Recently ABC news reported on a study by Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, that showed that young Americans (age <30) are identifying themselves as non-religious in record numbers, as high as 30-40%. Overall, 5-10% of Americans have identified as non-religious in research from the last two decades, although the percentage has increased to 15% in the most recent research. What's brought about this phenomenon and what does it mean for America?
The author of the study, Prof. Putnam believes that young Americans have forgone organized religion because it represents "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views". I can see that being some people's reason or the final thing to push people away from a religion they were raised in. But many of the people I know, including myself, just weren't raised religious. And most other people I know who were raised religious (Christian specifically), but gave it up, did so because they could no longer support their belief in the Bible against what they knew of science and their life experiences. They couldn't continue to foster a belief that sexuality is wrong or that homosexuality is a sin. They could no longer stand the hypocrisy of church goers or religious leaders. It's hard to keep faith in the Catholic Church when so many priests are found to be child molesters, or have faith in Evangelical Christianity when ministers are found to have relationships with male prostitutes with whom they smoke crack.
Putnam believes this lack of religion will end up hurting our country in the long run, because people who attend religious services regularly are more likely to vote, volunteer, and give to charity. I don't think this is a result of their belief in religious doctrine per se, but because people who go to church as strongly encouraged and organized to do such things.
Putnam also sees this lack of religion as a vacuum that needs to be filled, although he admits that most of these people believe in a higher power, despite not participating in organized religion. He predicts that either religions will shift to "lure back" past followers or people will create new religions. Create new religions? Sounds a bit out there to me.
I view young people's lack of religion quite positively. I see it as people thinking for themselves and creating their own moral codes, which are likely to be more practical and logical than those of the religious books written thousands of years past.
What do you think? Do you see this mvre away from organized religion in the people you know or in yourself? Do you think this will affect our country positively, negatively, or neutrally?
"I view young people's lack of religion quite positively. I see it as people thinking for themselves and creating their own moral codes, which are likely to be more practical and logical than those of the religious books written thousands of years past."
Religion is far more than a moral code. If that's all it means for a given practitioner then they were never really "religious" to begin with...
Of course these new "moral codes" would be more "practical and logical"-- that's the ultimate value of our age: "what's logical and practical is best." The truly interesting (and far more important) question to be asked is whether worshiping logic and practicality really leads to the most fruitful experience of life...
Religion is far more than a moral code.
I agree. Religions, in my mind, include a moral code, but also include a belief system about how the world works, a set of rituals and practices that express participation in a religion and express the beliefs of a religion, and a community of followers.
The truly interesting (and far more important) question to be asked is whether worshiping logic and practicality really leads to the most fruitful experience of life...
Are you saying religion isn't logical or practical?
I would think that having beliefs that make sense would make people more satisfied. Hence why many people I know shy away from the religion they were raised with. They hated wasting mental energy justifying and rationalizing their religious beliefs to themselves. I'm not saying all religious people are irrational, some religious people admit that they pick and choose parts of their respect religious texts or belief systems that best fit their preferences and life situations. That's cool, it's logical and practical.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
I don't think this is a result of their belief in religious doctrine per se, but because people who go to church as strongly encouraged and organized to do such things.
I decided that I was a non-believer when I was about 7 years old. But over the years, even though I personally think that religion is a bunch of whacky gooblygook that has about as much validity as the Greek Myths, I have seen a fair amount of good come from it. Religious people are generally society's best citizens in terms of volunteerism and charity.
What differerence does it make if it is because of their beliefs per se or because they are organized, encouraged and directed? Either way, without this force, society will be a worse place. It happens that it is their shared belief that causes them to gather into an organization that can be motivated, encouraged and directed. There are not many things that can motivate people to gather on a weekly basis and then allow themselves to be organized for the betterment of society.
There are a few other types of non-secular organizations that also engage in some of these activities. The Eagles, the Masons (some religious ties I think), the Elks and various other volunteer groups. I suspect that if you dig into the backgrounds of the membership in these groups you would find a very high correlation between them and regular church attendance.
What differerence [sic] does it make if it is because of their beliefs per se or because they are organized, encouraged and directed?
The difference is huge. The assumption that Robert Putnam makes his claims on is that without organized religion there will be a moral vacuum and people will be unmotivated to do good. I would argue that these people who are identifying as none religious have morals and motivations to do good, they are just ones they pieced together on their own, not prepackaged and dictated by a religion. The truth is many religious people do pick and choose what they actually believe and they neglect to follow certain edicts of their religion, but many of these people don't admit it.
There are not many things that can motivate people to gather on a weekly basis and then allow themselves to be organized for the betterment of society.
You don't spend much time with social justice activists, do you?
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
You don't spend much time with social justice activists, do you?
And how large a tiny slice of the population is that?
And the answer is no I don't. But I suspect that a lot of social justice activists are religious. The Catholic Church for example has always played a huge role in these causes. Catholic Charities is a huge organization that does a tremendous amount of good for the causes that most social justice activists would care about. The Salvation Army is another key player in addressing the needs of the most needy.
Something like 25% to 40% of the American population goes to Church on a weekly basis. That is a HUGE pool of do-gooders that can be and often are mobilized for the benefit of society. If that goes away, there is no other force that replaces it.
Religion has declined a lot in recent years and I don't see any evidence that there is a significant secular movement growing up to replace its positive role in society. We will be the worse for it.
A recent Pew poll showed that religious people (and especially white, evangelical protestants) and regular church attendees were the most likely to approve of the use of torture on suspected terrorists, while unaffiliated and non-religious people were the least likely to justify these tactics based on both "moral judgments and political considerations."
Also, in regards to your previous comment about atheists being less likely to participate in charitable giving...I am not aware of any objective study that has tracked the demographics of charitable giving by atheists. If you know of one, I would be interested in reading it. I do know that a significant number of the largest individual charitable contributors in our country (such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie...link) are atheists.
This would seem to me to indicated that the assumption that people are "better" when they are religious is simply not true.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Count me as one of the non-religious, unaffiliated, non-church going persons who favors torture. I don't have any interest in doing it just for the sake of just being cruel. I also generally believe we should follow the rules of war so long as the other side follows them. (Terrorist attacks targeting civilians counts as a breach of those rules.) But if I had any reason to believe that the prisoner in question had knowledge of a planned terrorist attack that might kill 1 or more Americans, then I want the car battery attached to his testicles or whatever technique will work to extract that information. I generally think it would be wise to have some stringent checks and balances to assure that there was adequate justification. So I guess it is not just those evil evangelical protestants.
I don't believe I said anything about charitable giving. That kind of thing is fairly easy to organize through employment. The United Way has been quite effective for example although I won't give to them because of the shoddy way they have treated the Boy Scouts which is an organization I belonged too, and which I believe does a lot of good.
My points were about volunteerism and the role churches play in organizing it by gathering 50 to a 100 million people in Church every Sunday which makes it fairly easy to organize subsets of them for charitable volunteer activities. There is no comparable secular activity. And my points were in response to a previous poster who made the assertion that church people were often organized in that manner
Obama and Congress recently passed a bill to expand the government's role in volunteerism. Perhaps this is the envisioned secular replacement for church based volunteerism? It even includes a provision to explore possible mandatory volunteer service. I personally don't think that is an appropriate role for government or use of my tax dollars (what article of the Constitution?) and the idea of volunteerism being mandatory seems like a non-sequitur.
I also did not make the assertion that people are better because they are religious. I have known plenty of supposedly religious people that are holy as can be for 2 hours on Sunday and complete asses towards their fellow man the rest of the time. I said "we" (meaning the country) would be worse off without the churches because the churches do lots of good. This only happens if they have members who attend and tithe and that implies the existence of religious people. I gave the specific examples of Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army which are both stellar charities.
...to your statement above...
Religious people are generally society's best citizens in terms of volunteerism and charity.
...and, I just don't think that's true. I grant your point that religious organizations do provide an extensive infrastructure that can enable their members to volunteer and give to charity, but unless there is actual data availble that compares the demographics of these activities to similarly situated atheists, I would tend to consider such assertions to be speculative, and counter with the anecdotal observation that this is not consistent with my personal experience. Most of the atheists I know tend to be very active in their communities, and very generous when it comes to charitable giving. I can't go further than that without beginning to speculate myself, but it is enough I think to challenge a contrary unsupported opinion.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think we have had this discussion in the past and I cited the same evidence. At least one such study has been done. Below is an article that discusses it along with some excerpts. The study is not exactly on target because it is aimed at conservatives. But I think you will agree that there is a fairly high degree of correlation between conservatives and and religious people (yes, I do know that a lot of liberals are churched) but the study specifically found that correlation.
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition
And here is the money quote:
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.
***HTML Tags edited by Blackout - 05/14/2009***
I think we have had this discussion in the past and I cited the same evidence.
I vaguely remember this, now that you mention it.
At least one such study has been done. Below is an article that discusses it along with some excerpts. The study is not exactly on target because it is aimed at conservatives. But I think you will agree that there is a fairly high degree of correlation between conservatives and and religious people (yes, I do know that a lot of liberals are churched) but the study specifically found that correlation.
Okay...a couple of counter-points.
The "study" your article cites is not actually a "study," per se. This information comes from Who Really Cares, a meta-analysis published by Arthur C. Brooks. This work has not been peer-reviewed, and considering that the author is the President of the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative policy think-tank), I would tend to view his speculations about his political opponents with some caution.
I did a search for the sources Brooks used in his books, and the data he is using (and I would suggest spinning) comes from two suveys, The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey and the America Gives Survey.
It is very interesting to note how Mr. Brooks couches his speculations about "secularist" volunteerism and charitable giving. Mr. Brooks twice defines a "secularist" in relation to these surveys. On page 182, he bundles "People Who Attend a House of Worship Less Than a Few Times per Year, or Have No Religion," which (obviously) could and probably does include not only atheists, but agnostics as well as religious believers who do not affiliate with any particular religious sect. This is a very imprecise conglomeration. His second definition is found on page 208 where he uses the category of "Among People Who Never Attend a House of Worship, or Have No Religion At All." This is a little more precise, but shares a flaw with the previous category in that it focuses on church attendance and not belief.
When one actually looks up these surveys and examines their conclusions (as I did), one finds some interesting statements. In the SCCBS, for example, the authors of the survey note:
As for the America Gives survey, the data being harvested by Mr. Brooks is linked to a survey of responses to a specific event (the 9/11 attacks), and is not necessarily indicative of any trend in giving or volunteerism, and even the authors note that there is some potential for bias in their results:
And finally concluded that:
So in conclusion, I will re-phrase my objection on the grounds that there does not appear to be any credible, peer-reviewed data that would indicate a causal correlation between belief and charitable giving and volunteerism. The source you cited is speculative, imprecise and appears to be based more on partisan rhetoric than on an honest meta-analysis of the available data.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I looked at the America Gives Survey and I don't think it had much to do with any of the quotes or points I posted above so I moved on to The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey. Interestingly, that survey was deliberately intended as an extension of Putnam's work so is directly related to this blog. It was interesting and pertinent to this blog for several reasons beyond the specific discussion that you and I are having.
Like you, I also found some interesting statements:
What is the impact of this religious engagement? Involvement in communities of faith among all goers collectively is strongly associated with giving and volunteering. Indeed, involvement in religious community is among the strongest predictors of giving and volunteering for religious causes as well as for secular onesReligious communities embody one of the most important sources of social capital and concern for community in America.. Religious people are great at "doing for."
So it appears that Brooks was not so much "spinning" as you accuse him of but rather almost directly quoting the survey.
Faith-based engagement: religion in America is a big part of social capital. Roughly one-half of all American connectedness is religious or religiously affiliated, whether measured by memberships, volunteering time, or philanthropy. Thus, this dimension matters a lot to overall levels of community connection. This measure of faith-based engagement looks at: religious attendance and membership, participation in church activities besides services, participation in organization affiliated with religion, giving to religious causes and volunteering at place of worship.
Again, I believe that strongly supports my contention that religion is overall good for America and that we won't be a better place if we lose it.
I'm not sure if you read past the executive summary, but the detailed analysis was also interesting. For example this chart was informative:
Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey
Take a look at the 3rd to last and the 2nd to last columns. The strong correlation between "Faith-Based Engagement" and "Giving and Volunteering" is plainly visible to the most casual observer and in fact there are no other columns in the chart with such obvious correlations. It is pretty clear to me that to the extent he was claiming the relationship between those two columns, Brooks paper would easily withstand peer review. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the paragraphs I quoted from the Executive Summary above were based on this data.
What seems to be missing in both surveys is how Brooks made the jump from Faith-based Engagement to Conservatism. He must have had some other source. But that is not really relevant to the discussion in this blog and the data as presented in the survey which directly measured the impact of religion on volunteerism and giving is more pertinent and supportive of my point.
...however the SCCBS itself questions whether or not the relationship between religion and charity/voluteerism is causal, and also notes that the suggested relationship is not without conditions...
So in regards to your comment...
Again, I believe that strongly supports my contention that religion is overall good for America and that we won't be a better place if we lose it.
...I would respond, with "Better, for whom?" If the cost of the suggested charity/volunterism is coupled with a increase in intolerance, book banning and systemic exclusion of unpopular groups from society, are we really "better off?" I would say, "No, we are not."
Likewise, how do you weigh participate in other socially conscious activities against the act of volunteering? How do you equate the time spent in promotion of social justice in comparison with dollars spent? My point is that I don't think the question is as cut-and-dried as saying "religious people give more."
An interesting question (that I don't think either of these studies explores) is the activity of similarly situated non-religious people. I suspect that it is the infrastructure, and not the status of belief, that drives the results in this study. And the question I would ask is "how would non-religious people behave if they were presented with a non-religious infrastructure of similar size and reach as the major christian sects which are driving the data in these surveys?" Considering that BOTH of these studies link the increase in giving to church attendence and not belief, I suspect that the discrepancies in the data could be explained in this way.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. Very fun debate, so far. :)
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
An interesting question (that I don't think either of these studies explores) is the activity of similarly situated non-religious people. I suspect that it is the infrastructure, and not the status of belief, that drives the results in this study.
You pose some interesting questions. I am certainly not one to argue that religion is all good. I frankly think their beliefs are ignorant and all sorts of mischief can come from ignorance. But on balance I think the overall equation for America is overwhelmingly good. Being a member of one of the groups on the outside, I understand your differing opinion. Personally, as I believe I have explained to you before, I think our society is too tolerant.
With respect to the rest of your questions, I'll just engage in some idle observations. Beyond that, I'm done with this topic because it seems like I've discussed all this before and have contributed what I think is important.
I agree that the infrastructure is important. I also think having 25 to 50 million people show up every Sunday is critical.
The infrastructure was not something that happened magically. It cost a lot to build and a lot to maintain and that money was and is given by religious people.
There is a healthy and growing athiest movement. I am not aware of any specifically athiest charities, athiest non-worship halls or anything to suggest that unchurched people would build infrastructure for the purpose of doing good or show up once per week to try to beter themselves or help others. My guess is that even if all the infrastructure were given to the non-believers it would sit empty.
Actually I think on weekends in many cases, school buildings are actually available to the public for these kinds of purposes. But for the most part this available public infrastructure which could be used for organizational purposes by charity minded athiests sits empty.
One case study might be the Episcopal Church which has abandoned any semblance of believing in traditional Christian doctrine and their own Anglican gospel traditions in favor of open inclusion. All that is left with respect to Christianity is hollow words and ritual but not beliefs. They have lots of infrastructure and most of it is underutilized, falling into disrepair and a lot is for sale. One might think that there would be a rush to join this open minded and non-religious church but in fact it is shrinking not growing and it ability to do charitable mission is goin down with it. Or if even the ancient rituals which no longer stand for beliefs are turning non-religious people off, there is still a lot of infrastructure for sale and no particular rush by non-believers to buy it.
And there are small non-secular and unitarian church movements that really don't seem to believe in much. They seem to be more of a spiritual social club. Small I believe is the operative word.
As a non-believer, I am probably the wrong person to ask. But apparently most people are not motivated to show-up and give money to buy infrastructure unless their spiritual well-being is at stake. .
There are a lot more secular/atheist/humanist charities than you may think. For example (and this list is by no means exhaustive)...
Fred Hollows Foundation - Founded by the late outspoken atheist of the same name. This group has done work in approximately 30 countries and helped restore the sight more than 1,000,000 people.
S.H.A.R.E. - The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort has been around for almost 30 years, and is a world-spanning outreach and relief program.
Feeding America - Formerly "Second Harvest," this secular group runs more than 200 food banks.
Toys for Tots - Bet you've heard of this one.
Habitat for Humanity
The Nature Conservancy
Planned Parenthood
The American Cancer Society
Project Gutenberg
The Zoological Society of San Diego
The World Wildlife Fund
Rethink
The American Foundation for AIDS Research
Heifer Project International
Mama's Kitchen
Mama's Kitchen
Actually, there are a LOT of secular charities out there, and despite assumptions to the otherwise, many of the largest and more well-known charities have absolutely no religious affiliation.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Not meaning to enter the debate randomly but I have to bring up one thing. First let me say that I am not here to disprove non atheist charities there maybe a lot of non religious organization out there and that they may do a lot of good work. Okay with that said Fred Hallows as far as my research has taken me has never claimed to be an atheist. In fact on your link that you proved a little farther in http://www.hollows.org.au/Footsteps/ in the area of his younger life he decided against a life in the clergy. By choosing not to join the clergy would mean that he was either thinking about it or going to join. Thus meaning that his younger life was spent in the church. Also upon his death his funeral was held at a church. The catholic church is not know for just letting people have there funerals in there church if they are not of the church.
Now the foundation in Fred Hallows' does not conform to religious group. Also it was not started by a church or other religious group(s). So I would classify it as a non Religious organization. I would like to see the proof that Fred Hallows was an atheist before I will believe your beginning statement about the Fred Hallows Foundation.
Thank you and I hope you have a great day
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
...that dead people have very little to say sometimes about what people do at their funeral. But in his own words...
And a few links...
http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/ahoy.html
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23190378-5006009,00....
http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Frederic_Hollows
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The quote you gave form the SCCBS pretty much sums up my instincts about the differences between what is "doing good" generally for religious versus non-religious people. I highly value action towards social justice and acceptance of difference, as do many of the people I associate with (who also tend to be non-religious).
Don't get me wrong, charitable giving, volunteerism, or other altruistic acts in the name of religion aren't bad. I'm not going to knock my parent's boss for adopting two Chinese orphans just because she did it in the name of the Lord. But the point I want to make is positive, altruistic acts can and do exist outside of organized religion. Most social justice movements (feminism, LGBTIA rights, anti-racism) exist outside of or in direct opposition to the edicts and philosophies of most organized religions, by they are fighting for acceptance and general good will towards all people.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
"The source you cited is speculative, imprecise and appears to be based more on partisan rhetoric than on an honest meta-analysis of the available data."
The lack of any opposition (liberal) survey refuting this one speaks volumes. If it is erroneous such a study should have already been produced, or may soon be.
---
One thing I thought when I first saw this study was that tithes to your church were most likely included among 'charitable donations' when a large part of those monies only finance non-charitable church buildings and activities. If specifically religious donations were discounted the imbalance would likely shrink or perhaps even disappear.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
I would gladly trade every religious charity and volunteer group on Earth for a global population of strong-minded freethinkers. Organized religion is responsible for untold suffering through war, persecution, feelings of sin and guilt over harmless activities, and stubborn opposition to science. By my estimation the good religion does is many orders of magnitude smaller than the suffering it inflicts. Bertrand Russell, in Are the World's Troubles Due to Decay of Faith?:
What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions.
...
I am quite unwilling to accept the view that social cohesion is impossible except by the help of useful lies.
...
There is a very widespread belief that people can be induced to believe what is contrary to fact in one domain while remaining scientific in another. This is not the case. It is by no means easy to keep one's mind open to fresh evidence, and it is almost impossible to achieve this in one direction if, in another, one has a carefully fostered blindness.
...
Many of the objections to what is called "faith" do not depend in any way upon what the faith in question may be. You may believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible or of the Koran or of Marx's Kapital. Whichever of these beliefs you entertain, you have to close your mind against evidence; and if you close your mind against evidence in one respect, you will also do so in another, if the temptation is strong.
...
If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called "education." This last is peculiarly dastardly, since it takes advantage of the defenselessness of immature minds.
The decay of organized faith into smaller personalized religions is great news - it shows that free thought is gaining traction. I'm also overjoyed by the rising irreligion in the USA. We are tearing off the God-goggles and looking at the real world.
Organized religion is responsible for untold suffering through war, persecution, feelings of sin and guilt over harmless activities, and stubborn opposition to science.
Quite a bit of evil has and is being done in the name of religion. And some religions are much more evil than others.
Of course you should not forget that the MOST intolerant and evil people in the world have been athiests. That would include Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao who between them killed probably about 50 million people in hideous ways.
are no problem for a population of free thinkers. Russell mentions Marxism alongside the Bible and the Koran because faith in the Communist Party (combined with traditional Russian faith in authority) enabled Stalin to do his thing. Stalin had to do a lot of lying to cover his purges of political rivals. We can't eradicate liars, but we can inoculate ourselves against their lies by thinking critically. The religious mindset makes us ripe for propaganda so that any charismatic figure with bad intent, religious or not, can get a following.
Evil is not just done in the name of religion. The biggest organized religions are based on variations of the Bible, which is full of evil teachings that bigots point to to justify their bigotry. Without religion there would be much less war, persecution, feelings of sin and guilt over harmless activities, and stubborn opposition to science, just as there would be less charity and volunteering without religion.
You have a lot of confidence in people's ability to think. In my opinion very few people are capable of much deep thought. They need to be led and for the most part they want to be led. That is why they show up at Church. I fear that in the absence of Church they will be led by people who are worse.
The difference, obviously, is that Mao and Stalin were not motivated by their atheism to kill people. The abrahamic religions (for example) have very specific doctrines which instruct them to kill all sorts of people. As a lack of belief, atheism has no doctrines. Stalin and Mao did not have a holy book of atheism that told them to kill people. They came up with that idea all on their own (with a little help from Marx, no doubt). Events like the Crusades, however, were specifically motivated and justified through the application of the theological instruction to kill.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
When will this end
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Stamping out religion was specifically part of their ideological and governing doctrines and they killed and persecuted a lot of people specifically because of their religion. It still regularly happens in China. I don't see that being much different between those efforts and the efforts of the crusades to purge a particular religion that had invaded, conquered, enslaved and persecuted the inhabitents of territory which had previously been dominated by another religion.
I don't argue that religion is universally good. My point is that when religion is gone, all of the hatred, violence, killing and other types of evil that was previously justified by and associated with religon will still persist. It will just march under a different banner. Religion is just an excuse for war. It is not the reason for war.
The crusades were largely about power, economics and conquest. Religion was just a convenient way to fire up the ignorant masses. But it is not the only way to motivate the masses. For example the French Revolution was about "social justice". The same tactic worked pretty well for Lenin and Mao. At the end of the day, the people fighting did not get treated any better under the new rulers then they did under the old ones. I notice a lot of the people on this forum are marching under the social justice banner; take care that you don't play the role of useful idiot.
...but I think there are some important differences. A power-hungry dictator will use any means at his disposal to gain power, and that usually means persecuting and killing anyone who opposes him. Mao and Lenin didn't target and kill religious people to spread atheism. They did it because organized religious groups were resistant to comply with their policies and provided the people under marxism a rallying point around which to organize. The tactic was eminently as practical as it was horrible.
Religion is just an excuse for war. It is not the reason for war.
I think it depends on the religion, and I think it depends on how it instructs its followers to act. If a religion specifically instructs its followers to kill other people, and when those followers accept that lesson and then are motivated to carry out that instruction by their loyalty to the "spiritual" authority of their religion to define the morality of their actions, I think it is perfectly valid to lay the responsiblity for the deaths which follow simultaneously at the feet of the religion as well as on the head of the indiviudal killer. If the holy book of a religion says "kill the infidels," and the the followers of the religion go out and "kill the infidels" because "the holy book told me to," I think there is a valid criticism to suggest that the religion is complicit in those deaths.
The crusades were largely about power, economics and conquest. Religion was just a convenient way to fire up the ignorant masses.
That may be true, but what was it about the religion that made it so convenient? I would suggest that religion in general teaches people NOT to think for themselves, and NOT to question authority. In the case of the Cursades, the power-conscious elite in the religious heirarchy were easily able to manipulate the motivations of their religion's followers because the actions they desired those followers to take were consistent on their face with the lessons of christian theology.
I notice a lot of the people on this forum are marching under the social justice banner; take care that you don't play the role of useful idiot.
A fair point, but one which (if you will pardon the reference) is a two-edged sword. There are also a great many people who try to use the examples similar to your own to suggest that NO cause which can be associated with the term "social justice" is valid, and those people can be just as idiotic as those who throw in their hats with any and every campaign that stands up and declares itself a "cause."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
a great many people who try to use the examples similar to your own to suggest that NO cause which can be associated with the term "social justice" is valid
Yeah, I see what you mean. That would be almost as unfair as painting religion with just the ugly bad brush and forgetting about all the good that comes from it.
Perhaps is it because of my perspective as "a member of one of the groups on the outside," but I really don't see ANYTHING "good" coming out of religion. I think there are some results that arise from religion that may SEEM "good," but in a broader sense are only SUPERFICIALLY beneficial to society. At its root, religion is based on institutionalized ignorance, and as you pointed out above, "all sorts of mischief can come from ignorance." If there is any "good" that comes from religion, I think it is outweighed by the harm that it causes.
If you dip a turd in a candy coating, it will certainly taste alright for the first couple of licks, but once you take a bite...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"If you dip a turd in a candy coating, it will certainly taste alright for the first couple of licks, but once you take a bite..."
You do have a way with words blackou.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I'd like to create my own moral codes. I'd like to blow torch babies and shoot my neighbors. I'd also like to lie, cheat and steal my way to success- why shouldn't I, especially if I know I can't be caught?
I'll assume that my point is taken.
People who claim to be a part of an organized religion do that stuff, so I don't really get your point.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
While I *am* an Ordained Interfaith Minister, I tend to see people choosing a path of belief that matches their own values and belief system. More and more people are turning to the reconstruction movements of older religions.
Daily, I have people ask me questions regarding various Pagan pathes, where to find information on paths such as Norse and Celtic belief systems. I also get many questions regarding energy workings such as Healing Touch, Reiki, and other alternative health options.
The "green" movement is bringing more people to the practice of using herbal remedies, aromatherapy, and doing their best to ensure that recycling is practiced.
While these occurences do not necessarily constitute a "structured religion", I believe that this is a symptom of the breakdown of the Catholic Church as well as other mainstream religious systems. Young people today have the resources to find information about societies around the world using the internet. In the past, religion was often something passed down through families - the parents practice a particular path, and the children followed along - whether through "conditioning" or by virtue of not being exposed to other options.
I personally see progress in spirituality through occurances such as these - people are taking an ACTIVE part in the choice of the belief system they now CHOOSE to follow.
I found it interesting and am looking forward to seeing more of what you have to share. I am fascinated by any kind of interfaith work.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
but it remains valid even if God exists: no matter how powerful God is, you are faced with Hume's is-ought problem. You can still ask, "why obey God?" and you need to presuppose certain values in order to answer that question. Why do you hold those values? (You have to presuppose certain values to answer *that* question.) Why do you hold *those* values? repeat ad infinitum.
I resolve this by retreating to expressivism, the meta-ethical theory that says morals are expressions which have no truth values. The objective language we use in moral conversation corresponds to the quasi-objective nature of morality - our genetic predispositions are similar, and we socially influence each other's values, so that we can argue about "what is good" instead of "what person X feels is good".
I read this paragraph about 5 times and could not make heads or tails out of what it might mean.
I resolve this by retreating to expressivism, the meta-ethical theory that says morals are expressions which have no truth values. The objective language we use in moral conversation corresponds to the quasi-objective nature of morality - our genetic predispositions are similar, and we socially influence each other's values, so that we can argue about "what is good" instead of "what person X feels is good".
I tried to look up some of the terms and while I think I now know what meta-ethical means, I never did find a definition of quasi-objective. I thought the problem might be my less than stellar English comprehension skills so I decided to translate it to Dutch which is another language I don't comprehend and see if it made any more or less sense. I ran it through Babelfish and it came out like this:
Ik los dit door terug te gaan op aan expressivism, de meta-ethische theorie die zegt de moraal uitdrukkingen is die geen waarheidswaarden hebben. De objectieve taal die wij in moreel gesprek hebben gebruikt beantwoordt aan de quasi-objectieve aard van ethiek - onze genetische neigingen zijn gelijkaardig, en wij beïnvloeden sociaal elkaar ' s waarden, zodat wij over " kunnen debatteren; wat good" is; in plaats van " welke persoon X voelt zijn good".
No worse anyway
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
sorry, sometimes I forget that not everyone is a philosophy nut. The prefix "quasi-" means "similar to", "almost", or "seemingly". Some people believe morals are objective, i.e. that any true moral statement applies to everyone in "the same way". Others believe morals are subjective, i.e. that some true moral statements apply to individuals "differently" (I use quotes because there is some wiggle room when people define these terms). "Quasi-objective" morality has the appearance of applying to everyone equally.
Basically my belief is that any moral statement like "X is good/bad" is really a glorified "yay X!" or "boo X!" and when we argue about what is fundamentally good, we are confusing the meaning of "good". It is an expression of emotion, typically desire. We can argue about what it is possible or probable for people to feel, and our feelings can lead to competing actions, but strictly speaking our feelings can't 'disagree'.
I appreciate this. Thanks! I have a hard time with most philosophy terms. I remember concepts much better than I remember the titles of things. I can't even name the names of songs from my favorite albums.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8063855.stm