Is religion good?

[Technoscience Leftwing]

... Religious dissidents from various sects of Protestantism fled to the United States, and they saw in the right to form religious groups freedom from the despotism of continental monarchs and their established churches...

I'm not sure this is true. Some of the early UK protestants who went to the proto-US, went because they were extremists who wanted there to be less religious freedom.

I'm not sure this is true. Some of the early UK protestants who went to the proto-US, went because they were extremists who wanted there to be less religious freedom.

Absolutely. Many early Protestant settlers in the American colonies - notably New England - weren't looking for freedom of conscience for Christians, but rather the freedom to install their particular view of a Protestant theocracy. The Massachusetts Bay Colony for example, explicitly restricted the franchise to recognised members of the local Puritan church, and was openly intolerant of all other Protestant denominations, including the established Anglican Church of England. When Roger Williams founded what became Rhode Island, and offered some measure of freedom of conscience on religious issues to new settlers, it was because he was fleeing religious persecution in Massachusetts Bay, not because he was fleeing despotism and religious intolerance in Europe.

Quaker-founded Pennsylvania and Catholic-founded Maryland did offer a more explicit level of religious freedom more or less from their foundation, but Maryland founder Lord Baltimore was hardly an anti-establishment figure, while William Penn was granted a royal charter by Charles II - so both had the full support of the metropole for their foundation.

Yes, it probably was - many Protestant leaders wanted to get rid of the persecution of continental churches and governments in relation to them in order to start persecuting dissidents in the zone of their new residence. I heard that in the USA they even initiated anti-witch trials , and trial against the teaching of the theory of evolution.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

But their difference from the sultans, kings, emirs of the past was that they carried out the modernization of an agrarian country, and tried to give urban comfort, education and social guarantees to the poor and plebeians.

This is one of the problems though. Not everyone wants to be forced live urban, not everyone wants give up their traditions, land, and home because someone said "we have to progress" and certainly no one wants to give up everything they've believed in, like a higher power, because someone told them "you're wrong".

Take the 2nd Spanish Republic for example, definitely a lot of dominos fell down that caused the right wing coup, but one of the biggest causes was how hostile the Republic was towards church, and religion. Suppressing religion never works out in the end, even the USSR toned down on their anti-church views when Stalin was finally dead.

Of course, not everyone wants progressive change. And so things like the Vendéan uprising happen, when the poor peasants, seemingly suffering from the king and his system, from tax collectors, priests and landlords, fight against the revolution, for the old regime, for the king and priests, simply because the old them more familiar. And here one has to choose whether to take the side of progressive or reactionary violence, or to abstain from the use of force in the face of a counter-revolutionary insurrection. Well, everyone will answer this challenge according to their temperament and upbringing, I would support Robespierre, some of the Vendeans, and some of non-violence. Hugo has a good book about this, "One thousand seven hundred and ninety-three."

[Sagadahock]

Religion being in opposition to science or restrictive on people's right to freely be themselves is an unfortunate trend but not the only way it has to be. Religion can be good. It institutes good morals in people, and churches commonly serve as places where a community can meet and interact, or where food is given out to the less fortunate, or where children engage in crafts and games with others. Unfortunately, Christians tend to be hateful, or anti-lgbt, or downright racist and bigoted. But, they can also be extremely kind and respectful. Many of the nicest people i've met held religion very close to their heart. I, myself, am a Christian. I recognize that these bigoted members of my religion exist. But that isn't a reason to hate Christianity outright. I'd say judge every christian as their own person, and not judge people or guess their beliefs just because they are christian. Ultimately, Religion can be good. It can also be misconstrued to hateful and horribly restrictive levels. It all depends how one interprets their belief in god.

[Great Kauthar]

1) No.
2) Yes, one religion (Christianity) in particular has the benefit of enabling one to be saved for all eternity.

[Blood Sacrifice and Fire]

My nation is a theocratic cultist state, but irl, I'm actually agnostic.

[Arval Va]

For clarity:
My main concern is not necessarily with the ideals promoted by any one religion. While most religions promote some seriously heartless or dangerous ideas, my issue is with faith. The central requirement of spirituality is that it requires members engage in anti-empirical thinking which is instilled early on. When the empirical ideas of science (or just simple observations) come into conflict with the unfalsifiable mystical claims of religion, believers can be strongly motivated to deny the truth.

[Great Kauthar]

For clarity:
My main concern is not necessarily with the ideals promoted by any one religion. While most religions promote some seriously heartless or dangerous ideas, my issue is with faith. The central requirement of spirituality is that it requires members engage in anti-empirical thinking which is instilled early on. When the empirical ideas of science (or just simple observations) come into conflict with the unfalsifiable mystical claims of religion, believers can be strongly motivated to deny the truth.

Why is "anti-empirical thinking" a bad thing? What makes empirical evidence the sole standard for truth? You mention the "empirical ideas of science" and yet the scientific method relies on a number of philosophical presuppositions that cannot be empirically proven. If we go by empiricism alone, there is no way you can even provide a definition of "the truth".

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

For clarity:
My main concern is not necessarily with the ideals promoted by any one religion. While most religions promote some seriously heartless or dangerous ideas, my issue is with faith. The central requirement of spirituality is that it requires members engage in anti-empirical thinking which is instilled early on. When the empirical ideas of science (or just simple observations) come into conflict with the unfalsifiable mystical claims of religion, believers can be strongly motivated to deny the truth.

Why is "anti-empirical thinking" a bad thing? What makes empirical evidence the sole standard for truth? You mention the "empirical ideas of science" and yet the scientific method relies on a number of philosophical presuppositions that cannot be empirically proven. If we go by empiricism alone, there is no way you can even provide a definition of "the truth".

They didn't say Empirical Evidence was the only thing you should believe. They said that when Empirical Evidence comes into conflict with presupposed or assumed facts of religion, the empirical, observed evidence wins out. This goes for science too. When scientists believe something but cannot prove it, when evidence comes up that disproves their assumption, they change or abandon it and come up with new theories. This is how science works.

[Great Kauthar]

Why is "anti-empirical thinking" a bad thing? What makes empirical evidence the sole standard for truth? You mention the "empirical ideas of science" and yet the scientific method relies on a number of philosophical presuppositions that cannot be empirically proven. If we go by empiricism alone, there is no way you can even provide a definition of "the truth".

They didn't say Empirical Evidence was the only thing you should believe. They said that when Empirical Evidence comes into conflict with presupposed or assumed facts of religion, the empirical, observed evidence wins out. This goes for science too. When scientists believe something but cannot prove it, when evidence comes up that disproves their assumption, they change or abandon it and come up with new theories. This is how science works.

If that is what they believe then they should say that, but they did not. Their claim was that the "mystical claims of religion" are at odds with "the truth", which they equate to empirical evidence.

[Zanderlock]

Two Words

IN MODERATION

(Not a Mod, just adding emphasis)

[Arval Va]

They didn't say Empirical Evidence was the only thing you should believe. They said that when Empirical Evidence comes into conflict with presupposed or assumed facts of religion, the empirical, observed evidence wins out. This goes for science too. When scientists believe something but cannot prove it, when evidence comes up that disproves their assumption, they change or abandon it and come up with new theories. This is how science works.

If that is what they believe then they should say that, but they did not. Their claim was that the "mystical claims of religion" are at odds with "the truth", which they equate to empirical evidence.

Bewaffnete actually summed it up fairly well. Basically: use the scientific method instead of just trusting an unfalsifiable claim.

[Great Kauthar]

If that is what they believe then they should say that, but they did not. Their claim was that the "mystical claims of religion" are at odds with "the truth", which they equate to empirical evidence.

Bewaffnete actually summed it up fairly well. Basically: use the scientific method instead of just trusting an unfalsifiable claim.

The scientific method relies on claims which are scientifically/empirically unfalsifiable.

[Floofybit]

Two Words

IN MODERATION

Not a moderate text size either

[Najairadarethu]

I side with the sceptics of religion, but at the same time I'd say that not all religions are equally harmful during all possible eras of history.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

For clarity:
My main concern is not necessarily with the ideals promoted by any one religion. While most religions promote some seriously heartless or dangerous ideas, my issue is with faith. The central requirement of spirituality is that it requires members engage in anti-empirical thinking which is instilled early on. When the empirical ideas of science (or just simple observations) come into conflict with the unfalsifiable mystical claims of religion, believers can be strongly motivated to deny the truth.

Wokeism also requires anti-empirical thinking.

[Arval Va]

For clarity:
My main concern is not necessarily with the ideals promoted by any one religion. While most religions promote some seriously heartless or dangerous ideas, my issue is with faith. The central requirement of spirituality is that it requires members engage in anti-empirical thinking which is instilled early on. When the empirical ideas of science (or just simple observations) come into conflict with the unfalsifiable mystical claims of religion, believers can be strongly motivated to deny the truth.

Wokeism also requires anti-empirical thinking.

I never said I supported "wokeism."

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

Wokeism also requires anti-empirical thinking.

I never said I supported "wokeism."

The former is a good antidote to the latter. Also Kant says that religion and science have entirely different roles. The idea that things matter "objectively" requires a Judge who is objectively right.
Wokeism, on the other hand, makes empirical claims but these claims are false.

[Arval Va]

Bewaffnete actually summed it up fairly well. Basically: use the scientific method instead of just trusting an unfalsifiable claim.

The scientific method relies on claims which are scientifically/empirically unfalsifiable.

Do we have the same scientific method? Last I checked, the scientific method was solely for proving or disproving claims based on evidence, rather than dealing in "well, I can't prove it, but you can't DISPROVE it!"

[Great Kauthar]

The scientific method relies on claims which are scientifically/empirically unfalsifiable.

Do we have the same scientific method? Last I checked, the scientific method was solely for proving or disproving claims based on evidence, rather than dealing in "well, I can't prove it, but you can't DISPROVE it!"

Obviously we do not. The scientific method is not a tool for "proving" or "disproving" anything but rather it is a method for gathering information about the natural world.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

Do we have the same scientific method? Last I checked, the scientific method was solely for proving or disproving claims based on evidence, rather than dealing in "well, I can't prove it, but you can't DISPROVE it!"

Obviously we do not. The scientific method is not a tool for "proving" or "disproving" anything but rather it is a method for gathering information about the natural world.

Yes, wokeism makes claims about the natural world and science proves these claims wrong.
Religion makes claims about the supernatural and moral universe, science is unequipped to either prove or disprove these things.

I never said I supported "wokeism."

How do you construct morality on purely empirical claims then? Social Darwinism and eugenics?

[Najairadarethu]

Scientific progress is based on claims that couldn't be falsified even though it was repeatedly tried, the scientific method is based on trying to empirically falsify claims. These claims have to be falsifiable in the first place, of course.

[Necroghastia]

Obviously we do not. The scientific method is not a tool for "proving" or "disproving" anything but rather it is a method for gathering information about the natural world.

Yes, wokeism makes claims about the natural world and science proves these claims wrong.
Religion makes claims about the supernatural and moral universe, science is unequipped to either prove or disprove these things.

"wokeism" is not a thing that exists.

1) Is religion inherently harmful?

Some can be. However, mine is not, but rather helpful.

2) Does religion have benefits, and do those benefits outweigh possible harm?

Religion has a MASSIVE variety of benefits. Well, at least mine does, but that's the only religion I really care about.

3) What was it like before your religion was around?

My religion was around at the beginning. There were times when there was apostasy, but people still have a chance to be saved

Pretty sure there were thousands of years of human civilization before Mormonism...

[Arval Va]

I never said I supported "wokeism."

The former is a good antidote to the latter. Also Kant says that religion and science have entirely different roles. The idea that things matter "objectively" requires a Judge who is objectively right.
Wokeism, on the other hand, makes empirical claims but these claims are false.

1) Religion and science are constantly trying to answer the same questions and perform the same roles. Science does it through exploration and investigation. Religion uses coercion and faith. For millennia, religion has tried to be the authority for all manners of natural and physical truth claims. When science comes along it argues from observation rather than authority, and religion either shrinks or rejects observations. Most of the time, it just keeps arguing over things well-proven long ago.

2) Arguments from authority aren''t valid unless you can prove the validity of that authority. If value is determined by an objective judge, who's to know if the judge is objective, especially if no-one can actually interact with that judge? More importantly, why is that judge the sole source of value? Oxygen has value to humans because humans need oxygen to survive. An argument for something's value can be made wthout arguing from authority. Though, of course, all value is relative. Oxygen is valuable to humans because we need oxygen to survive, but oxygen isn't valuable to a botulinum bacterium, as it is an anaerobic bacteria, which has no use for oxygen.

3) If you want to talk about "wokeism" that's an interesting subject, but not one that falls under the umbrella of religion. I'm in no position to vouch for the morals or validity of that belief.

[Northern Seleucia]

I mean, I'm a Christian, sooooooooo I'm sure you can guess my answers.

[Arval Va]

Obviously we do not. The scientific method is not a tool for "proving" or "disproving" anything but rather it is a method for gathering information about the natural world.

Yes, wokeism makes claims about the natural world and science proves these claims wrong.
Religion makes claims about the supernatural and moral universe, science is unequipped to either prove or disprove these things.

1) Religion has been making calims about the natural world since day one. To deny something so categorically entrenched in religion is madness.
2) Moral claims can be made without religion, and/or with logic.

I never said I supported "wokeism."

How do you construct morality on purely empirical claims then? Social Darwinism and eugenics?

1) Let's take a question, say: "Is murder wrong?"
2) Let's explore what happens if we say "yes:" We can kill as many people as we want. We can harm people without any reason, and end their lives, causing unnecessary suffering.
3) Let's explore what happens if we say "no:" We do not kill people indiscriminately. We are not causing unnecessary suffering by ending people's lives without reason.
4) Which solution causes more pain, suffering, or injustice?