Pretty good argument for organized religion

[UtahDan]

I think Brooks' point (although I still don't think that it's very clear) is that organized religion offers you a codified set of morals to refer back to during your introspection. I doubt that he would advise anyone to swallow them all without any sort of examination, but that these codes are the outcomes of thousands of years (or in our case, 180 years) of refinement, whereas our individual codes are much more likely to be influenced by what happened last week (and he would argue, tend to be self-serving--not sure I agree with this).

The other big advantage that an organized religion offers you, at least one where thought is encouraged, is that many of the great theological and moral questions have been addressed by centuries of great minds, in a way that you and I are simply incapable of on an individual basis, both due to time constraints (ha) and intellectual abilities. Why not stand on the shoulders of giants?

The problem with the approach here is a fundamental one. It attempts to take the value that we all intuitively understand comes from skeptical trial and error and long experience and map it onto something that is not skeptical of itself, is not critical of itself and resists being modified and refined as other knowledge is modified and refined at every step. Think about this. If time and experience make the best religions then Catholicism or Judaism would objectively represent some of the very best morality out there. Do people think this is true, or are these just two sets of ideas among many? Or if modification only takes place by new movements being established, then more recently established faiths should be at the vanguard of pushing societies toward the highest ideals of morality that humans have been able to articulate. How should Mormonism be scored on issues of equality over its short history?

Sure, an atheist or a non-denominational believer can draw from this, but organized religion simply expedites things, through weekly meetings, organized classes, and published literature. How many atheists/non-attenders spend three hours a week focusing on their moral lives? They could, and I'm certain that some of them do, but in reality, how many?

I'm wondering if you are pulling my leg here...my argument is that religion is not the repository of morality. Does anyone want to make the argument that the three hours a week they spend, in large measure in scenarios and conversations which are scripted by that published literature, is easy to stay awake through, let alone really morally beneficial? I think you are short selling the curiosity of the non-religious. For most atheists I know, not having a collective to suggest the right answer has made them much curios and thoughtful about determining what they think, independent of what anyone else does. Certainly they are not less interested in such questions. I think people only need to consult their own experiences to find that all the meetings they attend and busy work they do is only occasionally edifying and instructional. But good ideas and experiences are all around.

[ERCougar]

I doubt that religious folks are reading Aquinas and Bonhoeffer in greater proportion than their atheist counterparts. I think that holds especially true of Mormons, who suffer the legacy of Packer's anti-intellectual crusade + heavily correlated study materials.

I think you quoted the wrong paragraph and are now mixing the two points. I've lamented before that Mormons are woefully ignorant of the rich tradition of Christian thought and philosophy, but I'll put your average Jesuit up against your average atheist any day.

But more to the point you quoted...Mormons tend to be good people and yes, despite my problems with the church, I'd say that the sum of "good" that comes from the average Mormon's week would outweigh the sum of "good" from the average atheist's. Three hours a week almost unavoidably produces something. Of course there are exceptions. But the structure of weekly church attendance (and callings and scripture study and family home evening, etc) brings about a certain minimum that unstructured time just doesn't in practice bring. My kids are smart and curious. They love to read. But they learn a lot more during the school year than they do during the summer.

[ERCougar]

The problem with the approach here is a fundamental one. It attempts to take the value that we all intuitively understand comes from skeptical trial and error and long experience and map it onto something that is not skeptical of itself, is not critical of itself and resists being modified and refined as other knowledge is modified and refined at every step. Think about this. If time and experience make the best religions then Catholicism or Judaism would objectively represent some of the very best morality out there. Do people think this is true, or are these just two sets of ideas among many? Or if modification only takes place by new movements being established, then more recently established faiths should be at the vanguard of pushing societies toward the highest ideals of morality that humans have been able to articulate. How should Mormonism be scored on issues of equality over its short history?



I'm wondering if you are pulling my leg here...my argument is that religion is not the repository of morality. Does anyone want to make the argument that the three hours a week they spend, in large measure in scenarios and conversations which are scripted by that published literature, is easy to stay awake through, let alone really morally beneficial? I think you are short selling the curiosity of the non-religious. For most atheists I know, not having a collective to suggest the right answer has made them much curios and thoughtful about determining what they think, independent of what anyone else does. Certainly they are not less interested in such questions. I think people only need to consult their own experiences to find that all the meetings they attend and busy work they do is only occasionally edifying and instructional. But good ideas and experiences are all around.

As to your first point, Mormonism doesn't score well here--I've said that before. Catholicism and Judaism both score very well, and I think you underestimate the body of intellectual thought underlying both traditions. I don't have much respect for the newer religions for that very reason--the lack of history and refinement. Note how many of them seem to be based on either charismatic experience or poorly thought-out doctrinal differences or moral codes. Mormonism is not an exception here and we have moved closer and closer to traditional Christian thought as we've aged. So yes, I'll grant your point that sophisticated Catholicism and Judaism represent the very best moral and theological thinking out there.

No, I don't claim that the three hour block consists of three hours of rich discussion and introspection. But, a small proportion of it can be, even most of it can be rewarding introspection if one is motivated and has a book/Ipad. But even in the worst case scenarios, at least a little bit sinks in, which is why for the moment, I make my completely uninterested niece attend church, and that very little bit is even more than you'll find in your average non-attender.

Step back from the argument for a bit--have you ever had the experience of discussing some moral question with someone and you feel surprised that they've never really even considered the question? Yes, I've had that with Mormons, but I've had that happen even more frequently with non-members, particularly when I was younger. Mormon life (and I'm sure other churches) forces its members to consider moral questions at an earlier age than they would otherwise do--how many 19 yr olds out there think about religion? How many pray or meditate? How many read moral literature, or consider the morality of their lives? Mormons score very well here.

[ERCougar]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=827355&postcount=211

Typical atheist self-justifying thief.

[UtahDan]

No, I don't claim that the three hour block consists of three hours of rich discussion and introspection. But, a small proportion of it can be, even most of it can be rewarding introspection if one is motivated and has a book/Ipad. But even in the worst case scenarios, at least a little bit sinks in, which is why for the moment, I make my completely uninterested niece attend church, and that very little bit is even more than you'll find in your average non-attender.

Step back from the argument for a bit--have you ever had the experience of discussing some moral question with someone and you feel surprised that they've never really even considered the question? Yes, I've had that with Mormons, but I've had that happen even more frequently with non-members, particularly when I was younger. Mormon life (and I'm sure other churches) forces its members to consider moral questions at an earlier age than they would otherwise do--how many 19 yr olds out there think about religion? How many pray or meditate? How many read moral literature, or consider the morality of their lives? Mormons score very well here.

I'm mostly having trouble with your premise that absent regularly scheduled meetings people and even kids don't think about moral questions. Maybe part of the problem is we are using the word differently. When I say moral, I am talking about how people behave so as to do the most good for others, cause the least harm, and treat others with maximum fairness. It appears that our species is programmed to be very preoccupied with these questions. Children without any exposure to religion as part of their development start to think in terms of what is fair and also in empathetic terms. This helps them learn to interact with others. I teach my children morality through what I do, how I handle situations and how I correct or praise what they do every day. My own belief is that organized religion grew very organically out of these instincts.

I think I can concede part of the point you are making that religions do serve the function of getting people focused on morality in terms of "am I right with God" and that part of that includes what I am talking about above. It just comes with SO much else.

[ERCougar]

I'm mostly having trouble with your premise that absent regularly scheduled meetings people and even kids don't think about moral questions. Maybe part of the problem is we are using the word differently. When I say moral, I am talking about how people behave so as to do the most good for others, cause the least harm, and treat others with maximum fairness. It appears that our species is programmed to be very preoccupied with these questions. Children without any exposure to religion as part of their development start to think in terms of what is fair and also in empathetic terms. This helps them learn to interact with others. I teach my children morality through what I do, how I handle situations and how I correct or praise what they do every day. My own belief is that organized religion grew very organically out of these instincts.

I think I can concede part of the point you are making that religions do serve the function of getting people focused on morality in terms of "am I right with God" and that part of that includes what I am talking about above. It just comes with SO much else.

Sure, fairness and empathy come naturally, and I would agree that most people have a decent notion of these. But that's morality 101. Sure, probably the most important aspects of morality, but there's so much more to be said. What about forgiveness? Repentance? Making things right? Honesty? Integrity? You don't have to talk to too many people to find some really screwed up notions out there (or some very poorly thought out ones). And that's only Morality 201. We're not even getting into the various faces of pride, the concept of losing yourself to find yourself, etc. These are complicated and rich ideas, and ones that are ignored to a far greater extent by non-religious people (not everyone, obviously) for the simple fact that they're in the Bible.

An example keeps coming to mind. When the Clinton/Lewinski thing came out, I was spending a fair amount of time on political message boards. I was fairly orthodox at the time, but I remember being shocked at the lack of moral reasoning demonstrated by posters. On one side, any effort to hold Clinton responsible for his action was hypocrisy if you believed in forgiveness (because obviously forgiveness = forgetting and/or pretending something never happened). On the other, how could a strong self-respecting woman stay with a man who cheated on her (because obviously the only reason to stay was a complete lack of self-respect)? Yes, it was plenty of political rhetoric, but I see these notions pop up all the time.

[SeattleUte]

I thought the last David Brooks essay was a pretty good, common sense argument for why organized religion is a good thing. He points out how easy it is to drift morally when we just balance our good acts against our bad acts rather than trying to stick to some external standard. Good stuff.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/op...oral-diet.html

Blah blah blah. Pleople are no less good now that most poeple don't go to church than when it was different. Maybe on the contrary. In a lot ways there is a more robust morality that embraces things like taboos on racism. It's better if morality is based on a sense of personal accountability as the price of liberty than a fear of hell or emotional abuse by your clergy.

[ERCougar]

Blah blah blah. Pleople are no less good now that most poeple don't go to church than when it was different. Maybe on the contrary. In a lot ways there is a more robust morality that embraces things like taboos on racism. It's better if morality is based on a sense of personal accountability as the price of liberty than a fear of hell or emotional abuse by your clergy.

I disagree. Or at least don't accept this on its face.
I think people are likely more moral in thought than they used to be, simply due to education and the general advancement of knowledge. In practice, I think people are likely less moral--less willing to share, less willing to give of themselves, etc--than they used to be. I have no more evidence of this than I imagine you do to the contrary, but I do have the statements from a lot of old people.

[CardiacCoug]

I think it's interesting that RF, SU, and UD can so confidently condemn the entire concept of "organized religion" as useless.

Even if you guys are too poisoned against the Mormon Church to consider the possibility that it might be more good than bad for people, you should check out something like a Unitarian Universalist Church and see all the good stuff that goes on somewhere like that.

You guys all benefited from 20+ years of Mormonism and I believe 100% that you don't need the Church to be every bit as moral/ethical or even more moral/ethical than any Church member. But that doesn't mean that on the whole the LDS Church doesn't "make bad men good and good men better." Of course there are exceptions (the con-artists, the homophobes and racists) but when I look back at some of the rough cowboy types I grew up with it is pretty clear that the ones who participated in Church were more refined, better citizens, generally more upstanding and thoughtful, had more opportunities to serve others, etc. than those who had stopped participating.

[UtahDan]

I think it's interesting that RF, SU, and UD can so confidently condemn the entire concept of "organized religion" as useless.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of what I said. I don't believe that it is useless. What I believe is that one can get many or most of the good things religion provides without the negative things that come along with it.