Religion = Delusion?

And why am I not surprised?

The theory of the bad penny is my first thought on the question.

Dan

Oops. Forgot

gonna be locked pretty soon.

Much of humanity's scientific advancement is due to the efforts of those within religious organizations. Religion is still largely concerned with investigating the unknown.

do you think there will ever be world peace? Increasingly there is plenty of bad religion wreaking harm to go along with that good religion you mention. Man can have ethics and morals without religion...

used by those who are causing the world's woes. If there wasn't organized religion, war would still occur the same as it is now, just with different motivators for those involved.

It is not my claim that religion is the only obstacle to world peace, just that it is one of them....

that our world possesses is largely due to religion. Like it or not, human nature tends towards confrontation, and social constructs such as religion can promote peaceful behavior.
Even secular organizations that now promote peace largely owe their principles to religion.

that would mean that places with a higher proportion of religious followers in the population would display more peaceful behavior. Do I follow you correctly?

Dan

Arnold Toynbee's, came up with the same thing.
IMO the daily papers and his own actions have proved him wrong.

and not the root cause of conflict. That's an abuse of religion. As well, I have more than once said here that ethics and morals precede one's getting involved with a religious organization or congregation. One doesn't join up and suddenly get a complete moral makeover. They've already looked at themselves and found an identity with others that's like a magnetic attraction. Joining together provides support, reinforcement and stability that, IMO, is generally a good thing. But you also get to wear a label which suggests what others can expect of you. When you mess up, the whole group's perception by others gets to suffer equally.

Men harmed other men long before the various religions came about. It's quite probable, in my view, that the development of religion....in the generic sense....has prevented or tempered many wars. Obviously there's no way to prove it.

There are many in the world that are raised to hate others because of the beliefs of their parents when their parents were raised the same way. It becomes that the lie is believed as the truth because it is no longer known that it was a lie to begin with. Looks at the little Palestinian kids that are dressed up as suicide bombers while they are infants. Look at some of the hate bread by members of the KKK because it's all they were taught growing up as was their parents. For many it is the bellows used to stoke the fire of hatred. For many it is the wall that will forever keep cultures seperated.

other than that this is not a product of religion. It's and insidious process that's rooted in tribal culture and has been allowed to flourish using an errant religious ideology as a scapegoat. They are using their notion of a physically intangible higher power as justification rather than try and overcome their own weakness of stubborn pride. In my religion, pride can be one's downfall. I believe that to be true.

Your question is a good one, and commonly asked by observers of the world scene.
My answer is, 'There won't be peace if atheism is true, because then our gods are man-made, and we'll continue to have them. There won't be if one of the commonly-seen religions has the truth, because their adherents are commonly seen ... on the battlefields. There will be peace if there is a god who cares about us whom he created.' (Of course, no "if" in my case.)

"Man can have ethics"? Man does have ethics, of course, few of which prevent war, some of which seem to foster it. Puts the ball in your court IMO. Awaiting your world-changing solution. (Don't forget to copyright it.)

Two recognized specialists, Stillman Drake and Owen Gingrich, give particulars of the Church's negative effect on pure science in Italy, then on to the other countries where the Pope's edicts were heeded. They also particularize about the positive effect on the science of the Protestant countries, which pulled ahead of the formidable Italian university system.

Your tether idea is supported by legendary historian and knowledgable RC Arnold Toynbee. That's what he preached. What he practiced was the same war-prone nationalism on which he said that mainstream religions (pl.) ought to act as a 'tether'. In both World Wars he helped his English government kill its German enemies- "good" Catholics and Lutherans on both sides.

ideas on this further? Do you know of any instances where scientific developments were hindered by religion to the general benefit?

Dan

because efforts were thwarted by....whomever....cannot have the positive or negative results verified. We know the consequences of actions we took but never those which would have happened otherwise. There once was a time when astronomy concluded the earth to be the center of the universe. The church embraced this notion. Later an astronomer who'd studied movement in the solar system decided the sun was the center. He was severely dealt with. As it turned out, however, both were wrong. I not saying that proves anything other than to say that the only certainty in science is uncertainty. You can have the ability to make a space ship that will travel to the outer reaches and be eager to launch.

Possible consequence....

Oops! We didn't know there were asteroids that large out there. Guess our telescopes aren't good enough to resolve them. Maybe we were too hasty. Sorry guys.

is just the opposite of what you posit. Science was hampered by narrow minded and fearful religion without benefit whatsoever. And your unrealistic fantasy of a space ship is just that.

Regarding science and uncertainty you offer a good example. Of the two incorrect cosmological models you mention the newer was certainly many orders of magnitude more correct than the other and it was certainly the best model available at the time. It could also be said that it was certain to be replaced as the science progressed.

Dan

quite promptly, I might add. Both my examples deal in hindsight and/or lack of foresight. Nothing can be proven or dis proven using such vision so I must reject your analysis and comments being able to offer proper judgment of whether waiting or moving forward immediately with a scientific plan is, at that moment, known to be the best choice. I suspect that, for that moment, the scientific community senses dissatisfaction with delays due to lack of wider approval trump their own desires and slows their momentum. It's human to be too "antsy" sometimes. But I certainly can't think of an instance where such a delay has proven to produce a worse outcome for a plan that eventually went forward. In fact, it would be my suspicion that, in many cases, the opposite is true.

And, BTW, in my earth vs sun centered universe example, no great harm was done. But you are right. Science was using it's best knowledge and best tools at the time. In my "fantasy" space ship example, the best knowledge and tools were used as well but harm was the result. Science makes mistakes while searching to do good. It claims it's share of victims, shakes it off and continues on. This is not unlike religion, IMO. Science and religion have both had their sacrificial lambs.

science does not just march on but tries to correct its mistakes and grow in breadth and accuracy of knowledge. That is the goal of science. Religion already knows all it needs to know and its goal is to enforce that codified knowledge.

Very different.

Dan

that "religion" is that stodgy and stone like. But, with my church, I'd agree that it can look like it's standing still though it's really just moving very, very slowly...as was evidenced in the "Weak"ipedia link I sent to DP. So, if you need the instant satisfaction that change within your lifetime can bring, I can't offer much hope.

If we remain bound by religion change will be too slow and too difficult.

Dan