A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: “No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead.� Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like – I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example – but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment – for those who seek it – of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are “spiritual but not religious,� to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,'� and that “Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff.� And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Maybe religion is essential to counter the progress of mankind. It has certainly done that.

Thanks for joining the discussion

I'd be interested in your reasons for supposing that religion has countered the progress of mankind. In Cosmos (ch. 7, The Backbone of Night), Carl Sagan argued that the promising beginnings of ancient science in the Ionian awakening of the 6th century BCE onwards were eventually stifled not by religion, but by social stratification: Empirical science is practical work, slave work, which the privileged few who actually had the time and resources for the vocational pursuit of knowledge rarely deigned to stoop to. He suggests that similar circumstances may have stifled the progress of knowledge in Chinese, Indian, Mayan and Aztec civilizations for the same reason.

Opposition to material accumulation and social stratification is one of the major themes of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament, building on similar but less stringent teachings of many of the Jewish prophets in the Tanakh. In contrast the state-backed Roman Catholic Church was obviously very hierarchical, and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was probably an even bigger contributor to Europe's 'dark ages.' But even then, at that same time, classical knowledge was being preserved and even advanced by the scholars of the (Christian) Byzantine and Islamic worlds. Europe's eventual scientific revolution (c. 1543 onwards) followed hot on the heels of the more egalitarian Protestant Reformation (c. 1517 onwards), so while the latter surely wasn't a sole cause of the advance of science, its contributory influence seems probable. Many if not most early European scientists were driven to discover the 'laws' of the universe precisely because they believed there was a Law-maker whose creation they admired.

On the other hand, some elements of Christianity did seek to suppress the knowledge gained by the likes of Galileo and Darwin - it's obviously not all positive. But between the various negatives and positives, I'm not aware of any sound basis for supposing that the influence of religion generally or Christianity specifically has on balance been contrary to human progress. If anything, I'd suspect that it's helped more than hindered.

I was speaking in general terms from what I have observed and read as a former evangelical Christian. I belonged to the second largest Christian denomination in the USA with roughly 16 million members, so its social and political influence is strong.

In those circles, most are suspicious of or distrust the evolutionary, geological, and cosmological sciences and many openly reject evolution and old-earth views.

Many view the afterlife as the only thing worth living for and they are very generous to that end with their time, talents, and resources, which brings me to the issue of the huge amounts of money that goes into doing religion.

It takes many millions of dollars each month just to keep the thousands of churches operating. And that's just Southern Baptists. Large churches budgets are astronomical. The vast majority of tithes and offerings are spent on salaries for the pastor and staff, offices workers, building maintenance, building programs, evangelical programs, insurance, utilities, missions and outreach, etc., etc.

Imagine the money collected by all the churches in the United States alone. Now imagine what that money could do for medical and scientific research, education, combating climate change, or what have you.

These are the kinds of things I had in mind about religion countering progress. But there's more.

To say that the knowledge gained by the likes of Galileo and Darwin was suppressed by some elements of Christianity is putting it mildly. Without renouncing his belief in heliocentrism Galileo would have been put to death by the Catholic church.

The Protestant Reformers were no better. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Philip Melanchthon all rejected Copernican astronomy.

Just how much religion has hindered the progress of mankind is debatable but generally Christian doctrine is in opposition to science and science is progress.
[/quote]

[Mithrae]

I'd be interested in your reasons for supposing that religion has countered the progress of mankind. In Cosmos (ch. 7, The Backbone of Night), Carl Sagan argued that the promising beginnings of ancient science in the Ionian awakening of the 6th century BCE onwards were eventually stifled not by religion, but by social stratification: Empirical science is practical work, slave work, which the privileged few who actually had the time and resources for the vocational pursuit of knowledge rarely deigned to stoop to. He suggests that similar circumstances may have stifled the progress of knowledge in Chinese, Indian, Mayan and Aztec civilizations for the same reason.

Opposition to material accumulation and social stratification is one of the major themes of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament, building on similar but less stringent teachings of many of the Jewish prophets in the Tanakh. In contrast the state-backed Roman Catholic Church was obviously very hierarchical, and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was probably an even bigger contributor to Europe's 'dark ages.' But even then, at that same time, classical knowledge was being preserved and even advanced by the scholars of the (Christian) Byzantine and Islamic worlds. Europe's eventual scientific revolution (c. 1543 onwards) followed hot on the heels of the more egalitarian Protestant Reformation (c. 1517 onwards), so while the latter surely wasn't a sole cause of the advance of science, its contributory influence seems probable. Many if not most early European scientists were driven to discover the 'laws' of the universe precisely because they believed there was a Law-maker whose creation they admired.

On the other hand, some elements of Christianity did seek to suppress the knowledge gained by the likes of Galileo and Darwin - it's obviously not all positive. But between the various negatives and positives, I'm not aware of any sound basis for supposing that the influence of religion generally or Christianity specifically has on balance been contrary to human progress. If anything, I'd suspect that it's helped more than hindered.

I was speaking in general terms from what I have observed and read as a former evangelical Christian. I belonged to the second largest Christian denomination in the USA with roughly 16 million members, so its social and political influence is strong.

In those circles, most are suspicious of or distrust the evolutionary, geological, and cosmological sciences and many openly reject evolution and old-earth views.

True. But let's face it, believing that the earth is 6,000 years old has little practical consequence in day to day life. On the other hand many of the basic concepts of radiometric dating, mutation and selection have become more widely understood at a popular level because of that opposition: The 'controversy' encourages many Christian and non-Christian amateurs to look into the issue for themselves and reach their own conclusions, making them more scientifically informed regardless of which view they adopt. So biblical literalism has not impeded the progress of science itself, does not particularly harm even the folk who adhere to that perspective, and yet has potentially expanded popular interest in science among both believers and critics. Arguably that's a net positive even from one of the worst modern examples of religious opposition to science!

Many view the afterlife as the only thing worth living for and they are very generous to that end with their time, talents, and resources, which brings me to the issue of the huge amounts of money that goes into doing religion.

It takes many millions of dollars each month just to keep the thousands of churches operating. And that's just Southern Baptists. Large churches budgets are astronomical. The vast majority of tithes and offerings are spent on salaries for the pastor and staff, offices workers, building maintenance, building programs, evangelical programs, insurance, utilities, missions and outreach, etc., etc.

Imagine the money collected by all the churches in the United States alone. Now imagine what that money could do for medical and scientific research, education, combating climate change, or what have you.

That's assuming that all that money actually would be donated to those other areas instead. And it's not as if money going to churches is completely wasted. The church I went to as a lad had fewer than 200 members, but almost half of the money collected went to projects outside the church itself - much of it to proselytizing missions no doubt, but some also to humanitarian work. Many local churches in wealthy countries partner with one or more sister churches in third world countries for example. Even at their own congregational level churches provide a sense of community, a mutual support network, provide direct employment and contract from local businesses. If you could guarantee that 100% of that money went to the likes of Oxfam in the absence of religion, that would undoubtedly be better; but if half went to Oxfam and half to new cars and phones and TVs, the world would probably be no better off.

These are the kinds of things I had in mind about religion countering progress. But there's more.

To say that the knowledge gained by the likes of Galileo and Darwin was suppressed by some elements of Christianity is putting it mildly. Without renouncing his belief in heliocentrism Galileo would have been put to death by the Catholic church.

It's putting it accurately, sans the hyperbole sometimes evident in how it is portrayed and popularly perceived. Ecclesiastical opposition to Galileo's views was based as much on scientific grounds (spearheaded by the ideas of astronomer Tycho Brahe) as theological, and probably more political than either of those. After all, Copernican heliocentrism was left largely unmolested for 70 years before the controversy was stirred up in Galileo's day; in fact Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582. On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was banned in 1616, but an edited version (presenting heliocentrism as merely a hypothesis) was released in 1620. Also in 1616 Galileo himself was instructed not to hold or promote heliocentrism as a physical reality; but presenting the contrasting views as conceptual alternatives, he published his Dialogue on the Two World Systems in 1632 with support of Pope Urban VIII, "a friend and admirer of Galileo." However apparently (and foolishly) he put Urban's words in the mouth of Simplicio, the less-than-brilliant proponent of geocentrism in the dialogue and thereby alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters. After a brief trial in 1633 in which he pled guilty to having promoted heliocentrism more than geocentrism - or rather, that a reader might perceive his 'intended' balanced treatment that way - he spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest (besides travel for medical needs). Officially all previous and subsequent books by Galileo were to be banned along with the Dialogue; but apparently his 1638 work on the Two New Sciences, while published in Holland, was available and sold out in Rome by 1639 with no further consequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_G ... iocentrism
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-t ... lic-church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_New_Sciences

The Protestant Reformers were no better. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Philip Melanchthon all rejected Copernican astronomy.

If so, probably backed by Ptolemaic or Tychonic astronomy. You must understand that scientific hypotheses do not usually become immediate dogmatic truth. For example in the field of climate science, the possibility that varying levels of atmospheric CO2 can alter global temperature averages was first systematically proposed in 1896, but did not gain widespread acceptance until over half a century later. Looking back with the certitude of a later generation and condemning or belittling the scepticism of its early hearers would be entirely inappropriate: In fact, scepticism is one of the cornerstones of the scientific process! Not that Calvin, Luther etc. were scientists in the first place...

Just how much religion has hindered the progress of mankind is debatable but generally Christian doctrine is in opposition to science and science is progress.

Historically, Protestant Christians have constituted about 70% of the American population, and have been awarded about 72% of the Nobel Prizes received by Americans. Worldwide, Christians are scarcely one third of the population, but have received two thirds of the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine - and of course that is counting only those who have specifically identified as Christians. Those global figures could perhaps be put down largely to the advantages of wealth and education in mostly-Christian countries (though then we could ask why those countries had progressed more than most of the rest of the world to begin with, if Christianity were so regressive...).

Even more astoundingly, Jews make up only 0.2% of the world population yet have received an incredible 22% of Nobel Prizes. Further back in history, most prominent Western scientists were religious as I've already pointed out; Copernicus and Galileo themselves, Pascal, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, Linnaeus, Darwin, Mendel, Kelvin...

The all-too-easy assumption that religion is opposed to science purely because there are one or two famous examples in which some religious people or institutions have done so does not seem to be borne out by the available evidence.

[Mithrae]

What important societal needs do gambling, alcohol and drugs meet?

Instead, all you've done is tried to pair religion with some other human tendencies ....

The part of the argument I was illustrating was that popularity does not lead to something being essential. You quoted surveys that drew conclusions from people's preferences. I offered other examples of things that people crave. When we move away from "essential" we are left with the simple truth that religion supplies a need and this need can, in many cases, destroy the individual or those around.

Sure, and even eating can in many cases destroy the individual and impact those around. Anything can be detrimental even if it is essential. However humans are mostly somewhat rational beings, evolved and adapted to survive in part by prioritizing our efforts according to need. Absent coercion, in most cases if a majority of folk are devoting time and resources to some endeavour it's because it meets some important need. I'm open to correction on that of course, but off the top of my head the only 'counter-examples' I can think of are cases of excess (eg. over-consumption) which don't change the fact of the original needs. Hence something like your examples of alcohol and gambling meet needs (like sports, music or television) of stress relief, adding spice or excitement to life, and often aiding social cohesion. Yet religion is probably even more popular than drinking or gambling, at least in America.

Religion is not in itself the bringer of goodness. History and present experience show that it generates hate, unhappiness and hell on earth as much as drugs and drink can. You concentrate on the nice side of nice people. I accept that is a big aspect as well.

Religion introduces difference where there should be none.

Why do you say that religion itself is not the bringer of goodness, but then instantly declare that it is the source of badness?

I have already shown that where a fair comparison can be made - ie, within a given society such as the USA or UK rather than between countries - the divisions created by things like gangs and sports (and for that matter political parties) often cause far more measurable harm than religions do. Even issues like gender and marriage equality (which are not solely religious concerns to begin with) are inflamed and perpetuated by their use as political wedge issues.

If you're going to claim that religions are merely a vehicle rather than source of goodness, perhaps you should at least be consistent and acknowledge that they are merely a vehicle of innate human tribalism also: If anything, the latter is a far more easily demonstrable and indisputable tendency.

But I think you are being Devil's advocate and see there is as much bad in religion as there is good. That millions of Muslims bend down five times every day does not make the action less absurd. And when piety believes bread is flesh, are we to say this is a belief essential to good living? Jesus was right about loving one another. He channelled the affection wrongly, via heaven. It can and should flow directly and spontaneously. We are a long way from that, thanks to religions. Go well.

Bending down five times a day is not a bad thing. And in terms of absurdity how does it compare against sitting down and watching pictures move about on a screen for hours on end? No-one spends all their waking moments engaged in useful or important activities.

We could talk all day about some perfect utopia which "should" exist, but (again as I've already pointed out) in their own times and cultures the messages of the likes of Jesus and even Muhammad were universalizing and hence somewhat unifying: We are all God's children. All societies have always waged war and oppressed their poor with or without religious pretexts, but officially most religions have been adamantly against the latter at least (the caste system in India may or may not be an exception) and the likes of Buddhism and Christianity have likewise been against the former.



And none of this addresses the main point which I have been drawing your attention to and which you have consistently avoided dealing with. I can understand that existential and spiritual needs might be too abstract to serve as productive ground for discussion, fair enough, and I hope that you in turn can understand that utopian historical counterfactuals are as if not more problematic.

But the point which I have been specifically raising with you concerns the barrage of messages promoting extrinsic values and encouraging dissatisfaction to be resolved by material consumption. This seems to be a very important issue, and I think it is unquestionable that religions are the single biggest counter-balance to that tendency. This is a very real phenomenon of the 20th and 21st centuries, so your reluctance to address it is quite puzzling... unless of course the only answer is acknowledging that this is indeed a very important role served by religions.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 33 by Mithrae]

The problem Mithrae is that every argument you give against things like wars, and unhealthy greedy materialism, etc., can all be made from logical arguments alone. In fact, you even attempt to offer logical arguments for these things when you point out why they could be detrimental to society.

Therefore there is no need for any "supernatural spiritual beliefs". All that's required is logic. So what you really should be arguing for is a society based on logic rather than on spiritual superstitions.

I think I can understand your idea. You are thinking that given the "perfect" religious leaders who would indeed teach the most logically useful ideals, then religion could be useful as a catalyst to get people to attend the logical sermons.

In other words, it appears that all you are really saying is that if we "dress up" logic with a superstitious overlay that is attractive to people, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, religion could be useful.

But the problem in the real world is that the superstitious overlay called "religion" is actually being used by a lot of fruit-cake nut-jobs to teach immoral superstitious principles and bigotries.

So while a religious 'overlay' might be a useful guise for teaching people rational and logical thought, it can also be used on nefarious ways.

So it's not really religion that is useful. Logic is useful. Religion would just serve as a superstitious overlay to get people to think that they are learning more than just to be logical.

I can see where that would indeed work. But at the same time the religious overlay can, and often is, used to preach totally illogical things, such as religious bigotries, etc.

[Danmark]

To the extent a religion relies on false claims, it is not only not essential, it is harmful. It obscures truth and reality and can lead people to make bad decisions. To the extent a religion unites people around ideas like treating each other well or recognizing we have a common bond and should be nice to kittens, it can be beneficial. There are other, secular ways to promote goodwill that do not have the fractious baggage of religions. Aspects of Buddhism and the Thomas Merton sort of non tribalist belief that does not develop a cult of personality or worship of god can be helpful.

It may seem curious to some, but I think Jesus was promoting this kind of archetypal religion. His criticism of the pharisees and other hypocrites who practiced the letter of the law in order to avoid the spirit of it is exactly the criticism of the church today that all too often is well deserved.

If Paul had just written 1 Corinthians 13 only, the world would be a better place.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 33 by Mithrae]

The problem Mithrae is that every argument you give against things like wars, and unhealthy greedy materialism, etc., can all be made from logical arguments alone. In fact, you even attempt to offer logical arguments for these things when you point out why they could be detrimental to society.

Therefore there is no need for any "supernatural spiritual beliefs". All that's required is logic. So what you really should be arguing for is a society based on logic rather than on spiritual superstitions.

If we ignore human nature, sure. A society without drugs or alcohol seemed like a great idea in theory, except that folk just didn't go for it. A society without personal property or profit seemed like a great idea too. Just Imagine it! But that's about all we can do. In practice, it just doesn't work. And most folk who are religious consider that more important than their booze or their bank accounts. Furthermore logic as an alternative often doesn't even make much headway against political views, or even mere urban legends and folk superstitions for that matter! So while I'm all in favour of logic and basic philosophy being taught as core subjects alongside language, maths and science in schools, realistically there is basically zero chance that logic will replace religion anytime in the next couple of centuries.

I think I can understand your idea. You are thinking that given the "perfect" religious leaders who would indeed teach the most logically useful ideals, then religion could be useful as a catalyst to get people to attend the logical sermons.

In other words, it appears that all you are really saying is that if we "dress up" logic with a superstitious overlay that is attractive to people, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, religion could be useful.

No, not at all. The main concern I've been discussing with Marco - bombardment with extrinsic, consumerist values - is one which is counter-balanced by most fundamentalist religions as well as more sensible approaches (the 'prosperity doctrine' churches being one obvious, partial exception). Likewise the areas of benefit I've outlined - some sense of historical context, culture, community, moral and existential themes, and an avenue for 'spiritual' experience - are fairly basic and common if not universal human needs, and in general are addressed by fundamentalist religions as well as liberal.

I certainly prefer and advocate liberalism over fundamentalism, but (fringe cults aside) people still derive a lot of benefit even from the 'worst' kinds of common religion found in developed democracies. Is there more harm than good, in those worst cases? Arguably it's a close call. But one thing that I think is clear is that many of the people who are attracted to religious fundamentalism in the first place would not suddenly become enlightened logical humanists if religion were to disappear: They would simply find some other principles to be dogmatic about and some other 'out group' to reject - you've already suggested as much regarding many folks' attitudes within Buddhism.

In fact in more political terms we're seeing pretty much exactly that kind of phenomenon with the steady increase (or at least more visible presence) of liberal intolerance lately. So if that's the case, even if we were to suppose that more harm than good is done in the name of fundamentalist religion (which I'm not persuaded of) it still wouldn't follow that removing religion would make things better. It might simply remove the good while forcing the bad into a different vehicle. And given the choice, incremental shifts towards more liberal attitudes within their religion is probably more feasible and preferable to shattering their religious faith and seeing it replaced with equally dogmatic and divisive attitudes in some other social or political group.



And again, a more 'liberal' attitude towards Christianity for example is not merely "dressing up" reasonable attitudes in a superstitious guise. It's a case of first and foremost feeling associated with the historical and cultural background of Christianity (much as one might feel about one's country) but, rather than being arbitrarily limited by it, seeking to learn from the mistakes and horrors of that history as well as from its insights and high points. Probably in most cases while continuing to cherish those core values which Christians have always shared - The sovereignty of 'god'; The centrality of love; The inevitability of shortcomings and failure; The necessity of grace and forgiveness; The value of transformative experience and a 'new life'; The importance of personal commitment and action - even if not always imagining them all or viewing the imagery through which they're conveyed in precisely the same way.

[Divine Insight]

So while I'm all in favour of logic and basic philosophy being taught as core subjects alongside language, maths and science in schools, realistically there is basically zero chance that logic will replace religion anytime in the next couple of centuries.

So what?

Religion isn't working anyway.

1. How long has religion been around?
2. How long have humans been doing ignorant and self-destructive things?
3. How long have humans being doing outright nasty things to other humans?

See?

Religion certainly doesn't work.

All I'm saying is that you can give logical reasons for why it's ignorant to do self-destructive things and to harm others, then you don't even need religion. All you need to do is make the rational arguments.

If people are too stupid to care about reason, then getting them to believe in superstitious religions isn't going to help either.

Just look at the history of mankind. Religions have always been around. And so has self-destructive behavior and crime.

So religions DON'T WORK.

In fact, religions have the added destructive characteristic of causing people from different religion to accuse each other of being the morally corrupt people.

At least if we had reason as our focal point, then we'd only have ONE STANDARD.

Sure, we can argue about what's "reasonable", but at least that way we know what we are arguing about instead of play the childish game of "My God can beat up your God".

That game hasn't gotten us anywhere for thousands of years.

Religion is a proven failure.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

That's like saying that law is a "proven failure" because we still have crime, or language is a proven failure because we still have misunderstandings.

In fact reason itself has both been around longer and spread more widely than any religion, so if you think that religion has failed then that must be even more certainly the case for reason! Of course you could claim that people just haven't been reasonable enough... just as religious folk might claim that we haven't been religious enough. Not that the two are opposed or mutually exclusive. I think it's virtually indisputable that if everyone in the world followed Jesus' teachings (or the Buddha's teachings, or probably even Muhammad's*) the world would have been far better than it's been and progressed much more successfully than has been the case.
* Admittedly I don't know much about the social details of Islamic teaching; though at one time the Islamic world was at the very forefront of scholarship and learning.

Human nature and societies have never been perfect, and in all likelihood will never be perfect at least for the foreseeable future. Pointing that out doesn't somehow invalidate all the tools and conventions we've used to try to improve ourselves. Neither religion nor 'reason' nor any particular social, economic or political models are going to completely fix our shortcomings.

But another known fact is that efforts to radically change human nature or societies have usually ended in disastrous failure - perhaps always so, except in cases where some catastrophe has catalyzed change. And obviously, religion is not causing any kind of catastrophe. On the contrary, religions like the rest of society are gradually adapting to new circumstances and new knowledge: Even the most backwards fundamentalist denominations in America today would not burn witches or support slavery as many did a few centuries ago! And there are just as many religious folk at the forefront of social and scientific progress as bringing up the rear (and those are generally closer to the core teachings of Jesus himself).

It's important to recognize that virtually everyone in society is progressing from generation to generation - even if it's not always at the same speed - and while there's little or no reason to suppose that religion itself is the real impediment for those at the rear, there definitely is plenty of reason to suppose that it's an important balance against other tendencies such as status/wealth/power-oriented consumerism.

[Danmark]

It is hard today, particularly today, to see the benefits of Christianity outweighing its negatives, at least the white evangelical aspect of it. Partly because of hatred for certain 'liberal' policies, partly because of apocalyptic prophecies, partly because of just plain selfishness that runs counter to the teachings of Jesus, the 'Christian' culture in the U.S. overwhelmingly voted for and continue to support a confessed sexual predator, liar, racist, bully, and ignoramus. Evangelicals have been at the forefront of denying rights to women, gays, and transgender folks, and racial, religious and ethnic minorities.

Whatever the original, laudable ideals of Jesus of Nazareth, the 'Christian' culture of this country is a force against individual liberty and kindness, and compassion for the poor and disadvantaged. One can make a case for the benefit of some type of religion, but not for the conservative, evangelical Christianity that presents itself with bellicose self righteousness today. That is the problem with religion. Like many human institutions, it devolves from high ideals of drawing near to god and helping the poor, to an unhealthy tribalism that divides and hates and works against its own original ideals.

[Mithrae]

It is hard today, particularly today, to see the benefits of Christianity outweighing its negatives, at least the white evangelical aspect of it. Partly because of hatred for certain 'liberal' policies, partly because of apocalyptic prophecies, partly because of just plain selfishness that runs counter to the teachings of Jesus, the 'Christian' culture in the U.S. overwhelmingly voted for and continue to support a confessed sexual predator, liar, racist, bully, and ignoramus.

And the alternative was...? The rampant [strike]bribery[/strike] campaign donations and unshakeable duopoly make American politics uninspiring at the best of times, and 2016 offered arguably two of the worst choices in recent history. You might as well condemn Jews for voting for Clinton. In fact only about 56% of Christians voted for Trump anyway, which suggests the votes of that specific subset of 'white evangelicals' was more about the 'white' part than the 'evangelical' part.

Evangelicals have been at the forefront of denying rights to women, gays, and transgender folks, and racial, religious and ethnic minorities.

As if the rest of society had always been pushing for those things? I'm not exactly an expert on American politics, but didn't Hilary's own husband come up with some asinine "don't ask, don't tell" nonsense about homosexuality in the military? Both political parties have supported the perpetual 'war on drugs' and Bill Clinton (again) oversaw the 1994 crime bill which between them have arguably been the single biggest political disadvantage inflicted on poor and minority groups since the 60s.

A fraction of the folk in countries like ours - perhaps a tenth, if that - have been consistently and actively pushing for progress in these areas, with a similarly small fraction actively opposed. Most of the rest of us just show up to vote when the politicians of one party or another decide that it has become expedient to make them an issue.

And let's be honest here, it has historically been entirely 'normal' to view gender roles and sexual orientation in the traditional manner - in fact a case could be made that prior to the 19th century or so that was generally the beneficial approach (or even necessary, in even earlier periods). In terms of population growth or recovery from war or disaster, men were expendable while women were invaluable, but breeding was an important priority in general. So did the nation-state have some kind of legal or moral obligation three hundred years ago to officially recognize and support unions which could not possibly produce offspring? I certainly support marriage equality, but claiming it to be a 'right' could be considered emotive rhetoric as much as anything else: And branding people bigots or oppressors for being marginally slower to embrace social change is utterly counter-productive.

Trump didn't win because he was so great or because Americans are so stupid: He won in part because Hilary was such an uninspiring representative of establishment politics, but also because a vocal minority on the left had become so self-righteous, so "intolerant of intolerance," so vicious towards 'white privilege' and the like that they actively alienated half the country against them.

Whatever the original, laudable ideals of Jesus of Nazareth, the 'Christian' culture of this country is a force against individual liberty and kindness, and compassion for the poor and disadvantaged. One can make a case for the benefit of some type of religion, but not for the conservative, evangelical Christianity that presents itself with bellicose self righteousness today. That is the problem with religion. Like many human institutions, it devolves from high ideals of drawing near to god and helping the poor, to an unhealthy tribalism that divides and hates and works against its own original ideals.

As does secular political liberalism, as I've pointed out numerous times. Scarcely a week goes by on my political forum without a thread about yet another conservative speaker being shouted down or even scared away by threat of physical violence from some university or other.

That's not a problem with religion itself any more than it's a problem with liberalism itself: It's a problem with many people when they find themselves surrounded by others who think and believe as they do. We start to imagine that this way of thinking must be so obviously and unquestionably correct that anyone who disagrees must be stupid or outright bigots. Being fanned and fueled by partisan politics looking for wedge issues to distract from broader economic issues and political stagnation doesn't help, but it's the lack of diversity and self-created echo chambers that are the root problem.

And that in turn suggests that it'd be just as beneficial for any right-wing atheist to find themselves an intelligent left-wing Christian friend as vice versa.