Is Religion a good influence on the world, or a bad one?

This is just a simple question. After answering, please provide an explanation of what you chose and why you chose it. Of course, this is Gekkostate, so I probably don't need to request an explanation anyway.

Ooo that's a tough one to think about actually. I better think carefully about this before voting. I can see the good and bad sides of religion, and the various reasons for its creation, whether its by divine providence or by human hands... Let's see... hmmm....

Everyone, take your time.

I voted "Root of all evil," although only because it's closer to what I believe than "better off without it." I'm a very serious atheist who has been sobered by the sheer number of terrible things that religion has done to humans. The crusades, the inquisition, suicide bombings, and civil war are all things caused by religion; the real harm in religion however, is far more subtle. On a day-to-day basis, more people find reason to hate one another based on flimsy, unsupported holy books and ideals. It is the most powerful divider of the human race.

Ok, I have had a week to think hard on this. And this is what I have to say:

Agreeing with the ideals of structural-functionalism, I would say that religion is neither the “root of all evil” nor “without religion, the human race is doomed.” In a social perspective, religion is needed in just about every society; it gives a core belief that the society stands up for, in other words an element of unification that binds a society together and defines many aspects from laws to daily life. Where the “bad” aspects of religion come in, is when religions clash. Indeed the acts of the Crusades and the Inquisition, were brutal and were done in the name of religion, but that’s because the beliefs of multiple religions tend to clash, from the view of God, either as a transcendent being, or as a personal glorification, or whatever, to the view of something simple; such as the treatment of women, where the men are in charge, or women have no rights, or whatever.

If religion was taken away from society, then there would be no moral compass to guide the society. Though we as a nation claim separation of church and state, our representatives still have religious convictions that guide their decisions on the floor of senate or congress, even our president’s have religious values. Looking at our past, we are indeed a nation set up by “God fearing men” who claim the right of the law as inspiration towards providence; hence why our inalienable rights are to all men, and not something weird like no women can drive – a law in Saudi Arabia.

Religion as an institution that defines so many aspects of our lives, whether we are conscious of it or not. Religion does not necessarily mean the worship of a transcendent being, but “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs” (Unabridged Dictionary). Whether we know it or not, we all believe in a worldview that governs our daily life.

Lastly, even if we were to claim that religion is evil and needs to be rid of, it cannot be done. Religion is part of the human social structure, and cannot be separated; to remove religion, you must wipe humanity from the face of the planet. Whether we worship a transcendent being, or money, or whatever our hearts desires, our worship defines who we are; no man can claim they worship nothing, all have a longing for something. Religion defines how we do these acts as a “devotional and ritual observance.” I would personally say that “religion is beneficial to the human race,” both in keeping the greater order and stability of society, and in defining the actions of individuals and the course of society as a whole.

i put Religion is beneficial to the human race, because it CAN benefit everybody, though thats probably just my view seeing as i come from a religion myself ^_^

Sorry Valkyrie, but I really don't understand what you mean. If you elaborate, I'm sure it will become more clear.

TheLaughingMan! structural functionalist?! are you high?! you're the leader of cr gekkostate and you're a structural functionalist?! conflict theory man!

anyway, the way i see religion is from a marxist perspective: governments and other institutions use the assertion of "God's will" to gain power, where this feudalism is simply an exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions. now i can't say religion is totally bad, that would go against my personal beliefs. i personally believe in the words of Tao Te Ching and Lao Tzu; we could all benefit from some simple living. i'll say it has its pros and cons, pros in the sense of the mind in a state of peace, con because government and people use it to control others.

Laughing Man, what you're saying is downright naive! Religion does not create conflicts, the clashes between them do? Do you honestly expect there to ever be one religion on earth? Unless you do, conflict will exist as long as religion does, and that counts as being religion's fault in my book.

Here comes the strange part: I put forward the theory that nobody, not even the most religious person, is guided morally by their beliefs! The human moral compass comes from genetics, not from religion. Our altruistic instincts evolved through the interconnected and complex process various evolution types, especially group evolution. Whenever someone claims that their actions are motivated by religion, they are either actions that they would have performed without religion, or they are acts that have nothing to do with our morality. The only effect that religion has on the moral compass, is twisting and corrupting it. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of what has been done by religious men for all of human history.

To claim that religion is impossible to get rid of might be correct, but it is also of no relevance to the question. Besides, I'm beginning to consider that maybe, religion can eventually vanish. As we progress further into the age of reason, supernaturalism is becoming less and less common. Eventually, Atheism might be the respected majority, with a few nutcase cults here and there. Of course, the end of religion would not be the end of "fuzzy thinking," as I'd like to call it, because fuzzy thinking is the thing that can't be separated from humanity, not religion. Even though we will never defeat fuzzy thinking, as we push it back forever, our lives will continually improve.

Wait, a minute, I didn’t say religion doesn’t make conflict – it does. When two religions come in contact with each other, they always make conflict, the clashes are the result of conflict. And no I don’t expect to be one religion on earth, I didn’t even say that.

I believe the term “bad” I used in quotes in the first paragraph might be the confusing part; from a structural functionalist view, conflict is a good thing. Through the deaths of some, human kind continues, it is our nature to fight.

“Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.” – Dali Lama

Only through conflict, can there be progress. Society becomes stagnant without it. The structural functionalist ideal is a table with four legs, kick one out and the table collapses – humanity falls.

You speak in terms of science, but the question of theology and morality does not fall in the realm of the causality. To claim religion is bad, and morality is determined by genetics without the metaphysical (Platonic) idea of form is wrong. Not all philosophers are “religious” but all of them know that questions of epistemology (knowledge), ethics, metaphysics, and religion are areas where science cannot prove anything. Even Plato and Aristotle knew that science cannot prove the unseen. Science is limited to the physical world; if you’re asking “what more is there then the physical world?” then let me ask you this philosophic puzzle: what is greater? The presence of a police officer, the power of a judge, the court building, or the idea of justice? The sociologist, the philosopher, and even an anthropologist would claim the idea of justice to be greater. What I’m getting at is there is more to the world then what science can prove. The field of philosophy encompasses science (see Plato, Socrates, Pascal, Kant, Locke, etc.) but is not limited to what science does in the physical world. Another metaphysical philosophic puzzle would be: Where are the multiplication tables? If human kind were no longer around, would those tables exist?

But bringing back to religion and morality: the field of ethics is under epistemology and metaphysics. If you think that thoughts are just electrical synapses in the brain and the five senses is all we got to this world, then you should seriously read up on philosophy. Science cannot simulate thoughts and actions, let alone ethical decision. Genetics is nothing more than the blue-print of a species, but the process of thought and universals is greater than what science can prove. Morality is a question of the immaterial.

Though none of this sounds like it has anything to do with religion being good or bad, it does – I keep forgetting that most of us here have no background in psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, even quantum mechanics would help, etc. What gets interesting is proving or disproving God’s existence, but that is definitely out of the scope of this topic.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought that religion couldn't be blamed for violence. It is the same with what I said with one religion being impossible; I didn't mean that I thought you had said that, I just meant that having one religion would be the only way to stop religion causing violence.

Your next three paragraphs seem distinctly odd, because we are talking about morality, and you seem to accept the role of violence as an agent of change. Societies will change on their own without violence, so why will we let people die? It is our ethical (and mostly impossible) duty to make transitions as peaceful as possible.

Naturally, theology, being based entirely in untruth, does not fall in the realm of casualty, but morality does. There are specific scientific explanations for the various functions of the brain. Religion however, gives no supporting evidence for any of its claims on human morality, and cannot be taken seriously.

The problem with saying that morality lies outside casualty, is that nothing that is supported by evidence lies outside of casualty. To say that something is outside of science is just a euphemistic way of saying that their is absolutely no evidence to support it.

The idea of Justice is more powerful than an individual judge or police officer, because within the context of the human brain, an idea can prevent more crime than an actual physical agent.

Without us, the laws of mathematics will continue to exist.

I love philosophy, which is the reason why I joined this group in the first place. In order to be a good philosopher, it is neccesary to accept the truth. Just because thoughts are the product of electrical signals doesn't mean you can't dwell on the results philosophically.

If this last comment was intended as an insult to my abillity to argue, I am actually a little bit annoyed.

Oh no, no, no. No insult at all, I am sorry if it offended you. I was just hoping I could get others to join in on the conversation. I was just trying to lay like a semester worth of philosophy in like one post (it gets boring when only two people are talking).

Yes, progress is a natural function of human beings, but it tends to be done in a not so peaceful way. I personally don’t see an end to violence, whether it is caused by religion or not. Although, even if people were to claim religion is the ultimate source of violence, I honestly believe the solution could be found there as well.

If indeed the multiplication tables, the idea of justice, and even morality exist independent of human beings, what do you think is causing that kind of existence? Many philosophers have been puzzled by this and there is logical inference in regards to the immaterial.

I believe that although violence is far too human to ever disappear, we can still minimize it as much as possible. However, I disagree that religion can cause lasting peace of any kind.

In the most technical sense of the term, Justice and the multiplication tables do not exist. They are merely shared traits between things that do exist in the world. The "existance" of the multiplication tables is actually based in the properties of the numbers themselves; four, in of itself, is two times two, just as two is, in of itself, half of four. Similarly, Justice is the product of all the things humans do that they consider just. It exists because of just or unjust actions that humans take.

I think that religion is part of a path to either hell or heaven. I for one believe there is a God and he is the one that will come one day and destroy all roots of evil and damnation on Earth and he will destroy Satan once and for all. But, with all of the different religions and branches, there is a ton of religious conflict in the world. But only one religion is right on my opinion. It could be mine, or it could be yours. Some of us are sure that they're religion is the way to go though...(I don't mean to offend anyone)