An agnostic defends religion

[rug]

I don't doubt that religion has played a big part in war and human misery, but faith can empower people as well as oppress them

Andy Fitzgerald
Sunday 20 October 2013 08.00 EDT

When I was little, I attended church every Sunday. My entire extended family is Irish Catholic, so baptisms, first communions and confirmations made up a fair share of family gatherings. I recall remarking to my father one Sunday – while still young enough that my mother carried a bag filled with toys to keep me occupied and quiet – that the droning recitations of prayer sounded almost zombie-like. Oddly, though, my gradual loss of faith and shift to agnosticism was counterbalanced with a growing appreciation for the positive source of meaning and empowerment that faith, spirituality, and collective religious practice can be in people's lives.

In his rather brilliant essay, "Why I am not a Christian", Bertrand Russell writes:

"I do not think that the real reason that people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds."

I consider his position accurate, and appeals to emotion have no direct relevance in debates of national policy or ethics. But to claim that organized Christianity "has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world" – or to go further, as Christopher Hitchens did, when he said that "religion poisons everything" – is to ignore the positive power that even an "irrational" religious act or belief can have.

The first sign that religion and I might have a rapprochement was at a funeral I attended in high school. A choir teacher and mentor's husband had passed away, much to the sorrow of the school and community. A mass was held in a large and gorgeous Catholic church, with hardly a pew vacant.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/20/agnostic-defends-religious-belief-power

[dimbear]

1. to claim...organized Christianity has been and still is ..principal enemy of moral progress

A rash suggestion, which severely underestimates the activities of Islam and Hinduism.

[MellowDem]

2. So his defense is that...

he's OK with people believing wrong things as long as it makes them feel good. Sounds like a terrible argument, and it's not a defense of religion, it's an excuse for it.

I don't doubt that many conservatives feel good about themselves by believing wrong things. Should I be Ok with them believing wrong things, being manipulated, using intellectual dishonesty to back up a worldview they are comfortable with and don't want shaken up by the truth? This guy's position is immoral, to accommodate blatantly untrue assertions because you don't want to upset anyone. What a cowardly stance.

The foundation of religion is irrational thinking, which always has the potential for bad results. It doesn't take religion to have tradition, community, etc. Religion is useless as a system of thinking.

To think that people need their delusions to get by in reality is a deeply flawed and cynical position to have. And it's not worth defending. All the "benefits" of religion come at a price when they don't have to.

[rug]

3. Ah, he's an accomodationist.