Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The problems you've described are problems with all human organizations, not just churches/religions.


1. Few human organisations nowadays promote values as bad as most religions.

2. You can be a member of several overlapping organizations, but only one church, normally. So, the problem of losing a community is exacerbated with church.


> 1. Few human organisations nowadays promote values as bad as most religions.

It sounds like your mind is inhabited by a caricature of religion, rather than a realistic conception of the thing. For instance, our neighborhood church uses their facilities to provide (secular) services to the local community. They also organize a monthly service day where community members (not just their congregation) provide help to people in need. Many other churches do similar things. And there is a reason why so many hospitals in the U.S. have religious names: they were started by churches.

If you want to hold religion to account for the bad that they contribute, you also have to give them credit for the good. And I think once you start doing that, you'll find that it's all pretty much a wash.


>If you want to hold religion to account for the bad that they contribute, you also have to give them credit for the good. And I think once you start doing that, you'll find that it's all pretty much a wash.

Bullshit

Commit mass genocide? That's ok look at these shiny new automobiles. The continued rape of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children? That's ok, we taught them math.

You probably blame women for getting raped (What was she wearing? Why was she out alone at night?) instead of blaming men for raping.

Until all of these institutions are brought down and eradicated the "damaging good" will continue.


Look, I'm the last person to make excuses for the Catholic Church (I'm guessing that's what you were referring to), but the sins of the Catholic Church, which is a specific instance of a religion, do not tar religion as a whole. That's not how logic works. You have to show that A) sexual abuse of children is common in a significant portion of religious organizations, and B) that it's actually due to the religious part of the term 'religious organization' and not the organization part of the term. And I think you'd have a hell of a time making that case, since there are plenty of other organizations that also have issues with sexual abuse of children. Namely, any organization in which adults have regular, privileged access to children. For instance, US Gymnastics, Boy Scouts, Penn State Football, etc.

And religions are not the only human affinity groups responsible for other atrocities. Ethnicities have lead to genocide on several occasions. And so have political ideologies.


Has mass genocide ever been committed in the name of something other than religion? Yup.


Your second point is a fair one. Your first makes me scratch my head. Sure, maybe few organizations by number, but you might've noticed that the Western world is dealing with the resurgence of some real odious ideological movements (which, interestingly enough, mirror religious movements elsewhere in tactics and in epistemic closure) whose primary mode of attraction is providing some measure of belonging for people who don't, or feel like they don't, in the main.

I'm not religious, I'm not a fan of organized religion as a thing, at least in the modern era--'toasterlovin makes good points about the historical and even current positives of such organizations, I'm not convinced they balance out to a net positive today but I'm much more willing to consider the notion historically. But there are nastier partners on the dance card right now and this kinda minimizes that.


> 'toasterlovin makes good points about the historical and even current positives of such organizations, I'm not convinced they balance out to a net positive today but I'm much more willing to consider the notion historically

Huh, my intuition is the opposite: now that organized religions have been defanged and stripped of most of their political power they are probably more of a net positive force today than they ever were in the past.


Perhaps that's true outside of the United States and I'm showing my biases. Here, the religious-reactionary complex has been a prime mover to get us where we are today.


It feels like the evangelical movement’s power on the wane, and the subcultures gaining ground on that side of the political spectrum are less savory...


Sure, but they paved the roads.


You're right, I've overstated my point 1., and neglected how many organisations promoting terrible values there are these days.

However:

1. Many of these share significant characteristics with religion (epistemic closure, or a stunning disregard for the truth; Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny touches on that).

2. For some reason religion still enjoys much more respect and reverence than these other organisations (among non-members).


Interesting that you're talking about epistemic closure. Have you considered that you may have epistemic closure with regard to your opinions on religion?


I don't know. I've read in the Bible, the Koran, and Buddhist texts, had some form of contact with religious communities in Germany, Spain, Israel, the US, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, making an effort to understand why people hold the religious beliefs prevalent in the region (somehow, God has chosen to reveal himself differently in different regions (maybe prayers from early weapons manufacturers?)). Furthermore, I've read several books about religions (I count 21 in my Kindle library since 2015, though cannot claim to have read all of them) and listened to courses about "Philosophy, Religion, and the Meaning of Life", theology, and comparative religion, going out of my way to include theologic and apologetic texts.

You tell me.


The only concrete argument I've seen you give against religion is that it promotes bad values. I think I demonstrated pretty clearly that they also promote good values. So religion seems at worst morally ambiguous, which is about par for the course when it comes to the affairs of man.

So why single out religion as a specific problem? Especially when the overwhelming majority of people in the world clearly find a lot of meaning in religion.


FWIW, I disagree with your post being flagged. While I disagree with you and think your position lacks internal consistency, it’s a common position and you’ve shown a willingness to argue in good faith, which I appreciate. So I’m sorry to see this flagged.

See you around.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: