Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 1

message: I know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but can I put some stuff about religion being negatively correlated with IQ here.  There have been theories that religion lowers IQ.  Also, I think there are some statistics that crime is correlated with religion and inversely correlated with porn-which religions consider immoral.  72.209.71.249 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be acceptable, for the exact reason you stated (i.e., "correlation is not necessarily causation"). However, if you could show that the two are related, then that would be a different story, because then it is definitely a criticism of religion.  Otherwise, it would be like comparing rising global warming with the shrinking number of pirates. You would also need to cite references. GSlicer 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and Correlation 

message: I disagree with the 'original research' accusation on this point. That certain religious groups make territorial claims based upon divine authority is widely known and undisputed. However the text as it stood was clumsy. In what way is it a criticism of religion that it may involve territorial claims? If it is just the error of dogmatism, this is covered by dogmatism. If there are consequences of the claims, then these consequnces should be described.
Also I don't think there is much point having a page of everything anybody has ever done wrong motivated by religion. I think we should stick to problems that are reasonably attributed to religious causes. Quite whether the land thing is common enough for this to be the case, I don't know. --ExtraBold 12:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, to quote one of Wikipedia's most prolific administrators, We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. All information added to Wikipedia must, must, be verified by reliable sources. If it isn't, then it is original research, which is forbidden. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial Entitlement 

message: The current tone of this article is matter-of-fact and perfunctory. I'm adding a POV tag. Perhaps even a few rebuttals or adding words like "claim" and "supporters of xxxx beleive" would even it out a bit.
That is not to say that the quality of the current information is not good, but it needs some qualifying statements throughout. Mylakovich 18:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tone 

message: Religion is a social construct. That is to say its origins lie in human beings and human societies, not in the intervention of some divine being or cosmic truth. As such they generally include information about their own origins that is not true.
In particular religion is syncretic, and is in denial of its syncretism.
Ohanian 11:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social construct 

message: Some people, such as proponents of Anarchism and those on the far left, object to religion on principle because they view the hierarchical organization of most religions to be an affront to the ideals of democracy and equality. They bristle at the idea of submitting to the rules or doctrine of an entirely man-made and non-democratic institution such as the church.
* * *
The reasons are
1. The article is entitled "Criticism of religion" and not "Opposition to religion". The main purpose of the article is to list arguements against religion and provided grounds for each arguement. 
2. After reading the section several times. It's not at all clear what is the criticism put forward by the article. The best I can think of is "Religion with hierarchical organization is an affront to the ideals of democracy and the ideals of equality". If this is the case then the section should be split up into
* Religion is non-democratic
* Religion does not respect human rights
3. The other case in the section talks about "submitting to doctrines of an entirely man-made institution". I don't see why this is a criticism of religion as Democracy is also a man-made institution. Why is submitting to the doctrines of democracy any different than submitting to the doctrines of religion.
Ohanian 09:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political opposition

message: I deleted the Warning section (it doesn't belong in Wikipedia) and attempted to clean up and NPOVize some paragraphs. It needs more work. It should be obvious that each section is a criticism of religion; a warning section is -not- the way to do it. 69.59.212.172 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edit 

message: Many recognised evils, such as domestic violence, sexism and slavery have enjoyed much support from religious leaders in the past, on the grounds that they were supported by doctrine.
Citation is not needed because each of the three examples domestic violence, sexism and slavery has been going on for hundreds of years (in the past) and each time the reformers tries to change them the supporters quoted the scriptures and the religious leaders failed to condemned the use of the scriptures by the supporters of these evils. Read the history books. Ohanian 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: (1) Are religious beliefs justified?
This is already presented in the section of "irrationality"
(2) paragraph below
Many religions also support claims that are widely considered to be false. For example, the creation of the world and the earth, as presented in many religions, is seen to contain claims that are apparently false in the view of current knowledge (for example, the first page of the Bible mentions "firmament"). Also holy books of several religions have been accused of inconsistencies. Apologists of religions often may appeal to allegorical nature of scriptures, and this may lead to discussion about whether holy books were initially meant to be allegorical. For example, in christianity the idea of allegorical explanation was officially instroduced in the fourth century. Often, the criticism towards the religions goes to very detailed issues. The good example of this is the controversary about the second coming of Jesus. Some particular verses of Bible are seen to imply that Jesus was meant to return before the generation he is talking to, vanishes. Then a debate follows about the actual meaning of those verses.
Too much detail about a specific religion. Already covered under "irrationality". The rule is to keep it short and simple. This is not an essay.
(3) Paragraph below
Also, positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment. The followers of religions are sometimes critized of acting fine in order to please god or in order to get reward from god rather than for the sake of morality itself or because of benevolence. It has been asked, whether a person can be truly moral if he or she believes that he or she is constantly being watched by god or some other supernatural creature.  	 
 		 
Also, many central characters of religions have been blamed of immorality. For example, the god of Bible has been criticized of committing several genocides (like the conquering of promised land) and giving immoral laws (such as capital punishment from homosexual acts and allowing slave owner to hit his slave), and prophet Muhammad has been critized of starting wars and supporting incruel laws (for example, in famous biography of Muhammad, he orders a woman guilty of adultery to be stoned to death). 	 
 		 
The criticism towards the cruel laws supported by some holy writings has led to another kind of criticism: the criticism that followers of religions do not respect the teachings of their holy books. For example, jews do not stone people guilty of adultery to the death, even though their holy book gives such a law. Also, most of christians do not generally consider that it is immoral to marry somebody who has been rejected by his or hers former spouse, even though Jesus says this explicitly.
Also the idea of punishment in afterlife has been criticized of being morally questionable - especially, if the punishment lasts forever. Many people find the idea of eternal punishment - no matter what crime has been committed - too cruel. Also, many religions (like christianity and islam) support the idea that those are punished who do not believe in dogmas of some particular religion. It has been often claimed however, that disbelief is not an immoral act. According to this claim, not to believe in god is not any more immoral than for example not to believe in the existence of eskimos.
Again this is not an essay. This is an encyclopedia.
(4) More lives are lost in religious wars
It is sometimes claimed that more lives have been lost in wars fought in the name of religion than all other wars in human history, although there has as yet been no valid historical justification for this statement.
Wherether more lives are lost is immaterial. If it is wrong, it's wrong.
:::I combined irrationalism and justified beliefs -sections. Examples are allowed also in dictionary articles and because other additions are relevant, it is not reasonable to criticize them just by saying that "this is not essay" (as long as the writing style is appropriate and material is relevant from the point of view of article topic). Making article longer is not problem. It still does not deal with many criticisms or does not deal with them very comprehensively. --128.214.205.4 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you have a lot of things you want to rant about but again this is NOT AN ESSAY. This is an encyclopedia piece. If you want to poo poo Jesus, you can do so in Criticism of Christianity. If you want to poo poo Muhammad, do so in Criticism of Islam. You do not need to include all the examples here. Ohanian 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections removed 

message: This article is most biased, obviously written by some fundamental/extremist Atheist. Also, if you see the Criticism of Atheism section, it is most probably written by this same author; it is more a rebuttal of all posiible criticism of Atheism than an article on the criticism of Atheism. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not an Atheist forum. I'm no Religious Right Evangelical myself, but anyone who has taken the slightest philosophy course in high school knows that there is more to existence than the boundaries of human reason, so called rationality. While this does not mean believe every fanciful idea possible, it certainly means there is more to existence than the perceivable, discerningly scientific findings or greedy economic systems. On the limits of human perception: (and this is scientific truths, widely considered to be true) a bee sees in the UV range, while we do not- then of course life would be different if we could-perception would be different, therefore the whole world would be different; a wolf hears 70 times more acutely; goldfish have very short memory etc. etc. It is perhaps more irresponsible to not have a critical analysis of basic human perception.
On a issue about morality, scientific findings widely regarded as true find that young, pre-pubescent children are far less aware of moral, ethical reasons; adults will see far more 'grey areas'. eg. a wide study found that when asked the question: "George's wife was ill, and needed a medicine to get better, or she'll die. George has absolutely no way to get the money needed, and it was her only hope. Is it right for him to steal it?" The vast majority of pre-pubescent children gave the simple black-and-white answer: "No, because it is wrong to steal." While teenagers and certainly the older people surveyed were far less certain. The study, and many like it (and indeed it is a commonly accepted scientific theory), further finds that is not due to any less exposure to these ethical dilemmas (indeed, many of the teenagers had had very little exposure to them), but simply because before puberty, the areas of the brain that deals with ethics and morality is undeveloped. It therefore asks the question that what if humans had a 'second puberty' that would let them figure out many of the ethical dilemmas and other paradoxes of today? Is it not plausible, from the evidence given by puberty and its effects on human thought? Which all goes to show there are certainly areas of human perception beakers and test tubes cannot solve.
Justification is not a word to be used lightly. eg. If A happens, then b will happen; c is the same as b, therefore we conclude/justify that if A happens, c will happen. Now, this is true ie. it happens as aforementioned the 1st time, and the 10th time, and the millionth time, and the billionth time for a thousand years. But if it doesn't happen like that in the 10294829384729387th time, then would that make the entire theory redundant? Even this is a grey issue. And what of paradoxes- "All Cretins are liars; I am a Cretin, therefore I am a liar" or "If the Barber of Seville shaves all people that cannot shave, who then shaves the Barber of Seville?" or "Is it possible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that the being itself could not lift it?". The latter example is the most interesting. The 'heaviness' of the rock can hardly be a matter of pounds and tonnes. Imagine, if an omnipotent being could only lift x pounds and not one more! It is obviously implied to be a 'state', a 'rule' that the rock cannot be lifted i.e. the rock is 'unliftable' therefore will the ALL powerful being be able to create such a rock? If it can, then we have a paradox, since if the being could if it, it is hardly 'unliftable', and hence the paradox. What does all this show? That human reasoning is a failure, we should believe absolutely anything? Of course not. It just shows there are certain 'holes' in human perception/reasoning/rationality/reality which means we must be much more open to plausible ideas.
Another key issue is that allegedly, religion 'restricts' science- the age old Science Versus Religion. However, when you think about it, what is the purpose, ultimat goal of all science? IT IS FOR THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENCE! When science becomes pursued for the sake of itself, then of course they are at odds with religion. But when you think about it, religion is also about the pursuit of truth, the truth of the world, of the spiritual, supernatural (super=above i.e. what is beyond the scope of the perceivable world), and should encompass science, not detriment it. Some of the greatest scientists were very spiritual people, notably Albert Einstein, and due in no part to his upbringing (his parents were very unorthodox, 'relaxed' and generally undevout Jews, and Einstein himself was even less of a Jew. Today, most religions (at least, more moderate sects thereof) do not agree with the concept of an actual evil entity; that is, eg. Satan in Christianity. The churches now generally agree that it is rather a literary personification, manifestation of the concept of evil, which is generally undisputed (that there are evil actions one can take, and many things in life are or can be regarded as 'evil'). And rather than spending life being 'besieged' by a devil, it is a test of every action we can take -and if you think about it, this is undisputable-: We can either take the kitchen knife and use it to help make dinner for the family, or we could pick it up and murder the family. Hence the so called 'test'. A purely logical, perception based life without any moral or spiritual considerations also makes a very 'narrow' experience. To be as biased and unreasonable as the author of this article, science can also said to be a falsehood, (e.g. the age old saying that theories are made to be broken) true relative only to the times it was publicized in: e.g the countless atomic models (ie. theory on the nature of the structure of atoms) that have disproven previous model theories like Dalton, Rutherford and Bohr; or the age old medical belief before William Harvey (1749-1823) that blood ebbed and ebbed back from and to the heart rather than around the body; the famous negative, scpetical responses to Galileo's theories when he first proposed them, only to be proven 'true' eventually and then to have many of those theories shattered by Newton, who in turn had many of his theories shattered by Einstein, who today has some of his theories under intense scutiny in the scientific world. And of course the famous Theory of Evolution by Darwin has never been PROVEN as other are other scientific 'truths' (ask any scientist. widely regarded 'fits', but not PROVEN). So to be as biased as the author, one can say that science is only a paradigm of relative theories that are only waiting to be shattered, and therefore not 'eternal' (since Plato, whose ideas/definitions on truth and knowledge are still standard today, defined truth as 'eternal') and therefore not true. We live in an everchanging world of lies. Not very pleasant when it is coming from the other end, is it, author?
The author's arugument on "Moral Deficiency" is one of the most laughable ideas in this book. Religions, (whether practised or not) is built up on moralty, or ethics, at least in a significant part. The author staes that: "People who break these rules are often condemned and victimised even though they have done no harm to anyone." No harm to anyone. So people who break the commandment "Thy shalt not murder" do no harm to anyone? That the guy who breaks the commandment "Thy shalt not commit adultery" or "thy shalt not steal" or Judge not, lest ye be judged" or "love thy neighbor" does no harm? And of course, what about the other end of the spectrum on moral debates- the Atheists are taking an equal but opposite 'hardline' stance as any religion, and thereby causes more suffering than necessary. Who can say that 'voluntary euthanasia', however strictly controlled, cannot lead to more 'involuntary' voluntary euthanasia, if you catch the drift? Will this not cause suffering? What about the abortion debate? (I am firmly moderate on this issue, since both argument has its merits and only agreeing to one is disastrous) There are of course, the cases where the fathers are just jerks that take off, but judging by the tone and content of this article, I assume the author is not claiming immaculate conception i.e. it is not just the 'woman's choice'. And abortion can be abused by some very 'evil', atheist people too. A lot of college females, a wide survey found, have or would have had a abortion due to carlessness in sex. Some have even had operations to abort the baby that would otherwise have been born soon. So a few months is the difference between 'abortion' and murder? And of course, there is the other side of the debate, which has equal merit. I justifiably assume the author knows most of them.
The evils, such as slavery, that the author alleges religions support, is a highly selective and uneducated statement. For all those thing and more, secular reasons play a much bigger role which unsurprisingly by now is not mentioned in the article. For example, the economic factor of having slaves was a much bigger factor to the South than religion ever was- in fact, by the time of the civil war, the South criticized the continuing of slave trafficking (for by then the slave owners simply 'bred' slaves- a hateful practice motivated by economic factors), especially in other countries, believing they treated them humanely. Of course, one cannot blame religions and their good teachings for the immorality of their followers; rather, what is to be blamed is inability of the follower to follow the teaching- plenty of Christians have murdered (and for moral clarity, I am only referring to unambiguous, ordinary homicide rather than executions and such), but the Bible could not be clearer- "Thy shalt not kill." And the arguement that people live life to appease their deity and/or avoid punishment from that deity- an oft repeated sermon on why God doesn't strike me with lightning when I do something bad or shower me with miracles if I help some sick kid at the orphanage is that then, you would not be doing something because it is the right thing to do, rather, you are doing it out of greed for a reward or fear of punishment i.e. selfishness. The arguement of contradictive holy scriptures- one has to remember that just about each part of the Bible is written by a different person over thousands of years. The equivalent would be to say that a scientific theory is wrong because a key measurement was slightly 'off' because of an apparaus reading error.
The Communist arguement, the "Opium of the People"- well, that's another whole article on the evils and failings of Communism, and under almost every category (particularly the moral ones) the author has 'neutrally' criticized religion in this chapter, we can criticize communism, and these criticism would actually be valid.
As for authoritarianism, for every religously driven dictator, there are at least ten Secular/Atheist dictators (e.g. today, Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Communist regimes of China and North Korea, the virtual dictatorship in Russia etc.), which again, the author fails to mention.
On political opposition, I believe Anarchists are also considered a little 'out there'.
And as on the idiotic remark of religious wars, for every religious war, there are a hundred war driven by diplomatic tensions, economic, racial rivalries or blatant expansionism (e.g Hitler), which again, the author fails to mention, making out as if religion is the sole cause of war. As for focus on the 'afterlife', one can also criticize pure foci on the present. For example, after seeing many animal documentaries, students at a school remarked how boring animal lives must be, simply eating, sleeping, breeding and dying. The only thing that really sets us apart from them is our pursuit of knowledge and truth (religious, scientific or otherwise), for apart from all our little 'animal needs' all else not in the pursuit of knowledge can be considered just very elaborate forms of entertainment, very advanced forms of the lions' chasing each other around for fun. So while religions partly emphasize the situation after death (which is obviously considered too much by the author), then less focus is just like animals- on the present, no thought on the future and planning for the future.
:OK, thankyou for sharing YOUR point of view. Many probably disagree with your logic, many probably agree. More to the point though, it belongs in an academic discussion on Sociology and philosophy (and from the content, socio-economic policy) not on Wikipedia (by the way, academically speaking, most researchers would require far less subjective and discriminatory examples, backed up by scientifically conducted research).—Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleSam01 (talk • contribs) 
:Your lengthy comment however doesn't actually specify what you consider biased about this article. Remeber it is an article about "Critisisms of Religion". Many of the statements you make appear in Criticisms of communism article, which, like this article, lists publicly stated critisims of that philosophy. Like this article, the "Criticisms of communism" does not attempt to answer whether communism or unregulated capatalism is the optimal socio-economic policy. That is an entire subject area (in fact it's multiple subject areas) which many very intelligent academic researchers have spent their entire lives trying to answer, with no definative result. Therefore, as with communism, trying to answer the "which is best?" question between atheism and religion is far beyond the scope, or even the subject matter, of the article.
:Rather the aim of this article, as clearly defined by the title, is to list the common and academic critisms of relgion. It is not to enter into a debate on whether religion is a "good thing" or not. Keeping this in mind, can you please state what exactly you consider biased within the article or else the "POV tag" will be removed. Canderra 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BIASED!

message: --Greasysteve13 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: Religion often may be "criticized" as an object of humor.
:In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination. 
–Mark Twain
Ha Ha very funny. But seriously, real criticism please. No jokes. Ohanian 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Object of humor