religion and charity
Jul. 8th, 2007 09:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eWhy is it that even religious moderates are so often convinced that you need religion or faith to be a good person or to find purpose in life? It is incredibly arrogant. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is really no more arrogant than believing that out of thousands of irrational beliefs, theirs is the only one that is right.
I listened to The Spirit of Things tonight. Big mistake. The guy being interviewed was amazing, but tripped and fell headfirst into the metaphoric mud when he said that faith is necessary for purpose. And Rachael Kohn clearly showed her limitations when she implied that religion gives us charity. Of course she ignored all the charitable atheists and agnostics (oh, but they don't count -- how could atheists possibly be charitable?). Ignore the fact that the least religious countries regularly live up to their international aid promises, whereas the most religious countries have never done so. The least religious countries have the most peaceful and healthy populations, whereas the most religious countries are split by fear and hatred and obscene wealth contrasted with appalling poverty.
Are people so willingly blind?
Sure, some religious people can be good and charitable, but on balance religion's harm far, far outweighs any good it has ever done. While atheists and agnostics quietly get on with the job of doing good without constantly trumpeting how great they are.
I listened to The Spirit of Things tonight. Big mistake. The guy being interviewed was amazing, but tripped and fell headfirst into the metaphoric mud when he said that faith is necessary for purpose. And Rachael Kohn clearly showed her limitations when she implied that religion gives us charity. Of course she ignored all the charitable atheists and agnostics (oh, but they don't count -- how could atheists possibly be charitable?). Ignore the fact that the least religious countries regularly live up to their international aid promises, whereas the most religious countries have never done so. The least religious countries have the most peaceful and healthy populations, whereas the most religious countries are split by fear and hatred and obscene wealth contrasted with appalling poverty.
Are people so willingly blind?
Sure, some religious people can be good and charitable, but on balance religion's harm far, far outweighs any good it has ever done. While atheists and agnostics quietly get on with the job of doing good without constantly trumpeting how great they are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-08 07:17 pm (UTC)these, i think, are the 'meek' who shall inherit the earth.
i have this theory that the religious folks have got it all upside down, and they're so afraid of letting themselves know this, that they're doing the equivalent of stuffing their fingers in their ears and yelling so they can't/don't hear when other folks tell them they're wrong. but its just a theory.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 06:48 am (UTC)Interesting observation about the meek, too. Have you noticed that atheists who are not meek about the ills of religion come in for so much criticism? Richard is widely condemned by even moderate religious people, yet when you listen to what he says it is not really very strong stuff. He is always polite and reasonable about what he says. Yet, hearing the responses of so many who have spiritual beliefs you could be forgiven for thinking he fairly foams at the mouth. How strange when you think of the kind of sermons I've heard good christian preachers deliver.