The answer to bad religion is not no religion but… (churches, Islam)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Better religion. So what is bad religion? Any belief other than my own!!!
Or is bad religion similar to what Gordon Allport describes as immature religion and what drives many of the negative perceptions about religion:
Quote:
“Immature religion, whether in adult or child, is largely concerned with magical thinking, self-justification, and creature comfort. Thus it betrays its sustaining motives still to be the drives and desires of the body. By contrast, mature religion is less of a servant, and more of a master, in the economy of life. No longer goaded and steered exclusively by impulse, fears, and wishes, it tends rather to control and direct these motives toward a goal that is no longer determined by mere self interest “
Better religion. So what is bad religion? Any belief other than my own!!!
Or is bad religion similar to what Gordon Allport describes as immature religion and what drives many of the negative perceptions about religion:
Thoughts?
M. Scott Peck, Scott Wilbur and others have promulgated stages or levels of spiritual maturity. Peck's version, going from memory was along these lines (parenthetical analyses are mine):
1) Chaotic / antisocial (religiously ignorant)
2) Formal, institutional, fundamentalist (magical and/or literal thinking)
3) Skeptical / questioning (abreaction to #2)
4) Mystical / communal (returning to the fold as an enlightened / liberal believer)
I don't really agree with the sequence. It is too autobiographical in the case of Peck. I don't see #4 as inherently superior to #3 or requiring a religious element, and I don't see #1 as the alternative to moving on to one of the other options. There are plenty of kindly, good people who are religiously ignorant and/or indifferent; they aren't all street ruffians hanging out in seedy neighborhoods. That would be an inherently elitist classification in my view.
In Scotts' defense he does admit that people can get "stuck" in a phase or bounce around or skip steps, etc., but I think this is actually more useful as a very rough description of a common story arc for a particular self-aware individual who cares about exploring their metaphysical beliefs.
Clearly by this system, "good" religion is inclusive, emphasizes right action and relationships with others over dogma, and is non-authoritarian. I generally agree with these criteria. What I don't agree with is that religion is necessary for people to be well-adjusted and "good" or that it even necessarily helps with those objectives.
Better religion. So what is bad religion? Any belief other than my own!!!
Or is bad religion similar to what Gordon Allport describes as immature religion and what drives many of the negative perceptions about religion:
Thoughts?
The only thing that matters is truth. If a particular religion is based on genuine truth it cannot be bad. And if no religion is based on genuine truth then they are ALL bad.
The only thing that matters is truth. If a particular religion is based on genuine truth it cannot be bad. And if no religion is based on genuine truth then they are ALL bad.
I would say that some religious systems -- or, definitely, some religious congregations and religious individuals -- do more good than harm, though I'd argue it's more in spite of the religious cruft than because of it.
Religion, usually, is creedal / tribal in nature, and based on asserted "truth" with heavy discouragement of questioning or skepticism of any kind. In that sense you are correct that most (virtually all) religion is not based on truth and is therefore "bad".
On the other hand one can argue that all people are to some degree irrational and therefore tend away from truth and are "bad". This is possible without the help of religion.
M. Scott Peck, Scott Wilbur and others have promulgated stages or levels of spiritual maturity. Peck's version, going from memory was along these lines (parenthetical analyses are mine):
1) Chaotic / antisocial (religiously ignorant)
2) Formal, institutional, fundamentalist (magical and/or literal thinking)
3) Skeptical / questioning (abreaction to #2)
4) Mystical / communal (returning to the fold as an enlightened / liberal believer)
I don't really agree with the sequence. It is too autobiographical in the case of Peck. I don't see #4 as inherently superior to #3 or requiring a religious element, and I don't see #1 as the alternative to moving on to one of the other options. There are plenty of kindly, good people who are religiously ignorant and/or indifferent; they aren't all street ruffians hanging out in seedy neighborhoods. That would be an inherently elitist classification in my view.
In Scotts' defense he does admit that people can get "stuck" in a phase or bounce around or skip steps, etc., but I think this is actually more useful as a very rough description of a common story arc for a particular self-aware individual who cares about exploring their metaphysical beliefs.
Clearly by this system, "good" religion is inclusive, emphasizes right action and relationships with others over dogma, and is non-authoritarian. I generally agree with these criteria. What I don't agree with is that religion is necessary for people to be well-adjusted and "good" or that it even necessarily helps with those objectives.
Good stuff. I completely agree with the last paragraph.
The only thing that matters is truth. If a particular religion is based on genuine truth it cannot be bad. And if no religion is based on genuine truth then they are ALL bad.
I don't agree.
I can tell you a truth.
But different people react differently to a truth.
Sometimes they react evilly to a truth.
Better religion. So what is bad religion? Any belief other than my own!!!
Or is bad religion similar to what Gordon Allport describes as immature religion and what drives many of the negative perceptions about religion:
Thoughts?
My position is that all religions have negative consequences when considering all of their followers. The negative consequences are different depending on the religion. The negative consequences for Jainism are not the same as the negative consequences for Islam or Judaism. Though they are the minority, there are probably members of every religion that both benefit from their religion, and demonstrate a positive influence on their environment because of their religious belief.
To me, a "positive influence" is based on the premise that kindness, and the advancement of human rights, are universally beneficial for humanity. And ironically, all of the major religions have doctrines that deny the latter and in so doing, often fail at the former.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.