Does Religion benefit?

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't think it was said, but religion helps the elderly a great deal. For many, approaching the end is frightening and confusing. When a religion provides an answer or an extension (afterlife), I think it helps them cope with what is probably an incomprehensible finality.

[magekillr]

Couldn't tell you if it's been an "overall" helping hand, but now that it's here I certainly do NOT want it to go away.

 

 

 

There's a reason churches are tax exempt...they do a lot of charity work, they're great for community organizing, etc.

 

 

 

Besides, if not religion, it'd be another form of "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to war. People do that with illegal immigrants all of the time currently. The problem isn't religion, it's how people extend the religion.

 

 

 

edit: You people blaming terrorism on religion SERIOUSLY need to know WHY there is terrorism in the world. While it's "true"? that "terrorism" has been around for a while, what we know as "terrorism" today is fairly recent. Religion might help with recruitment, but it's certainly not the cause, or even the main method for recruitment.

[Barihawk]

I do love you sometimes, Barihawk. I haven't the patience to make any real argument in this thread though.

 

 

 

All I will say is that people toss that Marx quote around out of context. The full line, which is from the introduction to a critique of Hegel, should read "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The difference is subtle when you read it in context, but it's really annoying when people throw that little fragment in as their two cents.

 

 

 

See, that's a great quote because it's much more educated and explains itself in itself. It comes across as being intellectual and educated. Not to mention, it's not all that much an insult against religion as it is the truth.

 

 

 

I've been trying to stay out of this uneducated inexperienced hogwash that this forum presents as "scientific discussion" but some of the turds of a post in this thread required me to step in. I'm sorry if that makes me sound arrogant, but as a scientist and quite frankly in the top 6% of educated Americans I feel I need to step in and start some fun discussion. At the very least give some harsh lessons in reality. :P

[lobsta]

 

edit: You people blaming terrorism on religion SERIOUSLY need to know WHY there is terrorism in the world. While it's "true"? that "terrorism" has been around for a while, what we know as "terrorism" today is fairly recent. Religion might help with recruitment, but it's certainly not the cause, or even the main method for recruitment.

 

 

 

I mean this not to be provocative, Im just curious to know your view point. You know that some religious fundamentalist are so deluded that they actually believe they are in a battle between good and evil. Religion is what motivates people to blow themselves up, because they believe they will be met by virgins in heaven (spare a thought for them!) Unfortunately, religion is motivating people to do terrible things. Certainly it could be said that there are terrorists who are not motivated by religious morals, sadly it is so, that the majority are.

[Flyingjj]

In regards to religion being a bad thing, I think a distinction needs to be made between a justification and a reason.

 

 

 

Religion has certainly been used as the justification for violent acts, but it is rarely, if ever, the cause/reason for it.

[Barihawk]

 

edit: You people blaming terrorism on religion SERIOUSLY need to know WHY there is terrorism in the world. While it's "true"? that "terrorism" has been around for a while, what we know as "terrorism" today is fairly recent. Religion might help with recruitment, but it's certainly not the cause, or even the main method for recruitment.

 

 

 

I mean this not to be provocative, Im just curious to know your view point. You know that some religious fundamentalist are so deluded that they actually believe they are in a battle between good and evil. Religion is what motivates people to blow themselves up, because they believe they will be met by virgins in heaven (spare a thought for them!) Unfortunately, religion is motivating people to do terrible things. Certainly it could be said that there are terrorists who are not motivated by religious morals, sadly it is so, that the majority are.

 

 

 

Actually, I'd say that the mast majority of terrorists are motivated by greed, mostly monetary. You are lumping all terrorists into Jihadists when that is simply not true. Even in that case, the leaders are making craptons of money for their own benefits at the cost of using people to go blow themselves up. Terrorism is about using terror to achieve a goal. It's been around for a very long time.

 

 

 

But nobody discusses the IRA, Ulster, the Basques, Libyan Nationalist Front, Khmer Rouge, Vietcong, or other groups because after 9/11 the concept of terrorist shifted from that of an educated, trained, and armed mercenary into a misguided religious zealot with a bomb on his chest.

 

 

 

The true terrorists are those in power who use fear to manipulate events. Abdul the farmboy with a C4 waistcoat is not a terrorist. As far as the real terrorists are concerned he's just a human bomb and just as manipulatable as an inert non-living hunk of metal. Just certainly more useful.

 

 

 

There is no "majority" of religious terrorists. They've simply stolen the limelight away from other groups that have operated for the last hundred years.

 

 

 

 

Religion has certainly been used as the justification for violent acts, but it is rarely, if ever, the cause/reason for it.

 

 

 

This man is blessed with a brain and the ability to use it. Most people have to trade one for the other.

[venomai]

I don't think it was said, but religion helps the elderly a great deal. For many, approaching the end is frightening and confusing. When a religion provides an answer or an extension (afterlife), I think it helps them cope with what is probably an incomprehensible finality.

 

The same benefits can be had from looser and more secular spiritual beliefs. These are benefits that seem to arise due to belief in God and/or the afterlife, rather than, say, belief in Jesus as our saviour.

 

 

 

I assume this is directed at Christianity/Judaism, in which case you are wrong.

 

I am not referring to any particular religion in its entirety, but rather certain sects and certain interpretations of certain religions. (It's hard not to generalize when "religion" encompasses so many widely different beliefs.)

 

 

 

I am not trying to stereotype "all Christians" to right-wing gay-haters. Rather, I'm suggesting that many (but not all) religious people are taught to fix certain religious beliefs as absolutely true. In certain Christian sects, this could be a fixed belief in God, the virgin birth, the efficacy of prayer, angels, creationism, etc.

[magekillr]

 

edit: You people blaming terrorism on religion SERIOUSLY need to know WHY there is terrorism in the world. While it's "true"? that "terrorism" has been around for a while, what we know as "terrorism" today is fairly recent. Religion might help with recruitment, but it's certainly not the cause, or even the main method for recruitment.

 

 

 

I mean this not to be provocative, Im just curious to know your view point. You know that some religious fundamentalist are so deluded that they actually believe they are in a battle between good and evil. Religion is what motivates people to blow themselves up, because they believe they will be met by virgins in heaven (spare a thought for them!) Unfortunately, religion is motivating people to do terrible things. Certainly it could be said that there are terrorists who are not motivated by religious morals, sadly it is so, that the majority are.

 

 

 

Sure, I'll tell you why there are terrorists. Before I do, let me reiterate: religion does have some impact, but only because of their leaders, and if the other problems that cause terrorism were solved, their leaders couldn't use religion at all.

 

 

 

First, I'll address Muslim terrorism in what seems to be a "War on Jews".

 

 

 

If you study Arabia during the time that Islam was spreading, you might have a better understanding of the origins of Islam, and what it is actually about, and at the most important timetime of its revelation, its purest form. Looking at radical Islam today (which is essentially a bastardization of the religion), and tying it to the religion of Islam is mistaking the driver for the car. Its trying to understand a holy book from the 7th Century, by taking the word of strict constructionists who have nothing in common with the religions values or teachings, and also reading the context of when it was written to apply to modern situations and political problems.

 

 

 

The pre-Islamic period in Arabia was known as jahiliyyah (translated as time of ignorance or time of irascibility) which refers to the need of Arabians to retaliate and violence against enemies and non-enemies alike. This was ingrained in their culture, even new converts to Islam could not shed this psyche immediately. It is probably for this reason that the Quran emphasizes the concept of hilmto remain calm in the most difficult of circumstances, to not hit back when suffering injury, etc. This virtue also inspired the newly converted Muslims to take positive action: feed the hungry, liberate slaves, look after each other, etc. The point of all this is to understand that the psyche of Muslims was to counter-act the type of aggressive and violent practices that were present in pre-Islamic Arabia, not to promote them.

 

 

 

With respect to specific verses in the Quran, that at first glance, may seem anti-Semitic, one has to do three things, have a good translation, and understand the context and the great implications of the specific passage, and most importantly understand that in order to be a Muslim, it is imperative that you revere Moses and Jesus and have a pluralistic understanding of all 3 Abrahamic messengers.

 

 

 

First, a good translation is necessary because the Quran is not a text that can be read one verse at a time, translated literally, with the expectation that the translation will give a rigid law that must be followed (just like the you cant do with the Bible). It is like a poem, and literally means recitation and was meant to be recited aloud, so the symbolism and allegory could be appreciated. This is often lost in translation.

 

 

 

Second, context is important because revealed passages often referred to events taking place in a very unstable Arabia, with tribes fighting wars against each other. Context is also important because in the verses where the Quran is speaking about the Jews, it is referring not to the Jewish faith, or Jews forever on Earth, but tribes of Jews who had gone against the word of God, and who were not even true their own faith, or as people of the Book, because of political and tribal strife. Also, the Quran criticizes the Jews who specifically attacked Muslims in Arabia, mocked their faith, and were spiteful and abusive to new Muslims. Thus, criticism was directed against a specific group of people for their specific actions.

 

 

 

Also, you should also note that criticism of Jews is also frequent in the Bible, for similar reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

The causes of terrorism:

 

 

 

Its true that terrorism is a problem in extremist wings of Islam and its true that the cause of terrorism are not due simply to poverty, but it is a leading cause of recruiting young people to the cause, people who have nothing.

 

 

 

There are 3 main causes of terrorism, though these are not the only causes. The first is the warped ideology itself. It is a misinterpretation of the religion of Islam by those who use Islam as a justification for their evil acts. The second, is economic poverty of a country leading to the lack of educational opportunities for children, who are often the most vulnerable to religious extremism. The third cause is the lack of civil liberties and political rights in these nations (note: just because the first reason is the warped view of the religion does not mean it is the religion that's at fault. If you solve problems 2 and 3, there will be less and less recruitment until terrorists are nothing more than organizations like the KKK).

 

 

 

Extremism and violence in the name of Islam is a generally new phenomenon, a phenomenon of the late 20th and 21st centuries. It has been spearheaded by rigid, and many would argue, incorrect, interpretations of Islamic law. It is true that Muslims need to take back their hijacked religion, and this is an internal struggle in Islam that is far removed from our political solutions. But, what we can do as Americans is to build bridges with the many peaceful Muslims who live in our country today. American Muslims are a testament to and an example to Muslims all over the world that America is a country that treats all its citizens equally and allows its citizens to practice their faith without the fear of persecution. There is no conflict between being both an American and a Muslim. We must back this up by upholding the civil liberties enshrined in our Constitution. These are values shared by both the American legacy of civil liberties, and true Islamic values that preach tolerance and respect for all human beings. If we infringe on these rights ourselves, our case to the world is weakened, and provides more justifications for the terrorists who take youngsters under their wings.

 

 

 

Poverty and lack of education create desperation, but in some areas of the world they also create terrorists, an alternative lifestyle for those who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. These young boys receive food and water, a place to sleep, and a purpose in their life when they are offered an educated at religious schools that teach an extremist and militant interpretation of Islam. The purpose is not a good one, but it is a purpose that gives them something to fight for. The world community needs to help these young men by giving them another alternative. We must not only invest in programs that promote well-balanced education, and that provide equal opportunities to both men and women in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we must make sure that we follow through to see that the money gets to where it is needed most and see that the intended results come to fruition. In Afghanistan today, there are stories of teachers who have not received their salaries for years, but continue to teach children in crumbled school houses. The teachers wonder if the United States, who freed them from the clutches of the Taliban, has forgotten them. They still wait for the aid money, but it is being redirected to building runways in bases for the Iraq occupation or for other war time costs. The children wonder if they will have to stop sharing one book among an entire class so that they can learn science or math. Forgetting the needs of these children of war and the promises that we made to the people of Afghanistan might prove disastrous and has probably made us more unsafe than before September 11th. We must get not abandon these children if we are to prevent them from being drawn into the clutches of extremist ideologies that teach hate and violence. We must not forget them a second time.

 

 

 

Finally, some may argue that if lack of education, poverty and despair are the causes of terrorism, then why do we often see terrorists who are highly educated and come from relatively well-off families? What motivates them? Terrorist groups must make their bases in impoverished nations where political rights and civil liberties are non-existent. And recruitment of even the well educated and financially stable citizens from countries that lack these basic rights follows quite easily. This is so because smothering protests, the right to assembly, and freedoms of expression gives rise to fanatic views. It is clear that when a voice is suppressed, communication through violent and illegal means may be the only way to make ones grievances heard.

 

 

 

It is our responsibility to understand the complex causes of terrorism. Fighting this problem throughout the world effectively will not be the result of military might, but the result of understanding what causes it, and how to remedy it for the long term. As a nation, we cant just vow to help a nation like Afghanistan and then completely abandon it. If it was a hotbed of terrorism then, it will become a base for terrorism now, because of our failure to follow through with our promises. This is imperative for our national security, and for the security of our allies. It is also something we should do as responsible Americans, and it sure doesnt cost as much as funding a full fledged military solution.

 

 

 

edit: Oh, and btw...I fully expect people like Tryto and people like Richard Dawkins to do their homework with regard to religion like they do with science. This goes to the lot of you that criticize religion without any intellectual honesty, as well.

[ThurinEthir]

Eh, I skimmed Barihawk's [first] post because I'm lazy and don't have much time (I'll read the whole thing later), but from what I gather, I agree.

 

Basically, I think it'd be nice if people didn't need religion to do good things but as long as they are doing good things their motive doesn't particularly bother me.

 

That too.

 

 

 

There is nothing that is purely good. Religion clearly has its benefits and its consequences, and anyone who denies either really needs to wake up.

 

As long as everyone keeps a somewhat open mind and doesn't take things too extremely (For example, no fundamentalists), there would be very, very few consequences of religion.

 

Also, religion has helped create order in society. If someone is Christian, then they'll generally try to follow what Jesus taught, the Sermon on the Mount coming to mind. They'll try to turn the other cheek, and love their enemies. From the 10 commandments, they'll remember "do not murder" and "do not steal." If you simply tell people to listen to these things they most likely won't listen - But with rewards like heaven/nirvana/whatever, and punishments like hell, you give people motivation. More will listen, and there you have it - less murders, less thefts, more brotherly love. Obviously, in modern times, most atheists don't murder, and that's because of laws and legalism, so it is rather stupid to say that people would kill each other if it weren't for religion. (It's also rather stupid to say things like "do not kill" are only Judeo-Christian ethics. Murder is considered wrong is just about every major religion/philosophy.)

 

There are also philosophies like Confucianism which motivate people to do good things, but seeing as how they can also be considered religions...Eh...

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't think it was said, but religion helps the elderly a great deal. For many, approaching the end is frightening and confusing. When a religion provides an answer or an extension (afterlife), I think it helps them cope with what is probably an incomprehensible finality.

 

The same benefits can be had from looser and more secular spiritual beliefs. These are benefits that seem to arise due to belief in God and/or the afterlife, rather than, say, belief in Jesus as our saviour.

 

I think Christianity leads in providing security for the elderly because it is the dominant organized religion in the US. Christian churches have become social networks for so many people that I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who went primarily for the sense of community (I remember reading about a nonreligious church somewhere). It's traditional standing in the US, community, and security it provides is what I think draws the elderly to it with a emphasis on tradition.

[lobsta]

Actually, I'd say that the mast majority of terrorists are motivated by greed, mostly monetary. You are lumping all terrorists into Jihadists when that is simply not true. Even in that case, the leaders are making craptons of money for their own benefits at the cost of using people to go blow themselves up. Terrorism is about using terror to achieve a goal. It's been around for a very long time.

 

I am sorry for not articulating myeself properly. I totally agree that not all terrorists are motivated by religion. But also it must be said that it would be wrong to say that the majority of terrorists are motivated by fiscal reasons. The world is filled with poor ineducated and exploited peoples, who do not commit terrorism. The Arab world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women who suffer from infatuation with Koranic escatology who are eager to murder infadels for the sake of God. (sorry for spelling)

[Barihawk]

Yes, and they are used by true terrorists as generals, but they are even still manipulated by those who seek gain.

 

 

 

There are three kinds of people in the world. Sheep, Shepards, and Wolves. Guess which one's the most dangerous, people have written essays upon essays stating that each one is the most dangerous.

[l0l0lpur32]

religion = slavery

[Quoi_Tu]

religion = slavery

 

All slaves are religious?

[lobsta]

This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science.

 

Why are you a Christian? (i am not asking why you are religious, but why you have chosen christianity)

[Faux]

religion is a tool. it's up to the person how to use it. so to answer the title - yes, people have used religion to benefit mankind.

[Zierro]

Yes, there are benefits to religion but you can take the religion part out of it and those benefits can still exist. An atheist can have the "Do unto others" mentality just as much as a Christian can.

 

 

 

If you ask me, the main reason religion probably exists is because people feel secure when they define themselves. That and because it's what their parents told them.

[RpgGamer]

religion gives us:

 

Hope

 

Discipline

 

Rules

 

Unity (sorta)

 

 

 

and ideally gives us:

 

order

 

peace

 

cooperation

 

 

 

the ideals are simply unattainable, but overall I count religion as a plus :thumbsup:

[Lenticular_J]

This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science.

 

Why are you a Christian? (i am not asking why you are religious, but why you have chosen christianity)

 

Likely parents and peers, and he's decided "Hey, this is pretty good. I like it."

 

 

 

Believe it or not, everyone is influenced by those around them. Even you.

[dusqi]

Those who have read my diatribes in the past won't be surprised that I think that religion is a net negative to society. I define religion in this context as belief in concepts that have no proof and so require faith. So, I think that the fact that this irrational thinking ("faith") is tolerated in society and even admired, means that people become more easily led, less willing to look for evidence, and less willing to accept challenges to their thoughts.

 

 

 

Every time someone proclaims their great faith in God, I see it as a failure of their reasoning. If they're willing to believe in God and possibly do various behaviours on that basis (pray, go without eating, only eating certain foods), then who knows what else they might decide to accept as true without good evidence (or fail to accept as true with good evidence)?

 

 

 

The Greek philosophers were the first ones to move beyond superstition, by talking about the importance of observation and reasoning, and I think that it is tragic that the resurgence of religions have constrained further thinking for the last 2,000 years. Although sometimes this has been explicit, such as the claim that the earth is the centre of the universe and the denial of evolution, often they have done it unintentionally as it is just a result of their acceptance of superstitious reasoning (why bother to look for evidence about how the planets move in the first place if your religion already has an answer that doesn't require evidence?). I think that humans would be far further advanced if children had been brought up in an environment that encouraged reasoning rather than an environment that encouraged faith.

[warri0r45]

Everyone, has the concept of justice and injustice, right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly every philosopher of the last thousand years calls BS on this sentence. Hence the need for government, or at least at the lowest levels, religion.

 

 

 

I think thats a question for biologists, not just philosophers. Modern biology has used evolutionary theory as a means to account for moral principals like the golden rule. See this article for an interesting read. If we have an innate sense of reciprocity geared towards survival, then we will tend to avoid violence or killing others. Those lines could be blurred based on what you or I see as our in group, but given the existence of things like war and racism, evolutionary theory would account for those blurred lines all the same.

 

 

 

If there was no religion, there would likely be no government. Period. Without a binding force (note that I am even including shamanistic local religions here) such as religion, people would not feel a basic unity to come together and create a government. We would exist in what philosophers called "state of nature" in which is pure basic anarchy. Humans could not even go to bed at night for fear of their throat being slit and their possessions being stolen. Hobbes would even go so far to say in today's world that terror and fear are part of human nature.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think we would tend to group together and work as communities if there were no religion, because thats more beneficial to survival than everyone just fending for themselves. There was a binding force before religion, and thats biology. Besides, if a society cast off religion these days, that doesnt necessarily mean it will degenerate into anarchy. Think of the trends in Scandinavian countries and some other western countries like Australia. Religiosity is down, but were far from anarchy.

 

 

 

Personally I think religion is more of a means to an end of sorts rather than the direct source of morality.

[lobsta]

 

Believe it or not, everyone is influenced by those around them. Even you.

 

Funnily enough, I am very much aware of that fact

[lobsta]

Everyone, has the concept of justice and injustice, right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly every philosopher of the last thousand years calls BS on this sentence. Hence the need for government, or at least at the lowest levels, religion.

 

 

 

I think thats a question for biologists, not just philosophers. Modern biology has used evolutionary theory as a means to account for moral principals like the golden rule. See this article for an interesting read. If we have an innate sense of reciprocity geared towards survival, then we will tend to avoid violence or killing others. Those lines could be blurred based on what you or I see as our in group, but given the existence of things like war and racism, evolutionary theory would account for those blurred lines all the same.

 

 

 

If there was no religion, there would likely be no government. Period. Without a binding force (note that I am even including shamanistic local religions here) such as religion, people would not feel a basic unity to come together and create a government. We would exist in what philosophers called "state of nature" in which is pure basic anarchy. Humans could not even go to bed at night for fear of their throat being slit and their possessions being stolen. Hobbes would even go so far to say in today's world that terror and fear are part of human nature.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think we would tend to group together and work as communities if there were no religion, because thats more beneficial to survival than everyone just fending for themselves. There was a binding force before religion, and thats biology. Besides, if a society cast off religion these days, that doesnt necessarily mean it will degenerate into anarchy. Think of the trends in Scandinavian countries and some other western countries like Australia. Religiosity is down, but were far from anarchy.

 

 

 

Personally I think religion is more of a means to an end of sorts rather than the direct source of morality.

 

I agree with all of this. Just to add to it regarding morality...Certainly it is not derived from Religious texts. If we based our morals on the Old Testament for example, we would live in a rather distasteful society (although having said that it probably already is...) Morality has changed throughout the ages... changing moral zeitgeist (german for spirit of the times). Morality is most likely a force that flies beneath the conscious radar

[Barihawk]

This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science.

 

Why are you a Christian? (i am not asking why you are religious, but why you have chosen christianity)

 

 

 

I was raised on Christian morals and when I was twelve my pastor sat me down like all the other children and said "You are growing up and it's time you started to decide for yourself what you believe in." And thus began an intensive study into other religions and cultures, reasonings and ideas and I found that I explain the Universe around me with the teachings of the Bible.

 

 

 

To me, it's logical that a divine being created the Universe, and that the Universe echoes with his creation. However, I also approached my conclusion through years of study and research. I'm a Christian because I choose to be. And here I am.

 

 

 

There are so many answers and radical thoughts in the Bible that you will understand if you actually take the time to sit down and read. It's not a book you can simply skim through. Literally every verse flows like a poem and must be taken as a singular part of a whole.

 

 

 

In the end, it's what I believe that matters to me. And what should it matter to you? That's the problem I have with most of these threads is the complete closed-minded hypocrisy that comes from, ironically, the very people who claim to have open minds.

[Yomyth105]

a religion is simply a belief and it does benefit because it gives people hope and it sets morals.

 

 

 

the problem is when people look for religion as an answer to scientific questions or when people start debating about what religion is better which causes wars.