Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[HisMajestyBOB]

Because of things like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html

"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."

For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:


As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer

Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.

"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.

This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.

It all depends on the focus of the believer in question. 

In the 19th century American evangelicals actively promoted various and vast societal reforms because they believed that only by bringing the world closer to perfection could the second coming of Christ occur. The Kingdom of God had to be established by believers on Earth for Christ to rule over.

Most evangelicals today are premillenials, they believe that Christ will return to a world steeped in sin and he will build the Kingdom himself.

So we need to start sinning to bring about the second coming? Hmmm

[DGuller]

I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.

We were discussing this very topic in AP World today:  why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD?  Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc).  The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them.  That was reward after death.

Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed.  Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order.  The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes:  reward after death.

Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.

Can't it just be the natural progression?  Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized.  Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.

[mongers]

I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.

We were discussing this very topic in AP World today:  why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD?  Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc).  The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them.  That was reward after death.

Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed.  Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order.  The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes:  reward after death.

Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.

Can't it just be the natural progression?  Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized.  Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself

[DGuller]

Cliff notes?

[mongers]

Cliff notes?

Cliff would be the last person to support the socialists.

[Razgovory]

Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake.  In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided.  It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other.  Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust.   They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world.  People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant.  In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey.  Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made.  "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin.  The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes.  In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting.  The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".

[Razgovory]

Cliff notes?

A man who's works would result in more deaths then any religion.

[Barrister]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

[Razgovory]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences.  The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them.  It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.

[crazy canuck]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

Yes. But it was pure rhetoric.  There was nothing scientific about it.  The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so 

[Eddie Teach]

Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.

[Valmy]

Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.

Well I still think it should be used to build roads.

[DGuller]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences.  The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them.  It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.

In the case of Russian communists, there was a far simpler reason to dislike religion.  Russian Orthodox Church has always been a supremely reactionary force in Russian society, and always very closely related to the supremely oppressive governments.  It was always going to be opposed to progress, while communists were a logical conclusion of moderate progressive forces being suppressed in the decades preceding the revolution.  Yes, Russian Communists were very bad guys, and history bore that out, but the Orthodox church as a victim is not a very sympathetic one.

[Razgovory]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

Yes. But it was pure rhetoric.  There was nothing scientific about it.  The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so 

Uh, what do you think makes something, "scientific"?

[Razgovory]

You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?

The communists seemed to believe it though.  They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.

As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences.  The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them.  It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.

In the case of Russian communists, there was a far simpler reason to dislike religion.  Russian Orthodox Church has always been a supremely reactionary force in Russian society, and always very closely related to the supremely oppressive governments.  It was always going to be opposed to progress, while communists were a logical conclusion of moderate progressive forces being suppressed in the decades preceding the revolution.  Yes, Russian Communists were very bad guys, and history bore that out, but the Orthodox church as a victim is not a very sympathetic one.

And the various Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants that were murdered by the Communists, what was their crime?