Religion: a net positive or negative for mankind?

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
I look around the world today and I see so much conflict that is justified, if not fomented, by religions.

I look at history and I see the subjugation of science by religion at various points in history.

Yet I also see the good that people do in the name of religions: the Mother Theresas, the halfway houses, AA etc...

So here are my questions:

1) over the course of history, do you think that religion has been a net positive or negative for humanity?


2) so much of human conflict is justified by religious belief. Were religious belief NOT to exist, do you think people would just find something else to justify their fighting?
 
How many people did Joseph Stalin slaughter in Russia? Was that in the name of religion?

Was Adolph Hitler's reign of terror based on religion? Are the situations in North Korea and Zimbabwe a result of religious beliefs? Did Attila the Hun ransack the countryside in the name of God? You could go on and on.

The point is that people do what people do. Using religion to justify that is simply a tool. Just because people use government to line their pockets and behave in corrupt manner does not make government a bad thing in and of itself. Like almost everything else in life, the tool is subject to the user.
 
Are you looking at this from a macro level? Micro level? Both?

I think without question religion has been a net positive. But then, I look at religion as being essentially a cultural artifact, a social construct, a way for people to get along with others, with themselves, and to try to get some comfort from a cold, uncaring universe. In other words, the benefit of religion is not to tell you that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Let's try to think oustide the religious box here.

And religion, being a cultural artifact, being devised by man, is of course fraught with all the pitfalls and weaknesses that man possesses. So the real problem is with man, not with religion (or any other expression of mans' attempt to get by in this world).

Religion is used to bash others. So is nationalism, race, school affiliation, northerner, southerner, etc.

But, and the reason I ask about the micro analysis, is that we can never really know what comfort, benefit, solace, and help religion has brought to all the individuals out there in their times of crisis.

And btw, Bishop Finn in Kansas City needs to be criminally prosecuted.
 
1) good question - my guess is a small net positive

2) dumb question - see monkeys (ie of course we would fight - religion is just a rationalization)
 
why do you have to bring sea monkeys into the argument, paso?

oh, see monkeys........
tongue.gif
 
I look around the world today and I see so much death that is enhanced, if not fomented, by science.

I look at history and I see the subjugation of millions by science at various points in history (WWII for a quick example).

Yet I also see the good that people do in the name of science: the Jonas Salks, the hospitals, etc...

So here are my questions:

1) over the course of history, do you think that science & engineering has been a net positive or negative for humanity?


2) so much of human death is caused by scientific discovery. Were science NOT to exist (no need for oil, no guns, no atomic bombs - for example), do you think people would just find something else to cause massive deaths?






I’m sorry for the smart-*** response. Religion is used by the powerful to motivate the masses towards their goal. Religion is not the cause – it is the tool. Much like a gun.
 
Gadfly,

Have science and engineering somehow postulated a moral necessity for destructive behavior? Is there an underlying doctrine you can point to that's regularly promoted around the world that demands the use of these technologies to bring about human suffering?

As to the benefits: can you name another means for achieving the enormous advances in medicine and engineering and increased life expectancy and communications and countless other benefits we enjoy every day besides scientific inquiry?

I suspect your question wasn't genuine anyway but feel free to continue the theory if you think you've got something to work with.
 
Christianity was the driving force behind the 18th and 19th century Abolition movement. That's a positive, right?

The excesses of communism (excesses being a euphemism for slaughtering hundreds of million in camps) was motivated by Humanist ethical codes (Stalin, Mao and Pot all believed they were serving a greater social good). Does that count as religion or atheism?
 
But rational justice is only credible if it is also transcendent. If it's not transcendent, people won't be able to distinguish between rational behavior that is just and rational behavior that is advantageous.
 
How does the Code of Hummurabi fit in this construct?

I do not think you need religion to be moral. If you come at it from an animal behavior perspective, most "laws" and "morals" make sense from a survival perspective irrespective of religion. They are a way of maximizing dna.
 
JohnnyM,

It may not require religion, but it does require transcendence. And religion is one obvious road to transcendence.

If it's not transcendent, people won't really believe in it. They might say that they do, and they might try to act like they do, but they really don't, and there is precious little standing between them and the abyss of moral ambiguity.

You can take the religion out of it if you wish, but you'll have to find some other way to make it transcendent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top