Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

haha, yeah - I saw Sam Harris' comments in the sister debate to this one. Based on his stance, and the quality of his argument, I have a certain level of doubt over him actually being the famous anti-religious Sam Harris - but that's delving into agnosticism and the topic of another of Sam Harris' debates on this website if anyone is interested! Ok - so by contrast to Con I have FOUR threads to my stance (this is not an attempt at subliminal 'one-upmanship' I promise). Points one and four I consider to be the strongest, so I have book-ended them at the start and end of my list in a shameless attempt to give them more prominence. Points 2 and 3 are still valid, but they are not exclusive to religion so carry less weight. 1) Meaning, Purpose and Hope One key way to judge the positive effects of religion, is to consider what the situation would be like in the absence of it. If you remove religion, you remove the concept that humanity stands apart as "sacred". No longer are we significant beings, created in the image of God with eternal significance - suddenly we find ourselves left with the only remaining explanation that we are merely a by-product of the matter of this random universe. This would mean that your brain, whilst still truly remarkable, is simply a "computer made of meat". Whilst you might think you have rational independent thought, in actuality you are just being "conned" by your own brain - which is simply making decisions for you which are most likely to be propitious to your continued survival. Your entire consciousness is reduced to being a bunch of electrical signals whizzing around your brain, and nothing more. [Idea loosely based on an argument in "Who made God? " 2012, Professor Edgar Andrews (PhD and DSc in Physics)] Only if we are created in the image of God can you consider that it allows for the concept that we are genuinely morally responsible beings (see point 4), that there is meaning and purpose for our existence, and that there is a hope for the future. I have to concede here though that, true enough, a great deal of "bad" has been done in the name of religion - Con has rightly pointed out several classic cases of this in their opening argument. I will deal with this in more detail in the rebuttal stage, but if the Con argument suggests that if you get rid of all religion you will do away with most of the "bad" things and still keep most of the "good" things, then that is blissfully wishful thinking - and gives far too much credit to humanity than our track record would attest to! I will argue that on balance, it is better for humanity to consider itself sacred than to consider itself a random meaningless by-product. The key logical basis for this argument lies in point 4 below, in order to define what constitutes "better". 2) Community and Identity In one form or another, all religions inculcate practices which lead to a sense of common identity and belonging in a religious congregation. Indeed, the very word "religion" comes from the Latin which loosely translates to "bind again" or "reconnect". Buddhists cultivate practices of mindfulness, peacefulness, and compassion. The Jewish teachings about "mitzvoth" (the obligations to perform moral acts, particularly acts of kindness) and "tikkun olam" (repairing the world), both representing an intense commitment to social justice. "Zakat", or giving to charity is a fundamental mark of Islam. Such practices are constant reminders that there is more to life than the moment, more than individual, selfish "getting ahead." The religions also include rituals of giving thanks and celebrating the goodness of life. All these rituals evidence a counter-cultural voice to the widespread philosophy of "things just happen." [largely quoting Philip Hefner, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Chicago] Of course one can derive a sense of community and identity from outside of religion, but you don't tend to see it in practice to anything like the same extent in wider society outside of religious congregations. Furthermore, a local congregation often provides advice, care for the poor and sick, and other services on a far more personal level, and sometimes more effectively, than the government or secular organisations (see point 3). It is perhaps striking the extent to which repressive governments find that to destroy a spirit of independence among the people, they need to repress either the existence or initiative of individual congregations. Examples include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and today's Syria. [largely quoting Edward Ordman, Associate Professor of Computer Science (of all things!) at Memphis] 3) Call to action "It is undoubtedly true that people commit horrific acts of evil in the name of religion. It is also undoubtedly true that people do acts of extraordinary common good inspired by religion. Almost half the healthcare in Africa is delivered by faith based organisations, saving millions of lives. A quarter of worldwide HIV/AIDS care is provided by Catholic organisations. There is the fantastic work of Muslims and Jewish relief organisations." Those were the words of Tony Blair, when debating a similar topic with the late great Hitch (God rest his soul). You cannot deny the great deal of selfless good that people of faith around the world carry out in the name of religion. Again, of course there are secular humanitarian groups and charities who do a great deal of selfless work which isn't in the name of religion. But nonetheless you cannot deny that there are many people who are inspired to do good precisely because of their faith, who might otherwise not have done so. Tony Blair goes on to say much later in the same debate: "What we shouldn't do is end up in a situation where we say, we've got six hospices here, one suicide bomber there, how does it all equalise out? That's not a very productive way of arguing this. " And I would suggest something along similar lines, that we cannot argue the net benefit or drawback of religion to humanity by adding up the "good" stuff and all the "bad" stuff, and arbitrarily deciding which outweighs the other. The only way to resolve this debate is to consider what is ultimately of greatest significance, in order to define what "positive" and "negative" are for the purposes of this debate. Again, and I hope I haven't built this up too much only for it to fall flat(!), but my core logical argument for this debate lies in point 4. 4) Moral Compass I maintain that the only way to sensibly resolve this debate is to adequately define highly subjective concepts such as "positive"/"negative", "better"/"worse", "good"/"bad" etc. This is where religion is key. In the absence of a higher power, and hence a higher moral authority, morality is necessarily subjective and relative. One man's poison is another man's meat; one nation's freedom fighter is another nation's terrorist. Hence, if religion is false - as Con will try to claim - then it renders the logic of the debate irrelevant. Because "better" and "worse" can only logically exist where there is a definite absolute moral compass by which you can arbitrate "moral true north". However, if religion is true - then necessarily it must be a "positive" force and a force for "good" - because God is the very benchmark by which you can define and arbitrate "goodness". You can point to all the apparently "bad" stuff in the world as you like - if the ultimate purpose is redemption of the world and a "greater good" in the long run - then the net eternal effect for humanity must necessarily be "positive". If there is no God, then the net eternal effect for humanity is irrelevant. You could be as saintly as Mother Teresa, or as evil as the worst human being you can imagine - ultimately this universe will cease to exist (implode on itself, or suffer heat death), there is no eternal justice or consequences for your actions, and this whole existence is meaningless!