I think it is also possible that God created the known universe and is a part of it and not separate.

If this is true, then the universe is part of god and is eternal. You're starting to sound like a pantheist. ;)

I would think that it's a necessity of the entity that created all of nature to be outside of that nature.

I think that most Christians would probably agree with you and it is an intuitive way of looking at the whole matter. I think that there are some other ways of thinking about it though. I think it is possible that God is part of our universe. I think it is also possible that God created the known universe and is a part of it and not separate. Offhand I think that it is not realistic to figure out which is true, if any, but it is interesting for me to think about.

Cheers,

Matt

I think it is impossible to rule out all possible natural causes before considering supernatural ones, especially since there are undoubtedly natural causes which are not known of yet.

We agree on this.

On a side note, I am not sure that I necessarily see God as being outside of nature, so I use the terms "natural" and "supernatural" more for convenience of discussion than as an actual communication of how I think of God.

I would think that it's a necessity of the entity that created all of nature to be outside of that nature.

Remember, these religions do not just preach good; they preach what suits them best. If the leaders of the group want peace and love, they can find it in the book;

These people who manipulate religious ideas to suit their own beliefs and benefits are not a good example of being influenced by religion. They are manipulating the religion to suit themselves. I think that these sort of people, in the absence of a religious system, would use another social entity to achieve their goals if it suited them.

So how can I say religion drives people to do harm?

This matter was never in contention. Undoubtedly some religions do cause some people to cause harm.

I think that your main point is "Religion leads to bad". I think you have supported that argument well and agree that there are instances in which religion leads to bad things.

My point is that Religion leads to good. I think that I have supported that idea we. I think that the discussion may have run its course, but if you have more, I am willing to comment some.

Cheers,

Matt

Hi, my vacation was good, thank you for the well-wishes.

I think my point on the necessity of ruling out all natural processes before one can rule in the supernatural was what you were looking for, in terms of an argument for my position.

I think it is impossible to rule out all possible natural causes before considering supernatural ones, especially since there are undoubtedly natural causes which are not known of yet.

On a side note, I am not sure that I necessarily see God as being outside of nature, so I use the terms "natural" and "supernatural" more for convenience of discussion than as an actual communication of how I think of God.

Cheers,

Matt

Well, I can't say for certain that people aren't motivated by religion, but as was mentioned there are too many confounding variables: Religious people who don't do good, none religious who do, economic and social standings, childhood and current relationships, outside circumstances and events, empathy levels and all the other variables I can't think of at this present moment.

As for if people would do bad things without religion, again, it's not something I can say for certain, but I would venture a guess in that a lot of discrimination, murders, and oppression would not take place, and here's why. When it comes to non-religious people who do terrible things (Stalin and Mao are two people love to bring up) it's often more apparent as to their motives (in the case of those two, being a radical dictator probably has most to do with it over a lack of belief in a particular deity, with the interests of their state and personal power often coming into direct play. In short, they don't do the evil they do because they are atheists, but rather because they have other motives)and there seems to be a lack of agreement in the general atheist population about exactly what is right (except of course for cross-cultural universals, like looking down on murder, rape, and theft). But here's an interesting quick thought on men like that; everyone says Stalin killed a mass amount of people, yet it wasn't Stalin himself, but rather those who were supporting him actually carrying out these murders; Stalin merely ordered the killings. Presumably, many of the people serving these figures were, at least in part, religious and also presumably took part in the killings.

So how can I say religion drives people to do harm? The matter as to which particular religion it is is unimportant to the matter, what matters is that religion can make these people feel as if such behavior is rewarding. It's all again related to the same things helping is related to: A social brain and social strivings, rewards vs. punishments, and all the things I've mentioned before. If people believe that murdering people in the name of god will make them 'blessed' by a higher power and grant them eternal life, those are serious social gains for them. Also, if the bible (or whatever religious book people claim to be drawing their morals from) says a certain group shouldn't be tolerated (homosexuals for instance), then the members of that religion who don't tolerate them gain social acceptance within their community. Remember, these religions do not just preach good; they preach what suits them best. If the leaders of the group want peace and love, they can find it in the book; if they want hate and death, they can find that too. For instance, I would say it's harder to convince a rational thinking, non-believer to discriminate or harm someone for merely not being like the atheist for two reasons: One, they're typically more likely to think about the issue first over taking it on faith, and two, as mentioned above, there's a lot less agreement within the atheist population over particular issues.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the religious systems have ways of granting social power to a select few arbitrary people, and dole out social acceptance to those who follow their line of thought (whether for the betterment or worsening of people). There's no process or particular logic about what religions choose to teach at any given time, but so long as it's in the book, it can be preached as right when it suits the religion. This agreement doesn't exist within atheists because atheism is not a belief structure, just a lack of belief in other religions. It's harder to hold social sway without reason.

I know that's choppy, hopefully I can clear it up more. It's been a long day.

I wouldn't say that how much of that money does go the poor so long as some does is peripheral at all.

You are correct that it is not peripheral to the matter of how much good religion does. What I was attempting to communicate was that I felt that the fact that some religious "charity" organizations actually are huge cons is not relevant to you proving that religion does *no* real good, unless you could show that all religious charity organizations are cons.

Actually, psychology has shown quite the opposite is true, most especially in evolutionary psychology. Most of our behavior is almost running on automatic; our desires, feelings, goals, interests, and others. We can be primed by language to say or remember things that never happened. When we are in different surroundings we act far differently, remarkably unaware as to why we want to do the things we do. You could say we have a lot less freewill then we give ourselves credit for.

This paragraph is interesting to me. I figured that you would bring up this point because I have heard the idea before somewhere. I am interested to read some material on this matter, if any is available in public domain. I have read a study about words provoking changes in behavior, I think here maybe, and would be interested to see what other things have been discovered.

Back to the debate...

It seems to me that your primary rebuttal is that even though religious people *think* they are motivated by religion to do good things, that they actually are not. I still think this position is too tenuous. I also note that although you are quick to suppose that religion is probably not the real reason that religious people do good things, you have not mentioned once the possibility that the religious people who do bad things may do bad things even if they were not religious. I think that you are right in supposing that some people may not be motivated by religion, but I think many are motivated by religious ideas to do good things.

I have to go and will be gone for awhile, I will have more upon my return.

cheers,

matt

Thank you for your gracious response. I think that our very different opinions on some very polarizing issues sort of set us up. Thank you for your acceptance of my apology. I will be on vacation for several days, but I will think about my response to your point about exhausting natural explanations for my experience.

Cheers,

Matt

I crossed the line here, though. I apologize. I will not address you in such a disrespectful way in the future.

Yeah, that's right, and don't let it happen again! ;)

Seriously though, thanks for that and I will offer an apology in return. My words were certainly more forceful than necessary.

I think my point on the necessity of ruling out all natural processes before one can rule in the supernatural was what you were looking for, in terms of an argument for my position. If you would like, feel free to respond to that point.

I also searched to see if Ebonmuse had a post talking about this. My searches have so far come up empty, however.

Although it would be interesting to look at the percentages of monies which actually go directly to help those in need, it is quite peripheral to the matter of whether religion does actual good. The fact remains that there are religious organizations which are very conscientious in keeping administrative costs at a minimum and maximally transferring help to those in need, thus doing "real good".

I wouldn't say that how much of that money does go the poor so long as some does is peripheral at all. Charities are one of the 'good' things religions are often given credit for when it comes to matters like this. There are secular and religious organizations and charities with that idea in mind (help the poor and suffering), that I wouldn't doubt. I would just be curious to see how much money they all take it and how much they give out. For instance, in the case of Mother Teresa, her charity, I've been told, has taken in millions and virtually none of it has gone back to helping the poor. This would make sense since that charity is not about reducing suffering, her home for the dying is just that; a place for people to go and die. They don't get medical help, they just lay on little cots and die under the watchful eyes of nuns and the rules of the church. It's little wonder her charity does not publish it's expense books. Now this doesn't mean that there are NO religious charities that do good, I'm sure there are. But, simply intentions are not good enough.
I'm not trying to say that helping people is bad. If people feel their religion makes them help others, than great. But a vast majority of religious people do not go those great lengths to help, and most of the ones that want to help do so in the form of a donation. I would say those who are truly helpful to mankind in real caring ways are not so because of religion, regardless of if they say so (Because of the self-reporting errors we commonly make). I can say that by pointing out, as I just mentioned, a majority of people (religious and non-religious alike) do not go to great humanitarian lengths. I would say those real givers would be so with or without their religion behind them.
I could even back this up with a fantastic new psychological study done on morality in chimps. In this study, there are two chimps who can see each other. One can act to gain access to food, but in doing so will shock the other chimp. If the first chimp can see it's actions are directly hurting the other chimp, it will actually starve itself rather than harm the other. Just some fun food for thought.

Although science has greatly increased the ability of religiously motivated people to do good will, it has been able to do so for many years without it. Genetically engineered corn is not needed to feed the hungry. Regular corn will do. It is erroneous to suggest that without science people have no way to help each other. Yes, science improves that ability, but it is not the source of that ability.

Regular corn would do just fine it could grow in the area well (which in most cases it couldn't) and supplied enough of a harvest to feed enough people (which also in most cases couldn't). Science is not the source of people helping each other, on that we agree, but it certainly aids in our ability to do so, especially in hospitals. Of course, to say science isn't the source of helpfulness is not to say religion is. It's people, who I bet would help each other regardless of either. I also wouldn't say, as mentioned above, that religion makes people any more of less inclined to do so. What hinges on it is probably degree of relatedness, evolved social brains , reciprocal altruism, empathy circuits, social strivings, etc; helping others can help you.

I think that most people are reliable determiners of what motivates them

Actually, psychology has shown quite the opposite is true, most especially in evolutionary psychology. Most of our behavior is almost running on automatic; our desires, feelings, goals, interests, and others. We can be primed by language to say or remember things that never happened. When we are in different surroundings we act far differently, remarkably unaware as to why we want to do the things we do. You could say we have a lot less freewill then we give ourselves credit for.

Quite a lengthy reply indeed! No wonder it took so long in coming. You make many statements which I would like to address, however for the sake of brevity, I will only speak to those which are more related to the topic.

First off, I think it would simplify matters greatly if you desist in asserting that religion has resulted in bad things. We both agree on that point, so continually asserting it simply takes up space.

I would like to address the idea of whether making people happy is "real good", but first I would like to address the other, more tangible goods religion does.

Some of it will, but most of it won't. It would be interesting to see exactly how that donation money is spent, but I don't have sources to charities that publish their books (or the charities that don't publish their expenses).

Although it would be interesting to look at the percentages of monies which actually go directly to help those in need, it is quite peripheral to the matter of whether religion does actual good. The fact remains that there are religious organizations which are very conscientious in keeping administrative costs at a minimum and maximally transferring help to those in need, thus doing "real good".

If science is helping other people, that's wonderful, but then that help isn't really coming from religion. Religion has never genetically engineered crops that can save starving people, science has.

Although science has greatly increased the ability of religiously motivated people to do good will, it has been able to do so for many years without it. Genetically engineered corn is not needed to feed the hungry. Regular corn will do. It is erroneous to suggest that without science people have no way to help each other. Yes, science improves that ability, but it is not the source of that ability.

Likewise, there are many non-religious people who will do the same, so it's hard to say religion is causing them to be helpful (in other words, how can one say religion was the cause when non-religious people will also engage in the action, and some religious people won't help? There are again, too many confounding variables, probably merely incidental to a larger cause).

There are many religious charity organizations on the internet who explain that their reason for helping others is religiously motivated. I think that most people are reliable determiners of what motivates them. So if someone says "I went on a mission trip because I think God wants me to help less fortunate people" I think it is rational to believe them unless they manifest symptoms of mental illness.

Cheers,

Matt