Biased intent?
The following question was posed to my wife (and fellow students) for discussion in her online Sociology class. I'd very much appreciate your thoughtful comments... I'll be posting mine after I hear from some of you.
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when religious leaders convinced many Californians to write in their constitution discrimination against gay and lesbians, when the former president of the United States repeatedly vetoed the most promising medical research for religious reasons, when some Christian fundamentalists leaders and many American politicians insist that they do not believe in evolution as an explanation of life's origin, is religion a denial of reason and science? Is religion inevitably connected to violence and intolerance? Is religion a social problem in the contemporary world?comment directly by email at miles@ccesco.com or click the comments link below, or on facebook
posted by Miles at
7/11/2009 10:01:00 AM
9 Comments:
well, this is baiting...but i have no time to write a response. but if i did. i would. ;)
Those are some pretty heavy duty questions. I think religion, at least the Christian religion is not the problem. Jesus teaches to do what is right by the Ten Commandments. Not that we are tied to them but if you love Jesus, they just come natural. What is hated by Jesus and God is sin in any shape. For example your villages devasted by AIDS, is this sex outside of marriage? The gay agenda, you are right about. God called it sin and if He indeed created you and not a mere chance of evolution then He has a right to tell you what is right and what is wrong. Do you bring up your children allowing them to play with matches or out in the streets? No, because you know that harm can come to them from such behavior. So too God is only trying to keep us from ending up with AIDS and who knows what else if we allow sexual perversion to go unchecked. As for the most promising medical research, or stem cell research using aborted babies, well it has been proven that the adult stem cells are actually better for the causes that medicine is hoping to find cures for. So would that have been an 'OPPS so sorry we killed all those babies for no reason', had our prior president passed such a law? Is it wrong when someone is responsible enough to stand up and state the obvious, just because everyone around him is insisting that jumping over the cliff is the best way to go? Are we not a reasoning people? Since when did Jesus say stop thinking, check your brain out at the door and just follow Me? I don't know about this instructor but I don't go to church and accept every part of the sermon that is preached. What I do accept is every word in the Bible. I think the world would love to blame religion for all of its wars and problems, but in the end the real culprit is man and his sinful desires. As for evolution, I am not a doctor or a scientist; but if I can look at all that needs to happen in the process of having a child, if I can look at that and say, 'that ability came about by millions of years of evolution' - I would be crazy. If evolution was how we were created then morality has no part in the human race. We would be just like the animals, kill, eat, live and repeat as long as you can or is needed. But because there is a God in heaven that loves and cares and wants for some very strange reason a relationship with His creation, because He has given that creation the sovreignty to choose to love Him or not. We are who we are and each day we make choices that are based on the laws of God's morality. You take religion; at least Christianty out of the world and you will have the TRUE Planet of the Apes.
That would be my comment :o)
I have dealt with this everyday at work with working with liberals and Mormons. This is a everyday discussion that I do not bring up. They do. So this is what I have found and understand and see.
1.is religion a denial of reason and science?
Answer – science and religion is only denial of reason when ones freewill chooses to pridefully push ones beliefs on others and expect them too obey or believe.
To believe something is to see something happen(seen with your own eyes so you believe) or believe through faith without seeing which is eventually proven through studying history and/or prophecy.
Then again when one shares what they believe out of love with the correct intent and heart there is always fruit even if they may not see it. It opens ones heart to listen to another when spoken with a soft tongue.
This is were you have to be-careful, there are people out there that are deceivers that use a soft tongue that will pull you away. This is why I am happy to have God's word to check things against.
If we choose through freewill to choose to be meek in love sharing instead of pridefully pushing our beliefs at one another and just loving has Jesus loved as meek loving caring person and God.
2. Is religion inevitably connected to violence and intolerance?
Answer - No pride is connected to violence and intolerance.
3. Is religion a social problem in the contemporary world?
Answer – No the wrong heart is. For instance The two liberals at work one is a good friend. The other is the strongest love hate relationship friendship I have ever had, due to our dramatic differences in beliefs but I still love the guy as a friend and colleague.
A little history lesson to remeber:
Romans 2:17-24
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
I guess I should explain.
The jews were being told of there wrongful ways.
What is the right way? Well I am of Jesus so love and meek is what I am told to be.
Phil 3:17
Brethren, together follow my example and observe those who live after the pattern we have set for you.
Often times Christians loose track of there ways. But imagine the nonbeleiver they do not understand Gods ways. So we should obey and Love Like Jesus did.
The very question he asks is biased by his own views of how everyone should or shouldn't think. He is by posing that very question exposing his own world view and imposing it on everyone else by saying that those who ie: believe same sex marriage is immoral are "a religious problem". His question is not unbiased. His opening remarks could be considered propaganda for promoting his own "religion". Condomns will not stop the spread of AIDS, the theory of evolution is not a logical nor provable scientific system so to continue to teach evolution as fact is in & of its self a denial of reason and science. California is a demonstratively liberal state so to say that religious leaders convinced the entire state to pass prop 8 is an exaggeration and a taking a leave from reason. If stem cell research is truly the most promising form of medical research then why hasn't the measure been reintroduced so that congress & the house can vote it through. If I remember my government right just because the president vetos something doesn't mean it can't be put through by other means. 2/3 majority in the house and the senate overrides a presidential veto, so again we see a lack of reason. I answer your question without using the Bible because this professor is not going to even consider well thought or not a Biblically based answer. So therefore, his logical and resason are faulty to begin with.
This is the NEW DEFINITION of the term, "loaded question"...
I don't answer loaded questions.
the term of Religion itself is an empty container, but it can be filled with certain dogmata.
As long as people simply aren't perfect, every Religion will have brenches that tend to fullfill these (dangerous?) roles. That's just how a group of people tries to make it's ideas survive & how every individual get's the most out of it's participation in the group. (human nature)
It only get's dangerous in a more basic way, if a strict understanding of these certain dogmata commands such fruits.
What astonishes me the most is, that strict biblical Christianity seems to be the far most advanced solution to handle all these dangers right at the root.
For example tolerance: You can't deny, that the bible calls homosexuality sin - means it's bad. The same time it doesn't allow you to look down on a homosexual in any way, but calls you to be totally humble, calling sin just sin, but the sinner someone that God loves - just as He loves you. So you should love him with just that godly love. Makes this idea just an opinion and detracts it of the ability to personally offend somebody.
Beyond that, this seems to be a wide field to talk about, except the last question. It's simple to observe, that Religion often has a strong charakter of a "unnecessary-problem-producer" (Former Ireland wars, dchihad etc., )
The same time it's good to take in account, that Religion often becomes the pipe of problems, that otherwise would appear through a different social pipe, such as a political party.
I get this a lot from people. They say things like, "You're closed minded." I respond with, "What does that mean?" They say, "It means you think you're right and everyone else is wrong." Then I say, "And you think it is wrong for me to think that way?" They say, "Well, yes." And I say, "Then you're being closed minded."
People seem to be unable to stop and think if they are playing fair with people. If I share my faith with a Mormon, and truly expect him to be so open to what I am saying that he would be willing to give up all that he knows to embrace it, have I done the same for him? Have I been open to him? Have I considered whether his is the truth? In the same way, just like Shiona perfectly said, this question is wrapped up in personal bias:
I won't deny that many Muslims (not just doctors and engineers) dedicate their lives to destruction for a religious cause. But not only Muslims do this, and this doesn't prove a denial of reason. They are reasonably following their religion as they understand it. Their understanding might be false, or the religion might be false (which must be proven by other means than the by-products), but it doesn't prove it unreasonable or anti-science.
Because I believe in the Bible, and Catholics claim to, I would use the Bible as a standard to say their are out of line by calling the use of condoms sinful. This isn't anti science, but it might be unreasonable; yet this does not prove all religion unreasonable. At best, it might prove one of the beliefs of one religion to be unreasonable. Again, this says nothing about ALL religion.
Concerning discrimination against gays and lesbians: This whole statement is funny to me. First, isn't differentiation between gays and lesbians sexist and discriminatory? Second, the freedom to vote goes hand in hand with opposing views, and it's unfair to call one side unreasonable or discriminatory just because they see things differently than you do (again, play fair). Third, doesn't the vary nature of convincing require reason? So again, this says nothing about religion being unreasonable or unscientific.
Concerning evolution: With the resources we have today, I find it hard to believe that the challenger truly think those disagreeing with evolution are unreasonable. There are entire books written by well credentialed scientists that raise a lot of unanswered questions about evolutionism. Again, if the challenger would play fair, they would not ask such an "unreasonable" question. Plus, it isn't only Christians and politicians who oppose evolution. Here's one example of a non Christian who opposes evolution.
I find it also interesting that Christians are always called "fundamentalist" when they hold an alternative view, as if being "fundamental" is negative. It's an intentional jab, and it's worth noting. "Fundamentalism" simply means to believe in and adhere to a set of principles or beliefs. I'm sure the challenger holds to their own beliefs just like I do. so why don't they call themselves fundamentalist?
In conclusion, I would say this person's bias and presupposition is just as much a cause for violence as any other today. They are quite obviously intolerant of any views opposed to their own, and they don't have the intellectual wherewithal to play fair with the other side.
Post a Comment
<< Home