thewatcher wrote:


And I have already demonstrated such. Would you like to live in a world without hospitals, orphanages, universities and countless charities? These institutions are religious in origin. Would you like to live in a world without modern medicine or science? These things are a consequence of intellectual developments that are a direct consequence of religion. In a word, without religion, none of the things you appreciate (even in your so-called secular societies) would exist. Religion has been "putting up" for thousands of years. What exactly do its opponents have to offer?

You have failed to demonstrate that any of the problems you point to are worsened by religion, let alone caused by it. You have failed to demonstrate that the success of supposedly non-religious societies (of course, we have already seen that these societies benefit from and are shaped by religious ideas, institutions and figures) relative to religious ones has any connection to religiosity whatsoever.

I am not insisting that the available evidence is wrong. Rather, I am suggesting that the evidence does not suggest the sort of things you are drawing from it.

thewatcher wrote:

The dinosaur example is a minority position within certain Protestant sects so, even assuming that this is, for some reason a bad position to hold (and, once again, you have never demonstrated this) it is still far from an exemplar of religious behavior or sentiment.

The Koran insists no such thing. If you actually read the book in question in something resembling a hermeneutically sensitive way, you will see that the "violent" parts of that work are, in fact, cultural responses to the early persecution of Islam by various non-Muslim groups. In other words, Muslim communities evolved, early on, means of defending themselves by force of arms. This is not, however, license for indiscrimant violence (despite the various misreadings that suggest otherwise). On the contrary, at the first oppurtunity, even during those rare times of conflict, the Muslim is called upon to abandon the lesser Jihad (ie, the defensive war for survival against persection) and take up once again the greater Jihad (the internal spiritual struggle to lead a righteous and virtuous life).

Various facets of Christian scripture demand similar hermeneutic sensitivity. Many mainstream Christian demoninations do now regard portions of Scripture as having their origins in the folk/tribal mythologies of ancient Israel (the flood myth is common in the Near East, for instance). This does not, however, take away from the fact that scripture does contain innerrant spiritual and moral truths that can be of great benefit to believers. This is the Catholic position.

Likewise, Papal infallibility is commonly misunderstood (as you so excellently demonstrate). It is not Catholic dogma that the Pope is never wrong about anything. Rather, the Pope is infallible with respect to matters of Catholic dogma, when he speaks with the authority of the Church and the Magisterium. Specifically, the Pope is infallible when he makes a statement Ex Cathedra (latin for From the Chair). VERY few such statements have been made in the history of the Church, and ALL of them have been made in the context of clarifying points of Catholic dogma. Surely it is nothing strange for a religious to expound upon and clarify the teachings of his own faith!

You are ot presenting facts, you are presenting your interpretations of them and, less forgivably, failing utterly to draw convincing connections between the facts (even assuming they are true) and your interpretations.

thewatcher wrote:


That is precisely your problem. You do not see the connection between the past and the present and therefore do not recognize that the secular institutions you refer to are underpinned by religious efforts, ideas and institutions.

I have, of course, already provided such evidence. You yourself have conceded that institutions of the sort I have listed were of religious origin and are still of disproportionately religious affiliation. The value of these institutions is not in question (we would not want a world without hospitals, school, universities, charities etc or without science, philosophy, literature, art etc.).

Likewise, of course, your assertion that the simplest explanation is that religion does not produce anything merely reflects your own readily apparent bias against religion.

thewatcher wrote:
Secular institutions were illegal? Hardly. It would be more accurate to say that secular institutions did not yet exist because the concept of secularism (misleading as it is) did not exist yet. I believe I have already observed that secularism is somewhat misleading because even secular states and institutions necessarily employ resources that have their origins in religion. Secular institions and religion institutions are not equal competitors on a level playing field. Rather the latter were brought about by the former. So, whichever way you stack it, the positive institutions you point to have their source in religion. Religiosity therefore brings about all of the net benefits that you attribute to secularism as well as the benefits I have already ascribed to religiosity. It seems to me that this pretty much ends the discussion.

Dictionary.com wrote:

Secular

–adjective 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

thewatcher wrote:
You are the one who keeps bringing up such dogmas in a (vain) effort to show that religion produces some sort of social harm. Your understanding of these dogmas (or lack thereof) is therefore an important part of your position and is, therefore, appropriately a subject of discussion.

As for religious dogmas being the subject of differing interpretations, surely this is not a problem limited to religions. Indeed, one finds this in almost every area of intellectual life. If anything, religions have proven better able to deal with this issue than secular institutions, being as they are possessed of whole classes of people whose job it is to prevent such misunderstandings (theologians/clergy/ecclesiastical bodies) whereas corresponding secular institutions are not.

What an absurd standard. Of course a religion is going to place a certain value on dogma. That is what a religion is. There is nothing wrong with dogma as such... As far as religion goes, dogma is merely a religion's self-delineation of its own intellectual, spiritual and social boundaries. The setting of these boundaries is a necessary step in preventing the sort of abuses you seem to be worried about and, indeed, is an attribute, in some form or other, of all manner of cultural institutions.

And are you seriously suggesting that any lack of clarity you percieve on the part of religious works is intentional? Because, of course, it couldnt have anything to do with the fact that religious principles and institutions are complex or that the writings in question are ancient and from a different intellectual context or anything like that.....

If your sole argument against religion is that it can be misinterpreted, then you must likewise have objections (indeed, stronger ones) to science, politics and countless other spheres of intellectual life.

thewatcher wrote:


What do you mean what has it given us lately? I have demonstrated religion's importance in producing the sorts of "secular" institutions and such that you find positive, so, therefore, it has "given us" those things. Likewise, of course, religion continues to contribute much as it ever has.... Religiously affiliated schools still produce great scholars, religious hospitals treat patients and so on. Religion continues to inspire the production of works of art and literature. What's more, religious patterns of thought continue to develop and promote desirable social conditions, both directly (note religious advocacy of charity, human rights, environmental protection and so on) and indirectly (the recent revival of religiosity in both Analytic and Continental Philosophy, along with correspondingly more religious perspectives on the sciences, humanities and so on all hold great potential for furthering human intellectual development). Rest assured, religion still has plenty to offer this present age (of which it is, in no small part, an architect!).

thewatcher wrote:
No they did not rule things with an "iron fist" and oppress all those poor secular types who wanted to have their voices heard... There were simply no such persons to oppress. The reason that nothing external to religion produced anything during that time is because nothing WAS external to religion. Or perhaps I should say, nothing PRESUMED to be apart from religion. The world was not yet possessed of the myth of secularism that claims (falsly, as I think I have demonstrated) that developments of the type you consider can ever be apart from religion.

wikipedia wrote:

The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846.[5] Although the term was new, the general notions of freethought on which it was based had existed throughout history. In particular, early secular ideas involving the separation of philosophy and religion can be traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Averroism school of philosophy. (circa 10th century AD)

thewatcher wrote:
An absurd characature. You must acknowledge that the relationship between civil and religious authority (so called) was more complicated than that. While kings were often theoretically subserviant to various religious authorities, in practice, they were often in conflict and, in many cases, their authority would blend. Civil authorities would often use the excuse of "defending the faith" to advance their personal political agendas... as sometimes happens today.

Likewise, religion did not control everday life in the way that you suggest. Churches did not have secret police breaking down doors and spying on people to make them conform. Rather, religious standards were abroad in the cultures of the world and produced independent bodies of law and social conduct. The various ways in which the legal side of this equation was enforced had more to do with the structures of government at issue in the territory in question than it did to the action of this or that ecclesiastical authority.

Of course, ecclesiastical authority in many ways did lay the ground work for the kind of progressive reforms that took the world by storm during the Englightenment and Renaissance eras. The idea of supra-national authority and the brokering of international agreements by way of mutually acknowledged intermediaries certainly helped to spawn the internationalism that came to define international relations (especially in Europe), while the early emphasis on human rights and the value of the human person (as an ensouled creation of God) gave rise to modern human rights theory. It is no accident that two of the most prominant natural law theorists (Hobbes and Locke) were both essentially religious thinkers nor that the American founders rooted inalienable rights in a Creator. Thus, while the barbarism of the past can hardly be disputed, it is worth noting that even that barbarism was mediated to a great degree by religious institutions and that it was indeed religious institutions that laid the foundation for the reforms by which more progressive states and governments came to exist.

thewatcher wrote:


If a mere disagreement with an open source encyclopedia is more than you are prepared to accept, perhaps you should find a different field than philosophy.

Aetixintro wrote:


I don't think "usurp" is the word. Rather, I suggest the term "answering the core claims (of religions)". I've been expecting a response firmly within the philosophy of science. I don't need ignorant praise and agreement.

This far, can I suggest this under Philosophy of Religion:

Religious vs. Atheistic Societies
Which makes the better alternative?

Then you may fight it out there! You don't have to, of course. Just keep on posting, please.