A_C_E said:
The chicken and egg situation is a situation that we don't understand, we don't know which came first. This is different. People don't influence ideas, people create ideas which can influence other people. You say it's a pointless distinction between the cause and catalyst but I completely disagree. People are the very source of all ideas. Our brains are the devices in which we use to interpret what and how we can use as a catalyst with good or bad intentions. Our brains are the root of it all, of course it's not a pointless distinction. Let's say I have a pen and paper. On that paper I write, "I am God. Kill all who don't believe". Now let's assume people read this and some people take it seriously and others not. If people took this seriously and began killing others then who is to blame, the paper or the people? The paper is just words after all, words can't create institutions, only our brains can. We are the source and cause of bad nature. I'm not saying religion is or isn't inherently bad, I'm saying it can't be inherently bad and I'm saying that by definition. It literally cannot be inherently bad. You literally need a human being to take it in a bad direction or a good direction and without a human being it is neutral, nothing but ink. Bad results come from bad people. |
We'll assume for a moment I agree with that. Why is that distinction useful? How does it change how we should act or deal with religion?
