4 ms·

Actually, the opposite is true: an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in ter

Actually, the opposite is true: an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. It is certainly true that a lot of bad has been done in the name of religion*, and that there are some number of close-minded religious nutter types that make the news but relative to the totals these are both minorities. And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. * People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Government suppression of religious freedom/diversity has played a large role in this too. Edit: a few quick references out of many. Sociologists have long been aware of positive impacts of religion (e.g. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/ https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-lif...) for individuals and "local" societies, but even at the macroeconomic level there is strong evidence that religion has aided economic development, globalism, etc.: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11... https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-development https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-develo...

yellowapple 6y ago
> an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. That is not mutually exclusive with the idea of organized religion being a tool of societal control. Sometimes that societal control happens to have good (or at least less bad) results. > And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. There's a reason why I'm specifying "organized" in "organized religion". The primary reason to organize a religion - rather than, say, allowing practitioners to autonomously determine for themselves their connection with the universe around them and how to interpret and reason about said connection - is precisely to constrain how practitioners reason about that connection. The very concepts of "blasphemy", "infidelity", "apostasy", "hereticism", etc. all strongly imply a desire for control. And given that the notion of a separation of church and state is pretty recent from a historical standpoint, it's pretty patently obvious where this leads for societies on local, regional, and national stages alike. That is: > People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Religion - particularly the organized variety - has historically played a large role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of societes. In the majority of those societies, said role was by government fiat. Consequently: > Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Right, but that doesn't change the reality that organized religion is such a tool, by design per its very nature of being organized.

yellowapple 6y ago

> an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. That is not mutually exclusive with the idea of organized religion being a tool of societal control. Sometimes that societal control happens to have good (or at least less bad) results. > And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. There's a reason why I'm specifying "organized" in "organized religion". The primary reason to organize a religion - rather than, say, allowing practitioners to autonomously determine for themselves their connection with the universe around them and how to interpret and reason about said connection - is precisely to constrain how practitioners reason about that connection. The very concepts of "blasphemy", "infidelity", "apostasy", "hereticism", etc. all strongly imply a desire for control. And given that the notion of a separation of church and state is pretty recent from a historical standpoint, it's pretty patently obvious where this leads for societies on local, regional, and national stages alike. That is: > People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Religion - particularly the organized variety - has historically played a large role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of societes. In the majority of those societies, said role was by government fiat. Consequently: > Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Right, but that doesn't change the reality that organized religion is such a tool, by design per its very nature of being organized.