From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 8 Nov 1992 22:42:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <1djltmINNfke@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.202912.17497@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata -  
FSO) writes:
> >What I was trying to say is the behaviour of some of the follower's
> >of a religion should not detract from the merits of the religion
> >itself.
> 
> And what we'veb been trying to say is that the term "Christianity" has,
> historically, been applied to the various churches.  If you're talking  
about
> something other than that, come up with a new word.
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet:  
SOL1::CARL

I personally use the term "Christian" to refer to any person who believes
that the Bible (Old and New Testament) is completely accurate, and that
the main ways in which various denominations differ is in the
interpretation of the Bible.  Now, this definition involves a sizable
number of exceptions, but we'll let it stand for now and just be wary of
generalizing with it.

Now, you cannot tell whether the moral system of a religion is good or bad
as a moral system without something with which to compare it.  In this
situation, the utilitarian standard (i.e. an action is good insofar as it
increases general happiness or decreases general unhappiness) would be
most useful.

In other words, the merits of a religion mentioned by John Ata, in terms
of the utilitarian principle, are the extent to which following a
religion's teachings increase happiness.

Thus, if in general FOLLOWING the doctrine of a religion decreases
happiness or increases unhappiness, then the religion fails under the
utilitarian principle.

Here we run into a problem:.  Someone who believes in Christianity may
claim that if their actions lead them to Heaven, then they will have
essentially infinite happiness, making the unhappiness of the mortal life
of no account; the person who does not believe can only judge the religion
based on the happiness and unhappiness caused in this life.

If Christianity, however, requires actions that increase the unhappiness
of others, with no compensating increase in happiness, then the non-
believer would be quite justified in deciding that Christianity was (for
want of a better term) evil.

This, IMHO, seems to be the basis of your criticisms.


Now, an argument that Christianity is wrong because the actions of its
followers is wrong can be tested.  If their wrong actions were definitely
required by Christianity, then Christianity is wrong.  If their wrong
actions were based on an obvious misinterpretation of Christianity,  
Christianity is exonerated.  If their wrong actions were based on an
interpretation of Christianity whose validity is uncertain, Christianity
is on uncertain ground.

I'm not sure I understand what the religious motivations of the Crusades
were, so I can't answer that objection right now.

However, I think I can now answer your argument about National Socialism.
Suppose National Socialism is identical with what Hitler believed.  (If it
wasn't, could someone else explain what it was?)  Then, since Hitler
believed that non-Aryans were a lesser race or people, and the Jews were
the worst of all, then National Socialism is WRONG inasmuch as there is
evidence that contradicts this belief.  (I'm not sure there is, but I am
certain there is no evidence that this belief was true.)

It might be interesting to compare Nazism's view of Jews with
Christianity's view of homosexuals.  Claiming that an action is sinful
is not the same as saying that a sinner is less human than a saint.
However, by claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Christianity implies
that its adherents attempt to encourage people not to be homosexual.
On the other hand, Christianity does not (IMHO) justify forcing a person
not to sin, since vengeance is left to the Lord.  Thus, the actions of
religious fundamentalists to prevent homosexuals from receiving equal
treatment, in an attempt to encourage them to change, is NOT sanctioned
by the Bible (IMHO).
Christianity, by saying homosexuality is wrong, does encourage its
followers to try to convince homosexuals not to be, and if there really
isn't anything observably wrong with homosexuality, then Christianity is
wrong, because of the unhappiness of a homosexual who thinks he is sinful.
However, it hasn't been conclusively proven that homosexuality causes any
real problems, nor has it been proven that it doesn't.  So the jury is
still out.

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic