Is religion harmful to society?

[snoopy]

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 A barbaric, archaic, and out of date of practicing of "religion" has done damage to the progress of mankind for too long.

 

I think the answer to your question is complex.

 

I do think all Religon is archaic and we have better explanations now than we did have.

 

But once upon a time we did not have explanations for how things worked and why things happened and what the universe was.

 

And at the same time Humanity was setting up city states across the world and there was a need for comforting explanations so those in authority made up stories to better control the increasing populace.

 

Things like

 

1. You shall not kill

 

are generally good ideas if you want a controllable and peaceful society that gets on with its work and pays its taxes.

 

2. You shall not covet your neighbours wife (or Husband for that matter)

 

are also good points to make as there was a great deal of coveting going on at that time which was obviously causing a lot of trouble.

 

All great apes are generally violent, devious, cunning , manipulative, jealous scoundrels and we need limits set on us by those who are in authority.

 

Religon in the first place was just a set of laws and some made up stories about the creation of the universe.

 

At that time we needed its simplicity.

 

Now those explanations are unsatisfying to us and we need a more mathematically defined world with hard facts we can use and replicate.

 

Religon has had its day but we are left with a vacuum whereby we have to find a replacement we can all agree on to control society.

 

As the increased violence in our streets testify, great apes need to be controlled.

 

Some only respond to threats like

 

1. You will go to hell and burn for all eternity.

 

but we need to replace these religous threats with something scientific and factual like

 

1. When you die, you die you only get one chance in this life so you better not F it up. (pardon my french)

 

Peace

:eek2:

[REASON]

Much of the worlds most historically beautiful art and architecture has had it's inspiration in religion.

 

To me, art is not at issue here.

 

The ability of a religion to hinder progress in any society depends on how much power it has in the governance of it's people.

 

In our society, scientific progress is welcomed, as long as it isn't viewed by religious fundamentalists as threatening to Biblical teaching.

[Pyrotex]

...The ability of a religion to hinder progress in any society depends on how much power it has in the governance of it's people....

I would say that this goes to the core of the matter.

 

How much power does a particular religion have over its people -- especially power of state?

 

The end of the Fifty Years War in (about) 1650 ended one of the most cruel, deadly, slaughterific, oppressive and socially disastrous periods in European history. It was the Big War between Catholics and Protestants to decide whose side God was on. After (actually more than) 50 years of bloodshed, it was a draw. Apparently God was on neither side.

 

The outcome of all this was the Treaty of Utrecht. The most important part of that was the ruling that religion would no longer dominate civil government in Europe. Religion could build churches and decide who goes to heaven, but the people would henceforth be ruled by Civil Law, under the auspices of Civil Rulers. This was the beginning of the separation of church and state.

 

This happened because the rulers of Europe finally realized that putting civil power in the hands of religion was a disaster every way you looked at it.

[The D.S.]

Obviously everyones off topic now. Art is far different from religion, and is completely uncomparable to the source. Art is something perspective and true, while religion, is debatably wrong and often a true hinderance to societies progrees. I wouldn't even compare art to religion...ever. I'm afraid the comparison was a bad choice.

[The D.S.]

I like snoopys and REASONS comments about art and religion. Very well done. Kudos :eek2: I also agree with the ideas that religion had to set rules and laws, back in the day, for basic moral concepts, and to back it up, they provided a fairy-taleish story about creation and BLAH. I think we're starting to hit the nail on the head now. When religion and science clash, we always seem to see an ugly scene...where the fanatics cannot support their precious Bible any longer and science is accused of lies and falsifying knowledge. :)

[Buffy]

Obviously everyones off topic now. Art is far different from religion, and is completely uncomparable to the source. Art is something perspective and true, while religion, is debatably wrong and often a true hinderance to societies progrees. I wouldn't even compare art to religion...ever. I'm afraid the comparison was a bad choice.

Then you completely missed the point! Its not that Art and Religion are *comparable*, its that both can be argued to be a "hindrance."

 

What I'm questioning here is your methodology for determining that religion is inherently bad. I'm not really disagreeing with your conclusion, but you'd better look at your motivations, because you are in fact in peril of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

As Pyro was alluding to, its not so much "religion itself" that is the problem, its people's self-serving interpretations of it. There's nothing in the Bible for example that insists that the Universe is 6000 years old or that Evolution is not true: this is only the rantings of people who *insist* that it be interpreted in a very idiocyncratic way. An interpretation that--depending on which poll you look at--most people disagree with.

 

I like snoopys and REASONS comments about art and religion. Very well done. Kudos :)

Actually, I do too! :P

 

But listen to them:

Much of the worlds most historically beautiful art and architecture has had it's inspiration in religion.

Things like ...You shall not kill...are generally good ideas if you want a controllable and peaceful society that gets on with its work and pays its taxes.

Sure, as snoopy says "we need to replace these religous threats with something scientific and factual," but that takes time, and in the meantime "religious values"--to the extent that they motivate individuals in society--are *useful* in moving society forward!

 

I don't like the fact that it takes the "Christmas Spirit" to motivate people to help their fellow man by making it the one time of year that they spend more on charity, but if it *works* its certainly useful!

When religion and science clash, we always seem to see an ugly scene...where the fanatics cannot support their precious Bible any longer and science is accused of lies and falsifying knowledge.

Always? Anyone who identifies themselves as the least bit religious is a fanatic?

 

To get back to the original question of this thread, "Is religion harmful to society?" I think the answer is "in some ways, but in others we're simply in the middle of a transition away from it, and it continues to *contribute* to our society's progress."

 

If your purpose is to say, "because of the fanatics, we must immediately rid ourselves of religion," I say you're picking a fight with far more than just those fanatics and you're driving people who could support your real cause into your opposition.

 

If the fanatics are in Afghanistan, and they're not in Iraq, why send 90% of your troops to Iraq?

 

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts, :eek2:

Buffy

[The D.S.]

Well done, Buffy, and you have corrected me on this topic. True, there is a difference between fanatics and your average religious believer, so view me corrected on that comment.

 

I'm impressed that someone came up with something "good" about religion after all. Why should Christmas Spirit be only once a year? Why not every day? Why can't we all follow moral values as the Bible tells us too? So yes, I can see where religion may be a good thing for once.

 

As for a transition...I would agree to this as well. As science progresses and reason takes hold, more and more people are changing their "perspectives" on the matter of religion. Some interpret the Bible differently than others, and I suppose it's all bout ones perspective on the issue. After all, I feel no presence of the Christian version of God, yet I'm willing to believe that there may be somethign greater, somethng beyong human understanding, out there.

 

Perhaps as time goes on, more and more will revert from religion to reason. At least times aren't as bad as in the Middle Ages! :eek2:

[InfiniteNow]

When taken in context of modern society as a whole, which is greater:

 

The costs of religion.

The benefits of religion.

 

:steering:

 

 

 

This is subjective, so YMMV. :evil:

[The D.S.]

Hmm...I'm gonna have to clarify. As subjective as religions benefits/harms may be, there should still be a clear definition of whether it serves a valid purpose in this world, other than satisfying peoples need for a "purpose" or "after-life existence".

 

Let's weigh out pros/cons, perhaps then we can find the true answer (which I'm more than 100% sure, in my opinion, the cons will far outweigh the pros). If anyones willing then, go for it and state why religion would benefit or hinder modern society.

[Buffy]

Let me clarify it this way:

 

In evaluating what impact a specific religious "belief" has, its far more important to look at what the believers believe that what the preachers preach.

 

Its also important to recognize that religions--no matter what anyone says--are social organizations first and foremost: I'm not at all "religious" in the traditional sense, but for various reasons the church-going part of my family is mostly Jewish, and I have to say, I've had more luck dating men I've met at the temple than I've found in most other places!

 

All the Jews, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Hindus, Taoists, and Catholics I know are all pretty copacetic when it comes to science, all of them supporting Evolution and most even being Pro-Choice (yes, even the Catholics!). I have lots of friends who are Born-Again Christians too, and while we butt heads on Evolution and have fun baiting each other on the Rapture (have you ever read any of the Left Behind books? If you're a non-believer, they're a hoot!), I *like* them and we get along famously.

 

Would I tell them that their religion is a "danger to society?" I don't think so. Such intolerance is worthy only of...well,...*fundamentalists*!!

 

Before you go too far down this road, beware that you're likely to be dealing mainly in stereotypes and caricatures that are unworthy of none except those extremist "preachers" I mention above.

 

No, 'tis slander, whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue outvenoms all the worms of Nile, whose breath rides on the posting winds, and doth belie all corners of the world, :phones:

Buffy

[REASON]

Alright, here's some benefits:

 

My father is a retired Methodist minister. One of the things he said he has enjoyed the most during his life in the church is FELLOWSHIP.

 

Churches throughout history have been places where people in the community have been able to come together, not only for the sake of worshiping God, but for joining in fellowship with one another. It's a way for people to bond and develop friendships with their neighbors, help one another, provide community services, celebrate marriages, or grieve at the funerals of their loved ones.

 

Not only did my father preach on Sundays (and what a preacher he was) or put together the bulletins for the following week, he spent much of his time counseling his parishioners. And he was good at it. He was a person people came to for help in dealing with challenges in their lives. In his retirement he has worked as a hospice volunteer, using his ministerial skills to ease the mental suffering of people living out their last days.

 

As a minister in the downtown Denver area, he had a spaghetti dinner night once a week that was free to the public, and was mostly geared toward providing a hot meal for the local homeless. Members of the church would give of their time to help prepare the meal and clean up afterward. The money to pay for things like this was generated from offerings to the church by the same people. It was something they truly enjoyed doing and it generated positive feelings and feedback. These types of church functions are pleasurable for people.

 

Community, bonding, sharing with one another, helping people, family, these are all very positive aspects of being affiliated with a local church. It is ingrained in our society and has been for hundreds of years. It's not going away because of how deeply rooted it is, and because spirituality is part of our humanity. I experience my own form of spirituality, I just don't choose to experience it in such a formal setting, geared around a particular belief system.

 

I believe that in a truly free society, there shouldn't be any more of a concerted effort to eradicate the religious community as there should be to eradicate science. People should be free to choose the path that is right for them, free of condemnation. The problem isn't that people choose to believe something, its the imposition of their beliefs on others who have made different choices.

 

In time, the realities of our natural universe will become clearer through scientific research, and while I don't expect human spirituality to dissipate completely, it will likely be forced to take on a new form as people let go of their religious dogmatism.

 

But hopefully we will always retain and promote our desire for fellowship. :phones:

[Boerseun]

I believe religion is actually beneficial to society in the growth process from a primitive tribal setup, to a modern, well-functioning sovereign State.

 

Provided that the religion performing the role of State in the absence of State (rules to live by, penalties when breaking the rules etc.) isn't too destructive, like stoning lovers for having extramarital sex, for instance.

 

The real problem, and one that we see all to much in the West, lies in weaning the populace off the religious model, and to get them to subscribe to the rules as set down by the State, once the State has matured.

 

But religion in the presence of a well-functioning political State, can only be harmful.

 

This is analogous to Santa Claus. The kids will behave well during the year in expectation of presents for Christmas. When they're old enough and wise enough to understand that there's another authority and a different set of rules (getting locked up for Bad Behaviour) that supercedes Santa's rather silly and juvenile rules, he's told that Santa doesn't actually exist.

 

But in the final analysis, and keeping in mind a kid's mental stage at the time, Santa is surely beneficial in terms of keeping up law and order amongst the young ones. But when they reach a particular development stage, they should surely be told that Santa is imaginary, so that they can subscribe to the Bigger Scheme of Things, which also includes "Reality".

[snoopy]

I believe religion is actually beneficial to society in the growth process from a primitive tribal setup, to a modern, well-functioning sovereign State.

 

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The only problem is even those who have a faith nowadays dont really believe in all Conquering, Overseeing things, type of God.

 

The people in the middle east say we have lost our faith.

 

Which we have, but do we really want to go back to a middle east type of faith were women are treated as second class citizens ??

 

Most of us would say no.

 

As I have said and buffy has said we are in a transitional period where we are waiting for something else to replace religon.

 

A set of rules and some spiritual solace.

 

People need rules, we feel safer when there are limits placed on our behaviour and there are consequences to our actions.

 

Just ask my daughter....... she needs clear limits and boundaries set or she is a grumpy wee so and so...

 

We are all like this but the threats from religous authorities about eternal damnation dont work on us anymore so we need something else and something we can all agree upon.

 

People also need spiritual solace as their lifes are so bleak... most poor people are poor because they are poorly educated.

Most people are poorly educated because they grew up in a poor neighbourhood and went to a poor school.

Its a vicious never ending circle.

 

But why should some people in society life in poor conditions while some of us have 10 or more houses ?

This is where spritual solace comes in and anyone who has ever visited a church, chapel, mosque or synagogue would have to say they are very peaceful places and you can find solace and hope there.

 

This is what we need to replace and this will be very difficult indeed.

 

 

Peace for all of us:)

[The D.S.]

I'm going to agree with reason when he says, "The problem isn't that people choose to believe something, its the imposition of their beliefs on others who have made different choices."

 

This is mainly where I was heading to. I'm afraid I have a slightly biased opinion on religion, and although I really shouldn't when it comes to philosophizing and debating, I do.

 

In my experiance, religion has done both good and bad. It encourages fellowship and community, good deeds among people, and the ability to head forward to a better common goal. I also know that religion tears couples apart, it can argue and get in the way of science, it argues with truth and understanding.

 

Religion, in the past, truly WAS a harm to society in that Middle Age monks kept science, medical knowledge, and political philosophy away from the people and the church rose into power. THAT is a harm. I suppose the true focus should be on the modern age.

 

Today, religion looks down on stem cell research, calling it "playing with god" when it could indeed help millions of lives. They laugh at evolution, when it could very well lead to answers regarding how species survive above others and maybe, someday, provide essential knowledge needed for a future time. Religion calls upon Jesus and God to help in situations, when a person should rely on their OWN abilities and not a supreme being to aid their lives. People call upon God in prayer, in vain, when they should look in a mirror at the true person who could help them.

 

I state my case. :lol:

[Buffy]

Religion, in the past, truly WAS a harm to society in that Middle Age monks kept science, medical knowledge, and political philosophy away from the people and the church rose into power. THAT is a harm. I suppose the true focus should be on the modern age.

The counter-interpretation is that the monks kept it from disappearing when no one *wanted* it!

 

I guess you could try to justify the argument that there was a conspiracy to keep people ignorant, but I don't think its supportable...

 

We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine, :lol:

Buffy

[The D.S.]

My statement can be interpreted in both such ways, indeed, you have found a fault.

 

I suppose my views are the ones out of line. Are we saying that religion, has both good and bad qualities? And that it's the people, not the religion itself that sometimes give it a bad name? Also, that in the end, religion and spiritual searching, are all in the eye of perspective, meaning, its up to interpretation when it comes down to the line?

 

I'm more than open to being wrong, it wouldnt be the first time, nor the last.

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose my views are the ones out of line. Are we saying that religion, has both good and bad qualities?

Of course.

 

And that it's the people, not the religion itself that sometimes give it a bad name?

Definitely.

 

Also, that in the end, religion and spiritual searching, are all in the eye of perspective, meaning, its up to interpretation when it comes down to the line?

Indeed.

 

 

What I take issue with are the emergent properties of religious practice, and the psychosis that comes when large groups of people with individual interpretations of spirituality adjust their own interpretations to suit the community.

 

I don't hate the drug user, I hate the drug. :lol: