|
This question is very strange. Religious ideas have developed over time, like a school of thought.
It has provided us with values and morals. Yes we may have acquired them without religion but the
fact is we didn't. It would not be right to say that atheists have morals so religion can't provide
them because the fact is that atheists have grown up in religious societies. Its the equivalent of
saying that the Enlightenment school of thought has not provided us with anything because it could
have been provided anyway. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Christian religion originally spread from the center of the Roman Empire out towards its edges.
Sometime later when civilization collapsed it similarly spread from Rome outward. Most of the books
that were saved moved through the churches just ahead of the collapse of the Empire. These are the
same books that were waiting to be rediscovered to help spur on the Renaissance. It’s a bit of a
stretch I realize but the rediscovery of those books greatly contributed to that incredible period
of time and without them the face of Western Civilization might be quite different. And those books
might well have not been saved if it weren’t for the Roman Catholic Church. There is a book called
How the Irish Saved Western Civilization that describes in detail how all this came about. As to
current continuing contributions that are dependent upon religion I’ve got nothing. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It helps to keep the order in society. Many people would have no problem breaking the law, but don't
do things because it's against their religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There must have been something good ( in the sense of facilitating societal success and survival)
that religion did, at least historically, otherwise it wouldn't have evolved in virtually every
human society we know about.
The only alternative to this interpretation that I can think of is to insist that we must have a
genetic pre-disposition to believe in this nonsense.
So, if we accept that there must have been something good, we can ask what it was. Here are my
speculative suggestions :
1/Some kind of moral canon is indispensable to any functinoning society. If people can just
anarchistically cut one another down, the society will fall apart. But back in the day, a certain
amount of violence and atrocity towards outsiders may have been an aid to societal success. Religion
may have helped societies make this moral distinction between insiders and outsiders, maintaining
morality inside the walls and immorality outside.
2/The belief in some kind of posthumous existence may alter behaviour in such a way as to promote
society's success. For example, Muslims who think they're going to heaven with the 72 virgins or
whatever may fight more fiercely than they otherwise would. Japanese pilots who think their spirits
will be preserved and honoured forever in some Shinto shrine may be willing to throw their lives
away in Kamikaze missions. There are times when this willingness to commit suicide, or undertake
reckless risks, may have been beneficial for a society.
3/ Life can be hard and it was much harder in earlier times than it is now. The illusory comfort
religion offers may have helped people bear up under this, making the society as a whole more
resilient than it would have been otherwise.
Of course, the term "good" here is being interpreted as anything leading to societal success. That
may include things that we would actually consider immoral or barbaric. Indeed, part of the strength
and value of religion for a society is that allows people to undertake outrageously immoral acts and
feel good about them.
Even with this broad interpretation of the word good, it's not clear that any of these advantages
are necessary in contemporary society, as opposed to historically. We should easily be able to
dispense with religion now, without suffering significant loss. In fact, in most of Europe, we have
done so. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let's see----a good test tube case has been two large countries, Russia and China, who politically
outlawed religion, declared the official state philosophy to be atheism and immediately proceeded to
murder over 100 million folks. So I guess one can see what happens without religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oh, let's see, helped the poor, fed the hungry, healed the sick, etc. |
| |
 Mark  06 Jun 2008 00:22
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is one of Christopher Hitchen's challenges that nobody has been able to answer. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A level of comfort and security that surpasses that of the non-religious. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You know how a Colombian drug kingpin makes money off the misery of people in other countries and
gets the loyalty of Colombians by spending some of the ill-gotten gains on the poor within Colombia?
Religions behave in exactly the same way, robbing Peter to save Paul.
The only tangible and worthwhile thing that religion has done is pay for art, be that painting,
sculpture, music or whatever. The artists would have still had their creativity (religious
garbage certainly didn't inspire them), but the stolen money given to artists by religion pays
for the art.
Michelangelo would have painted other work without the catholic cult's money, but the money made the
Sistene Chapel possible. Mozart wrote symphonies without religious twaddle, but their money paid
for a lot of his "spec" work. |
| |
 K9 05 Jun 2008 22:36
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I'm going to have to throw in on this side because most people have been posting to the wrong side.
The rules were simple, most people just ignored them. In order to answer yes, you have to show:
1. The proposed "good thing" is factual. It isn't a placebo, it isn't a lie, it isn't a dogmatic
belief, it's actually, factually, demonstrably true.
2. It cannot be achieved without religion. That means religion and religious belief is essential
in it's very existence.
3. It must be demonstrably good, providing a positive effect for society in general, not just for
an individual.
None of the cases presented so far have met those criteria. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, I guess it brings people in a community together. Family reunions, picnics and festivals do
the same thing.
I do think that religion is important for anyone learning about human history. Or for a person
studying culture or archaeology.
Churches do collect money for those in need, so it has its goods place in society in some ways.
However, again you don't have to be religious at all to give to those in need. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is not one. Somebody might say things like "charity" or "forgiveness" but I don't believe
that those came straight from religion as if humans couldn't think of them themselves. I think
humans thought of them and then they put them into a religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
