My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works1 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.
I was thinking the same as Markrae, that it has produced some beautiful churches, mosques, art, and particularly for me music. Whether that would have happened had not the artist, musician not been inspired by their religious beliefs, i don't know. But i confess to having a love of church music, sacred, choral, chanting even.
Em, //It did spread not just the word of God, but education for many that would not have had access to it.//
It did, but religion was paramount, so I have to question whether or not the same would have happened without it. Henry VIII was instrumental in founding educational institutions, and I suspect he’d have done the same regardless.
It did, but religion was paramount, so I have to question whether or not the same would have happened without it. Henry VIII was instrumental in founding educational institutions, and I suspect he’d have done the same regardless.
> so your reason for saying that religion has benefitted mankind is because it has inspired stunning art, literature, and music. Good reason. We'll ignore all the horrors. :o/
That's unworthy of you, Naomi. The answer quoted above was simply my attempt to play devil's advocate to the vast majority of the other responses. Without religion, we would never have had the Song of Solomon, Mozart's and Fauré's Requiem Masses, da Vinci's Last Supper etc. Whether these would have been replaced with other works of equal or greater beauty within a secular context, we have no way of knowing.
That's unworthy of you, Naomi. The answer quoted above was simply my attempt to play devil's advocate to the vast majority of the other responses. Without religion, we would never have had the Song of Solomon, Mozart's and Fauré's Requiem Masses, da Vinci's Last Supper etc. Whether these would have been replaced with other works of equal or greater beauty within a secular context, we have no way of knowing.
Mark, my post was addressed to Sith, who having been asked by Father Ted to explain why he thinks religion has been beneficial to mankind, as he said in an earlier post, has simply answered by saying he agrees with you – hence my response. I understand your initial post completely, and my apologies for any misunderstanding.
Naomi - OK, thanks.
jomifl - Why play devil's advocate? Because I thought the thread was hugely one-sided! I don't think my views on (organised) religion are unknown around these parts but, much as as I despise it, it has been hugely inspirational in the field of the creative arts, and I felt that need mentioning...
jomifl - Why play devil's advocate? Because I thought the thread was hugely one-sided! I don't think my views on (organised) religion are unknown around these parts but, much as as I despise it, it has been hugely inspirational in the field of the creative arts, and I felt that need mentioning...
To Birdie1971 :-
Your long post criticising religion in general, and me in particular, is just what I expect to see from militant atheists. There's no point in replying to it, really - you've made up your mind about religion, and so have I.
However, we have all known since the time of the Scottish Enlightenment - i.e. David Hume and his contemporaries - that reason and logic cannot arrive at either the truth, or the falsehood, of religious beliefs. So I'm not going to join in to all those reasoned and logical arguments of yours - sorry.
Your long post criticising religion in general, and me in particular, is just what I expect to see from militant atheists. There's no point in replying to it, really - you've made up your mind about religion, and so have I.
However, we have all known since the time of the Scottish Enlightenment - i.e. David Hume and his contemporaries - that reason and logic cannot arrive at either the truth, or the falsehood, of religious beliefs. So I'm not going to join in to all those reasoned and logical arguments of yours - sorry.
Hmmm, there's been a lot of talk here about mass murder, torture, terrorism, and all the things that have been done in the name of religion, but isn't this missing the point?
Whether you're talking about the Inquisition or 9/11, it's all about politics and justifying suppression by claiming that God is on your side. But what has that got to do with my Muslim colleague who kindly invited me to stay at her home overnight when I had stupidly locked myself out of my house? She did that because her faith encourages hospitality. What have religious atrocities got to do with my elderly neighbour who regularly works with the Salvation Army providing hot meals for the homeless?
We read about the horrors and assume that these are the religion. Wrong, they're politics using religion as a handy front. My Muslim colleague and my Christian neighbour don't make the headlines because what they do on a day-to-day basis is totally un-newsworthy. But that kind of religious practice goes on behind the scenes every day.
And that's why I would say that religion is generally a good thing. It's just that those who really live their faith generally go unnoticed by the rest of the world.
Whether you're talking about the Inquisition or 9/11, it's all about politics and justifying suppression by claiming that God is on your side. But what has that got to do with my Muslim colleague who kindly invited me to stay at her home overnight when I had stupidly locked myself out of my house? She did that because her faith encourages hospitality. What have religious atrocities got to do with my elderly neighbour who regularly works with the Salvation Army providing hot meals for the homeless?
We read about the horrors and assume that these are the religion. Wrong, they're politics using religion as a handy front. My Muslim colleague and my Christian neighbour don't make the headlines because what they do on a day-to-day basis is totally un-newsworthy. But that kind of religious practice goes on behind the scenes every day.
And that's why I would say that religion is generally a good thing. It's just that those who really live their faith generally go unnoticed by the rest of the world.
Kiki, I take your point about religion being blamed for the deeds of political ideology, when I think about it the two sometimes seem to be inextricably intertwined. Re. your nice neighbour, isn't that what decent people do anyway? Believers do not have a monpoly on kindness. Even I, an atheist am sometimes kind to people.
Mark, although the christian church in it's many forms has patronised talented creative people in order to glorify god so have a few megalomaniacs and despots in order to glorify themselves or their political ideals. How the arts and culture would have developed without the religious input is an interesting though impossible question to answer. I find it difficult to find a starting point to even begin to think about it.
Mark, although the christian church in it's many forms has patronised talented creative people in order to glorify god so have a few megalomaniacs and despots in order to glorify themselves or their political ideals. How the arts and culture would have developed without the religious input is an interesting though impossible question to answer. I find it difficult to find a starting point to even begin to think about it.
Kiki, //She did that because her faith encourages hospitality.//
If your Muslim colleague was kind to you, or your Christian neighbour helps others only because of the dictates of their respective religions, as you say, I find that very sad indeed. Many non-believers help people too – but they do it because they are decent people – not because religion tells them they must - and they don't make headline news either.
If your Muslim colleague was kind to you, or your Christian neighbour helps others only because of the dictates of their respective religions, as you say, I find that very sad indeed. Many non-believers help people too – but they do it because they are decent people – not because religion tells them they must - and they don't make headline news either.
KiKi Frog//What have religious atrocities got to do with my elderly neighbour who regularly works with the Salvation Army providing hot meals for the homeless?//
The provision of aid for the needy has nothing to do with religion. Secular organisations also provide services. The difference is the underlying principles of the organisations.
Secular organisations research the real needs of the people and the most efficient way to achieve them. Religious organisations decide upon needs and how to meet them based on prejudices. Often the activities are more focussed on "Spreading The Word" than achieving tangible benefits. Fortunes are squandered on oppulent places of worship and personal grandeur of the annoited.
I do accept that the Salvos are better than most. However the objectively violent and philosophically fascist texts of the holy books are still woven into the fabric of all Abrahamic religion.
Attrocities are not committed by those misusing religion to justify their political mores. Attrocities are fundamental to the nature of the belifs and provide inspiration followers. Deeply entrenched misogyny, violent genocide and other crimes against humantiy are an integral part of the heroic stories of the Bible.
If you cannot believe this you have not read the book. I would suggest you read Joshua and then come back and try explain how there isn't any fundamental connection between religion and attrocities.
The provision of aid for the needy has nothing to do with religion. Secular organisations also provide services. The difference is the underlying principles of the organisations.
Secular organisations research the real needs of the people and the most efficient way to achieve them. Religious organisations decide upon needs and how to meet them based on prejudices. Often the activities are more focussed on "Spreading The Word" than achieving tangible benefits. Fortunes are squandered on oppulent places of worship and personal grandeur of the annoited.
I do accept that the Salvos are better than most. However the objectively violent and philosophically fascist texts of the holy books are still woven into the fabric of all Abrahamic religion.
Attrocities are not committed by those misusing religion to justify their political mores. Attrocities are fundamental to the nature of the belifs and provide inspiration followers. Deeply entrenched misogyny, violent genocide and other crimes against humantiy are an integral part of the heroic stories of the Bible.
If you cannot believe this you have not read the book. I would suggest you read Joshua and then come back and try explain how there isn't any fundamental connection between religion and attrocities.
jomifl / naomi - I'm not at all a religious person myself, but my moral code is nevertheless strongly influenced by the nominally Christian society in which I grew up. Would I still have those values if I hadn't had that upbringing? There's no way of knowing that, is there? And I'm not saying that atheists or humanists or whatever aren't capable of acts of kindness. But I do think such acts are influenced by the faith underlying one's culture.
The two examples I cited were specifically faith-related, and these women's actions seemed to me to be directly linked to their religious backgrounds. And quite honestly, I don't think there would be many people nowadays who would offer that kind of hospitality to someone they hardly knew without the code of behaviour given by their religion. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most volunteers in Sally Army soup kitchens would be practising Christians.
Of course non-believers can and do carry out charitable acts. Just as they can carry out acts of evil - as we all can.
The two examples I cited were specifically faith-related, and these women's actions seemed to me to be directly linked to their religious backgrounds. And quite honestly, I don't think there would be many people nowadays who would offer that kind of hospitality to someone they hardly knew without the code of behaviour given by their religion. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most volunteers in Sally Army soup kitchens would be practising Christians.
Of course non-believers can and do carry out charitable acts. Just as they can carry out acts of evil - as we all can.
I benefit. I love meeting like minded people each week to share my faith and
with any others who come seeking. I'm probably no different to you. You must
meet up with friends and share interests. I agree with you that there have
been some atrocities in the past and still are. But mankind would find something else to fight about if there was no religion. Greed is the biggest
cause of poverty.
with any others who come seeking. I'm probably no different to you. You must
meet up with friends and share interests. I agree with you that there have
been some atrocities in the past and still are. But mankind would find something else to fight about if there was no religion. Greed is the biggest
cause of poverty.
Kiki trots out the same trite argument we have seen so often before. The religion of the culture is what drives the goodness even ofthe atheists. It is esaily shown to be rubbish.
What drove the changes in the rights of women in western societies? It certainly wasn't the church which bitterly resisted the change just a many now resist the affording of right to same sex couples. The church has always stood in the way of the advancement of morality because it is built on an anachronism.
The Bible's attitude to children is appalling yet we now protect children in way not only never conceived by the church but completely alien to the rampant paedophiles of the church and those who protected them from prosecution for so long.
Where I do see the influence of the chuch in the behaviour of societies is in the inpiration given to those who indulge their prejudices and would gleefully massacre anyone who holds different values. Those influences are written in the Bible in black and white.
What drove the changes in the rights of women in western societies? It certainly wasn't the church which bitterly resisted the change just a many now resist the affording of right to same sex couples. The church has always stood in the way of the advancement of morality because it is built on an anachronism.
The Bible's attitude to children is appalling yet we now protect children in way not only never conceived by the church but completely alien to the rampant paedophiles of the church and those who protected them from prosecution for so long.
Where I do see the influence of the chuch in the behaviour of societies is in the inpiration given to those who indulge their prejudices and would gleefully massacre anyone who holds different values. Those influences are written in the Bible in black and white.
It has always been the case that some people have acted nobly and benevolently in the name of religion, and also that some people have acted appallingly and destructively in the name of religion. I wouldn't care to work out the statistics (I'm not that omniscient), but I am interested in where the ideas of nobility and benevolence, evil and malevolence come from, and why we prefer one to another. Perhaps, on the universal and evolutionary scale, might is right, and wiping out the weak and ill-fitting is after all a good thing. Nietzsche, for one, despised the religion of Christianity not for its historic crimes against humanity (such as are enumerated here) but for its weakness and meekness.
For what it's worth, I don't think might is right, partly at least on religious grounds, but proving it, that's another issue.
For what it's worth, I don't think might is right, partly at least on religious grounds, but proving it, that's another issue.
I think I’ve got two more complaints of unfairness to chuck your way, Bert H.
Firstly with regard to Mr. Hume. If you’d read the Dialogue or The Natural History you would know that Hume wasn’t neutral on the subject of religion as you suggest. Both works show how weak the arguments for a divine creator (specifically of the type described by Christians) are.
Secondly you’ve been rather unfair to yourself. Having pointed out that the atheists’ contributions to this thread were, while possibly wrong, at least not unreasoned as you had predicted, I asked you to state your own case. The final sentence in your last post was a disappointing " don't think I'll bother". Don’t you think you’ve rather let yourself down?
Firstly with regard to Mr. Hume. If you’d read the Dialogue or The Natural History you would know that Hume wasn’t neutral on the subject of religion as you suggest. Both works show how weak the arguments for a divine creator (specifically of the type described by Christians) are.
Secondly you’ve been rather unfair to yourself. Having pointed out that the atheists’ contributions to this thread were, while possibly wrong, at least not unreasoned as you had predicted, I asked you to state your own case. The final sentence in your last post was a disappointing " don't think I'll bother". Don’t you think you’ve rather let yourself down?
Ah, nouvel ami!
Well I think the feelings you describe and their origins are in some sense mysterious, too, Zabadek, but I don't understand why the God postulate makes them less so. A one sentence paraphrase of the Euthyphro dialogue is the question "Is it right because the gods say it is, or do the gods say it because it's right?". Which seems to have anticipated all the moral arguments based on divine command nearly two and a half thousand years ago.
Well I think the feelings you describe and their origins are in some sense mysterious, too, Zabadek, but I don't understand why the God postulate makes them less so. A one sentence paraphrase of the Euthyphro dialogue is the question "Is it right because the gods say it is, or do the gods say it because it's right?". Which seems to have anticipated all the moral arguments based on divine command nearly two and a half thousand years ago.
Hi Zabadak, The 'might is right' notion although philisophically (at least to me) unacceptable in human society does hold sway in a lot of nature unfortunately including human society. Quite often a musclebound moronic thug will live off an oppressed woman who will not only provide for him and his vices but also raise his children, not too far removed from a male lion's attitude to his harem. The same principle applies to religion, look how enthusiastically religions will wipe out rival ideologies, all with god's backing of course. The principal of evolution and survival of the fittest applies to everything, even (ironically) religion.
