Rant Mode. Some Religious People Are Really Good.

[Mudhammam]

Sorry, this is sort of a rant. In that mood I guess.

One of the reasons I consider myself an anti-theist is that I find the domain of ideas of utmost importance and under constant assault. There is another thread elsewhere about the definition of humanity and I think it might be fair to suggest that the idea of an idea is perhaps the most definitive point of contrast between the activities we consider human and those we deem purely animalistic, or of a less intelligent class.

"Free will" evolved with us ungrateful bipeds: "Free will" is really little more than dialogue between our passions and our thoughts, which is to say nothing that wasn't understood by philosophers as old as Plato. What humans perceive as voluntary actions are those achieved by thought, while involuntary actions are overwhelmingly dominated by our passions. By I digress from the title of the thread.

There are some threads of recent that have caused me to ponder if there is enough nuance in the general perception that a great number of individuals (who I feel share my sense of concern for the domain of ideas) seem to convey about religious people. Hopefully no one feels that I'm directly caricaturing their opinions; I speak mostly from the experience of my own biases.

I don't think it is as simple as viewing religion as a project that inevitably turns people good or bad, and I'm inclined to think most here would consider that a no-brainer. Religion exploits ignorance and imagination and in the arena of thought concerned with the real world and not merely fanciful escapism, that of course must be considered to some extent dangerous, though we must be careful how we frame that subject. I take it for granted that any thought of value must first value thought. Most have a sense of direction for how to best safeguard their basic interests in a reality where social interaction is generally not a matter of freedom or will and practically nobody is deluded enough to think of themselves as wholly self-sufficient. We must keep in mind that bad ideas are not restricted to the inner oracles of religious zeal, though its more or less the antiquity of the notions that makes them so easy to identify.

At any rate, my main point is that everyone perceives the world differently and some brains will interpret religion more liberally so as not to erode a socially acceptable conception of goodness that is grounded in valid and sound reasoning, itself but a variety of natural selection that operates on the level of our pleasure and pain. We may have no idea what differences it makes to call our personal ideal an absolute and objective being when reason can suffice as supreme ruler, and we should always be concerned how one can rationally compartmentalize their generally sound approach to experiences that involve their body from their absurd treatment of the "soul" (read: mind), but I think it's a mistake to speak with the presumption that, to put simply, religious people = bad, "the Other."

[FatAndFaithless]

I'd even say that the large majority of religious people are good people with whom I might disagree on only a handful of things, but that doesn't mean I won't speak up ardently about those handful of things.

[Jenny A]

I'm going to make a very simple response to your rather more thoughtful and involved OP.

Neither religion nor atheism, is likely to bring about any great change in moral behavior, though religion might cause people to think new things (like eating pork, or dancing) are immoral that they didn't consider immoral before. However, religion and some other strongly held beliefs can be used to justify truly horrendous behavior as moral such as shunning your family, The Inquisition, holy wars, genital mutilation of children, suicide bombing, picketing military funerals, etc. Religion can also emphasize some of the nastier aspects of tribalism (back to those holy wars.)

[Faith No More]

It's easy to demonize religion for its poor use of reason because of how openly it flaunts it's bad conclusions, but it's good to ground ourselves in reality by reminding ourselves that we're all guilty of flawed thinking in some aspects of our lives. We're all human beings, which unites us through a bond of irrationality, and I think that's important to keep in mind when we pass judgement on others.

It's nigh impossible to truly understand the world from another's point of view, and saying your point of view is better can get presumptuous.

[abentwookie]

I never assume anyone is bad based on their religion or lack thereof, in the case of atheists. I have met some religious people who were awful individuals and some who I genuinely liked as people. The same can definitely be said for atheists as well. I have met quite a few atheists who are absolutely horrible people. Selfish, bigoted, arrogant, etc... The same flaws you see in humanity in general. All groups are composed of humans so each of them will have their share of bad apples.

[Norman Humann]

I agree with what was already said. Being religious doesn't automatically label an individual immoral.

I'm well aware that the majority of religious people are generally good people who aren't affected by the horrors of their beliefs. It's similar to the statement some christians like to make, "hate the sin not the sinner". In this case it's "hate the belief, not the believer".

That being said, I find it extremely hard to see the good nature in most of the church representatives I know. I'm aware of this bias and try not to let it affect my relations with them. It will likely become easier when I'm able to get over the religious trauma, once the anger has subsided. I try not to blame them for what happened to me. Despite their horrific beliefs, they mean well most of the time and are, after all, just human.

[abaris]

My answer to the OP is the same answer I always have when this comes up. I'm not an anti theist out of practical considerations. Religions are, at their base and stripped of any woo, ideologies. Humans will always fall and have always fallen for ideologies. The main reason for this being the human urge to form exclusive circles, to feel elevated by the group and to get some outside purpose into their lives. They want to be taken by their hands and led to greener pastures.

So, if religion were to vanish, the void would be instantly filled with new ideologies. And they could come in any stripe or color. My standpoint is, better the devil you know. What I'm fighting against is religious fundamentalism and literalism. Political religion that sneaks into secular affairs and tries to determine how everybody has to live. That's what we observe to a larger degree in the Middle East, but that's also what Western fundamentalists try on a daily basis.

[Mudhammam]

Does anyone think religion could ever be subsumed into other ordinary attempts at escapism and viewed as in some way valuable or beneficial?

For example, I came across this meme a while back. I found it funny, and to some degree valid.



Or does religion, unlike other pastimes, necessarily demand too much from the believer and the rest of society for whatever else it offers?

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't think you can call religion a 'past time'. Even the hypothetical subject in your meme could understand the difference between a videogame and real life. Religion makes claims about this reality not some facsimile of an invented one, so I wouldn't even call religion escapism at all. As much as I can chuckle at those kinds of gamers (or people that read fantasy novels 18 hours a day, etc), and I'm a big gamer and fantasy novel-reader myself, there's a huge difference between using something to escape reality, and creating an entire edifice of ideas and commandments and declarations and tenets to define the objective reality that we all share.

The moment a WoW player pickets outside city hall for the creation of a national holiday to comemmorate the defeat of the Lich King, or a GoT reader demands exemption from certain taxes because it goes against the will of The Red God, then possibly they could be comparable.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think you can call religion a 'past time'. Even the hypothetical subject in your meme could understand the difference between a videogame and real life. Religion makes claims about this reality not some facsimile of an invented one, so I wouldn't even call religion escapism at all. As much as I can chuckle at those kinds of gamers (or people that read fantasy novels 18 hours a day, etc), there's a huge difference between using something to escape reality, and creating an entire edifice of ideas and commandments and declarations and tenets to define the objective reality that we all share.

Well said. But in referring back to those "liberal" theists who see their belief in one category over here and the world of experience in another over there, is there any room for religion to thrive with a modicum of respect in between superstitious delusion and enlightened fantasy?