Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Clarinets]

For a very large group of people, Religion is Christianity, the other Religions are not considered Religions, only pagan or heretic.

You could say the same for other major religions, too. This kind of behavior isn't exclusive to Christians.

[NekoKnight]

I'm not sure if there is a reasonable metric for the balance of good and bad in religion but I do think religion is easily abused by human nature. It's easy to rally people behind a hateful and intolerant ideology when you have a higher power to justify and encourage your behavior. Also, you can get people to do evil things (even things that lead to their own death) when they are promised with great rewards in an afterlife.

At the core of the human experience is our nature, both the bad (intolerance and greed) and the good (empathy and charity), so I imagine the world would be similar even without religion. Neither part is created by religion but both can be amplified by it.

Edited October 26, 2016 by NekoKnight

[Naughx]

^ Any ideology can be abused by the human nature, that's not exclusive to religion.

That said I do think that religions as a whole did a bit more harm than good but I won't deny that some things were "good".

A fire can burn you but it can also keep you warm.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Naughx

[NekoKnight]

^ Any ideology can be abused by the human nature, that's not exclusive to religion.

That said I do think that religions as a whole did a bit more harm than good but I won't deny that some things were "good".

A fire can burn you but it can also keep you warm.

That profile picture in on point.

[Phoenix Wright]

You can be devout and scientific at the same time. To paraphrase: in science, the question is how, in religion, the question is why.

Science and religion are fundamentally trying to explore different aspects of life. My best physics and calculus teacher was a Catholic priest in high school. He saw no conflict in fully embracing both, because there's no reason that science and theology can't coexist. If people choose to be atheist, that is their right, but I can be a scientist, and have faith, too.

But this isn't backed up by reality. The Ptolemies were, as stated previously, very friendly to science; it doesn't mean much in practice if the nation is faith based on the issue of the Gods if they are so friendly towards science that setting fire to their library literally set humanity back generations. Ptolemaic Egypt,was a key center of learning and science; this is historical fact.

as i said, being "friendly" to science is not the point. it is very obvious that one can be successful in science and in religion. the father of the big bang was a catholic priest.

what i am saying is that there exists cognitive dissonance in those individuals that have faith but simultaneously are scientists. there was an entire topic on this and i highly recommend reading it.

theology is explicitly rejected if adhering to the scientific method.

[Jotari]

as i said, being "friendly" to science is not the point. it is very obvious that one can be successful in science and in religion. the father of the big bang was a catholic priest.

what i am saying is that there exists cognitive dissonance in those individuals that have faith but simultaneously are scientists. there was an entire topic on this and i highly recommend reading it.

theology is explicitly rejected if adhering to the scientific method.

How exactly? Theology is the study of god. Science is the study of the universe. On a conceptual level there's absolutely nothing about these two things that contradict each other. You can spend all your days researching how chemicals and matter interact with each other and trying to understand why while at the same time believing in a god that created all those things in the first place. There's no cognitive dissonance there. In fact I know of at least one writer (Olaf Stapledon) who actively used science to interpret the nature of god.

[Phoenix Wright]

sorry, not theology. i misspoke. it's faith.

it's the believing part, the element of faith. that's where the issue lies. science would not have someone "believe" in anything because that doesn't make any sense. if you "believe" there are truths to this world that lie beyond scientific approach, then those beliefs are wholly incompatible with science, essentially by definition.

it does not make sense to assert a truth that is not falsifiable. that is the entire point of doing science. on an individual level, as i said, that cognitive dissonance can exist and there won't be many problems, but the contradictions are there whether one is aware or not.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

as i said, being "friendly" to science is not the point. it is very obvious that one can be successful in science and in religion. the father of the big bang was a catholic priest.

what i am saying is that there exists cognitive dissonance in those individuals that have faith but simultaneously are scientists. there was an entire topic on this and i highly recommend reading it.

theology is explicitly rejected if adhering to the scientific method.

Okay, fine. The cognitive dissonance exists. There remains in the cases I mentioned no practical opposition to science, and thus no actual negative effects.

[Jotari]

It's also an outlook that's assuming the scientific method is to be used like a philosophy that should be applied to everything you do in life. Which it really isn't. It's just a system of determining things. Like if I'm about to be hit by a car the scientific method isn't going to do me a lick of good since it requires you to provide multiple experiments (which in this case would mean getting hit by the car multiple times in a number of different ways). Diving quickly and having faith that my instincts are sharp enough is a much more effective approach.

[Snowy_One]

sorry, not theology. i misspoke. it's faith.

it's the believing part, the element of faith. that's where the issue lies. science would not have someone "believe" in anything because that doesn't make any sense. if you "believe" there are truths to this world that lie beyond scientific approach, then those beliefs are wholly incompatible with science, essentially by definition.

it does not make sense to assert a truth that is not falsifiable. that is the entire point of doing science. on an individual level, as i said, that cognitive dissonance can exist and there won't be many problems, but the contradictions are there whether one is aware or not.

Not really. For example human beings believe things like necrophilia is wrong on a fairly universal level. Now, scientifically we can claim that it's unhealthy, has a high risk of disease, and whatnot, but it's not actually 'wrong'. Find a properly treated and cleaned body and, as far as science is confirmed, you can have at it. That it's something repulsive derives from a 'truth' that cannot be scientifically tested. This holds true for many things such as equality between men and women, racial equality, and so-forth. This is because science is just what it is, a method of observation. That Jalliapians and Truxicans should be seen as equals in the eyes of the government is not a matter of science but belief in the truth that all races of humanity are equal.

[Espinosa]

You can't have science without religion. It's one of the two parts of the amalgam and easily the most reputable of the two.

Also, this discussion is seriously missing Chiki-chan. Dood needs to log on again.

[Moblin Major General]

sorry, not theology. i misspoke. it's faith.

it's the believing part, the element of faith. that's where the issue lies. science would not have someone "believe" in anything because that doesn't make any sense. if you "believe" there are truths to this world that lie beyond scientific approach, then those beliefs are wholly incompatible with science, essentially by definition.

it does not make sense to assert a truth that is not falsifiable. that is the entire point of doing science. on an individual level, as i said, that cognitive dissonance can exist and there won't be many problems, but the contradictions are there whether one is aware or not.

This is categorically false. Anything in science labelled as "Theory" isn't postulated to be true, with those that supporting any number of them having faith in them being true, because if the evidence to support any of them were there, almost all theories would be translated into being laws. It is not "Darwin's LAW of Evolution," because the evidence isn't there, and likely never was, for it to be true. Scientists have faith, too. You seem to be interested in deconstructing a religion that rebuilds at every attempt to do so. To end my rebuttal, let me use a quote, although I expect you to react to it just like in the source material: What if creation was the how and not the why?

[Snowy_One]

That's a mis-understanding of what a scientific law is. Basically, laws in science explain the basic and fundamental forces of how the universe works (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction for example) while theories deal with specific instances and the like. As far as science is concerned, so long as there is evidence to support it, a theory like evolution can be just as valid as pretty much any other theory. This is because, in science, new evidence and observations are to be expected which can change how a theory previously believed to be true into being false.

For example, let's assume that, tomorrow, evidence comes forth that corgis did not come from earlier forms of dog via breeding but, rather, were created in a lab. A lot of corgi-related dog evolution theories (and history, but that's not important right now) would be suddenly wrong. This doesn't mean that great danes are exempt from this theory or that the theory is wrong in regards to other dogs, just not corgi's, resulting in a fundamental change in the theory.

[Moblin Major General]

That's a mis-understanding of what a scientific law is. Basically, laws in science explain the basic and fundamental forces of how the universe works (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction for example) while theories deal with specific instances and the like. As far as science is concerned, so long as there is evidence to support it, a theory like evolution can be just as valid as pretty much any other theory. This is because, in science, new evidence and observations are to be expected which can change how a theory previously believed to be true into being false.

For example, let's assume that, tomorrow, evidence comes forth that corgis did not come from earlier forms of dog via breeding but, rather, were created in a lab. A lot of corgi-related dog evolution theories (and history, but that's not important right now) would be suddenly wrong. This doesn't mean that great danes are exempt from this theory or that the theory is wrong in regards to other dogs, just not corgi's, resulting in a fundamental change in the theory.

That's not a good example. Theory is not fact, and most never will be. Also, there are some laws that have deemed human accomplishment (e.g. powered flight) physically impossible, but the impossible happens almost constantly, thus devaluing science as a gauge of what's feasible. Phoenix sees science as the end all, be all of everything, when he is in fact wrong, and that even someone as "realistic" as he is has to take some things on faith and conjecture sometimes.

[Res]

By definition, a scientific theory cannot turn into a scientific law. A law can be boiled down to a mathematical equation and is generally the starting point; the theories often come later, and are subject to change.

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research."

So with regards to powered flight, there was never a scientific law that defined flight as impossible; what we had were laws like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which gave rise to theories like powered flight would be impossible. Now that powered flight has been proved possible, the theory has changed, but the Law of Universal Gravitation remains in place (laws can be tweaked and defined; they CAN be proven false, but not at the rate the way theories are).

Edited October 27, 2016 by Res

[Irysa]

You can't have science without religion. It's one of the two parts of the amalgam and easily the most reputable of the two.

Also, this discussion is seriously missing Chiki-chan. Dood needs to log on again.

He's still butthurt about being banned so unless he swallows his pride (pfft) that won't be happening anytime soon.

As to the general topic, if we can untangle "religion" from "organised religion", then I would say yes to the former and no to the latter. Trying to talk about the concept as a whole is kind of a nightmare, especially when discussing the entire span of humanity. Espinosa is correct that Science and Religion (and Mathematics and Philosophy for that matter...and many forms of Art) are all incredibly interwoven when you're looking at a scale this broad, so whilst Phoenix is correct in his objection to blah's point in principle, it has very little relevance to the actual subject.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Irysa

[Rezzy]

It's a slippery slope, but as stated, there's no scientific evidence that all people, whether it by race, sex, or baseball team preference, are equal. That's something that just has too be taken on faith. When people do try to prove it one way or the other scientifically, it leads to unsavory areas like eugenics.

A person's or anything's for the matter's worth is something that has been the purview of philosophy and religion, rather than science. Trying to apply scientific rigor to that area is misguided.

[NekoKnight]

I'm not sure why people are discussing morals in relation to science. All morals are subjective but we embrace them in order to create a healthy, stable society. Morals aren't a "truth" that is "proven", it's just something we all agree upon in order to peacefully coexist. There is going to be some cognitive dissonance if people believe in something (the supernatural) without proof and also adhere to scientific principles.

[Jotari]

That;s sort of the point of the matter. Ethics are generally completely separate from science yet it's something we still believe in. So useful as it is, science is not all encompassing.

[Irysa]

Correct morality is not subjective.

Utiltarianism can be argued to be a form of "Scientific" morality.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Irysa

[NekoKnight]

That;s sort of the point of the matter. Ethics are generally completely separate from science yet it's something we still believe in. So useful as it is, science is not all encompassing.

There is a difference in "believing" in something because it's essential to society and "believing" in something as an objective truth. Faith is the latter sort.

[Jotari]

There is a difference in "believing" in something because it's essential to society and "believing" in something as an objective truth. Faith is the latter sort.

Well why do you believe morals are essential to society? Have you ran the appropriate experiments in a test environment to prove that everything we deem wrong is actually detrimental to human society? In fact if you look at the animal kingdom, they get along just fine without any code of ethics stopping them from killing or stealing. Course you might say animals don't have a society as we do but then you can go one ply deeper and ask why you believe having a society is a good thing (particularly when studies show we worked a lot less back in the hunter gatherer days)?

[NekoKnight]

Well why do you believe morals are essential to society? Have you ran the appropriate experiments in a test environment to prove that everything we deem wrong is actually detrimental to human society? In fact if you look at the animal kingdom, they get along just fine without any code of ethics stopping them from killing or stealing. Course you might say animals don't have a society as we do but then you can go one ply deeper and ask why you believe having a society is a good thing (particularly when studies show we worked a lot less back in the hunter gatherer days)?

This is an increasingly divergent tangent. Ethics and goodness are not related to science, they don't need to be proven in an objective sense. You're over-focusing on Phoenix's mention of the scientific method when the crux of his argument was that one can't both adhere to scientific principles and believe that there are objective truths beyond science.

[Jotari]

This is an increasingly divergent tangent. Ethics and goodness are not related to science, they don't need to be proven in an objective sense. You're over-focusing on Phoenix's mention of the scientific method when the crux of his argument was that one can't both adhere to scientific principles and believe that there are objective truths beyond science.

And why exactly don't they need to be proven in an objective sense where's the nature of god does? I don't see any reason why one can't believe in the principles of science and all they encompass while also believing in some kind of god that created the universe. It's not like science will ever be able to give a satisfying example for the source of existence anyway since there'll always be something further to dissect and analyze and question.

It's at this point I feel I should note I'm not actually a theist in the conventional sense and I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate.

[NekoKnight]

And why exactly don't they need to be proven in an objective sense where's the nature of god does? I don't see any reason why one can't believe in the principles of science and all they encompass while also believing in some kind of god that created the universe. It's not like science will ever be able to give a satisfying example for the source of existence anyway since there'll always be something further to dissect and analyze and question.

It's at this point I feel I should note I'm not actually a theist in the conventional sense and I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate.

The value of having morals can be seen in the net happiness and stability of a society. You can dissect the topic of what is best for society or if we even need a society ad nauseam but that's besides the point.

It's totally possible to believe in a higher power and scientific values, as people did and do, but you're practicing cognitive dissonance if you can't acknowledge that your faith has nothing meaningful to substantiate it. This isn't always a bad thing, as many people were religious and contributed to science all the same.

Edited October 28, 2016 by NekoKnight