Is religion a force for good in the world?

[Simon]

Excluding the existence of any supernatural powers, or any comment whatsoever on the fallacy or truth of religious belief, and based only what we have seen [i]as a direct result of religion in this world[/i], can we see that religion is a positive or negative influence on the world as we know it?

Thoughts and feelings, questions, queries, doubtful points, moans, groans, itches, bitches, theories, queries, unwanted pregnancies; all is welcome here. Spill your mind into text.

:)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Well I think that religion has been used for more bloodshed than anything, at least christianity. No offense to you Christians out there, but it literally GIVES PEOPLE PERMISSION, to burn your next door neighbor if you think he/she might be pagan.

 

No it doesnt. Read your Bible more carefully and you might see that. See the passage "let he who is without sin..." etc

 

It also promotes homophobia, and close mindedness over female vs. male positions in the world.

 

No it doesnt. Since women were so instrumental in the setting up of the early chuch, you clearly havn't read the history on that one.

[Contradiction]

Differnce. I don't believe the human brain was created by actions of random processes. From my perspective, I have an exterior angle against which to judge. You don't. It seems logical to you, but in reality, you have no absolutes to judge against.

 

That's setting up double standards.

So, essentially, you believe that - owing to your belief that God exists and the Bible means what it says, etc. - humans are moral because God gave them morality from his external point of view.

However, because I don't believe in this external vantage point, I'm not allowed to believe that humans are moral just because they are. ...Why does your belief overrule mine? How is it any more legitimate?

[Matthew Hawkins]

*REFERRING  TO POST 5 POSTS ABOVE*

Your first two points both are operating under the assumption that religious ideas about the purpose of life are truths. That assumption is not the subject of this discussion and it does not improve your argument.

Your third point is off topic for the most part. The fact that the universe is not a paradise for humans is irrelevant. However, I should point out that there are reasons to think of the future even if you don't believe in an afterlife or some grand purpose to life. I cannot act on every desire I have at a given moment because of possible future consequences. 

Your last point is the most interesting. What examples of genocide, segregation, or oppression can you give that have been carried out in the name of atheism. Or, what examples of genocide, segregation, or oppression can you give that have been caused specifically because the perpetrators lacked religion. I do not believe there are any.

*REFERRING TO POST 2 POSTS ABOVE*

See 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, and God's commandments in Exodus 22

Women have contributed so immensely to society in spite of the subjugation they face under Judeo-Christian theology, not because of Judeo-Christian theology (which includes Islam).

[Matthew Hawkins]

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/brief-history-of-2010.html

The link contains some interesting studies on how religion affects us. Check it out.

DFTBA

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

So, essentially, you believe that - owing to your belief that God exists and the Bible means what it says, etc. - humans are moral because God gave them morality from his external point of view. However, because I don't believe in this external vantage point, I'm not allowed to believe that humans are moral just because they are. ...Why does your belief overrule mine? How is it any more legitimate?

 

Because your belief has no source. Humans are just moral because...they are? That's not an answer. In my answer we have an actual yard stick against which to measure ourselves. But under your system, all we're doing is measuring ourselves against ourselves. So naturally, we'll do pretty well.

[Fake Crowley]

Morality is /common sense./

 

Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not cause harm to others. Help others. Et cetera, et cetera.

[Contradiction]

Yes, because I believe morality is an innate part of us. Some people twist it and some people reject it, but it's part of our genes and our subconscious and the way we are. That's an answer as much as yours is.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The problem with your answer is that its not objective. IE what if our gene's had developed in a different way and we'd been in a different enviroment that meant we had developed a morallity that allowed for the killing of every third child on a thursday. Now I'm not saying that I think that's right, but from your perspective, the morality we have now is only a product of our enviroment, since that's all our geners are in response to. It's completely arbitary in any real sense. It could be completely different in a different enviroment and still be equally right. There is no objectivity in that morality, and furthermore, if it is in all of our genes, what happens if there is a mutation, and someone feel's their morality is different to everyone elses, and that allows them to hurt people. If its in their genes, then surely its ok? Do you see the problem here.

[Matthew Hawkins]

Nature is anything but arbitrary. And our naturally forged morality is anything but arbitrary. It is not a single person's genes that create morality. If this were not true, then morality would be arbitrary. The force that is nature has no feeling, so it couldn't be less arbitrary. The force that is nature, or for kicks call it God, has eliminated for the most part instincts that would make us fail in a social group. Nature weeds out the instincts that cause problems, like random vioIence, over time, and allows the instincts that improve our chance or reproducing, like respecting each other to some degree, to survive. It is not people who decide what will or will not make social living impossible. That is why your hypothetical person with a mutation that drives them to kill is not acting morally.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

My point still stands. If nature was different, morality would be differnent. If we had evolved collectively in a differnt fashion, if the phsyical laws of the universe had been different or the enviroment we evolved in been diffrent, then our evoltuion would have been differnt and thus our morals differnrt.

 

My central point is that we are the product of something that is arbitary. Nature has rules, but those rules are arbitary. There was no central guiding force behind them if you believe in a universe without God. Nature does what it does because of the phsycial laws of the universe, so if those laws were differnet, our morality would be differnet. And since, in a universe without God, there is no purpose or reason to those laws, then there is no reason behing our morality. You may say "but we have X, Y and Z reason" but the problem is that in a universe without God, your brain, the device with which you are arguing those reasons, is equally a product of those same arbitary rules. Thus, to a brain in this arbitary system, it makes sense in terms of itself. To use a quote from Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy

 

"I know astrology isn't a science, it's just an arbitary set of rules like Chess or Tennis, or what's that strange thing you British play"

"Err Cricket? Self loathing?"

"Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there, they don't make any sense except in terms of themselves..."

 

The point I'm making is that without any external yardstick, we're all just measuring ourselves against ourselves, which is fundimatlly flawed. We're basicly saying "my finger is one finger long" etc. It makes sense in terms of itself, but it's tautological.

[Kenny]

Pretty much everything you just said is completely true.  Now, I say to you, "so?"  The fact that it might be helpful to have an outside and perfect source of morality doesn't mean that there is one (ie, just because it's preferable doesn't mean it's true) and you can't conclusively prove god.  This is where you usually start talking about evidence for god, but if evolution with no sort of divine guidance is true, your philisophical arguments are flawed by the fact that no matter how conclusive they are (which they aren't, just speaking hypothetically) it's all irrelevent because there's no conclusive way to prove that we're all sane and seeing the universe around us for what it truly is.

 

Tl;dr:  Yes, and?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

True, however the revulsion and the nature of the idea that our morality is arbitary doesnt make sense. If undivinely guided evolution was true, then logically we would be more than capable of understanding that our morality is arbitary and pragmatic alone and would never have developed any other concepts of morality because they arn't evolutionarly benefical.