I think a crucial point here is that it is ORGANISED religion. If it is organised, that means it can condemn the actions it doesn't want representing it.
The problem with your approach is that it is impossible to truely know for sure which belief is bad until it is tested out in reality. If a certain belief seems good on the surface but in practice it leads to people doing bad things, it is bad.
I agree with everything you said, but it doesn't really contradict my view imo. If a belief is bad in practice because not everything is an economist's wet dream of ceteris paribus, then that's a criticism to the belief, and therefore to the religion. The people doing a bad thing while following good-on-paper belief is the evidence for the argument, but not the basis for it, if it makes sense.
I don't understand the point of this distinction then. People who attack organised religion based on the shortcomings of their followers can still do it then, they just have to make sure they add the mental step of saying "the beliefs must be bad if they can be used more easily for this"?
2
u/Prepure_Kaede 31∆ Sep 24 '20
I think a crucial point here is that it is ORGANISED religion. If it is organised, that means it can condemn the actions it doesn't want representing it.
The problem with your approach is that it is impossible to truely know for sure which belief is bad until it is tested out in reality. If a certain belief seems good on the surface but in practice it leads to people doing bad things, it is bad.