My biggest grouse about religion

[DMB]

I think religion is the biggest waste of resources, energy and human life ever invented.

[lpetrich]

It wouldn't bother me so much of followers of various religions treated their beliefs as a fantasy world, in the fashion of the Society for Creative Anachronism. But they often insist that their religions are literally true -- and worse.

[Mung Dynasty]

I think religion is the biggest waste of resources, energy and human life ever invented.

What about war?

[DMB]

What about war?

I think it come in at No. 2. :D

[Lisa0315]

Wow, DMB! This could be a great discussion. Wanna?

Lisa

[DMB]

Yes. Bit by bit. At the moment I'm a bit involved still with some of the nuts and bolts of the board, so it's not top of my priorities.

Let me make my position clear. We don't know how far back religion goes in the story of homo sapiens. But we do know that all sorts of religions have existed from at least the beginnings of civilisation. Religion, priesthood and monarchy seem to go hand in hand with civilisation. Civilisation in many ways has been of great benefit for human beings, but there are other ways in which it hasn't.

Pre-civilisation hunter-gather societies would no doubt have had hierarchies, just as our primate cousins do. But nevertheless, such societies had much greater individual freedom and equality than most of the subsequent civilisations. If you need to run a city, you need people in charge to do the running. But do they really need to be kings or the equivalent? Do they need disproportionate amounts of the available resources, with the corollary that others are reduced to a vile status, perhaps as actual slaves? Civilisation seems to spawn a more or less parasitic class who grab more than their fair share of resources. And among the parasites (in some civilisations the same ones) are the priesthood.

So often those rendered poor by the system shoulder a double burden. Their goods or services are owed both to the monarch/aristocracy and to the priesthood. And sometimes they may actually be taken as human sacrifices. (And that is still going on in the 21st century).

[Lisa0315]

Well, lets narrow it down to the major religions that exist in the modern world and see if religion has been as detrimental to society as you believe.

Lisa

[DMB]

I think it's artificial to narrow it down that much. All religions have a hell of a lot in common.

[Lisa0315]

I think it's artificial to narrow it down that much. All religions have a hell of a lot in common.

Okay, just testing your parameters. I admit that I do not know very much about ancient religions, and my support of religion will be based on recent history. I think in theory though, we should be able to speak of religion in general, and the evolution of belief weighing the benefits and consequences.

Lisa

[DMB]

Perhaps you should think in the wider context. It is not at all evident that any single religion is a lot better than any other.

[Lisa0315]

Perhaps you should think in the wider context. It is not at all evident that any single religion is a lot better than any other.

Hospitals, art, and universities...Can you deny that much of these were given to civilization by religion?

Lisa

[DMB]

Hospitals, art, and universities...Can you deny that much of these were given to civilization by religion?

Lisa

Yes. They arose in societies where religion wsa predominant. But do you seriously think there would be no art without religion?

[Lisa0315]

Yes. They arose in societies where religion wsa predominant. But do you seriously think there would be no art without religion?


Of course there would be, but do we want a world without David, the Sistine chapel, and other great works of religious art? Birth of Venus? Aphrodite of Melos? So many more.

All sponsored and inspired by religion. Without religion, none of these would exist.

[Anne]

Lisa, you do realize that Boticelli destroyed most of his art because he was told it was wrong by the Church?

You do realize the library at Alexandria was burned by Christians?

How much did the Church dampen, not feed, in medicine, art and learning?

[DMB]

Those particular works, no. But if the artists existed they might have produced marvellous different ones. And think of someone like Goya. He was somewhat anti-religious and produced some of the greatest paintings of all time.

[DMB]

Lisa, you do realize that Boticelli destroyed most of his art because he was told it was wrong by the Church?

You do realize the library at Alexandria was burned by Christians?

How much did the Church dampen, not feed, in medicine, art and learning?

You often get one religion destroying the products of another. Like the Taleban blowing up the Buddhas of Bamyan.

[Lisa0315]

Sure, but the destructive force of one religion does not nullify the creative good of another, does it? The question, I think, should be, "Has religion done more good than evil?" Has society benefited more with or without religion?

Lisa

[Anne]

I think that's an easy one.

[Lisa0315]

I think that's an easy one.

I'm listening.

[Goodchild]

I think I've gone down the route of art as regards religion with you before, Lisa :)

And my position now, as then, is that art would have existed with or without religion and for every instance you can find of religion promoting art you can find ten instances of it suppressing art the religion didn't care for. That's not even counting all the art that was destroyed after it was produced, i'm only speaking of art in potentia.

I believe the result is that religion has had a net negative effect on the production, promotion and preservation of art throughout history.

[Anne]

I'm listening.

Religion--- specifically the 3 main ones--- has destroyed more creativity and more artists and more scientists and more philosophers than any other single force.

IMO, that is.

[Notta]

I believe the result is that religion has had a net negative effect on the production, promotion and preservation of art throughout history.
That may be true, but since I know of NO societies on Earth that evolved without religion, that is not a testable hypothesis.

(so sorry -- I'm writing a book on science and can't stop thinking in those terms)

Anyway, I don't see how one could prove one way or another that religion was harmful or beneficial because we have never lived without it during recorded history -- and it probably predates recorded history.

Now if we could find some other animal society that had religion -- that would show that some mammals have an innate need for religion in their lives.

I know my cats worship ...er....never mind. I worship them!

[Lisa0315]

I think I've gone down the route of art as regards religion with you before, Lisa :)

And my position now, as then, is that art would have existed with or without religion and for every instance you can find of religion promoting art you can find ten instances of it suppressing art the religion didn't care for. That's not even counting all the art that was destroyed after it was produced, i'm only speaking of art in potentia.

I believe the result is that religion has had a net negative effect on the production, promotion and preservation of art throughout history.

Perhaps, but my point is not that art would not have existed, or that art is better because of religion, but that there are masterpieces that exist BECAUSE of the inspiration of religion that we would not have otherwise. Would we have other things of equal beauty and value? Of course, but can any of it be replaced or measured as equal, lesser, greater? Art simply is...There are no comparisons of one to another. How would you choose?

So, the argument cannot be that art would have been or should have been. We can only say that art is as it is with and without religious influence, and remember that much of art, literature, thought, even anti-religious, would not be if not for the influence (good or bad) of religion.

I say that American democracy as we know it would not exist but for the influence of religion. The ideal of socialism would not exist but for the influence of religion. The concepts of good and evil would be very different. Even the French Revolution which strongly disdained the Christian religion for a period, created a new secular religion, I cannot recall now the details.

Would man have progressed in the same way? Striving for or against a god? For the sake of worship, or the sake of showing that one god was greater than another god?

I am trying to imagine the world in which there were no fairy tales, no mythology, no superstition, and no belief in anything greater than humanity. I simply cannot do it, but I welcome speculation on what others think the world would have been like without these things.

Lisa

[Notta]

I am trying to imagine the world in which there were no fairy tales, no mythology, no superstition, and no belief in anything greater than humanity. I simply cannot do it, but I welcome speculation on what others think the world would have been like without these things.

Lisa
That would be a boring and predictable world, indeed. Discovering the Greek and Roman mythologies as a child transformed me. What fantastic stories!

[Anne]

But not because you believed in them as religion, but because they were good stories.

Lisa--- people would merely have found other things to use as muses. Love, parenthood, death, prostitution, pain, food--- none of these is made less powerful by the loss of religion. Indeed, death and loss and pain are all *more* powerful without the promise of salvation.

The Madonna and child paintings are not spectacular because they are Jesus and Mary but because they represent the universal mother and child, without whom there'd be no religion.

There is great beauty without religion, and great works without it. People are creative and curious. Without religion, they would still have created masterpieces. Just different ones.

[Goodchild]

Perhaps, but my point is not that art would not have existed, or that art is better because of religion, but that there are masterpieces that exist BECAUSE of the inspiration of religion that we would not have otherwise. Would we have other things of equal beauty and value? Of course, but can any of it be replaced or measured as equal, lesser, greater? Art simply is...There are no comparisons of one to another. How would you choose?

And so you nullify your entire argument based on art :) Art simply is.

At the risk of pulling a Godwin, Adolf Hitler produced art. We don't give him a pass on all the art he helped destroy or suppress simply BECAUSE he produced or inspired art that we would not have had otherwise. We don't give him a pass on all the horrible things he did because of all the good things he did.

We look at the actor (religion, or Hitler in my example) and judge their deeds in total. If you ignore the Final Solution and WW2 then Hitler did some pretty amazingly good things. But his net effect on humanity was extremely negative.

If art simply is, then it simply is. You cannot credit nor detract from any organization that influenced it. But if you are going to credit inspiration then you must also detract suppression. You can't have your cake and eat it too ;)

[Goodchild]

That may be true, but since I know of NO societies on Earth that evolved without religion, that is not a testable hypothesis.

Of course, the statement of the OP is the same untestable hypothesis :)

So we're going to have to allow for supposition and judgment or else there is no way to say whether the OP is a justifiable position or not. Right?

[Anne]

That may be true, but since I know of NO societies on Earth that evolved without religion, that is not a testable hypothesis.


It depends on how you define religion.

[Lisa0315]

And so you nullify your entire argument based on art :) Art simply is.

At the risk of pulling a Godwin, Adolf Hitler produced art. We don't give him a pass on all the art he helped destroy or suppress simply BECAUSE he produced or inspired art that we would not have had otherwise. We don't give him a pass on all the horrible things he did because of all the good things he did.

We look at the actor (religion, or Hitler in my example) and judge their deeds in total. If you ignore the Final Solution and WW2 then Hitler did some pretty amazingly good things. But his net effect on humanity was extremely negative.

If art simply is, then it simply is. You cannot credit nor detract from any organization that influenced it. But if you are going to credit inspiration then you must also detract suppression. You can't have your cake and eat it too ;)

Well, I happen to agree actually. It is in a nutshell my point. I am looking for the net worth of religion in society.

I believe that religion has been a force that propelled mankind forward. Forget good or bad for a moment, but think of cause and effect. Would we be where we are today if not for religion?

Lisa

[Hex]

That may be true, but since I know of NO societies on Earth that evolved without religion, that is not a testable hypothesis.

Well ... Not so ...

There are plenty of (small and technologically 'primitive' by our standards) societies that, still today, do not have a religion. True, they may have magical or spiritual worldviews, but not religions.

Religions are cohesive systems that explain the supernatural and its workings, usually focusing on deities and their worship. These we see appearing in antiquity with the first civilizations, though not all the early civilizations have such a structured supernatural system (e.g. Xhang/ Shang culture in China). In the civilizations such structured systems worked to reinforce the similarities of peoples, and helped to shape similar worldviews in those growing up within the culture. As this needed to occur in the same way for all the people of the civilizations (think 'state religion' here), the manifestations of these involved bureaucracies that would insure that the same message went out through all the priests, young or old, to insure this cohesion.

And, to think that art would not have occurred with out such structured systems is just, well, silly. We have intentionally created art that goes back to the Upper Paleolithic when, at best, we have small bands of hunter-gatherer groups. The 'Venus' figurines and cave art from these times are perhaps entwined with the supernatural, but things like decorated atlatl are utilitarian items which are decorated.

Humans, it seems to me, have a penchant for the aesthetic given the wide range of art forms and expressions that exist among all cultures.

And, in touching on the hunter-gatherer bands, given what we know of how these function from studies of the last couple of centuries, they actually have social mechanisms to try to keep status and leadership down. These seem to come up about the same time in the Neolithic that we start to get domesticated plants (and animals, of course, but the plants are more important for this argument) changing the nomadic lifestyle to a sedentary one where people had the increased carrying capacity for surplus food, for expanding their populations, allowing them to have differential accumulation, and with all this, a need for a more complex and hierarchical culture.

Here's where we see religions coming into play, and, I suspect a threshold of change that could lead into a testable version of the hypothesis.

So long as you don't really mean that you guys want to find a society that doesn't have any kind of belief in the supernatural. I can't think of one at the moment ...

[Notta]

Well ... Not so ...

There are plenty of (small and technologically 'primitive' by our standards) societies that, still today, do not have a religion. True, they may have magical or spiritual worldviews, but not religions. <snip>
So long as you don't really mean that you guys want to find a society that doesn't have any kind of belief in the supernatural. I can't think of one at the moment ...
That's what I meant -- human societies without any kind of belief in supernatural beings or occurrences. I don't think there are any.

[Goodchild]

That's what I meant -- human societies without any kind of belief in supernatural beings or occurrences. I don't think there are any.

Well, there's always my home :)

Of course, my son is really worried that zombies might really exist lol :D

Wait, strike that. I do have an experience that i've never fully processed that might lead me to posit 'supernatural' occurences. But that's the subject of another thread.

[Jobar]

No matter where or what, there are makers, takers, and fakers.
-Robert Heinlein

I know of no religion which is not run largely- almost exclusively- by fakers.

I often think about how religion evolved. I picture some clever hominid who learned he could fake having control over some aspect of the uncontrollable- storm, predator, disease, volcano, earthquake. Maybe he actually made some astute observation which *did* allow him to predict when his tribe was in danger; but there's no doubt he used that observation to enhance his own reputation and authority.

If he had been open and honest about his knowledge, he would have been a teacher, perhaps even a proto-scientist. But instead he kept his knowledge secret, and exaggerated it to increase his influence and his access to food and mates and shelter; he became a faker rather than a maker. And that tendency to hoard secret knowledge and use it for primarily individual benefit is an unfailing characteristic of religion.

[Ray Moscow]

Yes. They arose in societies where religion wsa predominant. But do you seriously think there would be no art without religion?

It's not so much that religion "inspired" art as that it financed a lot of it for propaganda purposes, since religious institutions had most of the power and money in those societies.

[lpetrich]

I wouldn't want to be too nasty about the religion business, because some religious stuff is actually rather pleasant. And religions vary widely. I don't think that New Agers are nearly as bad as theocratic fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. They may be totally mushheaded about their beliefs, but they don't declare war on everybody who disagrees with them.

And there are plenty of nasty things that many people do outside of religion.

[Hex]

I wouldn't want to be too nasty about the religion business, because some religious stuff is actually rather pleasant. And religions vary widely. I don't think that New Agers are nearly as bad as theocratic fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. They may be totally mushheaded about their beliefs, but they don't declare war on everybody who disagrees with them.

And there are plenty of nasty things that many people do outside of religion.

But it's the big, heavily organized religions that become, if you will, oppressive. IMO, monotheists are also much more intolerant than pantheists ...

[Goodchild]

But it's the big, heavily organized religions that become, if you will, oppressive. IMO, monotheists are also much more intolerant than pantheists ...

Is there evidence of a religion that became 'big' (even for just it's particular area) that didn't eventually turn it's community against 'others'? It seems that any religion that becomes mainstream for it's area is eventually turned towards the harming of those that are not a part of that religion or area ... even to the point of such things as Kamikaze Buddhists :)

Perhaps religion can accomplish good when it remains fairly powerless, but preeminence inevitably turns it towards destructiveness?

[Hex]

Is there evidence of a religion that became 'big' (even for just it's particular area) that didn't eventually turn it's community against 'others'? It seems that any religion that becomes mainstream for it's area is eventually turned towards the harming of those that are not a part of that religion or area ... even to the point of such things as Kamikaze Buddhists :)

Perhaps religion can accomplish good when it remains fairly powerless, but preeminence inevitably turns it towards destructiveness?

Well, taking on the biological analogy, many religions 'inoculate' themselves from outside influences, those being ideologies and religions that are different from those of the religion itself. In giving its adherents a single, cohesive structure almost any outside facts or ideas that challenge or offer options that don't fit or contradict the structure. Any individuals that don't have the religion's ideas are seen as 'disruptive', 'troublemakers', or 'blasphemers'.

At small levels, many of these groups are persecuted as being different, which can make the adherents all that more 'sure' that they're right. But when they get big, they start doing the persecuting, also because they're right ... Go figure ...


Though I fear this runs us a bit off-topic ... :)

[Barbarian]

Hospitals, art, and universities...Can you deny that much of these were given to civilization by religion?

LisaThat can be easily inverted: do you think there would have been limitations on acceptable medical treatments (pain relief, blood transfusion), on acceptable art (representations of humans or animals, unorthodox imagery in general) or on acceptable science (don't even go there) without religion?

[Hex]

Is there evidence of a religion that became 'big' (even for just it's particular area) that didn't eventually turn it's community against 'others'?

You know, I didn't really address this part above, so ...

As examples here, I'd put up Hinduism and Buddhism.

One of the tenets of Hinduism is the reification of the importance of Brahma in the whole system. As such, in a comsmological sense, all gods are merely facets of Brahma. Even those of other religions. So ... Much more tolerance. Even the recent violence between the Hindus and Muslims in India is indicative of social and economic pressures and friction, rather than a Hindu mandate.

And, I can't think of any Buddhist groups persecuting folks who beleive other than they do. :confused:

[Ray Moscow]

Unfortunately, Hinduism has its present-day BJP and the Tamil Tigers, to name two odious examples.

And Buddhism has its Japanese imperialists of WWII.

I can't think of anything Jains have done to oppress others, though.

[DMB]

Hinduism is responsible for huge numbers of people being horribly treated as untouchables.

[Hex]

Unfortunately, Hinduism has its present-day BJP and the Tamil Tigers, to name two odious examples.

And Buddhism has its Japanese imperialists of WWII.

I can't think of anything Jains have done to oppress others, though.

Re: Hinduism: True, though I think most Hindus would argue for those being extremists, rather than being condoned by the mainstream.

Re: Japanese Buddhists: But Isn't it more to do with Shinto being the state religion at the time, rather than Buddhism?

Re: Jains: Oh ... Good one. The ones they most oppress are themselves as they go about living with their own restrictions (the monks anyhow).

Hinduism is responsible for huge numbers of people being horribly treated as untouchables.

True, those who are outcaste because of impurity spiritual or literal acts (like leathermakers who are unpure because they handle the skin of dead animals, but who provide a necessary (and valuable) resource, as well as those that simply live in squalor) are relegated to the lowest social status. But that's still within the religion, and as part of the system, is accepted by the bulk of the people, even those classed as untouchables. In that sense they aren't 'others' in terms of the religion, they're an included (but socially abused) part ...

:confused:

I thought we were just looking at the oppressive nature to those outside the religion. Are we widening the discussion to include oppression inside? Things could get quite interesting if we take that tack ...

[Brother Daniel]

Re: Hinduism: True, though I think most Hindus would argue for those being extremists, rather than being condoned by the mainstream.
Sounds a lot like Islam and Christianity, all of a sudden.
Re: Japanese Buddhists: But Isn't it more to do with Shinto being the state religion at the time, rather than Buddhism?
I think you're right about this.

[Ray Moscow]

The Shinto component endorsed the acceptance of the divinity of the emperor, and by proxy "his" government.

The Buddhist side took at warlike turn with the form of Zen developed by the samarai, which was spread to the general populace during their military buildup. I kind of like Zen (Chan, in China), but then I favour the less extreme forms that don't involve chopping a lot of heads off.

[Lisa0315]

It should be added: Secular government persecuting the religious...

Violence against another's belief is not exclusive to the religious believers of the world. Here is a snippet. The persecution went on for 70 years, and continues to a degree even under non-communist control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

Under Communist rule
Before and after the October Revolution of November 7, 1917 (October 25 Old Calendar) there was a movement within the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) to unite all of the people of the world under Communist rule (see Communist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern)). This included the Eastern European bloc countries as well as the Balkan States. Since some of these Slavic states tied their ethnic heritage to their ethnic churches, both the peoples and their church were targeted by the Soviets. [18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-17)
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture), sent to prison camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag), labour camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka) or mental hospitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union), and executed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-19) Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_punishment) or torture and mind control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control) experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-21)
Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomol)). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomol), encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.
The history of Orthodoxy (and other religions) under Communism was not limited to this story of repression and secularization. Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-22)
In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate and elected the metropolitan Tikhon as patriarch. But the new Soviet government soon declared the separation of church and state and nationalized all church-held lands. These administrative measures were followed by brutal state-sanctioned persecutions that included the wholesale destruction of churches and the arrest and execution of many clerics. The Russian Orthodox church was further weakened in 1922, when the Renovated Church, a reform movement supported by the Soviet government, seceded from Patriarch Tikhon's church (also see the Josephites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephites_(20th_century)) and the Russian True Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_True_Orthodox_Church)), restored a Holy Synod to power, and brought division among clergy and faithful.
In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#cite_note-23)

[DMB]

Re: Hinduism: True, though I think most Hindus would argue for those being extremists, rather than being condoned by the mainstream.

Re: Japanese Buddhists: But Isn't it more to do with Shinto being the state religion at the time, rather than Buddhism?

Re: Jains: Oh ... Good one. The ones they most oppress are themselves as they go about living with their own restrictions (the monks anyhow).



True, those who are outcaste because of impurity spiritual or literal acts (like leathermakers who are unpure because they handle the skin of dead animals, but who provide a necessary (and valuable) resource, as well as those that simply live in squalor) are relegated to the lowest social status. But that's still within the religion, and as part of the system, is accepted by the bulk of the people, even those classed as untouchables. In that sense they aren't 'others' in terms of the religion, they're an included (but socially abused) part ...

:confused:

I thought we were just looking at the oppressive nature to those outside the religion. Are we widening the discussion to include oppression inside? Things could get quite interesting if we take that tack ...

I consider those inside religions to be usually the biggest victims. E.g. Millions of Muslim women who lose out badly on basic human rights against a few thousand victims of islamist terrorism. Not that they are the only losers, but I just picked those examples because a lot of people concentrate on the terrorism rather than on the internal oppression.

[Brother Daniel]

It should be added: Secular government persecuting the religious...

Violence against another's belief is not exclusive to the religious believers of the world. Here is a snippet. The persecution went on for 70 years, and continues to a degree even under non-communist control.
A few comments:

1. I'm not convinced that this example supports your statement that "violence against another's belief is not exclusive to the religious believers of the world". It appears to me that Soviet-style communism has all the social and psychological characteristics of a religion. It just happened to be an atheistic religion.

2. We mustn't forget the context. Imperial Russia was not at all nice. Even before the Bolsheviks, Russia already had a government that terrorized its own people with secret police and show trials and all that rot. Sadly, that was part of Russian political culture. And the Orthodox Church was (I think) complicit in these crimes (though I'd be happy to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong).

3. "Continues to a degree even under non-communist control"? Say what? The Orthodox Church has regained a lot of its former power in Russia. I'd like to hear more about this.

[Lisa0315]

A few comments:

1. I'm not convinced that this example supports your statement that "violence against another's belief is not exclusive to the religious believers of the world". It appears to me that Soviet-style communism has all the social and psychological characteristics of a religion. It just happened to be an atheistic religion.

2. We mustn't forget the context. Imperial Russia was not at all nice. Even before the Bolsheviks, Russia already had a government that terrorized its own people with secret police and show trials and all that rot. Sadly, that was part of Russian political culture. And the Orthodox Church was (I think) complicit in these crimes (though I'd be happy to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong).

3. "Continues to a degree even under non-communist control"? Say what? The Orthodox Church has regained a lot of its former power in Russia. I'd like to hear more about this.

Yes, the church was most definitely corrupt, as all large organizations of men and women will become. The church most certainly contributed to the uprising of the people in Russia.

You are correct on #3. In fact, the ROC is now one of the oppressors of other religions.

I have never heard of Socialism or Communism referred to as an atheistic religion. In fact, I think most of your counterparts would strongly disagree on that position. Can you elaborate?

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

Soviet-style communism?

For one thing, there was the notion of salvation: The USSR was seen as the means by which the world would eventually become a worker's utopia. Sounds pretty religious.

More importantly, there was moral pressure to believe in communist dogma. Those who didn't believe in it were seen as morally inferior. It was possible to be guilty of crimes of thought.

Those are characteristics of a religion.

When you're pressured to believe something, not because its truth has been demonstrated to you but because you'll be seen as a shit if you don't -- and you've been conditioned to suspect yourself of being a shit if you don't -- then that pretty much defines religion to me.

[Hex]

There are people who characterize zealous science-grounded secular humanists as having a 'religion' in the same way.

They have an ideology (if science can't prove it/explain it it doesn't exist), a community (in the local meetings - we have the international headquarters for the CFI literally down the road, and as members we're able to get in on all sorts of community things), their own 'specialists/authorities' (councilors who can officiate/undertake weddings, naming ceremonies, and hospital deathbed counciling or graveside services.

I've actually seen (at a wonderful debate between Tom Flynn & a local preacher) not only the fundamentalist Christians thumping their Bibles (the first time I had actually witnessed this), but also one of the Secular Humanists brought a copy of 'The Origin of Species'. :rolleyes:


I think the issue here is whether you want to define a religion by beliefs in the supernatural or by the functionality of what it does within a culture. :confused:

Again, do we have parameters for this in the discussion, or are we allowing 'ideological religions' as well as 'supernatural religions'?

[Goodchild]

I could see defining soviet communism as an atheistic religion. It really strikes me as religion minus the supernatural.