Anything good about religion at all?

lazygal

Just finished watching the Channel 4 news at 7pm. There were two items that stood out. The first was a refugee surge into Mauritania because of Islamists who want to implement Sharia law. Then 4thought had a pastor/preacher saying how it was up to women to dress modestly because men get aroused so easily, there was the usual bible reference to back this up.
And me and himself were saying, is there anything that religion has done that can be classed as good. I know religious people will say those who do things in the name of Islam or Jesus like killing people aren't 'true' believers, but religion is the excuse/justification/reasoning behind so many bad things. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of things like children being taken from unmarried parents and sold to good Catholic families, laws on the stoning of women who are raped, women not being able to refuse to have sex with their husbands, gay people being persecuted and more wars than I can count. It's sometimes said discrimination or hatred is cultural not religious, but a lot of it has its original roots in religion.


I know this post is a bit rambling, and I'm not even sure what I'm trying to get at, apart from reasoning things out to myself. It just strikes me as deeply ironic, and insulting, that people of no faith, like our family, are portrayed sometimes as not having a moral backbone or sense of purpose in life because we don't subscribe to a higher power or believe in the truth of books written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

18AD

The Tao Teh Ching is beautiful.

wonderfulname

Well you can't tar them all with the same brush, there are some religious organisations that don't promote discrimination or hate and are general do gooders, they'd hold a minority of adherents though.

The big ones did great things for art, science and education at some point in the past, however I can't think of anything current which can't be countered.

Penn

It can give people hope, strength, courage etc.

Now, that's not to say that in the absence of religion they couldn't get those things from something else, nor that those things (to me) aren't based off false promises, but if it works for those people and helps them, then that's good.

joseph brand

wonderfulname wrote: »

The big ones did great things for art, science and education at some point in the past, however I can't think of anything current which can't be countered.

If a whole country is catholic or islamic for instance, then every artist, scientist and professor, of the country will be claimed by the religion of said country.

Every Italian painter, philosopher or scientist could be claimed by the RCC, just like every Iranian painter, philosopher or scientist could be claimed by Islam. (no doubt there are a couple of exceptions)

As an example, many of the priceless religious art in Italy was commisioned, not by the church but by wealthy merchants, such as the Medici family. (who produced a few popes)

The good thing about religion is that it prevents the working class from having delusions of grandeur and getting 'above their station'. It keeps them down. The meek shall inherit the earth and all that stuff.

Sonics2k

It's provided us with a lot of humour.

cavedave

Religion has given us some good tunes

ShooterSF

cavedave wrote: »

Religion has given us some good tunes

Indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Actually. It gave us the entire Life of Brian too!

wp_rathead

Without- no inspiration for Fr Ted

jank

A fairly easy question to answer yourself. Would a world without religion be perfect? No, it would not, therefore religion cannot be blamed for all the ills of the earth. People do bad things to each other, yet I never hear that we should ban people!

Then of course one can look at atheist societies and see that they were far from a utopia.

Sarky

jank wrote: »

Then of course one can look at atheist societies and see that they were far from a utopia.

Oh for the love of Bog. And around and around we go.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

A fairly easy question to answer yourself. Would a world without religion be perfect? No, it would not, therefore religion cannot be blamed for all the ills of the earth. People do bad things to each other, yet I never hear that we should ban people!

Then of course one can look at atheist societies and see that they were far from a utopia.

Hear Hear!!

People have fallen off cliffs. Let's ban cliffs. / looks for pitchfork.

(I never liked the Cliffs of Moher anyway)

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

A fairly easy question to answer yourself. Would a world without religion be perfect? No, it would not, therefore religion cannot be blamed for all the ills of the earth.

Do I hear the sound of butting in? It's gotta be Jank. A&A's answer to a question no one asked.

Seriously. Read the title of the thread at least.

Dades

Seriously, jank. A complete straw man about "banning religion" and a mention of "atheistic societies" (no doubt of the Stalinesque kind) in one short post?

That's poor even in relation to some of your previous interjections.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Would a world without religion be perfect? No, it would not, therefore religion cannot be blamed for all the ills of the earth.

Would that man have lived forever? No, he would not, therefore I can't be arrested for stabbing him 37 times in the heart.

wp_rathead

Penn wrote: »

Would that man have lived forever? No, he would not, therefore I can't be arrested for stabbing him 37 times in the heart.

seems like sound logic to me

*puts on Swedish House Mafia*

:pac:

Kooli

I think religion can do a really good job of creating a sense of community for some people.
This can be for people in general, but also for groups who are at risk of marginalisation. Elderly people, immigrants, the slightly 'weird' members of the community (not bad weird, just strange). And in places with a really good parish priest, then you have a person who anyone in the community can knock in on and have a chat and a cuppa, and that's pretty cool.

It can provide a place of community and prevent isolation, and I can't see any secular organisation that does this in the same way.

equivariant

I like some churches.

Also, despite the saying, the devil did not get all the best tunes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d88xIIRDI9U

Bloodwing

Take a look at the intelligence squared debate on youtube. The topic is "is the catholic church a force for good in the world". In fairness the debaters for the argument were very poor and they were up against some heavy hitters on the other side but a lot of the usual arguments were put forward and the audience poll at the end was fairly interesting.

seamus

I think it's a bit too general of a question to come up with any good yes or nos on it.

If you were to ask on balance whether religion is overall good or bad for the present world, I think it would be fair to say that on balance, religion causes more suffering worldwide through war, violence and hatred than any non-religious causes. That's not to say that without religion man would not be violent and hating, but religion in many cases provides motivation and justification for such actions, which would not otherwise exist.

If you were to ask whether religion has historically been good or bad, that's a much harder question to answer. We're all familiar with the funny "hole left by the Dark Ages" graph, but it's probably a little unfair. A lot of our current scientific knowledge was gathered by religious people and funded by religious orders. Many of the major breakthroughs which have led us to where we are now were as a result of people wanting to explore the wonder of "God's creation". Galilean persecution aside, science generally doesn't conflict with the bible on the small things, only the big things, like geocentric universes and the value of PI.
In fact, it could be argued that religion was the "first" evolution of science. As an attempt to explain the world around us, religion used guesswork and rough correlations to devise theories and put them down on paper. When you don't even have simple mathematics, that's probably about the best you can do.
The emergence of science then is a slow process as more facts are gathered and religious doctrine altered to suit these facts, and religion looks to verify its doctrine, spawning science and nuturing it. Evolution, until eventually science and religion are in conflict and competing.
Would science have ever existed without religion? There's a question. Could we have gone from no knowledge at all, to the scientific method? Or does it require that someone has made that intermediate leap to try and explain things by guesswork to fill in the blanks. A bit like having a Sudoku grid with a million squares and only five numbers filled in. If you want to progress, eventually you'll just have to start writing random numbers into squares and then sort it out later.

Kooli

seamus wrote: »

I think it's a bit too general of a question to come up with any good yes or nos on it.

If you were to ask on balance whether religion is overall good or bad for the present world, I think ....

But why replace this question (is there anything good) with a different question (is it good overall). They are such completely different questions, and I don't think atheists are good at answering the 'is there anything good' question.
It's like we're afraid to concede any ground, so answering the other question is much easier.

And I don't agree that the title question is 'too general'. Quite the opposite - it's a question about specifics, but people are replacing it with a general question that they can just answer with their general worldview

Penn

Kooli wrote: »

And I don't agree that the title question is 'too general'. Quite the opposite - it's a question about specifics, but people are replacing it with a general question that they can just answer with their general worldview

It's extremely difficult to get into specifics because "anything" is too absolute, "religion" is a huge topic and "good" is subjective.

Billions of people worldwide believe in various religious to varying degrees and it means something different to pretty much much everybody. Not to mention that it's impossible to know what would have happened without religion.

Kooli

Penn wrote: »

It's extremely difficult to get into specifics because "anything" is too absolute, "religion" is a huge topic and "good" is subjective.

Billions of people worldwide believe in various religious to varying degrees and it means something different to pretty much much everybody. Not to mention that it's impossible to know what would have happened without religion.

Anything is too absolute? I'm not really sure what that means. Would the word 'anything' stop anyone answering a question about the hazards of religion?

Religion is a huge topic? Yes. Again, I don't see why that would stop people answering what would come to mind for them based on their personal experience or their readings or thinkings about a topic that seems to interest them a lot.

'Good' is Subjective? Of course it's subjective. Does that mean people can't answer it? What's wrong with giving a subjective answer?

I just hate to see atheists tying themselves in semantic knots to avoid answering what is a very simple question. It seems intellectually disingenous.

The question "is there anything that's bad about religion?" has all the same linguistic traps, but I wager people would be happy to have a stab at the answer.

Penn

Kooli wrote: »

Anything is too absolute? I'm not really sure what that means. Would the word 'anything' stop anyone answering a question about the hazards of religion?

Religion is a huge topic? Yes. Again, I don't see why that would stop people answering what would come to mind for them based on their personal experience or their readings or thinkings about a topic that seems to interest them a lot.

Subjective? Of course it's subjective. The meaning of the word isn't - well all know what it means. Does that mean people can't answer it? What's wrong with giving a subjective answer?

I just hate to see atheists tying themselves in semantic knots to avoid answering what is a very simple question. It seems intellectually disingenous.

The question is there 'anything' that's 'bad' about 'religion' has all the same semantic traps, but people would be happy to have a stab at the answer.

Actually, you're right, "absolute" was bad phrasing on my part. What I mean is that "anything" is literally that; anything. It's not a specific question, it's general.

And I don't think anyone here has tried to avoid answering the question at all. Many people have answered about music, art, churches, the role of priest in the community, the hope and reassurance religion can bring etc. But again, it's asking for "anything" "at all" about a wide-reaching topic from a subjective viewpoint. It's not a simple question to answer. I suppose with the way the question is phrased in the thread title, I personally tried to not give a subjective answer and speak about religion as a concept.

biko

Christmas music

New_Flash

I'm not at all religious but I'm quite fond of St. Stephen. On a sunny day one can stroll through his Green and enjoy the sights & on his feast day we can enjoy the glory that is the Turkey, Ham & stuffing sangwidge.

Real Life

It has given us some great art and architecture and also many laughs

Gregor Samsa

No doubt there are lots of good things about religion. But I don't think there's anything exclusively good about it. That's to say, I don't think it provides for any merits that could not be (and are not) provided without it. In terms of "good", religion simply isn't necessary. So any good things about it are a fortunate bonus, as opposed to a critical justification for its continued existence.

Undergod

Theists are happier, apparently. Having a common religion can be good to unite a community.

Has zero impact on whether it's true, of course.

branie

IHCPT pilgrimages to Lourdes at Easter

endacl

I've said it before and I'll say it again......

Creme eggs and pancakes. I can't think of any more, and I don't know if these two alone can balance out all the cr4p caused by religion, but they get my endorsement.

Kooli

phutyle wrote: »

No doubt there are lots of good things about religion. But I don't think there's anything exclusively good about it. That's to say, I don't think it provides for any merits that could not be (and are not) provided without it. In terms of "good", religion simply isn't necessary. So any good things about it are a fortunate bonus, as opposed to a critical justification for its continued existence.

I'm not sure there is yet a secular replacement for the 'community' role the church plays. A central place where all ages and types are welcomed and can even play an active role. A person who is available for a chat with anyone any time.
Where would the 70 year old with no kids or family find a sense of community?
Where would the African immigrant who knows no one find a sense of community?
Where would the slightly weird but harmless neighbour find a community where he can belong and help out etc?

I'm not saying at all these are justifications for the continued power and presence of the church. Not at all. But I would like to consider what communities might be losing if they do lose the church, and how communities can then respond to their vulnerable members.

endacl

Kooli wrote: »

phutyle wrote: »

No doubt there are lots of good things about religion. But I don't think there's anything exclusively good about it. That's to say, I don't think it provides for any merits that could not be (and are not) provided without it. In terms of "good", religion simply isn't necessary. So any good things about it are a fortunate bonus, as opposed to a critical justification for its continued existence.

I'm not sure there is yet a secular replacement for the 'community' role the church plays. A central place where all ages and types are welcomed and can even play an active role. A person who is available for a chat with anyone any time.
Where would the 70 year old with no kids or family find a sense of community?
Where would the African immigrant who knows no one find a sense of community?
Where would the slightly weird but harmless neighbour find a community where he can belong and help out etc?

I'm not saying at all these are justifications for the continued power and presence of the church. Not at all. But I would like to consider what communities might be losing if they do lose the church, and how communities can then respond to their vulnerable members.

With weekly attendances at mass down to 2% in some parishes, you're really talking about tiny fractions of communities. Or do they organise at the midnight mass each saturnalia? The communal good argument is, for better or worse, largely moot in urban areas. Alive and well out in the shticks, in my experience, but has a lot more to do with neighbourliness and general decency. Which don't require religion.

Gregor Samsa

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure there is yet a secular replacement for the 'community' role the church plays. A central place where all ages and types are welcomed and can even play an active role. A person who is available for a chat with anyone any time.
Where would the 70 year old with no kids or family find a sense of community?
Where would the African immigrant who knows no one find a sense of community?
Where would the slightly weird but harmless neighbour find a community where he can belong and help out etc?

I'm not saying at all these are justifications for the continued power and presence of the church. Not at all. But I would like to consider what communities might be losing if they do lose the church, and how communities can then respond to their vulnerable members.

There's hundreds, if not thousands, of sporting and social organizations that can, and do, provide a sense of community to a huge variety of people. I'm sure you'll find some specific people that they won't necessarily work for, but you'll find many people that a church won't work for either. Me, for instance. The notion that "the church" provides something completely universal and irreplaceable is a fiction.

What if that immigrant, "slightly weird but harmless neighbour" or the 70 year old is an atheist? Or even just not particularly interested in religion? The won't really find a community where he can belong in a church, will they? Unless they change their view to become compatible with the church in question. There's no denying that churches provide a sense of community to their members, but there's an assumption in your examples that the type of people you cite are compatible with the community the church in question provides, and I don't think that assumption is valid.

A church provides a community for people who are disposed to its aims and character - just like any other organisation. While this may indeed be good, it's not an exclusive good that can not, or is not, replicated outside of it.

kylith

biko wrote: »

Christmas music

If I were to say that there's a bad side to atheism it's that it's stolen the joy of that music from me. I used to sing in my local church choir until I was 18 (as part of my parents' 'while you live in our house, you'll go to mass' rule). Since leaving the RCC I can no longer bring myself to sing the hymns because they are pretty much uniformly worship/adoration/supplication in theme, and I will not say those words, even in a song.

If I were to pick one good thing about religion it's that it gave Gregor Mendel somewhere that he could work with his peas.

Kooli

phutyle wrote: »

What if that immigrant, "slightly weird but harmless neighbour" or the 70 year old is an atheist? Or even just not particularly interested in religion? The won't really find a community where he can belong in a church, will they? Unless they change their view to become compatible with the church in question. There's no denying that churches provide a sense of community to their members, but there's an assumption in your examples that the type of people you cite are compatible with the community the church in question provides, and I don't think that assumption is valid.

A church provides a community for people who are disposed to its aims and character - just like any other organisation. While this may indeed be good, it's not an exclusive good that can not, or is not, replicated outside of it.

(in bold) yeah that's kind of the point that I was making. I don't think any other organisation has successfully managed to replicated the role a church can play in a community to reduce isolation, reach out to marginalised people and provide a sense of belonging.

I know you're saying it is replicated, and someone else said there are 'thousands' of organisations that do this, but I can't think of one that is as inclusive to different ages, genders, ethnicities, interests.

Gregor Samsa

Kooli wrote: »

I know you're saying it is replicated, and someone else said there are 'thousands' of organisations that do this, but I can't think of one that is as inclusive to different ages, genders, ethnicities, interests.

Any camera club, or GAA club (to give only two examples), is open and inclusive to different ages, genders and ethnicities. The only problematic criteria on the list would be interests, obviously. If you're not into photography, a camera club isn't going to provide you with a sense of community. But that applies to a church too. If you don't share your interests with that of the church, it's not going to be an attractive community to you. So I don't see the difference between the two at that level (there's obviously huge differences at other levels).

I think churches (specifically The Catholic Church in Ireland) is seen as a special case because it's so big, and has historically had such a large role to play in society. It's like some people can't see past it. Yet, many of us successfully live without it quite happily on a daily basis.

You're basically saying that you can't think of an organisation that has as many members as the CC. Maybe that's true (I don't know), but I don't see how it concerns the matter of "goodness" in any qualitative sense.

You describe the church as a place where "all ages and types are welcomed and can even play an active role". And I assume you're specially talking about the Catholic Church. All ages, maybe, but I don't think the church welcomes all types - certainly not as openly as you suggest. There are membership criteria (belief in many things that a lot of people find wholly unacceptable), and huge restrictions on the active participation of women in the organisation, to give just one obvious example. Or try being openly and actively gay in the CC, and see how far the sense of community goes.

Turtwig

phutyle wrote: »

No doubt there are lots of good things about religion. But I don't think there's anything exclusively good about it. That's to say, I don't think it provides for any merits that could not be (and are not) provided without it. In terms of "good", religion simply isn't necessary. So any good things about it are a fortunate bonus, as opposed to a critical justification for its continued existence.

Any study that looked at "happiness" and religion tended to be about how devout church goers were more likely to be happy and satisfied in their lives. One could use that as a weak argument to say religious people are happy and contented more than irreligious people but to make such an argument would be to ignore the fact that people who are able to attend church weekly likely don't have as many issues, for example illness, as people who can't attend it weekly. So really, the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is that people who are content and satisfied with their lives are more likely to regularly attend church.

Kooli

phutyle wrote: »

Any camera club, or GAA club (to give only two examples), is open and inclusive to different ages, genders and ethnicities. The only problematic criteria on the list would be interests, obviously. If you're not into photography, a camera club isn't going to provide you with a sense of community. But that applies to a church too. If you don't share your interests with that of the church, it's not going to be an attractive community to you. So I don't see the difference between the two at that level (there's obviously huge differences at other levels).

I think churches (specifically The Catholic Church in Ireland) is seen as a special case because it's so big, and has historically had such a large role to play in society. It's like some people can't see past it. Yet, many of us successfully live without it quite happily on a daily basis.

You're basically saying that you can't think of an organisation that has as many members as the CC. Maybe that's true (I don't know), but I don't see how it concerns the matter of "goodness" in any qualitative sense.

Yeah the interests thing will be a barrier. You may say the interests would exclude people from the church, but I reckon if I was really lonely and marginalised I would still turn up just for a sense of belonging even if I wasn't particularly 'interested'. Or maybe I'd become interested as a result of coming along for the sense of community.
A weekly class in anything or a weekly match is never going to have the same reach as a parish community. And I think that's partly what has helped the church maintain its strength over the decades - because of the other benefits that go along with membership.

I know a lady who's retired and lives in Inchicore and is heavily involved in the church and gets loads out of it, so it's not just a rural thing. She also talks about how much it has helped young immigrant families to feel settled. Would it really be as useful for her or the African families to join a camera club?

Sarky

Every games convention I visit has an age range from 5-60ish (probably higher, I'm crap at telling age) and cares nothing for gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or anything like that. Act the dick and you'll be removed, simple enough. And way more fun than a church. Of course if you don't like games/fantasy/sci-fi/general looniness then they probably won't appeal to you. But there are plenty of other ways to belong to something that don't involve debasing yourself like a worthless pleb.

Gregor Samsa

Kooli wrote: »

She also talks about how much it has helped young immigrant families to feel settled. Would it really be as useful for her or the African families to join a camera club?

Why not, if they're interested in photography? If the camera club provides an outlet for their interests, they'll meet plenty of like minded people in a supportive social setting. Whether photography is of interest to many recently arrived Africa immigrants, well that's as different point. My point is that one size doesn't fit all, and that includes the church. Don't get bogged down in specific examples.

There's an African family in my estate. They're not Catholic, and they attend one of the churches on our town with a mainly African congregation. But their kids all go to the local Gaelscoil, and play camogie. What could be more integrated than the sight I see of those kids out playing hurling on the green in our estate with all the ethnically Irish kids?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure there is yet a secular replacement for the 'community' role the church plays. A central place where all ages and types are welcomed and can even play an active role. A person who is available for a chat with anyone any time.
Where would the 70 year old with no kids or family find a sense of community?
Where would the African immigrant who knows no one find a sense of community?
Where would the slightly weird but harmless neighbour find a community where he can belong and help out etc?

Boards.ie?

Heres Your Future

Kind of a strange question if a serious one. I would have thought it was fairly obvious that there are good things about religion just as there are bad things about it.

Religion and being a member of a church provides a sense of community and support.
Religious people tend to live longer than non religious people (possibly related to the above)
Religious people tend to score higher on measures of happiness than non religious people.
Great art, music, literature and architecture.
Most religions promote charity as a worthy aspiration, many religious charities.
Religion provides a moral code by which to live your life, if everybody (whether religious or not) obeyed the golden rule 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' then the world would probably be a nicer place to live in for everybody.

One could go on, not that it matters much either way.

gothictwilight

"Anything good about religion at all?"

Yes.

fitz0

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Religious people tend to live longer than non religious people (possibly related to the above)
Religious people tend to score higher on measures of happiness than non religious people.

Link?

gothictwilight

religious people have natural rhythm.
They can also do the Vulcan hand greeting thing.
Religious people also tend to make better cobblers

Jellicoe

From the BBC religions site

Under the Atheism section :

The good

Most atheists willingly concede there are some good things about religion, such as:

Religious art and music
Religious charities and good works
Much religious wisdom and scripture
Human fellowship and togetherness

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

Liamario

Penn wrote: »

Would that man have lived forever? No, he would not, therefore I can't be arrested for stabbing him 37 times in the heart.

F**king snap!!!
Jenga!
Bingo!
Yahtzee!

Turtwig

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Religious people tend to live longer than non religious people (possibly related to the above)
Religious people tend to score higher on measures of happiness than non religious people.

These studies tend to categorise religious people as regular church goers which is a bit self defeating. If you're able to regularly attend church and other practices then odds are you're not having seriously impacting personal issues in the first place. So yeah, d'uh, that group would tend to live longer than those who can't regularly attend such services.

Sarky

gothictwilight wrote: »

religious people have natural rhythm.

Ahahahahahahahahahaa.

Mickeroo

Ah here, everyone knows heathens make the best music.