Do the advantages outweight the disadvantages?

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Galvasean

Depends on which religion TBH.

nesf

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that's too broad a question really.

Red Hand

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could say the same for race, tribe, language and culture.

By bad stuff I mean things like hate crimes, terrorism, anti-homosexual behaviour, faith based wars e.t.c.

Again, you could say the same for race, tribe, language and culture.

IMO opinion, people will always find stuff to unite and divide themselves-it's part of who we are. Religion is just another tool/excuse so as to be kind and undertsanding to the next person or alternatively, to beat the next person over the head with a club.

Dave!

I don't see religion contributing much to the benefits you listed......

a stable society
How does religion create this? Just today a survey suggests that less than half of us are attending weekly mass. If that were higher then I guess one could argue that this provides cohesion to communities and so improves stability... But I still would suggest that, if you took away religion completely, society would not fall to pieces. Case in point: USA and Portugal are among the most religious democratic nations in the world, and they also have some of the highest rates of homicide! I don't think religion provides much stability at all to society. Of course that's not to suggest that it provides instability either.

a common view
Hardly! Unless your idea is to institutionalise one religion and outlaw others. There are lots of different religions and they all vary in their views, contradicting each other (as well as themselves, it must be said ) all over the place. Case in point: extremeist Muslims see themselves as being at war with the predominantly Christian west. And even among moderate Christians, there is a view prevalent that Islam is not compatible with western society. And indeed the 'modesty' (euphemism) required of Muslim women is completely contrary to the liberalness(?) permitted in the west.

basic standards for everyone to live by
Ignoring again the different contrasting religions in every country, I would suggest that the basic standards espoused by some religious preachers (Islam especially) are unreasonable and not compatible with modern society; and the basic standards expressed in religious texts are far from acceptable to me -- not to mention that they are often contradictory, and so interpretation is required: most Christians will see past the genocide and chauvinism in the Bible and pick out the fluffy hippy stuff mainly in the New Testament. But why? What if I prefer to kill people for working on the sabbath?

I don't see those as the benefits of religion.... I was expecting you to highlight things like "it provides comfort", etc., and no I don't think that's reason enough to prop it up and give it tax exemptions. If people want to believe it in their own time and start their own churches then grand, but if I was in a position when creating a country where I could flick a switch and religion would be present, and thus certain people are more comfortable, I wouldn't feel compelled to flick it, no.

Another benefit you might suggest is missionaries going to poor countries to (ostensibly anyway) provide aid, and also the fact that priests filled the need for teachers in Ireland for many years.

nesf

DaveMcG wrote: »

I don't see religion contributing much to the benefits you listed......

Think in terms of earlier times and smaller more isolated communities and some of the benefits are there in some form. Whether religion still gives these benefits is a more interesting (and open) question I think.

Dave!

True I thought we were talking about modern times.

However even still I don't see the necessity for religion, even thousands of years ago. We're already programmed for communal cohesion and stability within the community; chimps and other animals demonstrate the same thing by hunting in packs, sharing food, and so on. Similarly there is an evolutionary advantage to conforming to societal standards and abiding by prevailing moral codes; you'll soon find yourself ostracised if you don't. And the example is often given of something being stuck under a rock so you enlist the help of someone else and split the loot. You'll find it alot more difficult to survive if you screw people over all the time. I didn't go into much detail there cos it's not exactly my expertise, but I don't think religion was necessary for any of that stuff; I certainly don't think it's necessary today.

One thing I will mention however is that religion can often prove useful for identifying a common enemy and attempting to form alliances; for hundreds of years Ireland consisted of dozens of warlords and tribes, constantly engaged in low-level warfare and raiding their neighbours. When it became prudent to try and defeat the British presence on the island, it was certainly helpful to identify them as the Protestants who are very different from us Catholics. Of course this thinking did not prove too helpful centuries later when communities were split along religious lines.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Dades

I would echo the sentiment that it depends on the religion/tribal region. E.g. I don't have much time for Sharia Law, but the Japanese seem to get on alongside the types of Buddhism they have going on.

Of course either answer doesn't make it true!

stereoroid

I learned a new catchphrase today: Existential Security, the feeling that you are secure in your existence, and all is right with the world. If you're thinking that there's a correlation between that and religiosity, the data supports that: a negative correlation. In other words, when things are bad, people tend to look to religion.

Note I said "tend to" - a statistical term implying a correlation, but statistics don't tell you anything about an individual, and clichés such as "no atheists in foxholes" are invalidated by well-documented exceptions. IMHO This trend says a lot about people, and human weakness, but it doesn't say anything about the validity of religion. In times of weakness, people turn to other things too - drink, drugs, bad TV - and we don't "celebrate" those, do we?

nesf

stereoroid wrote: »

Note I said "tend to" - a statistical term implying a correlation, but statistics don't tell you anything about an individual, and clichés such as "no atheists in foxholes" are invalidated by well-documented exceptions. IMHO This trend says a lot about people, and human weakness, but it doesn't say anything about the validity of religion. In times of weakness, people turn to other things too - drink, drugs, bad TV - and we don't "celebrate" those, do we?

I think looking at it as "weakness" is the wrong way to think about it. When things are bad, having a common bond with others makes life more bearable. Religion in this country is as much a cultural phenomenon as a spiritual phenomenon. Stations of the Cross at a person's home in the country are only partly a religious event, i.e. mass is said and "after the priest has left"* people stay on for a few hours chatting with their neighbours, catching up with local news and having a few drinks together. Organised religion is as much a social thing as it is a personal spiritual thing and in rural Ireland among (at least the previous two generations to me) it still serves an important social role in society without bring that much "bad stuff" because, bluntly, people ignore a lot of what doesn't fit into life (i.e. if asked about contraception most people, at least privately, would be for it, regardless of what's being said in Rome).


*The key part in this is that priest deliberately leaves early to give people a chance to enjoy a few drinks freely. This is partly a leftover from the days when you had to watch your manners closely when a priest was in earshot but it's also a reflection of how priests in rural areas in this country are both within and outside society. Whether or not this is a good thing is open to debate but it's interesting (to me anyway).

adamd164

It's an easy question to answer if one doesn't believe that there are any benefits.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

It's an easy question to answer if one doesn't believe that there are any benefits.

Yeah, but anyone who thinks that hasn't thought about it for very long or has taken a very narrow view of things tbh. This really isn't a black and white issue.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but anyone who thinks that hasn't thought about it for very long or has taken a very narrow view of things tbh. This really isn't a black and white issue.

In your opinion. You see, just because a person who clings to religious belief may see it as indispensible, that does not mean to say that they wouldn't ahve been better off if they'd never been introduced to it in the first place.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

In your opinion. You see, just because a person who clings to religious belief may see it as indispensible, that does not mean to say that they wouldn't ahve been better off if they'd never been introduced to it in the first place.

You miss my point. It's not that religion is irreplaceable nor is it that religion is necessary, it is that religion does have some positive effects. Whether religion is the only path to these effects is a separate and different question. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple logical distinction between two separate and distinct questions.

all the stars

personally... im not into organised religion. I dont need to do that to feel ok. Everyone to their own.

Look back at history, religion has been a mage reason that entire civilisations were wiped out, i mean in the name of the catholic church now.. Its horrible.

Just watch American telly.. your either a complete hippy or this religious nutcase who says everyone else is gonna rot in hell and they go way too far.. I mean picketing heath ledger funeral coz in a film , he PRETENDED to be gay... Get a frikkin hobby people!

Im fed up of the "in yer face" christians - like that programme few weeks ago about these child bible bashers.. Their parents would wanna be brought out & kicked. Mental people!

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

You miss my point. It's not that religion is irreplaceable nor is it that religion is necessary, it is that religion does have some positive effects. Whether religion is the only path to these effects is a separate and different question. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple logical distinction between two separate and distinct questions.

I see where you're coming from, but it would prove difficult to isolate cause and effect here. Person X may find religion comforting on some level, however, perhaps he or she would be even less stressed if they accepted the fact that this life is our only one, that we are lucky to have one shot at it, and that it ought be lived to the full.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but it would prove difficult to isolate cause and effect here. Person X may find religion comforting on some level, however, perhaps he or she would be even less stressed if they accepted the fact that this life is our only one, that we are lucky to have one shot at it, and that it ought be lived to the full.

If you look into it there are scientific studies of this that show that there is a positive element, the whole social aspect of religion itself, simply as being a venue for meeting and greeting local people and forming bonds with them in itself is certainly not unique to religion but it is an aspect of religion for many people. What complicates things is that some people like to claim that there are unique aspects of religion that provide positives that only it can bring. I'd be quite sceptical about this, really.

That simply a person could be as happy without religion, by pursuing other activities doesn't refute the positive effects of religion, it just means that it's replaceable, at least for some people (I would argue that for some people they need to belong to "something", be it religion or a private club or whatever and that others are more independently minded, but I can't provide any empirical evidence for this, it's merely anecdotal really)

philologos

No, the bad stuff it brings outweighs the good stuff.

nesf wrote: »

You miss my point. It's not that religion is irreplaceable nor is it that religion is necessary, it is that religion does have some positive effects. Whether religion is the only path to these effects is a separate and different question. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple logical distinction between two separate and distinct questions.

This post seems to be one of the more realistic and fair minded posts on this thread. Fair play.

adamd164

Well I'd certainly like to think that I'm fair-minded, whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions. I don't deny that religion can serve as a stress reliever, I do however reject the notion that it intrinsically does a better job than can atheism and skepticism.

@ nesf: I take your point regarding social contact, and that may very well be a service which religion provides, that would otherwise be lacking to an extent. In that sense, I accept what you are saying. When we look at the bigger picture, however, if this is the only thing that we can credit religion with, then the resounding answer to the OP's question must surely be "no contest"!

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

@ nesf: I take your point regarding social contact, and that may very well be a service which religion provides, that would otherwise be lacking to an extent. In that sense, I accept what you are saying. When we look at the bigger picture, however, if this is the only thing that we can credit religion with, then the resounding answer to the OP's question must surely be "no contest"!

Well it depends on whether one takes the view that religion is to blame for the bad side of human nature. Unjust wars have been fought under the (similar) banners of nationalism and religion. I think if one is looking at the bigger picture that one starts to see that much of what is bad about religion is simply a broader problem with human nature in general rather than something unique to religion itself. Similar to my views on the positive effects, I'm not convinced that religion is the great evil that some atheists like to paint it, I think it's far more plausible to put forward the view that the problem with religion is that it involves people and people tend to have a nasty habit of ****ing each other over. It just so happens that religion seems to be one of the myriad of reasons they have used to justify it in the past.

Dave!

nesf wrote: »

I'm not convinced that religion is the great evil that some atheists like to paint it, I think it's far more plausible to put forward the view that the problem with religion is that it involves people and people tend to have a nasty habit of ****ing each other over. It just so happens that religion seems to be one of the myriad of reasons they have used to justify it in the past.

+1

adamd164

Well I don't think it's a case of "religion has been bastardised by men" -- religion itself is a human construct. Someone doing evil in the name of religion is effectively equivalent to the religion itself doing the evil. Any religion is only the sum total of its followers and their attitudes; the two are intrinsically bound together.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Well I don't think it's a case of "religion has been bastardised by men" -- religion itself is a human construct. Someone doing evil in the name of religion is effectively equivalent to the religion itself doing the evil. Any religion is only the sum total of its followers and their attitudes; the two are intrinsically bound together.

Indeed. For me the Catholic Church is just an aggregation of it's individual members, not all add equally to it but I think that to look at it as an entity and to "personify" it as such misses the point. Whatever the banner they hold over their heads, it's still the people who are doing the evil, the banner isn't really a player in it.

I view social constructs (ie religion etc) as being mere aggregations of individual effects rather than things in and of themselves though, which is not a view that everyone would subscribe to (i.e. Sociologists come from the opposite school of thought essentially).

adamd164

All I'd maintain is that every religion has to take the good with the bad. We can't be choosy about who does or does not 'represent' a given branch of faith. Atheism and agnosticism do not suffer from this, as neither are religions -- they're just philosophical standpoints, with no doctrine or baggage.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

All I'd maintain is that every religion has to take the good with the bad. We can't be choosy about who does or does not 'represent' a given branch of faith.

I'd agree within reason. i.e. if some nutbag wearing a "I'm Catholic and PROUD!" t-shirt starts shooting people I'm not going to blame the Catholic Church.