Is religion good or bad for human society? (Islamic, Muslims, bible)

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I think morality can be gleaned outside religion, but that morality predates religion is a hypothesis that is not provable by the record. The closest we can come is observing some kind of morality in apes.

Do you believe in evolution? I originally got the feeling that you didn't, but your latter sentence makes me wonder. I will try not to assume your beliefs, but to say that if you believe that morality can be observed in apes, then I would ask you when you believe religion was conceived and I think you've rather answered your own question.

Religion/supernatural/deities is a rather complex thought that I think most would consider that only humans could attain. I think, therefore I am...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

If you don't already believe in evolution, there isn't a whole lot we can discuss because there is a fundamental difference in the way each of us see the world, and I'll allow that we can agree to disagree, and disagree I will.

But try to understand that morality isn't some complex behavioral examination that takes deep thought. Society dictates what is appropriate and what isn't, and for someone to think this is a modern phenomena is in my opinion, quite short-sighted.

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Steven Weinberg argument, problem is human psychology may not work this way. Religious groups do generally have more success at treating drug or alcohol addiction than irreligious. It is not clear why, even with empathy, an atheist would say risk their life for a stranger. And things like Gallup indicate that indeed atheists are less likely to help strangers or engage in generosity.

Load of crap alert. A) A gallup poll where 1,000 Americans are polled as to their thoughts on social behavior is hardly scientific and worth anything more than me throwing up a little bit in my mouth. You appear to rather distaste those who don't believe in God. Whereas I take the stance that humans would redirect the positive energy they put in to society in the name of religion, you take the stance that simply those who don't believe in God aren't as moral. This is exactly the type of thought process I wish to break Americans of because it's simply not true.

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

The highest-end estimate I heard for Catholicism was three million deaths in 19 centuries. (This was an old source) That is an almost absurdly high claim nearly impossible to justify, but it's still less than extreme Nationalism did in a few decades of the last century. Same with Marxism.

People will find something to encourage them to kill, rape, etc. We see this behavior even in apes. That you think man needs religion for this, or that religion even makes him do it more than normal, implies a rosy view of humanity that is a bit hard to deem credible.

A few issues with your thought process:

1. Do you mean 3 million at the hands of Catholics alone or Religion alone? If the latter, it isn't absurdly high, but absurdly, absurdly low. Consider your source and I would recommend a new one if they apply the latter.

2. I don't know if you misread me, but I am by no means implying some sort of utopia without religion. Just as religion has little affect on morality, so too does it have little to do with immorality. With or without religion, we'd have just as much moral acts and good deeds, and nearly as much murder, rape, etc.

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc were often or even constantly challenging people. Religion contains a great element of self-improvement.

I would prefer not to use these figures. It's far too difficult to even prove the existence of Jesus Christ in order to use as a source. We can only talk about him as a literary figure, with whom we have to consider at this time, rather fictional.

I will agree with you, though, and give you an instance that I think of when I contemplate religion and self improvement and that is in early American history and the role that Protestantism played in growing literacy rates which were the highest in the world at the time. Obviously, as we know, Protestantism advocated for citizens to be able to read and understand the Bible for themselves. Regardless of it being also self-serving, it DID provide a societal positive for many.

I think you're assuming that I hold the opinion that religion has done zero good things in history. Nay, I just hold the opinion that if weighed together, there is more harm done than good.

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

amazing you have explained away 40 years of change in k12 from yes maem and cleaning black boards to teacher gang rapes in the stair wells and teacher stabbings. btw same period as prayer ban.
hey can we hire you for global warming and recession?

Also same period that "under God" was illegally inserted into the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" was forced onto our money and replaced our legitimate national motto..

Perhaps trusting in your God is the cause of these ills you describe.

[Chango]

Only the two extremes think this is a yes or no question. The truth is it can and IS both good and bad.

The world is not black or white, only many different shades of gray.

[Lamplight]

I hate to vote simply "yes" or "no" on an issue like this. But I voted "no", because I think overall religion has done more harm than good. However, I do believe religion has done plenty of good, too. I'm just not sure it outweighs the bad, IMO. Perhaps if I grew up and lived in an area where almost every Christian wasn't a rabid fundamentalist/conspiracy theorist , I may have voted differently.

[Jazzymom]

Religion can be both good and bad. It can become destructive when it adheres to the belief of the exclusive rightness of a particular religion. Religion becomes dangerous when it attaches itself to politics. Religion can become dangerous when people are not educated or knowledgable about their faith.

Religion has the ability to do great good in the name of religion or great bad and its proven all through history. I don't think a world without religion would be free of violence. I think its not only religion, I think that the tendency towards violence is something inate in humanity. The difference is with people.

[Bud235]

True, it's not a clear cut black-white issue. Religion, like anything else, can be both good and bad.

However, if one has to decide whether religion is good or bad overall, the answer clearly is: "religion is bad." -- it has been confirmed by the majority of people here (about 80% so far).

With that said, the majority of people here holds an alliance position with atheists in evaluating religion.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

A) We're a far more religious society than a non-religious society.

True. Well "far more" might be overstating it a tad, we're not India or Guatemala, but basically true anyway

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

B) The prison population in the United States is roughly 80-85% Christian.

Not particularly surprising considering we're 76% Christian and were more Christian than that when the study of prison population took place. Christians are possibly a bit overrepresented due to the advantage for prisoners in claiming religion and the poor being more Christian on average.

The study on prisoners did not separate Protestants by group. It certainly seems possible some Protestant denominations are underrepresented. Catholics are not underrepresented, possibly because Latinos still tend to be largely Catholic and in economic situations linked to higher crime rates. They did not separate Catholics by race or ethnicity. Whether White or Asian Catholics are overrepresented is therefore uncertain.

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

C) Crime trends, including murder rates for this decade are actually on the down-swing.

On the downswing compared to the 1980s and 1960s. Homicide rates from 1950 to 1964 were below that of 1998-2005. Some explain this by under-reporting in the 1950s, which might be valid but I don't know. In any event 1950-1964 was generally a more religious period than now.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm - broken link)

I am not saying here what you might think. The recent decline in murder and crime is not due to some revival in religion. The older decline in crime might not have anything to do with religion either. In both cases it's likely issues of economics, law-enforcement, and family structure. However I feel you are imply a highly religious society is necessarily or inevitably more criminal and if so your conclusion is erroneous.

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

D) Far greater evidence suggests plenty of culprits, and none of them start with religion.

Although this may mean you're neither blaming nor crediting religion for crime rates, which is fair.

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

Do you believe in evolution? I originally got the feeling that you didn't, but your latter sentence makes me wonder.

I don't know where you got the feeling I didn't believe in evolution. The closest I can think of is if I said that I don't believe in evolution because it's not a belief system, but that I simply accept it.

I respect Christians who have difficulty believing in evolution as death is seen as starting with original sin, but I don't think the difficulty is unmanageable. The only parts of evolution that sometimes bothered me was ape-to-man and the start of the first single-celled lifeforms. I still think the start of life is presented to students as more fully understood than it is in reality. This doesn't mean I think it has to be supernatural in a literal sense. I'm just thinking many ideas are still on the table, including maybe some meteor or something providing necessary stimulus as in Hoyle's ideas. But yes I accept evolution, even if I criticize how it's taught at times or the conclusions people draw from it.

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

I will try not to assume your beliefs, but to say that if you believe that morality can be observed in apes, then I would ask you when you believe religion was conceived and I think you've rather answered your own question.

If what we observe in apes is truly morality, I said "some kind of morality", than I suppose it predates religion. I'm just uncertain that what apes do is genuinely morality. Certainly there is no evidence of any moral code before religion.

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

You appear to rather distaste those who don't believe in God.

I concede it appears that way from discussions here, but in discussions it is sometimes necessary to put things in starker fashion than is actual and also not all atheists represent the kind of militant atheism I'm reacting against.

Harriet McBryde Johnson was an atheist I consider quite admirable, if maybe a tad more provocative than I normally like. (Provocative on disability rights, not atheism. Atheism was not the main thing she was known for and I admit atheists who have some other quality of interest tend to be the ones I like)

Humanist Network News Ezine Archives

For that matter there are several people honored by the American Humanists who I think are good and admirable people. Although I don't admire him as a person, Isaac Asimov is possibly my favorite author to this day. Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, George Orwell, Linus Pauling, and even Julia Sweeney all strike me as neat people. Julia Sweeney I guess won some "Richard Dawkins Award" but generally I find her criticisms of religion to be thoughtful and not so hostile. I remember she said in one of her shows that there were things in her Catholic childhood that were beautiful, but that there was also too much frightening imagery and in a way I understand where she's coming from there. I think there are frightening realities even kids have to face, and that a parent can be too overprotective, but if I have children I might not emphasize that element as much as some do.

And this is getting too long so I'll stop here for now.

[tgnostic]

Religion is always extra and positive to the "BAD" society as was reasoned for this poll and discussion. But take the quote from Krishnamurti:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

It seems the doctors could help us more than the religious clerics and ministers of wisdom, but I still count on the priest or rabbi, or cleric again (I guess) to straighten me out on the direction for a better world (yes, of people in it).

[tgnostic]

Bad example then for the more bureaucratic types of people. A doctor could actually substitute for religion as the person as the one to adjust to the appropriate ways of behaviour.

The logic I wish to grace is that I still do ask what is the measure of Badness in a substantially successful society?

[sarahkate_m]

I didn't vote.

If religion brings peace or positive energy to a person, it's good. Especially if it is self evident that the person is at peace & doing good work.

If the word religion is related to the word "align" then anyone, even an atheist could be considered, in a narrow context, religious. If one aligns oneself with peaceful intentions & strives to good in the world, then one's religion could be an alignment with peace. Just a thought!