Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Lord Raven]

@ Phoenix

I remember reading an article a while back about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and I think I found it again, or at least something similar. Nothing disproving anything, but just evidence that some people still try to test its limits, in this case the University of Toronto. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120907125154.htm

As I've said, it's been a decade, since I've taken dedicated physics classes, but I still like to read up on it. Granted, my area of expertise is medicine, so I cannot recognize meritorious articles outside my field as well as those within, but they had enough credibility to be published. So things like these are what leads me to think that some theories still have a bit of tweaking to go.

Should take a look at this stackexchange discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35972/observation-of-violation-of-the-uncertainty-principle

Based on what I've read in the article, it only talks about measurement disturbance and not the actual uncertainty principle. This merely sheds doubt on "measurement disturbance" being the reason why Heisenberg's uncertainty principle exists, not the existence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That's definitely an interesting insight in and of itself, since a lot of people's viewpoints are that HUP results from measurements inherently disturbing the system.

Though my quantum information class doesn't really like to frame HUP in terms of measurement disturbance - or at least my prof basically thought that it's a rather shallow argument.

EDIT: it is worth pointing out, however, that measurement disturbance is a good classical analogue to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but like all classical analogues it does not paint the full picture, it just helps you understand the colors you need to paint it.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Lord Raven

[NekoKnight]

I think you guys are twisting my words here. I don't WANT people to have disabilities, but if they do, I want to believe it happened that way for a purpose, and not just say they were screwed over at birth. Sometimes life, like right now in fact, gets really overwhelming, and I need someone to lean on. Sometimes it's my brother's unfailing jokester spirit. Sometimes it's a singer's most touching song. Sometimes it's a trip to confession at church. Or maybe it's as simple as spending time with a friend who tells me to keep moving forward, sometimes literally. For the record, he was the one who approached me first, not me trying to look good by making friends with a guy with muscular dystrophy, I'm terrible at starting relationships! And no, he wasn't placed on the earth for my benefit, I just think it was part of God's plan for my life to meet him and touch each other's lives. He's got his own mission to carry out, and I respect that completely. I am not the center of the universe guys, and I apologize if I sounded that way. My bad.

Also hylian, when you put it that way, I guess it doesn't sound as bad. Not sold on genetic engineering for humans, but maybe we could trust scientists to know their limits (in morally upstanding countries anyways).

It's one thing to take inspiration from the determination of others to overcome adversity, but it's quite another to downplay their hardships. If it makes you feel better about it, you can think of genetic engineering as the next stage in preventive medicine. You aren't opposed to vaccines are you? I wouldn't wish away the polio vaccine even though some people can live on with their disabilities.

[Pixelman]

I think you guys are twisting my words here. I don't WANT people to have disabilities, but if they do, I want to believe it happened that way for a purpose, and not just say they were screwed over at birth. Sometimes life, like right now in fact, gets really overwhelming, and I need someone to lean on. Sometimes it's my brother's unfailing jokester spirit. Sometimes it's a singer's most touching song. Sometimes it's a trip to confession at church. Or maybe it's as simple as spending time with a friend who tells me to keep moving forward, sometimes literally. For the record, he was the one who approached me first, not me trying to look good by making friends with a guy with muscular dystrophy, I'm terrible at starting relationships! And no, he wasn't placed on the earth for my benefit, I just think it was part of God's plan for my life to meet him and touch each other's lives. He's got his own mission to carry out, and I respect that completely. I am not the center of the universe guys, and I apologize if I sounded that way. My bad.

Also hylian, when you put it that way, I guess it doesn't sound as bad. Not sold on genetic engineering for humans, but maybe we could trust scientists to know their limits (in morally upstanding countries anyways).

I'm a bit confused about your position. Perhaps I'm just tired and I'm not thinking straight, but I have a question:

Do you believe your friend was purposefully crippled by God?

The reason I responded the way that I did was because I assumed that.

[PeaceRibbon]

I'm not really sure if I'm the best person for such an answer, but here's my take:

When a powerful storm hits, it's not God's fault, that's weather being unpredictable because that's how it's made. Genes are equally as fickle. That being said I don't think "born perfect" even exists. Everyone has some kind of weakness big or small, mental or physical. That's what makes us human. Maybe it doesn't even show itself until later in life, but we all have one nonetheless.

[Rezzy]

Should take a look at this stackexchange discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35972/observation-of-violation-of-the-uncertainty-principle

Based on what I've read in the article, it only talks about measurement disturbance and not the actual uncertainty principle. This merely sheds doubt on "measurement disturbance" being the reason why Heisenberg's uncertainty principle exists, not the existence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That's definitely an interesting insight in and of itself, since a lot of people's viewpoints are that HUP results from measurements inherently disturbing the system.

Though my quantum information class doesn't really like to frame HUP in terms of measurement disturbance - or at least my prof basically thought that it's a rather shallow argument.

EDIT: it is worth pointing out, however, that measurement disturbance is a good classical analogue to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but like all classical analogues it does not paint the full picture, it just helps you understand the colors you need to paint it.

Interesting, I wonder why they've always linked measurement disturbance and the HUP so closely. I guess I'm behind the times. Most of my initial introduction was reading my grandfather's textbooks that he had lying around, and nothing I did in college really contradicted anything.

[Lord Raven]

Interesting, I wonder why they've always linked measurement disturbance and the HUP so closely. I guess I'm behind the times. Most of my initial introduction was reading my grandfather's textbooks that he had lying around, and nothing I did in college really contradicted anything.

Like I said, it's a good analogy and you can think of it in terms of classical mechanics. You disturb things in order to measure them properly, so naturally you will get uncertainty.

One of the (many) HUPs is delta-p * delta-x >= h-bar/2. Classically you can think of this as how you can't pinpoint the position of something easily especially if you want to know how fast it is going, since you have to disturb its motion at certain points in order to find its speed. This can serve as an analogy as to why it may be intuitive, but it ultimately isn't a physically true interpretation in quantum mechanics.

In the end, the fucky (this is not a typo) thing about quantum is that it's inherently unphysical and any physical meaning you attack to quantum is personal. Like you can use classical intuition to visualize problems (like quantum tunneling is basically a particle going through a hill instead of over it and back down despite lacking the energy to up the hill) but they ultimately are trivial. At least that is my understanding of it.

tl;dr the measurement disturbance makes sense in a certain context but it's not what is physically going on. It just happens to be a way we justify QM to ourselves, which is what that experiment showed in the end.

I'm not really sure if I'm the best person for such an answer, but here's my take:

When a powerful storm hits, it's not God's fault, that's weather being unpredictable because that's how it's made. Genes are equally as fickle. That being said I don't think "born perfect" even exists. Everyone has some kind of weakness big or small, mental or physical. That's what makes us human. Maybe it doesn't even show itself until later in life, but we all have one nonetheless.

This doesn't seem too related to what you said before. What you said before is that people of lesser ability are supposed to make you appreciate your own ability, which is a very condescending attitude to have because it still doesn't stop the other person from having a lesser ability.

It's basically saying "I'm so much better off than the other person" and it's a way of saying "god made you disabled because he wanted ME and a few others to make themself feel good." So you are saying that god picks favorites, which was not your intention but it very much comes off this way.

I don't think disabled people want that sort of pity nor do they want to be condescended upon. What you just said was that life was fragile and fickle and you're thankful you were spared genetically, but you are still implying you're better than someone who is disabled.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tetragrammaton]

Now that reminds me of why God created the devils, so he can be "good".

Who needs god when there is no evil?

[Moblin Major General]

Now that reminds me of why God created the devils, so he can be "good".

Who needs god when there is no evil?

There will always be evil, so there is always need for God. And no, God does not create demons, man created the image of demons to explain repression,oppression, and possession by malevolent spirits, and also hallucinations caused by eating infected grain. The Salem Witch trials were started because fungus infested wheat caused all those preadolescent children to trip balls.

[Makaze]

There will always be evil, so there is always need for God. And no, God does not create demons, man created the image of demons to explain repression,oppression, and possession by malevolent spirits, and also hallucinations caused by eating infected grain. The Salem Witch trials were started because fungus infested wheat caused all those preadolescent children to trip balls.

I think you misunderstood.

The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose", as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary". The definite article ha- (English: "the") is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as "the satan".

If a deity is either all-powerful at every instant, OR created everything and is all-knowing at all instants, then everything it creates is done knowing what will happen as a result of it. Historically Satan is understood as a role, a role that would be filled, if not by Lucifer, then by someone else, because God did need a villain to create a conflict for people to rally around. Consider the 9th Satanic Statement of the Earth:

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

[Rapier]

I think that claiming the world would be better without religion is stupid because it is our human nature that makes this world worse. Basically, we're the problem, and we use ideologies as tools to do our biddings, be it for the best or for the worst. And religion can be (and has been) used for good. I can't bring a scale and say whether it did more good things than bad things, but I know something is not discardable simply because it has defects. Improving a defective idea and reinforcing its good points (as religious reforms do, step by step) seems better.

You can't have science without religion. It's one of the two parts of the amalgam and easily the most reputable of the two.

Also, this discussion is seriously missing Chiki-chan. Dood needs to log on again.

Where the hell did that guy disappear to, I also miss his posts. It's hard to find logical, accurate content on that level (feplus, dondon and Phoenix Wright are top posters though). I wish I was less stupid when I was around him, could've learned more and all from our interactions, but then I became stupid again so, yeah, it'd be a waste of time again

I don't think science/religion necessitates religion/science. They're like two opposite answers that try to answer a fundamental question about the world and us (like how this article approaches it. The cartoon on the bottom of the post is helpful). I agree that they share the same root but branch off, though.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Rapier

[The DanMan]

Religion isn't the issue- it's any ideology taken too far. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China (moreso at it's inception)- purely secular movements met with much fervor by the country's own citizens but that end up doing much more harm than good.

[Tetragrammaton]

There will always be evil, so there is always need for God. And no, God does not create demons, man created the image of demons to explain repression,oppression, and possession by malevolent spirits, and also hallucinations caused by eating infected grain. The Salem Witch trials were started because fungus infested wheat caused all those preadolescent children to trip balls.

So you think that God did not create the angel Lucifer/Satan?

[Water Mage]

So you think that God did not create the angel Lucifer/Satan?

Depends on the interpretation.

First of all, Lucifer and Satan are very likely not the same entity

Also, there are theories that Lucifer might not have been an angel at all, but rather an ancient babylonian king whose name means morning star.

In fact a "Devil" figure in christianism might not be what some think. There are even theories that God never created a "Devil" figure at all.

Thus blaming God for the Devil's existence comes off as rather foolish.

Actually, a lot things that people blame and villify christianity for, might actually be based on completely misinterpreted facts.

Of course this goes both ways, there are things that christianity blames and villify that are based on misinterpreted facts as well.

We have to remember that it has ben centuries since christianity was first established, so of course a lot of things will get misinterpreted.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Water Mage

[SalShich10N]

It depends a lot in time, place, people and situation. Take Islam for starters. In its origins it served a lot to help the people survive and accustom themselves to the harsh climates of the desert and the hostile environment of the mediterranean. It was an environment constantly at war and barbarism was frequent, which is reflected in the warlike nature of the early scripts and strict rites they follow as it was means to establish order and stability. In modern times, however, these ancient portions of the scripts can be taken literal and used to indoctrinate their followers and justify commit atrocities in the name of a so called holy war that in reality is little more than a political turmoil and revenge. However for these people religion is also the primary source of their identity. In all of the middle east, the Arabian countries, they identify themselves not with the nation they're born, but with the religion they all follow and creates a sense of belonging and unity that goes unparalleled and has allowed them to achieve greatness of their own.

One cannot say Islam is evil even if it's warlike for it brings unity to its believers and one cannot say it is entirely a peaceful religion either since its law stands against modern human rights. In the end, what matters the most is the individual, and what they each make of it. Judging not based on someone's thoughts, but rather their actions.

So you think that God did not create the angel Lucifer/Satan?

It depends on who you ask and what do one means by this. If you ask Christians, yes god created Lucifer, but he rebelled and was sent into hell. If you ask Jewish, yes he created both a light bringing angel called Lucifer that rebelled and was sent to hell, but he also created a Satan made to test human's beliefs in god through torment. In the original Job's story god commanded this Satan to torture Job to prove the point that faith was stronger than adversity. If you want to go further back to ancient Hebrews then there is also a Mastema, who is an angel that punish sinners himself. This reflects the biggest philosphical difference between Judaism and Christianity: Judaism teaches that one must fear god and give glory to him, for if we not he will punish us. Christianity on the other hand believes that god is merciful, he loves us, will forgive our sins if we repent and we should pray to thank him for the good in our lives. One punishes, the other forgives.

The reason why all these changes occur is because as time progressed religious leaders and kings (namely Constantine) needed a more perfect and "pure" god that represents good and a devil "Lucifer" that represent evil and punishment, rather than making them esoteric entities. You know, easy for the masses to digest. The bible as we know, perhaps all religious books, have been altered to match the ideals of various leaders and ideologies tangential to the actual religion, so the core concept is what you should always focus on religions, not the hard details.

[UNLEASH IT]

I see a lot of value in religion though. Its ability to sway the hearts of people is almost unparalleled. I feel like if religious leaders preached more about the "sins of excess" (as they would put it) more than why certain groups of people are bad, it could do a lot of good in the society.

[Phoenix Wright]

it sways the hearts of people because it tugs at our most insecure and existential thoughts and tells us that if we just do 'x,' all of eternity will be alright.

the reason why emotional arguments are ever successful is because people don't know enough to make a logical decision.

[UNLEASH IT]

it sways the hearts of people because it tugs at our most insecure and existential thoughts and tells us that if we just do 'x,' all of eternity will be alright.

the reason why emotional arguments are ever successful is because people don't know enough to make a logical decision.

That's true, but just as that ability can be exploited for bad, it can also be used for good. We can advantage of people's supposed inability to make rational decisions and use that to sway them to do something that can ultimately help humanity. If you can somehow sneak science into religion that would be good.

I remember reading the Quran. It has so many useful tidbits of information on personal hygiene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_hygienical_jurisprudence.

Those tidbits probably helped people a lot to avoid getting infections during a time where medical science was very undeveloped.

A major problem with religion though is that it tends to be a bit static, in contrast to science which is always eager to challenge it's own established ideas. Something that you've probably pointed out already.

Like when you said that a theory and laws are interchangeable in that they are absolute. That may be true for now, but the possibility always exists that an opposing idea will arise and either invalidate that concept or fuse with it and form a new concept, which will then become the new established idea and eventually be challenged by another opposing idea down the line.

Though you might want to take my words with a grain of salt, because I do have a bias. I work in agriculture where, while we do have many established ideas, we always have to be ready and mindful to adapt in case these ideas are disproved as the environment in which we work tends to be very fickle and consequences of not doing so can be detrimental for everyone.

The confidence with which you argue your points is something that I admire but can't really afford to have.

Edited November 17, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Oricorio]

That is an interesting question. The thing many people need to realize is that religion was originally a source of unity. Gathering around that allowed ancient peoples to gather together into groups, form civilizations, and spread their ideas. The Catholic Church is a major reason Europe was ahead of the game, as it took most of the European tribes (with a couple of exceptions, like the Sami) and created a widespread civilization early on. This allowed news to spread more quickly, and more inventions to be made.

On the other hand...

Naturally, as you can expect, the road to progress is not a clean one. There were a LOT of atrocities committed just to unite all the people in Europe, and that's not going into the missions elsewhere. A lot of deaths relating to imperialism have religion to blame, and one just has to glance at the Middle Ages to see how religion could bring people to their worst.

 

However, in the end I'll say religion has done more good than harm. It allowed society to advance further, and let's be honest, even without religion humans would make up other reasons to go to war. It's human nature. Religion definitely can seem to be a bit of an artifact nowadays, having seemingly outlived its purpose, but it's hard to deny the historical good religion has accomplished.

[Flee Fleet!]

On 11/13/2016 at 2:30 PM, SalShich10N said:

It depends on who you ask and what do one means by this. If you ask Christians, yes god created Lucifer, but he rebelled and was sent into hell. If you ask Jewish, yes he created both a light bringing angel called Lucifer that rebelled and was sent to hell, but he also created a Satan made to test human's beliefs in god through torment. In the original Job's story god commanded this Satan to torture Job to prove the point that faith was stronger than adversity. If you want to go further back to ancient Hebrews then there is also a Mastema, who is an angel that punish sinners himself.

Should tell that in Islamic theology, Lucifer/Satan (as far as I'm aware he's called Iblis, so I dunno whether Iblis would be considered Satan or Lucifer. In fact I don't even know whether Lucifer and Satan are the same. Therefore someone please correct me, if I'm wrong), was a being created from fire, but had obeyed God and mingled with the Angels in Heaven, until the time came that he had disobeyed God's command to bow down to Adam, the first man to be ever created (the reason was that he considered himself superior to Adam, and thus did not want to boy down to him).  

Also regarding whether religion has done more good than harm:

Well, at least during the times they were revealed, they had brought more good. For example, Islam was bestowed upon the barbaric Arabs who committed heinous crimes, and encouraged that they do good. There were was opposition e.t.c. history and stuff but at the end the Arabs became more humane and stopped committing much of their crimes, such as marrying.....stepmothers. Bleh. (do note, this is according to what I know. I may potentially be wrong somewhere).

So yes, I believe that Religion had done much good during the times they were revealed, and they still do- however various misinterpretations resulted in it being corrupted or the followers of said religion themselves not properly understanding most of it's teachings.

This is just my opinion, by the way.

[SalShich10N]

2 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:

Should tell that in Islamic theology, Lucifer/Satan (as far as I'm aware he's called Iblis, so I dunno whether Iblis would be considered Satan or Lucifer. In fact I don't even know whether Lucifer and Satan are the same. Therefore someone please correct me, if I'm wrong), was a being created from fire, but had obeyed God and mingled with the Angels in Heaven, until the time came that he had disobeyed God's command to bow down to Adam, the first man to be ever created (the reason was that he considered himself superior to Adam, and thus did not want to boy down to him).  

Also regarding whether religion has done more good than harm:

Well, at least during the times they were revealed, they had brought more good. For example, Islam was bestowed upon the barbaric Arabs who committed heinous crimes, and encouraged that they do good. There were was opposition e.t.c. history and stuff but at the end the Arabs became more humane and stopped committing much of their crimes, such as marrying.....stepmothers. Bleh. (do note, this is according to what I know. I may potentially be wrong somewhere).

So yes, I believe that Religion had done much good during the times they were revealed, and they still do- however various misinterpretations resulted in it being corrupted or the followers of said religion themselves not properly understanding most of it's teachings.

This is just my opinion, by the way.

Religion is a reflection of it's own people, their beliefs and society. Thus religion, its mythology and customs has changed wildly over the years, as society has needed them to change. Back in the day they needed people to fear the image of god and to obey it without question, that's why a "Satan" exists that torments people as tests of their faiths, so the people wouldn't question their hardships and pressed on. Later they needed god to be absolute good, so they created a "Mastema" that embodies evil to prevent the image of god from being questioned of evil. Then they also needed to teach people that seeking knowledge and intelligence strays you away from the path of god, which is why devised the image of Lucifer, to demonify and to keep people more comfortably ignorant. Back then those in charge of law and order were also religious figures, so many features changes to religions in the past were done with political and mass control means. What's really accurate mythology is really dependent on who you ask and whose bible you read. So take it all with a grain of salt, and choose to believe whatever you want.

And as you say, Religion served the purpose of being some form of moral law, for a reason every single culture has its own. It also brings peace of mind and explanations to natural phenomenons, which is why most religions are based around nature. Even Islam and Hebrew religions have their origins with the worship of the moon, or so they say.

[Flee Fleet!]

9 hours ago, SalShich10N said:

Even Islam and Hebrew religions have their origins with the worship of the moon, or so they say.

I don't really know about this, but as far as I'm aware in the case of Islam, I think the name for God in Arabic, Allah, was only used for the moon by the pagans, I think. Because pretty much Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity/ Hebrew religions are based on not worshipping idols or any sort of item or thing such as the Sun, so I'm pretty sure it's origins are not with the worship of the moon. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Flee Fleet! said:

I don't really know about this, but as far as I'm aware in the case of Islam, I think the name for God in Arabic, Allah, was only used for the moon by the pagans, I think. Because pretty much Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity/ Hebrew religions are based on not worshipping idols or any sort of item or thing such as the Sun, so I'm pretty sure it's origins are not with the worship of the moon. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

I believe Islam's origins are pretty well documented but Judaism (and by extent Christianity) is twice as old and spans very far back in time. I don't think we can fully trust basically any documents from that time as proof about how the whole thing started. Especially since the bible claims it started with the creation of the world itself.

[Tetragrammaton]

1 hour ago, Flee Fleet! said:

I don't really know about this, but as far as I'm aware in the case of Islam, I think the name for God in Arabic, Allah, was only used for the moon by the pagans, I think. Because pretty much Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity/ Hebrew religions are based on not worshipping idols or any sort of item or thing such as the Sun, so I'm pretty sure it's origins are not with the worship of the moon. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

As I know, Islam also uses a kind of Lunar Calendar, is it any different with the East Asia Lunar Calendar?

[Flee Fleet!]

7 hours ago, hanhnn said:

As I know, Islam also uses a kind of Lunar Calendar, is it any different with the East Asia Lunar Calendar?

I don't know about the East Asian Lunar Calender, sorry, but the Lunar Calendar (also known as Hijri calendar, which began after the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina) of Islam is well, there. To be exact, as far as I know, it is the official calendar in Saudi Arabia, whereas in other countries like Pakistan, the Gregorian calendar is the official one. However Muslims celebrate Islamic holidays according to the date and month in the Hijri calendar (duh) and I assume some people also keep them in their house, therefore it is not ignored either (and Muslims especially keep in mind the months "Ramadan", "Zil Hajj" and "Muharram", I assume)

It also has 12 months, a total of 354 days and iirc, each month has 29 or 30 days.

[Jotari]

28 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said:

I don't know about the East Asian Lunar Calender, sorry, but the Lunar Calendar (also known as Hijri calendar, which began after the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina) of Islam is well, there. To be exact, as far as I know, it is the official calendar in Saudi Arabia, whereas in other countries like Pakistan, the Gregorian calendar is the official one. However Muslims celebrate Islamic holidays according to the date and month in the Hijri calendar (duh) and I assume some people also keep them in their house, therefore it is not ignored either (and Muslims especially keep in mind the months "Ramadan", "Zil Hajj" and "Muharram", I assume)

It also has 12 months, a total of 354 days and iirc, each month has 29 or 30 days.

How does that work? Double leap years? Or is it basically ignore the whole dissonance that'll eventually result?