Re: [asa] Coulter, and science -- and guessing motives.

Mark Isaac writes many things which are true, but his description of
"good religion" is out of the extreme liberal camp, for he implies that
only "bad religion" imposes moral standards. I don't think he wants those
who practice polygamy and child marriage to find justification, but such
practices can be justified by pushing his approach. I conclude that, on
his view, Catholic hospitals represent "bad religion" because they do not
perform abortions on demand and their church seeks to prevent abortion.
The situation is much more complex than his argument allows.
Dave

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:22:15 -0700 Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Me thinks you squeal too much. I had some hope Janice would address
> the
> issues but I guess reality may be too inconvenient here.
>
> In the mean time Pandasthumb has an interesting posting on "The
> larger
> issue of bad religion" which may be of interest to avid asa readers.
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/the_larger_issu.html
>
> by Mark Isaak
>
> One contributor to this board has commented that religion is never
> addressed critically here. That’s about to change. Below, I define a
>
> criterion for bad religion, explore reasons for its prevalence, and
> suggest means of combating it. I’m sure many people can find much
> here
> to disagree with; I hope they can find things to think about, too.
>
> First, let me clarify that there are really at least two battles for
>
> evolution. The first battle is science vs. apathy and poor education
>
> generally. That battle, though important, is uncontroversial. The
> same
> battle exists for mathematics without excessively raising ire. I
> will
> not consider it further here.
>
> The second battle is sometimes called science vs. religion, but such
> a
> characterization is grossly misleading. Really, the battle is
> science,
> religion, and just about everyone else vs. bad religion.
>
> What is “bad religion”? Everyone has different ideas about what is
> good
> in a religion, so it might seem that defining bad religion would be
> impossibly contentious. But there is one simple criterion which gets
> to
> the heart of most religion-related problems and which must be
> embraced
> by anyone who accepts the Golden Rule: A person is practicing bad
> religion if he or she, uninvited, attempts to impose any of their
> religious beliefs on another. A bad religion is any religion which
> condones such behavior. Other bad practices and beliefs can appear
> in
> religion, but by sticking to that one criterion, we can keep this
> simple
> and hopefully less controversial.
>
> On this board, we see bad religion mainly in the form of attempts to
> ban
> the teaching of evolution and/or to force the teaching of miraculous
>
> creation (aka “intelligent design”). But, as anyone who pays any
> attention to the news in the United States knows, the battle is far
> more
> wide-ranging, covering issues such as putting graven images of the
> Ten
> Commandments in courtrooms, prohibiting certain love-based marriage,
> and
> allowing pharmacists to impose their religious practices on their
> patients. In other parts of the world, bad religion imposes
> strictures
> on every aspect of life and kills people for noncompliance. The
> problem
> of bad religion is already widespread, and it appears to be
> spreading.
> It must be fought.
>
> To fight it, it might help to understand how bad religion got the
> prominence it has. Part of the reason is simply because bad religion
>
> attracts zealots, zealots make lots of noise, and the media and
> policymakers pay more attention to noisemakers. It would help, then,
> if
> we make more noise ourselves, and emphasize as well that the silent
> people are with us. Lists such as Project Steve can help here.
>
> Bad religion has also claimed, falsely, the moral high ground. We
> need
> to take that away from them. We need to ask why churches today
> should
> act as though the Taliban is a role model. Most people believe that
> there is an intrinsic link between religion and morality, and that
> belief is going to be hard to dispel. But it hardly matters, because
>
> what bad religion pushes is more religiosity than religion. People
> can
> tell the difference between doing what is right and pretending to be
> right.
>
> Bad religion also thinks it has the spiritual high ground. Again,
> this
> claim is false. I could go on at some length about how creationists’
>
> attempts to show evidence for God are attempts to bring God himself
> into
> the realm of the very naturalism which they disparage, and how
> creationists often view faith as uncritical acceptance
> indistinguishable
> from gullibility, while they practically define themselves with
> their
> rejection of a truly valuable faith in the sense of accepting the
> world
> as it is. But let us stick to the point of bad religion as religion
> pushed on others. It is perhaps enough to point out that declaring
> that
> one’s own religious beliefs must apply to others, the hallmark of
> bad
> religion, is invariably hubris (and creationists go further to
> declare
> that their personal views determine the operation of the entire
> universe). We might also point out that bad religion pushes religion
> as
> an end in itself. This puts them in the same category as the
> hypocrites
> whom Christ berates in Matthew 23. The spiritual ground taken by bad
>
> religion is the lowest of the low. The spiritual high ground goes to
>
> those people (and I know many among evolutionists) who go through
> life
> cheerfully without mentioning their religion unless asked.
>
> Bad religion becomes particularly prevalent during hard times, when
> people go to religion for hope, and bad religious leaders find in
> their
> followers’ desperation an opportunity for personal power. We need to
>
> show people the power-hungry nature of their leaders, but even more
> than
> that, we need to educate people that hope is not served by power
> grabs.
>
> We must recognize that good religion is an ally. Religion, after
> all, is
> common to all cultures and has been around many millennia longer
> than
> science has. It is not going away any time soon. Nor should it, when
> it
> serves people’s needs. Since bad religion and good religion share a
> common tradition, the perspectives and contacts of good religion can
> be
> a valuable asset. But then, good religion should not be our only
> ally.
> Our allies are anyone who may be adversely affected by bad religion,
> and
> that includes very nearly everybody. We should encourage alliances
> with
> politicians, journalists, human rights advocates, popular writers,
> and
> anyone else who is willing to help.
>
> Good religion is a particularly effective ally because creationists
> are
> scared to death of it. Creationists base everything on the message
> that
> they have the one true way to God. Every instance of a religious
> evolutionist calls that message into question (and exposes
> creationists
> as damned liars when they equate evolution with atheism). In
> /Scientific
> Creationism/, Henry Morris spends most of the book arguing against
> science, but his real vitriol is reserved for the section where he
> complains about other religious views.
>
> Some people think religion cannot be rational and thus cannot be a
> true
> ally in science teaching. To them, I will point out that the
> irrationality they see, even though it may exist more than you like
> in
> good religion too, is not an essential part of religion. People can
> and
> do practice religion rationally. Others among the religious may
> object
> to working with atheists. To them, I suggest that they are
> approaching
> the criterion for joining bad religion. More generally, if you
> cannot
> cooperate with other decent people, the problem is not with the
> other
> people.
>
> The issues here are far more complex than one can cover in one
> thread. I
> believe they should at least be introduced, and I encourage people
> to
> think about them more.
>
> Mark Isaak is a contributor to the TalkOrigins Archive

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 9 23:15:58 2006