Cheers!

There is good and bad about almost everything in life. And in a time where people couldn’t explain phenomena, religion served as the glue which gave certitude to unanswerable questions. At a time when people were happy to just listen without questioning, it seemed enough that someone claimed to know the answers.

Without doubt, religion has had a very strong influence on the way the world has shaped up today, and equally doubtless is the fact that it is a force that cannot be ignored. But to use that as a guide to morality is far fetched in today’s world. Almost all the people in the world, except for the fundamentalists, are selectively religious. They pick and choose what aspect of their religion they want to practice. This is why the moral citizen ignores the passages in their respective holy books that preaches intolerance of other religions, differential treatment of women, and a tacit acceptance of slavery, to name just a few. It is the only way to practice religion today. Ignore the shady bits.

If we were to chart out the historical good and bad brought about by religion, the good is shamefully overshadowed. The Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of Jews, the Indo-Pak feud, the Palestinian situation, the salem witch hunt – these are all just some of the direct influence of religion. The indirect consequences of religious dogma has had far reaching consequence as well.

And Science does NOT ignore religion. Instead, scientists study religion as a phenomena; a mass influence, and how it has impacted the world as we know it. Positioning science in opposition to religion, as you put it, is not something done by scientists. On the contrary, it is religion which has almost always stood in the way of scientific progress. At one point, they killed scholars who postulated that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around, because they felt that God created the world with man in the center. Then they balked at the idea of extinction altogether, because they felt at the time that God would never let any of his creatures simply vanish… and the Bible’s tacit approval of slavery; with it’s prescription of how to treat slaves and how to punish them for ‘offenses’ (quite harshly) were once used very strongly against the abolition of slavery in the United States.

These ideas which were considered sacrilegious at the time, has slowly gained acceptance today, but the fight was quite strong, with far too many innocents punished for their opinions. Progress would have been faster, and the condition of the general populace, much better, were it not for the friction created by religion. Even today, we have anti-semitics, opposition to stem cell research, and homophobia, all of which has a strong support through religion. Granted, there are some contrived arguments even from non-religious sources, but the strongest support is undoubtedly, religion.

On a personal note, I’m a Christian, and I DO believe in a God, but I would never let Him dictate my morals. I never needed a historical manuscript to teach me what is right and wrong. I knew murder and theft were bad before I read the commandments, and I think moral fiber depends more on how you are brought up than quotable quotes from worn out books.

“At the least, however, intellectuals and scientists would be wise to give rape the respect they give any other object of study. It is there, and we should try to understand it. I don’t think positioning science in opposition to rape is really an accurate way of perceiving reality. Rape does exist, and we should ask why.”

FYI, scientists do try to understand why religion exists and why people are religious. That doesn’t mean they have to suddenly respect it, or believe in it themselves. The fact that religion exists doesn’t somehow make it true or valid, or worthy of respect. You seem to imply that by its mere existence it has earned credence.

“I don’t think positioning science in opposition to religion is really an accurate way of perceiving reality.” <- positioning one thing in opposition to something else has nothing to do with perception of reality. Your statement seems confused – science is in fact the only rational way of perceiving reality, and the fact that it doesn't jibe with religion doesn't mean it doesn't acknowledge that religion at present plays a major role in human societies (at least, the branches of science that have any need to consider those things). Like I said before, acknowledging it is possible without believing in it. In any case, science in general doesn't have any stated opposition to religion. It's is about seeking the truth based on observation and reason; the fact that that truth consistently flies in the face of religion is testament to how lacking religion is when it comes to, you know, veracity.

If you're a fan of religion, that's fine, but please don't preach about how it is the bedrock of morality. Just because some moral values are communicated via religion doesn't somehow give it an A+ in being an effective tool, nor does it mean that religion is necessary for morality. I don't have a religious bone in my body – am I immoral, has the 'software' of morality not been able to update my morality database? The very existence of atheists who are moral disproves the notion that religion is a necessary tool for morality. Unless you wish to imply that all of us are immoral.

And, as for your example of the modern calendar as a contribution of religion – Huh? The current Gregorian calendar is based on the Julian calendar, which is very similar and came into being a few decades BC. The calendar is the result of rational thinking, and the fact that the current one uses religious dates as a baseline is only reflective of how big religion has been and is in human society, and is in no way a credit to religion. If people used major natural disasters in history as key points for their calendar, would you really be saying that natural disasters are great because they give us a means of 'structuring time'?

If you believe in your religion and have faith, that's fine. The moment you try to rationalize it with bad arguments, that's where it stops being fine, that's where it has to be countered. Based on your reasoning, I suppose that means I haven't shown your belief enough respect?

My problem with religion is that it largely ignores the ability of the individual or society at large to arrive at conclusions based on reason, logic, experience, etc. and insists that any understanding one has be based on the authority of a god or those who represent him, on things that were written in the past by someone who purportedly represented that god or on tradition.

Personally, I don’t need any historical text or religious authority to tell me I should not discriminate against someone because of their race, that I should give some of what I have to help others in need, that it is wrong to steal, etc. Whether as individuals or a society at large we have the capacity to arrive at positions of morality through the power of reason, logic, experience, etc. and need not rely on religion, which has proven to have harmful consequences in far too many instances.

Despite the current uptick in religious fanaticism around the world today I think we are gradually moving toward a world where religion will finally be placed in the dustbin of history.

However, with this most of them gathered many followers, which means more power and thus ended the innocense of religions. I’m pretty positive that Buddhists won’t be this tolerant/innocent if their number is as large as Chistians or Muslims. With this power, the point of religion was forgotten and it was used as a tool to gather more power to the instituitions that promote it to, err… gather more power.

That is why I find it quite difficult to respect many religions as they are today. I do admire teachings of early and more pure versions of many religions, but the form they are today is more or less repulsive. So I can’t really respect a belief taht I don’t agree with. But the absense of respect doesn’t have to be the same as holding it in active contempt. Perhpas the appropriate word is tolerance, or even indifference. I don’t respect many religions, but I don’t have a problem with them as long as they don’t come shoving it in my face. Also, I think more important is that respecting believer’s right to believe whatever nonsense (in my opinion that is – their’s differ of course) they want. But ironic it may sound, almost all the religions – or lets say followers of religions – seriously lacks in that department. To many followers mine is good while yours is shit. Pity…