This is a sister thread to THIS one where most of my thoughts on this matter are discussed. However, since that thread was about Why do we desire to Believe and not whether religion does more Good or Bad in today's world, I started this thread to streamline the discussions. Perhaps the ultimate question to consider in this thread is not so much the positivity or negativity of religious impact today but rather whether any such impact is justified at all anymore. Does religion have any meaning or significance in a world where it apparently is now redundant?
Religion does: More Harm or More Good?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Before we had God and priest for confession, in the modern system we changed God and priest for psychiatrist in order to alleviate our mind
Are priests just as good at psychoanalysis, do you think? I use the term not in the Freudian sense, but more generally, analysis of the psyche.
The church understands the psyche of Humanity fully
Hence the control it has over people
so what are you asking specifically?
whether redundant things have significance or whether religion is redundant?
IOW care to frame the Op again in a manner that isn't loaded ....
They have served society for a long period
What do you mean by "religion"? Any nasty thing that comes into your mind and has some cultural/popular association to the word "religion"?
What good does religion do that is major enough to make up for religious discrimination, social evils, wars and acts of terror? I do agree however that religion is not completely redundant, but that sense of community and solidarity can come from other sources too.
Then he wouldn't have a topic post.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What's "religion"? What does the classification include and exclude? The distinction between religion and not-religion seems awfully vague at the edges. Is Marxism a religion? (It obviously espouses a Jewish-style apocalyptic eschatology.) Is philosophical idealism a religion? (It's a supernaturalistic doctrine that's often opposed to scientific physicalism.) Is UFO belief a new-religion? (It seems to be the familiar angels and demons, re-dressed in new ostensibly more "scientific" clothing.) Is Freudianism a religion? ...
And how should we go about deciding how much good a religion does? Obviously, if a religion like Christianity or Islam truly offers people salvation and eternal communion with ultimate goodness, being and perfection, then these religions would seem to have infinite value. If we choose not to accept those claims, then we are kind of assuming an atheist view of those religions by default.
Even if we embrace atheism, we still have the problem of quantifying the comfort and happiness that religious faith has provided many people, along with the problem of assessing religion's actual causal role in things that we don't like, like wars and persecutions. While we all have intuitions about that kind of stuff, none of us really has any hard data.
Again, if religion (whatever that word is being used to refer to) is true, then that truth would seem to answer your question.
If religion isn't true (in any of its countless forms, functions and guises) we still have the problem of determining whether it's redundant. What does religion offer people? (I'd guess that different forms of religiosity might be providing many things to different people.) Can we be sure that non-religious alternatives exist for every role that religion plays in people's lives? Can we be certain that these hypothetical secular alternatives are going to be at least as effective, at least as true and at least as desirable? (Naziism might be described as kind of a substitute-religion, but I wouldn't exactly call it truer or more desirable than older and more traditional forms of religiosity.)
Come on, this is needless. You know what he means by religion, and he's certainly not including things that aren't religions by any definition, such as Freudianism or non-supernatural philosophical idealism.
The rest is worth discussing, but this is just obfuscation.
There are two sides of the brain. The left side is more differential while the right side is more integral. Science is more left side dominate while religion is more right side dominant. Religion is important to modern man if the goal is using both sides of the brain. The same is true of science being important to religion. If using only half a brain is enough, it is better to accept science or religion, but not both. Below is a picture I got off the web that shows distinction between sides of the brain. It is meant as a comparison tool. One should be able to see how each side is better suit to one or the other.
I suppose the two half brained orientations are useful since this helps both sides of the brain to remain differentiated for those who wish to use both sides of the brain; easier to copy.
I suppose the two half brained orientations are useful since this helps both sides of the brain to remain differentiated for those who wish to use both sides of the brain; easier to copy.
I don't really see how this promotes Religion, the right brain can be stimulated by a whole host of other activities/interests, most that don't involve the harm that religion creates. religion is sufficient, not necessary. To think that religion is required to have full use of your brain is a laugh, even more of a laugh is the underlying tone that atheists use only half their brains. lol but thanks for your input wellwisher.
Does religion do more harm than good? Ideas can be dangerous. Difference of opinions can get people killed, especially when it comes to one's eternal salvation or damnation, their ultimate purpose and life. You'll be hardpressed to find Christians that say they LOVE Islam. At most, they are ambivalent or acquiescent. At worst, Christians hate muslims or Muslims hate christians. If you see religion as a tool for uniting billions of people within their own religion, it is equally a tool for dividing even more people of one religion against every other religion. Don't even tell me that different religions live harmoniously together, history AND present-day say otherwise. Even sects WITHIN the same religion are killing each other (shia sunni muslims in Karachi bomb yesterday, catholics protestant in continued violence in Ireland). Also don't give me that bullshit idea that you LOVE everyone, meanwhile you also hold the idea that those same people are going to hell.
Religion does more harm than good because we have become brainwashed from it
Meaning that , we , Humanity , do not believe in our selves
Which is then a weakness that religion exploits
We are a weak and gullible being , unfortunately
But of course religion started when we were a primitive people , easily manipulated of course
To try the same stunts now , would bring an entirely different result , I would think
Meaning that , we , Humanity , do not believe in our selves
Which is then a weakness that religion exploits
We are a weak and gullible being , unfortunately
But of course religion started when we were a primitive people , easily manipulated of course
To try the same stunts now , would bring an entirely different result , I would think
sure
One just has to look at how totally ineffective advertising is in honing in on certain demographs of the population by capitalizing on a perceived absence of character/quality - hey !!! wait a sec :scratchin:
We have two sides of the brain, with the left brain more differential and right brain more integral. When we differentiate we look for the slope of the curve at a given point. When we integrated we look for the area under the entire curve.
We all use both sides of the brain, but we can only be conscious of one side at a time. The other side is more unconscious. If you slant left brain, this is the primary side that is conscious. The other side or right side of the brain still works fine, but most of the output will not be under conscious control. It will have more of a compelling effect. The same is true of conscious of the right side, more often. The left becomes more unconscious and compelling.
With religion, the holistic and faith aspect is easy to have because the right brain is conscious and generates data this way. Since the left brain is more unconscious, differential thinking becomes more restricted and compulsive; dogmatic without reason. The details of dogma will become fixed and not subject to the rational gymnastics one might expect of left brain reason. If you can't use the left brain as well and it is unconscious, it will still differentiate, but in a more narrow or primitive way; dogma instead of free thinking.
The opposite is true of atheism. They can use the left brain consciously (scientific method) but their right is more unconscious. It is still being used but in a more crude way compared to religion. When atheism discusses the unity of religion they stereo-type. It is not a good integration but their faith is also crude and not refined based on 3-D logic.
If you use both sides of the brain, equally, you still will use one side at a time. Switching back and forth offers a check and balance to make sure neither side is remaining too crude and unconscious. You would make sure the logic is good in the left brain. Then you go right brain to make sure the intuition add up in a global way and not just as a stereo-type.
I can see the atheist scientific logic and data since I was trained as a scientist. But I also see its irrational emotional stereo-types ways due to weak right brain utilization. I often say atheist religion because I can see this right brain output. But since ti is unconscious, it is reasoned away. Yet there is always that crusade.
We fight over which side of the brain is better, even though one brain unites us all. I get the impression some don't wish to diffuse the situation. This is because the unconscious side compels.
We all use both sides of the brain, but we can only be conscious of one side at a time. The other side is more unconscious. If you slant left brain, this is the primary side that is conscious. The other side or right side of the brain still works fine, but most of the output will not be under conscious control. It will have more of a compelling effect. The same is true of conscious of the right side, more often. The left becomes more unconscious and compelling.
With religion, the holistic and faith aspect is easy to have because the right brain is conscious and generates data this way. Since the left brain is more unconscious, differential thinking becomes more restricted and compulsive; dogmatic without reason. The details of dogma will become fixed and not subject to the rational gymnastics one might expect of left brain reason. If you can't use the left brain as well and it is unconscious, it will still differentiate, but in a more narrow or primitive way; dogma instead of free thinking.
The opposite is true of atheism. They can use the left brain consciously (scientific method) but their right is more unconscious. It is still being used but in a more crude way compared to religion. When atheism discusses the unity of religion they stereo-type. It is not a good integration but their faith is also crude and not refined based on 3-D logic.
If you use both sides of the brain, equally, you still will use one side at a time. Switching back and forth offers a check and balance to make sure neither side is remaining too crude and unconscious. You would make sure the logic is good in the left brain. Then you go right brain to make sure the intuition add up in a global way and not just as a stereo-type.
I can see the atheist scientific logic and data since I was trained as a scientist. But I also see its irrational emotional stereo-types ways due to weak right brain utilization. I often say atheist religion because I can see this right brain output. But since ti is unconscious, it is reasoned away. Yet there is always that crusade.
We fight over which side of the brain is better, even though one brain unites us all. I get the impression some don't wish to diffuse the situation. This is because the unconscious side compels.
When I drive trough some of the black are in my town , and I know it is a district of high crime , then I look for churches , I say to myself thank God there are some God fearing people there , otherwise it would be even worse .
So that is my comment if religion does good or bad.
Human that believe in him selves , usually ends up in prison, because he does not have respect for any body. Sense what makes humanity is a collection of human , Your idea spills a disaster
[video=youtube;h-bWZwxAb6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-bWZwxAb6A[/video]
I listened more the one half . I am discussing things from the area in my city. Here we are not using religion for political gain , I my case is the safety of the city in a homogenous believe .
What the speaker refers is the politician are using religious leaders to free their are from foreign invaders. take Northern Ireland, same as in the Balkan or what the British have done for century brig several culture together which in the past were unfriendly to each other and now they are searching for independence by using religion.