Do you find religion to be a hinderance to the overall progress of a given society?

That depends on how you define progress.

no

no

@Poser
Courtesy of Dictionary.com:
-developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.
-advancement in general.
-growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
-the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.

That would be how I define it… :)

@Facade & @Facade
Would you say that our global society benefits from religion?

@JamesL ”...in a direction considered more beneficial…” That’s the point I was getting at. Considered by whom?

I guess I don’t understand the question. How could religion be a hinderance?

Faith and the scientific method run contrary to each other.
People vote based on their religious beliefs.
People lean on religion, when they could benefit from science.
Religious institutions take up natural and monetary resources.
Religion is a perpetual meme.

@Poser
Yea, I was thinking that you might be doing that. It does leave it open a bit. We can look towards statistics at this point.

Sol covered many bases… I’ll be elaborating here in a few.

Society could not progress without it

@Sol
1. No they don’t.
2. So what?
3. People lean on lots of things besides science. Drugs, money, whatever. Why not religion? Science isn’t a cure-all.
4. So does every person on the planet.
5. So what? There isn’t anything inherently harmful about memes.

@DrBill
Could you please specify because there are a few different routes you could go with that statement…

Religion has definitely stood in opposition to advancement in the past and in contemporary society. Islamic law strips women of basic human rights (which Christianity used to do), the Mormon church poured millions into capping the rights of homosexuals rights last year (and succeeded) and stem cell research had been ground almost to a halt primarily by religious based morality issues, (ie they didn’t want embryos killed, despite the fact that excess embryos were already being discarded by fertility clinics, legally). In the past religious groups have opposed major scientific discoveries (that the earth is round, that it isn’t the center of the universe, evolution, etc) and has executed those that hold opinions in conflict with their own.

I’m not not going to say that religion is nothing but bad news bears, but at times it has been, which is all the question was asking.

I don’t like to beat on religion too much and I don’t think ‘progress’ can be defined so that everyone agrees on its specific meaning, but yes, in general, I believe that religion tends to make mediocrity ‘good’ or it tends to be bent toward re-inforcing the status quo (such as asserting that God prefers free markets).

And ideology in general, not just religious ideology, usually ends up being destructive, like communism.

Also, the Israeli-Palestine thing is probably the most absurd situation today in which religion interferes with real social progress.

Sometimes I find religion to be a hindrance to the overall progress of a good conversation because some people debate the topic so fiercely and are so close minded about their opinions regarding it.

I read a wonderful quote on this earlier today, one I have not heard before:
“Morality means doing what’s right, no matter what you’re told.
Religion means doing what you’re told, no matter what’s right.”
—attributed to H.L.Mencken

I think that this is why religion hinders societal progress. Let’s not just pick on Christianity; Saudi Arabia is a really good example of this phenomenon.

@JamesL

In the Kylen galaxy, they have a God (Ra) and on this planet 93% of the human population believe in a supreme being of some sort.

Man needs to know where he came from, and if science cannot provide that, it will be credited to a supreme being, and if we can’t find one we will create them.

Another concept man cannot wrap their mind around is death. A God answers this also. The thought of non-existence is unfathomable for most, but spending an eternity with a God is palatable to the masses.

Once mankind have their God(s) they have a purpose and something to work for, then they will come out of the caves and start progressing.

@DrBill

So, making sure I understand where you’re coming from- you agree that “gods” are just a figment of the human imagination, but you think they are necessary for human progress?

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”
~Voltaire

Of course I do.
To quote my favorite line from ‘7 Years in Tibet’

Religion is poison.

@freezepop Voltaire was a truly profound thinker.

No.

Regardless, there will always be “religion”.. so this is nothing more than a fanciful “What if” question.

@NaturalMineralWater Why must there always be religion? I was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic Schools all my life and now I don’t believe in religion? I am a very good person that follows all the teachings of religion and lives a good life. Religion doesn’t make me do that. Respect for others makes me though.

A personal religion certainly needn’t be. A massive organised religion at governmental level could well be.

@Kraken I didn’t say “must”.. just seems obvious that there always will be.

@jo_with_no_space Scary… but it will probably happen.

@NaturalMineralWater It already happens to a certain extent.. for example, I mean the personal religious choices of governmental ministers influencing the policies they introduce. Like (eek!) George W :(

@jo_with_no_space Why do you say a personal religion certainly needn’t be… that’s the scary part.. should everyone believe what they are told to believe by the government?!

Its not about religion, but people would like to know the meaning of life, their purpose, someone to worship etc. Religion might fill up this gap. But its the truth that brings progress…....so if your religion is true, you would progress

Do you think that open-ended questions with no details could be a hindrance to understanding?

@NaturalMineralWater I think you misunderstand me.. what I mean is that someone’s own personal belief system shouldn’t have any discernible effect on the larger society’s prgress, but that of a prominent governmental figure may have a largely prohibitive effect on certain types of societal progress.

@jo_with_no_space ahhhh

@NaturalMineralWater Glad we understand each other :)

@fireside or perhaps open ended questions force you to make your own interpitation rather than corner you into one particular mode of thought.

I think religion does to a certain extent. it was brought up already but Suadi Arabia, Iran, Israel are three fantastic examples. Iran in particular has been stuck under this shroud of anti modernization due entirely to Islamic extremists. And aside from certain scientific aspects, look at it this way, if there was no religion, there would be no wars over religion.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 – Do you think it is the religion that causes the oppression, or do you think that maybe those in power use religion to persuade the masses and assert their power?

If there were no religion, there would still be plenty of wars over power.
Trying to compress the two is not looking at the whole picture.

Terrorism and the war on terror is not religious, it is about resources and aggression to assert control over certain regions. Look at Edward Bernays, he found a way to use patriotism to incite war and sell products. Should we get rid of countries too since they seem to be the cause of war?

Has there been no progress made from religious thinkers in the history of humanity?

My point is that open ended questions, like this, tend to demonstrate close-minded thinking.

Are you telling me the crusades would have occured on such a massive and drawn out scale if there was absolutely no religious motivation? I’m not saying they’d stop all war, but it certainly would lessen the amount. If religion didn’t exist, would those in power be able to use it to manipulate the masses? In the end, religion is often the most effective way to put a whole country behind a rather brutal and long war. I made absolutely no reference to the war on terror, I know exactly what it’s about. I was reference to wars that were ALL ABOUT religion, do you think the Palastinian conflict would be going on right now if they didn’t lack the immense cultural differences created by Judaism and Islam?
And as far as progress made by religious thinkers… What progress scientifically has there been made exclusively because of religion, as it’s main motivational factor, even?
I’m not saying religion is useless, people of faith are admirable in certain regards, and I’ve never told anyone not to believe.
But in a completely objective and socioscientific manner, religion has benifitted mankind far less than it has helped(tangibly and disregarding the intagible and unmeasurable spiritual aspects.)

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 Which wars were “all about religion”. Ok.. you list a couple… erase them from the history books… now what of all the other wars… without religion there would still be war.. Religion doesn’t cause war.. people do. I think we’ve been over this in other “threads” too..

[removed by me because it is not worth the effort]

I’m not saying there would be no more was if religion didn’t exist, as already stated. Would you like more examples, because there are plenty. I’m saying that would there be as many wars? no, there wouldn’t.
I just don’t see how the pros have outweighed the cons as far as the existance of religion goes. scientifically, socially, and finacially, the world would be no worse for wear today if religion was disolved. again, if you’re religious, I’m not criticizing your views, like I already said, faith is an admirable quality in those that have it.

If religion were dissolved, do you think the Palestinians and Israelis would hug each other and share the land? Is that really about religion or is it about territory?

Would America exist if people hadn’t come here seeking religious tolerance and freedom? Also, if we dissolved scientific invention, the world would be a safer place because wars would be fought with sticks, stones and fists. Simple correlations decry the larger issues.

But it is admirable to be thinking about how to end war.

yes, at least it’s reasonable to suppose that there would be far less reason for them to kill eachother, the cultural difference that exists(the largest reason they are so highly prone to conflict and disunity) is and was generated by the ideological differences between Islam and Judaism.
So if science didn’t exist yes, we’d be stuck in the stone age, so obviously it’s more benificial to have science. But tell me, if Religion was completely wipped off the map tomorrow, would the entire world shift into a total sense of chaos and destruction? No, morality is not specifically a religious view, and guidance does not only come from religion. The world would continue to function normally if religion didn’t exist, with out science it would not, so making the comparison between the two is not accurate.

It must be amazing to be able to visualize what the entire world would be like if religion did not exist.
Truly visionary.

Well when you take away the cheif motivational factor in any given situation, is it not logical to think that particular situation would not occur?
I’ve asked several times to tell me a clear and tangible benefit that would cease to exist if religion was never created but you haven’t given me one.
Charity? charitable donations are made to the tone of millions of dollars every year that have nothing to do with religion.
Morality? religion did not create morality, pleanty of atheists and life long atheists are perfectly moral.
Would we be finacially worse for wear? not at all, there isn’t any relationship between the two.
Scientifically? I’m stuggling to find a single scientific acheivement done solely because of religion.
Education? religion is by and by kept completely out of education in most westernized nations today, so they already lack religion and do just fine.

So like I said, how would the world crumble if religion disapeared? I can’t stress enough that I am not criticizing those whom are religious, I’m just saying that in the grand scheme of things, religion is no longer vital for the world that we know today, to function, and if we don’t need it, is it really still nessasary?

I think your allusion to “the world as we know it today” is based on a very limited worldview.

But don’t get me wrong, one of the main reasons that I like the Baha’i faith is because it seeks to resolve the disparity of religious beliefs and downplay the points of contention. That to me is a more realistic way of approaching the problem than by simply wishing religion out of existence.

How is my worldview limited?

I think that if religion disappeared, there would be a huge hole that many people would fill with drugs or violence. It is easy to look at a comfortable existence and say that religion isn’t necessary. Quite another to go talk to people who have been to AA meetings and found that the only way to pull themselves out of a downward spiral was through a spiritual program. Also quite different from going to a developing nation where poverty and disease is a way of life and tell them that the only thing they hold dear is gone. Also quite an assumption to assume that because Atheists currently donate to charities that all donations would remain the same if there wasn’t an aspect of service through faith behind much of the donations.

I’ve by no means lived a comfortable existance and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make unwarranted insinuations. like I said, I’m not saying religion hasn’t helped in some varying aspects. But why do you think many people woud immediately turn to drugs or violence solely because a lack of religion? I just don’t see how that could be logically determined. I’ve also seen AA members replace drinking alcohol with consuming large amounts of peanut butter as a replacement(yes I really have) does that mean if you said he couldn’t have peanut butter anymore he’d crumble back into acoholism? No, if he/she was serious that they didn’t want to ruin their lives, they’d find another outlet. I’ve stated before, intangible benefits aside, they are unmeasurable.
An estimated 28% of all charitable donations were made for religious means, and more than a quarter of that percentage went to maintaining religious venues(building churches buying materials etc) so it’s reasonable to assume that 20% would either be made up for or not desperately missed.

how about this. If you admit that society as a whole could live and prosper without Religion. I’ll admit that society as a whole could live and prosper with religion as well.

@fireside
“I think that if religion disappeared, there would be a huge hole that many people would fill with drugs or violence”

Do you have any data to support this assertion, or is it just empty speculation?

All the data I’m aware of shows the opposite- those societies with the lowest rate of theism, such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway, tend to have lower crime rates than the most theistic societies.

I think it is interesting that you removed your “world as we know it today” comment after I called you out on it. If you guys want to think the world would be better if there were no religion, go ahead and think that. It really won’t change anything in my life.

lol I didn’t, did it go somewhere?
and no where did I tell you how to think. I was simply attempting to have an intelligent conversation, isn’t that what fluther is about? conversing with people who don’t share your own views?

@fireside
There seems to be a high horse that you are riding on. This question was meant for honest discussion, not one-sided slander, and it seemed to go just fine. You can assume whatever you’d like, but there is no agenda here.

No high horse, I just don’t see the point in wasting my time.

I say there are lots of people who have found help through spirituality and the response I get is they can eat peanut butter.

Radicalism of any kind hinders progress.
All kinds of things contribute to radicalism – religion, political parties, zealous ethnic interests, sports teams, discussions about what toppings to put on pizza.

But religion isn’t synonymous with radicalism. And in fact much culture – art, music, literature – comes from the religious world. There also aren’t too many secular homeless shelters, orphanages, soup kitchens, free pre- and postnatal care facilities, drug rehab centers, gang prevention programs, or urban rehab programs. Is the religious affiliation what makes them useful? Not in the slightest, but you don’t see the secular community taking care of these problems (to the same extent the religious community does), and I’m inclined to believe those contributions lead to the overall progress of a society.

Is religion essential for cultural growth? Obviously not. But is religion necessary for genocide, discrimination and hate? Historically not.

I find human beings to be a “hinderance to the overall progress of a given society”.

@fireside
Right on.

I think what many are trying to point out is that people can find help through Nazism, and that the negative outweighs the positive. (I’m not comparing religion to the ideology of the Nazi’s, just using an extreme example.)

@theluckiest
You are correct, and that is why I try to incorporate balance into my life.

The religious community dominates in such areas due to its overall dominance the past few thousand years over its people. The more religious people in a country, the more religious shelters, orphanages, etc… Now if we were to take a look at our country in a few hundred years, you would see a rise in such secular programs. That could be an assumption, but all we have to do is look over at parts of Northern Europe and the secularism there.

To put it simply, too much of one thing is not a good thing.

@JamesL Word, word. Looking at Scandinavia and whatnot, you see a society that has, as a whole, recognized the importance of such social services, irregardless of religious principle, and every citizen pays out the ass for them visa vi “outrageous” (by American standards) tax rates. I’d love that system, but as long as capitalism is the state religion, no such opportunity can exist. IMO this (what we have) is a poor substitute. It’d be a nice compliment, but is a poor mainstay.

I’ve said it before, and I guess I’ll say it again. Religions are subject to exactly the same successes and pitfalls any kind of human organization is. Properly employed, religion is a powerful and useful tool that passes on tradition, ritual, culture and social values that (in my biased opinion) should be compatible with an educated, excited top notch education.
Poorly employed… well I don’t think I need to give examples.
Government is exactly the same way, with different areas of focus. Government properly employed provides safety, security, and opportunity. Again we don’t need examples of what bad government can result in.

@theluckiest
Let me just say that, I concur!

I think Voltaire’s quote sums up my view quite well: “Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours.”

@fireside.. I don’t think these people choose their opinions against religion as they know it. they can’t help but dislike them given the evidence they’ve personally observed about them. it’s just obvious to them.

i would say that the benefit in discussing these matters is that IF you are right.. then all you have to do is figure out why they disagree with you so that you can help them to understand your position. either that or else you will learn to agree with them.. either way, you end up in a greater version of peace than you exist in now. it’s worth it. be patient and understanding.. everyone just wants to live in a better world.

@JamesL my opinion is that any religion that aggressively opposes the idea(s) of progress that an unbeliever (or group thereof) of that religion may have is a hindrance necessarily.

@ninjacolin
Your address to fireside was well put, thank you.

@ninjacolin in modest defense of fireside (and “religion”)
I have to be honest- I kind of equate the broad position of “hating”, or a little less extreme “not tolerating”, or maybe more extreme “seeking the elimination of” religion to racism.

You saw a Hispanic guy stealing a hubcap, therefore all Hispanic people steal hubcaps and shouldn’t be trusted.

Not tolerating “religion” or wanting it to go away or some such thing, is approximately as rational as the above statement in my mind. Religion is a huuuuggggeeeee concept and included under that umbrella are such radically different philosophies, structures, perspectives, concepts etc. that many groups are barely relatable at all (and they may not be).
[edit:] You would almost certainly be lying even if you were way more specific and tried to make a comment about “all Mormons” or “all Shiite Muslims” or “all Wiccans”. Each of those groups is large enough to possess a great enough diversity that generalizations are philosophically impotent. [/edit]

Plus in harboring such a strong sentiment against religion one is contributing to exactly the same kind of environment that has led to many of the atrocities rightly and wrongly attributed to religious groups in the past.

It may be obvious to some people that blacks are innately less intelligent and prone to criminal activity. It may be obvious to some people that religions, or the members of religions, are irrational backwards homophobic hicks responsible for all the bad and violence and discrimination in the world. Both perspectives are so insanely wrong and small-minded that I have no problem “blaming” the supporter of either position

Should be clear that above “you” refers to any theoretical individual… not “you”!

nice, @theluckiest. i agree with you 100% that ignorant religionist haters are no different from people who ignorantly hate an entire race of people.

but this: “Both perspectives are so insanely wrong and small-minded that I have no problem “blaming” the supporter of either position”

I think you’re back to ignorantly assuming that you’ve found a group of people who should all be shot. lol, not that you said that. But still, both racists and religion-racists are “wrong” ONLY because of their ignorant assumptions.

Racists don’t deserve death. They don’t need to be locked up. They don’t need to be done away with. They need to be re-educated. That’s all.

People who are racist are simply ignorant. People who ignorantly hate all religion are simply ignorant. They need education, not hatred.

It is ignorant to expect Ignorant People (like racists, sexists, homophobes and religion-haters alike) to think or act otherwise if they haven’t first been taught otherwise. If they think one way, it means that they necessarily have not learned another way of thinking that they can perceive as a better way of thinking.

I stand by what I said in another thread: conviction (such as those that a racist or a religion hater possesses) isn’t really a disease but the “cure” for confidence in something that is untenable is education.

@ninjacolin I disagree. Racists, bigots, religion-haters, anti-religion-haters—they are’t ignorant. It isn’t that they haven’t “learned” another way to think. It’s that they refuse to think in any other way.

Everyone has predjudice of some sort or another. The people mentioned above simply refuse to examine their predjudice and overcome it. Not because they don’t know better, but because they refuse to think otherwise.

Well, ok.. but you would also have to accept that I think you’re being silly by “refusing to learn” that people can possibly be convinced by ignorant arguments.

@ninjacolin Is that what I’m doing? I don’t remember saying that.

I would argue that they don’t remember being so ignorant either. they think they’re just as open minded as you.

But specifically, @Poser, you said: “It isn’t that they haven’t “learned” another way to think. It’s that they refuse to think in any other way.”—and that’s what i meant to quote. my mistake. lol. and so, now i’m going to accuse you in the same way:

It isn’t that you haven’t “learned” that people can be convinced by and hence, act on ignorant arguments. It’s that you simply refuse to examine your prejudice against such people and overcome it. Not because you don’t know better, but because you refuse to think otherwise.

k, one step further: i am (hypothetically only) counter-accusing you of “choosing” to think of them as incorrigible idiots and monsters rather than thinking of them as merely ignorant and thereby innocently convinced otherwise.

@ninjacolin But no rationally thinking being is innocent (or ignorant), once having been introduced to a viewpoint counter to their own. You are correct in saying that I refuse to think otherwise, and by pointing that out about me, you are proving my point.

I suppose there are bigots out there who have honestly never been introduced to any viewpoints that would counter their bigotry. But I daresay that the vast majority cling tightly to their views despite much exposure to alternate ideas and viewpoints. Just as you are offering me a viewpoint different than my own, and I am refusing to accept it, so they have (by and large) been offered different viewpoints and chosen to reject them.

While I appreciate you conferring the title of “innocent” upon me in regards to this issue, I wholeheartedly reject it. I am guilty. I have arrived at my viewpoint after studying the issue from different angles, and stubbornly stick to my own. Unless these people have lived in caves, untouched by the wider world, they are doing the same with their viewpoints.

Now this was a much more Fluther worthy conversation. I’ll admit that I wasn’t fully paying attention last night because I don’t think you can have an intellectually honest conversation about something as hypothetical as “if religion disappeared overnight then nothing in the world would change” or “my buddy ate peanut butter so if religion disappeared people could just do that.”

Ideologues will stick to their position despite all evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, it becomes a lot like trying to convince a KKK member that there are good people who aren’t white. Nothing, even a minority doctor saving their life, will convince them otherwise unless they are honest with themselves.

[Plus, Lost was on]

@Poser said: “I wholeheartedly reject it. I am guilty. I have arrived at my viewpoint after studying the issue from different angles, and stubbornly stick to my own.”

The best answer to that is: “Nice try, poser.” And I don’t mean your name. I mean your title: You are merely posing as someone who understands both viewpoints and is thereby making a free choice between them. But this is a false dilemma because the truth is, you remain ignorant of some necessary information that would force your conviction to change. That’s the real reason why you disagree with me.

You’re actually stuck disagreeing with me. You can always “claim” to agree with me.. but merely claiming to agree is different than actually agreeing. Actually agreeing with me, I daresay, is impossible for you in this moment.

Please take a moment to try now and let us know how it goes…

@Poser said: “no rationally thinking being is innocent (or ignorant), once having been introduced to a viewpoint counter to their own.”

introduction to a viewpoint, as you are observing, is not necessarily conviction of that viewpoint. conviction requires Sufficient Evidence. A thing, I have not yet given you on the matter. Every post, however, brings you one step closer to agreeing with me. Each post contributes SOME of the “sufficient evidence” package. But your re-conviction will not be complete until you have all the sufficient evidence that you, as an individual, require. (everyone needs different amounts/kinds of evidence to convince them of something.. everyone learns differently after all)

What it means to be “stubborn”
The problem with evidence is that people don’t always think they need it. They think they cannot be convinced and so they stop bothering to investigate the contrary opinion. Essentially, these people are innocently convinced that it would be a waste of time to try to learn why they are wrong because they do not believe it is at all possible for them to be wrong. But if you take the challenge, do the research and figure it out.. you often find that you are in fact wrong.