[dr2005]

Warning: here be many words...

Originally Posted by Xujhan

First, quickly: I made no comparison to politics, geography or human nature, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning them. The simple answer though is that those are things we cannot escape: we cannot help but be human, we cannot live on any other world (yet), and if we're to have any society at all we cannot escape politics. Certainly they do all cause harm in some ways, but that harm is unavoidable; these things simply cannot be helped. Religion is not similarly a mandatory part of our existence.

The comparison was one I introduced, mainly because they are the primary causes of all human division and conflict. My question was why religion should be held as being particularly worse than these others as a source of hatred and division. I would also dispute quite strongly that human nature or geography inevitably lead to such hatred and division, or that society naturally begets politics. That seems more a convenient fiction. In any event, such harms can just as easily be addressed as those caused by religion if one is willing to address them, and with all four areas I fear that is the real problem.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

As regards my claim about religion being a blight on the world: I think you've challenged me on this once before, and I still say that there's no way I can do the subject justice in one forum post, or even many forum posts. If you like though, consider this a very, very abridged summary:

- Moderate religion does not generally provide any particular comfort that is missing for someone who has grown up outside religion.
- What good ideals are promoted by moderate religion are just as easily promoted by secular ideologies.
- Extreme religion is exceptionally damaging.
- The existence of moderate religion creates and protects extreme religion.
- Religion necessarily teaches people to be satisfied with claims unsupported or unsupportable by evidence.
- Institutionalized religion is a fiscal drain on society.

In the spirit of the above, consider these very, very abridged responses:

- This presupposes that the sole purpose of religion is providing comfort, for which you have no evidence at all.
- Secular ideologies have by and large originated in countries in which religion and society have been intertwined (for good or ill) for thousands of years. One has quite clearly influenced the development of the other. To claim therefore that the same ideas would originate without religion is an argument with, again, no evidence for its support - and if you consider how pre-Christian Celtic and Roman societies conducted themselves, perhaps evidence against it if anything.
- This is not disputed, but anything in extremes is damaging. Extreme political views, extreme sports, extreme speculation in investments - I could even throw in extreme dieting. Judging anything by reference to its extremes is not particularly rational to my mind.
- Highly debatable: would you make the same claim about moderate politics?
- Again highly debatable: I for one must have missed that particular Sunday school class.
- The same could be said of any charitable organisation, or any kind of state-administered welfare system (or indeed the state itself), so that isn't the strongest argument.

If you'd like to go into this in more detail feel free to PM me.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Calling something a religion still implies some claim about a deity or supernatural force, which means it's still at least indirectly advocating acceptance of something without evidence, which I unequivocally object to. So, "God wants only for us to love and be at peace", admittedly a very minimalist religion, I would object to on those grounds. "We should all love and be at peace" is something I have no objection to, but that would be called an ideology, not a religion.

Slightly left-field question: do you accept the elements of quantum theory concerning the Higgs boson? That after all has no evidence for its existence (and if you take the argument of one of my friends who studied physics at Oxford and visited CERN, it can't because the maths is flawed), yet it is currently accepted as the best explanation for problem areas in the theory. I acknowledge that doesn't address your objection, onto which I will now move, but I am interested in your response nonetheless.

Anyway, whether or not it relies upon "acceptance of something without evidence" depends entirely upon how you treat the writings which underpin various religions. If, as seems to be your want, you dismiss them entirely out of hand simply because they make reference to a deity that you cannot imagine existing, then there is obviously going to be an evidential problem which cannot be overcome. It would be like trying to argue that murder is unlawful while discounting all case law and statute on the subject. If on the other hand you approach them from a neutral perspective, neither accepting unequivocably nor dismissing unequivocably, then you may well find evidence which supports the hypothesis. It will however depend entirely on what weight and interpretation you give the evidence, and I feel you are depicting this as a purely objective enterprise when quite frankly it is anything but. The fact that the debate over whether God exists or not remains a topic at all should suggest it is anything but a done deal and that some evidence has at the very least been adduced, or else why bother expending time and energy on the question?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You've made this argument before, and I have the same response: being unfalsifiable is not a point in favour of a hypothesis. If we're to be technical, I suppose we should say that the lack of evidence for unicorns is a reason to doubt that they exist, but the impossibility of evidence against Yahweh is reason to not even take the claim seriously in the first place.

You will note that I acknowlegded that very point regarding it not supporting the existence of God in my last sentence. My attack was more directed at the format of your analogy as a comparison. On a different note, evidence against Yahweh is not impossible - it is merely beyond our current capabilities. The two are not one and the same and it is presumptuous indeed to argue that the Universe can only function according to our criteria. Were one able to move outside the Universe, evidence for or against his existence would become apparent quite quickly.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Secondly, while there is no physical description of Yahweh in the bible, there are descriptions of his character that are entirely human, and descriptions of actions said to have been taken by him which can be shown to not have happened (the Flood comes most immediately to mind). Finding that there was no global flood a few thousand years ago is akin to finding that there in no pantheon on the crest of Mt. Olympus. Sure, it could just mean that Zeus and friends are elsewhere, but that's ad hoc reasoning.

Character is again not an observable or testable characteristic, so that is not a particularly strong ground for discounting God's existence. The Flood is a more credible one and I will grant you that, but your vague "few thousand years ago" is perhaps not the most advisable. As this Wikipedia article points out, there are events in history which could explain accounts of a "flood which covered the land". You could also point to the fact that such "flood myths" have appeared in a diverse range of cultures over a range of tens of thousands of miles, which at the very least requires some explanation as to how cultures with little-to-no contact settled upon the same metaphor despite differences in thought process, language and imagery. That is perhaps a matter for another time, however.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I have no doubt that Christianity will outlive me, to be sure, but I'm quite confident that Jesus will one day take his place beside Zeus and Thor.

I can't help but notice you've gone back to Jesus rather than God, despite my recollection that in another thread you accepted the historical existence of Jesus even if you disputed in no uncertain terms claims of his divinity.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

None of those are reasons to think that religion is causing good in the world unless there are reasons to think that those things wouldn't exist without religion. People who give to charity and help the homeless would still do those things if they were not religious. The things you describe are as they are because our entire society was Christian until very recently.

Again, I would question how you can say with any certainty that charitable obligation would still exist in a world where religion had not. A quick glance at the history of charitable obligation would show that Christianity has played quite a fundamental role in this (to take but two examples, Barnardo's childrens charity in the UK and the abolition of the slave trade were both spearheaded by Christians), and it continues to do so to this day even if society has become more secular. The only reference point we have to go by is how society was pre-Christianity, and that does not give much support to your argument. I use Christianity as an example but others could easily fit the mould.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Science and government both have very real tangible benefits.

I could list all of the scientific discoveries and innovations that are beneficial to human quality of life, but I don't think either of us have time for a list that long.

Government provides order and structure for society. Do most governments have a variety of flaws? Of course. But I don't think you actually believe anarchy would be better?

Political ideologies vary widely and many of them don't have any great benefit, but that's not really what this topic is about.

Science, government and politics are all tools like any other - it is how one uses them that provides benefit or detriment. To take a scientific example, one could either view the splitting of the atom as providing a positive contribution to energy generation or the cause of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Japan. You could also point to science underpinning the development of chemical weapons, napalm and cluster bombs, or you could point to it developing vaccines and other medical advances. At face value, science really is a neutral-value tool. Governments can likewise provide benefit to any number of their citizens, or exclude and demonise any number of their citizens with dramatic consequences (as both past and recent events demonstrate). How "good" or "bad" anything is really comes down to the homo sapiens sapiens trying to use it, and there's the rub.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

I'm curious if you could point out a specific example where religion helped a 'great person' to achieve their goals in a way they couldn't have done through secular means.

Martin Luther King Jnr springs to mind. He drew upon his religious beliefs and experiences as a pastor throughout his activist career, and was unable to do so in the secular arena because he was not recognised as having equal rights and could not participate fully in secular society. If you would care for other examples I can provide them.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology are both great examples of why religion is a bad thing, but far from the only ones.

I could point to a quite well-known example of why politics is a bad thing, but that would be in breach of Godwin's Law. As I said above in reply to Fletcher, arguing from extremes is not particularly rational.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Let's start with archaic bigotry. Here in America we have conservative Christians who demonize gays and do everything they can to deny them equal rights. Or there is the lack of womens' rights in most Muslim countries.

You imply both arise from the requirements of their religion as opposed to entrenched societal norms. That is without evidence and quite spurious to boot.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Then there is the negative effect religion has on education. At least here in America, religious conservatives prevent many kids from getting a proper sexual education. This often leads to unwanted pregnancies since a lot of kids aren't up for listening to the 'abstinence only' junk that is preached at them.

Again, see the above.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Many of the unwanted children are brought into a world where no one wants them because religion is also convinced that abortion is evil. Seems to me that bringing someone into a world where they aren't even wanted is pretty cruel.

Without trying to turn this into an abortion debate, I would say that says more about the behaviour of individuals and the nature of the world at present than religion.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

And, yes, religion is not the only one at fault for prejudice and stupidity, but it is a large part of the problem. Just because it isn't the only one at fault doesn't absolve it of any responsibility for the problems it causes.

I would ask for evidence that religion is "a large part of the problem" compared with other contributing factors, but I'm sceptical as to whether any is available. The fact that it is one factor among others does not absolve it, as you say, but nor does it make it a suitable scapegoat for the ills of the world - particularly as such attempts, more often than not, seem to be attempts to excuse general screw-ups of our own doing.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Because religion is imaginary and has no tangible benefits, as discussed above. Living up to society's expectations generally does have obvious tangible benefits. Furthermore, society's expectations aren't based on some guy's interpretation of a 2000 year old fairy tale, they are based on what is good for society as a whole. As a member of society, one benefits indirectly from doing things that benefit society.

I suspect I have may missed such discussion on the absence of tangible benefits from religion, as I cannot find one above. Assertion is not discussion, after all. From my own experience, I would argue that religion can provide, among other benefits, sense of community, promotion of compassion and support for those less fortunate, a moral compass and inspiration for people to attempt to set right the wrongs of life without requiring reward. All of those could be considered benefits. It is a mistake to presume that the only benefit religion can possibly provide is a post-death promise.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Admittedly, my wording may have been a bit strong, but it's really an insane, destructive mindset. If someone told you that they prayed to the tooth fairy everyday, justified their actions based on what the 'tooth fairy told them' and based their happiness and mental stability on how the tooth fairy (in their mind) judged their actions, would you not say they were mentally ill? Religion is no different, it's just more accepted because many people suffer from it.

If you would like to look back at my response to Fletcher's similar appeal to fiction argument, you would perhaps appreciate the glaring flaw in that argument. We know quite well that the tooth fairy is actually a "fairy tale" (pardon the pun) and that it's really just your parents taking your teeth and slipping some change in in its place. I also don't recall the tooth fairy coming with a life philosophy, so on a number of levels that really does fall apart. On a more personal note, I don't take particularly kindly to being called "mentally ill", particularly as I have had experiences with people who were suffering in that way and it's not particularly pleasant. Please be more careful with your choice of words in future.

Man, that was a long post. Think I need a lie down...