Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post - 10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

wayland · 05-28-2008, 11:57 AM

I came here expecting a list of 10 *good* reasons why you should never have a religion. Instead I came away with the impression that Steve is against the Catholic church (and so am I), and has very little real understanding of Protestant Christianity (and quite possibly most other religions).

1. Steve makes the assumption that religion is nebulous group-think, unlike, say, the Steve Pavlina forums (whoops, my mistake -- we get that here too

). This is what they call a straw man argument -- put up a straw man instead of a real one, and you have a lot more chance of knocking him down.

2. Steve makes the assumption here that, just because people believe one system to be true, means that they can't use other perspectives. For example, there are parts of evolutionary theory that I disagree with, but I can still write "According to evolutionary theory, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor". See? Multiple perspectives, but I only believe one of them.

3. This shows Steve's Anti-Catholicism. As a member of a Presbyterian-type church, I belong to a church with a democratically elected leadership. But there is other information in the post. Steve talks about submission. I agree that submission is a part of religion, but let me introduce you to one of the great slogans of the Reformation: "The Bible alone". This means submission to your understanding of the Bible, not to a hierarchy. I assume Steve knows this though. Steve acts as though submission is an inherently bad thing. I doubt he feels that way when he asks his children to do something though

.

He also spends time talking about conflicting information. I wish he'd given an example, because there's nothing here to refute. Rightly understood, Scripture never contradicts itself. There are a few standard paradoxes (maybe 3-5), and while the detail is somethign argued over, the concepts themselves aren't that much of a problem. Probably the most controversial these paradoxes get is "If we have free will, how can God know what will happen in the future", with the paradox being that I'd argue that we do indeed have free will, but that God also knows the future. But as for the Bible contradicting itself, without examples being given, all I can say is, it hasn't been interpreted correctly.

4. Steve starts from the assumption that religion is false, and then says it's a waste of time. Well, I mean duh! It's not a reason not to have a religion, it's a consequence of whether you have one. I mean, if religion is false, then of course you don't waste time on it. And if it's true, then there's nothing more important.

5. Steve says that because some religions people are bad/evil, that it must be false. No doubt there are evolutionists, scientists, bloggers, and others who are just as bad, but does that mean that we should doubt evolution/science/blogging just because they do it? Have to say, the idea is laughable.

As for not providing value, the people in the church obviously think they're getting value. I know our minister spends most of his week preparing his sermons, and some of it talking to people who want to see him. In fact, it reminds me very much of Steve Pavlina's business model. Steve spends a fair bit of time writing in his blog (sermons), and Erin at least spends some time talking to people who want to see her (readings). So Steve here is pointing the finger directly at himself. Lucky his argument is weak (ie. I perceive value here, just as I do at church), or I might have to stop reading the website.

6. Incest is best. Well, someone else pointed out that consciousness-raising people are an even smaller religious network than most religions. In fact, if I recal, it was Steve himself who advocated carefully choosing your friends based on the life you want to live, and getting away from people who drag you down. Lucky his argument is rubbish again, or he would've shot himself in the foot again.

7. Steve has here defined two categories. I don't exactly fit into either of them, so Steve would no doubt label me an idiotic hypocrite. You see, as a Protestant, if I see something I think isn't right, I also have the option of trying to find an interpretation that makes sense. This is why I said (above) that the Bible doesn't contradict itself /if interpreted correctly/. You can spend a long time searching for the correct interpretation. But sometimes you learn that you're wrong

.

05-28-2008, 11:57 AM	#74 (permalink)
wayland Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 5	Poorly-reasoned article I came here expecting a list of 10 good reasons why you should never have a religion. Instead I came away with the impression that Steve is against the Catholic church (and so am I), and has very little real understanding of Protestant Christianity (and quite possibly most other religions). 1. Steve makes the assumption that religion is nebulous group-think, unlike, say, the Steve Pavlina forums (whoops, my mistake -- we get that here too ). This is what they call a straw man argument -- put up a straw man instead of a real one, and you have a lot more chance of knocking him down. 2. Steve makes the assumption here that, just because people believe one system to be true, means that they can't use other perspectives. For example, there are parts of evolutionary theory that I disagree with, but I can still write "According to evolutionary theory, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor". See? Multiple perspectives, but I only believe one of them. 3. This shows Steve's Anti-Catholicism. As a member of a Presbyterian-type church, I belong to a church with a democratically elected leadership. But there is other information in the post. Steve talks about submission. I agree that submission is a part of religion, but let me introduce you to one of the great slogans of the Reformation: "The Bible alone". This means submission to your understanding of the Bible, not to a hierarchy. I assume Steve knows this though. Steve acts as though submission is an inherently bad thing. I doubt he feels that way when he asks his children to do something though . He also spends time talking about conflicting information. I wish he'd given an example, because there's nothing here to refute. Rightly understood, Scripture never contradicts itself. There are a few standard paradoxes (maybe 3-5), and while the detail is somethign argued over, the concepts themselves aren't that much of a problem. Probably the most controversial these paradoxes get is "If we have free will, how can God know what will happen in the future", with the paradox being that I'd argue that we do indeed have free will, but that God also knows the future. But as for the Bible contradicting itself, without examples being given, all I can say is, it hasn't been interpreted correctly. 4. Steve starts from the assumption that religion is false, and then says it's a waste of time. Well, I mean duh! It's not a reason not to have a religion, it's a consequence of whether you have one. I mean, if religion is false, then of course you don't waste time on it. And if it's true, then there's nothing more important. 5. Steve says that because some religions people are bad/evil, that it must be false. No doubt there are evolutionists, scientists, bloggers, and others who are just as bad, but does that mean that we should doubt evolution/science/blogging just because they do it? Have to say, the idea is laughable. As for not providing value, the people in the church obviously think they're getting value. I know our minister spends most of his week preparing his sermons, and some of it talking to people who want to see him. In fact, it reminds me very much of Steve Pavlina's business model. Steve spends a fair bit of time writing in his blog (sermons), and Erin at least spends some time talking to people who want to see her (readings). So Steve here is pointing the finger directly at himself. Lucky his argument is weak (ie. I perceive value here, just as I do at church), or I might have to stop reading the website. 6. Incest is best. Well, someone else pointed out that consciousness-raising people are an even smaller religious network than most religions. In fact, if I recal, it was Steve himself who advocated carefully choosing your friends based on the life you want to live, and getting away from people who drag you down. Lucky his argument is rubbish again, or he would've shot himself in the foot again. 7. Steve has here defined two categories. I don't exactly fit into either of them, so Steve would no doubt label me an idiotic hypocrite. You see, as a Protestant, if I see something I think isn't right, I also have the option of trying to find an interpretation that makes sense. This is why I said (above) that the Bible doesn't contradict itself /if interpreted correctly/. You can spend a long time searching for the correct interpretation. But sometimes you learn that you're wrong .