Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Skynstein]

47 minutes ago, André The kid said:

Fair enough, but the fact that religion had a hand in it is something you just cannot deny.

I know you're, like, native Portuguese and thus you have a better understanding of it, but I don't think it's that simple... When it served the Church's interests, they had no issue with technological developments at all. The Inquisition was at full force in the 15th and 16th centuries, yet Portugal saw an unprecedented level of naval developments, because it would help the Church expand its zone of influence. As long as it didn't interfere in their dogmas (like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei did), the Church was fine with science and techonology.

[André The kid]

20 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

I know you're, like, native Portuguese and thus you have a better understanding of it, but I don't think it's that simple... When it served the Church's interests, they had no issue with technological developments at all. The Inquisition was at full force in the 15th and 16th centuries, yet Portugal saw an unprecedented level of naval developments, because it would help the Church expand its zone of influence. As long as it didn't interfere in their dogmas (like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei did), the Church was fine with science and techonology.

And that's exactly where the problem lies.

Edited May 29, 2017 by André The kid

[Res]

On 5/28/2017 at 2:44 AM, The_antithesis said:

However, it is often churches and mosques that spawn charities, not companies, and religion can still make us help where we would otherwise sit idly by. As for the current terrorist outbreak in the Middle East, there may be a religious conflict, but there is also oil in the area, which a lot of people want for their own gain. However, even if religion were causing more harm than good, it isn't worth taking effort to get rid of it, as this leads to genocide. The communists learned this the hard way.

So, overall, I think we should keep religion. Not because it is inherently good, but because it is so integral to the foundation of society that we have to rely on it.

I don't know that I'd consider religious charities as a plus, really.

Many are extremely problematic and there's a lot of evidence to suggest many do more harm than good. They span a number of issues - from excluding or campaigning against certain groups (many are anti-LGBT, for example), participating in harmful practices under a guise of good (adopting foreign babies, proselytizing/enforcing culture, controversies such as the complaints surrounding the late Mother Theresa) or being plain useless (a lot of 'mission trips' involve sending young people with no practical skills to countries to do work that would be best done by locals - and it would be far more beneficial if money was sent instead to pay locals to do the work). Medecins Sans Frontieres is regularly rated as a top charity and it's a non-religious charity. 

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Humans are almost exclusively followers, people need something bigger then them-self to believe in, it's been that way for a long time and I can't see it changing soon. If it's not a divine being, real or not, it's usually the state or an idol of some sort. Religion is a powerful ideology and it fulfills that need people have. So is it good or bad? It's hard to say because it varies greatly based on the religion in question and the changes it has undergone throughout history, but one thing is sure, it can unite people for both the greatest causes, and most terrible ones. In the end I would say it's more good then bad, because it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, much better then anything else has so far, for better or worse.

[Shoblongoo]

12 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

Humans are almost exclusively followers, people need something bigger then them-self to believe in, it's been that way for a long time and I can't see it changing soon. If it's not a divine being, real or not, it's usually the state or an idol of some sort. Religion is a powerful ideology and it fulfills that need people have. So is it good or bad? It's hard to say because it varies greatly based on the religion in question and the changes it has undergone throughout history, but one thing is sure, it can unite people for both the greatest causes, and most terrible ones. In the end I would say it's more good then bad, because it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, much better then anything else has so far, for better or worse.

...that's a powerful point. And one that usually plays out as an argument in support of religion.

I would argue, however, it is greatly preferable to have the state in this capacity. That religion ceased to be a boon and instead became a burden as soon as the idea of “the state” emerged as an independent institution, and religion sought to curb the development of the state so as to preserve its own power as the central gatekeeper of law and morality and education and social norms.

Because the nature of religion is that it does what it does by assertion of divine authority. Divine authority is unchangeable. Divine authority is unimpeachable. Rule by divine authority cannot be adapted to the needs of a developing society—developing society has to be adapted to the rules of divine authority. And an attack on the rules is tantamount to an attack on the religious institution itself, because the supposed divine origin and infallibility of the rules is the source of the institution's power.  

Whereas the state is the product of the society that produces it. The authority of the state is grounded in its functionality. And the sum of good governance is understood to be a set of rules that optimizes the conditions under which people can live freely and prosperously; a rule that ceases to perform this function is no longer a good rule, and its rational-basis-at-law can be challenged until the rule changes. For it is not the dogmatic truth of the rule itself from which The State draws its authority, but rather the capacity to make rules.

…by way of example…

This is the difference between a society that says homosexuality is a crime because it serves the rational-basis-at-law of promoting public health and morality eventually going “…upon further review…the negative health risks we once presumed were caused by homosexuality itself actually appear to be caused by the manner in which homosexuals have long been stigmatized and pushed to the fringes of society. It is in the interest of public health to end this stigmatization. We find no independent grounds for concluding homosexuality is objectively harmful, in such a way as to justify the idea that The State has a moral interest in criminalizing it. The law is changed.” And the state goes on.

...vs. a society that says homosexuality is a crime because "the LORD hath said it is a sin and abomination; cursed is the nation that allows it!" And, consequently, can never, ever, ever, ever move beyond the idea that homosexuality is a crime--not without blowing up its central institution and inviting anarchy.   
 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Camus The Dark Knight]

On 5/31/2017 at 3:29 PM, Shoblongoo said:

...that's a powerful point. And one that usually plays out as an argument in support of religion.

I would argue, however, it is greatly preferable to have the state in this capacity. That religion ceased to be a boon and instead became a burden as soon as the idea of “the state” emerged as an independent institution, and religion sought to curb the development of the state so as to preserve its own power as the central gatekeeper of law and morality and education and social norms.

Because the nature of religion is that it does what it does by assertion of divine authority. Divine authority is unchangeable. Divine authority is unimpeachable. Rule by divine authority cannot be adapted to the needs of a developing society—developing society has to be adapted to the rules of divine authority. And an attack on the rules is tantamount to an attack on the religious institution itself, because the supposed divine origin and infallibility of the rules is the source of the institution's power.  

Whereas the state is the product of the society that produces it. The authority of the state is grounded in its functionality. And the sum of good governance is understood to be a set of rules that optimizes the conditions under which people can live freely and prosperously; a rule that ceases to perform this function is no longer a good rule, and its rational-basis-at-law can be challenged until the rule changes. For it is not the dogmatic truth of the rule itself from which The State draws its authority, but rather the capacity to make rules.

…by way of example…

This is the difference between a society that says homosexuality is a crime because it serves the rational-basis-at-law of promoting public health and morality eventually going “…upon further review…the negative health risks we once presumed were caused by homosexuality itself actually appear to be caused by the manner in which homosexuals have long been stigmatized and pushed to the fringes of society. It is in the interest of public health to end this stigmatization. We find no independent grounds for concluding homosexuality is objectively harmful, in such a way as to justify the idea that The State has a moral interest in criminalizing it. The law is changed.” And the state goes on.

...vs. a society that says homosexuality is a crime because "the LORD hath said it is a sin and abomination; cursed is the nation that allows it!" And, consequently, can never, ever, ever, ever move beyond the idea that homosexuality is a crime--not without blowing up its central institution and inviting anarchy.   
 

"Divine Authority" can and has been changed, many times throughout history now. For a long time the church and state were a single entity, and still are in some places (such as Saudi Arabia for example), it's a rather recent movement separating them, it's only a few hundred years old (not long as far as human-history goes). I wanted to point that out in that because of this, the "rules" laid out are often interpreted and taught by those in power to further their own, or societies, goals. With the separation of church and state, it has opened up choices for people, society (those that have separated them anyway) no longer *force* you to worship someone or something.

It comes down to individual preference. Some people prefer the rigid solidarity of a set of commands provided by a divine being (essentially the highest authority) because they feel more comfortable, or fulfilled, knowing exactly what to live by. While others prefer something that is more flexible, which the state fills as it is not bound by divine authority when making it's laws. When it comes to religion there is more to it then "religion = rigid, state = flexible", but my meaning is those are the appeals.

In terms of the homosexuality topic, state rules are often for society due to them being more lax while religious rules are often personal. That's why you could have a die-hard religious person who believes homosexuality is a sin live next to a gay couple in countries where church and state are separate without a huge issue other then the neighbors annoying each-other. And why countries that are controlled by one (such as religion in places like Saudi Arabia, or the state in places like North Korea) are often terrible places to live.

Err that was hard to type my thoughts out without sounding retarded, so I apologize if it reads a little wonky.

[salt_png]

To add my opinion, while it is rather outlandish and probably offensive, but all religion is bad, and while it might have done some good in the past we don't need it now. Not with all these extremists floating around. I am a firm believer of all things science, and I'd rather conduct myself without the need to read through some holy book. 

In saying this, I was almost brainwashed into following some form of faith from my parents, and am attending a catholic school, so my distaste for a higher being may also come from a rebellious teenager also.

[Res]

15 hours ago, GirlWithNoName said:

In saying this, I was almost brainwashed into following some form of faith from my parents, and am attending a catholic school, so my distaste for a higher being may also come from a rebellious teenager also.

I definitely see distaste for religion coming from ex-religious people, whereas the people I've known to be non-religious all their lives often have quite warm feelings towards religion.

[eclipse]

24 minutes ago, Res said:

I definitely see distaste for religion coming from ex-religious people, whereas the people I've known to be non-religious all their lives often have quite warm feelings towards religion.

People don't leave something like religion over really minor things - thus, ex-religious people being bitter about religion shouldn't be a surprise.  Think of it as "hey, how do you feel about (insert person here)?"  (insert person here)'s ex-boyfriend/girlfriend probably won't have a lot of good things to say, especially if their break-up was on bad terms.

[Res]

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

People don't leave something like religion over really minor things - thus, ex-religious people being bitter about religion shouldn't be a surprise.  Think of it as "hey, how do you feel about (insert person here)?"  (insert person here)'s ex-boyfriend/girlfriend probably won't have a lot of good things to say, especially if their break-up was on bad terms.

Not a surprise to me personally (although I do actually belong to the rare group of people who left religion for no particular big reason) but I've often come across people who don't understand why people are sometimes anti-religion, and I've also seen it misunderstood that people are anti-religion because they haven't been exposed to religion/had militant atheist parents. 

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Res said:

Not a surprise to me personally (although I do actually belong to the rare group of people who left religion for no particular big reason) but I've often come across people who don't understand why people are sometimes anti-religion, and I've also seen it misunderstood that people are anti-religion because they haven't been exposed to religion/had militant atheist parents. 

I see both sides, where the anti-religion people think that religion is the scourge of the Earth, while the religious people think that the anti-religion people are out of touch with reality.  I don't think either side is correct.  This is one of those things where actual discussion - not judgment - would benefit everyone.

[Nobody]

4 hours ago, Res said:

I definitely see distaste for religion coming from ex-religious people, whereas the people I've known to be non-religious all their lives often have quite warm feelings towards religion.

 

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

People don't leave something like religion over really minor things - thus, ex-religious people being bitter about religion shouldn't be a surprise.  Think of it as "hey, how do you feel about (insert person here)?"  (insert person here)'s ex-boyfriend/girlfriend probably won't have a lot of good things to say, especially if their break-up was on bad terms.

I was born and raised Catholic but as a teen I became an atheist, which i am to this day, and i hold no hard feeling against catholicism. Most of what i remember seeing on masses (which okay, bored me to death and i never payed any attention to, so i don't really know), preparation for eucharisty or the catholic (but very secular) middle school i went to were positive messages and i legitimately don't remember of hateful messages coming from them.

The only reason i stopped being catholic was not believing in god and diverging views on society that i think wouldn't really stop me from being catholic if i believed in god.

Edit: i see res sort of had a somewhat similar experience to mine, but honestly, i don't really think this is particularly rare.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Nobody

[SullyMcGully]

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." - Brennan Manning

People often wonder how a religion that is supposed to make people better can be full of hypocrites. To those within a religion (especially Christianity), the fact that so many participants have a phony faith life can be extremely off putting. Indeed, it's been hard for me to stay rooted in my faith as I've learned just how flawed many of the people who influenced me to become a Christian in the first place actually are. Ultimately, however, Christianity is a faith rooted in a perfect Person, and not a bunch of perfect people. However, we cannot expect people to know that if all they see when they look at Christianity is a bunch of hypocrites.

I know that's how it is for Christianity. I can't vouch for other religions though.

[Rapier]

I don't see much sense in claiming that religion is bad because of the bad things it did and thus is more harmful than good/should disappear. While it is true that bad things were wrought by religion, it is also true for good things. A good idea is not to be discarded simply because of poor executions, unless it is faulty by principle. The good part of religion can be capitalized in order to fix the wrongdoings and maximize benefits. If anything, that is the path that religion has been taking (or, at least, christianity, when compared to its past). That is what reforms are for.

 

6 hours ago, Res said:

I definitely see distaste for religion coming from ex-religious people, whereas the people I've known to be non-religious all their lives often have quite warm feelings towards religion.

My problem is less with religion and more with self-righteous pseudointelectual zealots trying to bash their opinions at you because they're in a so high-and-mighty pedestal and you are a mere uneducated heathen in their eyes. The amount of people who I met that fit in this criteria made me adopt a stance to fend off against them, which includes defending myself from their arguments and beliefs and countering those. Since it includes refuting religious claims and arguments, I can't really help but adopt a defensive/counter stance when religion is brought to the table, but I try to be reasonable or skip the matter entirely when the other person shows decency.

[Jotari]

On July 7, 2017 at 0:25 PM, GirlWithNoName said:

To add my opinion, while it is rather outlandish and probably offensive, but all religion is bad, and while it might have done some good in the past we don't need it now. Not with all these extremists floating around. I am a firm believer of all things science, and I'd rather conduct myself without the need to read through some holy book. 

In saying this, I was almost brainwashed into following some form of faith from my parents, and am attending a catholic school, so my distaste for a higher being may also come from a rebellious teenager also.

Don't need religion to have extremists. Mao and Stalin proved that.

[Tetragrammaton]

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Don't need religion to have extremists. Mao and Stalin proved that.

I think it is the other way around, Mao was extremist because he was anti-religion.

So religion is still the reason for bad things.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, hanhnn said:

I think it is the other way around, Mao was extremist because he was anti-religion.

So religion is still the reason for bad things.

...okay, by that logic humans evolving is the reason for all bad things, so we should have never evolved. Seriously, you can't blame religion for atrocities committed trying to destroy religion.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, hanhnn said:

I think it is the other way around, Mao was extremist because he was anti-religion.

So religion is still the reason for bad things.

You can easily flip that statement around. Religious zealots are only extremist because they're anti-other faiths. So other faiths are the reason for bad things. It's also massively simplifying Mao's beliefs. Anti-religion is only a small part of his policies.

[Skynstein]

Communists were anti-religion because anti-religiosity was one of the pivotal points in Marxism. It's one of the ideological media supported by society's economic infrastructure and acts in justification of it, thereby it should be eliminated with the rest of the social pillars of capitalist society. In the name of communism they did some really terrible things against religious people.

[Jotari]

42 minutes ago, Skynstein said:

Communists were anti-religion because anti-religiosity was one of the pivotal points in Marxism. It's one of the ideological media supported by society's economic infrastructure and acts in justification of it, thereby it should be eliminated with the rest of the social pillars of capitalist society. In the name of communism they did some really terrible things against religious people.

Oh I'm not denying that. But it's not as simple as, "They did terrible things because they didn't like religion". They did terrible things to religious people because organised religion was a threat to ideology. They also did plenty of terrible things to non religious people (and people within their own party). There's loads of things they didn't like. It wasn't an exclusively anti-religious movement.

18 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

...okay, by that logic humans evolving is the reason for all bad things, so we should have never evolved. Seriously, you can't blame religion for atrocities committed trying to destroy religion.

You know there actually is a group of people that genuinely believe that a support the extinction of the human race. Not by like genocidal means (because that would be massively difficult)  but by encouraging people not to breed (I'm personally very against the idea, humans rock!). 

[Skynstein]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Oh I'm not denying that. But it's not as simple as, "They did terrible things because they didn't like religion". They did terrible things to religious people because organised religion was a threat to ideology. They also did plenty of terrible things to non religious people (and people within their own party). There's loads of things they didn't like. It wasn't an exclusively anti-religious movement.

Well I agree with you, but my argument was more like, "they were anti-religious because religion was one of the pillars of the order they wanted to change".

In a way, I simply see too much of communism in social justice movements spawning all over the globe. These people are dangerously close to ultraconservatives when they support ideological control over mass culture, it's just the things they want to control and censor are different from those that concern the conservatives, though I identify some convergence when it comes to exploitation and cheap pleasure/fun. Liberals consider them degrading to the subjects taking part in it, while conservatives regard them as degrading to the audience.

[Shoblongoo]

On 7/7/2017 at 7:53 PM, Nobody said:

The only reason i stopped being catholic was not believing in god and diverging views on society

Res sort of had a somewhat similar experience to mine...i don't really think this is particularly rare.

...stopped going to synagogue and identifying as a practicing Jew for pretty much the same reason...

Something to consider.

Statistically speaking; there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity. That is to say, the more a person learns,the less likely they are to believe in God or identify with the belief system of an organized religion. In this sense it is a rather common thing for Disbelief and Atheism to develop later on in life, after an initially religious upbringing.

Whereas religion is generally imbued in early childhood. Most religious people are religious because they were raised in religious families and instructed they must believe what the family believes:

"We practice Judaism in this Family. You are a Jew."
"We follow Islam in this Family. You are a Muslim."
"We praise Christ in this Family. You are a Catholic."

And it is a comparatively rare thing for one with no religious upbringing later on in life, through their own learning and life experience, to decide: This way I was raised does not make sense to me. I  want to believe; I want to live a godly life.        

...rarer still that a secular family would bury a child and excommunicate them from the family for their decision to become religious.(but comparatively common for a religious family to have this reaction to a child that decided to renounce their faith)

So I would say it is a rather common thing for people to leave the religion of their upbringing for "no big reason," beyond that as they grew and matured they just decided: it wasn't for them. It was a thing their parents made them believe when they were little that as grown adults, they just can't subscribe to or see as an important part of their life.

Where it becomes catastrophic, and where you see persons having major falling-outs with their faith, is where the religious family takes it particularly harshly. 

...this is where you see people who've spent your entire life telling you that they love you and support you and assuring you that Faith is a beautiful thing that brings people together + gives them good moral fiber acting in the most vicious, divisive, irrational, and self-destructive manner. Like completely different people. All under the pretense of serving some greater good.     

And this is where on the most deeply personal level, many who leave their faiths come to the conclusion that religion isn't just silly or irrational. Its dangerous. It closes the heart and mind and drowns out compassion and critical thinking, and makes otherwise-good and reasonable people behave like stark raving lunatics. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

And this is where on the most deeply personal level, many who leave their faiths come to the conclusion that religion isn't just silly or irrational. Its dangerous. It closes the heart and mind and drowns out compassion and critical thinking, and makes otherwise-good and reasonable people behave like stark raving lunatics. 

Are you done insulting those that follow a religion?

[Lord Raven]

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Are you done insulting those that follow a religion?

I don't quite think he was trying to do that. He used statistical (albeit unsourced) correlations to draw his conclusions. He definitely didn't say "all" either, just that religion is used to justify some dangerous and hypocritical stuff. Those that leave feel that it is dangerous, those who are more educated are less religious because they think more critically about what their parents said to them growing up, etc.

And in some cases, people left because of how insanely creepy parts of religion can be.

[eclipse]

17 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I don't quite think he was trying to do that. He used statistical (albeit unsourced) correlations to draw his conclusions. He definitely didn't say "all" either, just that religion is used to justify some dangerous and hypocritical stuff. Those that leave feel that it is dangerous, those who are more educated are less religious because they think more critically about what their parents said to them growing up, etc.

And in some cases, people left because of how insanely creepy parts of religion can be.

Reread what I quoted.  I made it a point to highlight that for a reason - even while trying to justify why people leave (while using no sources, which is shoddy case-building), calling people who follow a religion "stark-raving lunatics" is insulting.  Lawyers choose their words for a reason.

Will people who choose to leave religion be bitter?  Some will (my gut says it's the majority, but eh).  Can religion get really creepy?  Of course.  Does this guy speak for everyone?  Absolutely not.  Just as there's a plethora of reasons why people choose to follow a religion, there's a plethora of reasons why people leave.  And just like an ex, I would hope that people come to terms with it, and move on with their lives.