Difference between revisions of "Religion"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Notes: another thought; refinement of first thought; and yet more thoughts; reorg.)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
* [[Wikipedia:Blasphemy|Blasphemy]]
 
* [[Wikipedia:Blasphemy|Blasphemy]]
 
* [[Wikipedia:Heresy|Heresy]]
 
* [[Wikipedia:Heresy|Heresy]]
−
==Notes==
+
==Problems with religion==
−
The problem with many religious arguments is that they all vanish into a [[black box argument|black box]], with the inscription "God says" on the outside. Even with churches like the LDS, which admit the possibility of individuals communicating directly with God in order to get a better understanding of what God means, thereby either (a) force you to admit belief in God (can't communicate with something you don't believe in) or else (b) deny the validity of your arguments. In order to take part in the discussion, you have to admit to belief in God -- which is basically conceding the argument. In other words, the whole thing is a [[circular argument]] based on the [[infallibility of God]]. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 12:03, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
+
===Woozle makes some points===
 +
* The chain of reasoning in many religious arguments vanishes into a [[black box argument|black box]], usually with the inscription "God says" on the outside. Even with churches like the LDS which admit the possibility of individuals communicating directly with God in order to get a better understanding of what God means, you are still either (a) forced to admit belief in God (can't communicate with something you don't believe in), (b) argue solely from existing religious doctrine, or else (c) have the validity of your arguments denied (your argument isn't based on God's word, so your premises may be wrong). In order to take part in the discussion, you have to admit to belief in God -- which is basically conceding the argument. In other words, the whole thing is a [[circular argument]] based on the [[infallibility of God]].
 +
 
 +
* Belief in absolutes ([[moral absolutism]] and the [[infallibility of God]]) can be used to justify extreme measures. If your faith's doctrine tells you with ''absolute, unquestionable certainty'' that what someone is doing is ''absolutely wrong regardless of circumstance'', that removes most or all of the uncertainty and allowance for mistake (perhaps there are extenuating circumstances; perhaps your belief that their actions are wrong is incorrect; and so on) with which most people operate when deciding whether to take action against someone.
 +
 
 +
* Because of the belief in absolutes (which allows for a great deal of preci and the [[black box argument|black box]] nature of basic religious doctrine, it is extremely easy for someone who is both unscrupulous and power-hungry to manipulate those who have been raised and trained in the validity of such thinking.
 +
 
 +
* If absolute truth can be had by speaking with God (as allowed by some faiths, but not all):
 +
** If you believe that God has spoken to you, how do you know that it is really God? (How can you tell the difference between the "real God" and an extremely advanced but non-divine being who isn't entirely honest?)
 +
** If someone else claims God has spoken to them, how do you know they are not lying (or else deceived, as above)?

Revision as of 17:11, 3 August 2006

Overview

This page is a seed article. You can help Issuepedia water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!

Reference

Links

Facts & Data

Religious POV

News

Criticism of Religion

Related Articles

Related Concepts

  • Providentialism is the belief that God is actively directing the affairs of the world, e.g. through the actions of 'chosen people' whom God "provides" for such purposes.
  • Blasphemy
  • Heresy

Problems with religion

Woozle makes some points

  • The chain of reasoning in many religious arguments vanishes into a black box, usually with the inscription "God says" on the outside. Even with churches like the LDS which admit the possibility of individuals communicating directly with God in order to get a better understanding of what God means, you are still either (a) forced to admit belief in God (can't communicate with something you don't believe in), (b) argue solely from existing religious doctrine, or else (c) have the validity of your arguments denied (your argument isn't based on God's word, so your premises may be wrong). In order to take part in the discussion, you have to admit to belief in God -- which is basically conceding the argument. In other words, the whole thing is a circular argument based on the infallibility of God.
  • Belief in absolutes (moral absolutism and the infallibility of God) can be used to justify extreme measures. If your faith's doctrine tells you with absolute, unquestionable certainty that what someone is doing is absolutely wrong regardless of circumstance, that removes most or all of the uncertainty and allowance for mistake (perhaps there are extenuating circumstances; perhaps your belief that their actions are wrong is incorrect; and so on) with which most people operate when deciding whether to take action against someone.
  • Because of the belief in absolutes (which allows for a great deal of preci and the black box nature of basic religious doctrine, it is extremely easy for someone who is both unscrupulous and power-hungry to manipulate those who have been raised and trained in the validity of such thinking.
  • If absolute truth can be had by speaking with God (as allowed by some faiths, but not all):
    • If you believe that God has spoken to you, how do you know that it is really God? (How can you tell the difference between the "real God" and an extremely advanced but non-divine being who isn't entirely honest?)
    • If someone else claims God has spoken to them, how do you know they are not lying (or else deceived, as above)?
Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Religion&oldid=3420"