Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Washington Resistance Army]

The idea that religion isn't a positive force is one of the most obnoxious fedora tipping atheist positions one could take. It broadcasts an extreme ignorance of human history, ffs agriculture and religion are the two biggest things that created civilization as we know it.

Of course certain religions have had utility in the past, but let's not pretend that in the 21st century they are either useful or a force for good.

By and large they are, and most of peoples complaints against religion in this thread seem to be directed against a very specific subset of Christianity and less the concept of religion itself tbh.

[Nakena]

Of course certain religions have had utility in the past, but let's not pretend that in the 21st century they are either useful or a force for good.

By and large they are, and most of peoples complaints against religion in this thread seem to be directed against a very specific subset of Christianity and less the concept of religion itself tbh.

The reason here is because people generally equate the concept of religion itself with abrahamism in one way or another. The fedoras do that and if you criticize the whole memeplex of this shit you'd get called an edgy atheist even by "liberals". This stuff run deep and not a few those who do by virtue of their political position do oppose it, are still trapped within this coordinate system.

[Jedi Council]

Of course certain religions have had utility in the past, but let's not pretend that in the 21st century they are either useful or a force for good.

By and large they are, and most of peoples complaints against religion in this thread seem to be directed against a very specific subset of Christianity and less the concept of religion itself tbh.

I dont see how any philosophy, theology or faith that can excuse wild sexual abuse, genital mutilations, coordinated campaigns against the liberation of women, terrorism, rampant discrimination in racial, sexual, ethnic, or cultural terms, honour killings, mass suicides, mass shootings, stonings, or a multitude of other horrible actions can be considered a force for good.

This is not an exhaustive list, and is certainly not restricted to the Abrahamic traditions. But the fact remains, religion entails faith, which can excuse numerous crimes that would otherwise be repulsive to normal people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By and large they are, and most of peoples complaints against religion in this thread seem to be directed against a very specific subset of Christianity and less the concept of religion itself tbh.

I dont see how any philosophy, theology or faith that can excuse wild sexual abuse, genital mutilations, coordinated campaigns against the liberation of women, terrorism, rampant discrimination in racial, sexual, ethnic, or cultural terms, honour killings, mass suicides, mass shootings, stonings, or a multitude of other horrible actions can be considered a force for good.

This is not an exhaustive list, and is certainly not restricted to the Abrahamic traditions. But the fact remains, religion entails faith, which can excuse numerous crimes that would otherwise be repulsive to normal people.

Purely secular causes have caused most all of these things as well. You're just cherrypicking the worst things you can find because you dislike religion and applying it to literally every faith on the planet, it's Hitchens tier nonsense.

[Jedi Council]

I dont see how any philosophy, theology or faith that can excuse wild sexual abuse, genital mutilations, coordinated campaigns against the liberation of women, terrorism, rampant discrimination in racial, sexual, ethnic, or cultural terms, honour killings, mass suicides, mass shootings, stonings, or a multitude of other horrible actions can be considered a force for good.

This is not an exhaustive list, and is certainly not restricted to the Abrahamic traditions. But the fact remains, religion entails faith, which can excuse numerous crimes that would otherwise be repulsive to normal people.

Purely secular causes have caused most all of these things as well. You're just cherrypicking the worst things you can find because you dislike religion and applying it to literally every faith on the planet, it's Hitchens tier nonsense.

Secular causes such as?

[Upper Nan]

I dont see how any philosophy, theology or faith that can excuse wild sexual abuse, genital mutilations, coordinated campaigns against the liberation of women, terrorism, rampant discrimination in racial, sexual, ethnic, or cultural terms, honour killings, mass suicides, mass shootings, stonings, or a multitude of other horrible actions can be considered a force for good.

This is not an exhaustive list, and is certainly not restricted to the Abrahamic traditions. But the fact remains, religion entails faith, which can excuse numerous crimes that would otherwise be repulsive to normal people.

Purely secular causes have caused most all of these things as well. You're just cherrypicking the worst things you can find because you dislike religion and applying it to literally every faith on the planet, it's Hitchens tier nonsense.

Tu ququo fallacy. The fact that secular people also do shitty things doesn't mean religion gets a pass on being shitty. Don't get me wrong, I actually do think religion still has utility in the modern world, but this is just a bad argument.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Purely secular causes have caused most all of these things as well. You're just cherrypicking the worst things you can find because you dislike religion and applying it to literally every faith on the planet, it's Hitchens tier nonsense.

Secular causes such as?

A great many far left groups and causes in the Cold War is a good starting point. Most of them were vehemently anti-religion but still had no problems with discrimination (anti-Semitism in particular), murder sometimes of the mass variety, terrorism (in fact a Russian communist is often called the father of international terrorism), cultural discrimination and ethnic cleansing remained while the Soviet government also engaged in anti-religion campaigns etc etc.

Clearly this proves all non-religious people excuse these things and have never done a single good thing for the world.

[Jedi Council]

Secular causes such as?

A great many far left groups and causes in the Cold War is a good starting point. Most of them were vehemently anti-religion but still had no problems with discrimination (anti-Semitism in particular), murder sometimes of the mass variety, terrorism (in fact a Russian communist is often called the father of international terrorism), cultural discrimination and ethnic cleansing remained while the Soviet government also engaged in anti-religion campaigns etc etc.

Clearly this proves all non-religious people excuse these things and have never done a single good thing for the world.

They replaced religion with an ideology. It's pretty simple.

And let's be real, while of course all groups have done bad things, and I never claimed the opposite, you cannot claim that secular groups, or to be more precise, secular humanist groups, have caused more pain and suffering than religion.

Similarly, I did not contend that all religious people give these terrible crimes a pass. I said that religion, the concept of faith in particular, is a very powerful tool that is used to excuse such things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A great many far left groups and causes in the Cold War is a good starting point. Most of them were vehemently anti-religion but still had no problems with discrimination (anti-Semitism in particular), murder sometimes of the mass variety, terrorism (in fact a Russian communist is often called the father of international terrorism), cultural discrimination and ethnic cleansing remained while the Soviet government also engaged in anti-religion campaigns etc etc.

Clearly this proves all non-religious people excuse these things and have never done a single good thing for the world.

They replaced religion with an ideology. It's pretty simple.

And let's be real, while of course all groups have done bad things, and I never claimed the opposite, you cannot claim that secular groups, or to be more precise, secular humanist groups, have caused more pain and suffering than religion.

Similarly, I did not contend that all religious people give these terrible crimes a pass. I said that religion, the concept of faith in particular, is a very powerful tool that is used to excuse such things.

Of course secular humanist groups haven't caused more pain and suffering than religion. Religion has been with us since at least the paleolithic era, secular humanism is a very modern thing. Short of, idk, ending the world it'd be a touch hard to catch up in such a short time.

My point is there will always be excuses for such things. Nothing about faith makes it inherently more usable as such an excuse. It's just as easy to say "you're doing it for the gods" as it is to say "you're doing it to help the workers" or "you're doing it to protect your nation" etc etc. You're just projecting your own disdain onto it.

[Jedi Council]

They replaced religion with an ideology. It's pretty simple.

And let's be real, while of course all groups have done bad things, and I never claimed the opposite, you cannot claim that secular groups, or to be more precise, secular humanist groups, have caused more pain and suffering than religion.

Similarly, I did not contend that all religious people give these terrible crimes a pass. I said that religion, the concept of faith in particular, is a very powerful tool that is used to excuse such things.

Of course secular humanist groups haven't caused more pain and suffering than religion. Religion has been with us since at least the paleolithic era, secular humanism is a very modern thing. Short of, idk, ending the world it'd be a touch hard to catch up in such a short time.

My point is there will always be excuses for such things. Nothing about faith makes it inherently more usable as such an excuse. It's just as easy to say "you're doing it for the gods" as it is to say "you're doing it to help the workers" or "you're doing it to protect your nation" etc etc. You're just projecting your own disdain onto it.

I disagree.

It is far easier to convince people who use faith to do such things because they have already made it known that critical thinking and reason are outweighed by their religious belief.

"Do it for your faith," is far more powerful than do it for the workers or any other group.

It should also be noted that appealing to faith has, historically, been tied very closely to the appeal to patriotism and nationalism.

[Mirjt]

Purely secular causes have caused most all of these things as well. You're just cherrypicking the worst things you can find because you dislike religion and applying it to literally every faith on the planet, it's Hitchens tier nonsense.

Secular causes such as?

I think that this poster was trying to make the following point, that saying that religious groups have done or justified atrocities is not an argument that religion cannot be considered a force for good. Afterall any organization or group can and have done or justified atrocities. To prove that point they label secular causes (the definition of secular in this context being that within society or government that conducts itself without religious considerations). I assume they were referring to the misuse of applied sciences (just like how those atrocities are done through the misuse of religion). Some examples of the misuse/abuse of applied sciences include eugenics, scientific racism (which was a pseudoscience), the development of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons, bio weapons, and chemical weapons), creating stereotypes and mistreatment of the disabled and the mentally ill, creating specific food additives that are harmful to our health (though that may or may not be intentional), etc... We would argue that the application of science, in things like medicine is a force for good, and those atrocities do not change that. The same principal applies to religion.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Of course secular humanist groups haven't caused more pain and suffering than religion. Religion has been with us since at least the paleolithic era, secular humanism is a very modern thing. Short of, idk, ending the world it'd be a touch hard to catch up in such a short time.

My point is there will always be excuses for such things. Nothing about faith makes it inherently more usable as such an excuse. It's just as easy to say "you're doing it for the gods" as it is to say "you're doing it to help the workers" or "you're doing it to protect your nation" etc etc. You're just projecting your own disdain onto it.

I disagree.

It is far easier to convince people who use faith to do such things because they have already made it known that critical thinking and reason are outweighed by their religious belief.

"Do it for your faith," is far more powerful than do it for the workers or any other group.

It should also be noted that appealing to faith has, historically, been tied very closely to the appeal to patriotism and nationalism.

You can disagree but you'd be wrong. The 19th and 20th centuries are filled with awful examples of being drawn into awful causes for non faith based reasons. All it takes is a good orator and a populace willing to listen and you can get people to do nearly anything for any reason.

[Mirjt]

Secular causes such as?

A great many far left groups and causes in the Cold War is a good starting point. Most of them were vehemently anti-religion but still had no problems with discrimination (anti-Semitism in particular), murder sometimes of the mass variety, terrorism (in fact a Russian communist is often called the father of international terrorism), cultural discrimination and ethnic cleansing remained while the Soviet government also engaged in anti-religion campaigns etc etc.

Clearly this proves all non-religious people excuse these things and have never done a single good thing for the world.

While there have been far-left groups that are anti-religion (especially during the Cold War), there are also a lot of wonderful Christian socialists, with a long history since the beginning of the socialist movements. In fact, the U.S.'s most renowned socialist of the the 20th century, Eugene V. Debs, was a Christian socialists and his Christian beliefs were part of the reason (not the only reason) that he came to be a socialist. Other religious (besides Christianity) or spiritual socialists have also been around since the beginning of the socialist movements alongside their atheist and otherwise non-religious brothers, sisters, and comrades (like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin). Even during the Cold War you get things like Liberation Theology, founded by South American socialist Catholics, and spread throughout the Christian political left. For hundreds of years, major social reformers of the left, like U.S. slavery abolitionists, had overt religious overtones, most notably the Quakers.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A great many far left groups and causes in the Cold War is a good starting point. Most of them were vehemently anti-religion but still had no problems with discrimination (anti-Semitism in particular), murder sometimes of the mass variety, terrorism (in fact a Russian communist is often called the father of international terrorism), cultural discrimination and ethnic cleansing remained while the Soviet government also engaged in anti-religion campaigns etc etc.

Clearly this proves all non-religious people excuse these things and have never done a single good thing for the world.

While there have been far-left groups that are anti-religion (especially during the Cold War), there are also a lot of wonderful Christian socialists, with a long history since the beginning of the socialist movements. In fact, the U.S.'s most renowned socialist of the the 20th century, Eugene V. Debs, was a Christian socialists and his Christian beliefs were part of the reason (not the only reason) that he came to be a socialist. Other religious (besides Christianity) or spiritual socialists have also been around since the beginning of the socialist movements alongside their atheist and otherwise non-religious brothers, sisters, and comrades (like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin). Even during the Cold War you get things like Liberation Theology, founded by South American socialist Catholics, and spread throughout the Christian political left. For hundreds of years, major social reformers of the left, like U.S. slavery abolitionists, had overt religious overtones, most notably the Quakers.

My point wasn't that the left is inherently anti religion or evil or w/e. It was to show that the sorts of behavior that JC pins on faithful people can occur in just about any group.

Lets pivot to the other side of the spectrum. The Nazis were content to cart people to an efficient extermination because their skulls were slightly different and their ancestors were from somewhere else. White nationalists today discriminate against people because their haplogroups are slightly different. The examples go on and on.

[Neanderthaland]

While there have been far-left groups that are anti-religion (especially during the Cold War), there are also a lot of wonderful Christian socialists, with a long history since the beginning of the socialist movements. In fact, the U.S.'s most renowned socialist of the the 20th century, Eugene V. Debs, was a Christian socialists and his Christian beliefs were part of the reason (not the only reason) that he came to be a socialist. Other religious (besides Christianity) or spiritual socialists have also been around since the beginning of the socialist movements alongside their atheist and otherwise non-religious brothers, sisters, and comrades (like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin). Even during the Cold War you get things like Liberation Theology, founded by South American socialist Catholics, and spread throughout the Christian political left. For hundreds of years, major social reformers of the left, like U.S. slavery abolitionists, had overt religious overtones, most notably the Quakers.

My point wasn't that the left is inherently anti religion or evil or w/e. It was to show that the sorts of behavior that JC pins on faithful people can occur in just about any group.

Lets pivot to the other side of the spectrum. The Nazis were content to cart people to an efficient extermination because their skulls were slightly different and their ancestors were from somewhere else. White nationalists today discriminate against people because their haplogroups are slightly different. The examples go on and on.

It's not like the Nazis just thought up the whole, "let's make arbitrary judgments based on skull shape" thing. This is an after-the-fact justification for a tradition of antisemitism that cannot be understood if it is removed from it's Christian context.

Saying Christianity had no part in that is to ignore centuries of pogroms. Perpetrated by Christians, with Christianity as the justification. Most of which happened to fall on Easter, not by coincidence.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

It's not like the Nazis just thought up the whole, "let's make arbitrary judgments based on skull shape" thing. This is an after-the-fact justification for a tradition of antisemitism that cannot be understood if it is removed from it's Christian context.

Saying Christianity had no part in that is to ignore centuries of pogroms. Perpetrated by Christians, with Christianity as the justification. Most of which happened to fall on Easter, not by coincidence.

This is actually an interesting topic, but one that is very nuanced. Saying "Christianity" was the justification is incredibly reductionist, and ignores the complex factors that drove European anti-semitism. But your point that Nazi anti-semitism is rooted specifically within Christianity instead of say, scientific racialism, seems to just be a transparent dig against Christianity. I'd love to discuss this more, but this is not the thread for it.

[Albrenia]

Did someone just use 'Hitchens Tier' as a put down?

I won't deny that religion is a force for good in the world, yet unlike some who seem intent on just using 'fedora-tippers' as an insult, I most certainly see how it is also a force for evil. I can only really speak of the Abrahamic religions with particulars, as I'm not overly familiar with Eastern, pagan or various native faiths.

One should not be so quick to dismiss the acts which only happen because of faith merely because it is an uncomfortable fact.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Did someone just use 'Hitchens Tier' as a put down?

Yes. The man was insufferable and engaged in a lot of meme tier thinking. Anyone who says Jesus didn't exist, despite that overwhelmingly not being the position of historians, is less an intellectual and more someone just pushing an agenda.

It's not like the Nazis just thought up the whole, "let's make arbitrary judgments based on skull shape" thing. This is an after-the-fact justification for a tradition of antisemitism that cannot be understood if it is removed from it's Christian context.

Saying Christianity had no part in that is to ignore centuries of pogroms. Perpetrated by Christians, with Christianity as the justification. Most of which happened to fall on Easter, not by coincidence.

Oh Christianity certainly had a part to play, I'm far from someone to defend the blood soaked and violent history of that particular religion. But it also wasn't the only cause. Though I imagine the mods would get upset if we discussed this particular line further.

[The Alma Mater]

ngs. Nothing about faith makes it inherently more usable as such an excuse. It's just as easy to say "you're doing it for the gods" as it is to say "you're doing it to help the workers" or "you're doing it to protect your nation" etc etc. You're just projecting your own disdain onto it.

Not entirely true. When one says "I am doing it for the workers" it is possible to determine what the workers think about it by polling them. It is possible to objectively determine your influence on their lifes and demand that you define your targets according to S.M.A.R.T; and then judge your actions accordingly. It is not possible to do for deities, since deities do not answer questionnaires, nor can we observe the effect we have on them.

Unless the deity is a burning bush or something ofc. Then we can see if it starts to burn brighter.

Hey look, we are back at discussing observation. SCIENCE ! The actual topic of this thread.
It is a divine miracle.

[Hanafuridake]

Doing things such as establishing welfare centers and distributing basic resources for survival are usually not done by medical communities.


It was a completely valid comment, you derided religion as harmful like drugs and I provided examples of religion mobilizing people to save lives.

Wow, you were in a hole and thought 'maybe it's quicker to get out by digging down.

Red Cross, Medicine Sans Frontieres..

Okay, when my region was affected by a natural disaster, I didn't remember most of the resources being handed out by medical organizations. I'm not sure why you think this is such a humiliating put down to me or somehow detracts from my point about the contribution of religion to human betterment. Unless your goal is to simply make fun of me in the hope that I'll go away and you don't have to actually address my point...

There are alot of medical organizations that not only deliver great care and assist during disasters, but they do not proselytize while they do it, which, frankly, is an added benefit.

Of course there are a few instances where religious people have done good things. That does not mean, however, that religion or faith are positive forces.

The bhikkhu did not proselytize to the people that they helped and it would be against the model where monks actually proselytize because an invitation to preach the Dhamma is required (usually after making a donation of food to the bhikkhu).

It's ridiculous to say that there are only a "few instances" of religious people doing good things, there are so many instances of religious contributions to the world that it would be impossible to count them all. The enlightened atheist ideals which are being harped about are themselves the product of religious thought secularized.

[The Empire of 4]

Such a pointless question. Forums like these usually only become inhabitated by toxic edgy internet atheist who feel good about themselves mocking religon while they contribute almost nothing to society.

But to answer this silly question. Yes, science and religon are combatible because most SCIENTIST are religious. Done.

[Mirjt]

Wow, you were in a hole and thought 'maybe it's quicker to get out by digging down.

Red Cross, Medicine Sans Frontieres..

Okay, when my region was affected by a natural disaster, I didn't remember most of the resources being handed out by medical organizations. I'm not sure why you think this is such a humiliating put down to me or somehow detracts from my point about the contribution of religion to human betterment. Unless your goal is to simply make fun of me in the hope that I'll go away and you don't have to actually address my point...

There are alot of medical organizations that not only deliver great care and assist during disasters, but they do not proselytize while they do it, which, frankly, is an added benefit.

Of course there are a few instances where religious people have done good things. That does not mean, however, that religion or faith are positive forces.

The bhikkhu did not proselytize to the people that they helped and it would be against the model where monks actually proselytize because an invitation to preach the Dhamma is required (usually after making a donation of food to the bhikkhu).

It's ridiculous to say that there are only a "few instances" of religious people doing good things, there are so many instances of religious contributions to the world that it would be impossible to count them all. The enlightened atheist ideals which are being harped about are themselves the product of religious thought secularized.

I like how you mentioned how a lot of religious organizations are capable of and sometimes even mandate charity and service to fellow human beings without proselytizing. What immediately comes to mind for me in that situation are the Jains, whom in an effort to support the community (and this is one of their commandments) they will serve communal meals to everyone of all faiths and backgrounds without exception, without trying to push their own faith on these people. The only thing that the Jains do that might be considered pushing their faith on others is that they are strict vegetarians (as their highest value is the value of non-violence, including to all animals and even microorganism in some interpretations) and so when they prepare these meals they prepare vegetarian meals. Personally, in my faith, Progressive Christianity, I believe that Jesus told us to go and spread the good news, but the good news is that we are loved, so the way I spread the good news and the way I win converts is not by pushing my beliefs down their throats, but by practicing what I preach (at least as best I can). I am against the Bible-thumping of evangelicals whom use charity as an excuse to proselytize.

[Hanafuridake]

I am against the Bible-thumping of evangelicals whom use charity as an excuse to proselytize.

Yes, people who do this should get their own special little hell.

[Mirjt]

Such a pointless question. Forums like these usually only become inhabitated by toxic edgy internet atheist who feel good about themselves mocking religon while they contribute almost nothing to society.

But to answer this silly question. Yes, science and religon are combatible because most SCIENTIST are religious. Done.

I would recommend reading through at least a decent sample of the pages on this thread before saying that it is inhabited by toxicity. While discussions have occassionally gotten sidetracked, and there have been some toxicity, overall I think people are trying to have genuine discussion, make reasonable and non-prejudiced arguments for their case, and to respond and address others.

[Albrenia]

Such a pointless question. Forums like these usually only become inhabitated by toxic edgy internet atheist who feel good about themselves mocking religon while they contribute almost nothing to society.

But to answer this silly question. Yes, science and religon are combatible because most SCIENTIST are religious. Done.

I would recommend reading through at least a decent sample of the pages on this thread before saying that it is inhabited by toxicity. While discussions have occassionally gotten sidetracked, and there have been some toxicity, overall I think people are trying to have genuine discussion, make reasonable and non-prejudiced arguments for their case, and to respond and address others.

I agree with Mirjt. The only toxicity I see here are the people swooping in to drop edgy internet comments like the Empire of 4.

I continue to think Religion and Science are compatible, or at the very least entirely capable of co-existing with each other in most circumstances.