Dan and Charity: a Topic Not Related to the Good Bishop DCP

[_Gadianton Plumber]

In the interest of creating new and original material, in conjunction with hypocritically condemning crazy people wherever they are found, I submit the following couple of posts found on Planet MAD. It is within the "disbelief" thread started by a new poster from the Netherlands.

We find him offering the following as an example why one should value evidence based analysis, not by way of admonishment, but as another POV :

In the Netherlands, they are closing jails because they have so much empty space. The teen pregnancy rate and the abortion rate are far below the United States. Obviously, promoting contraception and legalizing drugs works better than what the US is doing. However, most people in the US believe differently, for better or for worse. People often don't care about the evidence.

His point, I believe is that we humans should accept evidence, wherever it takes us, even if it is counter-intuitive. Drugs and promiscuous sex cause serious social ills, but can be mitigated by paying attention to the evidence.

The ironically named Charity pipes in:

I would ask you if God's purposes are necessaily met with empty jails and lowered teen pregnancy rates. We could decriminalize all kinds of things and empty the jails. But does that mean that people are living the Ten Commandments better? If increased promotion of contraception leads to higher rates of fornitcation and adultery then is God happy about the lowered prenancy rate? In fact, if chastity is the ideal we seek then promotion of contraception which increases lack of chastity is an evil thing, not a good one.

She rejects this out of hand, because of her paradigm. That which exists outside of her definition of "God" is by definition the worst thing. Oddly, I think if you asked her why we are supposed to follow the commandments, she may well respond that it is the best and smartest way to live, the "shortcut" through the social sciences. When presented, obliquely, that true evidence can lead to true conclusion, she rejects the idea. Yes, evidence and logical inquiry is good, so long as it doesn't lead one to color outside the lines.

Why do I bring this up? Well, aside from the initially cited reasons, I think it is important to preserve an example of the harm "paradigmatic" or "dogmatic" thinking can do. Charity is presented with an example of a solution that seriously mitigates the social harms done by drugs and promiscuous sex, that works and does not involve force, and it is rejected. Rejected because there are some areas on the coloring book that are not meant to have colors.

I offer that if this is the sort of thinking that religious or political dogma creates, such structures should be opposed and torn down. It isn't about any communist or fundamentalist threats of such things, they are only what makes it into the news, it is about the UNSEEN harm and distortions. If and when a religious LDS person asks a secular critics just what they think the harm religion does to society, I offer this as an example. When well meaning and smart people reject evidence based, effective solutions because they find them "icky," and internally or externally condemn those who are trying to help, stagnation occurs.

So who will join me with a fist full of multi color crayons to have some fun?

[_harmony]

Some of the most beautiful art currently available was created by coloring outside society's lines. Some of the most horrible was created the same way. And some really bad art was created by coloring inside society's lines.

While it's always good to build, destroying something simply because someone refuses to believe what science knows is true seems counterproductive. Science has been wrong before (which isn't to say that religion has been right), and some of the errors have been pretty lame when seen from hindsight. Religion endures for a reason; some very important function within the brain is fulfilled by God (or whatever fills that space for the individual). Just as laughter helps people cope with untold pain and suffering (no matter the source of the pain and suffering), so does prayer and meditation. That isn't to say laughter and prayer cure, just that they make the pain and suffering more bearable. And taking that coping mechanism away simply because science says there is no God seems inhumane, not to mention impossible. Best for science to work with religion (and laughter) for the best of all possible outcomes.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Some of the most beautiful art currently available was created by coloring outside society's lines. Some of the most horrible was created the same way. And some really bad art was created by coloring inside society's lines.

While it's always good to build, destroying something simply because someone refuses to believe what science knows is true seems counterproductive. Science has been wrong before (which isn't to say that religion has been right), and some of the errors have been pretty lame when seen from hindsight. Religion endures for a reason; some very important function within the brain is fulfilled by God (or whatever fills that space for the individual). Just as laughter helps people cope with untold pain and suffering (no matter the source of the pain and suffering), so does prayer and meditation. That isn't to say laughter and prayer cure, just that they make the pain and suffering more bearable. And taking that coping mechanism away simply because science says there is no God seems inhumane, not to mention impossible. Best for science to work with religion (and laughter) for the best of all possible outcomes.

After I read your post, I feel a clarification may be in order. I am not convinced that a concept of "God" is something that needs destroying, so long as it does not conflict with direct evidence. I think there is a world of difference between the comfort an individual derives from the Atonement and literally believing in Noah's flood. There comes a breaking point where the comfort becomes a delusion, and then causes the harm that delusions cause. Why do we have religion? I have my own theories, but I am not certain it is necessarily bad. There is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so long as we are prepared the change bathwater. I have know far too many good people who make religion work well, than to be totally convinced it is a bad thing.

That being said, I am tempted to make lists. I know it may not be fair, but that is the way my mind works, make a list and analyze. What has religion given us? What has rationality? I think at some point in human history religion has become less useful of a construction than secularism. Is this the end of useful religion? I truly don't have a clue. I do know that far too often dogma (any dogma) destroys what it was meant to protect.

If religion is social laughter, I accept that. There are horrors in this world.

Where do you see the line? Is there a line? Is there such a thing as soul crushing destructive dogma? Do you feel religion can mature and lose the dogma? Can the Church be false and be useful? I am interested to hear your thoughts, they are among the best here.

[_harmony]

After I read your post, I feel a clarification may be in order. I am not convinced that a concept of "God" is something that needs destroying, so long as it does not conflict with direct evidence. I think there is a world of difference between the comfort an individual derives from the Atonement and literally believing in Noah's flood. There comes a breaking point where the comfort becomes a delusion, and then causes the harm that delusions cause.

I work in a health-related community, so the pain and suffering I see on a daily basis focuses on that part of the scientific world. I have seen that community from both sides... both on the side of research and treatment, and from the other side, as a parent of a child afflicted with a horrible disease.

We can all cite horror stories where parents have pulled their children out of chemotherapy to run to Mexico for a naturopathic remedy because of their religious beliefs. The child dies. Yet so do children whose parents allow the medical community complete access to the child in a vain attempt to cure whatever it is that is killing the child. Different approaches to the problem... same outcome.

You ask a good question... at what point does comfort become a delusion? But at what point does science acknowledge that no matter what the evidence, there is never 100% certainty? I know no one in my field that claims 100%, yet when I see posts here pushing that evidenced based science is somehow approaching 100%, I want to laugh. It is simply not so.

Why do we have religion? I have my own theories, but I am not certain it is necessarily bad. There is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so long as we are prepared the change bathwater. I have know far too many good people who make religion work well, than to be totally convinced it is a bad thing.

We have religion because people need religion. Even those who reject religion cannot in all fairness make their choice mandatory for those who do not choose it. Now what the individual does with their religion... that's an entirely different argument.

That being said, I am tempted to make lists. I know it may not be fair, but that is the way my mind works, make a list and analyze. What has religion given us? What has rationality? I think at some point in human history religion has become less useful of a construction than secularism. Is this the end of useful religion? I truly don't have a clue. I do know that far too often dogma (any dogma) destroys what it was meant to protect.

Has religion become a less useful construct over time? The stats would not support that, based on the number of people who profess some sort of religion worldwide. Perhaps it would be helpful to determine what you mean by "useful"? And are you attempting to conflate religion in the societal/organized sense or are you talking about religion in the individual sense? Because I think the utility of religion to an individual is graded differently than the utility to society as a whole.

If religion is social laughter, I accept that. There are horrors in this world.

An intriguing concept.

Where do you see the line? Is there a line? Is there such a thing as soul crushing destructive dogma? Do you feel religion can mature and lose the dogma? Can the Church be false and be useful?

It would help if you'd define your terms a bit. What do you mean by "the Church"? Are you referring to the LDS Church? the Catholic Church (which far outnumbers the LDS church)?

Does religion have to be dogmatic? If the leaders are careful, and strive to maintain an openness to faith, instead of requiring faith (which seems a contradiction to me), becoming entrenched doesn't have to be the end result. I think the bigger a religion becomes, the more it tries to convert all mankind, the more likely it is to become dogmatic and lose it's special godliness, if you will. However, for the individual, I think being dogmatic is more a character trait rather than a spiritual thing.

Is becoming dogmatic a natural extension of a religion as it ages? I think it's an inevidable result of growth; the weight of sheer numbers requires it.

What would be considered an aged religion? I think of the LDS church as a relatively new religion still in comparison to some, while the Catholic religion would an aged religion. Yet both are rigidly dogmatic. Perhaps the dogmatism is a result of the characters of the leaders, in addition to the sheer size of the religion.

I am interested to hear your thoughts, they are among the best here.

I'm not sure what to say to this. There are those here who deal with religion on a daily basis, teach it, are submersed in it who would seem more qualified than I. I deal with pain and suffering on a daily basis, so I no doubt see religion differently than those who are steeped in it.

[_Sethbag]

I think a religion that loses the dogma, ceases to accept belief on insufficient evidence, and focuses more on ideas that help people, and value people, and give people meaning, would look a lot like humanism. Hmm.

[_harmony]

I think a religion that loses the dogma, ceases to accept belief on insufficient evidence, and focuses more on ideas that help people, and value people, and give people meaning, would look a lot like humanism. Hmm.

So you're saying humanism is a religion?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

You ask a good question... at what point does comfort become a delusion? But at what point does science acknowledge that no matter what the evidence, there is never 100% certainty? I know no one in my field that claims 100%, yet when I see posts here pushing that evidenced based science is somehow approaching 100%, I want to laugh. It is simply not so.

Dogma is the dangerous thing, not religion. Secular humanism and science can be every bit as dogmatic as destructive religion. In a sense, it fulfills the same damaged bits of psyche that religion can help. A nutter is a nutter.

We have religion because people need religion. Even those who reject religion cannot in all fairness make their choice mandatory for those who do not choose it. Now what the individual does with their religion... that's an entirely different argument.

Aha! You have cut deep to the core of the issue. And with exceptional speed. When does something that is comforting become delusional and dangerous? The second one tries to force their world view or opinion on another human being. The secular humanist, who may have a better treatment for cancer is not the right person to make medical decisions for a child, and, a religious person has no say in what another person does with their body. Dogma isn't dangerous if it is kept in your own pocket, perhaps.

Has religion become a less useful construct over time? The stats would not support that, based on the number of people who profess some sort of religion worldwide. Perhaps it would be helpful to determine what you mean by "useful"? And are you attempting to conflate religion in the societal/organized sense or are you talking about religion in the individual sense? Because I think the utility of religion to an individual is graded differently than the utility to society as a whole.

I disagree, on a macro level, but agree on the micro. I think I define "useful" as relating to the material and intellectual progress of the species. This must always remain in the realm of the macro, for that is where ideas are shared. Individually? Once again, only the individual can be the one to decide if it is useful. (Was that a fair answer? Or was that a dodge?)

Quote:
If religion is social laughter, I accept that. There are horrors in this world.


An intriguing concept.

I meant "laughing in the face of tragedy" not anything disrespectful. It's your idea!

It would help if you'd define your terms a bit. What do you mean by "the Church"? Are you referring to the LDS Church? the Catholic Church (which far outnumbers the LDS church)?

In this context, I was talking about the LDS church, but you nailed the concept on the head with a brilliant hammer.

I'm not sure what to say to this. There are those here who deal with religion on a daily basis, teach it, are submersed in it who would seem more qualified than I. I deal with pain and suffering on a daily basis, so I no doubt see religion differently than those who are steeped in it.

I lurked for a considerable time before I decided to post. I always felt somewhat intimidated by the quality of discourse here on the board. You are one of my favorite personalities here, with unique and good insights. Take this thread for example, you extracted three deep themes in the discussion before it even dawned on me. That's why.

I didn't ask for Will to comment, did I.

[_harmony]

You ask a good question... at what point does comfort become a delusion? But at what point does science acknowledge that no matter what the evidence, there is never 100% certainty? I know no one in my field that claims 100%, yet when I see posts here pushing that evidenced based science is somehow approaching 100%, I want to laugh. It is simply not so.

Dogma is the dangerous thing, not religion. Secular humanism and science can be every bit as dogmatic as destructive religion. In a sense, it fulfills the same damaged bits of psyche that religion can help. A nutter is a nutter.

Yet for the most part, both religion and science coexist without undue trauma to one or the other. It is, perhaps, the "nutters" on both sides, the ones that refuse to see the benefit to society by the non-nutters on either side, that cause the most damage. As an example: millions of Muslims live peaceful happy lives without troubling the rest of the world at all, yet for much of the rest of the world, Muslims are defined by the Saddams and Bin Ladins. (Or the bell ringing in whatever northen city that was where people were so annoyed... the name escapes me).

Dogma isn't dangerous if it is kept in your own pocket, perhaps.

Dogma is dangerous when it becomes part of the legal system. Dogma in Muslim countries that kill or imprison based on it are dangerous. Which is why in this country, we have such heated debates over things like... when does life start? The religious dogma on one hand says one thing and the scientific dogma on the other hand says another. And the debate still rages, decades after the courts ruled.

I disagree, on a macro level, but agree on the micro. I think I define "useful" as relating to the material and intellectual progress of the species. This must always remain in the realm of the macro, for that is where ideas are shared. Individually? Once again, only the individual can be the one to decide if it is useful. (Was that a fair answer? Or was that a dodge?)

The harm that dogma, whether religious or secular, causes on a macro/societal level manifests itself all over the world. When the law is based on dogma instead of on the citizen, societies shrink inwardly and become entrenched. With the internet and globalization, we see less and less of this, but it still exists in large areas of our world. China is just emerging from the effects of Mao's dogma. The chaos in the former USSR is one reaction to the rigid dogma under which people lived. Generations must die out in order for a new system to effectively replace the old dogma.

I meant "laughing in the face of tragedy" not anything disrespectful. It's your idea!

I consider laughter to be one of the most effective healing tools available. There are studies that support my conclusions. Laughter, though, is neither religious, nor scientific, nor dogmatic. And it's non-codifiable.