Primal

It's interesting to note that Europe is less religious then the US but has lower rates of crime. Especially violent crime. Japan same thing. China less religious still, with an even lower crime rate.


Also studies have shown that having a strong religious belief may be conductive to happiness and behavior but these same studies often times show that having a strong secular,even antireligious, belief has the same effect.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Epitome

Vorkosigan, I'm not ignoring you per se... I'm both busy and suspect any ammount of explaining of the studies or providing more will be suspect because their findings are in contradiction to what you believe.

The facts don't necessarily mean religion does it better... that would be an interpretation of the facts.

If I can clarify where I'm coming from on this it will seem less like I'm trying to rub your nose in facts... that is, just in case you are still interested in joining the discussion.

The facts: People involved in religions are more likely to be moral.

The reason for that: unknown...

Authority theory: An outside moral authority presented in religions gives people reason(s) to be moral

Community theory: People in communities learn supporting each other in a moral way works best.

There may be other theories we haven't explored as well...

Anyway. If you still reject the studies, I understand. But I honestly don't have time to find more (and there are many, many more).

brighid:...I did specifically ask that you answer as if you were a strict/fundamentalist adherent ... you can do that can't you

I can, but I don't see how that's completely appropriate to the discussion... The studies are about religious activity not just strict/fundamentalist religious activity.

Charismatic, Pentecostals, Evangelists, non-denominationalists, and many other varieties of Christians, not to mention the different varieties of other various religions, all have activities which are included in the studies...

I'll have to get more into the studies to be sure, but when they say 'activity' I don't imagine they're talking about "Bible Thumping Preaching" but also church attendance, church charity functions, Prayer Services, Bible Studies, Worship services, and many other common Religious Activities.

I would really appreciate, if you have the time to please answer each question as best you can from a fundamentalist point of view. I will provide the secularist point of view.

I will answer, albeit probably one question at a time because I don't have bundles of time, especially during this time of year. But before I do, I think we need to resolve the fundamentalist POV issue.

If indeed your theory is correct, then naturally the most moral societies will also be the most religiously devout.

Again, not my personal theory... I'm not sure exactly why the study found what it did. I have suspicions, but I'm still working through it myself.

I am truly not attempting to be snide here, but rather to try (with your help presenting the theist position you support) to show that religion is not the best foundation for morality.

I don't take you that way at all... I see you as being forthright, honest, serious and courteous in your questions... Something I highly value.

I also very much appreciate that you are being specific as to the questions which are important. I admit, sometimes I miss things...

I suspect we can really accomplish some cool thinking here...

It is important for you to answer ALL of the questions because it will illuminate the fact that MOST Western theists who have had the opportunity to be exposed to secular thought modify their religious mandates, or ignore them for morals and laws that are more humane/humanistic - ie secular.

Hmmm... have some stuff to say on that... Should be interesting when we can get to it...

I am not attempting, nor have I asserted that religion does not provide any positive foundation for moral development, but rather it is not the end all and be all of moral character development that it cannot be relied upon in most cases

We probably think alot more the same on this than is evident at first glance... I'll elaborate later...

and that secular values have heavily influenced moderate and liberal religious systems.

No denial here on that. Sometimes secularism's influence on religion is a positive thing, sometimes it's not...

Furthermore that the most devoutly religious systems seem to be the most morally suspect and this cast serious doubt on your assertations.

Again, you are equating devout with fundamentalism... in my mind that is just not the case. I hope we can resolve this.

Are you willing to challenge your thinking and test the waters? I hope you are game.

I'm more than game! This is why I seek out secularists and atheists to discuss such things... but honestly, it's very rare that I find a person such as yourself willing to engage in civil discussion let alone find a topic of mutual interest worth the discussion!

I'll be looking forward to your answer on the fundamentalist question when you get back... Hope you have a good holiday.


Emur: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on raising your daughter. She sounds like a wonderful young lady. Among other things, I completely agree with your views regarding critical thinking skills and leadership.

I'm curious as to the types of churches you have had expeience in. I've seen some strange abuses as well in the variety of churches I've been a member of, but thankfully am now part of one with balanced leadership.

But the abuses I've seen on a whole, are not restricted to the religious setting... I see people in general as abusive of their authority.


Primal: I'd be interested in those studies for demographic reasons, if you can find them. Not doubting you, just want to look at them.


I know I've missed lots of questions that have come before... doing my best here... and I may be scarce over the next week because of the holiday.

Epitome

emur

I will do this in list form beginning with the denomination and then the local church name:

Presbyterian Church of America - Covenant Presbyterian Church - church I was in split over worship form (more emotional worship vs more traditional worship). Pastor resigned.
This denomination was what I would call "iron fist Calvinistic". You had better believe this way or you are outta here!
I wasn't a minister in this church; just a seminary trainee.

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church - Kingsborough Presbyterian Church - my first pastorate. Presbytery leadership was basically cold and insensitive to human needs. As a minister you were to be tough and a loner. Expect little help.
Hyper-Calvinistic group in the church I pastored split the church because I wasn't calvinistic enough for them. The church survived but never really recovered.

Conservative Baptist Association - Emmanuel Baptist Church - I was an interim pastor. You couldn't preach on topics that some members didn't like, or you were in trouble with some of the deacons. I did, got in trouble, and resigned when I lost the support of the deacon board.

Reformed Church in America - Trinity Reformed Church - I was an interim pastor. This church wasn't bad. Being in a more liberal denomination, the laity could take differences among Christians better. While I personally had no problems with anyone, there were charismatics in the church who insisted on their style of worship as opposed to traditional worship forms.
I was able to reach a compromise position with the people there, and only one charismatic left over it.
However, when the church got a full time pastor, he led them more into the charismatic direction, and this has caused problems.
A friend of mine who pastored in the same denomination in that area had his church split over the charismatic stuff, ending his ministry at that church.

Conservative Congregational Christian Conference -New Covenant Community Church - another interim for me. I really didn't have any problems at this church. I felt that while people weren't hostile, they weren't eager either. I simply didn't fit in there.

Conservative Baptist Association - Living Hope Baptist Church - My first noninterim ministry in a while. This for a while was a nightmare. A friend of mine in the church was being emotionally abused by her husband. I supported her desire to leave him; he got a CBA director involved who essentially took his side and told me not to have further contact with my friend. (The director was concerned with what things might look like). I refused. He threatened to bring me before a board of pastors. He accused me before one of our elders of being a smooth talker. The church supported me and we left the CBA. There is a lot more to this story.
I am still at this church, and we have taken a much more liberal turn, especially me. There are some liberal denominations that wouldn't take me.

Yes, people in general are abusive of authority, but fundamental/evangelical religion is much more prone to that in my experience than any other group, religious or not.

Mel

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: emur ]</p>

Stephen T-B

“Are humans just as capable of being moral when the moral authority is only their own conscience as they are when they feel they must answer to something outside of themselves?”


Yes.

Here are my rather random thoughts on the subject:
I suppose it can be claimed with some justification that most households where religion has a significant presence do adhere to a moral code which makes them compatible with the rest of society.
This has a lot to do with the fact that most religions are hierarchical and place a heavy emphasise on the importance of obedience and respect for higher authorities, primarily of the church and secondarily of the state.
But as we see in practice, this is all rather problematic: when obedience to a higher authority is the only reason for morality, those with a rebellious nature will have the potential of becoming excessively immoral; and some religious sects – the Davidians, for instance - think the higher authority endorses gross moral ineptitude.
Religion, therefore, can provide a foundation for moral behaviour, but not a very reliable one.

My father, an Anglican minister, believed our conscience was implanted by god: we knew instinctively, he said, what was right and wrong
I disagreed, thinking of several examples where “right” and “wrong,” had conflicting interpretations: in cannibalistic cultures, for instance, eating people offends no-one’s conscience; in pre-missionary Polynesian cultures, there was nothing wrong with child sex, as indeed there was nothing wrong with it in European “Christian” cultures up until fairly recently.
In these same cultures, on the other hand, there was something very seriously wrong with usury, a sin which underpins Christian capitalist society. The conscience of very few Christians is troubled by the fact that they are stockholders.
Conscience is a product of the influences exerted upon us during our formative years, and Epitome's question, I think, is really to do with whether Reason provides as powerful an influence as a God.
My answer: a more powerful one

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Epitome

emur: I'm very familiar with Church splits, (went through one as well- over charasmatic worship, coincently) and while I don't believe the people always handle them in the most 'moral' fashion, it does sound like more of an argument over the value of tradition over evolving with the culture rather than an abuse of power.

People in a denomination do have the valid right to work together deciding these things... It's a sad thing when they can't come to a mutual understanding and have to split over it. (bravo on your ability to bring peace to the situation! I know first hand it's not easy). But I've come to the conclusion that people just worship in different ways and the idea that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way is not very realistic. Jesus said God wants worshipers who worship in 'Spirit and Truth' not with organs and strings instead of guitars and drums. *L*

At the same time people need to find a place that's comfortable for them, where they can worship, leaders and elders also have to be willing to be somewhat flexible if they want to minister to the young.


This sounds a bit like abuse of power:
You couldn't preach on topics that some members didn't like, or you were in trouble with some of the deacons. I did, got in trouble, and resigned when I lost the support of the deacon board.

Depending what exactly you were not allowed to preach on...

A friend of mine in the church was being emotionally abused by her husband. I supported her desire to leave him; he got a CBA director involved who essentially took his side and told me not to have further contact with my friend. (The director was concerned with what things might look like). I refused. He threatened to bring me before a board of pastors. He accused me before one of our elders of being a smooth talker. The church supported me and we left the CBA.

I've seen things on both sides of this issue, where a Pastor went too far in his counseling and entered into an affair, and where a woman was told to stay in an abusive relationship by her Pastor... Sounds from your description you had a balance and the CBA just were not trusting you enough... It sounds less like abuse of power as it does poor judgement on their part.


Yes, people in general are abusive of authority, but fundamental/evangelical religion is much more prone to that in my experience than any other group, religious or not.

I do gree with this assessment. People who enjoy power and control tend to be drawn to denominations where there is an emphasis on rules.

Epitome's question, I think, is really to do with whether Reason provides as powerful an influence as a God.
My answer: a more powerful one

I don't find reasoning and influence of God mutually exclusive.

Epitome

Primal

So basically according to the religious moralists humans are all merely sociopaths who are kept in check by fear of punishment and God. Sounds interesting....but where did these moral sentiments come from in the first, place as religion was a latter invention used to justify existing sentiments? No answer.

Also if humans are not kept in check primarily by conscience then according to you most should be ready to kill an infant in a brutal manner for 15 bucks if there was no chance of getting punished for it; But who here really believes most people would go for this deal?

Do your eally expect us to believe consciounce plays a "minor" role and everyone else is pretty much a closet sociopath?

The fact is all "studies" that show religious people to be "more moral" are very,very duvious and conducted by religious groups.

The fact is all morality if it is to have any apeal must come from the inside.

As for information on criminal statsistics they can be found here:
<a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/international/" target="_blank">http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/international/</a>

However the high rate of violence in the US compared to other industrialized nations should be as well known as how poor our education is.

Vorkosigan

Our educational system is excellent, and the level of violence in US society reflects issues that have nothing to do with our educational system. If you want to see poor educational systems, by all means move out here to Asia. Ours beats theirs any day of the week. Proof? The number of parents who, having experience of both, put their kids in international schools here. Nobody who has the option puts their kid in a local school if he can help it.

Vorkosigan

Europe has less violent crime than the US, but more property crimes. The overall crime rate is lower, though. China has far more crime than the US, rates of everything, rape, burglary, assault, you name it, are simply appalling. Most crime goes unreported in Chinese society, since the police are also criminals. In Japan, crime is complex. Certainly street crime is less, but organized crime is more influential in both Japan and China than in the US. The crime rate in both those countries does not reflect the close interrelationship between the ruling parties and organized crime, especially at the local level. In Taiwan, for example, more than one-third of local officials have links to organized crime. Right here in Taichung last year they elected a mobster jailed for murder and bribery of public officials to the island's legislature, and two years ago a mobster was elected to office in Chia-yi while on the run from the police.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

emur

I agree that some of my examples were not about an abuse of power, but they do show Christian "morality" has its own set of problems. It's hardly a positive example!

People in a denomination have a right to work out their issues. The problem is, for most in disputes, compromise is a dirty word. Why? Because each side believes God is on their side, and to compromise is to go against God.

This gets at the heart of the problem for religious morality. It is ultimately rooted in the individual's subjective experience, (an individual's experience of the divine or what they think is the divine, interpretation of religious writings) not in some clearly laid out external moral code.

In too many of these splits, new people come into the church and try to change it "for God" into what they believe God wants. There is no excuse for it!

Such actions do lead others to question the validity of the whole God experience. (There are certainly other reasons to do so as well) I can relate. I, while still a clergy, am quite agnostic on the subject.

emur posted:
A friend of mine in the church was being emotionally abused by her husband. I supported her desire to leave him; he got a CBA director involved who essentially took his side and told me not to have further contact with my friend. (The director was concerned with what things might look like). I refused. He threatened to bring me before a board of pastors. He accused me before one of our elders of being a smooth talker. The church supported me and we left the CBA.

I must disagree. It is abuse of power in that the director did not pursue a course showing interest in what my side of the issue was. He heard from the husband and proceeded to bark out orders. It was to be his way or no way.

In this case, it wasn't even a counseling situation. The woman was my friend and the problems at home were shared in that context.

The bottom line here is once again, a Christian (the director) is so sure he knows what God wants that he shuts off all counter arguments to his own. The decision in this case was mine and to be worked out between me, my family, and the church elders (who all supported me). It was not the director's place to step in and start telling us the way "God" wanted things.

This is just more "playing God". People playing God are causing all sorts of havoc throughout the world, and I for one will not sit back quietly and ignore it. I've written to our local newspaper on it, addressed it on my TV show, and preach about it in church. Fortunately, the folks in church are beginning to see the problem with it.

Those outside the church already see playing God as the root of all sorts of immoral behavior. It's time those inside the church see that too.

Mel

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: emur ]</p>

Epitome

emur:People in a denomination have a right to work out their issues. The problem is, for most in disputes, compromise is a dirty word. Why? Because each side believes God is on their side, and to compromise is to go against God.

I've seen this too... but sometimes the issue is more rooted in preference than a 'God' mandate. God does not call us all to be the same... we each have a different function in the body and sometimes you just have to find where you belong.

But, as you've pointed out, it is sometimes done poorly with much grief. I've seen that, but I've also seen it done aimably where the parties agreed to bless each other as they parted with no hard feelings.

emur:This gets at the heart of the problem for religious morality. It is ultimately rooted in the individual's subjective experience, (an individual's experience of the divine or what they think is the divine, interpretation of religious writings) not in some clearly laid out external moral code.

In too many of these splits, new people come into the church and try to change it "for God" into what they believe God wants. There is no excuse for it!

Yeah... I think I see where you're going with this, and I agree. People who think they hear God don't usually realize they may be hearing God for themselves only, or maybe not hearing right at all. It is a problem. But I think it's a problem in the humility area rather than in the hearing God part... Hearing from God isn't a bad thing, it's how you handle what you think you're hearing that often goes wrong.

emur:Such actions do lead others to question the validity of the whole God experience. (There are certainly other reasons to do so as well) I can relate. I, while still a clergy, am quite agnostic on the subject.

Hmmm.... What exactly do you doubt? That God speaks, that people hear, or that it can be handled in a productive rather than destructive manner?

emur:...I must disagree. It is abuse of power in that the director did not pursue a course showing interest in what my side of the issue was. He heard from the husband and proceeded to bark out orders. It was to be his way or no way.

Okay... I'll take your word for it. It's very hard to see things from just the small bit you gave.

This is just more "playing God". People playing God are causing all sorts of havoc throughout the world, and I for one will not sit back quietly and ignore it. I've written to our local newspaper on it, addressed it on my TV show, and preach about it in church. Fortunately, the folks in church are beginning to see the problem with it.

Those outside the church already see playing God as the root of all sorts of immoral behavior. It's time those inside the church see that too.

Actually, I think those inside the church do see it more than you think... they just don't know how to handle it.

I have seen time and again how powerfully a transforming a word from God can be on peoples lives when it's right on and I have also seen the destruction that ensues when it's either handled wrong or when someone doesn't have the humility to question themselves...

There must be a balance... and it's the job of the leaders in the church to find that balance.

But as you've pointed out, in many circumstances the leaders just want control...

Epitome