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…
Hard question.
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
“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
What is problematic for liberalism is not religion, but theocracy. And there are plenty of non-religious theocratic cults such as communism too.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Philosophy and science are riddled with superstition. Check out Gerard Casey’s lecture, “Twp Roads, One Truth”
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).
Indeed! And so called value-free economic science is the best example of such state of affairs.