Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[ImaginalDisc]

Well put.


On the first note, it wasn't the pejorative intent I was attempting to address, but the apparent lack of comprehension about the "meaningless" nature of the text. Among many Bible believers, especially among Jews, you would find a subset who feel that the text, by itself, is indeed meaningless. It develops meaning through the study of the text and the attempt to apply its lessons in daily life. In Jewish writings, I have seen quite a few acknowledgements of the self-contradictory nature of the Tanach texts. Among literalists, they might search for a reconciliation of the apparent contradictions to find some interpretation that resolves those contradications.

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion. Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.

Here's a better idea. Toss the book out and do what they're doing anyway, using their ownr easoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's a better idea. Toss the book out and do what they're doing anyway, using their ownr easoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves.

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

Second, they are already using their reasoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves, so why throw out the book? I suppose for some, the book is an impediment to using reason, but in my experience, that number is fairly small, and frankly, throwing out the book has not, in my experience, increased the ability of the average person to reason.

ETA: It goes back to a previous point, and one repeated ad nauseum. Religion doesn't make you a good person, and lack of religion also doesn't make you a good person.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it. .

Say what? Are you saying non-thesits don't contemplate morality?

 

[CapelDodger]

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible.

I've had Christians try to sell me (an atheist) their religion as the source of an admirable moral code. What they don't twig (until pointed out to them) is that, if Christianity is the source, an atheist would not necessarily find it admirable. In truth, religions take inherent human concepts of decency, fairness, justice, and feed them back as their own creation. With added caveats and complexities, of course. Thou shalt not kill ... well, thou shalt only kill heretics, witches, pagans, homosexuals, enemies of your god-given ruling dynasty, or in a "just war". And so on.

 

[CapelDodger]

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.

Judaism is a thousand years ahead of Christianity along this road, which perhaps explains the greater (and increasing, I fear) prevalence of Biblical literalists in Christianity. Jews can appreciate the contexts in which it was thought up, and that contexts change. (We can all appreciate how much of the Old Testament is PR for particular regimes or factions, mostly in the "histories".)

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion.

You think?

Jewish scholasticism (at least in the Western experience) is generally introspective. A scholar can make an entire career from picking over the works of another scholar dead for centuries. On the other hand it produces great and revolutionary scientists (and revolutionaries). Go figure.

Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.

Personally, I think everything useful has been wrung out of the old texts. We know enough now to understand why a just society is not natural to humans, unlike, say, the urban and industrial societies which we just grew into. 9Hint : it's because we're monkeys at heart.)

 

[CapelDodger]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

I think the great majority do. People who think enough, and care enough, about their religion to actually abandon it are likely to have a high moral sense. That's what prompts them to take the positive step of jettisoning it.

(I've never believed, so I'm just reporting on my experience of other atheists. Converts are another breed.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Addressing the thread title , in my opinion religious tolerance is a bad idea. Religion should not be tolerated.

 

[Meadmaker]

Say what? Are you saying non-thesits don't contemplate morality?

I said they rarely do that, although my wording was not so good, because that isn't what I actually meant. Here's what I said.

First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

The "that" in the first sentence referred to your "do what they're doing anyway". And the final "it" referred to off key singing and spending time thinking about leading moral lives. In other words, the off key singing is an important part of "what they're doing anyway", and once they abandon religion, they tend to stop doing that.

I'm not sure off key singing is absolutely essential to human happiness, although I think it helps a great deal. I do, however, think that participation in group activities that are related to the thinking about moral lives is very important, and while atheists may do such things individually, they rarely participate in group activities with that aim.

I'm sure that many people think that they are perfectly capable of leading moral lives and preparing themselves to make moral choices without community support or involvement. I, however, think that few people are actually capable of doing so. I think that reinforcement of shared values is essential for most of us, and atheists who are not involved in religion tend not to get much positive reinforcement for morality in their lives.

 

[Meadmaker]

You think?

It's fairly obvious once you look, but it was still a surprise to me.

Personally, I think everything useful has been wrung out of the old texts. We know enough now to understand why a just society is not natural to humans, unlike, say, the urban and industrial societies which we just grew into. 9Hint : it's because we're monkeys at heart.)

But every generation is born just as ignorant at the previous one. I agree with your assessment of why just societies aren't natural, but then what do we do about it? I don't think we throw in the towel and say that it's natural for us to live like monkeys. We still ought to try and rise above monkeydom in our level of justice. So how do we do that? The old texts might help. If they do, then the next generation will have to learn them just like the last one.

Of course, there might be some brand new texts that work even better. One way or another, there has to be some texts, and the people have to read them, study them, and relate them to their lives in such a way that it guides them in moral judgements. I say that to the extent religion helps people do that, we ought to tolerate it. To the extent that religion contributes to human misery, we ought not to tolerate it. Finally, we ought to have the wisdom to know the difference. In my opinion, the OP picked a lousy example of what we ought not to tolerate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

Facts disagree with you. Despite non-theists being somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the U.S. population, only a very tiny proportion of prison inmates are non-theists. Theist criminals abound. It would seem theism is an impediment to morality, rather than a guiding force.

Second, they are already using their reasoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves, so why throw out the book? I suppose for some, the book is an impediment to using reason, but in my experience, that number is fairly small, and frankly, throwing out the book has not, in my experience, increased the ability of the average person to reason.

Theists everywhere believe in all sorts of absurdities, including angels, demons, possession, faries, leprachauns, astrology, and all other sorts of nonsense. Throwing out the Bible is a good step towards becoming a reasoning person.

ETA: It goes back to a previous point, and one repeated ad nauseum. Religion doesn't make you a good person, and lack of religion also doesn't make you a good person.

Theism does not make people good, but atheism allows you to good for goodness' sake, rather than for the approval of a fictional sky god. Ask a theist if they would still chose to do good deeds if they believed their God would punish them for it, rather than reward them. See how many theists put rewards before virtue for its own sake.

 

[Meadmaker]

Facts disagree with you. Despite non-theists being somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the U.S. population, only a very tiny proportion of prison inmates are non-theists. Theist criminals abound. It would seem theism is an impediment to morality, rather than a guiding force.

My original post on the subject was sufficiently vague and easily misinterpreted that I would fault no one for interpreting it as you did. However, the clarification made it clear that I was referring to the quest for morality by means of public ritual, with the specific instance cited being off key singing.

I'm willing to bet that a small percentage of prison inmates were regular church-goers prior to incarceration. I would welcome data on the subject, if any are available.

Throwing out the Bible is a good step towards becoming a reasoning person.

Apparently, though, not a sufficient step.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My original post on the subject was sufficiently vague and easily misinterpreted that I would fault no one for interpreting it as you did. However, the clarification made it clear that I was referring to the quest for morality by means of public ritual, with the specific instance cited being off key singing.

I'm willing to bet that a small percentage of prison inmates were regular church-goers prior to incarceration. I would welcome data on the subject, if any are available.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Data are not available on how frequently these criminal theists attended church, but it's obvious that atheists and agnostics are less frequently criminals than theists.

Apparently, though, not a sufficient step.

Thinking for yourself is one heck of a good start.

 

[Meadmaker]

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Data are not available on how frequently these criminal theists attended church, but it's obvious that atheists and agnostics are less frequently criminals than theists.

Well, if you find some, let me know, because those would be the data relevant to this discussion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, if you find some, let me know, because those would be the data relevant to this discussion.

No one's sat down and asked every single inmate in U.S. prisons how frequently they attended chruch, for two reasons. A) It's expensive, B) it's meaningless.

Don't commit a "no true scottsman" fallacy. If they identify as christians, hindus, or whatnot , then that is what they are. They're in prison. It's obvious they're not law abiding in the first place.

Note that the non-theists, who most likely never attended church are the least common prison popluation. Any theory you might be entertaining that the most devout theists are the most law abiding is clearly false.

 

[Meadmaker]

No one's sat down and asked every single inmate in U.S. prisons how frequently they attended chruch, for two reasons. A) It's expensive, B) it's meaningless.

The subject under discussion was whether off key singing was one of the "good parts" of Christianity. I noted that atheists hardly ever get together to sing off key, while Christians frequently do that. It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives. Therefore, it isn't meaningless.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The subject under discussion was whether off key singing was one of the "good parts" of Christianity. I noted that atheists hardly ever get together to sing off key, while Christians frequently do that. It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives. Therefore, it isn't meaningless.

Are you joking? I sing off key three and four times a day. There's plenty of atheists who sing, dance, impersonate Elvis and do whatever they like.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you joking? I sing off key three and four times a day. There's plenty of atheists who sing, dance, impersonate Elvis and do whatever they like.

Do you do this on purpose?

It isn't hard to figure out. Here's what I said: "It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives"

If a group of atheist Elvis impersonators got together to sing "Return to Sender" and discuss the moral implications of the great Elvis, and how we can be inspired by him to lead a moral life, I would think that would make the world a better place. Sadly, that hardly ever happens.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It isn't hard to figure out. Here's what I said: "It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives"

No, no, I understood what you wrote, but I thought you were trying to be funny.

You honestly believe that amatuer choral singing is the key to morality?

 

[I less than three logic]

Oh-Em-Gee, it all makes so much sense now. Lets fund a study, I’m absolutely positive that we’ll find a direct correlation between choir attendance and crime rates.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, no, I understood what you wrote, but I thought you were trying to be funny.

You honestly believe that amatuer chroal singing is the key to morality?

I was trying to be funny in the sense that, obviously, the key to morality isn't the quality, or lack thereof, of the singing. You had brought up off key singing as one of the things you could get without Christianity. I thought it was kind of funny to defend off key singing.

Seriously, no jokes in the rest of this post.

I think community reinforcement of morality, and rituals geared toward that end do indeed play a significant role in enhancing people's moral lives. The public affirmation that there is a proper way to live helps people choose that proper way when confronted with an opportunity for immoral behavior.

Please don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's impossible to lead a moral life without some sort of religion or religious-like public ritual. However, look around you, and look at your own life, or anyone else's life. Is anyone perfectly moral? No way. I'm saying that leading a moral life is a struggle. The temptation to do something which is easier than doing the right thing confronts us every day. Community reinforcement of the moral message helps the average human being to choose the moral life, more often than he otherwise would have..

When Christians get together for church, they are helping each other lead that moral life. Atheists could do that as well, but they don't. Outside of the Unitarian church, you don't find many gatherings of atheists who are getting together for their own affirmation that there is a right way to live.

Of course, some exceptions apply. Sometimes, churchgoers cross over from "We should lead moral lives." to "We should kill those people who aren't leading (our version of) moral lives." Oh, well. No one is perfect. There is good and bad that comes with Christianity, or any other religion.