My view on religions

[BaalChatzaf]

After considering the matter carefully I have concluded that religions are man-made (with a little help from the Devil). On balance religions have done more harm than good for the human race. Occasionally we have religions they appear to be harmless. Like the ways of the Amish and like the ways of the Quakers. The Deists have done less harm than the Orthodox Christian Trinitarians.

Bottom line: Religions, bad and (rarely good) are Man Made.

If there is a Real God no one knows Iits nature (not you, not me) The priests, the imams, the preachers, the rabbis, the ministers etc have made up their own Gods to support their agendas. They God that they preach is an artifact and a fraud.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

Without the influence of Christianity, there would be no individual rights as we know them today. See in particular "The Christian Foundations of the Rule of Law in the West" by the legal scholar Augusto Zimmerman.

[anthony]

After considering the matter carefully I have concluded that religions are man-made (with a little help from the Devil). On balance religions have done more harm than good for the human race. Occasionally we have religions they appear to be harmless. Like the ways of the Amish and like the ways of the Quakers. The Deists have done less harm than the Orthodox Christian Trinitarians.

Bottom line: Religions, bad and (rarely good) are Man Made.

If there is a Real God no one knows Iits nature (not you, not me) The priests, the imams, the preachers, the rabbis, the ministers etc have made up their own Gods to support their agendas. They God that they preach is an artifact and a fraud.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Most broadly, there's a sense that the ancient religions are coming of age finally. There seems more live and let live. Some non-exclusive pragmatism, reciprocity of existence with other faiths and atheism, with ~ perhaps~ the rational acceptance that a person's voluntary choice is better than pressuring him.

If most people draw solace, a certainty and a decent life-method from their own concept of god and religion, who'll throw the first stone? My sentiment is good fortune to you, except where it comes to government, then please leave your Bibles (etc.) at the door..

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf

The priests, the imams, the preachers, the rabbis, the ministers etc have made up their own Gods to support their agendas. The God that they preach is an artifact and a fraud.

end quote

And Francisco responded:

Without the influence of Christianity, there would be no individual rights as we know them today.

end quote

Well sure Franky, “. . . as we know them today.” But can anyone demonstrate a causal link throughout history from Christianity to The United States Constitution? Rand may have had a “Eureka!” moment when she said philosopher A led to philosopher B, etc., but I think the detective that she was, would also know and demonstrate that a society and “commonly held truths and ethos” were first changed by one philosophy, before philosophy B can enact changes. Ayn Rand had a brief note in the old “Old Objectivist Newsletter” showing the current state of American society.

At the end I placed some of the ideas from Francisco’s link. As you will see a case can be made that Christianity was the ammunition used by many PROPONENTS OF FREEDOM prior to the term “libertarian, ” so to reiterate, I cannot say that the New or Old Testament Bible were written to promote freedom. To the contrary all religious “testaments” are to befog and subjugate humans. As Cervantes wrote, “The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.”

I agree with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Religion is a form of self-imposed mental slavery for adults and a form of child abuse imposed on children. Zeus and his other idiotic manifestations are figments of whimsically opportunistic, deluded, or evil minds.

Most modern NON-theists are pro reason with the exceptions of Freud, Marxism, and some others. All of the conflicting “holy books” are mind paralyzing, drivel who’s intent is to create respected masters and docile servants.

In a 1947 entry in “The Journals of Ayn Rand,” (Rand 1997, 551) Ayn Rand exploded:

“And, to go to the roots of the whole vicious error, blast the separation of man into “body” and “soul,” the opposition of “matter” and “spirit.” Man is an indivisible entity, possessing both elements — but not to be split into them, since they can be considered separately only for purposes of discussion, not in actual fact. In actual fact, man is an indivisible, integrated entity . . .”

end quote

Amen.

Notes from Francisco’s link about Christianity:

The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times.

. . . . under the influence of Christianity, nobody, not even the Roman emperor, would be above the law.

Franciscan nominalists were the first to elaborate legal theories of God-given rights.

St Thomas Aquinas considered an unjust law a ‘crooked law’, and, as such, nobody would have to obey it.

. . . for people would have the moral right to disobey unjust commands.

Rulers who enact unjust ‘law’ cease to be authorities in the rightful sense, becoming mere tyrants.

In declaring the equality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled the kings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over their arbitrary will.

The state is a ‘necessary evil’ that has to be subject to God’s higher laws. After sin entered in the world, it became necessary to establish the civil government in order to curb violence (Gen 6:11 13). However, the state was not envisaged in God’s original plan for mankind, as it places some people in a position of authority over others.

Mark 2:27 proclaim(ed) that the kings are called to govern for the sake of the kingdom, not the opposite. In this sense, he also remarked:

‘A law is necessarily adjudged cruel if it increases servitude and diminishes freedom, for which human nature always craves. For servitude was introduced by men for vicious purposes. But freedom was instilled into human nature by God.

end quote

And if everything is known and caused by God since the Big Bang or as the righteous like to call it “Genesis” here is Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 3: “Volitional” means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstances, the difference being made by the individual’s decision, which could have been otherwise.

Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 1: Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe - including every thought, feeling, and action of man - is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did, and everything in the future is already pre-set and inevitable. Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory.

“Representation Without Authorization,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 21, 1

Dictatorship and determinism are reciprocally reinforcing corollaries: if one seeks to enslave men, one has to destroy their reliance on the validity of their own judgments and choices—if one believes that reason and volition are impotent, one has to accept the rule of force.

[Francisco Ferrer]

There are plenty of good arguments against a belief in God.* The fact that Augustine, Aquinas, and many medieval theologians took the existence of a supreme being on faith does not negate their contributions to the development of a theory that subordinates the king's law to higher law and holds all individuals accountable to it.

By comparison, the good that the classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, did for civil liberties and limited government is not negated by their belief in the labor theory of value.

Nor is Aristotle's contribution to formal logic overturned by his defense of slavery.

_______________________________

*The frequent OL contributor George H. Smith has given us a superb work on the topic.

[BaalChatzaf]

There are plenty of good arguments against a belief in God.* The fact that Augustine, Aquinas, and many medieval theologians took the existence of a supreme being on faith does not negate their contributions to the development of a theory that subordinates the king's law to higher law and holds all individuals accountable to it.

By comparison, the good that the classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, did for civil liberties and limited government is not negated by their belief in the labor theory of value.

Nor is Aristotle's contribution to formal logic overturned by his defense of slavery.

_______________________________

*The frequent OL contributor George H. Smith has given us a superb work on the topic.

Sufficient unto the era are the mistakes thereof.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Francisco wrote:

Nor is Aristotle's contribution to formal logic overturned by his defense of slavery.

end quote

Ah. You just had to bring that up? Ram Tobolski on OWL on the thread Mind in Objectivism Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:30:51 wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can "return to Aristotle" in such a way as if modern science did not happen. How can anyone naively accept Aristotle account on the relation between mind and matter, when his theory of matter was so thoroughly refuted, in a way that made him a symbol of what the scientific revolution was against?

end quote

So much good, yet smaller assertions, so wrong. The Constitution was written to accept slavery. Christians had the Inquisition. Wagner adored the Nazis. Cowboys killed the Indians (meant as a joke, Cleveland.) It is tough to credit anyone who is horribly wrong about one or more things.

In the same referenced letter Ram wrote:

A stylistic preference of mine: I feel uneasy with the term ‘argues’, as in “He argues that the entity-action relationship is different when applied to consciousness than to the physical world". When I encounter the term ‘argues’ I automatically expect an “argument”; but in fact, what we often get is merely an assertion, without an argument, or only some bits of an argument.

end quote

You talkin’ to me? You must be talkin’ to somebody, Ram, cause yer lookin’ at me.