I just want this to be a type of poll. I don't want any debating because this argument isn't really debatable. It's just up to every person's own thoughts, so please answer 'yes' or 'no'. Or some other short answer that I'm sure people will come up with.
Do you think the world would be a better place if there had never been any religions?
Oh God. Not this again...
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Brian: I just want this to be a type of poll. I don't want any debating because this argument isn't really debatable. It's just up to every person's own thoughts, so please answer 'yes' or 'no'. Or some other short answer that I'm sure people will come up with. Do you think the world would be a better place if there had never been any religions?
As Rothbard perfectly showed in his writings on history, most early movements on secularism, humanism, and rationalism were evil in intentions and results, and rooted in greed, materialism, and desire to destroy one's enemies and have all power. See the kind of people who surrounded de Medici in the Republic of Florence.
These secular movements in themselves were started by people who were, at least nominally, Catholics, so secular tradition itself has a religious background.
Religion was a good barrier against absolute power, but religious people themselves worked to uproot religion to gain that power. It's all highly unusual.
I'll rephrase your question.
Do you think the world would be a better place if there had never been any culture, heritage, and traditions with a spiritual signficance?
As a Christian...No
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
"Do you think the world would be a better place if there had never been any religions?"
I think the world be a better place, today, without religions, but i don't think the world would have been a better place without religions
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
What is problematic for liberalism is not religion, but theocracy. And there are plenty of non-religious theocratic cults such as communism too.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Nope, and I'm an Agnostic who borders on Deism.
Religion is just a part of human nature in a way, we construct narratives in order to understand our own actions, as well as the unexplainable and thus religion emerges from this. Anti-religion seems to go hand in hand with statism as well, historically speaking.
I also confess to find the attitude of a lot of atheists rather arrogant. Any group who demands they be called 'brights' is fully deserving of a facepalm for example.
And then there's the hypocrisy, they rail against religious opposition to stem cell research for example, which I happen to agree with them on but on the flipside, I've never seen a single one of these self-annointed paragons of rationality and defenders of truth stick up for race realists when they come under fire from the irrational, anti-scientific 'liberal' elite, James Dewey Watson springs to mind. Where was Dawkins when Watson's name was being dragged through the mud by quasi-creationist leftists?
"If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits."- Jared Taylor
abskebabs: What is problematic for liberalism is not religion, but theocracy. And there are plenty of non-religious theocratic cults such as communism too.
There is absolutely nothing particularly wrong with theocracy, any more than there is with a republic. A republic still has a constitution, based on some articulation of moral lines to which even the state must adhere.
What did medieval European theocracies demand? That the ruler be Christian. What did it mean to be Christian? That you be obedient to the rules of moral life. What were those rules of moral life? Those that were understood and investigated by many Christian scholars on the morality of everyday life, such as the Scholastics.
That there is a system of establishing moral rules under which the ruler must be held back, not merely by his own will, but by the passion for justice inherent in all his subjects and all those who guide him is something that was the idealistic view of both the republic and the theocracy.
In the days of theocratic monarchies in Europe, the king was merely a subject to greater powers to which he had to be obedient. He was a delegated servant of handling law and order.
Thus, the removal of those greater powers, the need for the ruler to be Christian, paves the way for absolute power of the ruler.
Now, when you consider the strong road cut across liberty in the modern age, does it come from moral rulers or amoral rulers? Is Obama a moral ruler for ordering assassinations in which 1,400 Pakistanis are killed? Is Blair a moral ruler for ordering his own citizens kidnapped and tortured in dark rooms? Is Sakaashvilli a moral ruler for ordering Russian and Ossetian civilians killed?
Can you look at these men and call them Christians?
Could they have been able to show their face to the Church in those days and be able to say that they will do whatever they want, and not care if the Pope withdraws his support for his nation? Could his Christian subjects have accepted him after that?
Nationalism was the greatest evil of our times. None of us must forget that Christianity was the one thing that successfully prevented the rise of the evil, amoral, all-empowered thing that we call the nation-state.
Prateek Sanjay:None of us must forget that Christianity was the one thing that successfully prevented the rise of the evil, amoral, all-empowered thing that we call the nation-state.
I'm not saying I do or do not agree with you, but based on your rationale, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and probably dozens of other isms had the same effect.
The real difference here seems to be the standard for rule being popularity versus moral rules, and the false premise of democracy, which is that popular opinion is always moral, or consistent with virtue.
None of us must forget that Christianity was the one thing that successfully prevented the rise of the evil, amoral, all-empowered thing that we call the nation-state.
Yes, because there was no war in history that was fought in the Christian God's name? You are forgetting the role of the church with the state.
...I might be wrong but my understanding is that the relative calm in statist abuses had a lot more to do with the institutional independence of the Catholic Church and the fractious division of power endangering capital flight, as opposed to anything particular to Christian theology(though no doubt it had an effect). No doubt the scholastics were awesome, but it is these conditions that allowed them to become as they were. None of these states had any semblence of religious tolerance, and we can see the results that followed in the religious wars that followed the Reformation which upset the previous religious homogeneity of Western Europe. Notably, the first area in the west that was truly religiously tolerant was the Netherlands, with Amsterdam becoming the first major commercial center of Europe. I believe this correlation of economic liberty and religious liberty is more than just coincidence.
Liberalism differs from collectivistic creeds in the sense that it does not rely on man to sacrifice his well being for the greater good in support of the framework of laws it supports but calls on him to realise the benefits they can receive from extended cooperation and a division of labour. Collectivist doctrines cannot resort to ratiocination since the truth is either the findings of one prohet's intution versus another, with nationalism and communism being simply the latest in a long line of these cults.
@Bert
Well, looking at things from human action and human nature, here's what we can say.
Considering that the Crusaders ended up raping, murdering, and stealing from thousands of Muslims in Jerusalem and Palestine, and created their own tiny fiefdoms for the spoils of their riches, we can ask ourselves this.
Was it of serious conviction to the Christian God that a knight travels to distant lands to rape, pillage, and steal?
Or was it plain and simple greed, rotten immoral character, lack of respect for private property, desire for short-term kicks, and no thought about the future?
We are not perfect creatures, obviously, and even Christianity did not do a perfect job of taming man. Nothing would, really, but mankind does its best. The one thing we can admit is that Europe is a peaceful region now, and has not seen war for the longest time and won't for a long time. It's partly that Christianity, partly the sweeping change of capitalism and industrial civilization, and partly the inner will to enjoy the simpler things of life.
Of course, the new utopian measures in Europe have led to a rise in crime in Britain and France, but that's another story.
Religions include statism, so yes. But that would be impossible, as religion (as statism) was probably an evolutionary feature.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I'd honestly have to say "No." I'm kind of a Deist...Christian...thing... (It's complicated) so I might be biased, but too many people focus on the negative actions done in the supposed name of religion and not enough on the positive. Heck, just look at the conquest of the New World. The conquistadors' more rapacious tendencies were often checked by the Catholic Church--heck, just look at Bartolome de Las Casas for a perfect example. Not only that, but religious institutions have historically often been places where the poor and needy could get charity. Yes, there have been those who kill and pillage and act tyrannical in the name of God and church, but those same people very likely would have found a different avenue--i.e. politics--if religion had never existed.
I am an Atheist. That said, Religion is mans first attempt at Philosophy and attempting to explain the world. Would the world be better if that had never happened? Absolutely not. I am however happy that philosophy and science has surpassed it's superstitious beginnings, even though some still cling to the old ways.
Sam Armstrong:I am however happy that philosophy and science has surpassed it's superstitious beginnings, even though some still cling to the old ways.
Philosophy and science are riddled with superstition. Check out Gerard Casey's lecture, "Twp Roads, One Truth"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoQ6vQf3X6Q
Organized religion and freedom are mutually exclusive. A free agent can exercise her freedom only when she is not forced nor is a victim of fraud. Since organized religion is based on fraud, it can never be compatible with freedom (which requires the absence of fraud).
Philosophy and science are riddled with superstition.
Indeed! And so called value-free economic science is the best example of such state of affairs.
poor Willblake. with nothing to believe in.
lets have an argument about something.
pick a topic.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Is that a lame attempt at sarcasm? A bad joke? If not then I don't know what you mean.
If you are here to pick a fight about economics I wish you would start.
There are and have always been a small minority of mankind that has lacked any sort of compunction toward initiating force against peaceful people. These individuals will find an excuse to accumulate coercive power and wealth without having to subject themselves to free market competition and the supremacy of individual rights.
Their motivations vary: piety, greed, lust, love, hatred, jealousy, ambition, and faith are a few. Are we to condemn all or any of these motivations merely because a few, select individuals have been prompted by these emotions to commit heinous acts?
I would argue that we should not. Rather, it is the actions themselves that must be condemend. To praise motivations, as Ayn Rand has praised greed, or any number of preachers/imams/spiritual leaders have praised piety and faith, is to make the mistake of believing that motivations are either inherently good or evil. They are neither! Motivations can prompt both many different sorts of behaviors, both good and ill. It is the behaviors themselves that should be tagged with moral superlatives.
Theism has motivated crusaders to pillage and rape, jihadists to enslave and murder, inquisitors to torture, and kings and sultans to make wars of conquest. But it has also motivated good behavior that has been fundamentally beneficial to mankind. Let's condemn or praise the behavior, not the motivation.
So in brief: no, I don't think the world would be a better place without theism. Nor do I think it is a better place for it. Bad people will always find an excuse to do bad things. Gods have proven to offer convent excuses for many, but are we too blame the Gods for that? Hardly. In the absence of Gods, some other excuse will be found to use force. Let's attack the real problem: force itself!
The real problem is the fraud that lies at the base of all organized religions. When some people(theocrats) pretend to be able to talk to the gods, and other people(subjects) tolerate such stupid fraud, bad things are bound to happen. Force is a CONSEQUENCE of organized religion, the problem itself is organized religion.
WillBlake:The real problem is the fraud that lies at the base of all organized religions. When some people(theocrats) pretend to be able to talk to the gods, and other people(subjects) tolerate such stupid fraud, bad things are bound to happen.
Can you disprove God? Of course not. You can't prove a negative. So you can't make the case that they are not talking to God. If they sincerely believe they are, then there is no fraud. Fraud is an intent to deceive. It is not exclusive to religion. Religion has as many useful idiots as science and statism.
WillBlake:Force is a CONSEQUENCE of organized religion, the problem itself is organized religion.
Then explain crimes perpetrated by secular atheists. kthx.
Can you disprove God? Of course not.
If they sincerely believe they are, then there is no fraud.
Can you prove they 'sincerely' believe their own lies? No you CAN'T.
But even more important : Saying that a liar is not a liar because he pretends to not be a liar is laughable circular nonsense.
SO, theocrats who assert that they represent 'god' on earth or similar nonsense HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
WillBlake: Can you disprove God? Of course not. Huh? Can you prove that judaism is the true one religion(TM)? Or is it catholicism? (which means judaism is a fraud)
Again, fraud is willfully deception with the intent to deceive. A catholic and a jew can both believe their religions are the one true religion, and neither is committing fraud, just like you can believe chocolate is the best tasting ice cream and I can think vanilla is the best tasting ice cream, and neither of us would be committing fraud with our opinions.
WillBlake:Then explain crimes perpetrated by secular atheists. kthx. A-->B doesn't necessarily imply B-->A. Next?
What does that even mean? My point was, organized religion doesn't necessitate force, Buddhism is a great example of that. Force becomes an issue when a moral doctrine ignores property rights. That is not unique to organized religion. It is common with secular atheists. Indeed, many of the world's great mass murderers like George Bush, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Lyndon Johnson committed their heinous crimes not for religious reasons (or ends) but for political and economic ideologies.
WillBlake: If they sincerely believe they are, then there is no fraud. Can you prove they 'sincerely' believe their own lies? No you CAN'T.
If you are asserting fraud, the burden of proof is on you.
WillBlake, when dealing with religion, you need to distinguish between fraud and schizophrenia.
Also, remember what Mises said about magic. Magic is a form of technology in that it is a means used to achieve an end. Granted, it is very ineffective beyond the placebo effect, but it is still a form of technology.
If I sincerely believe magic man will heal my sick son and I do not exercise any treatment or/and do not call for a doctor to help him, I can not be blamed when my son dies, because well, I sincerely believed. Sincerity is free gettoutofthejail card.
Magic is a form of technology in that it is a means used to achieve an end. Granted, it is very ineffective beyond the placebo effect, but it is still a form of technology.
what a hell am I reading.
I am a sovereign state.
Some who've heard me declare this are going to insist that is MY religion. And they would be correct to a certain extent: my state is certainly organized (well, at my age I should admit it is disorganized much of the time).
My state has its existance of The Creator, by The Creator, for the people.
So to say "we" would be better off had "religion" never existed -- that would certainly have been unfortunate for ME; would it not?
Sam
MaikU: If I sincerely believe magic man will heal my sick son and I do not exercise any treatment or/and do not call for a doctor to help him, I can not be blamed when my son dies, because well, I sincerely believed. Sincerity is free gettoutofthejail card.
I will say this. What you know is a lot less than what you don't know. Every person acts on faith every single day. They drive their car, on the belief they will not get into an accident. They ride in elevators, believing that they won't get stuck. They turn on gas stoves, confident that they won't burn their house down.
And yet, elevators get stuck, traffic accidents happen and houses burn down from kitchen fires.
Even going to a medical doctor, approved by the latest state academics and state bureaucrats, isn't a guarantee that he will provide the best or most competent treatment for your son. It is a faith in his training, a faith in the odds, a faith in the state, a faith in science, a faith in the social norms for medical treatment, whatever rationale you need, in order to make that leap of faith and act.
We may be perfectly rational in the Misesian sense, but we don't have access to perfect knowledge, and this is where Athesist arguments become unglued. You can't perfectly know God doesn't exist, and I am sure many would agree, you can't really prove he does. So belief or disbelief in God is an act of faith, that what you do not know isn't different than what you think.
liberty student : If you are asserting fraud, the burden of proof is on you.
No, people who make obviously false claims, such as being able to talk to god(s), are the ones who have the burden of proof.
Please don't play silly games with me.
Aquila : WillBlake, when dealing with religion, you need to distinguish between fraud and schizophrenia.
Are you saying that so called religious people suffer schizophrenia? Your defense of them is hardly flattering...
Regardless, I don't believe in the modern religion of psychiatry either.
Rather, this is a matter of common sense :
You(impersonal pronoun) claim to have access to the supernatural power(s) that created the universe? Amazing! Now, please PROVE IT.
Saying that people who believe in God are schizophrenic is like saying people who can't pay attention in school have ADD.
WillBlake: liberty student : If you are asserting fraud, the burden of proof is on you. No, people who make obviously false claims, such as being able to talk to god(s), are the ones who have the burden of proof. Please don't play silly games with me.
I'm not playing games. To assert that all claims are fraud, would require the accused party to prove a negative (which is a logical fallacy), the negative being that they are NOT engaged in fraud. Proof is positive, not negative.
Quote by Willblake:"You(impersonal pronoun) claim to have access to the supernatural power(s) that created the universe? Amazing! Now, please PROVE IT."
Well some people would say that everyone has access to God. Not in terms of "Hey man how are you doing?", but that you have the ability to communicate with God just like anyone else without some sort of intermediary. That doesn't mean God is going to talk back to you vocally or anything like that.
Although what I've been hearing you say is that you don't like "organized" religion- so is your problem with priests that claim that they are closer to God than others are? If that's the case, then even many religious people(Like me), won't agree with that.
Perhaps you could be more specific as to what exactly it is you're complaining about. There are different religions and beliefs that will tell you there are ways to access a supernatural "otherworldly" power. But that it requires a lot of work and very specific meditation. A lot of old yogi's would tell you they do have access to a supernatural power- but that it makes them as a person more ordinary than extraordinary as paradoxical as that sounds. They'd even help you to access this power yourself(pretty much trying to answer your challenge) but would you be willing to put in the time and effort yourself to see if they work?
Sky cake... the key to civilization.