4th objection

[Tanais]

I know it has been awhile since I posted an objection. I just want to thank those who have helped me so far answer each of the objections I have posted. Well now I have a 4th for us to tackle:
Religion is by its nature spiritual so therefore personal and subjective. To organize religion is to take away the very essence of religion and to do a great harm to people. Religion becomes bad when corrupt individuals try to force others into their own subjective interpretation of what religion is, so therefore any attempts to organize religion is bad.
Syllogism: 1. Religion is spiritual.
2. Spiritual things are personal.
3. Spiritual things are subjective.
4. Organized religions impose an objective and impersonal attitude on religion.
5. Therefore organized religions are bad.
This is just what I like to call Religious Subjectivism. I feel proponents of this theory look at the material world as the only truly “real” world and that spiritual things are just fantasies or something like an adult Santa Clause, so it is like a softer version of hardline materialism. Any thing you’d like to add? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[martino]

Tanais:

I know it has been awhile since I posted an objection. I just want to thank those who have helped me so far answer each of the objections I have posted. Well now I have a 4th for us to tackle:
Religion is by its nature spiritual so therefore personal and subjective. To organize religion is to take away the very essence of religion and to do a great harm to people. Religion becomes bad when corrupt individuals try to force others into their own subjective interpretation of what religion is, so therefore any attempts to organize religion is bad.

• Syllogism: 1. Religion is spiritual.*

•    2. Spiritual things are personal.*

•    3. Spiritual things are subjective.*

•    4. Organized religions impose an objective and impersonal attitude on religion.*

•    5. Therefore organized religions are bad.*

This is just what I like to call Religious Subjectivism. I feel proponents of this theory look at the material world as the only truly “real” world and that spiritual things are just fantasies or something like an adult Santa Clause, so it is like a softer version of hardline materialism. Any thing you’d like to add? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Do you really have people coming at you with these arguments? I can’t imagine an adult thinking that the above “syllogism” makes any sense at all. Every one of the 5 items is incorrect!!! Their view of religion is based on false principles. The last syllogism they gave you was based on the fact that Christianity is meant to be unified and communal, now they are saying that religion in general is meant to be personal and private. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth and not making sense out of either side!

According to them the people that dont bother attended Church are more religious than the ones that do.

All religions are about finding the “truth”. Subjective truth is an oxymoron, what they are really saying is that they dont believe in absolute truth, therefore they can’t believe in “religion” at all, organized or otherwise.

Their claim that religion/spiritual things are subjective is a self-refuting proposition and I wouldn’t spend too much of your time arguing against it. It reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail, around and around and around!

 

[Tanais]

martino:

Do you really have people coming at you with these arguments? I can’t imagine an adult thinking that the above “syllogism” makes any sense at all. Every one of the 5 items is incorrect!!! Their view of religion is based on false principles. The last syllogism they gave you was based on the fact that Christianity is meant to be unified and communal, now they are saying that religion in general is meant to be personal and private. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth and not making sense out of either side!

I do hear these arguments, however i make the syllogism. I disagree with them but i do try to at least make somewhat of a sensible syllogism from them.

 

[threej_lc]

*
Syllogism: 1. Religion is spiritual.
2. Spiritual things are personal.
3. Spiritual things are subjective.
4. Organized religions impose an objective and impersonal attitude on religion.
5. Therefore organized religions are bad.*

I disagree with premise #1. Religion is not spiritual. Religion contains and is enhanced by a spiritual component. Religion is more accurately an objective code of right, wrong, and truth. Only the person’s response(be it emotional or spiritual) is subjective.

#2. You are using the premise that objectivity is impersonal. I would disagree.

 

[martino]

Tanais:

I do hear these arguments, however i make the syllogism. I disagree with them but i do try to at least make somewhat of a sensible syllogism from them.

Their arguments are flawed from beginning to end, the best thing to do is just point out to them how illogical they sound, however, that presupposes that they have any kind of respect for logic to begin with. My guess is that they dont! These are easy, give us the hard ones!!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Tanais:

Syllogism: 1. Religion is spiritual.
2. Spiritual things are personal.
3. Spiritual things are subjective.
4. Organized religions impose an objective and impersonal attitude on religion.
5. Therefore organized religions are bad.

I disagree with the first premise. There can be a spiritual aspect to one’s practice of religion, but religion does not equal sprituality and a person can experiance one without the other. For example a person can have what they subjectively refer to as a spritual experience while simply meditating - outside of any religious ceremony or practice. Similarly, one can attend a religious ceremony without having a spiritual experience.

I also disagree with the fourth and fifth premises. Some religions (unlike Catholicism) do not impose much of an objective standard at all. And religion is not impersonal by its very nature; some religions stress a personal relationship between its members and God. Finally, just because a religion imposes an objective attitude (objective standards?) that does not necessarily make it a “bad” religion. Society cannot function without objective standards of conduct. Is society bad because of this?

I would just add that a man-made religion - in general - is humanity’s response to an inner desire to know objective truth. But the existence of many man-made religions does not exclude the possibility of a religion established by God to reveal His truth. Maybe you can suggest to someone who confronts you with this argument, he or she may want to conduct a search into which religion has the best claim that it was founded by God. Only the Catholic Church can meet this requirement.