Organized religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Belteshazzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Belteshazzar

Guest
I am going to have a formal argument about organized religion tomorrow in philosophy class. I will be defending organized religion and another student will be refuting it (and supporting unorganized religion/spiritualism I guess.) I was wondering if you all could give me advice/(name removed by moderator)ut on how best to defend this position and what sort of arguments to expect.

I would really prefer to hear from the believing/practicing Catholics since that is what I am and what I will basically be defending. A Catholic convert from spiritualism would be best of all I think. But ultimately anyone with useful advice would be great.

Thank you.
P.S. I know it seems sort notice since it is due tomorrow, but I was just assigned it yesterday. I hope I get lots of (name removed by moderator)ut between now and tomorrow.
 
What level is the argument aimed at? (ie; what age group)?

Is it high-school, college, university or post-graduate?

Oh; and what debating rules will you be following?
 
I’ve had this debate with many people before.

Honestly, if your opponent knows his stuff, your arguments really stand no chance unfortunately. There has just been way too many evil things done in the name of organized religion. Though i wouldent take this to mean that you shouldent be able to continue to find fulfillment in your current spiritual path. Just that logically, and morally, Spiritualism has a one up on organized religion.
 
Belteshazzar said:
I am going to have a formal argument about organized religion tomorrow in philosophy class. I will be defending organized religion and another student will be refuting it (and supporting unorganized religion/spiritualism I guess.) I was wondering if you all could give me advice/(name removed by moderator)ut on how best to defend this position and what sort of arguments to expect.
Click to expand...
First thing is to get beyond an “I guess” about the precise debate topic. You need to begin by trying to get a precise working definition of your terms: organized religion, unorganized religion, etc; and a working understanding of what these terms typically refer to.

Second, Soulewolf’s suggestion is helpful for getting started: “There has just been way too many evil things done in the name of organized religion.” Obviously that is a bit of a silly ‘argument’, from which it does not follow that organized religion as such is indefensible, but you need to be able to articulate the reasons why that is the case.
 
This is college level and as far as I know, the only rules are to remain rational and not bicker at each other. We aren’t doing this in front of class; it is just one-on-one, student-to-student. So It isn’t big; I just want to do a good job.

I think one of my problems is that I am too sympathetic. If someone tells me they just can’t accept organized religion because it (insert bad but truthful thing here) I will tend to agree with them but also try to explain that there is a greater good behind it all. Many bad things may have been done by organized religion, but you would be hard pressed to find any organization (religious or not) that doesn’t have skeletons in the closet.
 
First argument;

That spiritual things or somesuch are a real and present thing.

If your opponent is arguing for spiritualism; they will accept the first premise.

Second premise;

That spiritual things or somesuch are; or at least can be; good for individuals.

If your opponent is arguing for spiritualism; they will accept the second premise.

Third argument;

The truth cannot be based upon individual experiences; because this would cause a contradiction against the law of non contradiction.

Thus; we cannot rely upon soley individual experiences, we must somehow interpret these.

Fourth argument;

The Church does not teach that one should do evil.

Fifth argument;

Those thing’s done in the name of Organised Religion are not done Because of Organised Religion; they are done Despite it.

This argues that the individual sins and weaknesses of people cause them to do evil despite their beliefs.

This is true; because of argument four. The Church does not teach people to do evil; even if sometimes it fails to stop them doing evil.

This also supports argument three; that the individual should NOT interpret morality for themselves; because we cannot rely upon our individual positions; for these obviously contain contrarity; thus cannot all be correct.

Sixth argument

The Church Recognises that people are flawed.

This is why the Church has Confessions. If there was no individual failing; then there would be no need to confess.

Seventh argument

We are stronger together than we are apart.

By uniting together under one truth; we can discern what is moral; and try to our best abilities to prevent people becomming misguided and “taking the law into their own hands”.

Eigth argument

The Civil Law is Universal; so is the Moral Law

There is one moral law; just as their is one civil law. If we all follow the moral law; we all will be better people.

Ninth argument

People who follow the moral law compose communities.

If there is one truth; one goodness; one moral law; then those who believe in it will gather towards it; culminating in one recognition of truth.

Tenth argument

Those who do not follow moral law are identical to vigilantes.

There is one truth for all; we do not interpret this ourselves and by ourselves; because this results in the evils of people slaughtering thousands; examples of this are where dictators take into their own hands the lives of others; and force upon them their will.

Eleventh argument

As we believe in spiritual things; we can see that spiritual things work in people.

This supports our belief in the Pope; we do not worship or revere a man; but believe that the Holy Spirit works with him so as to bind us all to the moral law; to guide us into the way of peace; and to bind us together in one Church under one law.

Twelth argument

Corruption is not an argument against the Church; it is an argument against individual interpretations.

Priests are people too; when they take the law into their own hands; like a spiritualist; they justify terrible things. We must not take the law into our own hands; we must follow the one true Moral Law - all men and women must follow this; be their Priests; Lay people; Monks; Nuns and even the Pope!

Thirteenth and concluding argument

If we love one another; we must recognise that we are flawed people

We must recognise we are flawed; and embrace the forgiveness and love of the Father; the Son and the Holy Spirit; working through the Church and the Sacraments of Baptism and Confession to pick us up when we fall; Eucharist to bind us together; Confirmation to strengthen us; Anointing to heal us; Holy Orders and Marraige to bring us to our callings.

If we truly love one another; we must be humbe enough to accept that no man can know the truth on his own. It is only with the workings of the holy spirit and the Church that we can work out the Truth.

We have all seen the evils of Spiritualism. When Evil Priests make their own moral law; when Corrupt Politicians abuse their positions of power; and when we turn away from the one truth of God for mortal pleasures and satisfactions.
 
Thank you very much, JohnDamian, for the argument outline. It will be very helpful!

Just for more background: I did get a chance to speak to the person I will be arguing with yesterday. She is coming from a bit of an agnostic point of view, tending toward a belief in God, but not convinced by any particular religion. If there is a God, she doesn’t understand how people like Popes and bishops can say they have authority from Him to form Traditions (I think she means Sacred Tradition.)

This all might be outside the scope of the argument though.
 
Soulewolf said:
I’ve had this debate with many people before.

Honestly, if your opponent knows his stuff, your arguments really stand no chance unfortunately. There has just been way too many evil things done in the name of organized religion. Though i wouldent take this to mean that you shouldent be able to continue to find fulfillment in your current spiritual path. Just that logically, and morally, Spiritualism has a one up on organized religion.
Click to expand...
nice bias dude!👍

:nope:
 
I think organized religion is good because it gets people on the same page. If we are to solve complex problems in this world…problems that transcend personal and even political boundaries, we need people to get with the program, so to speak.

Organized religion has the best chance of doing this. The focus on morality and unity is what will see us through, and what makes it different from other attempts at uniting people…even though it is not perfect.

Sorry I dont have a lot of time for a well-thought-out argument here, but I wanted to give another point to think about. This is a point that might be able to get through to someone who is coming from a secular background.

Good luck either way!

edit: also make sure to speak with much patience, understanding, and respect. This has won me some battles in the “long run” even if I lose the debate. One person was even influenced to become a believer because she said I argued with such charity. Not tooting my horn…just another tip! 🙂
 
Hi Belteshazzar,
If, in the course of your debate, your colleague mentions the many religious wars fought and the countless numbers slaughtered as a result, you are on sure ground to point out that said numbers are a miniscule fraction of the murders carried out by abortionists in the secularised world.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
It is unfortunately very easy to make, and cling, to the argument against organized religion on the bases of all the terrible things it is alleged to have done. I was listening to Dr. Ray Gorendi (sp?) on Catholic Radio this afternoon and he was talking about how once you are labeled, everything you do falls in to the confines of that label. If someone already has it in his head that organized religion is wrong, it doesn’t matter how many good and true things it has done; all those things are moot since the religion is wrong.

I guess one way to counter this is to take the argument to their turf. How many good things has unorganized religion done for the world (is there such a thing as unorganized religion?) Or secular humanism for that matter. Despite this, I am leery to bring up such controversial topics such as abortion. I am very much against abortion; mentioning it to someone who is ’pro-choice’ might spark yet another debate within a debate. It is a very good point though.
 
Quick update: I just did a Google search and apparently there is such a thing as unorganized religion. Whoda thunk?
 
I think you can simply give a strong case for a hierarchical Church, along with the many members, based on evidence. But first…your opponent’s “Rule #1: religion is not allowed to be organized” is based on his own observations. Would violence done in the name of religion disqualify all religion? No. Why should it. Would disaster done by a doctor cause us to say: “Ugh, you’ve seen how many times doctors have messed up. I reject all formal medicine as fraudulent. All medicine must be home remedies.” Such thinking is nonsense, and rejection religion wholly because of anecdotes is equally flawed thinking.

As C.S. Lewis taught us on the first page of The Screwtape Letters, the question is: Is organized religion the truth or not? Based on what criteria does your opponent assert that “religion must not have a structure”? We already debunked the “sins in the name of” argument. You can point to the historical evidence for the Resurrection and the deity of the Man Who died and rose, and the Church He founded. Your opponent can deny this reality, but the historical record for this incident is strong and you can at least say there is evidence for people to consider.

There are many witnesses to the events of salvation history, those early Christians were martyred for their beliefs, they testified to the miracles of Jesus, saw Him die, saw Him alive 3 days later, and had the faith spread to every corner of the earth like no other religion when, according to flippant atheists, they should have been received with laughter, and miracles continue to be performed to this day, there are the saints with scientifically validated stigmata, atheists converted on the spot at Fatima as I understand, etc…etc…

You will likely receive in response a claim trying to demonstrate one of those things as shaky evidence, like martyrs, and how lots of people die for false things…but it’s important that all of your evidence come as a package because nothing else on earth has all of Christianity’s qualities AT ONCE. It is the atheist who then is the one going against the evidence. And that’s from a purely non-spiritual perspective.
 
Belteshazzar said:
Quick update: I just did a Google search and apparently there is such a thing as unorganized religion. Whoda thunk?
Click to expand...
Ya, it’s called having church by yourself.

Really now, unorganized religion is a misnomer. Eventually people congregate. Cities, anyone? People congregate. And form groups. Blogs? Facebook? This here forum? Hello, it’s what people do. Religion will organize, just as any other human activity will organize.

The argument is really over the structure of the “club,” so to speak, not over whether or not there should be structure.
 
I think in this case you’d have to argue on two main points. You’d first have to argue for the sake of truth of organized religion. I think you should specifically argue for the truth of Christianity. Even if all else about Spiritualism is nice, Christianity is true. Secondly, you need to give the sociological arguments for religion in general. Here are some arguments on top of ones others have said already. Note how good organized religion is, and how spiritualism can’t provide any of this. All spiritualism provides is an individualistic philosophy, separating others rather than really bringing them together.

-Social cohesion: Religion brings people together and helps make connections amongst communities and friends. Religion also has the power to change society. Even Marx acknowledged the power of religion which is not found in *any *other ideology, belief, or structure.
-Social order: Religion, when institutionalized, creates social order and law. Even if not institutionalized, it gives morality to people who would not have been moral otherwise.
-Community outreach: Religion provides all kinds of community programs like plays, food drives, local clean up, religious studies, dances helping neighborhoods get together, etc.
-Charity: Note that religious institutions make up the majority of charitable organizations. The Catholic Church, for instance, is the largest charitable organization in the entire world.
-Education: Churches have historically provided education and they are still useful in presenting education in ways that secular education cannot (e.g. morals, values, etc.)
-Culture: Western culture would not be anything like it is today without the Christian Church. The Church preserved learning throughout the dark ages in the monasteries, and universities (a largely Christian invention) were the centers of learning in the Medieval period. In like manner, Islam provided a flourishing culture in the Middle East (as did the Orthodox Church earlier). In the far east Chinese religions also gave them a complex institution of laws and higher culture.

Also, like others have said, the misuse of religion by some is not grounds for abandoning it altogether. Firstly, by far the evils are exceeded by the goods. Secondly, way more evil has been done in the name of anti-religion, i.e. French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror”, all communist countries, the Terrible Triangle, etc. The atheist Soviet Chekas killed more in one week than the Inquisition in 600 years.
 
Belteshazzar said:
Thank you very much, JohnDamian, for the argument outline. It will be very helpful!

Just for more background: I did get a chance to speak to the person I will be arguing with yesterday. She is coming from a bit of an agnostic point of view, tending toward a belief in God, but not convinced by any particular religion. If there is a God, she doesn’t understand how people like Popes and bishops can say they have authority from Him to form Traditions (I think she means Sacred Tradition.)

This all might be outside the scope of the argument though.
Click to expand...
Kudos to John. Wow. Very good!

Now, if your opponent decides to argue from a viewpoint of not understanding the need for Popes, Cardinals. Bishops, etc. ask her if she would like to go to a tent, or a residential home where there might be only one person, for life-prolonging surgery. Or, would she rather go to an organized hospital. “Organizations” can be corrupted by men AND women, but, for the most part, they are far more beneficial than deleterious. We’re talking about our “souls” here!

As to your second part, Jesus gave over the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, His earthly Church, and established the church’s initial leadership - while He was on the ground. These were entrusted to Peter, the first to hold the papacy. It’s Christ’s Church. He wants it that way. Would not the first caretaker, or, rather shepherds, of the church be doing Christ a complete disservice by ignoring, or, disobeying His wishes, or commands? It’s His church - that’s how He wants it. If she started a business would she let her employees run over her, or, wold she take the bull by the horns and lead her organization, or, at least, put someone in charge who could?

God bless,
jd
 
Belteshazzar said:
Quick update: I just did a Google search and apparently there is such a thing as unorganized religion. Whoda thunk?
Click to expand...
Yep! Thar shore is, pardner. It’s a “rough and individualistic cowboy” mentality. “I can can this all by myself!” Well, what if you can’t? And, can you just imagine 3.5 billion “churches?” (Discounting the children.)

God bless,
jd
 
Thanks to all of you for all the great (name removed by moderator)ut. I think I will do better tomorrow than I would have if I had just stuck to skimming a few books I own. I have several books by GK Chesterton, Catholic Answers’ The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics, and a few others, but none of them really seem to tackle this issue directly. My internet searches didn’t bear much fruit either; most things on the net condemn organized religion.

Thanks again; I’m turning in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top