Is Religion a Bad thing?

[lgot]

The same group of writings which Condon Radsisim, raciest, Murder and Inceset?
How can you call them not evil? Oh and I'll have examples below

Please, Mr.Bean, I am not talking about the group who did it and wrote those laws, but to those who today follow it. They do it out of their own, the book do nothing but be read.
Those who use the religion or the bible ot justify those acts are wrong, because they fail to see the book as outdated rules about a old society and a fictional work.
Since I do not blame Heavy metal or playing doom when people kill each other, I do not blame the bible for the actions of moderm biased people. The good and evil acts are a individual option which you must do by your own beliefs not for a book. So if a fanatical starts to justify racism because a book, I blame him for being a bigoted ignorant who would not even change his mind even if we try for centuries.

Iran, all the Laws are directly concived from the Koran, The goverment is religious leaders. The Philopines, Many of the laws are from the Koran, Europe and the US, the fact most business are open only from 1:5? A Christian Infulence, Infact many of our *moraility laws are thanks to Chrisitanity

Yeah, you show a theocracy in Iran. But still that religion is part of the society there, not all the society.
Christianism have a huge influence yes, but they are just a part of the society, even because there is past 2000 years and all those societies had to face with new conflicts, to define new morals and even change some.

[XPViking]

Another example would be the Hawaiian Islands, for a brief period of time. They destroyed their own gods in an effort to appease Christian Missionaries that they knew would be coming soon. - Master of Ossus

That is interesting.

I think this thread can quickly get out of control unless we can agree upon some definitions. That may help prevent some misunderstandings, as per Darth Wong and myself.

XPViking

[SirNitram]

Religion, like so many creations of mankind, is both good and evil. True, it has agendas, holy wars, converting, and, of course, hanging people because they just happen to be a witch(Or possibly someone says they are). It has also, however, given rise to philosophy and science(Here I obviously don't speak of Christianity and it's ilk, but the beginnings of religion, which would be rejected by the philosophers of Greece, thus beginning their quest for truth.), as well as many of mankind's great works.

So is it good or bad? Eh. It's necessary. Obviously not necessary in this time and age.. The many atheists leading full, happy, productive lives clearly demonstrates this. But from the point of view of looking at our advancement as a species, it becomes obvious we needed it, especially in our earliest days.

Think about it. Try telling a grade school kid about current theories on gravity... They'll look at you like you're insane. So we tell them it makes things stay on big things and pulls things into circles. Clean and tidy, and not so far from the truth that we can't unlearn it. Often, these are called Lies-To-Children, and we have alot of them.

So religion can be thought of as a Lie-To-Cavemen. 'How's the bright sparkly things get up there, Og?' 'Uh... I reckon a really big man went and put 'em there, Ug.' '...It'd be pretty neat to be a really big man who can put bright sparklies in the sky.' (There's also the theory that religion was made by the very first conman, who convinced his neighbour to leave a cooked cow on a hill each week, and the conman ate well)

Unfortunately, we had mostly outgrown the Lie before Christianity rose. Sure, many people believed in Gods, but philosophy was steamrolling ahead.

A real pity we'll never know what happened, if Christianity had never taken over the Roman Empire...

[Iceberg]

Religion, like so many creations of mankind, is both good and evil. True, it has agendas, holy wars, converting, and, of course, hanging people because they just happen to be a witch(Or possibly someone says they are). It has also, however, given rise to philosophy and science(Here I obviously don't speak of Christianity and it's ilk, but the beginnings of religion, which would be rejected by the philosophers of Greece, thus beginning their quest for truth.), as well as many of mankind's great works.

*sigh* And so more people take the same old strawman and prop it up for more rounds of abuse. The amount of counterexample to the hypothesis "Christianity has done nothing to advance science or philosophy*" is so copious as to hardly need reference. But if you must...

Look up the following:

Early, middle and late Church Fathers (philosophers)
St. Augustine (philosopher)
St. Ignatius Loyola (philosopher)
St. Thomas Aquinas (philosopher, scientist)
Leonardo da Vinci (artist, scientist)
Galileo Galilei** (scientist)
G.K. Chesterton (writer, philosopher)
C.S. Lewis (novelist, philosopher)

*: Actually, the hypothesis is usually stated more as "Christians hate science and philosophy." Bitter? Me? Never.
**: "In conclusion, something must be said about the opposition of the Catholic Church to Galileo's views. Here again, popular folklore portrays Galileo as the valiant defender of free scientific inquiry against religious dogmatism. The truth is far more complex. Galileo was a deeply religious man. With his blessings, his favorite daughter spent her life in a religious order. For a long time, Galileo thought his work supported the power of the church. Initially, many religious scholars and authorities of the church welcomed his findings. Only later, partly because of the continuing threat of the Reformation begun by Luther and others, did the church attempt to prevent Galileo from teaching or publishing his views. Nor did Galileo do all that he might have to escape the power of the church..." - R. Giere, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, "Understanding Scientific Reasoning" (4th Edition), Harcourt Brace College Publishers

A real pity we'll never know what happened, if Christianity had never taken over the Roman Empire...

Here you go: The Empire probably falls about 50 years to a century earlier. The Dark Ages and following Medieval period are much longer, and there is either a delayed Renaissance or no Renaissance at all. The Renaissance scientists, artists and inventors were men of faith as much as they were men of the world.

If anything, the church prolonged the ending years of the Empire by giving it a second source of authority which backed and shored up the flagging authority of the Emperor. It was Catholic monasteries which created modern university education (that cap and gown you wear at graduation are the degenerate remains of a monk's robe and habit).

Seriously, you guys sound like the fervent Fundamentalist missionaries in a Jack Chick tract, talking about how the evil Catholic hierarchy goes skulking around the cloud-enshrouded Vatican chuckling their evil laughter and plotting their next evil deed to perpetrate on humanity (though without the contrived speech on how only Jesus can save you, not men).

[Darth Wong]

*sigh* And so more people take the same old strawman and prop it up for more rounds of abuse. The amount of counterexample to the hypothesis "Christianity has done nothing to advance science or philosophy*" is so copious as to hardly need reference.

No, it isn't. It's bullshit. Christianity has aggressively attacked science since its inception. As for philosophy, anyone can call himself a philosopher. But the philosophy of logic has never supported Christianity in any way, shape or form.

But if you must...

Look up the following:

Early, middle and late Church Fathers (philosophers)
St. Augustine (philosopher)
St. Ignatius Loyola (philosopher)

You forgot to mention that most of their philosophy was coloured by religious hatred and irrationality. And the only bits that weren't coloured in this way were actually refutations of the faith, such as Occam's Razor.

St. Thomas Aquinas (philosopher, scientist)

Who said: "If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy." Some philosopher.

Leonardo da Vinci (artist, scientist)

Art has nothing to do with science. And Da Vinci earned the ire of the church by predicting various aspects of evolution theory and disproving church doctrine on the age of the Earth.

Galileo Galilei** (scientist)

Imprisoned for heresy.

G.K. Chesterton (writer, philosopher)

Not a scientist.

C.S. Lewis (novelist, philosopher)

Not a scientist.

*: Actually, the hypothesis is usually stated more as "Christians hate science and philosophy." Bitter? Me? Never.

No, it's best stated as "The Christian faith is inherently hostile to science." In fact, the very concept of faith is diametrically opposed to the scientific method.

**: "In conclusion, something must be said about the opposition of the Catholic Church to Galileo's views. Here again, popular folklore portrays Galileo as the valiant defender of free scientific inquiry against religious dogmatism. The truth is far more complex. Galileo was a deeply religious man. With his blessings, his favorite daughter spent her life in a religious order. For a long time, Galileo thought his work supported the power of the church. Initially, many religious scholars and authorities of the church welcomed his findings. Only later, partly because of the continuing threat of the Reformation begun by Luther and others, did the church attempt to prevent Galileo from teaching or publishing his views. Nor did Galileo do all that he might have to escape the power of the church..." - R. Giere, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, "Understanding Scientific Reasoning" (4th Edition), Harcourt Brace College Publishers

And how does any of this change the fact that he was imprisoned for heresy, by the church that you uphold as a supporter of science? Does the term "smokescreen of superfluous detail" mean anything to you?

Here you go: The Empire probably falls about 50 years to a century earlier.

Why?

The Dark Ages and following Medieval period are much longer, and there is either a delayed Renaissance or no Renaissance at all. The Renaissance scientists, artists and inventors were men of faith as much as they were men of the world.

The Renaissance scientists and inventors coincidentally lived around a time of humanist ethics revival, with philosophers such as Voltaire openly defying religion. You seem to think this is some kind of coincidence. One and a half millenia of faithful Christians produced zero science, but right around the time of a humanist ethics revival, science makes a comeback. And you credit Christians? *snicker*

If anything, the church prolonged the ending years of the Empire by giving it a second source of authority which backed and shored up the flagging authority of the Emperor. It was Catholic monasteries which created modern university education (that cap and gown you wear at graduation are the degenerate remains of a monk's robe and habit).

No, they actually mean something useful, unlike a monk's robe and habit. And university education did not become useful until the rise of science. Before then, universities were nothing but bastions of elitism for the very wealthy and served no constructive purpose.

Seriously, you guys sound like the fervent Fundamentalist missionaries in a Jack Chick tract, talking about how the evil Catholic hierarchy goes skulking around the cloud-enshrouded Vatican chuckling their evil laughter and plotting their next evil deed to perpetrate on humanity (though without the contrived speech on how only Jesus can save you, not men).

Too bad you can't find a real logical flaw to exploit in order to prove we're wrong about the Catholic church's contempt for human life, eh? "Appeal to ridicule" is a fallacy, you know.

[Master of Ossus]

At the risk of an Imperial SmackDown (TM), I think that I must nit-pick Mike on one minor point. The Christian church, at one point, was actually the leading benefactor of "scientific" research. Many of their priests and monks were dabbling into things like botany and even archaeology and geology during some of their earlier years, and even during the Middle Ages there were many monks who did help to expand and preserve scientific knowledge. Much of this was because the Church, at the time, was confident that its studies would support biblical stories (and some of it did--in their eyes. They did things like mistake the geologic traces of the Ice Ages for evidence of Noah's flood). It was only after it became clear that science would refute many Biblical tales that the Church started going crazy and persecuting scientists like bringers of the plague.

Now, I am in no way attempting to justify the Church's actions. I think it impossible to do so. I am saying that it is ironic (sorry, Mr. Bean) that the Church that once supported science in its infancy now attacks its findings ruthlessly and relentlessly, though without much success.

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of an Imperial SmackDown (TM), I think that I must nit-pick Mike on one minor point. The Christian church, at one point, was actually the leading benefactor of "scientific" research.

At that time, it was also the leading benefactor of the construction industry. It was the leading benefactor of just about everything, because it controlled so much of society. But it did not promote the scientific method; it granted funds to researchers who promised to humour their doctrines, and if they didn't, it tried to crush them. This is hardly support of science.

Many of their priests and monks were dabbling into things like botany and even archaeology and geology during some of their earlier years, and even during the Middle Ages there were many monks who did help to expand and preserve scientific knowledge.

Individuals, yes. As an institution, no.

Much of this was because the Church, at the time, was confident that its studies would support biblical stories (and some of it did--in their eyes. They did things like mistake the geologic traces of the Ice Ages for evidence of Noah's flood). It was only after it became clear that science would refute many Biblical tales that the Church started going crazy and persecuting scientists like bringers of the plague.

With all due respect, that is precisely why I say the church has always been against science. Saying that they gave it conditional support to produce only research which fit pre-existing expectations is basically admitting that they never supported the whole concept of science; they wanted pseudoscientific proof of their religion.

[Raptor 597]

THe worst self-contradictory piece of the Bible I'ven seen is the Thoms Becket Manuscrpit. I did a ittle research after I saw Stigmata, and I'll use it at Life Teen..

[Steve]

Mike, I don't think Mark was saying the Church is, was, or has always been a steadfast supporter of science. I think Mark was saying that Christians can be scientists and philosophers too, that being Christian does not automatically make one hate science. The point about the Church maintaining a smattering of Roman and Greek knowledge is true, of course, I'm not sure if the culture of the Germanic tribes pre-Christian would have lent itself to their independent recovery of such knowledge without the Church's involvment, or if it would have come faster without the Church.

And... well, at the risk of you taking it the wrong way, Voltaire was a part of the Enlightenment, not the Renassiance. Wrong centuries. And really, I think it was the Enlightenment you were looking to reference anyway, particularly the works of Montesquieu and Rousseau (to go with Locke and Voltaire).

[Master of Ossus]

Yeah, again, I don't think that the Church's "support" of science justified its persecution of many serious scientists, I just think it's kind of ironic that their members would set the groundwork for their eventual arch-nemesis.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, I don't think Mark was saying the Church is, was, or has always been a steadfast supporter of science. I think Mark was saying that Christians can be scientists and philosophers too, that being Christian does not automatically make one hate science.

No, but the part of a Christian's life which is the church can never be compatible with the part that practices science. Every Christian scientist has to live a double life, and when crossover happens (see Dr. Behe), you get a pseudoscience-spouting creationist dumb-fuck.

And... well, at the risk of you taking it the wrong way, Voltaire was a part of the Enlightenment, not the Renassiance. Wrong centuries. And really, I think it was the Enlightenment you were looking to reference anyway, particularly the works of Montesquieu and Rousseau (to go with Locke and Voltaire).

Ah, my mistake then. Doesn't change the fact that there's a mysterious correlation between science and irreligious behaviour. Look at the Greeks; the people who questioned or discarded their religion created much of the early basis of science and philosophy. When religion is strong, science is weak, and vice versa. You know as well as I do that this is not a coincidence.

[Steve]

No, but the part of a Christian's life which is the church can never be compatible with the part that practices science. Every Christian scientist has to live a double life, and when crossover happens (see Dr. Behe), you get a pseudoscience-spouting creationist dumb-fuck.

I suppose it depends on how faithful the scientist decides to be. Would you argue that a "Liberal Christian" (using your criteria on one of the Creationism site's web pages) scientist would have just as hard a time maintaining his scientific mindset as a Mainstream Christian?

Liberal Christians, by your criteria, already question scripture and dogma, after all.

Ah, my mistake then. Doesn't change the fact that there's a mysterious correlation between science and irreligious behaviour. Look at the Greeks; the people who questioned or discarded their religion created much of the early basis of science and philosophy. When religion is strong, science is weak, and vice versa. You know as well as I do that this is not a coincidence.

For the most part, no.

It is, theroetically, possible for a religion to support open-minded science, albeit the religion would be mostly a philosophical entity than a monolithic church one. And at various times in history, religious empires have endorsed and sponsered academic pursuits, including scientific ones, without the religious strings attached; both the original Islamic empire and the Ottoman Empire had such periods. Of course, these are the exceptions to the rule, they do nothing more than prove the possibility.

And a note that a history book of mine made on Aquinas; he tried to reconcile faith and reason, and his work, the Summa Theologiae, used reason as it's structure (and faith as the foundation, creating obvious problems). As for his comments, well, would you expect anything different from a man that lived in the 13th Century? Granted, you were making a point, but so was Mark, and I think you've both missed each other a bit on that.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose it depends on how faithful the scientist decides to be. Would you argue that a "Liberal Christian" (using your criteria on one of the Creationism site's web pages) scientist would have just as hard a time maintaining his scientific mindset as a Mainstream Christian?

Liberal Christians, by your criteria, already question scripture and dogma, after all.

Somewhat less so, but they still must maintain a mental division. They still carry the fundamental brain bug that tells them blind faith is a good thing.

It is, theroetically, possible for a religion to support open-minded science, albeit the religion would be mostly a philosophical entity than a monolithic church one.

Agreed. When people throw the word "religion" around, I usually try to narrow it to be more specific, such as "The Catholic Church" or "Judeo-Christian-Muslim". Humanism is regarded as a religion in some circles, and humanism does not contradict science in any way.

And at various times in history, religious empires have endorsed and sponsered academic pursuits, including scientific ones, without the religious strings attached; both the original Islamic empire and the Ottoman Empire had such periods. Of course, these are the exceptions to the rule, they do nothing more than prove the possibility.

Mind you, that happened during the relatively tolerant, inclusive eras in those religious empires. When a dogma-based religion becomes more fundamentalist, tolerance for science invariably diminishes.

And a note that a history book of mine made on Aquinas; he tried to reconcile faith and reason, and his work, the Summa Theologiae, used reason as it's structure (and faith as the foundation, creating obvious problems). As for his comments, well, would you expect anything different from a man that lived in the 13th Century? Granted, you were making a point, but so was Mark, and I think you've both missed each other a bit on that.

Mark's "point" was to deny that science and the church are natural enemies. I don't think his point was made. Science and religion are natural enemies; the philosophies of science and dogma-based religion are diametrically opposed. To say that one supports the other is like saying that heat supports cold. It is possible for heat to exist close to cold under the right conditions (plasma torch outside in the middle of winter, or a Christian scientist who knows how to maintain his mental "dividing wall"), but that doesn't change the fact that the two are fundamentally, philosophically opposed.

[lgot]

Here you go: The Empire probably falls about 50 years to a century earlier. The Dark Ages and following Medieval period are much longer, and there is either a delayed Renaissance or no Renaissance at all. The Renaissance scientists, artists and inventors were men of faith as much as they were men of the world.

I do not know if the empire would fall 50 years after or later, but its true that the social power of the catholic church was used by the romans.
The Dark age would not last longer, after all, the Dark age main trait is the huge Domain of Catholic Church. So the truth is the Dark Age lasted that longer because the Catholic Church. If there is no catholic church, there would have been something else than the Dark Ages and the Medieval times...and actually all the upcoming ages.
Just to notice, that there is period of "Renaissance" in the Islam and China and Japan as well. You notice that christian faith is a trait of the products of the renaussance, but not what moved it up. And plus, China had all the conditions that Europe had to make the expansion and advancements of the medieval times already in the year 1000. Just their paradigm to be turned to their inner conditions stopped it ?

Its true that due the fact that religious schollars are studious and researches they even helped to some development of the science, but that was a secundary happening. The science would be always clouded by the tenents of the faith. That was not the moderm and real science, the one that Darth Wong talks off.
And Philosophy is just the search for the truth. No wonder that there was Philosophes of the catholic truth. A Philosopher is not always a scientist. When the changes happened in the enlightenmet, basically after Voltarie, there was not place anymore for Science and Religion to melt together. The Scientific Philosophy is radically different of the Religious Philosophy, and because that Religious institutions started to held back the scientific advancement, as the Science started to look down those "truths".
It was not mean to be. Science objective was not to Prove Catholic Religion's wrong. Just happened this way. What to do ?
PLus, there is members of Religious ordems who can call themselves scietists. Because as Catholic Church is sure as example, be a member of the Burocracy of the terran power of the Church is not the same to have the faith in the religion the church "defends". There is a limit to where you can have faith and science together. If you do not break the limit, you are not a scientist. If you do break, you are not really a faithful.
And there is a mistake about reason. Reason is not the same things as science and can be used by religion, lawyers, artist, everyone.