Is religion a good thing?

[RPD]

IMHO, I goto church but don't believe everything at face value in the Bible. I feel its like money, if you are already a good person it lets you be better at it, if you are bad its going to make you better at being a bad person (does that make sense?).

I forget who said it but one of my favorite quotes is:
Faith and reason are like the two wings of a dove, without either one of them, the bird doesn't fly.

Edit - Voted other.

 

[bamacre]

religion is a crutch for the weak

Or a medicine for the sick. However you wish to perceive it.

 

[bamacre]

By the way, whoever moved this thread from P&N to OT did not disclose who he or she is, nor why they did it.

 

[vi edit]

It's a lot like water.

 

[HAL9000]

Or a medicine for the sick. However you wish to perceive it.

Alas it will normally make the sick sicker

By the way, whoever moved this thread from P&N to OT did not disclose who he or she is, nor why they did it.

I know! I'm disappointed it's over here, this discussion is based on a political viewpoint, the politics of religion. Plus the trolls tend to come out to play in OT more.

 

[xanis]

For those who aren't crazy or delusional, religion can be a good thing. It can offer community, a source of comfort, and guidance.

Unfortunately, for the zealots among us, religion can be a dangerous thing, turning people into hateful and prejudiced beings.

 

[Scotteq]

A very fair point, but wouldn't you argue that nations develop their own social basis for morality and ethics without religion, people's right and wrong often comes from their parents morality, whether it is religious based or not...

Absolutely a fair point, as well. It is perfectly possible to have a moral code without the trappings of Religion as we perceive it in the West: Confucianism being the obvious example.

The flip side, of course, is (1) Nations developing their own codes of morality and ethics has historical precedent for going Very, Very, Badly. And I'm not aware of any who have made such a philosophy truly stick without such a result. Confucianism, perhaps: But that wasn't developed by "The State".


(2) One's parents may or may or may not be capable of delivering on the idea. And it would logically follow that whether one happens to be raised in a Trailer Park or a Mansion would directly impact the childs' morality. i.e. One ending up with some "..Morality of 'Da 'Hood" as an accident of birth would be deplorable on all counts. Bad enough already, I should think.


(3) And on a practical level, developing your own moral code takes a lot of time, education, and personal discipline. It's perfectly possible to do this, but even so: One has to start Somewhere.

 

[HAL9000]

For those who aren't crazy or delusional, religion can be a good thing. It can offer community, a source of comfort, and guidance.

While I'm sure that's true (though I've never seen it) I don't understand why people need religion to be a part of community, it seems that people who can't think for them selves will head down the religious route.

 

[moshquerade]

Religion is as good as creating obvious troll bait threads.

they don't call you homerboy for nothing... you just hit another homer with that post. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Alas it will normally make the sick sicker

My analogy was not actually an analogy.

There was a Catholic man who, through his Catholic beliefs, created an entity which changed how the entire world treats cancer, aiding the massive increase in survival rates.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I live in England, I have a degree in philosophy, I know a few religious people, I went to a christian primary school. There are three or four churches in my town including a cathedral. I have seen some good come from religion, charities and the like, but only very small things. On a global scale religion causes war, disruption between countries, segregation and generally chaos.

My personal stance on religion is that it is bordering on a plague of illogic infecting the planet. The vast majority believe because they were raised to, and the others are searching for something they cannot find elsewhere so find it in religion.

How do you feel? There are obviously some religious people in this forum, and some atheists like me. So my question is, to both groups, regardless of what your personal beliefs are do you feel that religion is a benefit to the world or a hinderance? Obviously this is an over-generalisation, but as we are often discussing huge topics with many implications, what about this?

The problem is that religion balances in between control and education.
The exact use depends on the person preaching.
If that person is wise and kind, expect love,wisdom peace of mind and knowledge to be a part of that religion.
If that person desires to rule, expect hatred, fear, lies, and idolatry to be part of that religion.

See these two extremes, the problem arises when one of the followers starts to rebel.

Two hypothetical situations :

If that rebel starts to rebel against the wise and kind preacher, the wise and kind preacher can only control the rebel because all the followers (who also want to be wise and kind) correct the behavior of the rebel but with the desire for the rebel to see the wise and kind way. To do self reflection and become kind and wise as well. The problem is here, when do you say when the rebel does not want to listen : "Enough is enough !" ? If you do not want to kill that person what do you do then ? Usually you drive that rebel away. An outcast. But he will not be the only rebel and before you know it, you have a group of rebels threatening you and your followers. What do you do ? You show that you have the power to destroy just enough, that the rebels do not attack you. But it is no longer any use. The fear has reached your followers. And over time, fear will be the ruler and the mindset as well instead of family love ...



If the rebel starts to rebel against the cruel ruler, he will be killed because the rules fears to lose his position and will use everything and anything to keep that position. Usually this means turning the other followers against the rebel. This means usually the death of the rebel or if he is lucky to be out casted for ever but still alive. But he will not be the only rebel and before you know it, you have a group of rebels threatening you and your followers. What do you do ? You show that you have the power to destroy just enough that the rebels do not attack you. But it is no longer any use. Your followers are extremely aggressive and will attack. It is war.

In both cases, destruction is imminent.

Why does a rebel prefer to rebel ? Genes and the environment. Look at Fred Phelps and compare him with the extreme act of Jared Loughner...
What do they share ?

Religion is a tool. You can use it wisely or not, but it can be a means to control or a means to educate. But both will not work. Because the education will make control crumble.

 

[HAL9000]

Absolutely a fair point, as well. It is perfectly possible to have a moral code without the trappings of Religion as we perceive it in the West: Confucianism being the obvious example.

The flip side, of course, is (1) Nations developing their own codes of morality and ethics has historical precedent for going Very, Very, Badly. And I'm not aware of any who have made such a philosophy truly stick without such a result. Confucianism, perhaps: But that wasn't developed by "The State".

A very fair point, and although most countries are founded on a religion they are definately separating themselves, particularly in England (where I live) little to no christian undertones still exist in every day society and yet I would argue that morality (on the whole) is on the rise. People are thinking for them selves and the government is legislating similarly.

(2) One's parents may or may or may not be capable of delivering on the idea. And it would logically follow that whether one happens to be raised in a Trailer Park or a Mansion would directly impact the childs' morality. i.e. One ending up with some "..Morality of 'Da 'Hood" as an accident of birth would be deplorable on all counts. Bad enough already, I should think.

A very good point, if someone doesn't have the intellectual capacity to develop their own sense of morality or is unable to tap into a share social morality then perhaps religion should be the answer, this is something I hadn't considered

(3) And on a practical level, developing your own moral code takes a lot of time, education, and personal discipline. It's perfectly possible to do this, but even so: One has to start Somewhere.

I agree, it can be difficult but this is why I believe (like in France) that school children should be taught basic philosophy from a very young age, rather than preaching ethics to them give them the tools to make their own minds up, teach them the quest for knowledge.

 

[HAL9000]

The problem is that religion balances in between control and education.
The exact use depends on the person preaching.
If that person is wise and kind, expect love,wisdom peace of mind and knowledge to be a part of that religion.
If that person desires to rule, expect hatred, fear, lies, and idolatry to be part of that religion.

See these two extremes, the problem arises when one of the followers starts to rebel.

Two hypothetical situations :

If that rebel starts to rebel against the wise and kind preacher, the wise and kind preacher can only control the rebel because all the followers (who also want to be wise and kind) correct the behavior of the rebel but with the desire for the rebel to see the wise and kind way. To do self reflection and become kind and wise as well. The problem is here, when do you say when the rebel does not want to listen : "Enough is enough !" ? If you do not want to kill that person what do you do then ? Usually you drive that rebel away. An outcast. But he will not be the only rebel and before you know it, you have a group of rebels threatening you and your followers. What do you do ? You show that you have the power to destroy just enough, that the rebels do not attack you. But it is no longer any use. The fear has reached your followers. And over time, fear will be the ruler and the mindset as well instead of family love ...



If the rebel starts to rebel against the cruel ruler, he will be killed because the rules fears to lose his position and will use everything and anything to keep that position. Usually this means turning the other followers against the rebel. This means usually the death of the rebel or if he is lucky to be out casted for ever but still alive. But he will not be the only rebel and before you know it, you have a group of rebels threatening you and your followers. What do you do ? You show that you have the power to destroy just enough that the rebels do not attack you. But it is no longer any use. Your followers are extremely aggressive and will attack. It is war.

In both cases, destruction is imminent.

Why does a rebel prefer to rebel ? Genes and the environment. Look at Fred Phelps and compare him with the extreme act of Jared Loughner...
What do they share ?

Religion is a tool. You can use it wisely or not, but it can be a means to control or a means to educate. But both will not work. Because the education will make control crumble.

Excellent points, and as you say religion is a tool, but a tool welded (on the most part) by the wrong people, Also a tool that has no need to exist anymore. Control can be achieved without religious undertones.

 

[HAL9000]

My analogy was not actually an analogy.

There was a Catholic man who, through his Catholic beliefs, created an entity which changed how the entire world treats cancer, aiding the massive increase in survival rates.

The same could have been done with a placebo or belief that the grass would make you better, it didn't require religion, it's just easier to do with religion as it is already engrained into society..

 

[HAL9000]

that don't call you homerboy for nothing... you just hit another homer with that post. :thumbsup:

What's a "homer" assuming you aren't talking about the Simpsons...?

 

[moshquerade]

What's a "homer" assuming you aren't talking about the Simpsons...?

a home run, out of the park.

also, are you phinneaswhoopie? c'mon you can tell me.

"what's a phinneaswhoopie?"

 

[Scotteq]

I agree, it can be difficult but this is why I believe (like in France) that school children should be taught basic philosophy from a very young age, rather than preaching ethics to them give them the tools to make their own minds up, teach them the quest for knowledge.

Herein lies the real Benefits of a Classical Education: "How To Think"



Cheers, Y'all!

 

[Eli]

In the past, it has probably been overall a good thing for the survival of our species, as it brought and kept groups of people together, unified them.

However, it has caused more deaths, war, strife, suffering, social upheval, genocide, etc than everything else combined. In that regard, it is a dispicible thing.

There is no need for religion in this modern society. It serves no survival purpose. It explains nothing. It's utterly meaningless, and I sincerely hope it fades into oblivion.

I wish I could live for a couple of thousand more years to see that come about.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'd hope even atheists can recognize that religions and churches do a lot of great stuff. They teach good values, give people hope, tend to be involved in the community and do a lot of humanitarian and volunteer work, etc.

Not that there aren't a fair share of bad apples, but what group doesn't have these. I think overall, though, churches do a lot of good work. But then again, do you really need all the religion and dogma for people to organize and do these good deeds? Probably not. I'm sure that without religion a lot of this stuff would still be going on.

 

[bamacre]

The same could have been done with a placebo or belief that the grass would make you better, it didn't require religion, it's just easier to do with religion as it is already engrained into society..

Could have, should have, would have. None of them are reality.

 

[HAL9000]

a home run, out of the park.

also, are you phinneaswhoopie? c'mon you can tell me.

"what's a phinneaswhoopie?"

We don't have baseball over here, I've not heard of a "homer" like that before. No, I know what that is, but it has been conclusively proved that isn't me

Herein lies the real Benefits of a Classical Education: "How To Think"



Cheers, Y'all!

This.

Could have, should have, would have. None of them are reality.

I've no doubt it you do some research into placebo effects you'll find similar results

 

[HAL9000]

In the past, it has probably been overall a good thing for the survival of our species, as it brought and kept groups of people together, unified them.

However, it has caused more deaths, war, strife, suffering, social upheval, genocide, etc than everything else combined. In that regard, it is a dispicible thing.

There is no need for religion in this modern society. It serves no survival purpose. It explains nothing. It's utterly meaningless, and I sincerely hope it fades into oblivion.

I wish I could live for a couple of thousand more years to see that come about.

This is exactly my feelings

I'd hope even atheists can recognize that religions and churches do a lot of great stuff. They teach good values, give people hope, tend to be involved in the community and do a lot of humanitarian and volunteer work, etc.

Not that there aren't a fair share of bad apples, but what group doesn't have these. I think overall, though, churches do a lot of good work. But then again, do you really need all the religion and dogma for people to organize and do these good deeds? Probably not. I'm sure that without religion a lot of this stuff would still be going on.

While they can do good things, theres no logical reason for them, they teach good values (In some cases) but none of those values are as good as someone with a good head on them will establish for themselves.

 

[bamacre]

I've no doubt it you do some research into placebo effects you'll find similar results

Doing so would be irrelevant and uninteresting to those who have survived cancer.

BTW, you do know who and what I am referring to, right?

 

[frostedflakes]

This is exactly my feelings



While they can do good things, theres no logical reason for them, they teach good values (In some cases) but none of those values are as good as someone with a good head on them will establish for themselves.

Religion may not make sense to you or me, but if it gives other people hope and helps them cope with life's challenges, who are we to tell them "hey your beliefs are stupid, stop it." As long as they don't force their crap on me, I really couldn't care less. If religion is a positive influence for someone, more power to them IMO.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Excellent points, and as you say religion is a tool, but a tool welded (on the most part) by the wrong people, Also a tool that has no need to exist anymore. Control can be achieved without religious undertones.

Dogmas will always exist, even without religion. But as long as reason and intellectual honesty are more important then personal fame and riches, humanity will get there. Science and education is no different then religion in principle. Because Science and education too can be used for the wrong reasons.

I have been researching history for some time .
It has occurred to me that a lot of jumps in human progression happen on those locations of the world where people all have a common positive mindset. Thinking as one. Same ideals, same positive dreams. Feeling of being saved. People without knowing and realizing hype each other up to be even more positive. And when there are no worries, the chance rise that multiple inventors come to the same realization usually at similar times. In the recent past, hippies where strange people, they almost got it right. That is until they started to share physical love. Of course with all the problems that come from that.

First the mindset of people must change. Tools of progress are no toys in the hands of the wrong mindset.