Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Phoenix Wright]

any belief that is not the result of measurable phenomena can be attributed to god without me caring. in other words, inherently subjective beliefs, philosophies, morals, etc. can be attributed to god. the bible does serve as a moral compass for some people. the beauty of a rainbow does serve as a source of spirituality for people. but rainbows are not the result of god. it's okay to attribute the philosophical creation of all things to god. that stuff is not knowable.

it's not okay to attribute observable phenomena to some higher power. for example, had we thought that photons (ie, light) needed a medium to propagate through space like sound does (it needs air), we'd still believe in luminiferous aether. we actively restrain ourselves from understanding the physical world when we conflate the presently unknown to inherently unknowable. 

i despise organized religion. however you feel about god and stuff is irrelevant. on top of all that, it also gave us scientology, a demonstrably false belief system that preys on the minds of many in this nation like a cancer. at best there are no religions worth saving, at worst there exist malicious institutions worth dismantling completely.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Acacia Sgt]

I would say there's a point on the matter. But then... can a line be really drawn?

To use the rainbow, yes, one could say that a rainbow is not done by God, but rather through the refraction of light against water droplets. But then, one now needs to explain what causes the refraction/reflection/dispersion of light on water droplets to make a rainbow. And then that has the answer that because the light splits off into the various colors. And now an explanation is needed as to why or what causes the light to split. And if the answer is that because the water droplets have the property to do it, then now one explains why they have the property or how it works. Or why the light can split in the first place. Or what made it so that's how the light splits.

Personally, I think that as you go deeper with explanation after explanation, you're ultimately going to end up having to attribute it to something. Weather it is God or otherwise. Because saying "It just is" would just be unscientific, no? Even something like "God did it / made it so it was that way / make it so" can be a conclusion after following the scientific principle. I'd think.

Just because Person A creates something, and Person B comes to an understanding of how the something works or how it was made, does not invalidate that Person A created it in the first place. Wether it's an object, a principle, a rule, etc.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Acacia Sgt

[Phoenix Wright]

well, that's a further illustration of my point. understand as much as one possibly can before the question becomes, "why," rather than, "how." if you take a rainbow at face value as something god just does, as a miracle inexplicable to humankind, then you'll never learn anything about rainbows. like i said, using god to explain the unknowable is fine (well, it doesn't make sense to do that, but i don't care if you do it), it's when you insert your faith in things that are measurable that i will step in. because that halts progress. for example, hylian has given us an example that asserts his faith, but he never questioned it. he just accepted the pastor's words, despite the fact the pastor likely knows nothing about the brain. 

i won't accept that. 

and obviously if you think god created the universe then by extension all things are because of god. that's not what i'm getting at. god is the ultimate "why" for existence, but i'm talking about phenomena that are observable. is this point not making sense?

asking why there are fundamental constants (eg, gravitational constant, fine structure constant, permittivity and permeability of a vacuum, etc. etc.) is a question that can be answered with "god." that information will never be knowable. basically i'm saying the line is science. don't let faith get in the way of science.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

well, that's a further illustration of my point. understand as much as one possibly can before the question becomes, "why," rather than, "how." if you take a rainbow at face value as something god just does; it's a miracle inexplicable to humankind, then you'll never learn anything about rainbows. like i said, using god to explain the unknowable is fine (well, it doesn't make sense to do that, but i don't care if you do it), it's when you insert your faith in things that are measurable that i will step in. because that halts progress. for example, hylian has given us an example that asserts his faith, but he never questioned it. he just accepted the pastor's words, despite the fact the pastor likely knows nothing about the brain. 

i won't accept that.

and obviously if you think god created the universe then by extension all things are because of god. that's not what i'm getting at. god is the ultimate "why" for existence, but i'm talking about phenomena that are observable. is this point not making sense?

I believe this is true, up to a point.  There's certain things that are really hard to measure, without wandering into war crimes territory (like "how much flesh can we burn off of a living person before they die?").  Progress should be tempered with a bit of sense, IMO.

Still, religion doesn't have to hold back progress.  I believe an appeal to authority is more likely to do so.  For some, disturbing the status quo is a Bad Thing.

[Acacia Sgt]

Well, personally, I don't see why it can't be both. If it's an extension of the initial thing, then to some extent the initial trigger has responsability. And one can credit the initial trigger without even if one already knows the inner workings of the system.

If Person A creates Object B that does Effect C, then Person A can still be credited to the happening of Effect C. Even if you're not aware of how Object B works, you do know that ultimately, Person A designed the whole system of A to B to C, so C can be attributed to A even if not knowing how or why B makes C. Because you know A made B, which makes C.

With the pastor, this is probably just my take on the matter, but perhaps for him it doesn't matter if he doesn't know how the brain works. He accepts that God ultimately created the whole system that trickled down into how the brain works. Even if he eventually knows how the brain works, his belief that God created the system of how it works would not change.

[Phoenix Wright]

26 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I believe this is true, up to a point.  There's certain things that are really hard to measure, without wandering into war crimes territory (like "how much flesh can we burn off of a living person before they die?").  Progress should be tempered with a bit of sense, IMO.

Still, religion doesn't have to hold back progress.  I believe an appeal to authority is more likely to do so.  For some, disturbing the status quo is a Bad Thing.

my points have been within the context of the natural world, but i agree. coincidentally, this issue is partly what makes studying brains so goddamn hard.

i honestly don't know how to parse your second statement so i'll just ignore it, haha.

25 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, personally, I don't see why it can't be both. If it's an extension of the initial thing, then to some extent the initial trigger has responsability. And one can credit the initial trigger without even if one already knows the inner workings of the system.

If Person A creates Object B that does Effect C, then Person A can still be credited to the happening of Effect C. Even if you're not aware of how Object B works, you do know that ultimately, Person A designed the whole system of A to B to C, so C can be attributed to A even if not knowing how or why B makes C. Because you know A made B, which makes C.

With the pastor, this is probably just my take on the matter, but perhaps for him it doesn't matter if he doesn't know how the brain works. He accepts that God ultimately created the whole system that trickled down into how the brain works. Even if he eventually knows how the brain works, his belief that God created the system of how it works would not change.

there's an example of that. maxwell formalized much of electromagnetism, but faraday was an experimental scientist and didn't actually receive a formal education in physics. but he's still named for a bunch of things. 

the problem with religious people is they'll never ask about 'b,' they assume god and head straight to 'c.' god is not an apt substitute for real knowledge.

the problem is he doesn't care. cause now that's being used as evidence for the existence of god even though it shouldn't be. at this point this is less about that pastor and more about the bigger picture: using the unknown as evidence of god. it's inherently faulty reasoning, intellectually lazy, and detrimental to progress.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[SullyMcGully]

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

my points have been within the context of the natural world, but i agree. coincidentally, this issue is partly what makes studying brains so goddamn hard.

i honestly don't know how to parse your second statement so i'll just ignore it, haha.

there's an example of that. maxwell formalized much of electromagnetism, but faraday was an experimental scientist and didn't actually receive a formal education in physics. but he's still named for a bunch of things. 

the problem with religious people is they'll never ask about 'b,' they assume god and head straight to 'c.' god is not an apt substitute for real knowledge.

the problem is he doesn't care. cause now that's being used as evidence for the existence of god even though it shouldn't be. at this point this is less about that pastor and more about the bigger picture: using the unknown as evidence of god. it's inherently faulty reasoning, intellectually lazy, and detrimental to progress.

The incorrect assumption I'm seeing here is that faith inherently hinders scientific progress. It doesn't. Many early scientists were religiously motivated. Isaac Newton is probably the most common example, but there are many others. 

Now, it is true that religions can work against science, with examples being the Roman Catholic Church's anti-heliocentric policies and many modern churches refusal to accept science that would diminish the traditional role of God. But is this a problem with religion or a problem with humans in general? If we were to just take the foundation of the Christian faith, the Bible, and discard everything that Christians have postured since then, we would find that Christianity as it was originally designed (and as many Christians believe it should stay) is not anti-scientific at all, with many passages illustrating scientific knowledge that was ahead of its time and many others extolling the values of sound learning. 

Perhaps the reason many religions seem to be anti-science is because of the humans who speak for them. But these humans are not God. They do not decide what is and what is not about a religion. That is already set in stone, and they are merely providing their own interpretation. 

Something that would suggest this to be a human problem is that many non-religious nations and governments aren't really doing much better in the way of being scientific and reasonable. Nazi Germany claimed to have science on its side, but very few modern scientists have the clout to back up the aggressive eugenics that they supported back then. The USSR was athiestic, but apparently they couldn't do the math to avoid economic downfall. Being non-religious hasn't made China a utopia of free-thinking individuals, and don't even get me started on North Korea.

Being religious or anti-religious has nothing to do with it. There are smart Christians and dumb athiests, and vice-versa. Whether you are scientifically progressive as a culture or not depends on the intelligence and wisdom of citizens, not religious persuasion. The people you see decrying science and advocating "blind faith" in a context completely separate from how that phrase was even used in the Bible don't speak for the people who actually wrote the Bible. They're giving their own opinion, one that I disagree with and am not characterized by. I'm religious and I'm more pro-science than most Americans seem to be. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Florina's #1 Fan]

I'm trying to absorb all this discussion and it isn't working ;\

Sorry for the rant...

As someone who is Christian (a Baptist, or at least, I try to be), I can say religion is sort of the issue. Because I've been taught that Christianity wasn't supposed to be labeled as a 'religion'. I know I'm going to get guff for saying the line "it isn't a religion, it's a relationship," but that's what it was intended to be, the Bible tells us that. Religion, to me, is a reinforcement of ideals by being surrounded by others with the same ideas and feelings toward religion as you.

And church shouldn't just be that. It isn't a pool of beautiful, perfect people that all feel the same way about everything, that have experienced the same things and have never touched alcohol or had premarital sex or gotten a tattoo or a divorce. The people in a Christian church are there because, one way or another, they're broken. They need something to fill themselves with, and it shouldn't be sin, nor should it be the satisfaction of going to church, because, as nice as church is, it doesn't make you better than anyone else. That hole should be filled with the Lord, our savior Jesus, your love for him and his love for you, a personal relationship. The people surrounding you in a church should help you acknowledge that something is missing, not show you that no one is interested in what you're going through and that you shouldn't show up in a messy t-shirt and ripped jeans because for the fourth night in a row you're hung over and want help.

Being 'religious' to me is sticking with the rules laid out for you. And that's fine and dandy, but the purpose of Christianity is to go to God and tell him that you are faulty. No one is blameless, perfect, or sinless except Jesus Christ, so don't pretend like you are, because that makes you a hypocrite. It also discourages people who don't yet understand that it's okay to have sinned, because all they see is people who are 'perfect' and that makes them feel worse, not better. 

And the worst part of it all is that all people get to see anymore is what the church does wrong. For example, how much media coverage was given to the pastor of that megachurch that didn't let anyone inside after the hurricane in Texas? And how much coverage was given to the hundreds of people that came from thousands of miles away, from their homes and their families, to help people that were knee-deep in water without expecting anything in return? The media attention is not equivalent, and the reason for that is because news outlets focus on bad news, because, unfortunately, the brain concentrates on bad news. It warns us of danger naturally, so whenever there's a chance to air bad news, bad news is aired.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't believe that religion should hold back science, nor do I believe that it does anymore (I mean, maybe I just haven't seen any examples, but I really have not seen anything that is religiously based and actively fighting against progress that isn't widely ignored). It used to be that people would just get mad because "it doesn't say in the Bible that the Earth isn't the center of the universe" and then they'd arrest somebody who thought that the sun was the center of the universe. But it obviously isn't like that anymore (thank goodness), so no matter how much some backwards religious fanatic wants to say the Earth is flat, it won't make a difference, because we aren't sheep anymore (I guess that is arguable, but that's besides the point).

I think if you looked at the basis of what religion should be, there wouldn't be so many Atheists who have decided it is their purpose on this planet to destroy religion at every opportunity. But instead, the loudest voices on religion are the ones that are actively defying what their religion wants from them. Whether it's the megachurch I just mentioned that said they weren't prepared (just let them in and then figure out how to help them outside of sheltering them) or it's the Westboro Baptist Church that spreads hate like crap on a crap sandwich (UGGGHHHH NOT A CHURCH AND NOT OKAY), that's a result of a slowly evolving "I am going to see what happens if I twist words here... or maybe here... for my benefit." But that isn't the source material. That's humans doing what they do, making sinful, selfish decisions. Religion is responsible for more bad than good, but that's because we're human beings and we don't follow rules like robots. We make decisions that benefit us, and that screws up the basis of religion.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Florina's #1 Fan

[JimmyBeans]

1 hour ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I'm trying to absorb all this discussion and it isn't working ;\

Sorry for the rant...

As someone who is Christian (a Baptist, or at least, I try to be), I can say religion is sort of the issue. Because I've been taught that Christianity wasn't supposed to be labeled as a 'religion'. I know I'm going to get guff for saying the line "it isn't a religion, it's a relationship," but that's what it was intended to be, the Bible tells us that. Religion, to me, is a reinforcement of ideals by being surrounded by others with the same ideas and feelings toward religion as you.

And church shouldn't just be that. It isn't a pool of beautiful, perfect people that all feel the same way about everything, that have experienced the same things and have never touched alcohol or had premarital sex or gotten a tattoo or a divorce. The people in a Christian church are there because, one way or another, they're broken. They need something to fill themselves with, and it shouldn't be sin, nor should it be the satisfaction of going to church, because, as nice as church is, it doesn't make you better than anyone else. That hole should be filled with the Lord, our savior Jesus, your love for him and his love for you, a personal relationship. The people surrounding you in a church should help you acknowledge that something is missing, not show you that no one is interested in what you're going through and that you shouldn't show up in a messy t-shirt and ripped jeans because for the fourth night in a row you're hung over and want help.

Being 'religious' to me is sticking with the rules laid out for you. And that's fine and dandy, but the purpose of Christianity is to go to God and tell him that you are faulty. No one is blameless, perfect, or sinless except Jesus Christ, so don't pretend like you are, because that makes you a hypocrite. It also discourages people who don't yet understand that it's okay to have sinned, because all they see is people who are 'perfect' and that makes them feel worse, not better. 

And the worst part of it all is that all people get to see anymore is what the church does wrong. For example, how much media coverage was given to the pastor of that megachurch that didn't let anyone inside after the hurricane in Texas? And how much coverage was given to the hundreds of people that came from thousands of miles away, from their homes and their families, to help people that were knee-deep in water without expecting anything in return? The media attention is not equivalent, and the reason for that is because news outlets focus on bad news, because, unfortunately, the brain concentrates on bad news. It warns us of danger naturally, so whenever there's a chance to air bad news, bad news is aired.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't believe that religion should hold back science, nor do I believe that it does anymore (I mean, maybe I just haven't seen any examples, but I really have not seen anything that is religiously based and actively fighting against progress that isn't widely ignored). It used to be that people would just get mad because "it doesn't say in the Bible that the Earth isn't the center of the universe" and then they'd arrest somebody who thought that the sun was the center of the universe. But it obviously isn't like that anymore (thank goodness), so no matter how much some backwards religious fanatic wants to say the Earth is flat, it won't make a difference, because we aren't sheep anymore (I guess that is arguable, but that's besides the point).

I think if you looked at the basis of what religion should be, there wouldn't be so many Atheists who have decided it is their purpose on this planet to destroy religion at every opportunity. But instead, the loudest voices on religion are the ones that are actively defying what their religion wants from them. Whether it's the megachurch I just mentioned that said they weren't prepared (just let them in and then figure out how to help them outside of sheltering them) or it's the Westboro Baptist Church that spreads hate like crap on a crap sandwich (UGGGHHHH NOT A CHURCH AND NOT OKAY), that's a result of a slowly evolving "I am going to see what happens if I twist words here... or maybe here... for my benefit." But that isn't the source material. That's humans doing what they do, making sinful, selfish decisions. Religion is responsible for more bad than good, but that's because we're human beings and we don't follow rules like robots. We make decisions that benefit us, and that screws up the basis of religion.

This was well thought out and well put together, I thank you for these thoughts and insights on the subject and I absolutely agree with a lot of the points you made. I will make an attempt to add on and give my perspective on this topic with the aid of this post.

I was born and raised LDS (Mormon to most people), and I grew up living and learning all the standards taught by the church simply for the reason of "I was told to". It wasn't until I was out of high school that I truly understood the purpose and reason behind all the rules and guidelines listed out in not only my church, but countless other churches out there. And while I won't get into the rules, given it's off topic and would be endless, I'll simply say the basis is to allow yourself to live a happy life, with hope. The churches themselves teaches wonderful concepts, and like you said, nobody is perfect enough to live up to all of them 24/7. 

I was also taught to think of the church as a hospital, someplace to heal ourselves and revitalize and motivate are sense to do good, not as a gathering to show off our knowledge and spiritual stature (Which so many people do in my church). The bible itself teaches against that in fact, not just the church doctrines 

"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a

trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the

synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory

of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:2

So just like the post above me, I say that the churches themselves (most of them) teach people to love others, and to live a life free from addiction and from hurting others, and that they have helped so many people change their lives. It doesn't matter which one is true in this context, because getting someone to stop doing drugs, to not be addicted to smoking, etc, is a good thing, even if the reason is on a spiritual level.

Lastly, you are absolutely correct about only the bad things being focused on, which is why I have to talk about the good stuff that gets hidden. The care-giving system in my church for example has helped 7.5 million people in third world countries get water in 2010 (probably way more by this time), and that's just mine alone, there are still tons of other religions who do the same thing, not to mention the non-religious humanitarian groups, who are mostly run by religious individuals, all combined had helped millions upon millions of people around the globe with food, water, disasters, etc. This in my mind out ways the fact that people sometimes feel that there way of living in a church puts them above people, and you have a bunch of religious Berkut's running around the in the world (which is still very crummy and not helping religions case). But once you get through all the media, and see what churches do for the entire world in multiple ways, I would argue that they do tremendously more good than bad. if we look at it as a large scale. 

Even though there is a lot of crap religion does to the people, the is oodles of hidden good that it does, and I hope this insight gives a better understanding of what they do and accomplish.

[Phoenix Wright]

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

The incorrect assumption I'm seeing here is that faith inherently hinders scientific progress. It doesn't. Many early scientists were religiously motivated. Isaac Newton is probably the most common example, but there are many others. 

Now, it is true that religions can work against science, with examples being the Roman Catholic Church's anti-heliocentric policies and many modern churches refusal to accept science that would diminish the traditional role of God. But is this a problem with religion or a problem with humans in general? If we were to just take the foundation of the Christian faith, the Bible, and discard everything that Christians have postured since then, we would find that Christianity as it was originally designed (and as many Christians believe it should stay) is not anti-scientific at all, with many passages illustrating scientific knowledge that was ahead of its time and many others extolling the values of sound learning. 

Perhaps the reason many religions seem to be anti-science is because of the humans who speak for them. But these humans are not God. They do not decide what is and what is not about a religion. That is already set in stone, and they are merely providing their own interpretation. 

Something that would suggest this to be a human problem is that many non-religious nations and governments aren't really doing much better in the way of being scientific and reasonable. Nazi Germany claimed to have science on its side, but very few modern scientists have the clout to back up the aggressive eugenics that they supported back then. The USSR was athiestic, but apparently they couldn't do the math to avoid economic downfall. Being non-religious hasn't made China a utopia of free-thinking individuals, and don't even get me started on North Korea.

Being religious or anti-religious has nothing to do with it. There are smart Christians and dumb athiests, and vice-versa. Whether you are scientifically progressive as a culture or not depends on the intelligence and wisdom of citizens, not religious persuasion. The people you see decrying science and advocating "blind faith" in a context completely separate from how that phrase was even used in the Bible don't speak for the people who actually wrote the Bible. They're giving their own opinion, one that I disagree with and am not characterized by. I'm religious and I'm more pro-science than most Americans seem to be. They aren't mutually exclusive.

please read more of this thread. i and a few others have already touched on that.

there is no evidence that the science of the bible was ahead of its time. in fact, much of it is wrong. i invite you to back your claim up, though. 

anyway, this is incredibly off topic from what i was originally getting across. most of this is addressing points i never said.

[John Denver Fan]

As a Christian, I would say religion has done more good than bad. When people say that Religion is a bad thing, I disagree. We gain our knowledge and faith from religion. Religion has never done anything bad. Without religion, we would fall into dark times indeed. In fact religion is the most important thing to mankind. I believe that  religion brings us happiness, faith, beliefs, and spiritual belief. I could make two pages of content listing all the reasons why religion has done more good than bad, but I would really rather not.

[Shoblongoo]

23 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

Religion has never done anything bad. 

....that's a bold statement. Would you perhaps like to rephrase?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tetragrammaton]

On 12/18/2017 at 11:10 PM, John Denver Fan said:

As a Christian, I would say religion has done more good than bad. When people say that Religion is a bad thing, I disagree. We gain our knowledge and faith from religion. Religion has never done anything bad. Without religion, we would fall into dark times indeed. In fact religion is the most important thing to mankind. I believe that  religion brings us happiness, faith, beliefs, and spiritual belief. I could make two pages of content listing all the reasons why religion has done more good than bad, but I would really rather not.

Are you sure about this?

Edited December 20, 2017 by hanhnn

[Phoenix Wright]

On 12/18/2017 at 8:10 AM, John Denver Fan said:

As a Christian, I would say religion has done more good than bad. When people say that Religion is a bad thing, I disagree. We gain our knowledge and faith from religion. Religion has never done anything bad. Without religion, we would fall into dark times indeed. In fact religion is the most important thing to mankind. I believe that  religion brings us happiness, faith, beliefs, and spiritual belief. I could make two pages of content listing all the reasons why religion has done more good than bad, but I would really rather not.

by "listing reasons why," do you actually mean, "illustrating how"? cause id much rather you do that compared to what you've done here. 

[Shoblongoo]

A thought occurred to me recently. An analogy, of sorts. Probably a sign that I’ve been playing way too much Fire Emblem. Anywhere else I wouldn’t be able to use it. But this is SerenesForest; I think you guys will get what I’m trying to say here.

Organized religion is like a bad Jeigan that’s outlived its early-game utility, and should have been benched 5 chapters ago. (Bear with me here and allow me to draw out the analogy)

Imagine for a moment that the entirety of human history can be viewed as a game of Fire Emblem.

EARLY GAME = Neolithic Times, The Stone Age, The Agricultural Revolution, The Dawn of Civilization, Early Mesopotamia,

MIDGAME =  The Greco-Roman Period, Biblical Times, The Dark Ages, Medieval Times, The Age of Imperialism, and the Colonial Era

LATEGAME = The Industrial Revolution, Globalization, the Modern Era, the Post-Modern Era, and our theoretical future as a spacefaring species with advanced Space Age technology and interstellar settlements

Religion as an institution is a Jeigan that joins in the Prologue with 20/12/12/10/10/10/10 base stats and 0-15% growths.

The rest of our institutions (i.e units) are Amelias and Ewans that join early to early-mid game.

The "enemy" is the moral hazard of anti-social behavior, corruption, injustice, and general discontent with the way society has been organized which may cause civilized living to regress back into anarchy and primitivism.

In the early game, the enemy is so strong compared to the rest of our units that we must use the Jeigan.  None of our other units can actually put in any work on their own. They must be babysat and fed by the Jeigan until they get some levels on them, and start developing into competent units in their own right.  Without the Jeigan we do not get from the earlygame to the midgame.

In the midgame, the Jeigan is going to start dropping off. And other units are going to start performing noticeably better then him. We do not get from the midgame to the late game unless the rest of our units have enough levels on them that they can start putting in work in their own right (which they’re going to have a very hard time doing if we keep giving all the work they should now be doing to the Jeigan—overuse of the Jeigan now poses a very serious risk to our prospects of reaching the lategame). You CAN continue using the Jeigan. He can still put in some work for the team. But really—you’re at a point now where the rest of your units are competent to get the job done without him.  And they need as much experience as they can get before you hit the endgame. Continued use of the Jeigan makes your lategame weaker by depriving the units you will be relying on in the lategame of however much exp. the Jeigan is eating.

…then you get to the endgame.  You now have mobs of enemies running around with 50/25/20/20/10/20/10 stats.  Your Jeigan is still walking around with his early game base stats. If at this point in the game you are still fielding the Jeigan, you are going to have MAJOR problems anywhere on the map where you are relying upon the Jeigan to put in work.  But at this point you shouldn’t be relying upon the Jeigan to do…absolutely anything. You should have a full squad of promoted and buffed out units, capable of doing what the Jeigan cannot. The Jeigan got them through the early game and brought them to a place where they can get to that level—for this we are thankful, and in this we recognize that the Jeigan has done some irreplacable good.

…but that’s not a reason to keep using the Jeigan. We like the Jeigan. He’s a charming character. But the Jeigan has done his job; all that’s left is for the Jeigan to be protected and babied and handicap the rest of the team if we keep trying to make him take the field.  Again—we CAN keep using the Jeigan, if we want to create extra challenges for ourselves. But the game is hard enough as it is, and if we’re trying to play optimally there’s really only one thing to do. It’s time for our dear old Jeigan to retire to the bench.

...
…

…Did that make sense?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

But the thing is, more than half of the people playing this new FE game like Jeigan for his personality and end up using him the whole game. Most are willing to admit that he's kinda a detriment to finishing the game, but there are some, who admittedly are probably really bad at the game and lost several units in the mid and late game, that will flame and troll anyone who dares to suggest that he isn't S-tier in terms of performance. On the other hand, some newer players don't even bother using him, and even get those who usually end up dropping him on the side of the rabid fanboys because of the lengths they go to in order to discredit him. Organized Religion might not be best right now, but apart from the civilizations that cling to it like the world is going to hell, most are unwilling to give it up because it's appealing to them.

[Acacia Sgt]

Interesting analogy.

Now I wonder for the Jeigans that are indeed viable all game long, but because of the stigma of being, well, the Jeigan, people are divided over them...

Or maybe this is just overthinking it.

[eclipse]

And depending on your play style, you can make that Jeigan damn useful through the entire game.  The old guy's been on just about every map in some of my runs, including Endgame.

In the end, it comes down to what you want out of FE/life in general.

[SullyMcGully]

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

And depending on your play style, you can make that Jeigan damn useful through the entire game.  The old guy's been on just about every map in some of my runs, including Endgame.

In the end, it comes down to what you want out of FE/life in general.

The master of Shadow Dragon has spoken, and thus made religion viable for billions of people around the world! 

This metaphor might need some work.

[Lord Raven]

On 12/20/2017 at 2:23 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Organized religion is like a bad Jeigan that’s outlived its early-game utility, and should have been benched 5 chapters ago. (Bear with me here and allow me to draw out the analogy)

FE6 Marcus, because he falls off hard after like Chapter 13. I think FE6 Marcus is the best example for your metaphor, given that his fall off applies to every game mode.

[Phoenix Wright]

but the killer: where does seth fit into this? you can solo the game with that jeigan.

[SullyMcGully]

I mean, maybe religion is Frederick and just needs to class-change to Paladin?

[Kalken]

Every major religion that preaches an active monotheism has been more or less debunked. That rules out the Abrahamic religions (which goes in line with how the strongest denials of modern scientific findings come from them). They are also highly represented in violence (there isn't a Hindu ISIS).

We can safely rule out the notion that a magical man in the sky made humans with humans being special for it.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Kalken

[Tryhard]

why would polytheism be any more agreeable?

[Kalken]

Didn't say I supported polytheism. A non-active monotheism can be used to classify Deism, Aristotle's Prime Mover, certain branches of Hinduism. In a nutshell, it rejects the notion of a transcendent force interfering in the human sphere and/or concening itself with humans in particular.