This weekend I sat in the National Cathedral and listened to a performance of Handel's Messiah. You can question the worth of that experience, but it is a combination of things that would not exist without religion or religious influence. The cathedral form would not exist in architecture. Handel would have arguably written other oratorios, but not that one.
________
Launch box
Last edited by Two Sheds; 02-25-2011 at 07:03 PM.
I think it's disingenuous to imply that we wouldn't have nice things without religion. I know you didn't say that directly but it seems pretty clear that if we didn't have the stuff that religion created or funded, we would have other things to replace them.
I couldn't sleep thinking that I only focused on Christian art, so....
More examples of beauty courtesy of religion.
In fact, there was some kid's book on Kachinas that I saw as a kid that has forever left me in awe of Kachina artwork. I've always thought that it's some of the most beautiful religious iconography in existence.
The basic question, I think, would depend on what is defined as "religion".
Any kind of faith in concepts not attributable to verifiable science? Humanity as a whole needs that, whether it comes from a faith-based belief in an idyllic afterlife, or a sense of peace attained from a personal belief in reincarnation and karma, or happiness through the intellectual superiority of believing in superstring theory. All things that have no real-world everyday-life provable validity, but the fact that these things enrich the lives of some people is undeniable.
Any argument about "religion" inevitably falls into the same trap as arguments about "government" - it's the flaw of synecdoche where the collective is used to define the individual and vice versa. The claim that "religion is responsible for all these bad/good things" is unprovable because the only verifiable data comes down to choices made by individuals. Some one - a person, not a concept or organization - had to make the decision to spur on the Crusades, or build the Parthenon, or interpret their particular scripture in a particular manner.
What I think is meant by "religion" in the initial question would be better stated as: "Would society be better if people based their decisions entirely off individual rationalization and observation instead of the collectively-accepted faith-based traditions of a group?"
Unquestionably, yes.
Society would also be better if we could eradicate viruses with the power of thought and create food and shelter from nothingness. But that too is a utopian impossibility.
People on an individual level, I believe, use the institution of religion for the end goal of feeling good. Your job might suck and you might be worried at the state of the world, but if your faith leads you to believe that everything will eventually turn out for the positive, and that gives you happiness - the end result comes out on the plus side, as far as I'm considered.
This is an odd reading of what has merely been meant to be a refutation of the notion that religious has not given us anything at all that is positive.Originally Posted by WarrenM
Sorry, that's how it was reading to me from some people, "Look, without religion we wouldn't have had [insert thing here]!" I see the point that religion has helped create some beautiful works, but I think the negative far outweighs the positives, especially in the modern world.This is an odd reading of what has merely been meant to be a refutation of the notion that religious has not given us anything at all that is positive.
Do you mean all religion, or just everyone's favorite whipping boy, namely Christianity?
That argument goes both ways though. It's just as disingenuous to imply that we wouldn't done all the nasty things without religion.
Any religion that defers responsibility to a mythical being, really. If you can't tell, I'm a huge believer in science and facts.Do you mean all religion, or just everyone's favorite whipping boy, namely Christianity?
That's a fair point. Humans are generally inclined to do horrible things to each other. There's no way of knowing if there would have been more or less without religion but religion does seem to factor pretty heavily into the worst man-made incidences (plagues and such, notwithstanding).That argument goes both ways though. It's just as disingenuous to imply that we wouldn't done all the nasty things without religion.
We have had examples of atheistic countries. Maybe not perfectly, but massive attempts to suppress religion. Those examples are far from utopian.
But I dont think that says much about religion one way or another. I dont think religion is the problem or the solution. The problem is people, its human nature. Religion is just another tool men use to further their goals. When those goals are good religion is good, when those goals are bad religion is bad.
Just think, if not for Christians we could be living in space ships right now, exploring the galaxy, and each have a harem of robo-babes. :D
Heh, not exactly the most non-biased source for that graphic, eh Wallapuctus?
Good thoughts, Kael.
Ummm...you can't blame the Dark Ages on Christianity. Damn. Christianity was about the main saving grace for most people in those times.
And is scientific advancement really the best/only metric for whether society is better?
That may be but I've heard the same thing. Basically, we threw away the advances the Romans had made and stalled out for a good long while before we reinvented the stuff that we already technically had.Heh, not exactly the most non-biased source for that graphic, eh Wallapuctus?
But what you're describing is conflict and an active attempt to suppress something that some people want. I'm talking about it not existing in the first place. That's a very different situation.We have had examples of atheistic countries. Maybe not perfectly, but massive attempts to suppress religion. Those examples are far from utopian.
I think what the chart is showing is that it was the Dark ages for Europe (which was Christian.) The rest of the world (well, the East and the Middle East) still had advanced sciences, particularly the Chinese, what with gunpowder and printing presses and all.
But I don't think that could ever have happened. Religion happened because people were looking for explanations for why there were volcanoes or why lightning shot out of the sky, and they started making religious art from the beginning, those cave paintings where they were trying to capture the spirits of their prey. That want, that yearning for an explanation for something beyond ourselves, is part of what makes us human.
"Hey! Christians! Where is my flying car?!?"
I say we blame the mublins for not pushing further than southern France and the Byzantines for leaving the old Western Roman Empire to it. See religion is bad, if either the eastern christian church or Islam had been that bothered about western europe instead of fighting each other we could have avoided the dark ages altogether.That may be but I've heard the same thing. Basically, we threw away the advances the Romans had made and stalled out for a good long while before we reinvented the stuff that we already technically had.
I know I'm describing something that really had no hope of happening but I like to dare to dream.But I don't think that could ever have happened. Religion happened because people were looking for explanations for why there were volcanoes or why lightning shot out of the sky, and they started making religious art from the beginning, those cave paintings where they were trying to capture the spirits of their prey. That want, that yearning for an explanation for something beyond ourselves, is part of what makes us human.
However, these days we have another avenue to explain these things. We know how a volcano works. We know what causes lightning. Science provides these answers. So religion doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond (a) allowing people to belong to a large group of like minded peers and (b) provides a security blanket so they don't have to accept that we're simply evolved organisms living on a floating rock in space.
Point (a) I think we could address in other ways, but I'm unclear on how to tackle point (b). If people need that, then I don't know what can be done.
I guess what I wish for is more personal responsibility and thinking rather than the closing of eyes and singing of hymns.
You might want to read up on the abolitionists a bit. Particularly William Wilberforce.
I'm not religious, but I can see the draw in religion. It's pretty fucking depressing if you think that when you die that's it. The lights go off and you cease to exist. The belief that there's something 'better' waiting for you or hell, just something at all, is really comforting to people.
Never mind religion inspires a great amount of hope. It's comforting to think there's a 'plan' and that everything isn't just accidental. I think you're doing a disservice to the argument if you're discounting these things.
Religion just paid for it to be made. Religion didn't make it. Great art comes from the artist, not the commissioner.
Then why is Christian rock so terrible?
Christian Side Hug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw
I see a lot of interesting points being made on the general issue of the good things religion could theoretically offer but is anyone willing to proffer a pro-religion alternative reason for why there is such a strong correlation between religious sentiment and human misery at a societal level?
The correlation would seem to undermine the effect of religion as a force to do good; reducing it to the level of something like a safety blanket. If it offers no real solutions to your problems, then wouldn't societies be better off and happier facing up to them rather than praying away the day?
The only thing I can think of is a; 'religion is the symptom, but not the cause' type of argument, but that doesn't particularly show religion in a good light either. Are there any other potential explanations? Perhaps one could argue that without the increased religiosity some societies would be so fragile that they would just collapse all together? Religion as defence mechanism against a deeply damaged society?
I hate this shit because I can never tell if it's a parody or not.
...and sometimes the religious art is made by religious artists.
I don't think you realize how much you sound like a fundamentalist railing against the gays who all cross dress, wear leather pants and have anonymous unprotected sex in public restrooms across the street from schools, what use are they to society?
Next you'll be backpedaling saying "But I have religious friends! They aren't like those other ones!"
Linoleum, I already tried to point that out.
And now, for more religious art!
What are you basing this correlation on? Happiness surveys? Historical societies? I'd be interesting in reading the study on how they define misery and religious sentiment. Is misery based on polls or macro societal indicators like poverty/mortality?
I don't know if I'd see it like that. I personally link human misery at a societal level more with money and economics than I do with religion. To me, religion is offering people a reason to not just throw up their hands and commit suicide when things go badly (the Church in the Dark Ages had some key thoughts on this). Or a reason to not just go out and do whatever you want cause hey, nothing counts in the end! This is it, might as well live it up, etc. etc. People who honestly believe in their religion of choice do think prayer is a real solution to their problems. It reduces stress. It causes miracles to happen. That you or I don't believe in such a thing doesn't mean that they don't. And because of this it becomes a very real solution and something to turn to in times of grief.
I think the argument could be made that without religion, it's possible apathy would be far more common than it already is. Would people be less inclined to give to the needy/help their fellow neighbor if they didn't think there would be a 'reward' of living beyond death? And for those charities that do good works like building schools or helping the poor, I'm not sure you can say they aren't a very real solution for those people in need. While you can probably argue that people will do good things for other reasons, I'd be inclined to say people will always find a reason to go to war against each other that has nothing to do with religion too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
