Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[solrocknroll]

Well, I may one of the ones you are talking about. I'm a lesbian leaning bi. I've dated far more girls than otherwise, for me to be married to my spouse took a very special person. I am a bit sad that so many within the LGBT community spit such vitriol against those we may disagree with. I've had my own issues with the Catholic Church. I've been unable to baptize my son, since I'm a sinner, but I don't hate all religion because of it. I don't like seeing the hate go in either direction, and I generally try to conduct myself in a loving manner.

I don't agree. I believe the only way to answer hate is hate.

I shouldn't have to bow down to people who feel superior because of one thing about themselves. I mean, marriage equality and bathroom equality and discrimination rights should be an open and shut thing. Conservative Christians trying to take my rights away are laughable.

I will always choose to "spit vitriol" because that's all people who don't approve of the LGBT community deserve.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Cykes-dono

[blah the Prussian]

I don't agree. I believe the only way to answer hate is hate.

I shouldn't have to bow down to people who feel superior because of one thing about themselves. I mean, marriage equality and bathroom equality and discrimination rights should be an open and shut thing. Conservative Christians trying to take my rights away are laughable.

I will always choose to "spit vitriol" because that's all people who don't approve of the LGBT community deserve.

Dnt you think it might be a better strategy to try to convince them? I mean, you have every right to be angry, don't get me wrong, but at the same time you're hardly turning anyone to the right side like that.

Edit: also, Phoenix, now is later.

Edited October 29, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Rezzy]

I don't agree. I believe the only way to answer hate is hate.

I shouldn't have to bow down to people who feel superior because of one thing about themselves. I mean, marriage equality and bathroom equality and discrimination rights should be an open and shut thing. Conservative Christians trying to take my rights away are laughable.

I will always choose to "spit vitriol" because that's all people who don't approve of the LGBT community deserve.

You are honest, but that's a sad way to live. I once was a more bitter person, but I became a happier once I made the decision to refuse to hate. I was in your shoes 14 years ago, and allowing others to affect you to your core like that is allowing them to have control over you that they shouldn't. And being LGBT is infinitely better and more acceptable now that it was even a decade ago.

Dnt you think it might be a better strategy to try to convince them? I mean, you have every right to be angry, don't get me wrong, but at the same time you're hardly turning anyone to the right side like that.

Pretty much my thoughts. I've never convinced anyone by demeaning or ridiculing anyone. The ones I have have been by leading as a good example and civil conversation.

[Chen]

Just a thought, but acting back in hatred just gives the other side more bullets to call your side illogical. I don't actually know how effective being radical (I think that is the term) is, but I feel as if it shuns a lot of people away from a group. Empathy doesn't come easy with a lot of people and spitting back insults just turns the whole thing into a mixing pot where nobody can agree on what's what.

[Tetragrammaton]

Forgive me, if I misunderstand you, but you come across as an atheist, not agnostic. Atheists are general the ones who steadfastly deny the possibility of a higher power, whereas agnostics believe there's no way to know for sure one way or another, and are generally ambivalent to discussion. That being said, I know many fine people who are atheists and good people.

Personally, I believe in a higher power, but there's still a bit of agnostic in me, since I feel there is no absolute way to know one way or the other.

Well, I may one of the ones you are talking about. I'm a lesbian leaning bi. I've dated far more girls than otherwise, for me to be married to my spouse took a very special person. I am a bit sad that so many within the LGBT community spit such vitriol against those we may disagree with. I've had my own issues with the Catholic Church. I've been unable to baptize my son, since I'm a sinner, but I don't hate all religion because of it. I don't like seeing the hate go in either direction, and I generally try to conduct myself in a loving manner.

You can call Buddha an atheist.

I'm also an atheist, but at the same time I do believe in higher being, higher life form.

These two things don't exclude each other.

[XeKr]

re: topic

In human history, religion has been associated with more good than bad. We got here, which is by almost every measure the best time to live in human history (overall). And religion is undeniably a very significant part of that.

But I don’t think it’s possible to distinguish if that was because of religion or in spite of, or whether religion accelerated or impeded human progress. Though I would probably lean toward the optimistic view. Tbh I don’t have a clear position on this, it’s more just I imagine more people started believing in religion because of positive things (sense of elation, belonging, humility, etc) rather than negative things (fear of damnation, threat of violence, etc).

In the present world, however, (the cognitive dissonance resulting from organized) religion does seem to be a strong factor limiting what I would consider the improvement of society. Though as kinda mentioned, this opinion stems from available statistics/studies, especially those that are publically reported on, so maybe this narrative is flawed or incomplete.

I do think humanism is far preferable to the dominant Abrahamic religions, in terms of social progress, morality, and even spirituality (and really every respect. But the reality is religion are already prevalent and entrenched which is an important consideration).

Edited October 29, 2016 by XeKr

[Baldrick]

Forgive me, if I misunderstand you, but you come across as an atheist, not agnostic. Atheists are general the ones who steadfastly deny the possibility of a higher power, whereas agnostics believe there's no way to know for sure one way or another, and are generally ambivalent to discussion. That being said, I know many fine people who are atheists and good people.

Nobody who understands science would call themselves an atheist. The reason the concept of God is unscientific is he is unfalsifiable (you can't disprove his existence). Saying he definitely doesn't exist is foolish, at least in my opinion.

[Phoenix Wright]

Dnt you think it might be a better strategy to try to convince them? I mean, you have every right to be angry, don't get me wrong, but at the same time you're hardly turning anyone to the right side like that.

Edit: also, Phoenix, now is later.

read my post to snowy, it says what i was gonna to you.

Forgive me, if I misunderstand you, but you come across as an atheist, not agnostic. Atheists are general the ones who steadfastly deny the possibility of a higher power, whereas agnostics believe there's no way to know for sure one way or another, and are generally ambivalent to discussion. That being said, I know many fine people who are atheists and good people.

atheism and agnosticism are positions for different questions.

belief: atheism vs theism

knowable: agnostic vs gnosticism

i lack a belief in god, so that makes me an atheist. i do not think the nature of god is knowable, so i'm agnostic.

however, you're right--outright "atheists" tend to vehemently reject religion whereas agnostics tend to stay quiet. well, that's me--but this thread is about my stance on religion. i do not take a theistic approach (ie, religion is useful) to the establishment of religion. therefore, what you get are the opinions expressed throughout this topic. were this some other thread or irl, i would stay quiet. it's typically never worth the hassle it brings. but, that doesn't change how i feel about it!

Edited October 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Jotari]

this isn't relevant though. these don't affect how we observe reality to be. these postulations aren't showing a weakness of science, they're showing a weakness of the postulates. you couldn't even test these things--why lay them any credence?

You have it backwards. It's not that these theories can't be proven, it's that reality can't be scientifically proven.

i feel like when i say the word "religion," you insert the word "christian." i'm not singling out christianity lol.

don't listen to some of the best physicists in the world because snowy (who seemingly has zero science background) says not to.

they're equivalent dude. scientific theory = law. theory of evolution = law of evolution. theory of relativity = law of relativity. law of conservation of energy = theory of conservation of energy.

physical laws are not immutable aspects of science. that is why we have moved away from calling them laws. science is self-correcting. right now, relativity and quantum mechanics butt heads. one of them is wrong somewhere, but they're both equally valid theories (read: laws) as far as observation is concerned at this point in time.

This article published in 2015 states otherwise http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html To quote from it

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered,"

So unless you're suggesting the entire concept has been massively changed since March of last year you're pretty wrong on this. Either that or you doubt the validity of the University of California.

I don't agree. I believe the only way to answer hate is hate.

I shouldn't have to bow down to people who feel superior because of one thing about themselves. I mean, marriage equality and bathroom equality and discrimination rights should be an open and shut thing. Conservative Christians trying to take my rights away are laughable.

I will always choose to "spit vitriol" because that's all people who don't approve of the LGBT community deserve.

This is such a ridiculous stance to take on anything. You're main aim should be making quality of life better for the people you fight for but fighting hate with hate only serves to increase the overall level of aggression in the system and make the war eternal. Unless you can outright eradicate an enemy using overwhelming force which is only possible with a physical threat. When it comes to a clash of ideologies convincing and coverting people is the only rationale method and that simply won't be achieved by acting like a monster.

You can call Buddha an atheist.

I'm also an atheist, but at the same time I do believe in higher being, higher life form.

These two things don't exclude each other.

Sounds like pantheism to me.

But I don’t think it’s possible to distinguish if that was because of religion or in spite of, or whether religion accelerated or impeded human progress. Though I would probably lean toward the optimistic view. Tbh I don’t have a clear position on this, it’s more just I imagine more people started believing in religion because of positive things (sense of elation, belonging, humility, etc) rather than negative things (fear of damnation, threat of violence, etc).

If I was to speculate I'd say it all dates back to a fear of the dark and confusion as to why the light eventually returned every morning.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Jotari

[blah the Prussian]

In response to Phoenix:

Firstly, this topic is not about if science is superior to religion. When I made the case that religion is often not harmful to science, I was making a counter argument to the notion that religion is by nature anti science. You're right, it depends on the follower, but that still counters the argument.

Secondly, religion might not be the basis for human morality, but it was the basis for human law, which in my mind was much more important. Religious law, again, might not be great, but it beats no law, and it set the foundations for civilization as we know it.

[Phoenix Wright]

You have it backwards. It's not that these theories can't be proven, it's that reality can't be scientifically proven.

This article published in 2015 states otherwise http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html To quote from it

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered,"

So unless you're suggesting the entire concept has been massively changed since March of last year you're pretty wrong on this. Either that or you doubt the validity of the University of California.

i'm lost--what do you mean by reality cannot be proven? it is reality. as i said, the nature of our reality isn't relevant and also not a question science ever intends to answer. whether we live as a simulation or the other zombie thing you posted changes nothing. a deterministic universe vs a universe of free will changes nothing about how reality is observed. this is a key point! science observes reality as it is.

i am in the uc system haha. the distinction between theory and law is blurred to the point of not being relevant, hence they're essentially equal. and as i've said, we've moved away from calling things "laws." i'm not terribly interested in this subject, though, as it does not matter. the big point to get across is that laws and theories are equally valid in the scientific community.

perhaps lord raven could chime in, though. at this point, i could be wrong about there being a distinction between the two, but for a fact i know that there is no distinction in validity. and so when hylian says "it's just a theory," that is a very dangerous way of going about things. science "theory" vs literary defn. of "theory" are very, very different.

In response to Phoenix:

Firstly, this topic is not about if science is superior to religion. When I made the case that religion is often not harmful to science, I was making a counter argument to the notion that religion is by nature anti science. You're right, it depends on the follower, but that still counters the argument.

Secondly, religion might not be the basis for human morality, but it was the basis for human law, which in my mind was much more important. Religious law, again, might not be great, but it beats no law, and it set the foundations for civilization as we know it.

the case i made, though, is that religion is by default harmful. it is instead up to the followers to choose how strictly religion should be towards science. you get the wrong followers and science is no longer allowed to continue. science does not operate this way. unless the entire world is in on fooling people, science will always be useful regardless of who's practicing it.

please source that it's the basis for human law. i also challenge the notion that religious law always beats no law.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

the case i made, though, is that religion is by default harmful. it is instead up to the followers to choose how strictly religion should be towards science. you get the wrong followers and science is no longer allowed to continue. science does not operate this way. unless the entire world is in on fooling people, science will always be useful regardless of who's practicing it.

please source that it's the basis for human law. i also challenge the notion that religious law always beats no law.

Most of the oldest law codes we have are tightly woven into the religious fabric of the society or at least cite God or the gods as the basis for their authority.

Hammurabi's code prefaces with "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." Anu and Bel are both gods.

I'm sure blah could elaborate on more examples.

[blah the Prussian]

So I'm not sure what you mean by the first thing, because it's pretty much what I said.

As for the second, yeah, what Rezzy said, but also that monarchs, and thus the state, first got their legitimacy to rule from religion; without religion, you arguably don't have a state. Also, regarding religious law, does religious law ban murder? If yes, it's better than anarchy.

[Rezzy]

So I'm not sure what you mean by the first thing, because it's pretty much what I said.

Was that directed at Phoenix or me? I think you meant Phoenix, but just in case you wanted clarification on anything.

[Phoenix Wright]

So I'm not sure what you mean by the first thing, because it's pretty much what I said.

science itself would be good without 100% good followers. religion is ruined by even a small number of bad followers. that is the subtle difference.

by the way, now that i think more about it: how are the characteristics of followers relevant to the ideas itself? something ought or ought not believe shouldn't be decided by a subset of people who follow it. that doesn't really make sense.

the fact is that religion is inherently anti-science. for the abrahamic religions, were its followers strict in religious practice, we would have no idea the earth is more than 3000 yrs old. we'd have no idea that man was not created first. etc. etc. to argue that less strict religious following is akin to religion being good is highly suspect reasoning.

Most of the oldest law codes we have are tightly woven into the religious fabric of the society or at least cite God or the gods as the basis for their authority.

Hammurabi's code prefaces with "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." Anu and Bel are both gods.

I'm sure blah could elaborate on more examples.

interesting, thanks. i'll read up more when i get the time!

[Rezzy]

There can still be bad people of science. There was the doctor, Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, that had dubious research that vaccines caused autism. There were also the Japanese scientists who performed unethical experiments on the Chinese during World War 2, as well as Joseph Mengele.

There are also many scientists who manipulate their data to get the results that they predetermined.

[Jotari]

i'm lost--what do you mean by reality cannot be proven? it is reality. as i said, the nature of our reality isn't relevant and also not a question science ever intends to answer. whether we live as a simulation or the other zombie thing you posted changes nothing. a deterministic universe vs a universe of free will changes nothing about how reality is observed. this is a key point! science observes reality as it is.

i am in the uc system haha. the distinction between theory and law is blurred to the point of not being relevant, hence they're essentially equal. and as i've said, we've moved away from calling things "laws." i'm not terribly interested in this subject, though, as it does not matter. the big point to get across is that laws and theories are equally valid in the scientific community.

perhaps lord raven could chime in, though. at this point, i could be wrong about there being a distinction between the two, but for a fact i know that there is no distinction in validity. and so when hylian says "it's just a theory," that is a very dangerous way of going about things. science "theory" vs literary defn. of "theory" are very, very different.

the case i made, though, is that religion is by default harmful. it is instead up to the followers to choose how strictly religion should be towards science. you get the wrong followers and science is no longer allowed to continue. science does not operate this way. unless the entire world is in on fooling people, science will always be useful regardless of who's practicing it.

please source that it's the basis for human law. i also challenge the notion that religious law always beats no law.

That's the exact point I'm trying to make. The nature of god and whether or not he exists and all those other aspects of religion are not questions science attempts to answer. What they try to answer is the make up of the physical world and how it acts. Therefore there is no cognitive dissonance when it comes to a belief, or disbelief, regarding things that are outside that scope. Be it morals, ethics, the matrix or spirituality.

[blah the Prussian]

science itself would be good without 100% good followers. religion is ruined by even a small number of bad followers. that is the subtle difference.

by the way, now that i think more about it: how are the characteristics of followers relevant to the ideas itself? something ought or ought not believe shouldn't be decided by a subset of people who follow it. that doesn't really make sense.

the fact is that religion is inherently anti-science. for the abrahamic religions, were its followers strict in religious practice, we would have no idea the earth is more than 3000 yrs old. we'd have no idea that man was not created first. etc. etc. to argue that less strict religious following is akin to religion being good is highly suspect reasoning.

interesting, thanks. i'll read up more when i get the time!

But here's the thing, I never argued that religion was good when it comes to science, just that religion wasn't as anti science as often stereotyped.

There can still be bad people of science. There was the doctor, Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, that had dubious research that vaccines caused autism. There were also the Japanese scientists who performed unethical experiments on the Chinese during World War 2, as well as Joseph Mengele.

There are also many scientists who manipulate their data to get the results that they predetermined.

And, for that matter, some scientific discoveries have objectively led to bad things, for example biological warfare. And, let's just say that if there's ever nuclear war, science may well have done more harm than good.

[André The kid]

If it has done more good than Bad?

Not really.
From the Crusades, Holy wars, sacrifices for their lieges, and attacks to poeple who don't believe in the same you do?

...

Who knows.

[Phoenix Wright]

That's the exact point I'm trying to make. The nature of god and whether or not he exists and all those other aspects of religion are not questions science attempts to answer. What they try to answer is the make up of the physical world and how it acts. Therefore there is no cognitive dissonance when it comes to a belief, or disbelief, regarding things that are outside that scope. Be it morals, ethics, the matrix or spirituality.

?? there's a difference between leaving questions alone and believing in it.

if you choose to believe that we live in the matrix, or in god, or in mermaids, that is where the scientific conundrum starts. you need to have reasons for holding a belief, right? if you assert a truth for reasons of "because i think it's this way," that is not good scientific practice.

But here's the thing, I never argued that religion was good when it comes to science, just that religion wasn't as anti science as often stereotyped.

And, for that matter, some scientific discoveries have objectively led to bad things, for example biological warfare. And, let's just say that if there's ever nuclear war, science may well have done more harm than good.

fair.

biological warfare and nukes aren't science's fault. nukes were not made in the name of science--in fact, you can look into the sky and see 300 million metric tons of nuclear bombs detonate every second. they existed since time. sort of. killing people in france because they drew your religion's prophet--that is killing in the name of something.

There can still be bad people of science. There was the doctor, Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, that had dubious research that vaccines caused autism. There were also the Japanese scientists who performed unethical experiments on the Chinese during World War 2, as well as Joseph Mengele.

There are also many scientists who manipulate their data to get the results that they predetermined.

i know, but the point was that science is self-correcting! those bad people can be ignored, jailed etc. and science will still be valid. the only way to make religion more valid is to detach from old customs and archaic laws. for religion to "progress," its followers have to forget and ignore old laws and rules. for example, no christian follows to the t all the rules in the bible. those seen as more fundamentalist do. and nowadays people don't much like fundamentalist christians.

[Rezzy]

fair.

biological warfare and nukes aren't science's fault. nukes were not made in the name of science--in fact, you can look into the sky and see 300 million metric tons of nuclear bombs detonate every second. they existed since time. sort of. killing people in france because they drew your religion's prophet--that is killing in the name of something.

i know, but the point was that science is self-correcting! those bad people can be ignored, jailed etc. and science will still be valid. the only way to make religion more valid is to detach from old customs and archaic laws. for religion to "progress," its followers have to forget and ignore old laws and rules. for example, no christian follows to the t all the rules in the bible. those seen as more fundamentalist do. and nowadays people don't much like fundamentalist christians.

The people who worked weapons of various sorts were doing it by science, if not in the name of science. Likewise, any atrocities committed in the name of religion are committed in the name of a specific religion, and not religion as a whole. And there have been reforms over the years that have advanced various religions to what we have today, rather than what they were thousands of years ago, but once again, it's apples and oranges. Science is a tool, it's not a replacement for religion. Science simply exists. You can't really deny science. Scientific laws continue to exist whether you believe in them or not, but likewise, you shouldn't worship science, lest you think all scientists are angels, capable of doing no wrong.

I don't blame science as a whole for the atrocities that it has allowed, just like I don't blame all Christians or all Muslims for what the select few do, let alone religion as a whole.

And most of the scientist war criminals from WW2 got off scot-free, since they were recruited by the USA and USSR for their research. The atrocities weren't ended by any sort of effort from the scientific community, but only because their nations lost a war. That's not to mention any of the horrible experiments committed elsewhere, like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments.

I'd say that the anti-vaccers' damage is still evident. I know plenty of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids, and we're seeing a reappearance of diseases that were almost eradicated as a result.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, the unethical experiments people weren't the same people as the rocket scientists, and Mengele was executed, but Shiro Iishi and his people got off scot free. And you don't really do things in the name of science, but they're still scientific discoveries. That point makes no sense.

[Rezzy]

Well, the unethical experiments people weren't the same people as the rocket scientists, and Mengele was executed, but Shiro Iishi and his people got off scot free. And you don't really do things in the name of science, but they're still scientific discoveries. That point makes no sense.

The experiments used by NASA were the ones that tested human endurance limits were the unethical ones I referred to. Mengele was not executed. He fled to South America and died from drowning at the age of 67 in 1979.

Some scientists do things strictly for curiosity's sake, some for financial reasons, "for science", for glory, or some mixture of everything. Every person is different.

[Makaze]

When it comes to the start of society, and even now in rural areas, religion -- more specifically, organized religion, like churches -- does a net good by creating a community with common beliefs that people can turn to and expect something like altruistic intentions and being welcome, depending on the religion. It gives us something to explain the bewildering aspects of our lives and fight existential dread, and puts us at a leg above the cave man. Self-righteousness is powerful, and the church has historically been a champion of morality. Religion isn't popular by mistake. If we didn't have moral fabric we would all lie, steal, cheat, and kill each other, and we wouldn't have progressed as much as we have. Beyond that, religion holds back our potential in an age where we no longer need it to survive. If you could rid the world of one thing retroactively, religion should not be it. If you had to rid the world of one thing right now and going forward, religion is still not a good choice because the reason people still choose religion would still exist: weakness of spirit. Most people are not capable of facing existential dread and coming out the other side without relying in a mythical ally. They need something to steady themselves in their insecurity. Faith, or the need for it, is what should be eradicated.

[blah the Prussian]

The experiments used by NASA were the ones that tested human endurance limits were the unethical ones I referred to. Mengele was not executed. He fled to South America and died from drowning at the age of 67 in 1979.

Some scientists do things strictly for curiosity's sake, some for financial reasons, "for science", for glory, or some mixture of everything. Every person is different.

Ah, crap, gotta exile myself to the Himilayas, was remembering wrong.