Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

From what I understand the Galileo thing has been very misrepresented.

<Snip>

It's less a point about Galileo specifically as it is about how religion has, in the past, had capacity the capacity to be both pro and anti-science. If you'd like another comparison, for every Albert Einstein there's a Duane Gish.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

The Catholic Church has supported the theory of evolution and climate change science for many years and openly done so, though other flavourings of religion may often be not as kind. They are at least somewhat accommodating for science. Take Neil deGrasse Tyson's word for it.

I mean, yes. But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Coming back to the point I made, the church and the monasteries, they proved vital to the preservation and development of science and literature. However, this didn't really have much to do with them being Christian specifically as much as it was them being the only ones in the position to do so. The connection between religion and science is, despite being highly important, mostly circumstantial.

In regards to the modern day, religion and the church has significantly less (if any) influence over the field of science itself, especially considering the increasing secularisation of society, whereas religion has a direct influence on anti-science beliefs such as denial of evolution i.e. religion's impact on pro-science beliefs is increasingly circumstantial and indirect, whereas anti-science positions are increasingly stemming directly from religious beliefs.

[FionordeQuester]

53 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

All Roman Emperors were only deified after their deaths. The ones that tried to be worshipped as Gods while living, such as Elagabulus, tended to not last long. Again, the Romans were relatively tolerant of other religions in that you could worship your gods basically as long as you acknowledged the existence of theirs, which, while not ideal, was better than the Jews and, yes, the Christians. What makes worshipping dead Emperors worse than worshipping other Gods, anyway?

The point is, Christianity was nowhere near the dominant religion at the time it came into being.  Instead, the Romans put their faith in their government, and the Jews put their faith in their understanding of the old Mosaic covenant.  And yet, Christians were still willing to co-exist within their own societies, despite them being the minority.  Because, as stated by 1 Corinthians 13:4-5...

⁴ Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud ⁵ or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. (New Living Translation)

So, the true Christian should not need violence in order to be secure in their faith.  That's the point I was getting at when I entered this thread  .

Quote

See, that's the case with a good deal of religion, though. Zoroastrianism survives today despite persecution by Islam, for example. Judaism has survived much longer than Christianity. However Christians were still very much a minority in Europe before, during, and after Constantine. I don't think Christianity would have been completely eradicated, but it would not have spread without state sponsorship.

Again, that would've arguably been for the better.  If there's one thing our government has proven to me, time and time again, it's that they tend to botch whatever "duties" it takes on.  And from the way you describe it, it's spreading of Christianity was no different.  It sounds as though they "succeeded" only in the sense that they got more "followers" to "convert".  But in doing so, they ended up warping the very character of Jesus; and to the true Christ-follower, no amount of cultural popularity is worth that.

As a general rule, the more popular a system of thought becomes, the more likely it is that someone will abuse it (whether that be Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church, Stalin, Jim Jones, Mao Zedong...the list goes on).

Edited September 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

43 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

The point is, Christianity was nowhere near the dominant religion at the time it came into being.  Instead, the Romans put their faith in their government, and the Jews put their faith in their understanding of the old Mosaic covenant.  And yet, Christians were still willing to co-exist within their own societies, despite them being the minority.  Because, as stated by 1 Corinthians 13:4-5...

⁴ Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud ⁵ or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. (New Living Translation)

So, the true Christian should not need violence in order to be secure in their faith.  That's the point I was getting at when I entered this thread  .

Again, that would've arguably been for the better.  If there's one thing our government has proven to me, time and time again, it's that they tend to botch whatever "duties" it takes on.  And from the way you describe it, it's spreading of Christianity was no different.  It sounds as though they "succeeded" only in the sense that they got more "followers" to "convert".  But in doing so, they ended up warping the very character of Jesus; and to the true Christ-follower, no amount of cultural popularity is worth that.

As a general rule, the more popular a system of thought becomes, the more likely it is that someone will abuse it (whether that be Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church, Stalin, Jim Jones, Mao Zedong...the list goes on).

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I will emphasize that holding up Jesus et al as true Christians while the rest were corrupted is potentially dangerous as by this logic no one right now is a true Christian; the religion has changed so much and not just after Constantine's conversion.

[FionordeQuester]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I will emphasize that holding up Jesus et al as true Christians while the rest were corrupted is potentially dangerous as by this logic no one right now is a true Christian; the religion has changed so much and not just after Constantine's conversion.

That's...part of the doctrine of Christ really. In fact, the Bible itself flat out TOLD use it was already happening even in the days of the Apostles...

Quote

3 Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people. 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

And besides that, even sincere believers aren't perfect mirrors of Christ.  Again, as the Bible says...

Quote

"Everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.  Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight" (Romans 3:23-24)

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.  Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.  For we are God’s masterpiece.  He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago." (Ephesians 2:8)

Technically, I'm not a true Christian either; at least not in the sense that I perfectly emulate Jesus's love and compassion for all.  This is a huge part of WHY humility is possible, despite our claims to know the truth. 

I mean...I can still be certain of things that are plainly written in the Bible itself.  And for things that aren't, I can at least debate other Christians on which of our vision's seem to most accurately line-up with what Christ intended in areas such as sex, public preaching, charity, how we spend our money, our attitude towards the poor, and etc...

And yet, I can never claim moral superiority over them.  And I most certainly do not have the right to dictate what they do, or have the right to believe.  In fact, I don't even have the right to claim superiority over pagans either.  Because as the Bible ALSO says...

Quote

⁷ Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. Anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. ⁸ But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

The eyes of the Lord search the whole earth in order to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. (2 Chronicles 16:9)

If only our churches reinforced these principles more often  ...

Edited September 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[Tetragrammaton]

17 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

That's...part of the doctrine of Christ really. 

"Everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.  Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight" (Romans 3:23-24)

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.  Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.  For we are God’s masterpiece.  He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago." (Ephesians 2:8)

Technically, I'm not a true Christian either; at least not in the sense that I perfectly emulate Jesus's love and compassion for all.  This is a huge part of WHY humility is possible, despite our claims to know the truth. 

I mean...I can still debate other Christians on which of our vision's seem to most accurately line-up with what Christ intended in areas such as sex, public preaching, charity, how we spend our money, our attitude towards the poor, and etc...but I can never claim moral superiority over them.  And I most certainly do not have the right to dictate what they do, or have the right to believe.  That's where our Church has so often gone wrong  ...

Did you ever eat bread and wine while pretending they are flesh and blood of Jesus?

[FionordeQuester]

4 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

Did you ever eat bread and wine while pretending they are flesh and blood of Jesus?

Yessir, I did. 

It was...awkward in a few ways when I first did so (and was probably ESPECIALLY awkward for Judaists who'd been trained to avoid exactly that kind of thing); but in other ways I was touched he'd seriously go THAT far to save me. The fact that he loved me SO much, that we was willing to basically disintegrate himself to save li'l old me...

But yeah, a lot of Biblical imagery is pretty wild; which is, IMO, part of what makes it's writings so strong.

Edited September 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

Well no, not just in the sense of actions, but in the sense of actual religious doctrine.

[FionordeQuester]

Again, no argument there  .

Anyway, if Christianity has become so radically different from it's roots, that I can no longer talk about Jesus's teachings without talking about something entirely different...then what do you think I should call what I'm talking about?  "The way of Christ"?  "Followers of Christ"?  "True Christianity"?  I'm not sure what else I'd call it that wouldn't sound too weird.

Edited September 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[Tetragrammaton]

10 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

Again, no argument there  .

Anyway, if Christianity has become so radically different from it's roots, that I can no longer talk about Jesus's teachings without talking about something entirely different...then what do you think I should call what I'm talking about?  "The way of Christ"?  "Followers of Christ"?  "True Christianity"?  I'm not sure what else I'd call it that wouldn't sound too weird.

Jesus was a good man. Even the Muslims admit it.

 

[Tryhard]

9 hours ago, Magus of Flowers said:

It's less a point about Galileo specifically as it is about how religion has, in the past, had capacity the capacity to be both pro and anti-science. If you'd like another comparison, for every Albert Einstein there's a Duane Gish.

I mean, yes. But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Coming back to the point I made, the church and the monasteries, they proved vital to the preservation and development of science and literature. However, this didn't really have much to do with them being Christian specifically as much as it was them being the only ones in the position to do so. The connection between religion and science is, despite being highly important, mostly circumstantial.

In regards to the modern day, religion and the church has significantly less (if any) influence over the field of science itself, especially considering the increasing secularisation of society, whereas religion has a direct influence on anti-science beliefs such as denial of evolution i.e. religion's impact on pro-science beliefs is increasingly circumstantial and indirect, whereas anti-science positions are increasingly stemming directly from religious beliefs.

It's just that Galileo is always the first to be brought up even though it's likely his story with the Catholic church was embellished well after his time for people to make the church look as bad as possible. I understand that they would not have always acted in a pro-science way, but I'd wager they did so more often than not. Of all the problems the church has had, official views on science are probably far down the list of issues in my opinion. Any individual religious person being anti-science is not really indicative of the official stance of an organisation like the Catholic church. For other denominations of Christians or religions, it becomes more murky.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

12 hours ago, Tryhard said:

From what I understand the Galileo thing has been very misrepresented.

Any claims of him being tortured are as far as I know fabricated. He was kept under house arrest until the end of his life and treated well, while yes the situation was not exactly benevolent on the part of the Catholic Church, but the thing that has often been ignored is that he attempted to "prove" scripture being incorrect on his own accord for something which he had provided no conclusive proof of, from what I understand of it. He was initially cleared of the accusation of heresy but continued to pursue heliocentricism. It's worth noting that there were many scientists on both sides of this heliocentricism argument at the time, and none of them seemed to be facing the same trials Galileo did.

The Catholic Church has supported the theory of evolution and climate change science for many years and openly done so, though other flavourings of religion may often be not as kind. They are at least somewhat accommodating for science. Take Neil deGrasse Tyson's word for it.

Wow. That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[eclipse]

On 9/21/2017 at 8:13 PM, Magus of Flowers said:

In regards to the modern day, religion and the church has significantly less (if any) influence over the field of science itself, especially considering the increasing secularisation of society, whereas religion has a direct influence on anti-science beliefs such as denial of evolution i.e. religion's impact on pro-science beliefs is increasingly circumstantial and indirect, whereas anti-science positions are increasingly stemming directly from religious beliefs.

I'd say half of this is accurate.  Yes, I believe that religion isn't fueling science, since religious institutions no longer have a lock on books and the like.  However, people don't need to be religious to reject science.  Perhaps those who are wont to reject certain beliefs are more likely to gravitate towards religion.  Perhaps those who are religious apply the same logic behind their faith to science, when the two are very different matters entirely.  Most likely it's something that I haven't thought of.

Regardless, I don't think the anti-science stance is as simple as you're making it out to be.  I wish it was, though.

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

However, people don't need to be religious to reject science.  Perhaps those who are wont to reject certain beliefs are more likely to gravitate towards religion.  Perhaps those who are religious apply the same logic behind their faith to science, when the two are very different matters entirely.  Most likely it's something that I haven't thought of.

Of course not, although it varies from issue to issue. For instance, someone who denies evolution is almost certainly a Young-Earth Creationist, whereas an anti-vaxxer is more likely to be a conspiracy theorist than a religious nut.

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

Regardless, I don't think the anti-science stance is as simple as you're making it out to be.  I wish it was, though.

Certainly not, otherwise Ben Carson wouldn't be a neurosurgeon. I'm simply trying to get my general view across rather than writing a 15k word analysis on the matter i.e. Religion doesn't fuel science, but it can (and often does) fuel anti-science views.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[eclipse]

Just now, Magus of Flowers said:

Of course not, although it varies from issue to issue. For instance, someone who denies evolution is almost certainly a Young-Earth Creationist, whereas an anti-vaxxer is more likely to be a conspiracy theorist than a religious nut.

The difference is that someone denying evolution isn't placing other people's lives in danger.  Likewise, there's climate change denial, which may or may not have roots/justification in religion.

However, there are certain religions that advocate no vaccines (among other equally inane things).

That's why attempting to correlate science/religious beliefs is horribly messy.  It's also why I don't support broad generalizations about that relationship.

[Time the Crestfallen]

23 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The difference is that someone denying evolution isn't placing other people's lives in danger.  Likewise, there's climate change denial, which may or may not have roots/justification in religion.

I mean, we could run down the whole list of anti-science views, but that isn't going to get us anywhere.

23 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That's why attempting to correlate science/religious beliefs is horribly messy.  It's also why I don't support broad generalizations about that relationship.

There's a difference between 'general view' and 'generalisation'. When I say I'm giving a general view I'm just giving a brief overview of the stance I've taken because I don't really want to go into the necessary depth needed to explain my view in-detail without prompting. When you say 'generalisation' you make is sound like I'm arguing absolutes, like I'm saying anti-science only stems from religious views.

[eclipse]

Just now, Magus of Flowers said:

I mean, we could run down the whole list of anti-science views, but that isn't going to get us anywhere.

There's a difference between 'general view' and 'generalisation'. When I say I'm giving a general view I'm just giving a brief overview of the stance I've taken because I don't really want to go into the necessary depth needed to explain my view in-detail without prompting. When you say 'generalisation' you make is sound like I'm arguing absolutes, like I'm saying anti-science only stems from religious views.

While having a general stance is great for explaining it in three sentences (because the other party would rather talk about a football game), this is Serious Discussion.  If I think your stance is riddled with "except for this situation" clauses, I will tell you so.  Notice how I only hit one part of your argument - that's because the other part doesn't have that issue.

Regardless, it's a complicated topic, and I feel it should be acknowledged as such.  Part of the issue regarding anti-intellectualism IMO is over-simplification.

[Time the Crestfallen]

24 minutes ago, eclipse said:

While having a general stance is great for explaining it in three sentences (because the other party would rather talk about a football game), this is Serious Discussion.  If I think your stance is riddled with "except for this situation" clauses, I will tell you so.  Notice how I only hit one part of your argument - that's because the other part doesn't have that issue.

Regardless, it's a complicated topic, and I feel it should be acknowledged as such.  Part of the issue regarding anti-intellectualism IMO is over-simplification.

Yeah, that's a fair cop, although I still think the correlation is there.

[KPOP]

i am not a fan of religions , none specific but in general

why?
i feel people who were born in any religious family often experience like they have to be a certain way and if they are not that, they won't be accepted that easily anymore by their family or religious  friends
and i think that is stupid because it makes them people who want something else (something that is not allowed in their religion) bitter , frustrated, sad, angry etc and if it wasn't for them being born into such family, they probably be a totally different person 

i think people should be allowed to be 100% free , it is their body, their life
and the fact some religions still want to be in control of who you marry or are against gay marriage and many other things that takes away your freedom.....  i just cannot imagine how it must be to have to cope with that, especially if you do not agree with the rules and ways of your parents religion

Edited October 24, 2017 by KPOP

[Tryhard]

My concern is the rise of so-called anti-theists who would think less of people if they found they were religious. What I really have to wonder is if these people realise that most of the world is at least somewhat religiously affiliated if not devoutly. It is extremely likely that there is someone in the people they respect, either in the public eye or in their own family that is religious. And yet these people would wish religion gone, a significant part of these peoples' being.

Growing up in a rigidly religious home where you clash with your family because of religion could certainly feed into those feelings, but it would be important to distinguish that would not be every religious family. I get why people would be jilted by religion and turn away from it, but I still don't see why you would want it gone.

I'll give an example, a few years ago I was watching a trending video on youtube about a elderly woman "regaining" her memory and remembering her daughter during the video. I'm not exactly clear what she had, be it Alzheimer's or dementia or something else entirely. The daughter of this woman was religious, and so put the video title as something along the lines of "God made my mother remember" or something to that effect. Youtube comments are a dumpster fire at the best of time, but it was no longer about the contents of the video, it was about how stupid this woman was for being religious because her mother got this condition in the first place and mocking her for being so. The majority were pretty much like that. I thought, if this is the kind of supposed 'humanism' these people are advocating for by wishing for the destruction of religion, then I honestly want no part of that type of callousness and nihilism.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Tryhard

[Tetragrammaton]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

"God made my mother remember"

Isn't it obvious that God need to erase her brain before God can make her remember anything?

[Moblin Major General]

57 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

Isn't it obvious that God need to erase her brain before God can make her remember anything?

A pastor of mine said that his mother, in the final stages of Alzheimer's, once asked a nurse if she had heard about God. A woman who didn't even know who her family was or what day it was still had knowledge of something as mentally complex as religion. I would sure be glad if the last thing I remembered as I lay dying was Jesus. Don't knock miracles, it's in poor taste.

[Phoenix Wright]

23 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

A pastor of mine said that his mother, in the final stages of Alzheimer's, once asked a nurse if she had heard about God. A woman who didn't even know who her family was or what day it was still had knowledge of something as mentally complex as religion. I would sure be glad if the last thing I remembered as I lay dying was Jesus. Don't knock miracles, it's in poor taste.

she also still knew english from the sound of it.

you're speaking about something the world's experts know very little about. you (likely) know next to nothing of how the brain works, more subtly how memories work or alzheimer's. in classic religious-person fashion, you attribute this unknown to the possibility of some universal being. your logic, and indeed the pastor's, is fundamentally flawed and probably based little in fact to begin with. 

rather, don't knock science; it's in poor taste.

edit: if you think i'm being too harsh, i suppose i can see that. but people need to be curious. you can't just say, "wow, god!" when you don't understand something. if we did that collectively as a species we'd still be using stone tools.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Moblin Major General]

30 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

edit: if you think i'm being too harsh, i suppose i can see that. but people need to be curious. you can't just say, "wow, god!" when you don't understand something. if we did that collectively as a species we'd still be using stone tools.

At the same time, I'd rather not someone a la Adam Ruins Everything come in and try to invalidate my faith by saying it's nothing more than a chemical reaction in my brain triggered by a Pavlovian routine. You are one of the people Tryhard was talking about when he said anti theists are a problem, as if the faith itself is a problem.

[Phoenix Wright]

you're putting words in my mouth. i never claimed anything you said. what i am saying is stop attributing what you don't know to god. you'll never learn anything doing that.

i don't care if you're religious and i don't hate religious people. there are unfortunately many atheists who have similarly flawed logic to back up their beliefs (across many fields, not just religion).

also, for the record, even if everything we think about is the result of chemical reactions, that doesn't actually detract from the beauty of life or what have you. 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

18 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're putting words in my mouth. i never claimed anything you said. what i am saying is stop attributing what you don't know to god. you'll never learn anything doing that.

i don't care if you're religious and i don't hate religious people. there are unfortunately many atheists who have similarly flawed logic to back up their beliefs (across many fields, not just religion).

also, for the record, even if everything we think about is the result of chemical reactions, that doesn't actually detract from the beauty of life or what have you.

then what is appropriate to attribute to god if you are a believer? the common sentiment is that god would be above human understanding

I don't think you hate religious people, but do you hate the concept of religion? I've expressed my own opinion that I specifically dislike what organised religion does quite a bit, and that I would see a spiritual bond with a higher power as a personal thing.

it's good to see beauty no matter your religious affiliation, but that's a matter of perspective

Edited October 25, 2017 by Tryhard