Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Lord Raven]

3 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Allow me to clarify: A lot of innovation stems from the disregarding of consequences. There are a great deal of religious people (of all faiths) that would rather not compromise their code of ethics just to gain an advantage over a potential enemy, meaning they might not progress technologically until encouraged to. I don't know what you intended from such a short post, except to tell me that I'm wrong. If you don't mind, I would like to know why you disagree, or, if you are so inclined, would invite you to educate this poor, unwashed plebeian.

You made an absolute statement, therefore I answered it with an absolute false. There's a lot of science that was discovered without a disregard for morality. I'd wager the majority of science, especially modern, proven science, that did not require immorality to discover, and I can start from the ground up with my own field since I'm the most familiar with that. 

What science innovations can you discuss that was a result of disregarding consequences? How many is "a lot"? Furthermore, was the disregarding of consequences a direct result of science or a direct result of something else? The Nazis come to mind here, where they experimented on Jews -- but it was not in the name of science.

[blah the Prussian]

15 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

science isn't a belief system, so the analogy fails. if you commit atrocities, it can't be in the name of science.

True, but you can commit atrocities in the name of rationalism, which is very much a belief system. See the "Republican marriages" during the French Revolution for a particularly bile inducing example.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

You made an absolute statement, therefore I answered it with an absolute false. There's a lot of science that was discovered without a disregard for morality. I'd wager the majority of science, especially modern, proven science, that did not require immorality to discover, and I can start from the ground up with my own field since I'm the most familiar with that. 

What science innovations can you discuss that was a result of disregarding consequences? How many is "a lot"? Furthermore, was the disregarding of consequences a direct result of science or a direct result of something else? The Nazis come to mind here, where they experimented on Jews -- but it was not in the name of science.

Probably leans more heavily towards callously risky rather than evil, but the small pox vaccine being privately tested on a small child certainly isn't something that would fly in modern society. There were also those ridiculously monstrous CIA mind control experiments. But probably the worst thing about that was the utter lack of science behind it. They just fucked with a tonne of people to see what would happen :/

[Lord Chrom of Ylisse]

On 7/22/2017 at 3:13 AM, Phoenix Wright said:

science isn't a belief system, so the analogy fails. if you commit atrocities, it can't be in the name of science.

I know that science isn't a belief system. I'm just saying that there are certain good "concepts" that can be used for bad.

And you can definitely commit atrocities in the name of science. Science not being a belief system doesn't change that.

[SullyMcGully]

On 7/21/2017 at 6:13 PM, Phoenix Wright said:

science isn't a belief system, so the analogy fails. if you commit atrocities, it can't be in the name of science.

Nazism's Holocaust-inducing eugenics system was based on the understanding of genetics that they had at the time. Marxism and the resulting Communist regimes were built on almost as much economics as philosophy. 

Now, you could say that those two infamous examples used a lot of fake or false science to support them. But how can you say that that is any different from a suicidal cult that claims to be based on biblical principles or the militant groups in the Middle East that fight for a false understanding of Islam?

[Baldrick]

48 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Now, you could say that those two infamous examples used a lot of fake or false science to support them. But how can you say that that is any different from a suicidal cult that claims to be based on biblical principles or the militant groups in the Middle East that fight for a false understanding of Islam?

They weren't motivated by science. At most, it was just an excuse for them to feel justified in committing atrocities.

The latter would have no motive whatsoever without religion.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, David Boey said:

They weren't motivated by science. At most, it was just an excuse for them to feel justified in committing atrocities.

The latter would have no motive whatsoever without religion.

I can't think of a single conflict that was entirely, or even mostly, motivated by religion. Don't ignore those economic reasons for going to war. They're like really important.

[Lord Raven]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

I can't think of a single conflict that was entirely, or even mostly, motivated by religion. Don't ignore those economic reasons for going to war. They're like really important.

This cannot be stressed enough. Current "holy wars" and "jihads" are not motivated by religion; religion is used as a means to recruit people, but religion is often not the end goal.

I can't think of many ideologues gaining power in general.

[Phoenix Wright]

On 7/21/2017 at 4:03 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

Religion is an excuse, science is a tool. Just as any tool can be misused for evil or unethical things, whereas religion is an abstract concept, which are often used as justifications, excuses, or, at worst, scapegoats. Also, if your other statement is true, why is the Mad Scientist trope a thing? Those kinds of people are motivated by discovery, but as the world found out, a lot of modern aerodynamic science was found out in inhumane and unethical experiments, primarily in both Nazi Germany and the USSR. Science advances when morality and ethics fail, that's why people think that religious people hate science. However, the only science the Nazis used to justify it was eugenics, which is not a popular field of study because of that.

there's a lot wrong with this post which raven thankfully already got to, but let me add that the mad scientist trope is fantasy. there are no such scientists lol. there are more complicating and interesting reasons why scientists commit some of the worst crimes in humanity. i mean, look no further than home (eg, the usa) to see likely the worst application of science. full doc:

edit: hmm, i put the other spoiler tag immediately after the vid, but looks like something got fucked up and idk how to fix it. vid + rest of the post is in spoiler.

 

also, eugenics is not science.

On 7/21/2017 at 6:49 PM, Shoblongoo said:

I am perpetually amazed by how many people don't understand this.

me too. at times it can be quite depressing. humanity's most useful tool for a continued survival of the species seems, at times, to be the most willingly misunderstood field of study by the general populace.

On 7/21/2017 at 11:46 PM, blah the Prussian said:

True, but you can commit atrocities in the name of rationalism, which is very much a belief system. See the "Republican marriages" during the French Revolution for a particularly bile inducing example.

i don't see how the two are connected (ie, science itself as a body of knowledge and rationalism as a school of thought).

On 7/22/2017 at 3:36 PM, Lord Chrom of Ylisse said:

I know that science isn't a belief system. I'm just saying that there are certain good "concepts" that can be used for bad.

And you can definitely commit atrocities in the name of science. Science not being a belief system doesn't change that.

it literally means you can't. you can't do anything in the name of science.

i don't think "concept" is a word that accurately describes science. maybe more accurately the "concept" of the scientific method which is crucial to the practice of science, but science itself is more simply a body of knowledge that tells you how the world actually works. i'm simplifying a bit, but for the purposes of discussion, science is "facts." you cannot commit anything in the name of "facts," that just doesn't make any sense. there's no belief system there.

sagan would say, "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of thinking--a way of skeptically interrogating the universe." i agree with this. so i think the crucial thing for you to understand is this:

belief systems say, "this is how it is."

science asks, "is this how it is?" 

there is no belief system when the entire point is to ask questions. there is no where to place faith or ideological thought, etc. people will attach things to it, but that's not the fault of science, that's the fault of people.

18 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Nazism's Holocaust-inducing eugenics system was based on the understanding of genetics that they had at the time. Marxism and the resulting Communist regimes were built on almost as much economics as philosophy. 

Now, you could say that those two infamous examples used a lot of fake or false science to support them. But how can you say that that is any different from a suicidal cult that claims to be based on biblical principles or the militant groups in the Middle East that fight for a false understanding of Islam?

using fake or false science to propagate an agenda isn't the fault of science. again, science isn't a belief system. eugenics fits the bill for a dictatorship. execution for apostasy fits the bill for religion. you have a belief system to blame those actions for.

if science disappeared today, those atrocities and the reasoning behind committing those atrocities would be the same.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

It's not that science is rationalism, but that you can commit atrocities in the name of a lack of faith in the same way you can commit atrocities in the name of faith.

[Shoblongoo]

30 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

It's not that science is rationalism, but that you can commit atrocities in the name of a lack of faith in the same way you can commit atrocities in the name of faith.

...Well of course you CAN commit atrocities in the name of anything. I could go forth and commit atrocities in the name of Ozzy Osbourne, if I wanted to be wierd about it. But let's not pretend like there haven't been certain modes of thinking throughout the course of human history that have proven substantially more likely to overrule good sense and decency, so as to invite atrocity. Among them: Tribalism, Nationalism, Racism, and Religion. (Science--not so much)

Edited July 24, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...Well of course you CAN commit atrocities in the name of anything. I could go forth and commit atrocities in the name of Ozzy Osbourne, if I wanted to be wierd about it. But let's not pretend like there haven't been certain modes of thinking throughout the course of human history that have proven substantially more likely to overrule good sense and decency, so as to invite atrocity. Among them: Tribalism, Nationalism, Racism, and Religion. (Science--not so much)

I said rationalism, not science. I then cited an example of rationalism causing atrocities. To be fair, rationalism is extremely broad and applies to most post enlightenment ideologies, but it's a useful ideological umbrella for anti clerical ideologies.

[Shoblongoo]

22 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

I said rationalism, not science. I then cited an example of rationalism causing atrocities. To be fair, rationalism is extremely broad and applies to most post enlightenment ideologies, but it's a useful ideological umbrella for anti clerical ideologies.

...ehhhhhhhhh...

Rationalism is pretty much the one thing you can't commit atrocities in the name of; tautologically so. An atrocity by definition must constitute a breach of rationality--some inexcusable deviation from rationally construed and constructed standards of objective morality underlies an act which may be properly regarded as "atrocious."

No act which is atrocious can be rational.
And no act which is rational can be atrocious.

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

A rational course of action might not be an atrocity, but it can be a travesty, and certainly a tragedy. The Trail of Tears, fallacious as it was, certainly had (considering the dissonance in morals between then and now) some rationale behind it (I certainly don't agree with the logic, and Jackson was an asshole on the whole). Just as we look back at our old shame, they would look forward and think us all radicals just for practicing basic human decency. What is today's rationale is tomorrow's atrocity, which means that both are correct, from a certain perspective. We will never see the consequences of our actions long term, and later generations will not necessarily be able to understand our mindset. Also, logic tends to dictate a lot of very difficult ethical questions as well, ones that have a different answer in every society that they have been posed to.

[Snowy_One]

Yes. It is ENTIRELY possible to commit atrocities in the name of science. Haven't you ever heard of mad scientists? You can easily end up with things like people performing experiments on the mentally ill such as seeing what happens when you scramble part of their brains via ice-pick through the eye. Exposing people to gas, radiation, viruses, and so-forth to judge its effectiveness. Mental experiments that can result in scarring people for life. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It is entirely, 110% possible, to commit atrocities in the name of science. All of those examples are REAL by the way.

This is not to mention the number of people who will use 'science' to justify their actions. Such as someone using science as justification to engage in eugenics, expunge religious beliefs that so happen to oppose them, solidify a power base, and so-forth. Once again, things that have HAPPENED in reality.

Even on the small scale you can easily get people using 'science' to scam people out of money (thievery for personal gain), justify amoral life styles (such as polygamy), and other stuff. Once again, not conjecture but stuff that's actually happened.

Nothing about science or the scientific process can account for humans willing to twist it or use it as justification for horrible things.

[blah the Prussian]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...ehhhhhhhhh...

Rationalism is pretty much the one thing you can't commit atrocities in the name of; tautologically so. An atrocity by definition must constitute a breach of rationality--some inexcusable deviation from rationally construed and constructed standards of objective morality underlies an act which may be properly regarded as "atrocious."

No act which is atrocious can be rational.
And not act which is rational can be atrocious.

 

Rationalism is an ideology. That's like saying that just because Marx wouldn't approve of the Holodomor, it wasn't done in the name of Communism, or, for that matter, that because Jesus wouldn't approve of the Crusades they weren't in the name of Christianity. ISIS is not Islamic but do what they do in the name of Islam; the Drownings of Nantes were not rational but we're done in the name of rationalism.

Edit: And Hylian does make a good point; plenty of atrocities can be justified with pure rationalism. Reinhard Heydrich's tenure as Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, for example, used brutal atrocities against dissent coupled with benefits for collaborators and was hugely effective at breaking the back of the Caech Resistance. That absolutely can be rationally justified.

Edited July 25, 2017 by blah the Prussian

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

there's a lot wrong with this post which raven thankfully already got to, but let me add that the mad scientist trope is fantasy. there are no such scientists lol. there are more complicating and interesting reasons why scientists commit some of the worst crimes in humanity. i mean, look no further than home (eg, the usa) to see likely the worst application of science. full doc:

edit: hmm, i put the other spoiler tag immediately after the vid, but looks like something got fucked up and idk how to fix it. vid + rest of the post is in spoiler.

  Hide contents

also, eugenics is not science.

me too. at times it can be quite depressing. humanity's most useful tool for a continued survival of the species seems, at times, to be the most willingly misunderstood field of study by the general populace.

i don't see how the two are connected (ie, science itself as a body of knowledge and rationalism as a school of thought).

it literally means you can't. you can't do anything in the name of science.

i don't think "concept" is a word that accurately describes science. maybe more accurately the "concept" of the scientific method which is crucial to the practice of science, but science itself is more simply a body of knowledge that tells you how the world actually works. i'm simplifying a bit, but for the purposes of discussion, science is "facts." you cannot commit anything in the name of "facts," that just doesn't make any sense. there's no belief system there.

sagan would say, "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of thinking--a way of skeptically interrogating the universe." i agree with this. so i think the crucial thing for you to understand is this:

belief systems say, "this is how it is."

science asks, "is this how it is?" 

there is no belief system when the entire point is to ask questions. there is no where to place faith or ideological thought, etc. people will attach things to it, but that's not the fault of science, that's the fault of people.

using fake or false science to propagate an agenda isn't the fault of science. again, science isn't a belief system. eugenics fits the bill for a dictatorship. execution for apostasy fits the bill for religion. you have a belief system to blame those actions for.

if science disappeared today, those atrocities and the reasoning behind committing those atrocities would be the same.

I don't know, Mengele certainly fits the bill of stereotypical mad scientist. And I doubt he would of committed half the experiments he did if he didn't think there was some kind of scientific benefit.

[SullyMcGully]

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...ehhhhhhhhh...

Rationalism is pretty much the one thing you can't commit atrocities in the name of; tautologically so. An atrocity by definition must constitute a breach of rationality--some inexcusable deviation from rationally construed and constructed standards of objective morality underlies an act which may be properly regarded as "atrocious."

No act which is atrocious can be rational.
And not act which is rational can be atrocious.

 

So I guess there's nothing atrocious about getting rid of the following "irrational" things: 

Natural parks: all that land just sitting there doing nothing? What's rational about that? 

Endangered species: there's no rational reason one type of bird should be more valuable than another, so why don't we just let people shoot what they want to shoot? Why let emotional values get in the way? If one species is better at surviving than another, then the rational thing would be to let natural selection have its way, right?

Hospice care: they're going to die anyway. Lengthening things just wastes resources. People will be sad when they die regardless. Isn't euthanasia rational?

The fact of the matter is that humans are inherently irrational creatures. Our concepts of right and wrong, value, and even our very emotions are tied to that irrationality. When humans attempt to do that which they are incapable of and try to be completely rational, we get a situation like the French Revolution. So while few atrocities may actually be rational, through the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response many, many atrocities can be committed. The bolded part is actually the dictionary definition of Rationalism as a belief system.

[DiogoJorge]

People will always believe in a god. As they should, since one can draw strength from such beliefs. So, mostly good. Besides, it can't be a true religion if creates war. Any religion worth their salt, should never begin wars.

[Res]

 

4 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

So I guess there's nothing atrocious about getting rid of the following "irrational" things: 

Natural parks: all that land just sitting there doing nothing? What's rational about that? 

Endangered species: there's no rational reason one type of bird should be more valuable than another, so why don't we just let people shoot what they want to shoot? Why let emotional values get in the way? If one species is better at surviving than another, then the rational thing would be to let natural selection have its way, right?

Hospice care: they're going to die anyway. Lengthening things just wastes resources. People will be sad when they die regardless. Isn't euthanasia rational?

The fact of the matter is that humans are inherently irrational creatures. Our concepts of right and wrong, value, and even our very emotions are tied to that irrationality. When humans attempt to do that which they are incapable of and try to be completely rational, we get a situation like the French Revolution. So while few atrocities may actually be rational, through the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response many, many atrocities can be committed. The bolded part is actually the dictionary definition of Rationalism as a belief system.

The rational argument for keeping and maintaining natural parks and endangered species lies in their ecological value; scientists were amongst the first people to establish national parks, and science and national parks have had a symbiotic relationship forever. The land is not just sitting there doing nothing and no rationalist would even attempt to argue that. 

Your understanding of what is and isn't rational seems faulty here.

The rational argument for hospice care lies in the acknowledgement that human beings have personal autonomy. What does get debated is when the person themselves chooses euthanasia, or is rendered completely incapable of decision making, but that doesn't necessarily apply to people in hospice care. 

I'm not sure what your last paragraph is attempting to prove. In modern society many decisions, including the majority of current laws, are based upon reason and knowledge rather than religious belief or emotional response. 

3 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

People will always believe in a god. As they should, since one can draw strength from such beliefs. So, mostly good. Besides, it can't be a true religion if creates war. Any religion worth their salt, should never begin wars.

That one can draw strength from such beliefs in no way dictates that humans should believe in a god(s). It's also possible for people to be negatively affected by the belief in a god. Really, one's belief in a god should be an absolute personal matter. It's also tough to say to what degree religion is harmful/beneficial due to its inherent nature; it's virtually impossible to raise someone from birth to have a neutral stance on all belief systems.

[Shoblongoo]

Res did a pretty good job addressing the bulk of this post, but...

 

12 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

 

The fact of the matter is that humans are inherently irrational creatures. Our concepts of right and wrong, value, and even our very emotions are tied to that irrationality.

...this needs to be called out...

Humans are inherently rational and our concepts of "right" and "wrong" are constructs of reason. In the state-of-nature they do not exist.

We as thinking animals, so-far-as-we-know unique in our capacity for higher reason and ability to conceptualize moral concepts, deemed "right" and "wrong" to be things which exist for the purpose of elevating ourselves from the state of nature.

Why do we say a man who kills a woman's husband, kills their children, and then rapes the woman to make her bare his own has behaved immorally?

...Because a man has capacity to reason through the propriety of his actions--the ascertainable benefits to be gained and the harms to be inflicted by the nature and consequence of his acts--and to accordingly act or refrain from acting, or pursue an alternative course of conduct. 

Why don't we say a lion who kills a rival male, eats his cubs, and mates with his lioness has behaved immorally?

...Because a lion has no such capacity; It is a reasonless beast acting on irresistible impulse and feral instinct.  Knowing this, it strikes us as exceedingly odd to even consider the question of ascribing morality or immorality to the creature's actions.

Why do we hold insanity, reduced capacity, and mental defect to be full-and-complete defenses against charges that a man has committed a crime in carrying out an act of rape or murder?

...Because implicitly; we recognize the capacity-of-reason to appreciate the criminality of one's conduct to be an essential element of finding that one has committed a crime of moral turpitude.
___________

To divorce morality from rationality is to deny the very aspect of the human condition which allows morality to exist.

Without reason there is no right. There is no wrong.

There is only animals behaving like animals.
 
 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tetragrammaton]

21 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

People will always believe in a god. As they should, since one can draw strength from such beliefs. So, mostly good. Besides, it can't be a true religion if creates war. Any religion worth their salt, should never begin wars.

Wrong. Christian can not have that many believers like nowadays without wars.

[SullyMcGully]

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

To divorce morality from rationality is to deny the very aspect of the human condition which allows morality to exist.

Without reason there is no right. There is no wrong.

There is only animals behaving like animals.

Love, compassion, and guilt exist in spite of reason. And they are many times more apparent in humans than in animals. If animals were the only irrational creatures, we would expect them to be hopelessly emotional for no good reason, while we rational humans operated on a near-robotic level of uniformity. However, the last creature I saw cry over Ben and Jerry's after watching a sad movie was not my cat, but my sister. 

If we humans are supposed to be completely rational, then a lot of our actions don't make sense. Why is it that the humans in our world that do not display emotions are treated as tricky psychological cases? Shouldn't we see them as ideal citizens or as the pinnacle of evolutionary success? 

When somebody hurts me by accident, they say sorry. They say that so I won't be offended with them and so that they won't feel guilty. But why should they care? And why should I care that they care? To me, there's just too much that a purely rational view of humanity is unable to figure out. That's just my opinion, though.

[blah the Prussian]

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Res did a pretty good job addressing the bulk of this post, but...

 

...this needs to be called out...

Humans are inherently rational and our concepts of "right" and "wrong" are constructs of reason. In the state-of-nature they do not exist.

We as thinking animals, so-far-as-we-know unique in our capacity for higher reason and ability to conceptualize moral concepts, deemed "right" and "wrong" to be things which exist for the purpose of elevating ourselves from the state of nature.

Why do we say a man who kills a woman's husband, kills their children, and then rapes the woman to make her bare his own has behaved immorally?

...Because a man has capacity to reason through the propriety of his actions--the ascertainable benefits to be gained and the harms to be inflicted by the nature and consequence of his acts--and to accordingly act or refrain from acting, or pursue an alternative course of conduct. 

Why don't we say a lion who kills a rival male, eats his cubs, and mates with his lioness has behaved immorally?

...Because a lion has no such capacity; It is a reasonless beast acting on irresistible impulse and feral instinct.  Knowing this, it strikes us as exceedingly odd to even consider the question of ascribing morality or immorality to the creature's actions.

Why do we hold insanity, reduced capacity, and mental defect to be full-and-complete defenses against charges that a man has committed a crime in carrying out an act of rape or murder?

...Because implicitly; we recognize the capacity-of-reason to appreciate the criminality of one's conduct to be an essential element of finding that one has committed a crime of moral turpitude.
___________

To divorce morality from rationality is to deny the very aspect of the human condition which allows morality to exist.

Without reason there is no right. There is no wrong.

There is only animals behaving like animals.
 
 

So, with all this in mind, would you identify Reinhard Heydrich's rule over occupied Czechoslovakia to be irrational?

[DiogoJorge]

3 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Wrong. Christian can not have that many believers like nowadays without wars.

Why? I can believe just fine in a god whitout one.