Belief in Religion

[OldTrees]

Yes, but you very rarely see people fly planes into building in the name of science.

SG, allow me to introduce you to Nazi Germany.  Eugenics was considered the cutting edge of science at the time.

People will use whatever tools are popular at the time to validate whatever atrocities they want to commit; religion just happens to have been popular for longer, so it has a larger list of atrocities to it's name.

I agree, however Eugneics was in fact a Philosophy that was based on a misunderstanding of specific Scientific Theories. Did they really mistake it for science back then?

Why do people do things? Because they believe those things are the best option. All atrocities were done in the name of Morality. All benevolence was done in the name of Morality. Religions happen to have Moral Philosophy components.

[Essence]

Eugenics is currently defined as the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to human populations.[2] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.

Other than that, we agree.

[OldTrees]

Eugenics is currently defined as the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to human populations.[2] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.

Other than that, we agree.

Since science cannot make normative claims. (Observations are descriptive. The "is -> ought" problem.) I think the second definition (bio-social movement) is accurate.

I continue to be disappointed by the reasoning of past societies.

[maverixk]

I continue to be disappointed by the reasoning of past societies.

Couldn't agree more.

Yes, but you very rarely see people fly planes into building in the name of science.

That is an extreme example carried out by extremists which do not represent the majority of religion. Yes, it was a terrible thing(imo) to do, but it should not be used as an example against religion. That's like using an outlier to describe a set of data. Actually, it's exactly like that.

[doublecross]

I would argue than anything that systematically discourages people from participating helpfully in our species' march towards understanding is dangerous.
Well, dangerous might not necessarily be the right word, but destructive, or, counter-productive definitely fits.

One of the most, if not the most, worthwhile things that we do is experience, appreciate, and understand the world we live in.

I appreciate the irony of this phrasing, but it is almost sacrilege to do anything that would interfere with understanding of the most complex, and most interesting thing that has ever existed. 

[OldTrees]

I would argue than anything that systematically discourages people from participating helpfully in our species' march towards understanding is dangerous.
Well, dangerous might not necessarily be the right word, but destructive, or, counter-productive definitely fits.

One of the most, if not the most, worthwhile things that we do is experience, appreciate, and understand the world we live in.

I appreciate the irony of this phrasing, but it is almost sacrilege to do anything that would interfere with understanding of the most complex, and most interesting thing that has ever existed.

Agreed. However the actions this prescribes depend on whether a particular Religion marches us towards or away from understanding morality and the other topics the religion happens to talk about.

[maverixk]

Agreed. However the actions this prescribes depend on whether a particular Religion marches us towards or away from understanding morality and the other topics the religion happens to talk about.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts, though even whether or not the particular religion says something it boils down to how a person interprets it and acts on that interpretation.

[darkrobe]

I dont really have anything against religion. I think a lot of times average and generally moral people will do terrible things when instructed to do so by authority figures. See the experiment by Milgram (http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html (http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html). if there is anything wrong with religion it is that it instills authority status somewhat arbitrarily and if that authority status is randomly given to someone who is radical, then that person will get people to do terrible things. people do terrible things in war for the same reasons.

Why did you do such-and-such terrible thing? because he told me to do it.

Why did you tell him to do it? he didnt have to do it if he thought it was wrong.

Figures in authority position do not recognize they are not morally insulated from the actions of their followers and their followers will simply accept orders because they are orders. thus this relationship leads people to order/commit atrocities that they would never stand for in normal life.

I believe that regardless of religion you have to be skeptical of authority figures always and you cant simply accept something because it is handed down from on high. the best protection against doing something that is morally wrong is clearly defining your own personal morals.

[maverixk]

I dont really have anything against religion. I think a lot of times average and generally moral people will do terrible things when instructed to do so by authority figures. See the experiment by Milgram (http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html (http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html). if there is anything wrong with religion it is that it instills authority status somewhat arbitrarily and if that authority status is randomly given to someone who is radical, then that person will get people to do terrible things. people do terrible things in war for the same reasons.

Why did you do such-and-such terrible thing? because he told me to do it.

Why did you tell him to do it? he didnt have to do it if he thought it was wrong.

Figures in authority position do not recognize they are not morally insulated from the actions of their followers and their followers will simply accept orders because they are orders. thus this relationship leads people to order/commit atrocities that they would never stand for in normal life.

I believe that regardless of religion you have to be skeptical of authority figures always and you cant simply accept something because it is handed down from on high. the best protection against doing something that is morally wrong is clearly defining your own personal morals.

I pretty much agree with that, but again, it is the people who are in the religion/following directions not religion itself.
EDIT: Their belief in religion(instead of religion itself)

[darkrobe]

I pretty much agree with that, but again, it is the people who are in the religion/following directions not religion itself.
EDIT: Their belief in religion(instead of religion itself)

on the flipside though, belief in religion would not prevent you from doing something bad. most people dont think about the morality of their choices that much in day to day life. I believe their was another experiment where they had these religious people give(or attend, i dont remember which) a seminar on various religious topics, including the parable of the good samaritan. (where the guy is beaten and hurt on the side of the road and the samaritan helps him while a priest and a levite pass him by)

but they did it in such a way that the person was either running early or late and on the way they would pass a hurt man asking for help on the side walk. and they found that the chances the person would stop and help was completely independent on what religious talk or whatever they had been in, but depended completely on whether they were running late or not.

My point is that belief in religion is not bad. but its not good either. its independent of the actual moral choices of a person.

[maverixk]

on the flipside though, belief in religion would not prevent you from doing something bad. most people dont think about the morality of their choices that much in day to day life. I believe their was another experiment where they had these religious people give(or attend, i dont remember which) a seminar on various religious topics, including the parable of the good samaritan. (where the guy is beaten and hurt on the side of the road and the samaritan helps him while a priest and a levite pass him by)

but they did it in such a way that the person was either running early or late and on the way they would pass a hurt man asking for help on the side walk. and they found that the chances the person would stop and help was completely independent on what religious talk or whatever they had been in, but depended completely on whether they were running late or not.

My point is that belief in religion is not bad. but its not good either. its independent of the actual moral choices of a person.

Exactly, Religion is a tool. It isn't any worse than a hammer. If that hammer kills someone, is the hammer bad? No. But if it builds a building which saves the earth is it better than the next hammer because of that? No.

[Scaredgirl]

on the flipside though, belief in religion would not prevent you from doing something bad. most people dont think about the morality of their choices that much in day to day life. I believe their was another experiment where they had these religious people give(or attend, i dont remember which) a seminar on various religious topics, including the parable of the good samaritan. (where the guy is beaten and hurt on the side of the road and the samaritan helps him while a priest and a levite pass him by)

but they did it in such a way that the person was either running early or late and on the way they would pass a hurt man asking for help on the side walk. and they found that the chances the person would stop and help was completely independent on what religious talk or whatever they had been in, but depended completely on whether they were running late or not.

My point is that belief in religion is not bad. but its not good either. its independent of the actual moral choices of a person.

Exactly, Religion is a tool. It isn't any worse than a hammer. If that hammer kills someone, is the hammer bad? No. But if it builds a building which saves the earth is it better than the next hammer because of that? No.

Difference between a hammer and religion is that religion can be used to manipulate average people into doing something horrible. Hammer is just a tool, whereas religion is a way to affect human behavior, in a good way, or a really bad way.

I think a better analogy would be religion and a gun. Both of those do not do horrible things by default, but they can easily be used for that, from which we have countless examples. I don't think the concept of religion is nearly as dangerous as guns, but it is dangerous because it's a system that removes individual responsibility and enables any monstrosity because "God commands it".

If we removed religion and guns today, tomorrow would be a much more peaceful day, because without God and guns, the amount of damage you can do would be pretty limited.