Religion has Never Bettered the World

The daily life of your 99th percentile human from the time of the earliest civilizations and up until the 19th century was one of rigorous, daily toil. If you were in the elite, then your life was better, but still the quality of life was largely consistent from the nobles of ancient Egypt and the Monarchs of 13th century Europe.

There was some minor advancement in construction techniques, some advancement in metallurgy, etc. But even still, by and large, the quality life was largely consistent.

Through all that time, there were deities and philosophers who told us that the farmer was the core of the world, or that the warrior was at the core of the world. Religions told us that war was good, that war was bad. We had religions telling us that we would go to a better place, go to a worse place, be reborn, or any other conceivable possibility of what could happen after our deaths. Every single one of these religions told us how to behave so that either the world or our future selves would be better. In either case, behaving should have the effect of bettering the world by bettering human interactions.

But was there really any people who were less inclined to war? Was there any group who didn’t look down on some people as more or less great in value than what they were born as? Very rarely was a woman considered to be anything more than the property of her father, and subsequently of her husband.

Everyone believed in magic and curses. Medicinal and healing techniques were at best placebos and at worst actively harmful. The average person could not read, nor likely perform basic arithmetic.

History was written by the winners, and speaking out publicly against the government would see one killed or imprisoned.

We’re talking something like 4000 years here, and yes there is no noticeable change for any of it beyond a move from bronze swords to iron.

Now you might say that without religion, we would surely have been worse. But that idea doesn’t hold up. Confucius was a philosopher not a saint nor prophet, and his teachings are more or less consistent with the teachings of Christianity. Many religions didn’t preach any large moral system, instead being principally concerned with the correct rituals to perform so as to please the gods. These groups were neither better nor worse than any other group of humans. They were all just human. The average man toiled, the nobles fought wars and collected taxes, the clergy/shaman/monks did their own thing.

What finally brought about change was the ability to produce large quantities of paper, the formulation of the scientific method (brought on by the introduction of paper into Islamic society pursuant to the Islamic Golden Age), and the power of interest-based loans (which is what allowed Europeans to start paper production businesses pursuant to the Renaissance.)

The availability of capital, the ability to share knowledge, and a system to test and verify real world effects lead to the printing press, the middle class, and factories. These lead to pure research, democracy, and the production of items to better the lives of the lowest class, and free them from the full-day toil of working a subsistence farm. That allowed them the time to learn to read and write, and eventually break down the class system.

When no religion has stated anything new under the sun starting from thousands of years back, nor ever had any effect on the weather, on the number of witches in town, nor on the general benevolence of humanity, the argument that bettering life on Earth isn’t as important as what happens after death seems rather baseless. I know I can improve the morality of humanity be giving them the incentive to do so, and freeing them from the life-or-death quality of daily life that used to be. The last several centuries have proved it. Any deity so wise as all that seems like he should have been able to see that for himself.

As my signature says:

Are you talking about Religion, Religious Organizations, or Theology? They’re three different ducks.

Maybe. The Sistine Chapel is, nevertheless, really pretty.

Any fifth grader could tutor advanced calculus without religion.

No one would be asking Cecil how pimentos grow inside stuffed green olives.

Ok, religion out, science in. The goal is… to arrange all the matter in the universe into the optimum configuration?

The goal is whatever we decide it to be; science can help us discover what the world is really like and how it really works. It doesn’t tell us what is desirable; that’s not an objective question. Although once we do decide what is desirable, it can tell us the ways we can get there.

That still makes it better than religion, which gives a false picture of the world and how it works, and while it has goals they are usually bad ones. And even when they aren’t bad ones, the delusional nature of religion means the results will probably be bad regardless of any good intentions.

You also think philosophers are useless?

No it wasn’t/isn’t. You must have missed the enormous amount of history Germany has made on WW-I & WW-II, that the USA has made on the Vietnam war, etc. even from the second historian in history, the Athenian general Thucydides writing about the Peloponnesian war which Athens lost. And you must have seriously missed out if you think nothing worthwhile was ever produced in ancient Greece or Rome or before the 13th century generally.

And you are only focused on material gain. You might as well say all art is useless bunk. I personally love Greek and Nordic mythology. Religion is great because it produces great myths and tells great stories. The same way Shakespeare is great. Never mind that we have a full stomach (not that it has made us any less prone to war) a society so obsessed with the material world to the exclusion of all else would be a boring place indeed.

Neither have message boards.

So what?

I’ve no dog in this fight, but it’s worth pointing out that religion and science are not (or were not, at least) mutually exclusive; many Islamic scholars advanced science considerably (in the field of optics, for example) when the rest of Europe was in rather… unenlightened times.

And a monk named Mendel was responsible for some interesting work on the subject of dominant versus recessive genes.

I wonder if Mendel would have done it even if he were not a monk. Perhaps it was because he was educated? Some early Christians like Galileo were punished because of their thinking out side the religious box. So I can’t see how that argument stands.

No, I didn’t suppose you would.

But at some times in history, monasteries were repositories of learning and literacy.

I don’t think there’s any realistic way to separate the contributions of religious people from their religion. We can’t know what might have been were they not moved in part by their religious belief. That’s why IMO statements like the thread title are somewhat ludicrous. Someone may hold that opinion but there’s no way to establish it as a realistic probability.

Mmm. See also folks like the Oxford Franciscan School - would they have established it (or would it have been as successful) without the religious element?

Well, there’s that thing about abolishing slavery in the West, which was largely due to religious groups like the Quakers and Mennonites, and triggered by the Great Awakening.

And of course, those who practice their religion donate significantly more to charity (cite) than secular folks. And religious people (as defined above) have happier and more successful lives pretty much across the board - they divorce at lower rates, report higher levels of happiness subjectively, abuse drugs and alcohol less often, volunteer in their communities more often, etc. (I’ve cited these enough in the past not to bother this time.)

Regards,
shodan

Everyone was religious at the time, so saying that it was the religious fighting against slavery is rather meaningless. It was the religious fighting for slavery. And amazingly the movement didn’t gain traction until economic alternatives started to come into being.

Secular folks are on average wealthier, and end up paying the majority of the taxes which -actually- support the poor. Charity is now in the hands of the government rather than the church, just the way our legal representatives voted to do it.

More importantly, technology has improved the world for more than charity ever did.

No, you missed the part about the Great Awakening.

I am afraid you are mistaken there, too - government taxation goes to things like defense and is much less efficient than private charity.

Also, religious people do more volunteering in their community, which is not dependent on wealth. They also donate blood more, which is equally unrelated.

Which has, unfortunately, nothing much to do with your OP. The Salvation Army spent $2.6 billion on community centers and disaster relief in 2004. American Atheists spent nothing on these causes. Does that mean that American Atheists have never bettered the world?

Regards,
Shodan

Excuse me? During this time, millions of people were herded into factories and mines where they toiled under horrific conditions and lived in slums of almost inimaginable squalor. They were better off as serfs than as proletarians. These evils inspired radical political movements which eventually led to the establishment of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, two radical secularist states which murdered four or five times as many people as the Nazis. (And there would have been no Hitler if there had been no Lenin.)

I would like to believe in your shining vision of science, progress and reason leading humanity to a brave new world, but an awfully high cost in bloodshed and brutal repression seems to be involved. Before you complain too loudly about the crimes committed in the name of God, you need to pay some attention to the crimes committed in the name of your religion.

“Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!” – Last words of French revolutionary Madame Roland as she was led to the guillotine.

It’s because of this that I’m not eager to dismiss the historical significance of religion, but better tools for understanding the universe have come along in the last few centuries and it’s time to gently but firmly ease religion into the background.

Yes, all those Christian missionaries bringing food to starving African children. They aren’t doing anything to better the world in any way. :rolleyes: