Spectator N0 2651 By Fieldfare
Crosswords0 min ago
Religion, has it been a benefit?
158 Answers
Has religion been an overall to benefit to mankind or would we have been better off without it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Father-Ted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Beso - I'm sorry you feel I'm coming out with a 'trite argument'. My thoughts on the subject have actually been thought out carefully over many years. As I stated earlier, I am not a religious person myself, but I do have respect for other people's faiths and would stand up for them against irrational anger and abuse. Just as I would stand up for your right to be without faith - although definitely NOT any perceived right to be abusive towards people of faith.
Unfortunately, I find your line of reasoning a tad flawed. I'm intrigued by your citing the book of Joshua, for example. Yes, it is definitely full of instances of acts of cruelty. So you think that necessarily reflects the whole of Christian history? So why not pick on another book of the Bible, say Leviticus, which states that all men should have beards and that one should not wear a garment made of both linen and wool, and say that is an accurate relection of Christianity?
You seem to be saying that only secular organisations can effectively help the needy because Christian charities have a hidden agenda. Hmm. Now I know for a fact that a local Salvation Army hot meals/night shelter has a policy of NOT talking about religion unless requested to do so. But no doubt you will see this as an underhand ploy to lure the vulnerable until they are finally ensnared by the wily Christians who will then subject them to unimaginable horrors and abuse.
I'm puzzled as to why you are so angry about religion. Or not so much religion as Christianity. Which I was not talking about specifically if you care to read my words without the knee-jerk reaction. I'm not a Christian, so I'm not particularly bothered by your attitude. But I am bothered by irrational loathing and woolly thinking.
Unfortunately, I find your line of reasoning a tad flawed. I'm intrigued by your citing the book of Joshua, for example. Yes, it is definitely full of instances of acts of cruelty. So you think that necessarily reflects the whole of Christian history? So why not pick on another book of the Bible, say Leviticus, which states that all men should have beards and that one should not wear a garment made of both linen and wool, and say that is an accurate relection of Christianity?
You seem to be saying that only secular organisations can effectively help the needy because Christian charities have a hidden agenda. Hmm. Now I know for a fact that a local Salvation Army hot meals/night shelter has a policy of NOT talking about religion unless requested to do so. But no doubt you will see this as an underhand ploy to lure the vulnerable until they are finally ensnared by the wily Christians who will then subject them to unimaginable horrors and abuse.
I'm puzzled as to why you are so angry about religion. Or not so much religion as Christianity. Which I was not talking about specifically if you care to read my words without the knee-jerk reaction. I'm not a Christian, so I'm not particularly bothered by your attitude. But I am bothered by irrational loathing and woolly thinking.
Jomifl: no real argument from me: I was once described as a heretic by a respected Professor of Theology for suggesting the Church was a human institution like any other, subject to malice, mistakes and misunderstanding. What interests me is why, in an evolutionary context, we so freely condemn the various ills attributed to religion (though most of the rest of humanity doesn't inspire me to confidence either) as evil, wrong and so on, as if that were obvious. It could be just as much the case that the suppression of the weak and ill-fitted is justified and in keeping with proper order, and we should be describing that as right. Personally (again) I don't believe that.
I might add as an aside that most of the religious people I know (from many ideologies) don't b****r babies, crush women's aspirations or cause the deaths of witches and other misfits. They just go about their business of trying to make their world a better place according to their understanding of better. On the micro scale, I believe that is closer to the true record of religious achievement and contribution than the catalogue of horrors so readily rehearsed here. Never let religious people into power: they make a horrible mess of it.
I might add as an aside that most of the religious people I know (from many ideologies) don't b****r babies, crush women's aspirations or cause the deaths of witches and other misfits. They just go about their business of trying to make their world a better place according to their understanding of better. On the micro scale, I believe that is closer to the true record of religious achievement and contribution than the catalogue of horrors so readily rehearsed here. Never let religious people into power: they make a horrible mess of it.
Zabadak, I think you may have put your finger on it, there is and never has been a problem with people believing things that they feel they understand intuitively. The problems begin when they try to impose those beliefs and the ensuing consequences under the authority of institutionalized religion. Religions it seems are the result of people only associating with other like minded people thus avoiding having their dafter notions challenged and having to put some intellectual effort into supporting their ideas. It is as they say good to talk, particularly to people with whom one disagrees.
Perhaps then, Jomifl, it's legitimate to make a distinction of sorts between institutionalised religion (religion plus secular power) and the more private, workaday kind. My reading of the religion I currently espouse suggests it was never meant to be assume secular power, and it has indeed often enough caused damage when it has, though perhaps not on the exclusively evil kind it is accused with here.
Dear bert_h,
I refering to logic and no point in arguing about it. Fair enough, but you ought to understand the basic rules of scientific logic. While theories or beliefs can eventually be proven or fail to do so so according to evidence. However it is impossible to prove a negative.
Regarding religionists on-going complaint that we atheists are swamping or even bullying them. I disagree and would be the first to criticise such an attitude. This is a debating site and I believe we atheists justify our reasoning and fairly criticise any false or red-herring arguments from religionists. I am disappointed in the religionists arguments.
On the latter, religion "inspiring" art, why are all religious images all created as Europeans rather than Jewish. Can religions not face the fact that Jesus, disciples etc., were Jews: coloured and typical jewish nose-type?
I refering to logic and no point in arguing about it. Fair enough, but you ought to understand the basic rules of scientific logic. While theories or beliefs can eventually be proven or fail to do so so according to evidence. However it is impossible to prove a negative.
Regarding religionists on-going complaint that we atheists are swamping or even bullying them. I disagree and would be the first to criticise such an attitude. This is a debating site and I believe we atheists justify our reasoning and fairly criticise any false or red-herring arguments from religionists. I am disappointed in the religionists arguments.
On the latter, religion "inspiring" art, why are all religious images all created as Europeans rather than Jewish. Can religions not face the fact that Jesus, disciples etc., were Jews: coloured and typical jewish nose-type?
Dear Solvitquick,
Thank you for a much more digestible contribution than some others.
// I am disappointed in the religionists arguments //
But of course. Arguments, logic, and reasoning form a closed loop that does not include religion. As I said earlier, David Hume and his contemporaries arrived at this view over two hundred years ago. So there can be no point in religionists trying to meet the rationalists on their own ground, and yes, as you correctly say, any attempt by them to do such a thing will inevitably look rather pathetic to the rationalists when judged by their own standards.
Thank you for a much more digestible contribution than some others.
// I am disappointed in the religionists arguments //
But of course. Arguments, logic, and reasoning form a closed loop that does not include religion. As I said earlier, David Hume and his contemporaries arrived at this view over two hundred years ago. So there can be no point in religionists trying to meet the rationalists on their own ground, and yes, as you correctly say, any attempt by them to do such a thing will inevitably look rather pathetic to the rationalists when judged by their own standards.
Bert, on the contrary, it is religion that resorts to circular arguments as you will be aware if you have read many posts in the religion section of AB. It seems to be the case that David Hume et. al. do not understand how logic and scientific reasoning works. Science does not try to prove anything as that biases reasoning and is almost guaranteed to give an erroneous answer. Science simply tries to establish what is most likely to be true. That is why creationism is such a joke, the creationists think they can use the scientific method to prove their assertions re. creation. They do not understand enough about the scientific method to achieve anything other than make fools of themselves.
Jomifl, it's a pity you didn't read what I wrote.
// on the contrary, it is religion that resorts to circular arguments //
I explained that any "arguments" trying to support or defend religion couldn't work, and why; so there's nothing "on the contrary" about it. And I also said that when religionists did try to put forward arguments, they were bound to look pretty pathetic; and you're obviously agreeing with that, too.
// on the contrary, it is religion that resorts to circular arguments //
I explained that any "arguments" trying to support or defend religion couldn't work, and why; so there's nothing "on the contrary" about it. And I also said that when religionists did try to put forward arguments, they were bound to look pretty pathetic; and you're obviously agreeing with that, too.
Bert, //Arguments, logic, and reasoning form a closed loop that does not include religion//
I may have misunderstood the above statement but it seems to be untrue to me. To say that religion cannot be subject to logical argument and reason is just a bit disingenuous as it obviously can, despite David Humes apparently flawed reasoning. Believers may not apply logic to their beliefs but that is not to say that others cannot apply logic to them (and their beliefs).
I may have misunderstood the above statement but it seems to be untrue to me. To say that religion cannot be subject to logical argument and reason is just a bit disingenuous as it obviously can, despite David Humes apparently flawed reasoning. Believers may not apply logic to their beliefs but that is not to say that others cannot apply logic to them (and their beliefs).
Logic and reasoning do not form a closed loop. Science is continuously loking for new observations. Anything that does not fit the current framework of results in that framework either being modified or in some case entirely cast out in favour of a new model.
Religion is the closed loop. Anything that does not fit the dogma is ignored, denied, presented as a conspiracy or held up as "God testing our faith".
Religion does not have a place in logic because it built on irrational assumptions conceived without evidence by ancient, ignorant men.
Religion is the closed loop. Anything that does not fit the dogma is ignored, denied, presented as a conspiracy or held up as "God testing our faith".
Religion does not have a place in logic because it built on irrational assumptions conceived without evidence by ancient, ignorant men.
Kiki//I am not a religious person myself, but I do have respect for other people's faiths and would stand up for them against irrational anger and abuse. //
So you also respect and stand up for the beliefs and faith of satanists?
The criticism of religion is not irrational. It is solidly based on objective analysis that clearly shows the negative effect their bigotry imposes on society.
For centuries the faithful have routinely murdered any who criticise their dogma and it still goes on in many places. In the West, even though they are no longer allowed to murder they persist with the notion that their faith should be respected and by this they mean it should not be subjected to criticism.
This is ridiculous. If their beliefs are worthy then they will endure the criticism. However the faithful know full well that irrational dogma will crumble when exposed to the light of truth and reasoning so they are desperate to shame any critics to silence.
But we will not be shamed and our criticism will be heard. The faithful are also welcome to respond to the criticism but they have been shown incapable. Apologists like Kiki seem to think this is unfair.
Religion continues to pollute the minds of the young as they take advantage of the prominent positons of their oppulent places of worship in every city. They are allowed by law to lie and collect money under false pretences in ways that no other buisness could get away with.
The criticism of their faith will not be silences so I suggest the apologists stop whinging and get used to it.
So you also respect and stand up for the beliefs and faith of satanists?
The criticism of religion is not irrational. It is solidly based on objective analysis that clearly shows the negative effect their bigotry imposes on society.
For centuries the faithful have routinely murdered any who criticise their dogma and it still goes on in many places. In the West, even though they are no longer allowed to murder they persist with the notion that their faith should be respected and by this they mean it should not be subjected to criticism.
This is ridiculous. If their beliefs are worthy then they will endure the criticism. However the faithful know full well that irrational dogma will crumble when exposed to the light of truth and reasoning so they are desperate to shame any critics to silence.
But we will not be shamed and our criticism will be heard. The faithful are also welcome to respond to the criticism but they have been shown incapable. Apologists like Kiki seem to think this is unfair.
Religion continues to pollute the minds of the young as they take advantage of the prominent positons of their oppulent places of worship in every city. They are allowed by law to lie and collect money under false pretences in ways that no other buisness could get away with.
The criticism of their faith will not be silences so I suggest the apologists stop whinging and get used to it.
Kiki to beso //So why not pick on another book of the Bible, say Leviticus, which states that all men should have beards and that one should not wear a garment made of both linen and wool, //
I pointed to Joshua because you asked what is the connection between religion and attrocities.
But you illustrate the point well. The believers happily wear mixed clothing and shave their beards in defiance of "the word of God" as reported by the Bible yet routinely quote other arbitrarily selected sections of the book to justify their insistence of other god given attitude.
Indeed Leviticus is the basis for the persecution of homosexuals, perfectly illustrating the higly selective way the faithful use this stupid book.
Others will select Joshua as "the word" as they hack their way through populations of those who do not agree with their values in the great traditions of putting one's enemies, men, women and children, "to the sword".
I pointed to Joshua because you asked what is the connection between religion and attrocities.
But you illustrate the point well. The believers happily wear mixed clothing and shave their beards in defiance of "the word of God" as reported by the Bible yet routinely quote other arbitrarily selected sections of the book to justify their insistence of other god given attitude.
Indeed Leviticus is the basis for the persecution of homosexuals, perfectly illustrating the higly selective way the faithful use this stupid book.
Others will select Joshua as "the word" as they hack their way through populations of those who do not agree with their values in the great traditions of putting one's enemies, men, women and children, "to the sword".
bert_h - “... just what I expect to see from militant atheists...”
Oh dear me. The old 'militant atheist' label again...
When people use the phrase 'militant atheist', what they are really saying is, “Shut up. I don't want to hear your views.”. The organised religions of this world have had their way for so long that their modern day adherents seem to think that they should be above all criticism. Any negative criticism of their theology is deemed to be 'militant'.
“... any attempt by them to do such a thing [religionists trying to meet the rationalists on their own ground] will inevitably look rather pathetic to the rationalists when judged by their own standards...”
You're right. It does. So by what other standards should we be judging religion? Or are you saying that we should cease to judge religion at all and (as I suggested earlier) simply shut up?
Oh dear me. The old 'militant atheist' label again...
When people use the phrase 'militant atheist', what they are really saying is, “Shut up. I don't want to hear your views.”. The organised religions of this world have had their way for so long that their modern day adherents seem to think that they should be above all criticism. Any negative criticism of their theology is deemed to be 'militant'.
“... any attempt by them to do such a thing [religionists trying to meet the rationalists on their own ground] will inevitably look rather pathetic to the rationalists when judged by their own standards...”
You're right. It does. So by what other standards should we be judging religion? Or are you saying that we should cease to judge religion at all and (as I suggested earlier) simply shut up?
oh, well i didnt see father teds comment. I will answer it now. It has produced famous art, literature and music, Also a lot of famous people in the world, past and present have been inspired by their religious beliefs. Even in spite of the negative media, it gives a place for people to talk to one another, discuss there problems and make friends. As islam believes in a brotherhood between all muslims that sense of care is always there. Yes, you dont have to be a muslim to do that, but as you can, or maybe not see muslims always greet each other and remain peaceful to each other on the majority (sometimes the media does show the few bad things but than again that is media)
The other thing which after all this time naomi still cant get into her head is that it is out of choice. If someone wants to join a religion, fine.
The other thing which after all this time naomi still cant get into her head is that it is out of choice. If someone wants to join a religion, fine.
Sith, the worst enemies of muslims are other muslims, link below. I expect you will choose not to believe it as is your prerogative, having your thinking dictated by others.
http://thespeedymedia...uslim-death-toll.html
http://thespeedymedia...uslim-death-toll.html
