Is religion harmful to society?

[The D.S.]

Religions have existed in the world for ages. Humanity has its share of variations of Gods and Supreme Beings, yet have these religions hindered and been harmful to society? To the well-being of the world? Perhaps even technological advancement and understanding? Or has it helped? :eek_big:

[Pyrotex]

...have these religions hindered and been harmful to society? ... :eek_big:

That would depend on the religion, wouldn't it?

 

You can't lump them all together as if they were just different flavors of M&Ms.

 

Have all political systems been harmful?

Have all cultural systems been harmful?

It all depends.

 

The worship of Baal was probably harmful to its society, the Philistines. Forcing women to throw their babies into furnaces can have seriously harmful side affects.

The worship of Bachus encouraged the consumption of alcohol. Hmmm. Wouldn't want people driving on the road after church, would we?

 

Some forms of Christianity have their believers doing all kinds of dangerous, uncomfortable, unreasonable things that get them talked about. Unfavorably.

 

Some forms seem to produce well-behaved, well-adapted kids and good neighbors.

 

So tell me which religion IN PARTICULAR, and we can discuss its societal affects.

[chilehed]

Religions have existed in the world for ages. Humanity has its share of variations of Gods and Supreme Beings, yet have these religions hindered and been harmful to society? To the well-being of the world? Perhaps even technological advancement and understanding? Or has it helped? :eek_big:

Ever wonder why modern science had its birthplace in Christendom?

 

Judaism and Christianity hold that a rational god made a rational universe, that it works according to laws that can be understood by the rational mind and that it's not merely an illusion. Those beliefs made the development of modern sciences possible.

 

And I believe that they were the first religions to hold Woman to be equal in value to Man.

[Pyrotex]

Ever wonder why modern science had its birthplace in Christendom?

 

Judaism and Christianity hold that a rational god made a rational universe, that it works according to laws that can be understood by the rational mind and that it's not merely an illusion. Those beliefs made the development of modern sciences possible.

 

And I believe that they were the first religions to hold Woman to be equal in value to Man.

 

Uh... NO, NO and NO.

 

Modern Science had its birth (arguably) with Copernicus, Galileo or Newton. None of them invoked their religion as a defense of their scientific ideas.

 

The Old and New Testaments are full of "miracles" which have no explanation in a rational universe. From the very start, science has been at war with christianity.

 

The Hebrews held woman as property, for the purposes of providing children. Occassionally, as after the battle at Jericho, the virgins of the enemy were passed out to the generals for their pleasure. All references to women in the OT are references to their sexual status, marital status or child-bearing status. The NT treats women marginally better but not as equals. For example, they were forbidden to be teachers of men.

[The D.S.]

I am reffering to the effects that religions, such as Christianity, have on societies ability to progress further in technology, politics, and ethics. Some would agree that religion has done nothing but hold back the potential of man and forced them to moral and good because of fear of damnation. Shouldn't people be good and decent because it's for the overall benefit of the whole society?

[chilehed]

Modern Science had its birth (arguably) with Copernicus, Galileo or Newton.

So these three guys invented modern science absolutely on their own, and didn't stand on the shoulders of anyone or anything else?? Rubbish.

 

The Old and New Testaments are full of "miracles" which have no explanation in a rational universe. From the very start, science has been at war with christianity.

Rubbish and rubbish.

 

 

The NT treats women marginally better but not as equals...

Still more rubbish.

[The D.S.]

I happen to fully agree with Pyros arguement that science has been at war with Christianity from the start, Rubbish? I think not.

[HydrogenBond]

Religion has been around longer than the past couple of decades. The point we have currently reached, occurred with religion dominating 95% of the time. It is closer to natural and genetic, due to its longer time span, compared to the short term alternatives.

 

I am of the opinion that one can take a person out of religion but not religion out of the person. It has such a long historical basis, that it will merely change form. It may no longer say god, but its structure repeats. For example, the biggest modern example of getting rid of real religion was the Soviet Union. Socialism was sort of a distortion of the Christian ideal with a strict theocracy clone trying to force its pseudo-religion on everybody. What was suppose to happen didn't work out, so real religion came back. Now those cultures are autonomous and prosperous. Human rights are better and the risk of global anihilation has lowered significantly. It didn't work very well. What is different now?

 

What the alternatives forget is most people are being supported with the prosthesis of culture. This can make one think one is more than one actually is. All one has to do is remove the prosthesis, and do it all from scratch. One can look cool in their new sports car. Build it from scratch and now one looks lame. This is the real person under the prosthesis. Religion gives an inner strength without as much superfiscal prosthesis requirement.

[freeztar]

I happen to fully agree with Pyros arguement that science has been at war with Christianity from the start, Rubbish? I think not.

 

+1

 

Pyro made a good point. The basic tenets of Modern Science (MS) are in direct opposition with religion (not just christianity etc.) in a lot of ways. For example, skepticism (a tenet of MS) dictates that humans living inside of whales or a sea being parted require empirical evidence or at least a logical explanation.

 

I would also tend to agree with Pyro about the "founders" of MS. He wisely put in "(arguably)" as a stipulation. I would say Aristotle. Others might say Socrates. {off-topic, I smell a good thread...}

 

But in the context of this thread (and the modern Christianity-dominated "western" world), I feel Pyro hit the proverbial nail on the head.

[The D.S.]

So we agree that science and religion don't get along. That's fine and dandy but we haven't truly addressed the question at hand. Does religion hinder human progress and is it, overall, harmful in any way? :eek_big:

[freeztar]

Does religion hinder human progress?

 

What is "human progress"?

 

It seems to me that religion and science both have a different definition for progress. They seek similar goals in completely different frameworks.

 

So to answer the original question...

I believe that religion is both detrimental and (maybe, or) positive for societies.

[The D.S.]

I refer to human progress as the advancement of society as a whole. New technologies, ways of thinking, and ethical values are all a part of human progress and me, and others, believe that religion has placed serious barries to civilization. People should be moral due to natures evolving sense of intelligence and for the bettering of humans as a whole. While religion is a crutch for many, it has often, in my view, held humanity back from acheiving its ultimate potential. A barbaric, archaic, and out of date of practicing of "religion" has done damage to the progress of mankind for too long.

[Buffy]

Does Art hinder human progress?

 

What is the nature of "hindrance?"

 

There is no greater impediment to progress in the sciences than the desire to see it take place too quickly, :phones:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Yes.

[Buffy]

Yes.

Well there ya go: since only wacko liberals like Art anyway, then it'll be much easier to eliminate all energy and money wasted on Art, which will save us lots of grief and advance science much more rapidly!

 

Down with Art! :phones:

 

Every socialistic type of government where the State theoretically owns everything, and everybody does their little part to help the State, inevitably produces bad art, it produces social inertia, it produces really unhappy people, and it is more repressive than any other kind of government, ;)

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Well there ya go: since only wacko liberals like Art anyway, then it'll be much easier to eliminate all energy and money wasted on Art, which will save us lots of grief and advance science much more rapidly!

 

Down with Art!

 

You aren't seriously suggesting that effect of art on society is the same as religion. :phones:

 

 

Lots of wars and mass slaughters started over the open viewings with wine and cheese and snooty rich folks, are there? ;)

[Buffy]

You aren't seriously suggesting that effect of art on society is the same as religion. :P

Of course not, silly!

 

The issue is "hinder[ing] human progress"

, and whether its a good idea to eliminate all things that do so.

 

As you know I support both truth and beauty! Even if the latter "hinders" progress! :eek2:

Lots of wars and mass slaughters started over the open viewings with wine and cheese and snooty rich folks, are there? :hihi:

Well, this *is* California, ya know...you've never been to the Oscars have you?

 

We all have a prejudice about action films. It's sort of like, if they're beautiful and blonde, she can't act, and we should know better by now. I've heard it from people, 'What are you doing, doing a picture with Vin Diesel?' They're not giving him the credit he deserves. Sometimes, I just say, 'Wait till you see him in the picture, :)

Buffy