Religion: Pass or Fail? part 1

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:36 am

There are many shades of gray in the question of what religion has or has not contributed to the world. In this poll, I'm asking for a general opinion and details can be raised in subsequent questions. After voting, list your shade of gray and when the poll closes in 2 weeks, the secondary questions can kick in.

If I sound very militant about the process it's because I am trying to

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:08 am

Almost forgot to put my own vote in. I think that the bad caused by religion is often given too much precedence over the positive. I think it would be hard to imagine a world with no reverence for the unexplained.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:16 pm

I voted Yes. I think one only has to look at history's examples of regimes that banished religion to see what the world would be like. Stalin's Soviet empire, Mao Tse Tung's China, Pol Pots Cambodia, Hitler's Nazi Germany (Hilter wasn't a Christian. He thought he was a deity. The German Faith Movement set out to change Christianity into Paganism and was opposed to Judeo-Christianity.), Kim Il Sung's North Korea are some examples. Atheistic regimes have implimented some of the most brutal, totalitarian, and murderous systems ever in the history of man. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao killed approx 60 million people. When there is no higher authority, the state becomes the ultimate ruler of and authority over man and it usually rules with a deadly hand.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:05 pm

What Diuretic said.

Lizard Lips · Post by **Lizard Lips** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:30 pm

I voted no. I'm not an atheist by any means, but I feel that religion has been particularly destructive in the New World by keeping people poor & stupid.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:56 pm

LizLips and LuLu- you two don't get a vote.

koan, is this a discussion thread or a vote a, b , or c thread.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:58 pm

"Lizlips and Lulu".....sounds like a two-girl BANJO band! :guitarist

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:06 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: LizLips and LuLu- you two don't get a vote.

koan, is this a discussion thread or a vote a, b , or c thread.

it is a vote but doesn't preclude discussion. I'm avoiding trying to persuade anyone to my side of the vote but stating one's vote and why is not really an attempt to convert anyone.

religion has been around far before civilization in one form or another. I'll be extremely interested in discussions of a society without it if that option wins. Religion, afterall, does encompass a large number of belief systems.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:12 pm

Define religion.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:49 pm

Rather generic if you don't mind my saying. I've never had a priest or any other such authority that tells me what to do. I wouldn't say that I've experienced a "caste" system of any sort either. But I realize many religions do, jsut not all of them so I'm not sure that would be a defining characteristic of religion.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:25 am

Interesting, Diuretic. What about Buddhism?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:59 am

I think you might end up with something like "belief system", Diuretic. And I'm not too sure there are many human beings without some kind of belief system - even if it's something like being nice to other people or national manifest destiny. Is communism a religion in this sense? What about agnosticism, nihilism, atheism????

So you've got a world full of humans with their own traditional or personally acquired belief systems.... and you have trouble in the world. Is it the belief systems? Or is it just the fact you've got humans, and they are a troublesome species????

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:33 am

AussiePam wrote: Interesting, Diuretic. What about Buddhism?

I thought that Buddhism was not a religion but a philosophy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:08 am

Diuretic wrote: I think its adherents regard it as a religion. It's the state religion of Thailand, for example. It's a religion without a god figure though. Possibly the only one.

A philosophy - by which I assume you mean an ethical system - is a bit different in that it eschews belief for rationality.

I've just looked it up :-

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Whilst I have always thought in terms of (1) I agree that Buddhism comes under (3) so I'll have to give you that one

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:29 am

Very nice, Bryn. Could communism, fascism, patriotism come under 4?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:17 am

Atheism could. And it is every bit as dogmatic as religion.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:39 am

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:21 am

What Diuretic said. (Again!)

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:08 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: I thought that Buddhism was not a religion but a philosophy.

It's both .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Interesting thought....to my knowledge, no war has ever been fought in the name of Buddhism, but Buddhists through the ages have been have been persecuted because of their beliefs.

As with many other beliefs, there are several 'spin-offs' from the 'Basic Buddhism'. I practise the Buddhism of Nicherin Daishonin (not mentioned in the wikipedia link.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:13 am

Diuretic wrote: You've made your claim Adam, where's your proof?

I'm asking in the nicest possible way of course

This fits Buddhists. Since meditation is extremely important, nay, central to the practice of Buddhism then I think it can be seen as an "activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Certainly the meditation practices of Zen monks would fit this. The pursuit of enlightenment through meditation. An awesome effort.

Atheism doesn't fit number 4. A non-belief is not an un-belief or an anti-belief.

I'm not talking about anti-religionists Adam. In my opinion anti-religonists are just bigots of a different hue. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in an afterlife. I have a lack of belief in these things. I don't have a counter-belief. I don't want to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I don't like being labelled but if anything I'm a secular humanist in my outlook and no better or worse than the average religious person.

Meditation is not a central part of the Buddhism I practise but chanting "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" is.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:20 am

I am finding it hard to answer any of the questions in Koans Poll ....if you take the Question literally, you need a 'before' religion era to compare with....or am I just being niave ?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:38 am

It is not really a "which was better, with or without" it is a question as to whether you believe that religion offers more benefit to society than it does harm.

It is looking like no is gaining significant ground. If things remain the same the next question will be which parts of religion are bringing the most harm. Those who have already voted should think ahead to help formulate the next question and possible answers.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:39 pm

koan wrote: It is not really a "which was better, with or without" it is a question as to whether you believe that religion offers more benefit to society than it does harm.

OK.....for some people I guess belonging to some kind of religious society is a positive thing, offering a sense of community for like minded people. Folks like the routine and stability, and some rely on some kind of faith and find comfort in it. It also offers a 'code of conduct' if you like, that people can run their lives by.

It only does harm when intolerance, bigotry and fanatsism rears it's ugly head.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:13 pm

I don't know whether religion was ever intended to make the world better. Rather, it seems to me to be a system to provide an understanding of life with suggestions or commands for leading one's life. Religion can be considered as being political insofar as it presents a social basis that one agrees with or not, and there is more than one viewpoint as can be seen by the number of different religions and branches within a religion.

Religious societies tend to be less ruly, but wars have been fought because of them. Also, because of political endeavours, many crimes have been ignored.

I less and less believe in a supernatural being the more I learn about the universe. But I believe that there is more to life than what we are able to perceive and that our belief determines our outcome, including re-incarnation or ressurection. Because I do not believe in a supernatural being, I am classified as an atheist. But I have a belief system, therefore I am religious. But atheists who believe in a lack of supernaturally governed order are also religious insofar as this constitutes the basis by which they live their lives. Devil worshippers are also religious.

Societies have spent so many years fighting for what they believe out of bigotry and ignorance that we have learnt hardly anything about our universe. We have a long way to go and only a few are just barely scraping the surface of knowledge. We have only just re-entered the spiritual age.

For many centuries, our societies have been controlled by religious leaders. They have discouraged spiritual advancement other than by their interpretation of the creed.

In the West, we have sought freedom of choice because our spirits know that there is more than these leaders offer.

So, how can I answer this question? I can't. To me, religion is a personal endeavour on the one hand, and a system of socialorder on the other. If society is worse off now, then it's because it hasn't tried, not because of religion.

I guess then my answer must be 'no'.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:00 pm

Diuretic wrote: You've made your claim Adam, where's your proof?

I'm asking in the nicest possible way of course

You always do, my friend. :-6 I didn't claim that atheism is a religion per se, as in an organized Church of Atheism. I said it was dogmatic like religion. Most atheists are intolerant of religion thus no better than "My god is bigger" religious thought. Atheism does fit #4. It is a belief, that must take some faith since it can't be proven, that no god exists.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:09 pm

Did Ghandi not benefit society? Martin Luther King? Mother Theresa? It was Christians in the northern states that led the abolition movement in the late 19th century. Likewise, churches were active in the civil rights movement. Religious charities feed millions around the world as well as bring much needed medical treatments, build homes and schools. In modern history, religious societies have enjoyed more human rights and less government oppression than atheistic ones. Governments the recognize inalienable rights endowed by a higher power better serve its citizens by recognizing that the state is not the ultimate authority - that its citizens have a higher calling and purpose than serving that state so in turn the state, in theory, serves the people. Without religious influence in a society, the government becomes totalitarian.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:12 pm

Diuretic wrote: But at the risk of seeming pedantic my own view of atheism is that it's a very personal thing. As far as I know it doesn't have a belief system that I have to adhere to. I don't think there are degrees of atheism. I also don't think there are doctrinal disputes and factional splits. And it doesn't take faith, just personal conviction and I do believe there's a difference.

I pondered your point that it takes faith to not believe in something, but I'm not convinced by that. The idea of god went out of my life many years ago and didn't return. I don't find myself struggling to disbelieve, I actually don't think about it much until I'm minded to - such as now.

Point taken. I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here - to a degree. I can't speak for the vast number of religions and sects that exist (I would find as much fault with most religions as you would), I only have experience with my own. . As a Protestant Christian, I rely on a certain amount of faith, but it is not blind faith. It's not as if someone said this is what you must believe and I pushed the "I Believe" button out of obedience to a doctrine. My "faith" is strongly endowed with personal conviction and personal experience. My faith is not based on simply excepting folk-tales handed down and ingrained in a gullible mind. It is based on what I see and what I have experienced. In that sense, our journeys are similar we just arrived at different destinations.

However, I do believe that we all accept some things on faith that can't be proven on way or another. That's not to say that you don't also have tangible reasons to believe the way you do, but at some point science and intellect reach a finite point at which things can be explained away. Beyond that one must apply a faith of sorts that the evidence you are trusting in leads to an unproven but reasonable (to the believer) conclusion. This explains how I have arrived at my religious beliefs. I think it also explains how many atheists arrive at the belief that God does not exist.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:29 pm

Diuretic wrote: As a concept "good" exists independent of any religious motivation, it's that a religion can label actions "good" or "bad" according to its precepts whereas an atheist may call the same actions "useful" or "useless", "beneficial" or "harmful" without reference to a religious code. So secular governments can be positive or negative, depending on their motivations and actions, just as theocracies can be.

Your statement "without religious influence in society government becomes totalitarian" bears some thought. Having thought about it I have to take issue with it (surprise!

). Totalitarianism in government was a given until about the Age of the Enlightenment. Rulers appealed to divine authority and ruled - justly or unjustly - but in a totalitarian manner, invoking their authority given to them by god. It was the movement to secularism in government which gave us the idea of liberal democracy. What I'm trying to say is that religious influence in government isn't necessary for avoiding totalitarianism. Now the prime example of a totalitarian and atheist state today must be China (PRC) but one didn't cause the other, they are simply present together.

I think I haven't been clear. I don't support a theocracy in any way. I certainly wouldn't want to live under one. Though I love my church, I don't even believe everything my church espouses. I am saying that a religious influence in society can be a good safeguard and lead to a more benevolent and democratic government. I have no opposition to secular governments as long as they allow the citizens to freely practice religion (or not practice) as they please. My beef comes when people rail about the historic evils of religious wars and oppression while ignoring the brutal and murderous regimes that promote atheism as the national "religion". Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Religion, while tainted with blood throughout history, certainly doesn't have a monopoly on screwing up the world. How many wars and genocides have been perpetrated by those who forbid any worship of deities other than the state?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:05 pm

Diuretic wrote: I don't think I've been clear either but you've given me a golden opportunity to clarify. Theocracy is a bad thing indeed. Secular government is a good thing (sez I anyway). Totalitarianism is a bad thing. Totalitarianism is not the sole province of states with a bent towards atheism. Totalitarianism does stamp out anything which challenges its power. Where a totalitarian state authority co-exists with and perhaps even uses religion to bolster its authority, it will promote religion. Where religion is a challenge to its authority it will stamp it out ruthlessly. A current example is the activity of the PRC towards Falun Gong. Atheism isn't a pre-requisite for totalitarian government, nor is religion, but religion isn't a pre-requisite for beneficial government either.

Agreed! (But I still think religion, as I have experienced it, is beneficial to society)

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:16 pm

(Oh, you KNEW I'd get here, Adam.....) In my experience, religious people often feel that religion is good for the world because it was mandated by "God" in order to "save" the souls of mankind. I'll leave that one alone because it's unverifiable.

However, they also point to the "good" done by churches and missionaries. My belief is that humans who want to help others will do that...church format or not. The evil done by missionaries (destruction of enormous numbers of native cultures, for example) would never have happened if secular people had provided food and medicines to those in need of same and then left them to their individual and group fates. Instead, thousands of tribes are lost to us as the result of meddling missionaries, convinced they were doing the right thing by obliterating huge chunks of human culture.

How many millions have died in religious wars? How many millions have died at the hands of the "righteous" who cling to a book which says "thou shalt not kill?"

If you want to point to the hope which religion can provide, I'll agree that it does comfort the sick and the suffering. However, religion isn't the only format to extend this comfort, and, IMHO, it's just not worth the negative aspects it's delivered and continues to deliver, even today.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:25 pm

I wonder if religion has been used to instigate wars but it's really about resources and territorial issues.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:43 pm

koan, I'm sure history has seen some genuine religious wars, but for the most part I think rulers have used religion as an excuse or a means. I sincerely doubt Osama bin Laden is a devout muslim. His war against the west is geo-political yet if he claims a religious motivation he gains some sympathy and moral grounding to those he wishes to recruit to his cause. Many of the European wars led by Popes were territorial wars that had nothign to do with religion, but if the Pope claims a religious purpose then he is obsolved of any impure motivation. Religion is a tool too often abuse by those in power who wish to justify their greed and malfeasance.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:24 pm

Thinking of the wars fought over religion..and the terrorists who kill in the name of thier Allah...I am not all that impressed with what religion is doing to the world.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:49 pm

Many wars have been fought for secular reasons. Is anyone impressed with what secularism is doing for the world?