My comments referreed to a post that stated that changes to erroneous or revised ideas in scientific theories
were beneficial. I agree but I am just suggesting that the same allowance be made for ideas about behavior that come from religious teachings.
Much religious teaching is not veriafiable, such about the creation of the universe, or the existence of God, or the historicity of certain events, etc. but that is not what I refer to.
I refer to the values, morals, and behaviors encouraged. These can be evaluated in the same way science is...by observing the results, and observing the the character of those who follow the values, morals, and behavior advocated.
To take the easiest cases, I think we would agree that more murder is harmful to society, and less murder is beneficial.
Thus an instruction that teaches people not to murder, is better than one that does not.
Likewise, a teaching that instructs people not to steal, is more beneficial than one which does not.
So from our own observations, over time, we can form judgements about the moral principles, and make a determination based on empirical results, to get an opinion of whether the particular instruction is valid or not.
This is completely in harmony with scientific method, which insists on the observation of results to determine objective truth.
We can also look at individuals, not in terms of what they believe about God, or who they vote for, or what political system they espouse, but how they conduct themselves in the here and now, and make a judgement on whether society as a whole is better with more people with those characteristics, or less.
Is society better off with individuals consumed by greed, self-gratification, and pursuit of consumption, or not ?
Is society better off by people being generous, merciful, considerate, humble, honest, and so forth, or not ?
Is society better off with a greater proportion of its children being raised in traditional families, with strong personal parental guidance, or not ?
Is society better off with individuals being self-disciplined and responsible for their actions, or not ?
**
A person has a right to be greedy, or pursue their version of happiness (that does not harm others),
or be a drug addict (although not a thief), or an atheist, or a homosexual, or have a child outside of marriage.
But I am suggesting that there are good reasons to encourage certain behaviors, and discourage others; and on some behavior,
civil authority should be neutral, while religious teachings will vary according to taste.
For example, in the United States, a very high percentage of children are born out of wedlock. It is within the right of any adult to be a single parent; they are free to make that choice; but it is a harmful social disaster to encourage this as a desireable outcome for society as a whole. What one individual has the right to do, is not necessarily a good outcome if large numbers of the community adopt that behavior.
This puts tremendous pressure on the women, who in practice bear the responsibility and costs, and it is unfair to the innocent children involved, as well as to other people who must pay for services and other costs that should be borne by the parents.
Civil authority should remain fairly neutral on this, although the costs of the behavior are i=unfairly distributed. But I see nothing harmful in religious teaching that discourages the behavior that leads to the situation. I see benefit.
Thus in general, moral or religious instruction to restrict sexual activity, such delaying it until after marriage, has validity, even though it will not be adhered to (boys and girls in their natural state being very difficult to restrain).
I am not a prude or a Victorian. But those adults who believe and aspire to higher standards should not be ridiculed,
and the adolescents who adhere or aspire to those standards should not be made to feel ashamed of it.
Frankly, many of the young people who indulge themselves are completely incapable of dealing with the results,
and the rest of us pay the price. It is irresponsible. It is bad for society. And religious instruction is helpful in this respect.
**
The challenges to legitimate authorities on all levels is also a problem.
The results of the last 50 years, they are awful.
Some good came of it; it is not all black and white; but overall, the results are dreadful.
We have disobediance, lawlessness, and corruption at all levels. Disrespect for law, especially by those at the top and at the bottom.
And I believe the problem starts at the level of parental respect by children, and the trend in modern society to move away from the nuclear or extended family. It is a pervasive move and does not portend good things for society...children without parents, marriages unable to survive, old people being moved into geriatric warehouses at huge costs to societies, away from their families, because no one wants to take care of them; and "SOCIETY" pays for the care and the nursing, and they die without comfort.
**
These are just two trends that I believe are best remedied by morals and guidance from the great religious teachings.
(the teachings, not organized religion).
To me the evidence is clear...recent social trends are not good with respect to the moral and ethical evolution of society
IMO these are problems we should concern ourselves with...not how the universe was created, or what is or is not proven about
God, or whether Eve was made out of Adam's rib.
I have brought up three issues, that of sexual morality, the destruction of the nuclear family, and erosion of the Rule of Law.
I believe that the great religious teachings are the only real hope of improving our condition with respect to these issues.
Religious beliefs at the very least should be respected, especially the behavior and values they encourage that are not in conflict with civil law. I consider religious teachings of great benefit to society for the moral and social benefits.
To label such teachings "a pack of lies" and "fairy tales" is to miss the importance of the lesson.
As for my beliefs about God or membership in any particular sect, denomination, or congregation,
that is best kept private in the present forum, and is irrelevant to my line of reasoning.
