Horror of Religion

[wet_suit_one]

Consider this:

Worth thinking about isn't it?

I won't say much more than that as I don't have too much in the way of comment for my own part.

Let's just say, that my own critical thinking on the matter had been aroused some years ago.

 

[Art Mann]

I buy his logic. But in all fairness, here's the rebuttal.

... and he doesn't convince me at all

 

[wet_suit_one]

Yeah, I wasn't convinced of anything either by the rebuttal.

 

[rhuarc29]

Congratulations William Craig. You've proved that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape. In that well-being is not objectively good. Lets just ignore the fact it took you 5 minutes to refute a single, tiny point Sam Harris made. I'll hold a minute for applause..... ...... ............ ............. .............................

There's only one problem: you classify good and evil as having intrinsic value in and of itself. As if they are constants, consisting of strict code that classifies an action as either good or evil. Craig's view of a "moral landscape" is of an objective good and evil that DO NOT EXIST. The only way they can exist, is for a more ultimate being than ourselves to make it so, which is why Craig believes this view.

Rational people, with thought, would realize good and evil can only exist as values that we, as human beings, assign them. We believe that helping others is a good thing to do, because it makes other people happy or improves their lives in some way. We believe working hard is good in that we support ourselves and pull our own weight so others are not burdened. We believe that killing someone is evil, because it puts an end to any happiness and fulfilling moments that person may have had, and that it hurts others who have a bond with that person. We believe that lying and cheating are evil because we've taken advantage of another person. We understand this view of good and evil because we can experience these things for ourselves, and know what pain is, and what happiness is. Ask a little kid which of those two is good, and which is evil. They'd tell you.

 

[rld]

It is really to tell how well a debate is going when you don't know how the question is framed.

I have read two or three of Harris' books and they are okay, but he does tend to get his facts wrong, and has some weak logic.

This particular video of Mr. Harris certainly does "destroy" Catholicism, because he does not accurately describe it.

But the debates will go on.

 

[rhuarc29]

It is really to tell how well a debate is going when you don't know how the question is framed.

I have read two or three of Harris' books and they are okay, but he does tend to get his facts wrong, and has some weak logic.

This particular video of Mr. Harris certainly does "destroy" Catholicism, because he does not accurately describe it.

But the debates will go on.

I would love to hear your description of Catholicism.

 

[rld]

I would love to hear your description of Catholicism.

It would take a while. But my beef with Mr. Harris' characterization is that he suggests that people who are not christians cannot receive salvation. Now, I don't know what Mr. Craig teaches on this point (I have not read any of his work), but it simply is not Catholic doctrine:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 847

or the words of Pious IX

"It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who, assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life."

So his piece, where he talks about all those people in India etc prima facie going to hell because they are not Christians, is not a Catholic doctrine. IT may be what Mr. Craig teaches, I don't know. There are certainly denominations that teach this. Roman Catholicism is not one of them.

 

[wigglee]

the words of Pious IX .... "those who labour in invincible ignorance"
What about those who fit that description except the part about being ignorant of your most holy religion? Say they were good people who heard the teachings of christianity but decided not to convert from hinduism?

 

[rld]

the words of Pious IX .... "those who labour in invincible ignorance"
What about those who fit that description except the part about being ignorant of your most holy religion? Say they were good people who heard the teachings of christianity but decided not to convert from hinduism?

It is not "my" religion.

I don't have the cites handy, but I don't believe the RC's believe that not coming to their "Church" is fatal to your attempt at salvation even if you have heard about it.

I would paraphrase it (my interpretation obviously) in saying that the RC doctrine is essentially a) Christ is the way to saviour, b) Christ wants (and allows) all men to be saved and c) we offer the perfect way to salvation, d) others offer imperfect, or non-guarunteed ways to salvation. Here are a couple more pieces to the puzzle:

Dear Chuck,

Thank you so much for your email. I appreciate your sharing. let me state my belief. I do believe at Jesus is God and is the source of salvation for all people. You made the distinction in your comments between the salvation of those who reject Jesus and those who will never even hear his name mentioned in their lives. I believe that the latter group are loved by God and will be given a chance to encounter Christ and make a choice for or against Him. I see Jesus reflection on this in Matthew 25... I feel confident that God loves these people and will reveal himself to them in powerful ways beyond my understanding. He wants to spend all eternity with them.
As for those who don't choose Jesus, like the Jews and the Moslems, I have a hard time easily sending them all to hell. In the first place, who is the Jesus that they are rejecting, not choosing? For most Jews and Moslems, the Jesus they reject is the Jesus they experience in us Christians. They are not examining the Bible but us. Why would they be attracted to Christ if all they know of him is anti-Semitism and persecution of Moslems? Most of them don't reject the real Christ but rather the Christ they see in the Crusades, the Inquisition, strong Catholic belittling of Jews and now a Christian nation wanting to drop bombs on their people.

If we are responsible for giving them this distorted image of Jesus, perhaps when they come to the time of judgment, the one's to be condemned will not be those who were given a false image of Jesus but those who presented the false image.

As I also mentioned on the program, when I study the gospels, especially Mark, I find that Jesus is calling people to love His Father. When we pray we are called to pray to Our Father. His goal in life is to get people to love and give their lives to the Father. We see this also in John 11.
If this passionate love of Christ for his Father is real, I have a difficult time finding Jesus becoming indignant when devout Jews and Moslems praise the Father. I think that God the Son rejoices when His Father is praised. I have a difficult time believing Jesus would want to condemn people who praise His Father.

Thanks for listening to me, Chuck. Blessings on your walk with the Lord.

In Him,

Father Michael Manning, SVD

and a summary from religioustolerance.org

Roman Catholics: One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:
"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."

 

[rhuarc29]

It would take a while. But my beef with Mr. Harris' characterization is that he suggests that people who are not christians cannot receive salvation. Now, I don't know what Mr. Craig teaches on this point (I have not read any of his work), but it simply is not Catholic doctrine:

Or the words of Pious IX

So his piece, where he talks about all those people in India etc prima facie going to hell because they are not Christians, is not a Catholic doctrine. IT may be what Mr. Craig teaches, I don't know. There are certainly denominations that teach this. Roman Catholicism is not one of them.

Fair enough. If he made a point based on inaccurate evidence, then you got him there. Fortunately for me, I don't put faith in the words of any religious doctrine. Not to mention, the fact that many religions curse other religious followers to hell is one of my least concerns about religion. And fortunately for Mr. Harris, the damning of all Hindus to hell was only one of his many talking points.

 

[rld]

Fair enough. If he made a point based on inaccurate evidence, then you got him there. Fortunately for me, I don't put faith in the words of any religious doctrine. Not to mention, the fact that many religions curse other religious followers to hell is one of my least concerns about religion. And fortunately for Mr. Harris, the damning of all Hindus to hell was only one of his many talking points.

I am fine with that. I think that all philosophies and ideas should be looked at and are open to critique, including religion. What I don't think is fair is suggesting that a group stands for an idea...when they don't. That cuts both ways. There are some religious critics who misstate what various atheists say. The problem with debating atheism or about atheism is that it is such an amorphous group, with very little, or even perhaps just one doctrine. They really don't stand for much at all. But I suspect over time they will coalese into groups that we can describe and try to understand.

 

[oil&gas]

Fair enough. If he made a point based on inaccurate evidence, then you got him there. Fortunately for me, I don't put faith in the words of any religious doctrine. Not to mention, the fact that many religions curse other religious followers to hell is one of my least concerns about religion. And fortunately for Mr. Harris, the damning of all Hindus to hell was only one of his many talking points.

I did not watch the video posted by the OP. IMO the doctrine of eternal torment in
hell for unbelievers is not worth debating given that it is pretty much a dead doctrine.
Billy Graham for one would not openly pontificate on eternal hell fire awaiting the Hindus and
Muslims. I can't see what good it does for the unbelievers to debate a doctrine embraced
by only a small segment of the Christian world.

 

[cye]

What I don't think is fair is suggesting that a group stands for an idea...when they don't.
The problem with debating atheism or about atheism is that it is such an amorphous group, with very little, or even perhaps just one doctrine. They really don't stand for much at all.

We atheists stand for the social contract you might not think it is much but it is the basis of the enlightenment.

 

[Aardvark154]

I would paraphrase it (my interpretation obviously) in saying that the RC doctrine is essentially a) Christ is the way to saviour, b) Christ wants (and allows) all men to be saved and c) we offer the perfect way to salvation, d) others offer imperfect, or non-guarunteed ways to salvation.

Yes, I would say that is an accurate appraisal. Now of course the rest of us in non-Roman catholic traditions would disagree with points c and d

 

[5hummer]

I just don't understand religion or worshipping of "whomever/whatever"

It's all based on misinterpreted or false information, that is continually re-written or re-interpreted?

 

[lynxguru]

Religion should be put into the garbage heap of history. It has run its course. Science has liberated us from these shackles.

 

[rld]

What I don't think is fair is suggesting that a group stands for an idea...when they don't.
The problem with debating atheism or about atheism is that it is such an amorphous group, with very little, or even perhaps just one doctrine. They really don't stand for much at all.

We atheists stand for the social contract you might not think it is much but it is the basis of the enlightenment.

Are you suggesting that all atheists stand for the "social contract." Is there a voice for all atheists who speaks for you? Or do some atheists believe in different things?

Right now I think atheists are an amorphous, undefined group. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, it just makes it tougher to discuss atheism in a political context.

If you think there are sources that speak definitively for the movement I would be glad to read them. So far I have read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and some Dennett (who I think is much more impressive than the other three).

 

[rld]

Religion should be put into the garbage heap of history. It has run its course. Science has liberated us from these shackles.

Except that religion is growing very quickly. And science does not answer the "why" questions, or deliver answers about say...how to live a good life.

Have a look at Gould's work in the area. Very good material.

 

[rld]

I just don't understand religion or worshipping of "whomever/whatever"

It's all based on misinterpreted or false information, that is continually re-written or re-interpreted?

You mean like science?

 

[blackrock13]

You mean like science?

Do you think we should remind him when the KJB version was written, hint ~1611, and it has still remained the most common/wide spread version of the scripture?