What has religion done for humanity?

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Is that why Brenton wrote the names of the crusaders who killed the Turks on the Tarrant weapon ? Radically devout Muslims and Christians are the same.Religious freedoms of religious people are as limited as the scientific laws of seculars.

I imagine it’s because he sees such people as being ‘defenders of western civilization’ rather than believing anything actually religious.

He explicitly said he isn’t religious. Race was his motivation.

My motivation comes from trust in science and humanity. I trust scientific theses. Where do you think the motivation of those who carry out bomb attacks come from ? ''What has religion done for humanity'' That would be a good answer to your question.

[Cekovia]

what does this have to do with anything. none of this relates to the specific argument being made here about the applicability of the scientific method to the paranormal.

It has to do with the fact that this is evidence to back up the claim that thinking scientifically will inevitably lead one to question religion.

It's also evidence against your claim "most scientists believe in the paranormal." They don't.

You're just being deliberately dense and misattributing his evidence to the wrong argument.

i never at ANY point said that most - or even any scientists - themselves believe in the paranormal how the HELL do you get that out of anything that i have said to this point

[Old Tyrannia]

This may shock you to hear:

But some people actually base their conclusions about the world based on logic, and aren't swayed by the logic of religious people which, when one gets right down to it, amounts to little more than, "because that's what I was taught and God said so."

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

Nothing should be above questioning in the world of logical thinking, and the realities are that:

a) when one examines the utility of religion, there really isn't any argument for keeping it around anymore, and

b) when one examines its fundamental claims about the nature of the universe from a logical perspective, he will always find them to be full of holes.

That being said: if you want to keep practicing it despite the lack of evidence for it being necessay for society and its claims about the universe, by all means, keep doing so. Just don't try to lie to yourself and disguise your conclusion to do so as anything other than blind, illogical tribalism.

Because THAT is what's pointless here.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

It's really interesting that so many people today are literally incapable of thinking in philosophical terms. It's as if they can only carry on an argument so long as the terms of that argument are the terms of empirical science and what they understand to be "rational thinking." Faced with philosophical questions that are outside the scope of that familiar paradigm, such as why truth or logic are fundamentally good or what it really means for something to be "good," they shut down like robots presented with something they're not programmed to respond to. Just look at the response to my post- two people immediately leaped on to the part where I talked about how early religious beliefs arose partly to explain natural phenomenon that we can now explain scientifically, but then completely ignored the broader arguments I presented. I'm guessing that's because "religion as a primitive explanation for the sun" is a concept that fits with their paradigm and is easy to understand; "religion as a response to those philosophical questions beyond empirical science or rationality" is an idea many people are simply not equipped to understand, because modern education tends to put little emphasis on philosophy if it's even covered.

[Cekovia]

It has to do with the fact that this is evidence to back up the claim that thinking scientifically will inevitably lead one to question religion.

It's also evidence against your claim "most scientists believe in the paranormal." They don't.

You're just being deliberately dense and misattributing his evidence to the wrong argument.

i never at ANY point said that most - or even any scientists - themselves believe in the paranormal how the HELL do you get that out of anything that i have said to this point

of course, some do, but you know, i haven't explicitly said that.

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

It's really interesting that so many people today are literally incapable of thinking in philosophical terms. It's as if they can only carry on an argument so long as the terms of that argument are the terms of empirical science and what they understand to be "rational thinking." Faced with philosophical questions that are outside the scope of that familiar paradigm, such as why truth or logic are fundamentally good or what it really means for something to be "good," they shut down like robots presented with something they're not programmed to respond to. Just look at the response to my post- two people immediately leaped on to the part where I talked about how early religious beliefs arose partly to explain natural phenomenon that we can now explain scientifically, but then completely ignored the broader arguments I presented. I'm guessing that's because "religion as a primitive explanation for the sun" is a concept that fits with their paradigm and is easy to understand; "religion as a response to those philosophical questions beyond empirical science or rationality" is an idea many people are simply not equipped to understand, because modern education tends to put little emphasis on philosophy if it's even covered.

thank god for you omg, you're going to save me from going insane, i thought i was the only one, you're exactly right

[Salus Maior]

“Look at the atheist who shot up Muslims in Chapel Hill.

Atheism is bad and kills.”

What about Mehmed-i-Feth (May God be pleased with him), HHDI. Was religion bad then?

The Christchurch shooter was agnostic/atheist. The motivation there was white nationalism, not religion.

It says as much in his manifesto.

Once again we have seen that believers are disrespectful to non-believers. Atheist and my agnostic friends, do you see the common point between the two. Radical religiosity is based on slander and lies, just like in mythologies. You think I'll trust the killer like a Christchurch hitman? The Christchurch hitman did this with the way of thinking of the white supremacist crusaders, as evident from the names on his gun. Please do not slander Atheists and Agnostics with the words of the murderers.

Atheists and agnostics can be bad people too sometimes. They can also be decent people.

Which is the problem with these sorts of generalizations.

[Neutraligon]

I would say that religion allows for/pushes extremes. A person who is already geared towards charity work and the like can be pushed to do more of that if they are religious. A person already geared to violence would be pushed more in and harder to the extremes of that.

I don’t think that’s true.

There are plenty of examples of people who were predisposed to violence for one reason or another renouncing violence and becoming pacifist because of religious influence and experience.

Alvin York is one example. Even if the U.S Army decided to force him into violence by interpreting the Bible themselves.

This does not necessarily negate my point what I said, particularly since he was convincible that his denomination did not in fact forbid violence. In addition, the religious experience simply pushed forward a part of himself that already existed. A person is not simply one thing.

[Kilobugya]

and i will not yield until we have gotten to this point

(Image)

Hyper-relativism never gets you anywhere, and no one actually follows it. When you're thirsty, you take a glass that you fill at the tap, or you open the fridge and take a bottle, or something like that. You don't grab a wooden stick yelling "aguamenti !" until you drop dead from thirst. That's where the hypocrisy is - continuously, in your daily life, you'll act like you're part of a logical, lawful, predictable universe at a fundamental level. Those who do survive, those who don't die.

That we'll never absolute truth about anything - perhaps the universe is a computer simulation. Or the dream of an alien hivemind. Or perhaps Harry Potter is indeed true, and those wizards are pretty skilled with their "obliviate!" That doesn't mean all those hypothesis are equivalent, that some don't have much higher probability of being true, and there is no way to incrementally make your map of reality (= your belief) more accurate and useful to navigate reality.

And that's why we have things like the scientific method. Bayesian inference with Occamian priors. You'll tell me those are self-justifying, just as religion is. But there are major differences, especially in the fact that at the end, they probe the universe and look at the answer which is given. And that they prove they are right - maybe not 100% accurate, but close enough for all practical purpose - by all the successes of science and technology.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I imagine it’s because he sees such people as being ‘defenders of western civilization’ rather than believing anything actually religious.

He explicitly said he isn’t religious. Race was his motivation.

My motivation comes from trust in science and humanity. I trust scientific theses. Where do you think the motivation of those who carry out bomb attacks come from ? ''What has religion done for humanity'' That would be a good answer to your question.

What even is the relation between the Aussie terrorist and your post. Why would you even bring science?

Once again we have seen that believers are disrespectful to non-believers. Atheist and my agnostic friends, do you see the common point between the two. Radical religiosity is based on slander and lies, just like in mythologies. You think I'll trust the killer like a Christchurch hitman? The Christchurch hitman did this with the way of thinking of the white supremacist crusaders, as evident from the names on his gun. Please do not slander Atheists and Agnostics with the words of the murderers.

Atheists and agnostics can be bad people too sometimes. They can also be decent people.

Which is the problem with these sorts of generalizations.

Exactly.

[Salus Maior]

I imagine it’s because he sees such people as being ‘defenders of western civilization’ rather than believing anything actually religious.

He explicitly said he isn’t religious. Race was his motivation.

My motivation comes from trust in science and humanity. I trust scientific theses. Where do you think the motivation of those who carry out bomb attacks come from ? ''What has religion done for humanity'' That would be a good answer to your question.

Well, unfortunately for your trust in humanity, our species is incredibly fallible and prone to behaving and thinking in flawed ways. That’s just how the world is. And this is just as true for the non religious as it is for the religious.

I also don’t really care what motivates you. I never even brought that up.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Once again we have seen that believers are disrespectful to non-believers. Atheist and my agnostic friends, do you see the common point between the two. Radical religiosity is based on slander and lies, just like in mythologies. You think I'll trust the killer like a Christchurch hitman? The Christchurch hitman did this with the way of thinking of the white supremacist crusaders, as evident from the names on his gun. Please do not slander Atheists and Agnostics with the words of the murderers.

Atheists and agnostics can be bad people too sometimes. They can also be decent people.

Which is the problem with these sorts of generalizations.

I know this but I don't have to believe the words of a murderer. I do not have to believe the lie that a killer with the crusaders' name on his gun is an atheist and an agnostic.I'm not surprised you believe everything written in his manifesto

[Aguaria Major]

This may shock you to hear:

But some people actually base their conclusions about the world based on logic, and aren't swayed by the logic of religious people which, when one gets right down to it, amounts to little more than, "because that's what I was taught and God said so."

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

Nothing should be above questioning in the world of logical thinking, and the realities are that:

a) when one examines the utility of religion, there really isn't any argument for keeping it around anymore, and

b) when one examines its fundamental claims about the nature of the universe from a logical perspective, he will always find them to be full of holes.

That being said: if you want to keep practicing it despite the lack of evidence for it being necessay for society and its claims about the universe, by all means, keep doing so. Just don't try to lie to yourself and disguise your conclusion to do so as anything other than blind, illogical tribalism.

Because THAT is what's pointless here.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

1) Umm, because that's how humanity has advanced.

The more knowledge we have about the universe, the more we can advance our tech on the path to a higher plain of existence

If people thought like you do, then we never would've advanced beyond the stone age, when EVERYTHING was a mystery that instilled awe. It's not autistic to seek greater knowledge of the world around you. It's the human condition.

2) No, because logic isn't rooted in a deference to questioning authority or a specifc group of people like your religion is. It's rooted in the individual's capacity for comprehension, and subsequent questioning of, the world around them. That is the antithesis of tribalism, which you evidently do not know the definiton of.

If I truly was adhering to tribalism, I'd still be Catholic, like I was taught to be at birth.

You're grasping for straws and it shows, mate. You've run out of defenses for your own argument, so you're pivoting and falsely attacking me for exhibiting the same behvior as you, which, given the fact you're now using that as ammunition against me, thus taking the stance of that being a negative behavior, you have unwittingly admitted is wrong.

So, in other words, you're so out of arguments that you're destoying the ones you made previously.

[Cekovia]

and i will not yield until we have gotten to this point

(Image)

Hyper-relativism never gets you anywhere, and no one actually follows it. When you're thirsty, you take a glass that you fill at the tap, or you open the fridge and take a bottle, or something like that. You don't grab a wooden stick yelling "aguamenti !" until you drop dead from thirst. That's where the hypocrisy is - continuously, in your daily life, you'll act like you're part of a logical, lawful, predictable universe at a fundamental level. Those who do survive, those who don't die.

That we'll never absolute truth about anything - perhaps the universe is a computer simulation. Or the dream of an alien hivemind. Or perhaps Harry Potter is indeed true, and those wizards are pretty skilled with their "obliviate!" That doesn't mean all those hypothesis are equivalent, that some don't have much higher probability of being true, and there is no way to incrementally make your map of reality (= your belief) more accurate and useful to navigate reality.

And that's why we have things like the scientific method. Bayesian inference with Occamian priors. You'll tell me those are self-justifying, just as religion is. But there are major differences, especially in the fact that at the end, they probe the universe and look at the answer which is given. And that they prove they are right - maybe not 100% accurate, but close enough for all practical purpose - by all the successes of science and technology.

and i argue that praying and believing in god is as valuable because as with technology, praying to god has been successful for so many throughout history. perhaps the answer is not that science is invalid, but that some parts of the universe are for us to know and some parts are beyond human comprehension and our hubris is unearned. there's a shocker!

[Aeritai]

Well it is depends who you ask... If you asked a atheist they might say religion is both a positive and negative force.

If you asked a religious like me, I will say that being religious has been a positive experience for me.

Hopefully this thread remains civil... Usually discussions surrounding religion don't go well.

[Major-Tom]

A bit of everything ranging from "fantastic stuff" to "terrible, terrible stuff." Religion is too broad and all-encompassing to make a blanket statement about whether or not it was a net detriment or net benefit to humanity. In many instances, it united countries, led the fight for scientific progress and created lasting peace in old-timey nation-states etc. In many instances, too, it has given people a reason to hop on their feet and get out of bed in the morning.

Conversely, it has been the harbinger of conflict, of war, of genocide, of hatred, and as an excuse for these things.

Like many things, the effect of a religion is determined by those handling and interpreting it, not the concept of the respective religion itself. A genuine and earnest priest is going to handle his/her religion much differently than someone like Joel Osteen, and this will lead to widely disparate outcomes.

[Aguaria Major]

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

It's really interesting that so many people today are literally incapable of thinking in philosophical terms. It's as if they can only carry on an argument so long as the terms of that argument are the terms of empirical science and what they understand to be "rational thinking." Faced with philosophical questions that are outside the scope of that familiar paradigm, such as why truth or logic are fundamentally good or what it really means for something to be "good," they shut down like robots presented with something they're not programmed to respond to. Just look at the response to my post- two people immediately leaped on to the part where I talked about how early religious beliefs arose partly to explain natural phenomenon that we can now explain scientifically, but then completely ignored the broader arguments I presented. I'm guessing that's because "religion as a primitive explanation for the sun" is a concept that fits with their paradigm and is easy to understand; "religion as a response to those philosophical questions beyond empirical science or rationality" is an idea many people are simply not equipped to understand, because modern education tends to put little emphasis on philosophy if it's even covered.

Philosophy both the study of what is right, either in moral or empirical terms.

Tell me: what does that have to do with the belief in a supreme being?

Nothing, and this is why philosophers have always been among the most secular entities at any given point of history.

[Salus Maior]

I don’t think that’s true.

There are plenty of examples of people who were predisposed to violence for one reason or another renouncing violence and becoming pacifist because of religious influence and experience.

Alvin York is one example. Even if the U.S Army decided to force him into violence by interpreting the Bible themselves.

This does not necessarily negate my point what I said, particularly since he was convincible that his denomination did not in fact forbid violence.

His denomination; the Church of Christ, is absolutely pacifist. He wasn’t convinced otherwise (and the fact that he was coerced into violence would haunt him for the rest of his life). The Army simply denied his conscientious objection by saying the Bible doesn’t prevent him from being drafted.

[Horde of One]

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not.
[...]

Similarly, one might question why you would would want to try to make a universe which is perfectly passible of being explained with logic and science try to conform to the human-made dogma of your religion. And I believe calling all irreligious people severly autistic isn't a very good course of action if you wish to convert them, ad hominems only hurt your cause you know.

As for the OPs question, I'd say religion has indeed done great things for humanity in the past. However it's virtues are overshadowed (in my view) by the atrocities that the believers in the dogma committ. Besides, it is my opinion that, presently, we no longer need religion to either providing us with a moral compass, explaining the universe or fomenting social cohesion, thus making it rather obsolete.

[Neutraligon]

This does not necessarily negate my point what I said, particularly since he was convincible that his denomination did not in fact forbid violence.

His denomination; the Church of Christ, is absolutely pacifist. He wasn’t convinced otherwise (and the fact that he was coerced into violence would haunt him for the rest of his life). The Army simply denied his conscientious objection by saying the Bible doesn’t prevent him from being drafted.

Ah then I misunderstood what was written. First screw the army for that second I added an edit.

[Arident]

and i argue that praying and believing in god is as valuable because as with technology, praying to god has been successful for so many throughout history. perhaps the answer is not that science is invalid, but that some parts of the universe are for us to know and some parts are beyond human comprehension and our hubris is unearned. there's a shocker!

While I absolutely agree that science and technology doesn't have all the answers, our understanding is slowly but steadily improving. Religion is/was a rung on the knowledge ladder just like our science and technology now.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Do you want to live in the European Union or do you want to live in countries ruled by religion? In the secular system, you can live your religion freely, but there are always restrictions in the regions governed by religion. In other words, while religion restricts people, secularism liberates people.

[Cekovia]

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

1) Umm, because that's how humanity has advanced.

The more knowledge we have about the universe, the more we can advance our tech on the path to a higher plain of existence

tower of babel typa beat, cool. look, there's a difference between trying to use logic to explain the creation of the entire universe and using logic to figure out how certain metals and synthetic chemicals interact in order to produce smartphones or even to figure out how organisms evolved from one starting point.

If people thought like you do, then we never would've advanced beyond the stone age, when EVERYTHING was a mystery that instilled awe. It's not autistic to seek greater knowledge of the world around you. It's the human condition.

certainly. what is autistic(-adjacent) is to impose a single system upon the entire universe and insist that everybody who wants to try to add a bit of nuance to that and find a better explanation for some of the stranger unexplained phenomena is a tribalistic illogical idiot, as you're doing.

2) No, because logic isn't rooted in a deference to questioning authority or a specifc group of people like your religion is. It's rooted in the individual's capacity for comprehension, and subsequent questioning of, the world around them. That is the antithesis of tribalism, which you evidently do not know the definiton of.

oh wow, you personally investigated every aspect of every scientific phenomenon that you are endorsing? wow that's really impressive and independent of you, no deference to any sort of questioning authority or groups of people like, you know, scientists.

If I truly was adhering to tribalism, I'd still be Catholic, like I was taught to be at birth.

you can be tribalistic for a tribe you've joined later than birth.

You're grasping for straws and it shows, mate. You've run out of defenses for your own argument, so you're pivoting and falsely attacking me for exhibiting the same behvior as you, which, given the fact you're now using that as ammunition against me, thus taking the stance of that being a negative behavior, you have unwittingly admitted is wrong.

So, in other words, you're so out of arguments that you're destoying the ones you made previously.

jesus christ. no. i am pointing out that we are Both using the same fundamental system of faith for our own belief systems and that's OK and should be embraced but that you are being a hypocrite. i myself perform biological research and i certainly believe the scientific method can be applied to many natural phenomena, as i do! i also understand that fundamentally, my work relies on having faith in the accuracy of other researchers who have provided the basis for my own work and in the scientific method, and that science cannot try to overtake god.

[Kilobugya]

and i argue that praying and believing in god is as valuable because as with technology, praying to god has been successful for so many throughout history.

What do you mean by "successful" ? Does it mean to being more happy ? Living longer ? Having less car accident ? All those are measurable - science can tell (theoretically, in practice it can be hard) if they are true or not. And even if they are true, science can help figure out if they work because of "supernatural" or not.

If you take the "does praying reduce car accident ?" question, there has been some scientific research on the topic. And from what I remember it shows :

1. Praying for someone else than you have no effect (you can pray as much as you want for your loved ones to not have accident, it won't change anything).
2. Praying for yourself when you're the driver does lower the risk of accidents.
3. But, being reminded that driving is dangerous and you should be careful is as efficient as praying for yourself.

The conclusion is that there is no supernatural forces involved, but that praying can have a positive psychological effect in reminding you you're about to do something dangerous.

The same is true of things like mindfulness meditation - science can study if it does work, and when it finds out it does in some cases (reducing anxiety and stress) it can also figure out why and how, and that's not linked to any mystical explanation, but just to neurology and psychology.

perhaps the answer is not that science is invalid, but that some parts of the universe are for us to know and some parts are beyond human comprehension and our hubris is unearned. there's a shocker!

If they are truly beyond human comprehension, then why even have a religion, that's supposed to give some very detailed explanation (what the God wants us to do or not, specific parts of history the God intervened in, ...) ? And how would you know which part are beyond comprehension if you don't actually try your best to understand them ? When you start worshiping something, applying faith, you have given up at trying to understand it.

[Salus Maior]

Atheists and agnostics can be bad people too sometimes. They can also be decent people.

Which is the problem with these sorts of generalizations.

I know this but I don't have to believe the words of a murderer. I do not have to believe the lie that a killer with the crusaders' name on his gun is an atheist and an agnostic.I'm not surprised you believe everything written in his manifesto

The point of the manifesto is to say why he’s doing what he’s doing. If he were religious why wouldn’t he say so? Especially if he’s likely to die as these shooters typically are.

His issue was one based in the idea of ‘white civilization’ vs ‘Muslim civilization’ which again is a race thing rather than a religious thing.

[Cekovia]

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not.
[...]

Similarly, one might question why you would would want to try to make a universe which is perfectly passible of being explained with logic and science try to conform to the human-made dogma of your religion.

how the hell can u say the universe can be explained entirely by logic and science when there are quite likely literally millions of unanswered scientific questions. why would you say that. why would you think that would be a normal and sane thing to say.

And I believe calling all irreligious people severly autistic isn't a very good course of action if you wish to convert them, ad hominems only hurt your cause you know.

i dont care because you people are way too far gone to change your minds anyway. debate on this site is almost entirely for the benefit of the audience.

[Kilobugya]

His issue was one based in the idea of ‘white civilization’ vs ‘Muslim civilization’ which again is a race thing rather than a religious thing.

Hrm, Muslism isn't a race, but a religion. And you can be "white" and "Muslim" at the same time. Sure things are often confused in the head of killers, but "religion", "race" and "nationalism" are often intermixed in the mind of fanatics, with no clear distinction between them.