Why is Religion so controversial?

Re: Why is Religion so controversial?


I think people tend to build their own self worth around their beliefs, and any time you have a belief which is absolute, people feel that they are personally threatened by things which confict with it.

It's not religion which is at the root of this, but rigidity of belief, whether it be in Deities or Voodoo or Naturalism. With flexibility in the belief, people's self worth is not as easily threatened because they have learned to adapt.

Re: Why is Religion so controversial?


Maybe the whole "you burn forever and I have fun" thing is a bit divisive.

Re: Why is Religion so controversial?


Absolutely.

When you're talking about religion, you're really talking about the "spiritual essence" of the people involved: their character, their morals, their worldview. So to discuss the issue is to get straight to the heart of what makes that person who they are - at least generally speaking.

In effect, to debate religion - and moreover all the concepts and philosophies that come along with it: atheism, agnosticism, nihilism, relativism, et al - is to debate the state of the human condition at large. Such is the very definition of "controversial."

Economics play a big role in whether or not religion is positive or negative. Look and the Old Testament: God allegedly promised the lush land of Canaan to the Israelites and this justified the slaughter of the Canaanites (the Israelites wanted the good fertile land that was occupied by someone else, so they justified taking it by saying 'God' promised it to them). I've heard many historians argue that the Crusades were fought primarily for economic reasons, too (though the rank-and-file soldier believed he was fighting for Christendom).

When people are economically distressed they seek out religion for a variety of reasons--thinking about their 'reward' in heaven psychologically eases their current suffering, their religion will tell them they are God's chosen and identify the cause of their suffering (i.e., Satan, a God-less world swayed by Satan, etc.), and just generally give them feelings of superiority when the world seems to be making them inferior. Religion, particularly fundamentalist religion, flourishes under conditions of economic distress. Just look at the Middle East or the poorer parts of the US.

Mills said:


Sounds suspiciously like the Iraq situation, though I think more people get the economic reasons for it than in "ye olden days". People think they're "fighting terrorists" when they're not, and they also, due to a sad lack of enlightenment, associate "terrorists" with Islam.

I think this "War on Terror" has become very much a religious war, due in part to Bush's dangerous claims to divine right(that "God" wanted him to be president), and also due to the religious right's desire for power.

I also think this situation highlights some of the problems with religion; that the people in charge of it can twist it to accomplish their own agendas, and I think that makes the world a sorrier place.

Religion, to me, is a set of folk tales that have been codified and taken too seriously, and have now become weapons of dangerous power. A few days ago I heard about two girls in high school who have been terrorizing their fellow students with gospel, forcing their religion down others' throats, and then acting affronted when challenged. When that can happen, something's wrong.

I take the "Dogma" view: "it's better to have an idea than a belief." Beliefs, when codified, promote stagnation and a certain bias. Ideas, on the other hand, leave you open to new information, and enable acceptance of other people's ideas.

Taliesin:
I would like to hear your and other people's opinions, who can look at Christianity objectively, without citing dogma, about the following questions:

Was Jesus a Christian? Did he believe in a literal material God, or was he trying to convey his spiritual experience in metaphorical terms? Was his message misinterpreted over time, and was he elevated to supernatural status by those who misread his message? If what I am asking would be true, it does not in any way dimminish his spirituality nor his status as a great religious leader.

I've been a naturalist all my life and what has always turned me against Christianity was its alienation from the natural world, and its supernatural lording over of nature. I think of spirituality as being the bloom arising from nature, just the opposite of Christianity, and the Jesus I imagine would not have fit in with the contemporaty Christian ethos.

Awesome question, coluber. I would say that, assuming that he existed, etc., my view of Jesus is that he was trying to achieve the latter. Like most messiahs/heroes, he was simply trying to convey his views, only to have it misinterpreted and twisted into something else.
He definitely would not have been a Christian by today's standards.
Could you explain to me what naturalism is? I only have the most basic concept. Thanks for the question.

To begin with, how many religions have man created for ourselves? That should be a clue as to why religion is so powerful and a belief. It begins from the time when humans believed in the sun god, or established something in nature as their god. Some kings/emperors even claimed to be god. The culture in which on lives drives any belief system, and most often the children have no choice. Although the message in most religions has some merit to live in harmony with our fellow man, history has proven that religion was responsible for some of the atrocities committed by man to man. Why is any individual that was born and raised a buddhist in China or Japan any different than the Muslim who was born in Iraq or Afghanistan? They have followed the religion of their culture, but both have been responsible for committing some of the most heinous crimes against their fellow man/woman. It's not the religion that matters; it's how any individual lives and treats their fellow humans in a humane way without harm.

I know there's a philosophy of naturalism, but I really don't know what it is. I've just been involved in natural history most of my life, either vocationally or avocationally.

I don't know if it matters whether there really was a historical Jesus, but I like the idea that somebody can become enlightened, that is, have a personal mystical experience that doesn't depend on a supernatural. I like the idea of Jesus being one of many avatars throughout history like the Buddha, if my definition of avatar is right. I think of an avatar as a person whose life was a shining spiritual example. The late Krishnamurti is another person I consider an avatar.

Another person I admire greatly is the late Joseph Campbell who, avatar or not, was a great scholar of worldwide religious myths. He showed millions that the religious myths and symbols that so many people take literally are actually metaphors, whose underlying meaning are universal and common to all religions.

Naturalism [Philosophy] is the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I tend to preach about naturalism the way Frank.A preaches about agnosticism. The philosophy of Naturalism is at the foundation of science, and it's my opinion that many people who object to science are actually objecting to the assumption of naturalism, but they don't know it.

When confronted with creation/evolution discussions, I have a strong inclination to try to explain the relationship between science and naturalism to make it clear that science is based on a belief system just as religion is. Science makes adamant statements about things (like Evolution is a fact), which infuriate people who's beliefs are in conflict with that, but science only makes those statements of fact within the framework of Naturalism. They are not "absolute" facts. They are scientific facts.

Simply put religion is the great divider. It sets people against each other. Live and let live is not part of religions ideology. Because of that religion has been and is the root cause of innumerable tragedies throughout the ages. I would add it presents no redeeming features. What is wrong with religion? It is the lit fuse that sets of the bomb.

Au1929: But that's the funny part, Au: it is part of religion. Jesus, Buddha, etc., all became "famous" because they preached tolerance, not division.
In spite of all this, people still get the message wrong. they focus on tiny matters that aren't important, and then follow that up to strongly opposing he things that do matter.
religion is just a tool for people who can't get enough power. I have no problem with "spirituality", but I have a big one with religion.

Maybe that's part of the problem: "religion" is less what its respective teachers have taught, and so much more the ongoing struggle to find (and moreover assert with threat and force) "higher" answers to questions that will forever plague us.