Philosophy Now Forum

I want to explore the practical ramifications of religion here, irrespective of whether there is a god or not. And I want to include all religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu...

One could argue that religions provide some degree of social cohesion and do good in caring for the sick and the poor.

It could also be argued that they instigate too great a degree of tribalism which has resulted in many wars.

There are no doubt many other arguments for or against, what are they?

How can the different arguments be weighed against each other?

What is the conclusion?

Your thoughts?

Religion has done both good and bad but, had it never existed, how can we know if whatever took its place would have been better or worse?

I have posted in other threads that I consider religious societies to be more fit. There is survival value in it, making a larger group act more as a cohesive whole instead of a collection of smaller groups with conflicting individual wills. Patriotism is the same sort of thing. A team plays better if they're all wearing the same uniform.

Since religion has held up the progress of science at some point in history, I regard that as being harmful. And the Crusades was harmful, but also helpful. Since society has survived religion, I'm even Steven about the effects of religion, both good and bad.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Since religion has held up the progress of science at some point in history, I regard that as being harmful.

Can you think of an example where the fitness of a group was compromised by the suppression of science? Suppose I am taught to disbelieve evolution. How does that make me (as a society) less capable of competing with the next group that does teach evolution in their schools?

And the Crusades was harmful, but also helpful.

The crusades is exactly where religion brings in the benefit. A reason to commit to a conflict that is otherwise unjustifiable by the intuitive morals of any functioning society.

Noax wrote:The crusades is exactly where religion brings in the benefit. A reason to commit to a conflict that is otherwise unjustifiable by the intuitive morals of any functioning society.

And you consider that a benefit????

Surely that exposes the worst of religion.

A_Seagull wrote:And you consider that a benefit????

Surely that exposes the worst of religion.

Yes, it is to their benefit. I didn't claim it was a good thing.
It is easier to kill somebody over some contested resource (Contestedople) if one can lay the guilt of the immorality of it at the feet of your God. "God commands us to kill these unbelievers so that makes it OK", when killing is otherwise abhorrent.

Noax wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:And you consider that a benefit????

Surely that exposes the worst of religion.

Yes, it is to their benefit. I didn't claim it was a good thing.
It is easier to kill somebody over some contested resource (Contestedople) if one can lay the guilt of the immorality of it at the feet of your God. "God commands us to kill these unbelievers so that makes it OK", when killing is otherwise abhorrent.

Islam via the doctrine held in the koran is the only religion i am aware of that commands killing and subjugating unbelievers.

attofishpi wrote:
Islam via the doctrine held in the koran is the only religion i am aware of that commands killing and subjugating unbelievers.

That's how it gets justified.

Our own religion is entirely peaceful; but we have to defend ourselves against all those savage Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc.

Londoner wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Islam via the doctrine held in the koran is the only religion i am aware of that commands killing and subjugating unbelievers.

That's how it gets justified.

Our own religion is entirely peaceful; but we have to defend ourselves against all those savage Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc.

I'm happy to compare doctrine - you show me yours and i'll show you mine. We are only just realising in the most dreadful way the truth to Islam.

attofishpi wrote:
I'm happy to compare doctrine - you show me yours and i'll show you mine. We are only just realising in the most dreadful way the truth to Islam.

You must know that when you point out bits of the Koran that refer to fighting, Muslims will always point out that the context is Muslims being attacked. Certainly Muslims are sometime aggressive and intolerant to other religions, but they can reasonably point out that historically they have been less so than Christians. However, it does not follow from this that all Christians must therefore be wicked. To say so would be untrue.

As for comparing our doctrines, I think 'Ye shall know them by their fruits'. I note that you have chosen to divert this thread into an attack on Muslims - all Muslims.

This question isn't one that can be answered sensibly, because it assumes all "religions" are the same.

Quakers, The Salvation Army and Mennonites have caused no wars, no pogroms, no crusades... Nor have JW's, Moonies, Sufis or for that matter, the Solar Temple Cult...though their members were lamentably cut off in the bloom of youth.

On the other hand, half of all the religious wars in history have been caused by Islam. Though far less violent, the Catholic Church has been "no saint." Meanwhile, Atheists...who claim to have no "religion" at all, have killed far more than anyone else.

Which "religion"? What "boons"? What "banes?" Until those questions are addressed, there's simply no way to generalize at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: Meanwhile, Atheists...who claim to have no "religion" at all, have killed far more than anyone else.

But they usually kill religious people so, more often than not, it's justified. The atheists will inherit the Earth but it won't be worth having until they get rid of all the religion. You see, Immanuel, it all makes sense.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Meanwhile, Atheists...who claim to have no "religion" at all, have killed far more than anyone else.

But they usually kill religious people so, more often than not, it's justified. The atheists will inherit the Earth but it won't be worth having until they get rid of all the religion. You see, Immanuel, it all makes sense.

What do you expect? He thinks 'atheist' is a synonym for 'communist'.