Moderate & Immoderate Religion

[jdc325]

Hi, I'm new here and have a question that I've been mulling over. Does moderate religion act as a restraining force in respect of 'immoderate' (or 'extreme') religion or does moderate religion provide a breeding ground for extreme religion?

My own view is that both are irrational and that the existence of moderate religion allows extremism to flourish.

 

[Drew]

Interesting question. And welcome to this forum.

I think I will take the position that "moderate" religion effectively does serve to moderate the extremists. I do not believe that "moderate Christianity" (I am not familiar with other religions) is in any sense causally responsible for the extremists - e.g. those people from the Phelps church that obviously are struggling with deep sexual issues of their own and project that struggle outward.

There are at least 2 dimension to this problem that tends to bias people's viewpoints in the direction of seeing even the moderate Christian church as an unhealthy force in society. These are:

1. The "unrepeatability of western history" - we cannot do an experiment to see if things would have been better or worse had Christianity not played such a major role in shaping western culture. Human nature is "blame-oriented" such as to imagine that we would not have certain problems had Christianity not been such a strong influence. But we have no justification for this view. For all we know, the world would be much worse if it were not for the influence of Christianity.

2. The "clear identifiability" of the content of the Christian worldview as contrasted with the vague and unclear content of "secularism". In short, it is easy to blame a "visible" target - a target whose parameters are known to us (such as the Christian church). It is much harder to see a causal link between the ills of society and the vague agglomeration of ideas that constitute secularism.

I have more to say, but I will stop to keep this post short enough to actually be read. And to see what others have to say.

A very interesting subject, I do think.....

 

[jdc325]

Food for thought. Thanks for your response, Drew. It may take me a while to think about what you've said before I respond, but I will certainly consider the interesting points you have made.

 

[bartdanr]

Hello jdc325,

Hi, I'm new here and have a question that I've been mulling over. Does moderate religion act as a restraining force in respect of 'immoderate' (or 'extreme') religion or does moderate religion provide a breeding ground for extreme religion?

My own view is that both are irrational and that the existence of moderate religion allows extremism to flourish.

Interesting question!

I guess when the terms "moderate", "immoderate" and "extreme" are presented, they suggest many things--perhaps different things--to people. To some, "moderate" suggests rational, well-balanced, well-nuanced belief that tolerates dissent. To others, "moderate" may suggest weak, comprimising, unwilling to take a stand on anything and generally cowardly. Even 'exteme' might suggest something positive to some, and negative to others.

What comes to my mind is that 'moderate' would be generally in line with the modern concept of toleration--i.e., even if your religious claims are exclusivistic (like Biblical Christianity is), you will not attempt to use political or other forms of coercion to influence people to accept your claims, and believe that others have just as much to the public sphere as you do in the non-coercive "battle of ideas." In contrast, "immoderate" would be the desire to silence the opposition through force or the threat of force, including (possibly) the power of the State or even terrorist action.

I think that if we had no religion--moderate or immoderate--we would still have people who felt it proper to respect the freedoms of others, and others who do not have that respect. Most ideas can be held in a moderate way, or an immoderate way. For whatever reason (psychological, spiritual, genetic--who knows why) some people, when presented with an idea, will embrace it so strongly that they allow it to dominate their lives and believe it should dominate everyone else's life as well. (A raving football fan comes to mind right now. :wink: ).

In essence, I'm not sure if the presence of an idea is the cause or the cure of its misuse. There are just some people who will go bonkers about it and others that won't. So I guess, in the end, I would say that moderate religion is not necessarily a 'breeding ground' for immoderate religion, any more than any other idea...but that all ideas can (and probably will) be eventually misused by some.

(And even the idea of political tolerance and freedom can be held in extreme--some of my Libertarian friends come to mind.)

God bless!

 

[jdc325]

I think that if we had no religion--moderate or immoderate--we would still have people who felt it proper to respect the freedoms of others, and others who do not have that respect.

Good point, bartdanr.

I think in some cases religion is used by people as a grab for some kind of 'fig-leaf of respect' and religion itself may (I suppose) be tarnished by association - i.e. anyone can claim that they committed act x, y, or z because of God or their religious beliefs, but is actually looking to transfer blame / responsibility for their actions.

Personally, I think the flip-side of your point is that ethics and morals probably do not depend on religion either. An argument I've seen before is that if the only reason you refrain from doing evil is because you are scared of the consequences of hell and eternal damnation, then you are not very moral*. Restraint from evil due to fear of punishment is, essentially, selfish. Refraining from evil due to empathy or a respect for the other person and their rights (in my view) is 'moral' and 'good' - but does not necessarily have religion as a base.

*I'm not suggesting that this is the case for the majority of religious folk and it certainly does not apply to those I have met personally.

 

[bartdanr]

Good point, bartdanr.

I think in some cases religion is used by people as a grab for some kind of 'fig-leaf of respect' and religion itself may (I suppose) be tarnished by association - i.e. anyone can claim that they committed act x, y, or z because of God or their religious beliefs, but is actually looking to transfer blame / responsibility for their actions.

Personally, I think the flip-side of your point is that ethics and morals probably do not depend on religion either. An argument I've seen before is that if the only reason you refrain from doing evil is because you are scared of the consequences of hell and eternal damnation, then you are not very moral*. Restraint from evil due to fear of punishment is, essentially, selfish. Refraining from evil due to empathy or a respect for the other person and their rights (in my view) is 'moral' and 'good' - but does not necessarily have religion as a base.

*I'm not suggesting that this is the case for the majority of religious folk and it certainly does not apply to those I have met personally.

I agree, jdc--though, like all growth, you usually start somewhere. It can very well be that all of our ethical ideas start off as a pleasure/pain idea--e.g., mommy says not to hit my sister, and I won't, because when I do she puts me in time out and doesn't let me play with my favorite toy for a while. Some people enter into a religion simply to avoid hell and win heaven...only later will they serve God for a "higher" purpose (doing good merely because it's good, not because they fear punishment.)

Yes, I think it is entirely possible to have a system of ethics and morality without any reference to God or religion. And a lot of those ethical pricipals will be very similar (though not necessarily identical) to those of, say, Christianity. Of course, saying it's possible is one thing; but I don't necessarily think that this means that it invalidates theistically-based ethics. Ethics can have a religious base, or not; but the question is not so much what is possible, but in fact what is closer to the truth. And that is, at the end, a matter of faith.

God bless!

 

[Rick W]

Must also keep in mind that man was made in God's image. That may not be a physical image but one of an ethical nature. That certainly doesn't mean we all do Godly things by instinct nor does it imply we are compelled to do so by nature for if that were true there would be no sin. And as seen in Genesis we can and do err.
Recognition of God, acknowledgement of His autority, will invariably bias our behavior. In the vast majority of civilizations such things as stealing or murder were wrong. Even secular law follows some ethics of God in one fashion or another. But the question is to what degree. Before I was saved I "knew" some things to be wrong. After being saved I found some of the things I believed as right were indeed wrong. "Between two consenting adults" is a common rationalization that appears to make some immoral sexual behaviors seem ok and one that I used quite often as evidence to shun or justify an errant behavior.
We also must be careful not to give ourselves too much credit when stating we "know" by nature of self that something is right or wrong. It's a trap in which many can be ensnared. Pride is something generally addressed on rare occasion and oftentimes not as the root or motivation in many things we do or believe.

As far as moderation influencing extremism one important factor that should not be ignored or forgotten is fear. Fear of reprisal can keep moderates from doing or saying anything against a violent extremist presence. The very definition of "moderate" concerning religion means a moderate is less likely to take action outside "moderate" parameters. And there are also peaceful extremists such as the Amish that through their brand of extremism do nothing at all against any or all imposed violence.

We love labels... keeps things nice and tidy. But in reality it's most likely a mixture where one thing or another has favor. Yet, in certain circumstances a lesser trait or belief may very well be called into play not necessarily inline with the other. The human soul is much more complex and unpredictable not always following through with an imposed label. We are not machines that follow specific rules of cause and effect nor can we be. Be cautious using labels. Assumption is not a tool used by the wise.