Yes, the good things provided by religion would be available from other sources (unless the believers in God are right, and there really is a Creator, then nothing is available to anyone without Him), but the terrible things done in the name of religion would also be available from other sources. So, I still have to stick with my answer of “no, the world wouldn’t be better off without religion”.
Humankind naturally creates tribes and heirarchies. If religion did not exist, other ways of dividing people into groups would grow in its place.
Well, Padeye said “Christ said the most important commandment was to love God with all your hear.”, so I was just having a bit o’ fun at the expense of the missing “t” in “heart”.
But, of course, some things just sound funnier in yer head… and then ya’ let 'em loose. Hmmm… 
Read The Power of Myth, which will tell you all you want to know about weather we would be better off or for that matter simply do without religion. It is not that long and is probably in your library.
[sup]Oh, and it doesn’t promote Christianity.[/sup]
Who said they preserved HIS texts? He went to school in Pisa, which AFAIK was funded entirely by the church. Sure, one could say another organization would have replaced it, but that is an assumption, with no facts to base it upon. (How much do you think the church had a part in instilling universities and learning centers?)
Like Pythagras said, which I was saying, Christianity helped to create many of the tenants that science uses.
Links, to show you that many have come to this conclusion. Hell, I am pretty sure Carl Sagan mentioned it in at least one of his books.
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hte116.shtml
http://www.sonlifeafrica.com/model/change.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/carm.html
http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/WITTENBERG/9512/CHRISTIAN_INFLUENCE_ON_SCIENCE.-9512
http://www.christianinformation.org/infl.html
Want more? Sure, christianity is only one religion, shall I list all the contributions the Muslim religion has been a part of? How much influence Chineese culture and religion had on it’s discoveries? Not all religions are as wide reaching, and thus not as influentual, so I guess I can’t say that ALL religion has influenced society.
—I think it is safe to say that everything we have today we owe to religion, or at least it’s existance.—
Sure, but this is like arguing that without Tammy Hall, nothing would have ever gotten done. We have no way of saying what history would have been like without an element that played a huge role in everything that WAS done. Could of been better, could have been worse: who the heck knows?
Religion dominated most societies throughout history, so OBVIOUSLY everything society did was connected with religion by at least a second order connection.
Though I have to say: a lot of the ideas are getting overplayed as being religious, as if simply because someone is religious, every thought and idea they have about the world must be connected directly to their religious beliefs. Considering that plenty of people are very religious but nevertheless strive and succeed at completely, even from their view, secular goals and acitivies, that’s a pretty sloppy characterization. In general, discussions of this sort get very silly because they rely on very unreliable “guilt by association” arguments that try to read into the working of other people’s minds throughout history. Heck, most people aren’t entirely sure what goes on in their own minds even when they are doing things!
—I don’t think religious folk are all that different from non-religious folk, but I do think that religious folk are inspired, comforted, and otherwise supported by their religion.—
That’s the rub though. It’s pretty hard to argue both that religion is beneficial in an absolute sense AND that it is not superior to having no religion in that same sense. That people are comforted by one thing doesn’t demonstrate that they would be miserable without it ever having existed: that’s acting as if what’s happening is that it gets taken away AFTER having existed, rather than never having been there: two very different situations.
—The 9/11 terrorists, for example, were extremists, and were not practicing the teachings of Mohammed, because Mohammed welcomed Christians and Jews were welcome in Muslim temples, because they followed the same God that He was teaching about.—
To play devil’s advocate, even most Christians seem to distinguish “turn the other cheek” (which they ascribe to individuals) from a moral obligation to fight wars against political threats, whether inspired by religion or not (a social obligation). We may disagree about the terrorists interpretation of America’s crimes, but they do seem to be acting for what they see as the political aspect of their religion, not just randomly attacking Jews and Christians because they believe that’s what Mohammed commanded as a general policy.
I still think it is specious reasoning to conclude that universities would never have existed without the funding of the church. I could just as easily say that YOU are making an assumption. Society did not exist because the church was powerful, rather the church was powerful because society existed.
A discussion on this matter, with respect to Christianity at least, can be heard at http://www.strradio.org/current/060902.rm
Whoah! Somebody needs to take a chill-pill. If you are so emotional about your religious beliefs that you can’t discuss them without getting bent out of shape, then you really shouldn’t be posting them in a debate forum. And yes, it is indeed relevant.
I know; I was making a little joke (very little). “What?” as in I can’t hear you because my ears fell off. I guess that joke works a little better orally than in writing.
Tell me about it…
Yes, this is why I said that the world would be better off if people tried to practice the teachings of the Prophet in which they profess belief. This is because, IMHO, folks get into trouble with religion when they move away from the teachings of the Prophet, and move towards someone else’s interpretations, and what someone said about something else, etc. All the Prophets taught love and the golden rule. It was people who carried on the faith after the Prophet died that moved away from that, for their own purposes. This is when breakdown, splinter groups, sects, et. occur, and why people who follow the same religion can’t agree on how to follow that religion.
Then it is specious reasoning to assume that terrorists and their ilk would not exist if religion did not. (or wars, or the killing of innocents, ie. witchcraft) After all, if people are willing to die and kill for religion, they would just find something else to be fanatical about. Which makes the whole argument pretty pointless.
Sorry, I don’t buy the whole, something else would have replaced it argument. Posit an example of how, if religion had never existed, “something else” would have funded the universities. Religion only existed because it was a way for us to explain the world in times of a lack of knowledge. If religion had never existed, do tell what possible mechanism could have allowed the step from not knowing anything, to the path that led us to the path that took science where it is. If you cannot reasonable provide a mechanism, then I suggest you conceed your point, and stop waving a magic “supposition” wand around.
Oh, to adress this point:
I didn’t say society existed because the church existed. I said the church had a major influence on science. I said that without the church science would not be where it was at. I didn’t say anything about the world ending if the church didn’t exist. Sure, without society and the way the people thought at the time, the church would not have been powerful. Which has nothing to do with the discussion at the time.
Again, the magic wand waving. We COULD say that if Einstein would not have existed, somebody else would have popped up and allowed America to discover the Atomic bomb. I would say otherwise myself.
I didn’t say anything about it being worse, but I do say that we would not have been where we are today. It probably would have taken longer for many of the discoveries/inventions to have occured.
Of course many things in society were connected to religion, that is my point exactly. Of course you are trying to trivialize it into second hand influence, which I will argue with. The path to science is one that slowly evolved. It took so long because it took leaps in the way people thought. Religion was a huge stepping stone in the case that it effected the way people thought. Much of philosophy has it’s ties in religion, and not just second hand.
No doubt there will be some more pointless hand waving about how something would have replaced it, when to erradicate religion entierely wipes certain steps, that were necessary to reach what we consider modern day science, would not have existed without religion. I guess it is easy just to say some magical, similar thing would have replaced it, and given us what we needed to reach what we have today. All just to bend over backwards to justify to oneself that religion had no influence. (and I am the athiest)
Some reading for those interested:
Hooykaas, R. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science
Jacob, J.R. and M.C. ‘Seventeenth Century Science and Religion: The State of the Argument.’ History of Science 14 (1976)
Kemsley, Douglas S. ‘Religious Influences in the Rise of Modern Science: A Review and Criticesm, Particularly of the ‘Protestant-Puritan Ethic’ Theory.’ Annals of Science 24 (1968): 199-226.
Gerrish, B.A. ‘The Reformation and the Rise of Modern Science.’ The Impact of the Church Upon its Culture. Ed. Jerald C. Brauer. 231-265.
Hill, Christopher. ‘Science, Religion, and Society in the 16th and 17th centuries.’ Past and Present 32 (1965): 110-112.
Hooykaas, R. ‘Science and Reformation.’ The Evolution of Science. Ed. Guy S. Metraux et al. 258-290
Just have to add one more book reference. This book has a section in which it discusses Galileo’s Trial and the events leading up to it.
[/url=“http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140192468/qid=1037806701/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-6981939-0867302”]Arthur Koestler The Sleepwalkers: A history of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe (1959) (reprint 1989)
You might as well ask “Would the world be better off if there were no people?”
Religion has been, and still is, an integral part of human existence.
And if there were no religion, what would we have, “non-religion”?
Nowadays, we distinguish religion from science, and religion from the state. Historically, religion has included both science and poliitics. Religion was a way of explaining life and of organizing life. How fruitful is it to discuss the hypothetical possibility of religion not having existed?
I think that most people would agree that religion has provided some positive contribution to civilization. There are then two questions: Was religion necessary for these positives to have occurred? and Were there (or are there) enough negatives from religion that we would still be better off without religion?
I suggest that there is a relevant distinction between religious beliefs and organized religion. I also suggest that religious beliefs are, by their very nature, relatively benign. Organized religion, on the other hand, is fraught (fraught?) with potential negatives, which have been manifested throughout history.
Organized religion is about power and control. When the masses were ignorant and illiterate, it made sense for the society as a whole to follow the edicts of the religious rulers, who, in practical terms, really did know better.
Also, a narrowly-focused, somewhat arbitrary set of beliefs made sense within the context of narrowly circumscribed view of the world.
Gradually, we discovered that the world was a bigger place. Old ideas were inadequate to explain this expanded world view. And the religious heirarchy had a lot to lose as their explanations were inadequate. What they stood to lose was their power.
Look at the atrocities committed in the name of religion and you’ll find someone in power who benefitted from those atrocities. Likewise with the suppression of new ideas.
I propose another question: Can religious belief co-exist with non-religious beliefs, to the betterment of humanity?
Also, I think that this thread has dealt mainly with Roman Catholicism and Islam. These are not the only two religions in the world. If you’re going to make statements about “religion” then explain how your viewpoint applies to all religions. Otherwise, it may be more useful to confine the discussion to a specific religion.
And lastly, before I read this thread, I would have answered “yes” to the original question. Thanks for the opportunity to see the issue in a new light.
Hmm, well yes Epimetheus but what you are talking about is a concept of Modern Science, in capitals.
As a counterpoint I would like to ask you how stuff got invented before the Church existed.
It looks as if , according to your viewpoint, there were no inventions before the renaissance.But there have been plenty of inventions before the existence of universities.
Universities served as a place where people could have access to previous knowledge, in the form of writings.
Previously, those writings had all been locked up in monastaries.
Before that, before the dark ages and outside western europe, well there were libraries.
It is all about accumilated knowledge and going from there.
There is no reason to believe that there would have been no form of science or schools or universities if there had been no Church.
True, historicaly, monastaries played an enormous part in preserving writings and the first universities were church institutions. That does not mean that if there had been no Church there would have been no other way to accumulate writings and knowledge. It could have been private institutions or state sponsorship. Like it is today, really.
Universities, in the modern sense, might have develloped out of themselves from big libraries. Special schools of science from libraries that specialised in those fields.
The question is whether this development would have been faster without interference from a/the church. Not if there would have been science at all. There probably would have been once the printing press was invented.
Latro, the main reason that Guttenberg developed his printing press wasn’t to print Bacon’s Opus Majus, or flyers about the madrigal concert Friday night.
It was to print the Bible.
Yes, but are you saying that it wouldn’t have been invented if there had been no bible?
It was invented before, in China, without the bible.