Has religion solved anything?

[Laochtine]

I'm not talking world peace, anything?

[Skittles]

1. and you'll be reporting this back to

who?

[Laochtine]

4. to me of course

It's a pretty simple query. ty for your input

[hrmjustin]

2. Religion is not really set up to solve things.

Good religion is questions. Questions are good, yet uncomfortable. All religions must stand up to questions. But will getting on your knees to God, going to a place of worship, or invoking God in every life situation is not going to solve anything. Religion is designed to help you along the path of life. It is not really designed to be a how to manual.

[Laochtine]

5. I agree to a certain extant

Questioning religion is uncomfortable, but IMO those are the only questions worth asking. Thanks for the reply

[geckosfeet]

72. Ahhh. Religion is science. Now I understand.

Nothing is everything.

[hrmjustin]

74. That is an interesting was to put it. But it works in a way.

depends what you take and put into your faith.

[geckosfeet]

76. Well, science is asking questions. And looking for answers. And testing them. Over and over.

[joelz]

3. not yet but its

been trying to find out witch god is strongest and if it does the human overpopulation problem well be solved for ever and ever

[Laochtine]

6. I've always been partial to Loki

But Ra was the original Son god. so many to choose so little soul

[cleanhippie]

14. What is a witch god?

[Marrah_G]

16. LOL good luck on that

Pagans don't think of their deities as the best or the strongest.

[Laochtine]

31. Thor is my bet for strongest

Loki coolest

[Confusious]

53. I vote kodama for coolest spirits

http://www.nausicaa.net/wiki/Princess_Mononoke_(characters)

[Laochtine]

61. Very cool

I'm woefully inept with Asian god/goddesses, ty

[MercutioATC]

7. It's a very effective tool to control large numbers of people.

It can be argued that religion can be enough of a unifying force to facilitate gathering a large number of people to complete a specific goal.

In a sense, "religion" built the pyramids. "Religion" built the Holy Roman Empire. "Religion" created societies in which enough of the basic human needs were taken care of that people could take the time to invent things.

Being human, we're fragile. Some of us need a bigger picture, a bigger goal, a sense of imposed order beyond us to be productive. Religion provides that.

It's my personal belief that organized religion's benefits are outweighed by the harm it causes, but I don't deny it's accomplishments.

[dimbear]

8. The agreed on way to firm up a bet or a contract, by shaking hands, comes from

Mithraism.

That's something.

[defacto7]

10. Sure beats grabbing the other's genitals..

That was the Roman and Hebrew way to settle a contract or make deals in the senate or Sanhedrin.

[dimbear]

11. Good point.

It is a little hard to come up with examples that are very universal. Even the seven day week doesn't really get around.

Closing peoples eyes when they're dead is probably a religious custom.

Maybe that's my next go to.

[2on2u]

77. Then I am just about sure the senator who kept a cucumber in his magic underwear got the

upper hand in many of the deals made.

[mindwalker_i]

9. Personally, I think religion gives some people a sense of right and wrong who would not have it

I had a friend who was religious, but he lost his religion and I always blamed myself for that. Without it, he had no moral sense. So I concluded that taking someone's religion away was a very bad thing and determined not to be a part of that ever again. Later, he found religion and I am glad.

I kind of see religion as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for one's own actions. It's a package that people can take as a whole, and avoid all those hours seeking their own answers. But some people won't spend those hours thinking about morality, and I would rather they had a ready-made package. The packages available aren't perfect but they're usually better than nothing at all.

[rexcat]

12. Religion will not help anyone...

who does not have a moral sense in the first place. Those people use religion to justify their actions and when they do bad things and are found out, at least in the Abrahamic religions, they ask for forgiveness and all is good for them and not necessarily for anyone else. I would not want to associate or waste my friendship on such a person. They will do you and anyone else no good in the end.

If I am not mistaken, anyone without a sense of morality is called A sociopath in our society.

[rrneck]

13. It helped us survive

by fostering tribal loyalty and sacrifice. Now it's just entertainment.

[Laochtine]

19. us and them?

I like the entertainment aspect.

[rrneck]

20. There is no real difference

between a church revival and a pep rally. It works the same for everybody.

[Laochtine]

27. sweaters and

pom poms and the smell of the grass, much better imo

[rrneck]

36. Cheerleaders, beer, and barbeque.

[Laochtine]

43. It's every dream I have

lol

[patrice]

67. Yes!!!

[QuantumOfPeace]

21. It still does

for instance, I'm glad that so many religionists were outraged that George Bush dragged the U.S. into being a torture regime, destroyed evidence of it, and lept through legal hoops to keep from being prosecuted for doing it.

[rrneck]

22. The only religion that matters in government

is nationalism. The others are just hogs at the trough.

[cbayer]

15. What do you think?

Welcome to the religion group, Laochtine.

:Hi:

[Laochtine]

17. Thanks for the welcome

I think it's a great divider and a great distraction from real life.

[cbayer]

25. I meant, do you think it has solved anything?

[Laochtine]

30. Sorry if I didn't answer clearly

No, it has made people hate each other for no reason. It's a great way to keep people from asking
difficult questions about their life. When the serfs hate each other the king is safe.

[cbayer]

33. How about what it has done for enslaved or abused people?

Many people have found hope and sanctuary in religion when everything seemed hopeless.

Many people ask the most difficult questions they could ask themselves due to religion.

Religion and religious movements have often been at the forefront of civil rights, human rights and taking care of those with the least and those least able to take care of themselves.

If it weren't for religiously based charitable organizations, we would have many more homeless and hungry. Many with lifelong substance abuse issues that have destroyed their lives have been served by religious organizations that provide what they can't get elsewhere.

Religion has resulted in some of the most magnificent art, music and architecture on earth.

While there is no doubt that religion has caused harm in some areas, to deny that it has ever done anything positive is quite a stretch.

[Laochtine]

42. I don't deny positive contributions

I don't think religion led these people to help the poor, it's how the they look at the book. Was it ok during the period of great religious
art : The David, Sistine Chapel to be secular, wanna work gotta do what the man wants

[cbayer]

49. Well you asked the broad question and your follow up posts would indicate

that you think it hasn't solved anything.

Disagree that religion hasn't led people to do good acts. It very often has. How they look at the book (I am guessing that you are referring to the bible) is quite relevant.

Are you suggesting that Leonardo and Handel were only doing it for the money and not inspired? I think you are quite wrong about that.

[QuantumOfPeace]

18. We can probably show by scientific inquiry that it has

In modern times, religionists have been involved in peacemaking. This is a tangible accomplishment, among others.

There is some evidence that people with a religious background are more attuned to the ethical conflicts and dilemmas that come up in business. This is a tangible accomplishment.

Many religionists see themselves as deeply involved in solving key family problems, ministering to people who have these issues, taking a distinct moral view of them, one that they believe is good for individuals and best for society.

Once you put your mind to it, you can come up with a longer list.

[trotsky]

23. You're missing a step.

You are offering as evidence examples of behavior that exist in humans - with or without religion.

If there was some unique behavior to the religious, something that the non-religious never engage in (in any equivalent way), you might be on your way to starting your list. But none of your offered exampels qualify.

[QuantumOfPeace]

28. Religion has uniquely solved things too

The original question was simply, "Has religion solved anything".

YOU have added a qualifier, "uniquely".

To answer YOUR question, the answer again, is "yes".

To follow up on my prior list,

It would not be hard to generate consensus that some of the peacemaking activities done have been uniquely religious, especially the follow-through parts, where people are involved within religious communities on the ground and in reconciliation efforts.

There is no question that in such circumstances, religion can offer a unique kind of hope and moral appeal. Anyone may not like them for themselves or think they are illicit, but, nevertheless, they are unique.

Similar with family formation and stability. (in the interest of time, I'll leave the details to the reader.)

edit: oh, on the matter of ethical dilemmas/perceptions, perhaps the key to thinking clearly about your challenge might be this: we can talk about a 'practicing Catholic', say, or Buddhist, but no one ever says 'I'm a practicing secularist'. That might be a way to access an understanding of the psychology involved that produces unique results.

[trotsky]

75. Then it wasn't religion that solved it, it was humans. Period.

You're trying very hard to sound deep and thoughtful, but it comes across as glib, thoughtless, and insulting.

By the way - with regards to "family formation and stability" - do you think non-believing families are less stable?

[QuantumOfPeace]

81. Yes, humans who live/follow their *religious* beliefs. D'oh!

[trotsky]

83. So again, you've missed a step.

You have to prove that without their religious beliefs, they wouldn't have done it. Since non-believers have done and continue to do all the things you give religion credit for, you've got a tough challenge ahead!

D'oh indeed!

[QuantumOfPeace]

89. No, god-based religious ethics/values are unique, in both application, experience, and conception

Q: "Has religion solved anything? (see OP)

Your proposed way to answer this simple question:
Refute that non-religious beliefs would solve things.

To see the illogic of your proposal, your bogus "challenge", all one has to do is change "religion" to "secular".


All I have to show is that ... well I said it already:

The original question was simply, "Has religion solved anything".

YOU have added a qualifier, "uniquely".

To answer YOUR question, the answer again, is "yes".

To follow up on my prior list,

It would not be hard to generate consensus that some of the peacemaking activities done have been uniquely religious, especially the follow-through parts, where people are involved within religious communities on the ground and in reconciliation efforts.

There is no question that in such circumstances, religion can offer a unique kind of hope and moral appeal. Anyone may not like them for themselves or think they are illicit, but, nevertheless, they are unique.

Similar with family formation and stability. (in the interest of time, I'll leave the details to the reader.)

edit: oh, on the matter of ethical dilemmas/perceptions, perhaps the key to thinking clearly about your challenge might be this: we can talk about a 'practicing Catholic', say, or Buddhist, but no one ever says 'I'm a practicing secularist'. That might be a way to access an understanding of the psychology involved that produces unique results.

[trotsky]

90. Show they're unique.

Should be easy. Just demonstrate something good that religious people do, that non-religious people don't.

Go ahead. I'll wait right here.

[Iggo]

92. Ugh. I see you're still waiting.

I brought you some snacks and a bottle of water.

Hang in there!

[trotsky]

93. Naw, that's OK, the troll got PPR'ed.

I'm good!

[Laochtine]

24. I've not seen the evidence

of conflict solving by the religionists as opposed to the nons. Was this after the conflict was started or before? I have no doubt that some religious people are great humanitarians, but I doubt religion caused that. Interpretation of the holy books feed your own personal
conviction, hence right wing and left wing Christians.

[cbayer]

26. What do you think about the role *religionists* played in the civil rights movement?

[Laochtine]

34. I see it as a push

The ones that interpreted the bible as a freeing text chose it to lead them to help.
The ones that saw slavery as god ordained chose not to. Its the civil war we have now w/out the bullets.

[cbayer]

40. A push? Not sure what you mean by that.

The bible has historically been used to justify one's position, be it good or bad.

But there is no doubt that religious people were instrumental in leading the american civil rights movement and that the north won the civil war.

[Laochtine]

48. A push to me is equal

60's Civil rights, were human rights lead by Christians, Jews and Muslims, liberals all
The civil war was won by manufacturing.

[cbayer]

50. So your position is that religion has done as much good as it has bad?

It would be hard to argue with that.

[Laochtine]

58. It's

kinda unnecessary, an unneeded burden in a complicated life. IMO

[cbayer]

60. It's great that it is unnecessary for you and would only be a burden. But you

certainly can't speak for anyone else, can you?

[Laochtine]

66. not in the sigularity

of course not, but one less thing to call my neighbor, brother or co-worker another is

[cbayer]

69. I'm sorry, but this post is completely incoherent to me.

[tridim]

29. It has solved about as much in human history as smoking opium has.

[Laochtine]

37. lol

efn opium

[HereSince1628]

32. Sure. Religion has solved a variety of things...

Little things...
1. How to deal with the emotions of killing things you eat and wear.
2. How to be sociable enough not to be stoned
3. What is ok to eat, or at least what's ok for 'us' regardless of what 'they' do.

Big things...
4. How to tolerate living in an unfair world with unfair people controlling you.
5. How to use your spiritual beliefs to justify identifying others as 'them' suitable for attacks of aggressive war.

and the most important thing...

6. How to make those who claim to be part of the priestly class well off...thus providing working models for how god(s) favor the faithful
.

[Laochtine]

38. yeah, but

I can't deny you got me. Except chicks are chattle

[cbayer]

41. Chicks?

[Laochtine]

45. no offence I hope

But the christian bible is pretty terrible for women and girls, no?

[cbayer]

47. It reflects the culture of the time... as does using the word "chicks"

[Laochtine]

51. So should we allow

goat herders to rule our lives? no of course not, we're better than that.

[Laochtine]

54. is this bad form

[cbayer]

56. Allow? Goat herders? We?

Christians generally follow the teachings of Jesus and most don't read the bible literally.

[Laochtine]

62. Which (T) part is literal?

I have a lot of questions if you will indulge me

[cbayer]

64. How the hell would I know?

I don't know what (T) means either.

[Laochtine]

68. ok

thanks you seem a bit angry, nice chatting with you

[cbayer]

70. Nice chatting with you as well.

[2on2u]

78. It has most likely prevented the global population from reaching 20 billion at this point in

history.

[thelordofhell]

35. "The only good thing to come out of religion is the music"....George Carlin

[Laochtine]

39. and art

talent would have been killed, ty

[Lint Head]

44. It solved Benny Hinn's Bently car payments.

[Laochtine]

46. What a charlatan

Testify, blech

[trotsky]

91. By golly, I think we have a winner. n/t

[Speck Tater]

52. Some people have a deep need for certainty.

And while certainty does not exit in the real world, religion has provided that feeling of certainty to those people who need it for the sake of their mental well-being. And while religion has certainly driven some people stark raving crazy, it has probably prevented some other from ending up in the nut house. So maybe that's a wash. I'm not sure.

Of course if religion were really doing its job it would be teaching people how to live with uncertainty. But as far as I know only Buddhism does that. But then, it's not really a religion either, is it?

[Laochtine]

57. Would it

Be the same if parents taught uncertainty, it's gotta start somewhere I also think Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion.

[patrice]

65. Buddhism doesn't have a god, but people around here have assured me that it's a religion nonetheless

I don't think I agree with that.

[Laochtine]

71. so is a-theism

lol

[patrice]

73. he, he, he . . . good one! I keep trying to tell them that rational empiricism has nothing to say

about that which is not rational, beyond, "I do not believe."

If they want to say more than that, no one ever responds to my question if perhaps what they don't believe in is other people's definition of "God", which they shouldn't, even if they were religious, because definitions are blasphemous and what are rationalists doing anyway defining something for which they have no rational support and then saying they don't believe in something that they say doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, how can they say anything about it?

Bunch of tail chasing goin' on here.

Never mistake the words for what the words only refer to, except, I suppose, in special instances, such as true poetry.

[defacto7]

82. Sounds like you are the one tail chasin!

You're going rather in circles, and for what reason? probably to prove... something. I guess you need to prove you're premise is correct although you never stated one.. I can't help you there. You seem to need to negate an atheist's view of themselves. That's absurd, but if it helps you deal, feel free.

You are over complicating for the effect. It's all very simple. Faith is either ON or OFF. Religion requires faith. Faith is choosing to believe something that cannot and must not be proven. Therefore faith deletes itself if there is an tangible definition of it's object; it is no longer faith but fact. These are incomparable concepts.

I have no faith. I have trust. Trust can change when the data changes and I am compelled to do so. Faith cannot or your choice of God was wrong. Gods and change are incompatible.

Therefore, this old cliché is still the best example if your are interested in reduction: "Atheism is a Religion like the OFF button on a TV is a channel."

Atheism is simply no deity. No more, no less, no strings. The choices are, Light is on or light is off. 1 or 0.

BTW, I don't need to say anything about a god, you do. I am obliging or engaging your issue. It's not mine.

[patrice]

84. Oh! I AM a "tail chaser" par excellence, BECAUSE I know and admit that that's what I am

doing, unlike others, from both sides of the question, who claim to be doing something more than that and, ergo, have theistic tendencies no matter what labels they hang on that.

[Speck Tater]

80. It depends on the brand of Buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism is very religious (read "superstitious&quot while Zen and many Theravada sects (e.g. The Thai "Forest Tradition&quot are pretty much devoid of the superstitious claptrap that typically defines "religion".

[patrice]

87. Thank you for this. Of course, that's true! And it can be true of any similar effort/religious brand

I think errors arise from dishonest or mistaken priorities. If the organization is more important than the truth, then the effort is not free and skew is introduced, which would be okay as long as it is recognized for what it is and it is rationalism's job to do that, recognize contextual knowing (a PROCESS). Religion avers that effort and claims the absolute goal, while dishonestly or mistakenly denying unavoidable perspective/context/bias and at the same time IDENTIFYING with the universal.

In rational terms, that CAN be done through inference, but rationalism claims no necessary relationship between inference and validity, only a probabilistic one that is validated or not, discovered to be reliable or not, through the step-wise processes of deductive rational epistemologies. Inference can produce hypotheses, but those hypotheses produce knowledge by means of rational empiricism.

In religious terms, one begins and ends with inference. The relationship between inferrer and the inferred is considered necessary/inherent and it is identification with the inference that makes it the truth and social confirmation provides support, not empirical knowledge, in fact empirical knowledge controverts "belief" (John 20 something).

Again, error is not necessary in religious phenomenon (one can "guess" emergent properties or evoked potentials correctly), but the progressions in the sorts of things that produce error is geometric, so error is exponentially much more probable from religious inferences compared to rational inferences. That'd be okay, i suppose (because there is still some remote probability that a truth that would be missed by rationalism could be extrapolated by religion), but religion does not appear to incorporate its own potential for the invalid into its identity, in fact, the further the inferential leap, the more religious. It begins and ends with submission to an inference, whether it is valid or not is considered anti-thetical to "the Truth".

[Starboard Tack]

85. I consider it more of a philosophy.

I think Jesus was more of a Buddhist than a Jew in his philosophy. He was big on Karma. I think he would roll over in his grave if he knew what travesties had been committed in his name, starting with making him the poster boy for christianity.

[patrice]

88. Agreed about Lord Jesus! A MUCH freer man than most Christians recognize. Philosophy=LOVE of wisdom

[patrice]

63. I'm not certain that "certainty" isn't really just more a trait of U.S. "Christianity" than it is of

at least some other religions in which mystery is more of an essential trait, e.g. Hinduism and its distillations, Buddhism/Zen Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.

Certainty is outright blasphemy, who besides the USA has that kind of pride? I hear that Islam does, but I also hear that a significant number of Muslims regard jihad to be a very intimate personal struggle with one's self to live according to the teachings of the Prophet. So which one Christianity or Islam has the higher proportion of "the uncertain"?

BTW, some people want Science to deliver that level of certainty that they need, a violation no less essential to the nature of rational empiricism than it is to the nature of whatever might be "divine" and, thus, the putative object of religious modalities.

[patrice]

55. There's always another why; that applies as much to religion as anything else. I probably

wouldn't care much for religion if that weren't true.

[Laochtine]

59. Mysterious

ty

[Hestia]

79. Depends on what you call "religion" - in the past an ancient school of thought has "solved" problems

One being Alchemy. Before you scoffers out there who don't know all the info about alchemy, 1) it is the basis for modern chemistry and 2) the whole changing base materials into gold thing, is actually about raising your spiritual vibrations, i.e. you are the base material and becoming closer to the spiritual world is changing yourself to gold, and we are not talking about the christian god.

If you go to Adam McLean's site, he has collected manuscripts regarding alchemy, which is a language unto itself and not all of it has been solved. They spoke in symbols and rumor has it that they created English in order to communicate with each other. Latin, French and German were the languages back then, which is why English is an amalgamation of all three. (English is like the bible - both were not meant to be released to the general public, but to only be reserved for scholars. The bible is actually an ancient (black) grimoire for those who know how to read it.)

So yeah, in the past, religious and spiritual thought has solved problems.

How those on this site who are scientists and have not followed Hermeticism has baffled me. It is the religious philosophy of science. The two are not mutually exclusive, just the big three are.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Really not sure what you mean by "solved anything"

Were there some conundra that needed solving by religion?