trusts not his own judgment, but that of God. He or she does not question God's word.

Hence, if this is the message of our typical religion, then there is a clear and a direct command to obey blindly. Certainly you may say that a person does not have to accept this. He has every right to stop believing in religion, but religion alone does not encourage him to do so or to develop a belief that he may abandon religion if he thinks that this is fitting. In fact, religion does the opposite, it insists that a good person is one who has unshakeable faith, for only he will enjoy eternal bliss. Yet, whoever ceases to have religious conviction shall suffer eternal perdition.

From what I could tell is that people are responsible for their actions because they are fully capable of making their own decisions regardless of what religion has to say with respect to their choices, but religion undermines their right to do so by telling them that they should adhere dogmatically to a certain set of beliefs. It undercuts their 'free will' by stating that they have surrendered their lives to God and now He and only he is the decision maker in their lives. Many of such religious folks believe that God commands them to engage in terrorism.

Do they have a choice not to do that? Certainly, but the presence of religion in their lives makes opting to make such a decision drastically more difficult. Who is to be blamed for acts of violence, men or religion? Men are, you are absolutely right. How is religion at fault then? Because it puts them in a very difficult situation by inhibiting their volition on a profound level by convincing them that a higher power is in control of their lives and their business is not to make decisions, but merely to obey orders that they will never fully understand.

I didn't really want to quote all of this, but it was a really nice, exact statement of the complicity of "revelatory" religions as they intersect with the individual's ability to choose.

People can always make any decision they'd like, but many of these religions specifically glorify and encourage the choice to follow revelation regardless of one's doubts or concerns and do not encourage (and often even disparage) someone to challenge or distrust the "divine revelation."

In the process, you stop grooming people who operate independently and instead groom them to obey whatever truth is overlaid upon them, and you instill a sense of shame/moral wrongness when they disobey the expressed doctrinal values.

 

[Mole]

Religion does not push someone towards violence...

The problem of religion today is that we cannot live peacefully together in the global village is some of us believe in, and practise, jihad and martyrdom.

 

[Poki]

I think poki's suggestion was that religion encourages people to follow doctrines blindly because it urges them to accept religious doctrines regardless of whether or not in his judgment they are congenial. Rick Warren has famously stated that a good Christian is one who obeys God's commands even if doing so makes no sense. Throughout the Purpose Driven Life and a variety of other writings we keep on seeing the message that a true believer trusts not his own judgment, but that of God. He or she does not question God's word.

Hence, if this is the message of our typical religion, then there is a clear and a direct command to obey blindly. Certainly you may say that a person does not have to accept this. He has every right to stop believing in religion, but religion alone does not encourage him to do so or to develop a belief that he may abandon religion if he thinks that this is fitting. In fact, religion does the opposite, it insists that a good person is one who has unshakeable faith, for only he will enjoy eternal bliss. Yet, whoever ceases to have religious conviction shall suffer eternal perdition.

From what I could tell is that people are responsible for their actions because they are fully capable of making their own decisions regardless of what religion has to say with respect to their choices, but religion undermines their right to do so by telling them that they should adhere dogmatically to a certain set of beliefs. It undercuts their 'free will' by stating that they have surrendered their lives to God and now He and only he is the decision maker in their lives. Many of such religious folks believe that God commands them to engage in terrorism.

Do they have a choice not to do that? Certainly, but the presence of religion in their lives makes opting to make such a decision drastically more difficult. Who is to be blamed for acts of violence, men or religion? Men are, you are absolutely right. How is religion at fault then? Because it puts them in a very difficult situation by inhibiting their volition on a profound level by convincing them that a higher power is in control of their lives and their business is not to make decisions, but merely to obey orders that they will never fully understand.

Thanks, You hit it dead on. I believe religion has alot of good teachings and alot of good advice. It has some excellent verses that make so much sense in the world we live in and gives us something to strive for. But I refuse to give in to blind faith as it is explained above.

 

[Soujiro]

I'm currently in class, but when I get back to my apartment I will respond to this thread cause my response will be somewhat lengthy and I don't have time to do so now.

 

[RaptorWizard]

RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Problem of religion thread:

Religion could be defined as an ethical doctrine, a world cosmology independent of empiricism, a spiritual eschatology, and fundamentalism. The fundamental beliefs religion harbors in these areas incapable for change could discourage critical thought, encouraging people to believe their views are unquestionable. Religion could thereby discourage people from being open-minded, which could compel them to only deem themselves and the sacred texts of their divine authority right. As such, they are caught completely off-guard when presented with critical opinions conflicting with their own. They so aggressively defend these irrational stances, despite facts and evidence as well as reasoning to the contrary, since if they do, the religion promises them greater reward to come. Such religious stances have and could continue to entail violence. We must instead follow the following:
1. The requirement is not to change the system, but rather the people.
2. The measure of man based on the state of our planet is pathetic. We need to change the nature of humanity to rise above and beyond.
3. The spread of information would help establish world peace, it resulting as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment vision.
4. When discussing global issues, we must put personal prejudice aside.
5. Individuality is a point of great importance independent of the environment.
6. The ancients were misguided due to lack of technology, though the world could become greater in our lifetime, despite doubters. We must achieve a perfect community stretching across the Earth with universal acceptance and individuality.