All Religion is Bad.

[qayak]

Oh god, don't be so dense. Is the Inquisition over? Do we still burn witches? Of course religion has changed. Women and gay clergy in some churches. Christ, the list could be unending, depending where you want to measure from.

9/11, Rwanda, anti-condom preaching during an AIDS epidemic, etc.

See above; they are.

See above, they aren't.

Oh, go ahead, please show me where I'm asking for anything to be overlooked. Do you not understand the different between past and present, or is it just the tenses are troubling you?

Asking someone to forget what happened in the past and only focus on what is happening now, is asking them to overlook the history of religion. And it was you that asked: "As I keep asking, do we persecute people on their past?"

And still you make special allowances for religion. You ask if we still hold it against Germany, Italy and Russia as if that has anything to do with the discussion. It wasn't Germany, or Italy, or Russia that did it. It was fascismn and communism and you know damned well we still hold it against them.

We don't hold the cover up of the sexual abuse of children at the hands of priests, the flying of planes into buildings or saying condoms cause AIDS against any nationality either. We hold it against religion because it is done by religious people in the name of religion.

Before I get started, I'll repeat for about the hundredth time in this thread, that the question doesn't ask for examples of "goodness that religion is", and you know that.

With all the drift in the thread, that is relivent how?

Here are just a couple of examples, and since the question in the poll only needs one to negate it, any one will do, . . .

Seeing as how the question is supposed to be based on something I said in regard to my feelings on religion, and I have explained it to you ad nauseum, you would think that you would have it straight by now. You list acts or actions whan I am talking about religions. Of course, honesty has never been your strong suit on this discussion board.

 

[The Atheist]

9/11, Rwanda, anti-condom preaching during an AIDS epidemic, etc.

That would be marvellous if anyone were defending religion, which as far as I can tell, nobody is. But keep going with the strawman.

I really am struggling to decide whether you're actually a dunce, or just deliberately obtuse. The argument was never "religion is bad lots of the time", because that's a given. With this post, I'm seeing you firmply in the "dunce" camp. The only other poster I know who keeps going after having had his argument destroyed is Unter. Are you sure you're not Danish?

Asking someone to forget what happened in the past and only focus on what is happening now, is asking them to overlook the history of religion. And it was you that asked: "As I keep asking, do we persecute people on their past?"

Yeah, exactly.

That shows that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The next paragraph franks that premise:

And still you make special allowances for religion. You ask if we still hold it against Germany, Italy and Russia as if that has anything to do with the discussion. It wasn't Germany, or Italy, or Russia that did it. It was fascismn and communism and you know damned well we still hold it against them.

I don't know which "we" you're talking about, and do you really want me to squash you again, making such an idiotic point? Why do you think those countries became fascist and communist and the rest of the world didn't? Blame an ideology. Gosh, what a shame Stalin killed all those people in the name of atheism. Mate, I'd hate to see you in an argument in real life - the punters would fair wet their pants listening to you. If you don't like those situations, try the British Enpire and the enormous number of atrocities it was responsible for.

All in the name of Anglicanism, no doubt.

We don't hold the cover up of the sexual abuse of children at the hands of priests, the flying of planes into buildings or saying condoms cause AIDS against any nationality either. We hold it against religion because it is done by religious people in the name of religion.

Here you go. Boy, I hope you have oxygen up on that high horse. You look like a dick, sitting way up there, but with your opinions, it's probably the safest place for you.

How many times do I tell you before it penetrates?

Nobody is arguing that religion hasn't caused serious problems, and still causes some. You just completely overlook the positive parts I listed. Baby - it was your position that all religion is bad and causes harm. You've had it demonstrably proved that the position is absurd, but you'll stick to it, dredging up atrocity after atrocity, yet never dealing with the blatant fact that you're wrong.

Seeing as how the question is supposed to be based on something I said in regard to my feelings on religion, and I have explained it to you ad nauseum, you would think that you would have it straight by now. You list acts or actions whan I am talking about religions. Of course, honesty has never been your strong suit on this discussion board.

And again confirming your comlete duplicity by obscuring the real point.

I know exactly what your argument is, you're just too weak to admit that you made a stupid mistake. You've now reached the limit - that's about eight times in this thread I've completely destroyed your argument. The self-same one every time. You just keep posting details about how bad religion is.

 

[qayak]

That would be marvellous if anyone were defending religion, which as far as I can tell, nobody is.

Ahhhhhhhh . . . back to your Forrest Gump school of reasoning I see.

The argument was never "religion is bad lots of the time", because that's a given.

Wow! Way to figure that out Gump!

I don't know which "we" you're talking about. . .

The same "we" you brought up.

and do you really want me to squash you again, making such an idiotic point?

Wouldn't you have to squash me the first time before you could do it again? I know it is your wet dream to actually make a point in a debate with me but it doesn't look like it'll be anytime soon.

Why do you think those countries became fascist and communist and the rest of the world didn't?

What? They became fascist because they were Italy and Germany and communist because they are Russian?



You've out done yourself this time, Gump!

Gosh, what a shame Stalin killed all those people in the name of atheism.

You just get stupider and stupider! Stalin killed in the name of atheism? Really. seems kinda strange for him to have an arrangement with the orthodox church then, doesn't it.

Mate, I'd hate to see you in an argument in real life

Why are you afraid of me? I'm a nice guy and only bitch slap Gumps who deserve it.

If you don't like those situations, try the British Enpire and the enormous number of atrocities it was responsible for.

And to use the line of reasoning you use with religion: The British Empire was good because it educated all those savages and cleared the world of backwardness.

All in the name of Anglicanism, no doubt.

Some of it but I suppose being a monarchy and having an overzealous sense of expansionism was more the cause. "For god and king" and all that.

I know exactly what your argument is, you're just too weak to admit that you made a stupid mistake. You've now reached the limit - that's about eight times in this thread I've completely destroyed your argument.

No mistake at all. I said "religion is all bad" and I clarified it several times but you still don't get it. Yyreg, Herzblut, etc. must have attended the same Forrest Gump training. However, you are definitely the head of the class.

I'm still waiting for your example of that one good religion, Gump.

 

[The Atheist]

How to be taken seriously in an argument:

Present no evidence.

Falsify previous statements.

Attack opponent.

When own arguments have been exhaustively and utterly refuted with own words, resort to pure ad hominem.

How does qayak fare?

Ahhhhhhhh . . . back to your Forrest Gump school of reasoning I see.

#1

Wow! Way to figure that out Gump!.

#2

I know it is your wet dream ....

#3

You've out done yourself this time, Gump! .

#4

You just get stupider and stupider! .

#5

I'm a nice guy and only bitch slap Gumps who deserve it..

#6

must have attended the same Forrest Gump training. .

#7

However, you are definitely the head of the class. .

#8

My word! 8 of them.

What an intelligent post.

Let's check out the denoument.

I'm still waiting for your example of that one good religion, Gump.

#9!

Yep. Having spent an entire post on ad hominem and arguing points with yourself, you bring out the same, tiresome strawman.

Psst: Qayak. Nobody suggested any one religion was good.

The premise, right from the start, all those days and pages ago, was your own opinion, stated many times; that all religion is bad and causes harm.

If you've forgotten, I'm quite happy to post it for the seventh time this thread - I kept it handy, what with having to keep showing you how you've tried to change the goalposts, create strawmen and generally fail to acknowledge your own words for ten pages...

Bye again!

 

[qayak]

How to be taken seriously in an argument:

Present no evidence.

Falsify previous statements.

Attack opponent.

When own arguments have been exhaustively and utterly refuted with own words, resort to pure ad hominem.

Yes, you have raised these to an art form.

Psst: Qayak. Nobody suggested any one religion was good.

Psssst! Gump, why then do you keep arguing when I say they are all bad?

The premise, right from the start, all those days and pages ago, was your own opinion, stated many times; that all religion is bad and causes harm.

Absolutely correct. But as you don't seem to agree, and after my having requested it innumerable times, provide one example of a religion that is good.

You are a perfect study of your mama's words, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

[Dumbledore]

So what does it take for a religion to qualify as being "good". Large groups of people are notorious for committing atrocities and other horrible acts at one time or another. Certainly some religions have more blood on their hands than others but does this qualify them as bad. Does that qualify all religions as bad?

 

[Roadtoad]

Watch the language, but this is perfect.

 

[juniper_ann]

I'm too lazy to read more than the first few and last few pages of this, so I may be restating.

I think that "all religion is bad" is no more a useful statement than "all culture is bad" or "all people are bad." All cultures have some sort of morality and explanation of the world. In the past, in most cultures these relied heavily on what we would now consider supernatural, and therefore we would qualify these explanations nad morality as religions. Recently, we have discovered better ways of determining and verifying truths in our world, and have begun to discard beliefs that do not match the evidence or are unverifiable.

There are still exceptions. Most of modern western morality is inherited from a culture that has Judeo-Christian roots. For instance, modern western culture tends to see the death of children as more tragic than the death of older people. This is not a verifiable belief, but it makes sense when you look at the Jewish emphasis of legacy. In some cultures, the death of elders is seen as more tragic because the community loses more experience.

Certainly, there is a philosophy of ethics, but I think the majority of ethical decisions are made, deep down, because that's what our mommies told us.

Religion is a necessary step in human learning. To look at our history and make a blanket statement like "religion is bad" is just naive.

 

[RandFan]

Someone else ("B") might bear separate moral responsibility for its own actions - for example, for failing in some duty B had to act otherwise - but failure in such a duty would not make B a cause of the later harm. Thus, B's responsibility would be for B's actions as such, not causal responsibility for the harm occasioned by A's subsequent free actions (in this case, for A's contracting HIV).

A purely libertarian argument. By this logic the only person responsible for a suicide bomber is the suicide bomber. Those who recruit and train suicide bombers are not responsible for the death of the suicide bomber.

I see myself as libertarian but not that libertarian.

Good plug for RSL's website.

Given that every post of my 19,000+ here and others elsewhere give a plug for www.stopsylviabrowne.com (see my sig) I hardly see a problem with that.

Assuming that the other conditions I referenced were fulfilled - for example, that grief did not so extremely impair the faculties of a customer that his choices were not free and deliberate - then I would suggest that Sylvia Browne might be culpable for her own actions, but should not be considered a cause of the harms that might later flow from the customer's decision. You didn't specify what the subsequent harms were, so I won't speculate. I'm not sure this is a great example, though. We're assuming here - which I have no problem with - that Sylvia fully understands that she's pretending. I'm not sure we should make the same assumption about the Church.

It's a great example. People are harmed. They lose their money based on a lie told them in a moment of great vulnerability.

Again, I'm libertarian. I wouldn't pass laws to stop Sylvia. The people who fall for her tripe must accept responsibility. Then again, morally, so must Sylvia.

Has the Church really ever reversed itself on a doctrine in the past? Neither Limbo nor the rule against eating meat on Fridays furnishes a precedent. The former was a popular theological speculation but never a doctrinal theological teaching; the latter was never more than a disciplinary rule (just like clerical celibacy) and thus expressly subject to change at any time. The stance on artificial contraception is, as I understand it, doctrinal - which has very different implications within Catholicism.

I find this amazing as well as disappointing. I don't care if they have an out for some of their wacky ideas or not. This is the problem with dogma. It can't be changed. Therefore proponents have to bend over back wards to justify ridiculous stances like prohibitions against condoms. Why? It's ok to abstain from sex with ones spouse. It's ok to have a nocturnal emission. So sperm is not sacred and procreation isn't a requirement but physically stopping sperm during sex is not allowed?

Can there be any better example why religious dogma is so wrong?

I suppose I had in mind just removing the sexuality model taught by the Church entirely. If the sexuality teaching doesn't make someone worse off than they would otherwise be, one may reasonably question whether the teaching adversely affected that person.

Yes, and we've demonstrated why they would be.

No question about that; I don't think anyone would suggest the contrary. I suppose, though, on that basis, the Church also has a moral responsibility to speak out against what you're saying and try to persuade you and others that you're wrong.

Does the Catholic Church have a reason grounded in logic and empiricism or is their moral responsibility dogmatic?

I agree. Now apply the same kind of reasoning to the Church here. The Church thinks it has good cause to believe that condom use is sinful and, accordingly, will cause you serious harm (in the form of sullying your immortal soul, or whatever the case may be). But let's say the Church decides not to warn you about this; perhaps it even affirmatively encourages you to think that no such harm will come to you by using condoms. Now let's assume (arguendo) that the Church is mistaken; in reality there is no sin associated with condom use that could adversely effect you (maybe there's not even any such thing as "sin"), although the Church believes there is. Is it morally justifiable for the Church to refrain from warning you that condom use is sinful, or to tell you affirmatively that condom use is not sinful? No, according to the reasoning we employed just above.

Hence why I'm speaking out against the church. Thank you.

Yes, you make a very good point. Those who strap on bombs and blow up children believe that they are doing god's work. Those who fly planes into buildings believe that they are doing god's work. From their perspective they are rational and moral.

It is time for society to stand up and speak out against otherwise unchanging religious dogma that is harmful to humans. That a person believes that his or her dogma justifies actions that are harmful is not sufficient justification.

Well, I think the people who held the belief that slavery was moral (as well, incidentally, as the belief that the Bible provides justification for it) were incorrect.

When God tells people to be good to their slaves rather than condemning the practice it most certainly doesn't provide a moral guide as to slavery.

Yes, from YOUR perspective they were incorrect. Not to THEIR perspective. You've hit the nail on the head and you have found the problem. Religious dogma is based on stone age sentiments about the world and notions about god's mind.

I wasn't questioning whether Catholics were different than other people, I was questioning whether the Catholic Magisterium was different than, just for example, the specific outfits that have received federal SPRANS grants and which may be the subject of existing studies.

We know that educational programs that stress celibacy for singles and monogamy for couples without education about condoms is not as effective as courses that include education about condoms. Given that how is the Church's position not contradictory?

 

[articulett]

Wow, I can't believe the results of this poll. I have just joined a forum of sceptics that are suggesting that its worth over-looking all the wars, persecution, sexism and slavery created in the name of religions, for the sake of argument?
Religion did give us sexual repression and an irresponsibility of thinking for ourselves so not all bad, I guess...

I suppose religions aren't bad, the problem is that people do insist on believing in them.

They are a vocal but self important minority. But observe who they are. They are tossing out fallacious arguments, ad homs, and insults/advice that would apply more to themselves than those they insult. We use them to amuse ourselves or put them on ignore. Sure, you can't sway them, but you can goad them--and they are so cute when they get all self important and angry.

Is faith a good way to know the truth?
Is it necessary for salvation?
Does it make people better?
Is it useful?

I say no on all accounts. And I'd say religion promotes at least the first one... which is just an ignorant way to think. But this poll was a straw man to boost TA's assessment that he is moral for defending religion every time anyone dares to say anything bad about it. He pretends everyone is saying "all religions are bad and cause harm" every time anyone says anything bad about religion-- but of course, he fails to apply the reciprocal to his defenses--when he speaks of religion doing good he's not speaking for all religion and when he derails threads all the time to demonize those who dare point out that the emperor isn't wearing clothes-- he fails to acknowledge that he is defending "religion in general" and "faith as a means of knowledge" just as certainly as those who say "religion is bad (or "poisons everything", or "is child abuse, or is "a lie")

 

[Civilized Worm]

So what does it take for a religion to qualify as being "good".

For it to be based on facts. But then that wouldn't be religion.

 

[ceo_esq]

A purely libertarian argument. By this logic the only person responsible for a suicide bomber is the suicide bomber. Those who recruit and train suicide bombers are not responsible for the death of the suicide bomber.

I would say, subject to my earlier qualifications, that they they would have at the very least responsibility (whatever it might be) for recruiting and training a terrorist, but bearing that responsibility is not the same thing as causing the suicide bomber's death. Yet I don't see how the situation is comparable to the one we've been discussing. Is it not relevant that the terrorist trainer (presumably) wills the act that causes the death of the suicide bomber, whereas at least in a vast majority of cases the Church wills the opposite of the act that causes a person to contract HIV?

Given that every post of my 19,000+ here and others elsewhere give a plug for www.stopsylviabrowne.com (see my sig) I hardly see a problem with that.

Neither does anyone else here, I think. I said it was good. In fact, it gave me the idea to put the same link in my response.

It's a great example. People are harmed. They lose their money based on a lie told them in a moment of great vulnerability.

And how does that happen to Catholics?

I find this amazing as well as disappointing. I don't care if they have an out for some of their wacky ideas or not. This is the problem with dogma. It can't be changed. Therefore proponents have to bend over back wards to justify ridiculous stances like prohibitions against condoms. Why? It's ok to abstain from sex with ones spouse. It's ok to have a nocturnal emission. So sperm is not sacred and procreation isn't a requirement but physically stopping sperm during sex is not allowed?

Can there be any better example why religious dogma is so wrong?

Well, I'm not aware of any formal internal contradiction in the Church's teaching. I don't subscribe to the premises, but neither can I rule them out. So yes, I think there could be better - certainly clearer, anyway - examples of dogma being wrong.

Yes, and we've demonstrated why they would be.

Where did we demonstrate that people are made worse off by the sexual teaching of the Church than if the Church had no particular opinions on sexuality?

Does the Catholic Church have a reason grounded in logic and empiricism or is their moral responsibility dogmatic?

I'm not sure moral reasoning can really be grounded in empiricism as such, given the fact/value distinction. It seems to me that at least most conventional normative systems of ethics - at least deontological systems - could fairly be described as dogmatic.

Yes, you make a very good point. Those who strap on bombs and blow up children believe that they are doing god's work.

Possibly, but I fail to see how that is illuminating here. Whatever the Church is doing, I doubt it can usefully or validly be compared to suicide bombing.

When God tells people to be good to their slaves rather than condemning the practice it most certainly doesn't provide a moral guide as to slavery.

It certainly doesn't by itself provide a comprehensive guide on the subject, though over time the Church managed to deduce one from the rest of the source (and pretty well ahead of its time). But so far as it goes, it's not a moral proposition that I think most people would want to technically contradict.

Religious dogma is based on stone age sentiments about the world and notions about god's mind.

What are "stone age sentiments about the world"? How do you distinguish them from, say, "timeless human sentiments"? And does it actually tell us anything useful about a sentiment?

We know that educational programs that stress celibacy for singles and monogamy for couples without education about condoms is not as effective as courses that include education about condoms. Given that how is the Church's position not contradictory?

You seem to be suggesting that certain programs are not as effective as they could be, at least by reference to a particular benchmark. Fine - where's the contradiction?

 

[RandFan]

I would say, subject to my earlier qualifications, that they they would have at the very least responsibility (whatever it might be) for recruiting and training a terrorist, but bearing that responsibility is not the same thing as causing the suicide bomber's death.

Never said it was.

Yet I don't see how the situation is comparable to the one we've been discussing. Is it not relevant that the terrorist trainer (presumably) wills the act that causes the death of the suicide bomber, whereas at least in a vast majority of cases the Church wills the opposite of the act that causes a person to contract HIV?

You won't see what you don't want to see.

I have no idea what "wills the act". The suicide bomber has responsibility for his actions. End of story.

And how does that happen to Catholics?

I didn't say that it does. I'm demonstrating the concept that just because a person is responsible for his or her actions doesn't give license to others to act in ways that could be harmful to people.

Well, I'm not aware of any formal internal contradiction in the Church's teaching.

Who said anything about formal internal contradictions in the Church's teaching?

• Sperm is not sacred. It can be eliminated from the body without being a problem doctrinally.
• Eggs are not sacred. They can be eliminated from the body without being a problem doctrinally.
• Stopping sperm from coming into contact with the egg using natural means is not a problem doctrinally.
• Stopping sperm from coming into contact with the egg using artificial means is a problem doctrinally.

I'm talking contradictions in reason. Stone age ideas give us ridiculous notions that defy reason. Why on earth should god care how sperm is kept from the egg?

Forget that question, I've a better one, why should anyone think there exists a god who cares about such trivialities?

I don't subscribe to the premises, but neither can I rule them out. So yes, I think there could be better - certainly clearer, anyway - examples of dogma being wrong.

By wrong I don't mean in a theological sense or even necessarily moral sense. My point is simple. If I believe that Church dogma causes harm then I can only follow my conscience and speak out against that harm. I can only explain why I believe that the teaching causes harm. I only argue for that position.

We could easily get sidetracked on the definition of wrong. It's possible that the Church believes that it is right but they are wrong. That is my position. I'll leave moral question and theological debates up to others, fair enough? My outrage is due to the fact that stone age ideas are put ahead of modern science and technology. The mere thought of that I find ignorant and backward. It saddens me that religion blinds otherwise sincere people.

The genitals of babies are cut. Girls are mutilated. Women are forced to cover their faces and are not permited to go to school because of ancient and anachronistic ideas based on what some guy from the past thought was right.

These things I find repugnant and anachronistic in modern society. I don't understand why people have to suffer because of the ideas of people who did not know any better and excuse the behavior based on appeals to deities. As if they really know the mind of god.

This offends me. There would be no prohibitions of condoms without religion.

Where did we demonstrate that people are made worse off by the sexual teaching of the Church than if the Church had no particular opinions on sexuality?

We know that comprehensive sex education programs are more effective than simple abstinence and monogamy only programs. The Catholic church is at odds with those programs.

I'm not sure moral reasoning can really be grounded in empiricism as such, given the fact/value distinction. It seems to me that at least most conventional normative systems of ethics - at least deontological systems - could fairly be described as dogmatic.

I'll take that as a no.

Possibly, but I fail to see how that is illuminating here. Whatever the Church is doing, I doubt it can usefully or validly be compared to suicide bombing.

Again, you are missing the point. It isn't an attempt to compare anything. It is to demonstrate that believing an action to be good, moral or correct doesn't make so.

That's all, nothing more. You would agree that belief alone doesn't justify actions, right?

It certainly doesn't by itself provide a comprehensive guide on the subject, though over time the Church managed to deduce one from the rest of the source (and pretty well ahead of its time). But so far as it goes, it's not a moral proposition that I think most people would want to technically contradict.

Ahead of its time? These people, ostensibly, were talking to an omniscient and omnipotent deity. One that took great pains to instruct them about foreign gods (see the first 3 - 4 commandments) but this deity couldn't quite tell them that owning and controlling the life of another human being was a pernicious act? They had to "infer" it over time. Nice. Sorry for the rhetoric but I really feel like I'm have a conversation with a child who want to defend his delusion of an imaginary friend. Aren't we supposed to stop believing in childish things?

Well, in any event, we certainly know what god's priorities are, right?

What are "stone age sentiments about the world"?

Ideas that have been discredited a long time ago.

How do you distinguish them from, say, "timeless human sentiments"?

I don't know what a "timeless human sentiment" is. That's your strawman.

And does it actually tell us anything useful about a sentiment?

Yes. Of course.

sen·ti·ment (snt-mnt)
n.
1. A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason: An anti-American sentiment swept through the country. See Synonyms at feeling, opinion.

Stone Age Sentiment: The world is flat.
20th Century Sentiment: The world is spherical.

I'm curious, do you subscribe to heliocentrism or geocentricism?
Do you subscribe to astronomy or astrology?
Do you subscribe to blood letting or modern medicine?

Just because a proposition is old doesn't make it wrong. However, many old ideas are wrong. Knowledge and understanding has progressed at an ever increasing rate. There are many ancient ideas out there. If we are going to accept ancient ideas shouldn't they be ones that are grounded in logic and/or empiricism?

You seem to be suggesting that certain programs are not as effective as they could be, at least by reference to a particular benchmark. Fine - where's the contradiction?

(see above)

 

[ceo_esq]

Never said it was.

Then hopefully we can agree that the Church is not guilty of causing anyone to contract HIV under those circumstances.

You won't see what you don't want to see.

Would that that were true. Unfortunately, I see many things I don't want to see. Don't you?

I have no idea what "wills the act". The suicide bomber has responsibility for his actions. End of story.

By "wills the act", I mean "desires that it should happen". I think we have a pretty good idea that the terrorist trainer does, but not the Church. At any rate, as you suggest, the suicide bomber bears responsibility for his actions, and his actions cause the death of his victims. Not so with the Church's teachings on sexuality.

I didn't say that it does. I'm demonstrating the concept that just because a person is responsible for his or her actions doesn't give license to others to act in ways that could be harmful to people.

I don't think I suggested the contrary; I simply questioned whether the actions of others in this case were the cause of harm.

Who said anything about formal internal contradictions in the Church's teaching?

• Sperm is not sacred. It can be eliminated from the body without being a problem doctrinally.
• Eggs are not sacred. They can be eliminated from the body without being a problem doctrinally.
• Stopping sperm from coming into contact with the egg using natural means is not a problem doctrinally.
• Stopping sperm from coming into contact with the egg using artificial means is a problem doctrinally.

I'm talking contradictions in reason. Stone age ideas give us ridiculous notions that defy reason. Why on earth should god care how sperm is kept from the egg?

Forget that question, I've a better one, why should anyone think there exists a god who cares about such trivialities?

Unfortunately, our judgment that those are trivialities is itself incapable of demonstration. As I said, there doesn't appear to be any certain flaw in the reasoning process. It's just the premises that I don't buy into. And that seems to me to be typical of Catholic theology - solid use of logic; very questionable premises.

By wrong I don't mean in a theological sense or even necessarily moral sense. My point is simple. If I believe that Church dogma causes harm then I can only follow my conscience and speak out against that harm. I can only explain why I believe that the teaching causes harm. I only argue for that position.

Then I don't think you're arguing with anybody here.

My outrage is due to the fact that stone age ideas are put ahead of modern science and technology.

Exactly how is this happening? Modern science and technology don't dictate any particular moral position. You can't deduce a normative statement from an empirical one.

We know that comprehensive sex education programs are more effective than simple abstinence and monogamy only programs. The Catholic church is at odds with those programs.

If true, that only shows that the Church could be more effective if it switched programs, not that it makes anyone worse off than no program at all.

I'll take that as a no.

Take it as a "no less than any other deontological system".

Again, you are missing the point. It isn't an attempt to compare anything. It is to demonstrate that believing an action to be good, moral or correct doesn't make so.

It doesn't change an objectively bad thing into a good one, but I think if the actor is truly ignorant of the immoral nature of an act (provided that the ignorance itself is not culpable for some reason) he is relieved of moral culpability for it.

Ahead of its time?

I think so, relative to the culture(s) at large.

Sorry for the rhetoric but I really feel like I'm have a conversation with a child who want to defend his delusion of an imaginary friend.

I have no delusions about the existence of anyone's imaginary friend.

I don't know what a "timeless human sentiment" is. That's your strawman.

In that case, "stone age sentiment" is yours. My point is, on what basis can it be tied to a particular time period?

Stone Age Sentiment: The world is flat.
20th Century Sentiment: The world is spherical.

I'm curious, do you subscribe to heliocentrism or geocentricism?
Do you subscribe to astronomy or astrology?
Do you subscribe to blood letting or modern medicine?

But these all have to do with understandings of empirical reality. They involve the truth or falsity of empirical propositions that can be disproven. Moral propositions, as such, aren't empirical and can't be invalidated in the same way. That's why, for example, you won't find any contemporary Aristotelian physicists, but will find contemporary Aristotelian ethicists. Obsolescence in one domain doesn't work the same way in the other. Catholic moral teaching on sexuality doesn't rest on any disproven scientific theory.

If we are going to accept ancient ideas shouldn't they be ones that are grounded in logic and/or empiricism?

I don't think we should accept ancient ideas that are either empirically untrue or untrue as a matter of logic. However, many ancient metaphysical ideas - including many notions of moral and/or religious philosophy - don't fall into either category.

 

[RandFan]

Then hopefully we can agree that the Church is not guilty of causing anyone to contract HIV under those circumstances.

"Not guilty"? I'm not sure what you mean. In a legal sense? In a moral sense?

I've tried to make myself clear. Even though individuals must bear responsibility for their actions others must bear responsitility for influencing other people's behavior if it is in a negative way.

Would that that were true. Unfortunately, I see many things I don't want to see. Don't you?

Not what I meant. We blind ourselves to some things.

By "wills the act", I mean "desires that it should happen".

Not relevant to my point.

I don't think I suggested the contrary...

I think you did but that is fine. We, at the moment, understand each other.

Unfortunately, our judgment that those are trivialities is itself incapable of demonstration.

Nonsense.

As I said, there doesn't appear to be any certain flaw in the reasoning process. It's just the premises that I don't buy into. And that seems to me to be typical of Catholic theology - solid use of logic; very questionable premises.

One can use valid logic to arrive at a spurious conclusion.

Then I don't think you're arguing with anybody here.

Perhaps I'm not. That does not mean that I don't have an argument. I do. A valid one.

Exactly how is this happening? Modern science and technology don't dictate any particular moral position. You can't deduce a normative statement from an empirical one.

I'm not trying to deduce any particular moral position based on technology.

Transfusions can save the lives of children. There are beliefs rooted in ancient tradition that blood is sacred. Based on that notion some people are willing to refuse modern tecnology and let their children die.

This is backward and ignorant.

If true, that only shows that the Church could be more effective if it switched programs, not that it makes anyone worse off than no program at all.

There are a lot of assumptions in there. In the event that there are no other programs then I would agree.

Take it as a "no less than any other deontological system".

Hopefully, humans can get rid of dogmatism. Reasoning need not be grounded in empiricism but it would be helpful to the human condition if demonstrably bad ideas could be jettisoned without fear of offending the gods.

I think so, relative to the culture(s) at large.

Given the pernicious nature of slavery this really doesn't mean much. Besides, the bible gives licence for a slave owner to beat his slave just not kill the slave. I'm not much moved by such.

In that case, "stone age sentiment" is yours. My point is, on what basis can it be tied to a particular time period?

?

I'm confused. You aren't typically obtuse. Our sentiments have evolved over time, right?

But these all have to do with understandings of empirical reality. They involve the truth or falsity of empirical propositions that can be disproven. Moral propositions, as such, aren't empirical and can't be invalidated in the same way. That's why, for example, you won't find any contemporary Aristotelian physicists, but will find contemporary Aristotelian ethicists. Obsolescence in one domain doesn't work the same way in the other. Catholic moral teaching on sexuality doesn't rest on any disproven scientific theory.

But we would consider the moral zeitgiest to have evolved, right? We can now understand why owning slaves might not be a good idea, right? We can, without subscribing to moral absolutes, deduce that there are morals that are better today than yesterday for demonstrable reasons, right?

I don't think we should accept ancient ideas that are either empirically untrue or untrue as a matter of logic. However, many ancient metaphysical ideas - including many notions of moral and/or religious philosophy - don't fall into either category.

From a "true" or "false" perspective I agree.

However, is there really any controversy that owning slaves is not a good idea? We have mirror nurons and are capable of empathy. We know what it is like to suffer and we can reason that it is not good for others to suffer.

So, if ancient metaphysical ideas call for the killing of virigins is it not reasonable to conclude that these are ideas that we would rather not subscribe to? Ideas we would like to prohibit?

I'm not making a comparison. I'm trying to make a point. Don't fail to see the forrest for the trees.

 

[fishkr]

Don't mean to unchange the subject, but I've never heard a bad thing about Rastafarians or Zen practitioners, although I'm not sure Zen qualifies as a Religion. More philosophy/therapy.

Have Rastafarians ever invaded, tortured, repressed, or exterminated anyone?

Any case of Zen monks going postal?

M

 

[qayak]

I've tried to make myself clear. Even though individuals must bear responsibility for their actions others must bear responsitility for influencing other people's behavior if it is in a negative way.

I guess that would be the point of the laws against inciting riots, hiring killers, and abetting criminals. We take this seriously when it is an individual responsible but let it slide when it is a large organization and pretty much turn a blind eye when it is a religion.

RandFan, you've made some great arguments in this thread.