Does Religion Cause More World Problems?

brahmin: So communicating strongly held beliefs and ideas is the problem? This is what you're saying:



Your argument focuses on religion, but your logic encompasses all strongly held beliefs (they all cause friction). Thus while your argument would prevent creationists from promoting their views, it would also prevent scientists from promoting evolution; it would have prevented the persecution of Galileo, but it also would have prevented Galileo from publishing his work; it would have prevented the religious justification of slavery, but it also would have prevented the promotion of abolitionism.

What you're proposing, perhaps without realizing it, is the abolishment of all potentially controversial or conflict-causing interpersonal communication. It's rather like Fahrenheit 451--all books had to be burned because all books offended someone in some way. Your point boils down to communicating religious ideas must be banned because such communication is offensive and/or incites problems. Religion isn't, however, the only type of communication that's potentially offensive and/or causes problems; do we eliminate all of them?

": So communicating strongly held beliefs and ideas is the problem?"


no it isnt.

communicating strongly held RELIGIOUS beliefs is the problem.


creationalists are religious peeps - they cant supply evidence of what they say.
evolutionists are scientists, and like darwin, they propagate their ideas through books and research papers and not by preaching evolution in pews.
galelio was a scientist - an experimentalist.
his publishing his scientific work and the church (that persecuted him) preaching their unproven claims to the contrary isnt the same.
also whilst no scientist ever tries to come up with antics like inquisition or any other to lure/force people into believing what they do, the same cant be said of religious preachers. big-bang theorists dont fight steady state theorists, the way shia fights sunni, the way protestatnts fight catholics etc.
so there's a difference - and the line need be drawn after the, very necessary and expedient, religious preaching has been taken care of.



"What you're proposing, perhaps without realizing it, is the abolishment of all potentially controversial or conflict-causing interpersonal communication."


what i am proposing, and every bit with my realisation, is the abolishment of all potentially controvertial (they always are controversial - religions beliefs - whats acceptable in one religion is seldom acceptable in another) or conflict-causing (again they always are) RELIGIOUS communication - especially that even remotely aims at slighting other religions or seeking a conversion, in howsoever seemingly noble a way (ie. the "noble" carrots the missionaries come up with like free education, medicine, free crap etc").



"Your point boils down to communicating religious ideas must be banned because such communication is offensive and/or incites problems. Religion isn't, however, the only type of communication that's potentially offensive and/or causes problems; do we eliminate all of them?"


yes that whats it more ar less boils down to.

whereas scientific (for exampe) ideas are communicated in non-offensive ways and always backed with evidence - religious ideas are just beliefs and communicated at the expense of hurting the sentiments/beliefs of all people who dont subscribe that religion (which is precisely why religious communication is offensive), religious debate and fights are no different from the 6 blind men of gatham fighting about whether the elephant is all tail or all trunk or all pillars (legs).


religion isnt the only type of com. that causes probs yes. but its by far the biggest sort of com. that causes problems. crusades were fought for no other reason. inquisition was started for no non religious reason. many more examples.


so thats why the axe should first fall on communication that aims at religious propagation.

and when we become as attached to our favourite brand of condoms and candles, our favourite singers and authors, our favourite colour of underwear and tie, our favourite holiday destination and favourite hobby - as we are to our religions - so much so we have "communal violence due to difference of opinion as to who is the better singer/which is the better tampon" - i am assuming here that we wont have crusades and inquistion over these just yet - we can ban that sort of communication as well.

My friend's adoptive parents were closely affiliated with the Salvation Army, he (a christian) believes that they are a rather scary organisation.

On the other hand I hear good things about the red cross.

I had a good deal of contact with the Salvation Army many years ago when i worked in "the charity industry." The people on the ground, on the street, are basically good people who genuinely want to help. The corporate management, however, are indeed very scarey.

Brahmin: You're not terribly familiar with how the scientific community operates, are you? It has its own orthodoxy and many new ideas meet with great resistance, frequently to the detriment of the idea's originator. Science has also contributed greatly to the immiseration of humanity. Science, like religion, has been used to justify slavery, the subjugation of women, and genocide. While religion has frequently been used to justify war, science no doubt has worked tirelessly to make it more lethal and destructive. Thus your logic would ban such communication.

Your claim that religious communication is "by far the biggest sort of com. that causes problems" shows a lack of historical consciousness. Religion has been used to justify conflicts, but most "religious" conflicts are rooted in political and economic motives. While the average soldier may have believed he was fighting for Christendom during the Crusades, the leaders were enriching themselves off that conflict while drawing attention away from the miserable condition of the peasantry in Europe. While the Inquisition was a move to secure the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, many if not most of those accused of heresy or witchcraft were accused for political or economic reasons: to eliminate political adversaries, to seize someone's lands, or to secure one's profession--the expansion of physician authority over childbirth was accompanied by a great many midwives being accused of witchcraft and being burned at the stake. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is usually painted simplistically as a religious one, but the suicide bombings didn't begin until after Israel stepped up settlement of previously Palestinian lands. In fact, Islamic fundamentalism and the breed of terrorism it often fosters flourish in conditions of economic or political deprivation.

Economics even plays a large but different role in missionary work. If so many people around the world didn't desperately need food, medicine, and other aid--that is, if the governments of the world would step up and provide these things for those in need, then there simply wouldn't be much of a venue for missionaries to proselytize.

Religion, no more so or less so than any other human institution, is capable of good and evil. The notion that religious communication is responsible for more conflict than other forms of ideologically communication, or other factors for that matter, is simply unfounded.

Me too, I heard that the guy who died on it, saved us all...

Does religion cause more world problems?

Than what?

Than without...

Just an aside, I'll admit, but important, nevertheless. Galileo believed in the bible and was convinced his heliocentric view of the solar system was supported by scripture (which, in fact, it is). He was in double trouble from the Catholic hierarchy because he (correctly) interpreted scripture, thus usurping the church's prerogative.

I hope one day, all science will parallel the bible, and we will all be one happy family...

From which one concludes that science will need to change to come in line with the aforementioned fairy tale . . .

. . . right, that'll make things all rosey and cozy . . .

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. Science will always be able to add to our knowledge.

If science is used to determine fact from fiction then:

If the bible is truth then science and the bible will gradually come closer and closer together until they are in line.

If the bible is not true, then they will get further apart.

Exactly, who knows what discoveries the future will hold?

You wouldn't happen to be a betting man would you thunder? Care for a little flutter ?

As long as we aren't using money...I don't have any... :sad:

bugger! I was hoping you did....neither do I

O.k, I'll bet you 200 posts that future scientific discoveries will show that the universe having an age of billions of years, is a completely ridiculous notion...how about it?

done!

Sweet! You're going down, jerk!