Religion: an obstacle for human progress?

[kidwiccan]

Hey guys, i'm writing this to ask your opinions about it:What do you think? Has the religion let the human progress as society? Or has it acted against?

 

[clh_hilary]

It acted against progress in all areas throughout history. In a lot of areas, even now.

Human rights, arts (eg music, architecture, literature), food, medicine, science concerning anything, philosophy, etc.

 

[clh_hilary]

http://anonym.to/?http://www.katu.c...of-faith-healers-231050911.html?tab=video&c=y

This just in.

EXTERNAL LINKS MUST BE ANONYMIZED!

 

[cban]

All religions allow (mostly) men of dubious intelligence and narrow minds to control and oppress others in the name of their "God". Why people continue to believe them is mankind's greatest failing.

 

[trencherman]

It acted against progress in all areas throughout history. In a lot of areas, even now.

Human rights, arts (eg music, architecture, literature), food, medicine, science concerning anything, philosophy, etc.

There were lucid intervals in history where religion actually fostered the
progress of music and architecture. During the Middle Ages, for example,
when the great gothic cathedrals were built. In the renaissance when most
of the great artists were supported by churchmen. With music, where would
our beloved Bach be without religion, probably just like Offenbach?

Most of the artifacts of architecture, painting and calligraphy in the Near and
Far East were mostly germinated by religion such as Islam, Buddhism, etc.

 

[intowner]

Depends on the definition of religion, what tenets the religion follows and how the individual interprets and follows the religion. Some people believe their religion forbids them to do things. Others seem to think their religion enables them to do things. Still others seem to think they have no religion or, more often, that a anti-religion cult isn't a religion.

In the end, it all comes down to just the individual person and nothing else. Any group of similar ideas are going to congregate and eventually form a system of beliefs. What happens next is still up to the individual.

 

[bigsal]

Gullibility to hunger and thirst for greater certainty, whereby the flock is always in search of mystical figures, a religion or creed to take refuge in its shade.

Apparently the lessons of history, with throngs of supporters fanatics and gullible is not yet served to raise the critical capacity of a personal thought.

Can not be able to do without barkers?

When we begin to think with our heads?

 

[richym]

Saddly I think religion gets caught up in maintaining the institution, and keeping things under control. And so "religion" can be a negative to growth in some areas.
If you asking whether a faith in God is a negative, or following a particular faith group, then I don't think so. In deed if we are truly following God we should be looking for the ways that he/she has gifted us to grow and to develop. Great things have been done by believers, even though the institution has tried to supress them.

 

[clh_hilary]

There were lucid intervals in history where religion actually fostered the
progress of music and architecture. During the Middle Ages, for example,
when the great gothic cathedrals were built. In the renaissance when most
of the great artists were supported by churchmen. With music, where would
our beloved Bach be without religion, probably just like Offenbach?

Most of the artifacts of architecture, painting and calligraphy in the Near and
Far East were mostly germinated by religion such as Islam, Buddhism, etc.

I know this would be the argument, so:

During the Middle Ages, for example, when the great gothic cathedrals were built.

The Roman Catholic Church fancied only one style of building at a time. That killed off diversity and creativity.

In the renaissance when most of the great artists were supported by churchmen.

Ever thought of why there would be a 'renaissance'? Right, because the church (basically) suppressed all musical productions before they started to lose hold of the continent. Even during this period of time, and obviously during Baroque and Classic periods, there can be no other music other than those produced for the clergy or the royals. This was not 'development', that was an obvious limit to development.

With music, where would our beloved Bach be without religion, probably just like Offenbach?

It is a fallacy to just assume that without organised religions Bach could not produce music that he did.

1. Religion is not the only inspiration for him;
2. without such inspiration, he could still have produced those music;
3. without organised religions, he could still have a personal faith;
4. if he was to live in a diversified progressive society, he could have more inspirations.

Where would our beloved Katy Perry be singing without religion?

Most of the artifacts of architecture, painting and calligraphy in the Near and Far East were mostly germinated by religion such as Islam, Buddhism, etc.

Already explained.

You need to also realise that all the developments we have in music for example, were due to the church 'loosening up' restrictions. They thought musical instruments were evil. They thought harmonies were evil. They thought music not written for their gods was evil.

 

[clh_hilary]

Depends on the definition of religion, what tenets the religion follows and how the individual interprets and follows the religion. Some people believe their religion forbids them to do things. Others seem to think their religion enables them to do things. Still others seem to think they have no religion or, more often, that a anti-religion cult isn't a religion.

In the end, it all comes down to just the individual person and nothing else. Any group of similar ideas are going to congregate and eventually form a system of beliefs. What happens next is still up to the individual.

People who feel their religion enables them to do things: Adolf Hitler, people who went on crusades, people who chose not to give their children medical care, terrorists, etc.

 

[tonka]

Religion tied to politics and power is a disaster most of the time. Many wars are called religious wars, but in reality they are more complicated. Calling them religious just makes them pure.
To take a recent example, is the Shiite/ Sunni religious struggle really religion, or is it an ethnic, cultural, political struggle in a much more general way? You could ask the same about many of the religious wars in history.

But is spirituality a bad thing when divorced from power? I myself have not drunk from that Kool-Aid, but I know religious people who's lives are much better for it. They have tapped into something, and it is very real and very profound.
The Catholic church has pretty much lost it's hold on power in western democracies. This gives it a great chance to become something very different (at least in the northeast USA). It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[james1981]

This is a tough question; there is no easy yes or no answer. So many variables and factors.

First, there are many religions out there. There are historical religions, including many that are no longer practiced, but were once major religions. There are polytheistic religions and monotheistic ones. There are modern religions, such as Mormonism and Scientology... and even debate as to whether those, and others, constitute religions. What religion to we pick? Do we take a composite?

Second, there is the measurement problem. How do we measure overall good vs. bad impact? Certainly, we can cite many instances where religion has stalled human progress, has been regressive, even backwards, has been on the wrong side of history, has committed great injustices, and so on. On the other hand, religion has given humans some really good things like hope, morals, music, literature, architecture, and so on. Could these things have developed in absence of religion? Perhaps. Are there other things that could have provided us with this kind of compass? Assuredly. Can we ever be certain? No.

Since I'm no huge fan of religion, but still think that there are redeeming qualities about it, let's take one of my favourite tenets - the Golden Rule - as an example of the complexities of responding to the question posed. The Golden Rule states, "do unto others as they would do unto you." This is a viewpoint that religion has helped propagate (whether followers adhered to this is another matter). I think this is an outlook that makes a lot of sense, whether or not you're religious. For instance, many philosophers, including atheists, seem to advance some concept of the Golden Rule.

Admittedly, questions still abound. Would secular humanists arrived at a similar type of though in absence of religion? Would this idea have been shared?

To throw a curve-ball into the discussion, humans appear to desire some degree of understanding. In modernity, science has for the most part sought to explain things. However, there was a time where there were a great many mysteries facing humans and since science hadn't caught up with the questions being asked, perhaps religion helped fill that void. In that respect, religion could be viewed as a necessary stop-gap to help humans make sense of the universe until we had another methodology to do so.

In closing, perchance a more complex question is how has religion shaped our modern day moral viewpoints, whether we be theist or atheist?

(Full bias disclosure: I'm atheist and wasn't raised going to any particular church so I didn't have an overly religious upbringing. I do find many aspects of religion troubling, though. On the other hand, I'm not yet willing to write-off the entire experiment.)

 

[clh_hilary]

Religion tied to politics and power is a disaster most of the time. Many wars are called religious wars, but in reality they are more complicated. Calling them religious just makes them pure.
To take a recent example, is the Shiite/ Sunni religious struggle really religion, or is it an ethnic, cultural, political struggle in a much more general way? You could ask the same about many of the religious wars in history.

But is spirituality a bad thing when divorced from power? I myself have not drunk from that Kool-Aid, but I know religious people who's lives are much better for it. They have tapped into something, and it is very real and very profound.
The Catholic church has pretty much lost it's hold on power in western democracies. This gives it a great chance to become something very different (at least in the northeast USA). It will be interesting to see what happens.

For the wars, if they would have lost one excuse, wouldn't that have been nice? Not to mention there are conflicts which happened solely due to religions.

Spirituality doesn't necessarily link to religions and most definitely not organised religions. The Roman Catholic Church has lost its hold on power in the western world, thus now its focus is on the developing world, where gays are still being prosecuted due to The Bible.

 

[clh_hilary]

On the other hand, religion has given humans some really good things like hope, morals, music, literature, architecture, and so on. Could these things have developed in absence of religion? Perhaps. Are there other things that could have provided us with this kind of compass? Assuredly. Can we ever be certain? No.

I have dealt with this somewhat so I'm not repeating myself. I will just add that religions did not give us 'morals'. Definitely did not. Morality pre-dates religions, and the 'moral stances' churches represent are either really immoral (eg kill people who work on Sundays, women be silent, not eating pork, etc) or really just reflecting morality of its societies (eg 'the golden rule' - the most apparent evidence is that the exact same thing exists in China where christianity didn't influence).

What religions did to morality is to stop it from happening. It gives people a reason to 'behave', but this reason is imperfect. It is because god would punish you. So on the one hand, you behave only because you are afraid of punishments (instead of behaving because it's the right thing to do, or because you wouldn't want to have it done to you yourself being in another's shoes); on the other, your 'moral codes' depends on either unchanging codes (which led to racism, sexism, and killing of gays because these were values in the past), or church groups which relied on 'traditional principals' to survive.

Since I'm no huge fan of religion, but still think that there are redeeming qualities about it, let's take one of my favourite tenets - the Golden Rule - as an example of the complexities of responding to the question posed. The Golden Rule states, "do unto others as they would do unto you." This is a viewpoint that religion has helped propagate (whether followers adhered to this is another matter). I think this is an outlook that makes a lot of sense, whether or not you're religious. For instance, many philosophers, including atheists, seem to advance some concept of the Golden Rule.

Your last sentence alone should already be an obvious evidence telling you that the golden rule does not deprives or develops from religions. If the rule has to exist/prosper with a religious faith, atheists, or followers of other faiths would not have been able to hold onto that.

To throw a curve-ball into the discussion, humans appear to desire some degree of understanding. In modernity, science has for the most part sought to explain things. However, there was a time where there were a great many mysteries facing humans and since science hadn't caught up with the questions being asked, perhaps religion helped fill that void. In that respect, religion could be viewed as a necessary stop-gap to help humans make sense of the universe until we had another methodology to do so.

And religions with their nature means that they are not to be treated as fallible hypothesis but absolute truths, which in return delay progress of any kind.

In closing, perchance a more complex question is how has religion shaped our modern day moral viewpoints, whether we be theist or atheist?

It did not shape the 'good people's moral viewpoints. The 'good people' who happen to be religious already have those viewpoints in their hearts, which is why they agree.

It did not better the 'bad people'. The bad people in fact got reinforced from religions with many of the ancient texts being so backward. Actually, it even could make 'good people' do bad things because those bad things were written and advocated in the books.

 

[haiducii]

This is a tough question; there is no easy yes or no answer.

:agree:

Human civilizations have made relentless progress in the sciences (genetic engineering, IT technology, etc.) but our religious ideas have changed very little.

 

[Tjerk12]

Faith is beyond doubt. Therein it gives strength, but also dangerous weakness. It may feel nice not to have to question the meaning of your existence. Danger appears when others proclaim truth, different from your truth, doubt your truth, or even seem to prove your truth is untrue. Existential conflicts are easy born. Believe is therefore conservative in nature.

I don’t believe in a higher power; I haven’t the faintest idea what the meaning of my existence is. Actually it does not bother me. I enjoy life and feel happy about the idea that life is limited; that I will die. Not too soon, I hope, but the idea to live forever seems a boring torture.

Yet I can’t prove that a higher power does not exist. After my death there could be just an interesting conversation with some higher power.
In my self-constructed morality I offer therefore space for other opinions.
You don’t live alone, but together with others. To avoid conflicts I had to develop social skills, my own specific social skills, which, surprise, do not differ that much from the usual.

I am curious by nature. So you could expect that I embrace science, technology and all the new things. Still, I'm not unconditional progressive. Science has dimensions that go beyond my imagination. Sometimes we are not able to estimate the effects of new developments.

Embracing technology as a new kind of faith does not seem sensible.

To be sure, it seems advisable to doubt.

 

[clh_hilary]

It is also pretty self-absorbing to feel that not only does YOUR own life has a specific meaning, something to set out for, but that the most powerful thing in the universe actually has a PERSONAL plan and relationship for and with you. Out of the billions of stars in the universe.

To think that things will work out 'for you' is bad enough, to think you can pray to change things is even worse. You're basically saying that god has done things all wrong, and that you should be the one who instructs him to do something, even though you contradictorily believe that that said god already knows it. (ie you just have to say it in his face.)

 

[trencherman]

It acted against progress in all areas throughout history. In a lot of areas, even now.

Human rights, arts (eg music, architecture, literature), food, medicine, science concerning anything, philosophy, etc.

Why would even have this discussion if you already arrived at your conclusion?

 

[clh_hilary]

Why would even have this discussion if you already arrived at your conclusion?

Oh so you never shared your informed opinion ever but only your undecided confused questions? How exactly would that help any discussion?

That is called stating your stance and provide justifications for it. And I do read the responses as you can see to see if I could be refuted. But no, there hasn't been convincing arguments or solid evidence suggesting otherwise. Much like Stephen Fry's debate on The Roman Catholic Church really.

 

[kendo]

:devil:Anno MMXIII (Year 2013)
Catholic Church: You re not Gay Dear; you re just Possessed:devil:

http://anon.projectarchive.net/?htt...hop-thomas-paprocki-performs-public-exorcism-