Not having "proof" isn't always a good reason not to believe something.

We all have to take some things on faith. For instance, I just looked up the natural logarithm of 5.2 (its 1.648660). I can't prove that, but I believe it because I don't have any good reason not to. I don't even have any good reason to question it.

In fact its extremely difficult to "prove" anything at all, as Rene Descartes pointed out centuries ago.

We all rely on "faith" of one kind or other. That isn't a reason either to believe or not believe any particular religion.

As am I. I'm also an "I don't care".

CM, if you don't like the title of the thread, take it up with the author ~ but this thread is about religion ~ it's not about politics or anything beyond religion ~

As for it being "... unreasonable to focus simply on the worst form of 'religious' behavior ...", obviously several of us don't feel that way and want to talk about it ~ if you choose to join the discussion, fine ~ if you don't, that's fine too ~ but the topic of this thread is religion ~

Sooz

While I'm a "I don't believe" guy.

As yes sooz, the title of this thread is religion. That is what I have been talking about. I've been defending religion against what I believe is an unreasonable accusation.

If you can only talk about a claim about a particular claim if you happen to agree with it, there isn't much point in having a "discussion" board. That would be an "agreement" board.

The thread title did NOT say:

"6 Ways <that only> Religion Does More Bad Than Good"

Simple, but important distinction. This was about the bad in religion period. CM, does every missive you read have to have a balanced ledger of pro and con before you consider it worthy? You want to start a thread about the "6 Ways Communism Does More Bad Than Good" or even "6 Ways Religion Does More Good Than Bad" then go for it, but please make sure you present both the good and the bad.

I agree with all 6 points about religion and probably could add a few more if inclined.

oskar, I reject EVERYTHING about religious dogma.

(WHOA, four posts as I'm composing this one, lol. Still posting..)

The title didn't say "6 ways religion does Bad" Rose.

The comparative is right there in the title.

If you want a thread to only be about the bad things about religion say so. maybe something like "Please list bad things about religion".

What I'm suggesting is that a lot of the 'bad" things attributed to religion in the OP are actually expressions of other aspects of human belief and behavior which are found in a variety of ways in society. If that's the case then saying those 'bads" are a product of "religion" is wrong.

oskar, I reject EVERYTHING about religious dogma.

And I'm not all that fond of rodents.

Religions are structures within which adherents find social and logical support for doing what they are inclined to do anyway. As a practical matter that's what religions are for, both for individuals and cultures, I think. There are so many different "faiths" because so many different kinds of people are looking for a structure that most neatly fits their own peculiar predilections, their personalities, their need for an authority to follow, and gives them leave to do what they are in any case inclined to do. People are inclined to want what's good for their tribe, and a religion can provide them an organized means of promoting that social welfare. Religion can endorse a person's inborn urge toward empathy and kindness, and so very often enables charity in the a culture. People are also inclined to kill other people (especially members of other tribes) and so we have holy wars.

Some are inclined to be fearful, and require a fearsome stick (hell) and everlasting carrot (heaven) to impose order in their lives. For too many, that's what religion means I'm working hard to get my sorry ass into heaven.

I think that pretty much sums it up Gramps.

If you look at point 1. for example "Religion promotes tribalism". That's a "bad", but religion also promotes a sense of community. They are two sides of the same thing.

gramps, I don't disagree that "... religion can provide ... an organized means of promoting that social welfare.... [and] can endorse a person's inborn urge toward empathy and kindness, and so very often enables charity in the a culture." [emphasis/bolding is mine] ~ my problem with organized religion [especially the more orthodox/fundamentalist sects] is that it so often does not provide those [in my view] positive markers, but rather focuses on blind obedience just because an authority figure says <whatever> ~ I reject the patriarchal mindset ~

CM, I don't see "tribalism" and "community" as being "two sides of the same thing" except in the loosest terms ~ there is usually NO diversity [of ethnicity, religion, race, etc] in "tribalism" and there is usually great diversity in "community" ~

Sooz

Tribalism and community are neither good nor bad. It's what's done with them that's good or bad. Same with religion.

CM, I don't see "tribalism" and "community" as being "two sides of the same thing" except in the loosest terms ~ there is usually NO diversity [of ethnicity, religion, race, etc] in "tribalism" and there is usually great diversity in "community" ~


I don't see that at all sooz. Consider any of the major religions, like Christianity or Hinduism, or Islam, or Judaism.. One of the things about them is their incredible ethnic, racial and even religious (oddly enough) diversity. And yet they promote "tribalism" where there's a lack of diversity??

At the same time there are numerous communities - understood as more than just geographical collections of people - which aren't very diverse at all. And its frequently the case that religion is the basis for "community" as well. Look at the role of the church in many rural and urban communities.

Feeling you are part of a tribe and feeling you are part of a community are both forms of group identity. Sometime they can be inclusive and sometimes they can be exclusive. But both have those features. And even "inclusive" and "exclusive" aren't necessarily either "good" or "bad". See Oskar's point

But don't get me wrong. All I'm trying to say is that the case against religion is being overstated, not that it has no merit at all. The question of the "goodness" or "badness" of religion is an incredibly complex one and I don't think any straightforward judgments can be made.