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.
If you define bad morals to equal religious values, of course you get that result. If you define morality apart from religion, the answer is not so evident.
I actually don't have a problem with some religious values. If they make sense outside of a religious framework and are helpful in producing a more peaceful and just society, great! Things like honesty and integrity are important, but they are not the sole province of the religious.
On the other hand, religious values like "Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live" or the genocide of nations on god's command, or the denigration of entire races because somebody saw Noah's woohoo, those have got to go! Please, please, please dilute these values! I find that huge amount of religious values are themselves incredibly immoral.
-NoCapo
All those things have long been gone; you need new gripes to replace your outdated ones.
I think the effort or even thought of eradicating religion is simply the wrong approach to it all. Its one of those ways of life thats here to stay; the better approach is to " Overhaul it", or reprove it; refine it. The difficulty in that is religions are cultural and groupish, they have to take it upon themselves to do that. I doubt they would allow outside access to be involved in that kind of process. So govermental interference is not the proper steps in some cultures, maybe it could help in certain cultures. Individuals in each group just have to have the insight and understanding to see and bring out the traditional errors and faults in their religions. And work to accomplish change.
Everything does not need to change, some things just need improving and renewing. Other things need magnification and updating. We can look at " Laws" and see this dynamic; all laws have not been good laws, and need re-working as our understanding of them grows through experience; such as the " Stand your ground law." Yet we know we need laws, they do work and help; religion is no different. It would be just as extreme to eradicate religion, as it would be to eradicate law.
I think the effort or even thought of eradicating religion is simply the wrong approach to it all. Its one of those ways of life thats here to stay; the better approach is to " Overhaul it", or reprove it; refine it. The difficulty in that is religions are cultural and groupish, they have to take it upon themselves to do that. I doubt they would allow outside access to be involved in that kind of process. So govermental interference is not the proper steps in some cultures, maybe it could help in certain cultures. Individuals in each group just have to have the insight and understanding to see and bring out the traditional errors and faults in their religions. And work to accomplish change.
Everything does not need to change, some things just need improving and renewing. Other things need magnification and updating. We can look at " Laws" and see this dynamic; all laws have not been good laws, and need re-working as our understanding of them grows through experience; such as the " Stand your ground law." Yet we know we need laws, they do work and help; religion is no different. It would be just as extreme to eradicate religion, as it would be to eradicate law.
I sort of agree with you. The problem as I see it is that the benefits of religion are products of the same things as the abuses and I don't know how you separate them.
I read an interesting book a while back, whose name I cannot recall, that dealt with the rise of fundamentalism in the US. The point he made was mainline, liberal denominations were loosing members quickly, and the being replaced by fundamentalist churches, which are growing rapidly. The reasoning was that within congregation with strict rules, a defined hierarchy, and separation from "the world" people found a much greater sense of purpose and belonging. The support and nurturing they were looking for in a church was much greater in these type of congregations.
The same things that made the congregations desirable to believers are the same things that make them dangerous: an intentional disconnect from the wider world, a sense of us vs them, of taking care of one's own kind, a reliance on faith in the dictates of the church as opposed to forming independent conclusions, a sense of purpose and of doing God's work when following the dictates of the church.
The fastest growing denominations display many of these traits, while the denominations that rely on personal spiritual experience, reason, and not on an authoritarian, black and white demarcation, like the UUs or the Quakers, are very small and culturally powerless.
To remake religion in a form that encourages personal experience over doctrine, is inclusive, does not promote an us vs them mentality, and does not judge or condemn is to remove the things that attract people to religion. People want doctrinal certainty,they want to know they are on the winning team, and that they have people who have their back in the event of conflict with those on other teams. This is fundamentally what organized religion is about. Take this away and you will see what has happened to liberal and mainline churches around the world, a diminishing of attendance, participation, and influence. I don't think organized religion can be successfully overhauled, have its teeth pulled if you will, and still retain its societal function. To use your law analogy, it would be the same thing that would happen if the laws were not changed but the punishment for every crime was universally set to a $1 fine. To have a societal effect religion must make use of fear, guilt, ostracism, punishment, shame, and maybe even violence. Take these away, and it is useless, at least as far as it affects society and culture.
I read an interesting book a while back, whose name I cannot recall, that dealt with the rise of fundamentalism in the US. The point he made was mainline, liberal denominations were loosing members quickly, and the being replaced by fundamentalist churches, which are growing rapidly. The reasoning was that within congregation with strict rules, a defined hierarchy, and separation from "the world" people found a much greater sense of purpose and belonging. The support and nurturing they were looking for in a church was much greater in these type of congregations.
The same things that made the congregations desirable to believers are the same things that make them dangerous: an intentional disconnect from the wider world, a sense of us vs them, of taking care of one's own kind, a reliance on faith in the dictates of the church as opposed to forming independent conclusions, a sense of purpose and of doing God's work when following the dictates of the church.
This is true. But I can't understand why it has happened at this point in our history.
I sometimes wonder whether the growth of religious fundamentalism is a backlash against rapid scientific progress and the increasing skepticism about religion in general.
I don't think organized religion can be successfully overhauled, have its teeth pulled if you will, and still retain its societal function. To use your law analogy, it would be the same thing that would happen if the laws were not changed but the punishment for every crime was universally set to a $1 fine. To have a societal effect religion must make use of fear, guilt, ostracism, punishment, shame, and maybe even violence. Take these away, and it is useless, at least as far as it affects society and culture.
-NoCapo
There would certainly be looses and traditional minds would be shaken, but still overhaul is certainly possible. The " Worldwide Church of God" is a good example of that; they complettely overhauled their church, the membership was shaken, people left, splinter groups developed there own churchs, and a whole different church emerged. And that church is not useless.
There would certainly be looses and traditional minds would be shaken, but still overhaul is certainly possible. The " Worldwide Church of God" is a good example of that; they complettely overhauled their church, the membership was shaken, people left, splinter groups developed there own churchs, and a whole different church emerged. And that church is not useless.
First, let me be clear. I applaud the changes, but they still are very fundamentalist. They have gone from very far outside the norm to something akin to most other evangelical churches, like Baptists, generic Bible Churches, or maybe the Assemblies of God. These are still a long way from the mainline denominations or the "liberal" one like UUs.
Second, this illustrates my point. Their doctrine has grown less judgmental, less isolationist, and they lost roughly half their members and clergy over it! Those people do not want to overhaul their religion, they are devoted followers of Armstrong, and are forming other churches where they can stay within their original restrictions.
The new, improved church is going to have a harder time distinguishing itself from other evangelical tradition, it does not have the social controls (ostracism, severe tithing, isolating social standards) that enabled the previous incarnation to stay so unified and focused. The process continues until you wind up with a European type religion, where everyone is a member, but nobody really cares. (Compare the experience at a Episcopalian or Catholic church in to a Southern Baptist, Pentecostal Holiness, or Assemblies of God and you will see a real difference.) Then the people who are longing for that sense of meaning, purpose, community, doctrinal certainty, and order gravitate from the theologically liberal churches to the churches like the Assemblies, Seventh Day Adventists, or Philadelphia Church of God and the cycle starts all over again.
I guess I am just not as hopeful as you. I see the parts of religion that make it dangerous to us outsiders as the same things that make it attractive to believers. It is only a short walk from being separate from the world to being xenophobic towards it. I don't see any way to decouple those types of things in a systemic manner. The very things that make religion such a comfort to so many, leave them open to abuse and manipulation. I wish I had an answer, but I just don't see it.
[quote=NoCapo;23756401]First, let me be clear. I applaud the changes, but they still are very fundamentalist. They have gone from very far outside the norm to something akin to most other evangelical churches, like Baptists, generic Bible Churches, or maybe the Assemblies of God. These are still a long way from the mainline denominations or the "liberal" one like UUs.
quote]
They made the changes, and can therefore make more. A church can change, it takes just as much effort as you hope for change toward Atheist acceptance; there is little difference. If a world can slowly change toward Atheism in your hopes, it can conversely change toward true religious enlightenment in others hopes. And many other churchs are changing slowly, they just don't bother announcing it to the media.
It just takes one dynamic opened minded leader to usher his congregation into new radical understanding that breaks down the " Bad habits of historical religions." Religion is already in front, already dominant, already a majority, it can loose many people to change and still remain the elephant in the room. Still effectively influence humanity towards good. No matter what evil or bad religion has done, its good still outweighs any perceived speculation that it should be discontinued.
This is true, because humans have a basic survival instinct.
When humans are faced with insecurity in their lives, their brains make them want to believe in an imaginary world of comfort and consolation.
When the majority would rather have an imaginary world, as compared to the Atheist world; that means they feel as if atheism is not even worth imagining.
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.
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.
