Talk:Criticism of religion

Quotes by Ole Nydahl, Lama

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/buddha-meets-holger-danske.html

Ole Nydahl, Lama

“To say it plainly, it’s really embarrassing that people — after 2,000 years of development towards freedom here in Europe — cannot comprehend their potential, don’t trust themselves, or are so badly disabled in childhood that they cast away their free will and enslave themselves under a totalitarian and fascist system. Surely, it’s pure fascism to subordinate oneself to other people in that way — no matter if it’s under a deity dictating what to do, a prophet, Hitler or Stalin. It’s always the same. Whenever you deny people their freedom of choice and self-determination, you reduce them to inferior beings.”

“Aldous Huxley, whom I studied extensively at the university, called it ‘pack-poison’. If a lot of people do something it will attract others who want to belong or be a part of something. And if a start like this is sufficiently deviant it will always be attractive to certain unstable individuals. That is the reason why something originally in conflicting with human nature in the end can grow powerful, and accordingly very harmful.”

“We must see to it that things are in the open. We must insist, at the least, that people who want to exploit their own humanity — and who therefore can turn dangerous to those who want to stay free — be humiliated, ridiculed and truly exposed. Which means that they can be dealt with just like anyone else. If you grant those people a hiding place and claim that they are protected from any criticism in order avoid the ire of some dead prophet, then we’ve let go of the freedom of our future generations. We can very well describe it as a cancer, if you accept that people are not allowed to think and see things as they are. It’s something that conflicts with the general trend in society. This malignancy must be opposed by showing people who choose submission that there are other options — in case they develop an appetite for living.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.122.80 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

"Almost all"

Right on top there is a text that says that almost all religions have som irrational ideas at the core. It would be interesting to list one or two examples to the contrary. First of all, such religions might be exempt from any criticism in the article. Secondly, perhaps not all agree about how free from irrationality they are, and this detail could be ironed out here. DanielDemaret 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel and everyone. I have taken a stab at rewriting this ‘Criticism of concept’ section. I will return to this section shortly to add references to each statement. I also intend to expand it. Anyone is welcome to beat me to it and provide as many references as you like before I do. Nuloy 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request, Nuloy. It is coherent and I am sure I have no serious argument with the content per se. However, this was not exactly what I was hoping to find out. I do not think that the idea that religion is irrational needs any argument. Arguing that religion is irrational may be braking in open doors.

What I thought was interesting was the "almost all" wording, and now that section is deleted. I was instead hoping that someone could expand on the *exceptions* inherent in the statement "almost all". To take an example, we have one of the many new relions that are popping up every day, like Unitarian Universalism. UU does not base their religion on any god, nor on any fantastic story of creation, but on religous ideas like "freedom of speech", "respect for others beliefs"

To copy verbatim from UU central system of belief.

   * The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
   * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
   * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
   * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
   * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
   * The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
   * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."[4]

There are other religions that do not have specific gods or creation stories, with other sets of religous view like these, and which many readers of wikipedia would think were "rational", just because they share them. They are definitely religous beliefs, but are they irrational? This, I thought, was more the kind of information that I wanted expanded on.

DanielDemaret 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote here may be labeled "criticism of criticism of religion", but if so, it still belongs here. Not all criticism of religion is rational nor humane. DanielDemaret 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel and everyone. Okay, perhaps I didn't quite understand your original message, or I just went on one of my occasional flights of inspiration. Sorry about removing the statement that caught your eye. Perhaps what is needed here is yet another section, speaking to the new ‘religions’ (I have a long association with Unitarians and know well enough each one will respond differently to this term - and just about everything else!) and ancient non-theistic traditions, i.e. Janism, Confucianism and the original branches of Buddhism. Finding exceptions is another way of pointing out the limits of those traditions saying they are the ‘only way.’ The fact there are so many different answers religions give would further suggest none of them hold a monopoly on any abstract truth. I am an open-minded atheist with many theist friends and associates, that said, I think the focus of this article should remain the criticism of religion. I realize there is a wide spectrum of definitions of this term and think we should include all we can, but if we lose this focus, we are in danger of losing the focus of this particular page. I will look forward to your or anyone elses response on this and again promise I will set aside time to find references for my expansion of this seciton. I again welcome anyone else getting to this before me too. Nuloy 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, we must not lose focus. But it is equally important that the article is correct. If we blaim all religions for a particular error, and it then turns out some religions do not have this error, then the critique is suddenly false, and the entire critique will at best flop, at worst cause antagonism or even make people believe in errors since this is an encyclopedia. The person issuing the critique would obviously be telling a lie. That can not be very conducive to atheism, can it?

That is why I suggested, in the section below, that one make the criticisms narrower, to target as broad a spectrum of religions as possible, but not as broad as to make the critique invalid. There is plenty of gunpowder to use on each set of religions. It is interesting that you know Unitarians that will respond differently to the term. Perhaps you could persuade them to write on the article on Unitarians? If they feel that article is wrong, they will hardly respond well to criticism of a term based on wikipedias error-filled view on them, will they?

On a side note, and I may well be climbing out on a limb here, but the idea of any particular religion being ‘only way.’, isn't that also limited to the Abrahamic religions? Perhaps not, but I think I recall taoism and shinto and and in some matters tibetan buddhism to be less ego-centric, being open to other ways.

Please go ahead, and write away. Be bold, and all that. I don't think I shall be writing anything until I have citations, or at least until I think I am certain of what would be appropriate.

My main focus now in this article is not more content, but rather to see if some rewrite or perhaps restructuring would make it more legible, more comprehensive, and above all, more factually correct.

Oh, and my view? Well, aspects of God correspond best to the deeply religous views of Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein. Some would claim that those people were not religous at all, but since they claim to be this themselves, why can't I? On aspects of the soul, I divide things into the four categories of what I can see with my senses, what I trust others have told me, what are mere inventions and what are pure confabulations, in order of lessened plausability. One might quote Terry Pratchett here where he writes "Oh, Gods exist allright, but I don't have to BELIVE in them." I love his writings so much.

DanielDemaret 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A possible restructuring of the article

I can not find any criticism that applies to all religions. The way the article is now structured, the critiques may be interpreted as pertaining to all religions, and where they are not, it is sometimes unclear which religions are under a certain criticism.

Perhaps if one were to divide the article into groups

1. Criticism of Abrahamistic religions (Christian, Islamic, Jewish)
2. Criticism of other religions that include belief in gods
3. Criticism of other religions

and then further divide each section into "critiques common to all religions in this group", and then sections for critique of each particular religion. There are already some interesting articles on several of these, so an over-view and a link to these articles should suffice, and hopefully make the whole article more legible and more comprehensive and above all, less ambiguous.

Please criticize the idea. In a months time I might get tempted to rearrange the article myself if no criticism is forthcoming. DanielDemaret 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel - thank you for all the thought and energy you are putting into this page! It is true, it needs a bit of pruning and organizing. It has grown large enough I find it hard to read through it without getting hung up on a section and spending all my time working on it and never finishing it all. Of course, I am doing lots of other things too. I am going to spin out a couple of ideas here in no apparent order for your and everyone's consideration. • I suggest we need to come up with a clear definition of what we mean by religion. This may prove more difficult than it sounds! If you look at the Religion article in Wikipedia, you will see it very loosely defined, even on a pro-theistic page! Once we managed to agree on a definition, we could look at setting up a structure for criticising various aspects of it. • There are already pages dedicated to criticising the other main religions, so I would suggest this page should be more universal. We should repeat what appears elsewhere and generously attibute the work appearing on those more focused pages here. Perhaps we can provide many more links throughout this page to these other pages taking issue with specific traditions. • One thing I did in the ‘Implausibility of specific beliefs’ section was create a new section specifically detailing implausible Christian examples, perhaps another way to do this is add specific references to different traditions in each section? Looking forward to the brainstorming! Nuloy 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Just one detail. Should we really have different definitions on religion from the article on religion? I have seen the definition there develop over the years, and I think it has gotten better all the time. Should we not instead seek to improve the definition in that article? I agree that it is a bit looks loose, but on the other hand that may be simply beauce people use the word so differently. Please suggest a better definition, and we'll see. Chances are that it will end up the same as in the other article after a while, since they have been at it for years, probably beginning with a definition that looks very much like christianity, and becoming fuzzier with time, to contain all actual religions.

On the structure of the article: Perhaps when one gets down to details, the only way will be to write one section of criticism for each religion. I know that critique of followers of Kali would be very different from critique of Shinto. DanielDemaret 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read this article again, with new eyes. A definition of religion should , as you suggest, be visible in this article. I am inclined to copy the one from "religion" near the top here. The section on criticism of the concept is totally lacking in citations, and that feels very wrong, but the rest of the articles paragraphs at least somewhat supported by citations. DanielDemaret 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I looked at the existing citations. They are not good enough. This article needs more citations everywhere and it needs better citations in some places. For example, the text that goes "the opposition from the Church to Darwin's theory" should probably best be deleted altogether. First of all it does not mention which church. Secondly, although there was initial opposition, the church of england quite quickly endorsed and praised Darwin. The only churches that I have heard of opposing his views are in the bible-belt. The opposition to Galileo is also well-known, but problematical, since recently historians have revealed a very different story here. It is best to link to the galileo-controversy here.DanielDemaret 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I will forget restructuring for now. One major reason that it is hard to read is the lack of citations. Without more citations, a proper encyclopedic version of this article will be a very short article indeed. DanielDemaret 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the concept

The initial paragraph in "Criticism of the concept" could be trimmed down to maybe two sentences, since almost all citable information already exists below. It is good to have an overview, but an overview that gets too long tends to become illegible. DanielDemaret 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of the concept" is way to large to be legible, and the title itself is fuzzy. It would be a lot more legible if we had short overview, and a more specific title, and let the rest of the material come under appropriate headings below. Noone will bother to read it otherwise. DanielDemaret 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the "concept of religion" ?

The "Criticism of the concept" starts a long text to criticize the "concept of religion". It must at the very least, first define what is here meant by the "concept of religion".

Everyone knows what a religion is, but the "concept or religion" is less clear. Concepts are mostly used to develop new ideas or to market a package deal. One must either explain the new idea - obviously religion is not a new idea - or risk sounding like a salesman.

If no good definition comes along, we will have to think of a new title. Something that summarizes what comes below. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Religion and Mental Illness" a bit large

Also, the section "Religion and Mental Illness" is getting large enough to merit an article of its own to be legible, with a link from this article. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel and everyone. As the founder and principle contributor of this vital section, I welcome the notion of making this a separate article and expanding it. I thought this concept was a vital one to bring up and am glad to see it standing the test of time here. There is growing evidence from many sources to support the notion most prophets and subsequent saints and seers suffered from one of a variety of mental ills or were victims of abuse. I have never begun a page from scratch, but would welcome further feedback on this. Nuloy 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you know more about this than I do, since I have not looked into any of the evidence in detail, so go for it :) DanielDemaret 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some religiously-inspired figures, such as Joan of Arc, said they were guided by voices. Today we know auditory hallucinations are a common feature of those suffering from schizophrenia."

Is there any proof that Joan of Arc actually had or suffered schizophrenia at an age of 17 and therefore? Is there proof? Because I don't see a point her name being in the same sentence when discussing hallucinations and schizophrenia. It's also like saying Prophet Mohummed(who also had visions)was delusional, hallucinating etc. Phu2734 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no question that the latter example would have been removed in a flash of lightning. Considering this standard, and the lack of evidence in general, I believe that this condescending claim should be removed if there are no sources which provide her as a specific example.--C.Logan 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Plurality section

The critical argument is written well in the beginning of the section. Everything that comes after the part "...the oldest of the World Religions began in..." does not take the argument further. I am inclined to delete the remainder, since it serves only to muddle the core argument and wonder what the article is going on about. DanielDemaret 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

obscure, or plain wrong?

This article text...

"...Examples of this would include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses or the appearance of comets. [1] [2] Many critics listed here, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray say to continue to hold on to these archaic traditions and regulations, despite the expanding fields of knowledge contradicting them, is absurd and irrational."

...implies that there are World religions still today that "continue to hold on to" the idea that eclipses and comets herald great events. I am not aware of any such notions today, so I think this is plain wrong. The ressurection of Christ would be a better example here, since that belief is upheld. But since that criticism is detailed further down in the article, I it would be better if we trimmed the text here.DanielDemaret 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is both obscure and plain wrong? No worries. My philosophy has always been to leap before I look. I was trying to find some references and found them interesting. I will revisit this in the coming week and given this feedback will likely remove or rephrase it. I welcome any link suggestions you may have. My problem is I have all this information in my head from years of study and extensive travel experience. Sometimes when making additions here I find it a challenge to discover a useful link others can access. In time, I usually do. Please do not hesitate to improve on anything I have done yourself, BE BOLD. I have, among other things, a journalism background and am quite used to being edited. More later. Nuloy 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Identical links.

The two links which discuss the Criticism of Mormonism article leads to the same article as does the Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. I am not sure if Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint leads to a different article and were just messed up when their link locations were being added. If so I will look for that article in the mean-time (If there was an article on Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.) Anker99 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

I added POV tag since the article is unbalanced towards criticisms and responses are not provided. For example, according to OHEAR, ANTHONY (in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Culture" article), it is not clear if a culture with no basis in religion can inveigh against materialism by articulation on highest spiritual and artistic aspirations.

The Power of Myth (part 2) can also help in providing context to the religious stories and their importance. --Aminz 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article merely attacks religious belief and offers no counter-arguments. Most of it doesn't even attempt to take on a neutral tone. Personal opinions of the editors are prevalent in the article:

"The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties."

"An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven."

"The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity."

"One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars."

These are just a few examples. This article needs personal opinions removed and counter-arguments added. Detlevx 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is essentially a sanctuary for OR and personal opinions, and such material should be excised. However, I'm not so sure about 'responses'. I naturally consider them important (considering my own beliefs), but we should remember that this page deals with Criticisms, and is not intended to be a point-rebuttal debate list. Therefore, we may want to confine any criticisms to a 'Responses' section (for general arguments), and if context is completely necessary, to include short responses in the relevant sections. NPOV is always worth striving for, but this is, after all, an article that deals with 'criticisms'.--C.Logan 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinions removed, uh huh... Detlevx you do realise that's what this article is about don't you? Various criticisms that have been leveled at religion and theism, at various times. It's not a debate about whether religion is valid or not. What you're doing is like my going and tag-bombing christian apologetics, then demanding they present pastafarian counter-arguments. It's unhelpful and ultimately futile. cornis 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article consists of opinions presented as fact. Look at the quotes I've listed above. I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion. I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article. The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-religious arguments, whereas the arguments ought be presented without bias. There's an enormous difference between saying something like "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars" as opposed to "It is a commonly held belief among polemics that religion is an obstacle to world peace, as throughout history various religions have incited religious wars." Also, supporting evidence needs to be added to show that these opinions are commonly held, rather than merely the opinion of the editor, as it seems in some examples. See the article "Criticism of the Catholic Church" for a good example of an article that presents arguments in a neutral tone.Detlevx 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've replaced the POV tag as this article obviously does not conform to neutrality standards. Compare it to Criticism of Atheism where pretty much every criticism section incorporates the Atheist counterargument. This page does not, and much of it is completely without sources. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree! This is the standard tactic of the Religious people. When they cannot win an argument based on evidence, they fall back on "Neutrality". Somehow this article is not "Neutral". Why? because it only it presents religion is a bad light and "does not represent religion is a good light". Unfortunately they do not give us any evidence that refutes the criticisms in these article merely "But not all religions are like this!!!"

Imagine if we should demand that an article on christianity be consider pov because "The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-atheist arguments!" 202.168.50.40 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, why do you assume that since try to present a controversial topic in a neutral light, we must be religious zealots? If you disagree with the POV tag, why don't you defend the article rather than attack the editors? Second, have you bothered to read the Criticism of Atheism article for comparison? Are you willing to say the tone of the two articles is the same? Like is said before, I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion. I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article. A wikipedia article of this type should list arguments, not implicitly support them by stating them as fact (see the quotes I've listed above). Once wikipedia articles begin to espouse a certain sentiment, they fail as a source of reliable and unbiased information. Detlevx 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I'll try and address the points you've raised one at a time.

• "The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity." I've removed this, since it assumes that religion has a function at all.
• "An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven." That is implausible. Sorry.
• "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars." I actually agree with you here, I thinks it's just the phenomenon atheist harp on the most. I've changed the sentence to reflect this
• "The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties." Granted the wording is problematic but it pretty much sums up creation-evolution controversy

ornis 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the last statement. ornis 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Excised Quotes

Far too many quotes with nothing much to tie them together

Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true."

It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln)

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin)

When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain)

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect. (James Madison)

The trouble with Faith is that it cannot coexist with Reason. Either when the religious beliefs run into a conflict with the senses, or with the world of science, we must somehow accept incompatible ideas or we must choose. The number of intelligent people who attend church services regularly suggests that many people can live in a sort of schizophrenic reality, where the laws of nature operate at all times except when thinking religious thoughts. On the other hand, they pretend to believe both but really only believe one. However, some of us cannot do that, and we are asked to abdicate our intellects as to preserve the purity of the dogma.

Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue

Schopenhauer also criticizes believers for mistakenly trusting those who claim religious authority, rather than thinking for themselves.

ornis 05:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumping ground for useful links and refs

[1] taj al hilali on rape [2] cardinal pell, stem cell research