What has religion done for humanity?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

There's no real way to answer that question without bias.

For example: from my Christian perspective I would say that Christianity in particular has been responsible for the spiritual salvation of billions of people. An atheist, meanwhile, wouldn't believe in the soul or the afterlife in general and so would argue that is "basically nothing" because they can only think materially and not metaphysically.

[Salus Maior]

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.

I’m aware of that. The Christchurch shooter did not believe the same.

[Kilobugya]

There's no real way to answer that question without bias.

For example: from my Christian perspective I would say that Christianity in particular has been responsible for the spiritual salvation of billions of people. An atheist, meanwhile, wouldn't believe in the soul or the afterlife in general and so would argue that is "basically nothing" because they can only think materially and not metaphysically.

Real question, not trolling: do you believe that people who died before the birth of Jesus, or in parts of the world that weren't ever of his birth (such as the Americas before the arrival of European in the late 15th century) can't be "spiritual salved" ? If it's true, that seems pretty "mean" from God, to damn people who didn't even have a chance to worship Him. If it's false, then wouldn't Christianity actually damn all people who for a reason or another didn't believe/convert ?

[Cekovia]

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.

oy. you should not be trying to argue about religion if your understanding of religious and particularly christian philosophy is this poor. please, i beg of you, go pick up a book, any book, on the subject.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

There's no real way to answer that question without bias.

For example: from my Christian perspective I would say that Christianity in particular has been responsible for the spiritual salvation of billions of people. An atheist, meanwhile, wouldn't believe in the soul or the afterlife in general and so would argue that is "basically nothing" because they can only think materially and not metaphysically.

Real question, not trolling: do you believe that people who died before the birth of Jesus, or in parts of the world that weren't ever of his birth (such as the Americas before the arrival of European in the late 15th century) can't be "spiritual salved" ? If it's true, that seems pretty "mean" from God, to damn people who didn't even have a chance to worship Him. If it's false, then wouldn't Christianity actually damn all people who for a reason or another didn't believe/convert ?

People who live and die without ever knowing Christ don't go to Hell, no.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

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.

There is a sentence suitable for this subject in Turkish ''ayinesi iştir kişinin lafa bakılmaz'' it's not what you say it's what you do that counts

[Salus Maior]

In addition, the religious experience simply pushed forward a part of himself that already existed. A person is not simply one thing.

That sounds awfully determinist of you. I don’t believe that people are merely where they start out from, but can go through incredible, unprecedented, personal changes in their lives.

[Kilobugya]

oy. you should not be trying to argue about religion if your understanding of religious and particularly christian philosophy is this poor.

You don't need to understand the detailed specifics of one religion in particular to explain why religious way of thinking in general is flawed. Exactly like you don't need to know the specifics of a particular perpetual motion machine proposal to disregard it due to thermodynamic reasons.

[Salus Maior]

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.

There is a sentence suitable for this subject in Turkish ''ayinesi iştir kişinin lafa bakılmaz'' it's not what you say it's what you do that counts

There’s nothing in atheism or agnosticism which prevents people from doing bad things. Mostly because they’re non-beliefs.

So I don’t see how what the shooter did was opposed to the idea of agnosticism or atheism.

[Cekovia]

oy. you should not be trying to argue about religion if your understanding of religious and particularly christian philosophy is this poor.

You don't need to understand the detailed specifics of one religion in particular to explain why religious way of thinking in general is flawed. Exactly like you don't need to know the specifics of a particular perpetual motion machine proposal to disregard it due to thermodynamic reasons.

you dont however you do need to understand the basic concepts of religious philosophy in order to not make an utter fool of yourself when trying to argue that it is bad and wrong. which you don't and you just did.

[Aguaria Major]

1) Not really. Those who make that assertion currently, as you have just admitted, are no different in practice from those who admit that you MIGHT eventually be proven right while asserting the current data doesn't support that.

If he comes to the same conclusion that I do, which IS based in responsibility, in practice, there is no difference between the responsibility of both our claims.

ok machiavelli LOL

2) You have badly misattributed the reason for the statement you quoted. The scientific community's current rejection of the paranormal is down to centuries of observation suggesting that it either IS explainable in some cases and is therefore, by its very definition, NOT PARANORMAL, or, more commonly, that the given "paranormal occurrence" just didn't happen, full stop. Usually, it's a combination of both, with the first statement being used to validate the second.

thats true for

things like ghosts and ufos, what we classically consider paranormal, but that isn't at all true for things like the existence of god/gods.

3) It is objectively false because you are making up the fact that any scientist somehow believes in the paranormal. Scientists don't endorse the paranormal because, again, the principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation, but endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

science is not inherently universal

Logic appears to "break down" in the face of "the paranormal" because the belief in the paranormal is fundamentally illogical given point #2. It's not the other way around.

it's sort of a circular dependency situation - logic isn't equipped to work on the supernatural/paranormal because it is fundamentally illogical because logic isn't equipped to work on it, etc. doesn't matter which one comes first. the point is that not everything has to conform to the rules of what we understand to be logic.

At this point, you are essentially arguing that "the paranormal is real because I say so."

you're arguing the same for logic's universal application! we all fundamentally have faith in different things that we cannot "prove" to be true. it's just that some of us choose to acknowledge and accept that, and others prefer to cling to the delusion that they are more intelligent, more logical, more objective.

1) Nice way to avoid substantive discussion when it doesn't suit you, LoL

2) Yes it is. If you recall:

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):
We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

...Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

The vast majority of scientists reject religion ("the paranormal") for those exact reasons.

3) Yes, it is. That's the defintion of science - logical analysis which acts as a tool for humanity to understand the nature of the universe. The knowledge it has spawend encompasses every aspect of the physical universe, and if physicists crack the unified field theory, science will have an explanation for the nature of literally everything in the universe.

4) Given point 3, there is no circle because nothing is outside the realm of empirical understanding to begin with. Logical observation, given point 2 as well, dictates that nothing is paranormal (i.e., outside of logical explanation). You are spitting in the fact of reality in claiming otherwise.

And if you're going to doubt conclusions based on logical thinking which is itself based on observed truths about the universe in order to determine its nature, then you are arguing for a world where reality is whatever anyone wishes it could be.

5) Logical thinking has proven, over the years, numerous truths about the universe through repeatable results to verify them. My assertions about this being the most reliable way to measure the nature of the universe are based on observable data and trends, whereas you have nothing to show for your religion in the realm of proving truths about the universe through repeatable data.

You have a book that was written 2,000 years ago, where its writers claim to be all-knowing.

[Neutraligon]

In addition, the religious experience simply pushed forward a part of himself that already existed. A person is not simply one thing.

That sounds awfully determinist of you. I don’t believe that people are merely where they start out from, but can go through incredible, unprecedented, personal changes in their lives.

For a person to change there has to be something within them that permits the change. A religious experience is useless if there isn't something inside them that is willing to accept that experience as genuine. Satan knows god exists and yet makes the choice (supposedly) to continue on his path, a person could have a religious experience and yet still continue as they where.

[Horde of One]

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.

Yet. Unanswered yet. That doesn't mean they can't be answered, only that they haven't been so far.

[Kilobugya]

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

Understanding how a simple set of logical rules can produce large-scale complexities and beauty doesn't take anything from that beauty. It just adds to it the beauty of the explanation. When Newton explained how the rainbow works (by droplets of water diffracting photons of different wavelength by a different angle), he didn't make rainbows any less beautiful for the watchers. But he added the beauty of the simple, logical explanation to it.

The same thing goes with everything else. Understanding evolution, biology, neurology, psychology doesn't make interacting with loved ones less of a beautiful and marvelous experience. In fact, it does the opposite, it adds the beauty of the understanding to it. And when things are less shiny mushy and the interaction becomes, temporarily, more of a disagreement/confrontation it actually makes it easier to just accept it - we both are flawed and biased humans, after all.

PS : yes, I know, Newton didn't know about photons, his explanation was partial, and was improved later on.

[Salus Maior]

You have a book that was written 2,000 years ago, where its writers claim to be all-knowing.

Yeah, that’s not actually true.

The books of the Bible don’t really relate to much outside of specific revelations of God and His relationship with humanity. None of the biblical writers claimed to know anything about physics or biology.

[Kilobugya]

There’s nothing in atheism or agnosticism which prevents people from doing bad things. Mostly because they’re non-beliefs.

So I don’t see how what the shooter did was opposed to the idea of agnosticism or atheism.

Agnosticism is a non-belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (and broadly no supernatural), but sure it's also limited in scope. That's why I usually identify more as "secular humanist", which is a subset of atheism, but does contain some "positive" belief in addition.

[Neutraligon]

There’s nothing in atheism or agnosticism which prevents people from doing bad things. Mostly because they’re non-beliefs.

So I don’t see how what the shooter did was opposed to the idea of agnosticism or atheism.

Agnosticism is a non-belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (and broadly no supernatural), but sure it's also limited in scope. That's why I usually identify more as "secular humanist", which is a subset of atheism, but does contain some "positive" belief in addition.

sorry but I disagree with this comment. Atheism is if you have no god belief for whatever reason, including non-belief. it can include belief in no god but is not limited to that. There can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

[Cekovia]

ok machiavelli LOL

thats true for things like ghosts and ufos, what we classically consider paranormal, but that isn't at all true for things like the existence of god/gods.

science is not inherently universal

it's sort of a circular dependency situation - logic isn't equipped to work on the supernatural/paranormal because it is fundamentally illogical because logic isn't equipped to work on it, etc. doesn't matter which one comes first. the point is that not everything has to conform to the rules of what we understand to be logic.

you're arguing the same for logic's universal application! we all fundamentally have faith in different things that we cannot "prove" to be true. it's just that some of us choose to acknowledge and accept that, and others prefer to cling to the delusion that they are more intelligent, more logical, more objective.

1) Nice way to avoid substantive discussion when it doesn't suit you, LoL

the way in which you're responding is incredibly confusing but i will assume this is in reference to the machiavelli remark and i will also assume that the reason you are responding this way is that you didn't understand the reference i was making so i will Elaborate. the main thesis of machiavelli's the prince was essentially the idea that positive ends (from his perspective of what's positive, naturally) justify immoral means. i'm referencing that because you're essentially extending that same logic to, well, logic - you're essentially saying if someone believes something you consider to be true, it justifies an incorrect logical pathway. which, as machiavelli was incorrect, so are you.

2) Yes it is. If you recall:

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):
We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

...Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

The vast majority of scientists reject religion ("the paranormal") for those exact reasons.

it's a fucking survey it doesn't say why they reject religion and it's about personal opinions rather than scientific literature. do you think if chefs are more likely to dislike porsches than the general population that that would be based on their knowledge of cooking ??? no, because thats retarded!

3) Yes, it is. That's the defintion of science - logical analysis which acts as a tool for humanity to understand the nature of the universe. The knowledge it has spawend encompasses every aspect of the physical universe, and if physicists crack the unified field theory, science will have an explanation for the nature of literally everything in the universe.

the PHYSICAL universe. oooh. caught u there, huh. hmmm i wonder what other component of the universe there could be??? that science has not explained??? hmmmmm i cannot think of anything else at all that might have a similar name but start with a meta ... im Stumped

4) Given point 3, there is no circle because nothing is outside the realm of empirical understanding to begin with. Logical observation, given point 2 as well, dictates that nothing is paranormal (i.e., outside of logical explanation). You are spitting in the fact of reality in claiming otherwise.

everything is outside the realm of full and complete empirical understanding please read hume

And if you're going to doubt conclusions based on logical thinking which is itself based on observed truths about the universe in order to determine its nature, then you are arguing for a world where reality is whatever anyone wishes it could be.

yeah.

5) Logical thinking has proven, over the years, numerous truths about the universe through repeatable results to verify them. My assertions about this being the most reliable way to measure the nature of the universe are based on observable data and trends, whereas you have nothing to show for your religion in the realm of proving truths about the universe through repeatable data.

You have a book that was written 2,000 years ago, where its writers claim to be all-knowing.

proven is Never true in science. u never prove a hypothesis. dont use that word. the writers of the bible did not claim to be all knowing LMFAO this is such basic christian lore its hilarious to watch someone vehemently arguing against christianity while not even understanding that

[Cekovia]

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.

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.

Yet. Unanswered yet. That doesn't mean they can't be answered, only that they haven't been so far.

you literally have no way of knowing that for sure beyond blind belief.. which is the same thing ur criticizing religious ppl for having

[Aguaria Major]

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.

1) Not really, as all those actions are made achievable based on the same fundamental knowledge, i.e. that everything in the universe, we have observed, is made from the same basic components. This knowledge can help us to perform all the actions you describe.

2) "Impose" is the key word there. Logical observation has led, over the decades, to humanity coming to the conclusion that there is a fundamental order to the physical nature of the universe. That's not imposition. It would be imposition, for instance, to come to the conclusion, with observation, that there is a supreme being without any evidence and then do mental gymnastics to try to reconcile reality with their initial baseless claim, then claim that anyone who doesn't agree is only doing so because they're "autistic".

3) No, I haven't, as that would be impossible. But other people who come to logical conclusions do so out of their own capacity, as humans all possess the inherent capacity for reason. Have you ever considered, for instance, that the reason people acting using reason to process the world volition all come to the same, or similar conclusions about the nature of the universe because, what they are observing actually adheres to observably verifiable laws of physics??

4) Irrelevant. Regardless of the nature of it being what I was taught specifically from birth, if I was tribalistic, I wouldn't have come to different conclusions from those who largely surround me on my own. I'd be doing what they do.

5) Your work doesn't rely on having faith in the conclusions other researchers. Nothing in science does. THAT'S WHY RESULTS HAVE TO BE REPEATABLE. If data supporting a conclusion is largely inconsistent, then that conclusion isn't accepted period, or its acceptance is put on hold until it is determined what produced the inconsistent results.

What led you to the conclusion that science cannot overtake god? Was it evidence for his existence? Because unless it was, our ways of thinking are not the same. Ergo, your charges of hypocrisy, as I have already said, are rooted in you grasping at straws and having faith that they are true. Evidently, having blind faith has led you to false conclusions.

[Punished UMN]

I would say that religion is too broad of a category for the question to be particularly useful.

[Punished UMN]

the way this question is framed is a distinctly atheist one, as though religion were a creation of humanity like technology. humans did not create spirituality, we discovered universal truths (though we have often filled in the gaps in different and conflicting ways). and of course knowledge of our Creator is beneficial

Are you saying that the Greek religion was a spiritual truth? What about the native American religions?

Tbh the idea that pre-Christian religions possess truth is not foreign to Christianity at all and has been written about by theologians since the 3rd century.

[Salus Maior]

I would say that religion is too broad of a category for the question to be particularly useful.

Yeah but how else are we supposed to dunk on people who disagree with us?

[Zurkir]

I would say that religion is too broad of a category for the question to be particularly useful.

It’s actually a typical topic of debate. I remember in a sociology course I took it was a very heated two session debate. It’s about analyzing, dissecting, and consideration and discussion. I’m actually a religious person myself as I said prior and I don’t find the question to be erroneous.

[The Free Joy State]

You have a book that was written 2,000 years ago, where its writers claim to be all-knowing.

Yeah, that’s not actually true.

The books of the Bible don’t really relate to much outside of specific revelations of God and His relationship with humanity. None of the biblical writers claimed to know anything about physics or biology.

To be fair, there are some sects of Christianity that claim that the Bible is a perfect scientific text and that -- and this is a direct quote from a church -- "where it speaks on matters of science or history, it is unerring". That's how young earth creationism came to still remain a school of thought, after all.

As for the question, religion can serve as a cohesive force (although, as Neutra said earlier, this is not always a good thing -- as religious wars that turn faith against faith or sect against sect have shown; for where there is an in-group, some hardliners will always create an out-group).

Religious sentiment can also inspire people to good works -- acts of charity, for instance. There have even been headline statistics suggesting that religious people are more charitable than the irreligious. However -- while the headline statistic suggests that 65% of the religious give to charity (including churches), while 56% of the irreligious give to charity -- that whole 9% difference can be attributed to religious people donating to religious congregations and causes (the irreligious would be highly unlikely to donate to religious congregations, after all).

Research indicates that compassion motivates the generosity noted in many nonbelievers, while doctrinal, community or reputational concerns are found to frequently worry believers.

What religion does for people depends on them: for some, it can provide security, a community, a sense of purpose and hope. For some people, it can bring out their worst traits and make them feel righteous in doing so. I think it depends, in part, on the individual, and -- perhaps -- the denomination.