General

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Shane Coley — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:38:11 GMT

JCFolsom:
Also there is also the possibility (though I don't believe so) that some established religion actually captures the truth, and thus gives its adherents a greater understanding of reality and maybe even wisdom than you or I are capable of possessing.

JC,

You have raised a point in the discussion that, per a quick scan, appears to have been absent.

If there is any truth, then one could reasonably expect ultimate truth to exist.

Of course, it is no feat to have a protracted debate about religion, creation, etc. However, the question "is there any good to religion?" is not specific and therefore cannot be reasonably discussed.

Religion is a label that, in part, describes a class of behavior associated with deeply held beliefs. For instance, it could be said that Bill Maher practices his beliefs with religous fervor.

So what definition of religion is being used here? How is the concept of religion to be differentiated from other fervent belief systems which may fall outside the selected definition?

Armed with a definition, categories can be populated and one can begin to see what is actually being labeled; i.e are we considering a transcendent belief system that people can elect to adopt or a philosophy originating from within another person.

Even after categorizing belief systems within the context of a definition, each organized religion must then be considered on its own merits, not as "religion".

If God exists and created everything then libertarians should understand that He is the ultimate homesteader. He can do as He pleases with His property. If He says there is one way, then we can like or dislike, but our feeling or opinion doesn't change anything.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:20:06 GMT

JCFolsom:
You wanna talk about evil? Eugenics was a very atheist/Darwinist programme.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
No it wasn't. It's simply an extension of the collectivist mentality behind racism.

JCFolsom:
Not every concept from the time before widespread naturalism was discounted upon its inception.

So you agree that the collectivist mentality behind eugenics came long long long long before Darwin. Thank you.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Juan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:53:52 GMT

JCFolsom:
If you believe that certain supernatural entities/properties exist, I would think that means you believe they objectively exist. Saying they exist "for you" is just bullshit.

OK, but if some entities/properties are part of reality, then it should be possible to objectively show/prove it ? Yet, so far, no church or religion has satisfactorily proved that they are right...?

Another way to put it, is, maybe, this : If something is supernatural, then, by definition, it can't be fully grasped or explained using natural means. So how's A going to show B that his version of supernatural reality is the correct one ?

despite the absence of religions, the needs and desires they fulfill do not vanish, nor are the bad qualities they bring forth in people likely to lie dormant.

Agreed.

Other, non-religious institutions, beliefs, et cetera would take their place,

Well, institutions or beliefs that deal with things such as the origin or meaning of life are religious by definition, no ? Those questions can't be avoided...

[religions] are not only institutional, but individual. Religions, collectively (like many collective things), may be more destructive than constructive, but I'm not sure that's true individually.

I won't dispute that. Individualism in the religious realm sounds fine to me.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

JCFolsom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:40:12 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

JCFolsom:
You wanna talk about evil? Eugenics was a very atheist/Darwinist programme.

No it wasn't. It's simply an extension of the collectivist mentality behind racism.

Not every concept from the time before widespread naturalism was discounted upon its inception. Some were very compatible, such as the idea that geographically isolated populations could evolve into different subspecies of varying capabilities. Certainly, some people reached higher technological and cultural levels than others. You don't have to be a collectivist to take statistics into consideration when making decisions. Eugenics, remember, also included practices such as the forced sterilization of the disabled, not just purification of racial characteristics. It was a programme no less ambitious than for the directed evolution of humanity. Were it not for the lingering aftereffects of the Nazis on our culture, eugenics might well have become a prominent feature in our societies.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

JCFolsom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:24:26 GMT

Juan:
I have nothing against people personally believing in supernatural concepts. The problem arises, I think, when people also believe that these supernatural concepts or ideas are actually objective and true, and so, if religion A is right, then non-believers in A must be wrong.

If you believe that certain supernatural entities/properties exist, I would think that means you believe they objectively exist. Saying they exist "for you" is just bullshit. The problem is not that you think you are actually, objectively right, but that you think that others should be punished for error.

Juan:
It follows that if churches A, B, and C committed a set of crimes, then absent A, B, C those crimes would have not been committed. Whether A, B, C also did some good is an open question.

Well, right, but despite the absence of religions, the needs and desires they fulfill do not vanish, nor are the bad qualities they bring forth in people likely to lie dormant. Other, non-religious institutions, beliefs, et cetera would take their place, and instead of crimes A, B, and C, you'd have D, E, and F, and who can say whether or not they would be of greater or lesser magnitude?

Juan:
But the reasoning strikes me as no different than saying : well yes, government is responsible for wars and mass murder, but at the same time it built roads, so there's some good to government after all...

Religions are far more pervasive and ancient than nation-states. They are not only institutional, but individual. Religions, collectively (like many collective things), may be more destructive than constructive, but I'm not sure that's true individually. Also there is also the possibility (though I don't believe so) that some established religion actually captures the truth, and thus gives its adherents a greater understanding of reality and maybe even wisdom than you or I are capable of possessing.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:21:28 GMT

JCFolsom:
You wanna talk about evil? Eugenics was a very atheist/Darwinist programme.

No it wasn't. It's simply an extension of the collectivist mentality behind racism. And racism was around LONG before Darwin.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

ladyattis — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:44:44 GMT

Is there any good in faith? No, but that doesn't make it evil either.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Juan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:38:59 GMT

JCFolsom:
My point is only that, human nature being what it is, I don't think there is any evidence that, if no one believed in anything supernatural, that there would have been less violence,

I have nothing against people personally believing in supernatural concepts. The problem arises, I think, when people also believe that these supernatural concepts or ideas are actually objective and true, and so, if religion A is right, then non-believers in A must be wrong.

and I think that arguments could be made that there would have been detrimental effects, at least prior to our new, technologically advanced age, for humans if there had not been religion.

I don't know. The arguments don't sound very convincing to me.

Still, if you look at the reasoning, IF you believe in the immortality of the soul and IF you believe that doctrinal correctness is essential to your eternal fate than his statements are completely rational.

Well, maybe. Except that at least one of his assumptions is totally wrong. He takes for granted that his doctrine is correct...

Again, I never denied that religions, or at least religious authorities and institutions, have been responsible for atrocities. However, it does not follow from this that the world would have been or would be better without religion.

It follows that if churches A, B, and C committed a set of crimes, then absent A, B, C those crimes would have not been committed. Whether A, B, C also did some good is an open question.

But the reasoning strikes me as no different than saying : well yes, government is responsible for wars and mass murder, but at the same time it built roads, so there's some good to government after all...

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Spideynw — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:01:48 GMT

JCFolsom:
That doesn't follow. Do governments allow the children of religious parents to work, but not atheist ones?

No, but you missed my point. I am saying the number of children people have is more of an economics question, not a religious one. I am also saying that having children in modern industrialized societies is still just as important as in the "old days". However, in the "old days" they had more children because governments let children work. Children were not an economic liability, like they are in today's industrialized nations, where child labor is illegal.

JCFolsom:
Actually, the worst crimes in human history were not motivated by religion, but rather politics (

Well, I think you could say we are both right, given that it was not until fairly recent in history that politics and religion were mostly seperated.

However, it is the religious right in the U.S. that wants to stay in the Middle East. A religious president took us there in the first place. It was the Mormon church that helped make same-sex marriage illegal in California. It is mainly the religious that continue the war on drugs, prostitution, and gambling in the U.S. My guess is most atheists/agnostics are not opposed to these activities.

JCFolsom:
They kill them because they cry too much, or because they are still in the womb and aren't considered human, or so on and so forth.

You do make a good point about abortion. That I do consider an atrocity, and my guess is most atheists/agnostics are OK with it.

I still think religion results in more bad than good, and that it was not necessary for early humans, just natural.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

JCFolsom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:38:42 GMT

I don't mind addressing it, but I'm not sure it will be of much use, as I am not a Catholic nor even a Christian, nor even a member of any Abrahamic faith, and I have no particular reason to defend the historical actions of the church. Nor do I deny that it has been responsible for, and contributed to, many horrors. My point is only that, human nature being what it is, I don't think there is any evidence that, if no one believed in anything supernatural, that there would have been less violence, and I think that arguments could be made that there would have been detrimental effects, at least prior to our new, technologically advanced age, for humans if there had not been religion.

This is Aquinas? He was an asshole who probably would have had me burned at the stake. Still, if you look at the reasoning, IF you believe in the immortality of the soul and IF you believe that doctrinal correctness is essential to your eternal fate than his statements are completely rational. Again, I never denied that religions, or at least religious authorities and institutions, have been responsible for atrocities. However, it does not follow from this that the world would have been or would be better without religion.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Juan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:39:59 GMT

JC, Do you mind addressing this ?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aquinas.htm

"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

Re: Is there any good to religion?

JCFolsom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:42:56 GMT

Spideynw:
Yes, I would agree that agnostics/atheists probably tend to have fewer children than theists. However, children are just as necessary today as "back in the old days", if you have not read anything about Europe lately, and their current "baby crisis". The problem however has to do with the governments not allowing children to work, which means that children become a financial burden on parents rather than an extra income.

That doesn't follow. Do governments allow the children of religious parents to work, but not atheist ones?

Spideynw:
JCFolsom:
The world can be far more relentlessly, bitterly cruel than we in the affluent, modern Western world have ever experienced. Faith could keep people from despairing in lives that truly promised only bitter toil and an early death.

This "faith" has also resulted in the worst crimes in human history. When was the last time an atheist killed their kids because god told them to? When was the last time an atheist declared war on another country because the other country was full of unclean heretics?

Actually, the worst crimes in human history were not motivated by religion, but rather politics (which asshole gets to rule over this or that patch of dirt, or which group can all the problems be blamed on). Of course atheists don't kill their kids because god told them to. They kill them because they cry too much, or because they are still in the womb and aren't considered human, or so on and so forth.

You wanna talk about evil? Eugenics was a very atheist/Darwinist programme. Everyone has things they believe in, and any one of them can be warped (or not) to justify violence. The reason why most people who have committed atrocities throughout history were religious is simply because most people throughout history were or at least paid lip service to religion.

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Spideynw — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:28:16 GMT

JCFolsom:
Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective. I would bet cash money that atheists have a far lower birth rate than religious people, and probably always have. After all, atheism is a religion of intellectuals. Back in the old days, when you could expect to lose half your kids before adulthood, that kind of thing mattered.

Yes, I would agree that agnostics/atheists probably tend to have fewer children than theists. However, children are just as necessary today as "back in the old days", if you have not read anything about Europe lately, and their current "baby crisis". The problem however has to do with the governments not allowing children to work, which means that children become a financial burden on parents rather than an extra income.

JCFolsom:
The world can be far more relentlessly, bitterly cruel than we in the affluent, modern Western world have ever experienced. Faith could keep people from despairing in lives that truly promised only bitter toil and an early death.

This "faith" has also resulted in the worst crimes in human history. When was the last time an atheist killed their kids because god told them to? When was the last time an atheist declared war on another country because the other country was full of unclean heretics?

Re: Is there any good to religion?

Juan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:19:20 GMT

Instead of fighting evil in this world let's just imagine that things will be OK in the afterlife. A sure way to advance liberty...

Re: Is there any good to religion?

JCFolsom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:00:21 GMT

Spideynw:
This is like saying you do not know how humans could have survived without government as well. But humans do survive without religion just fine. Atheists/agnostics do not suddenly keel over without religion.

Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective. I would bet cash money that atheists have a far lower birth rate than religious people, and probably always have. After all, atheism is a religion of intellectuals. Back in the old days, when you could expect to lose half your kids before adulthood, that kind of thing mattered. That's just one example.

The world can be far more relentlessly, bitterly cruel than we in the affluent, modern Western world have ever experienced. Faith could keep people from despairing in lives that truly promised only bitter toil and an early death.