Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Edward Wilson on August 8, 2009 at 3:17am

I think it's a noble and valid point made well - religions have promoted strong positive attributes amongst their followers. A very simple example is the Muslim faiths insistence that followers clean their face and hands every time they pray. The affect this simple practice had on Medieval health cannot be underestimated. Millions died of the Black Death in Europe - 50-80% of the population of Europe - as they did in the Middle East; however the percentage of the populace that died was far lower in Muslim countries - nearer 30%.

Yet all of the points raised above, whilst totally worthwhile, are not exclusive to these beliefs nor religious believers: They are attributes treasured by many people because they represent admirable traits in all humans. Their whole definition and practice are human traits, not religious ones.

For me, religions - and many other collective belief systems - work by making people do things that don't come naturally, like persecution, Crusades, suicide bombings, rather than actions that must, by the very nature that we are all alive today, be inherent in humans no matter what their beliefs; family, community, health, education, self-sustainability.

Religious apologists would say that without their faith, people are naturally selfish, lawless and greedy - and in some individuals they may be right. But if you look at any list of philanthropists, charitable donors or individuals acting selflessly, it is not an exclusively religious group. Therefore, the claim that religions are the sole preserve of a generosity of spirit and social support structure for the disadvantaged is patently untrue.

As a humanist, I would aim for possessing all of the attributes above in some way (perhaps not the attributes for Islam, Unitarian or Anglican) as these define the best features of precisely what group we all belong to - homo sapiens.

Permalink Reply by Jeff Owen on August 8, 2009 at 9:05am

"Religious apologists would say that without their faith, people are naturally selfish, lawless and greedy - and in some individuals they may be right. But if you look at any list of philanthropists, charitable donors or individuals acting selflessly, it is not an exclusively religious group. Therefore, the claim that religions are the sole preserve of a generosity of spirit and social support structure for the disadvantaged is patently untrue."

Brilliant! Well said!

Permalink Reply by Alpha Asian on August 8, 2009 at 4:58pm

I would disagree about Catholicism - importance of education. Historically, the Church has not wanted lay people to be educated. In addition to the problems they have had with science.

Permalink Reply by Gryphon MacThoy on August 10, 2009 at 1:29pm

I agree with your assessment. Seems to be "importance of indoctrination". However, I do know that there are many Catholic universities which require very little in the way of religious adherence for their students. I can't blame a Catholic Medical program for not encouraging their students to become abortion doctors. :) There's a definite difference between what the Pope says and what actual Catholics do. It varies too much to be piled in a single sentence, just like the rest. But if the point is to find SOMETHING to like them for, then it's well done.

Permalink Reply by California Scott on October 2, 2009 at 8:14pm

Islam - oneness of faith, completely united

Although it may appear that Islam is a united religion from an American vantage point, in reality there are nearly as many fragmented groups in the Islamic religion as there are the other major world religions.