Religion is judged on a wrong basis
In this day and age we judge religion on a factual, scientific basis. We judge religion as undesirable because religion has given wrong answers to factual questions. We also judge religion as undesirable because religions have violent histories. We also judge religion as logically inconsistent (especially in relation to such concepts as God, etc). Do these points provide sufficient grounds for judging religion as bad? Are positive impacts of religion negligible? Is it ultimately irrelevant whether religion makes people satisfied and happy?
These are the question I am considering. We usually condemn religion, and this condemnation is often well argued. What I want to consider is whether this argumentation is sufficient. In oversimplistic terms, are we overreacting?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
I believe religions are widely misunderstood. Most Muslims are secular, some are extremists, but to judge Islam as violent on this basis is simply unreasonable. Most Christians are secular and have a very relaxed relationship with their religion. Yet our understanding of Christianity takes groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and events like the Crucades as our starting points. These are the major religions of our world. What about the others? Where does Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism fit in with this picture? What indeed is so frigthenening about religion that it seems like everything religious should litterally be eradicated? I see no reasonable explanation, I only see an overreacting amygdala. Religion should be judged on whether it leads people towards a more happy existence, and on whether religion makes people kinder towards each other. Things like Creationism and religion-infused stupidity in general are obviously problems which should be dealt with accordingly, but I do believe that the general tendency towards condemnation is unfounded. Side: Yes
1
point
I disagree with you. Ask any Christian or Muslim what the point of life is and they will most likely say "to serve god/allah". And religion does NOT make people kinder towards each other, especially when people have differing beliefs. Heck, people with different political philosophies are already quite aggressive towards each other... Side: No
And religion does NOT make people kinder towards each other, especially when people have differing beliefs. Look, I am not trying to praise religion here, and by extension I am not trying to say that religions necesarilly make people nicer towards each other. I am trying to determine in what ways religions should be judged. If you think a religion that makes people resentful of each other is a bad religion then I agree with you; that's a good basis for judging religions. Ask any Christian or Muslim what the point of life is and they will most likely say "to serve god/allah". Would you clarify why such servitude is a good way to judge religions as bad? What exactly about worship of a God makes a religion a bad thing? Side: No
|
2
points
Are we overreacting to religion? No. Religion gives people comfort, security, and hope. But it can easily be used to control the masses in a negative way. The Crusades for example, happened because one of the religious extremists (the pope) managed to convince the other followers to go to war. And for what? To get the "holy land back from the infidels"? The way I see it, there are just far too many negatives to religion to justify it. Side: No
But it can easily be used to control the masses in a negative way. So religion is undesirable because it can be used to manipulate people, correct? I think the same goes for politics. Politicians can manipulate people by appealing to democratically pleasing terms such as freedom, human rights, etc. For instance, it's remarkable how in times of war how politicians seem to talk more about peace than during all other times. You mention the crusades, I will Vietnam. So while I will give you that religion isn't foolproof; it indeed is true that it has been used to make people kill each other for stupid reason, but I still think same goes for politics. The problem here, it seems, isn't religion can be used to manipulate people, but that people are manipulable. Therefore, this isn't a good way to judge religion exclusively. This point merely sets religion on par with many other things. It seems to me that if a religion has a sort of mechanism that prevents negative control of the masses, then it's alright. I don't think such a thing is impossible, religion can endorse self-empowerment and skepticism of authority, so I don't think this is not a good point for judging religions in general, but your point really is decent for judging specific religions (like certain types of Christianity). Side: Yes
1
point
|
