Faith only as good as the people that believe in it

[Surlethe]

The "dehumanization of man" argument is a totall moot point. It has at its base the belief that man was nicer to eachother before science, which is bullshit.

If you want more evidence of this, look at our closest evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees: tribes have been observed warring each other and actually wiping each other out, which isn't exactly the pre-scientific utopia one might expect from applying the "science dehumanizes" argument.

[Darth Wong]

It should also be noted that all of the religious apologists who bullshit about religion "only being a tool" of the hateful have no explanation for how a system which supposedly promotes morality could function in that capacity.

Moreover, they conveniently forget that Christianity promotes slogans like "hate the sin, love the sinner"; that's a mighty fine line to expect people to walk, and I would argue that it's almost nonexistent when Christians get themselves into government.

[Star-Blighter]

If someone came to me with this arguement, I'd simply take them to the nearest coma ward and ask:

"Sooooo, do you want to pull the plug or should I?"

Saying science is as responsible for murder and mayhem as religion is a total copout, and not a very well thought out one at that. Might as well blame Edison for inventing the lightbulb, with all the violent murders and rape crimes its prevented (relatively speaking) over the ages....

Really, get some sleep man.

[Lord of the Abyss]

As for the "dehumanization of man"... well, I'm not entirely sure what that means exactly, to be honest, or what you are getting at.

I've always regarded that argument as an example of psychological projection; the religious seeing their own flaws in science. Religion can be very dehumanizing, especially at the extremes. What's more dehumanizing than letting an ideology define every aspect of your life ?

[PrinceofLowLight]

I think there's a difference between religion as in the ideas (resurrection, reincarnation, whateva) and the control mechanisms used to propogate those ideas. A suggestion is just a suggestion. What makes religion dangerous is the fact that it in practice it robs people of critical thinking because of the way its institutions work. Kids get it drilled into their heads and the ideas become very difficult to shake out, even late in life.

But then again...

Science is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The holocaust was caused by Religious/nationalist insanity. Was has been around a long as Man has, be in with sticks and stones or tanks....

Science is neutral. The motives people have to use it might not be...but the science itself is neither inherently good or bad. It just is and always has been, we just discover it as human knowedge grows.

These control mechanisms are basically neutral. Really, they're another application of science. Modern advertising techniques take advantage of the same ideas that were used in Classical Rhetoric. They're about as objective as psychology gets.

In a way, you could add this mass brainwashing to science's "crimes." The formal study of how to convince people of things (regardless of whether they're true; proving and convincing are two almost unrelated skill sets.) has allowed more atrocities than any piece of technology.

Ultimately, it boils down to what it's used for.

[defanatic]

So... Which is worse? Being able to kill millions of people quickly, or being able to justify that based on the stereotypical beliefs of your nation?

Remember, you're still going to try to kill as many as you can, it will just take longer. On the other hand, if you don't justify it, you'll be out of power fairly rapidly.

[SirNitram]

So... Which is worse? Being able to kill millions of people quickly, or being able to justify that based on the stereotypical beliefs of your nation?

Remember, you're still going to try to kill as many as you can, it will just take longer. On the other hand, if you don't justify it, you'll be out of power fairly rapidly.

We're viewing science very one-sidedly in this. Sure, we've learned to kill millions in a go. We've also learned how to support billions of people.

[SWPIGWANG]

In terms of percentage death, I think we are going pretty well.

[The Guid]

See now I disagree with most of the board about this. I believe that any belief system, when taken in under its broadest umbbrella, is, as the title suggests, only as good as the people underneath it.

<snip>

I want to make the difference between moral system and belief system. Not every Christian has the same moral system - there are Situation Ethicists, there are those that follow Natural Law and there are Biblical literalists. They share a belief system but not a morality system.

I make this distincation because I would not argue that humanism has the same kind of mix of ass and nice. I would however be willing to suggest, though I do not have the backing but I decided to wait to see if anyone bothered to challenge me on it first, that there would be the best and the worst of humanity in atheism which I believe to be a belief system, but not a morality system.

If you trot forwards examples of people who act morally allegedly because of their faith, I could just as easily trot forwards examples of people who act like assholes for the same reason.

Riiight... just wondering if you post is just going to be mindless fluff that actually agrees with me.

Moreover, by distinguishing between beleif system and moral system and arguing that a beleif system is only as good as the people under it, then, at the very least, the beleif systems as such fail to cause people to act in a more moral way, which is one of their vaunted purposes.

Apparently not...

Moreover, the claim that the true motivation of the "Good Christians" and "Good Muslims" is their faith as opposed to their benevolant personality becomes suspect.

It may be what strengthens them when they faulter surely? And even if it is their benevolent personality their religion has given them the framework to get organised, and may well have pushed the less benevolent naturally into seeing the world in a more benevolent light.

[Darth Wong]

It may be what strengthens them when they faulter surely? And even if it is their benevolent personality their religion has given them the framework to get organised, and may well have pushed the less benevolent naturally into seeing the world in a more benevolent light.

Do you not realize that the reverse is also true, and that religion can strengthen the resolve of a madman when he might otherwise balk at the pain and suffering he is causing? That even if it is his malevolent personality his religion has given him the framework to get organized, and may well have pushed the more malevolent naturally into seeing the world in a more malevolent light?

Frankly, I'm not that worried about people who are basically good at heart but who might do even more good because of their religious beliefs. I'm worried about people who are basically bad at heart and who do more evil because of their beliefs. I would gladly lose the former if it means losing the latter with them.

[The Guid]

Do you not realize that the reverse is also true, and that religion can strengthen the resolve of a madman when he might otherwise balk at the pain and suffering he is causing? That even if it is his malevolent personality his religion has given him the framework to get organized, and may well have pushed the more malevolent naturally into seeing the world in a more malevolent light?

Of course I do, I thought I had implied it above...*checks*.... OK I didn't My bad. I only need look at the Middle East as it is right now to realise the dedication that religion can give to ludicrous ideals.

Frankly, I'm not that worried about people who are basically good at heart but who might do even more good because of their religious beliefs. I'm worried about people who are basically bad at heart and who do more evil because of their beliefs. I would gladly lose the former if it means losing the latter with them.

But since we can't I think its worth remembering the latter as much as we see the former.