Religion makes the World a better place

A significant tip of the hat to Con for their respect and generosity. Nice to know that religious debates still have the capacity to end on a professional note. Let's do it again sometime (preferably when I'm not under a thousand deadlines)! As all the following points are directed specifically at Christianity, I will approach my rebuttals from that perspective as far as my character limit will allow (which is less than I would like, sadly). First of all, religion is not as simple as we'd all like it to be, and as such, it needs to be handled carefully. It's safe to say that people who have spent their entire lives studying the biblical texts, thousands of years of exegesis, theology, and hermeneutics, and careful examination of the bible's original culture, heritage, treatment, languages, and context are going to know a lot more about how Christianity should be practiced than the average soccer mom or politician. Just like an actual medical scientist with a degree and ten years of university education is going to know a lot more about vaccines than a talk show host. It's the church's job to communicate its truths just like it's the medical community's job to communicate its truths (although there will invariably be dissent in both camps on certain issues, and one cannot guarantee that the masses will listen). If the church has failed in this commission, that's hardly the fault of Christianity itself, which actually condemns failure to properly instruct. Credit where credit is due. Con asks the question of what makes someone an extremist. My definition of an extremist is someone who takes an idea farther than it was meant to go, and subsequently causes harm. This can apply to religion, politics, civil rights... any opinion one has passion for, which is why we must be careful not to appeal to our emotions before we have considered our reasoning. “from my personal experience, religion never does what it claims (makes people kinder or more moral).” From my personal experience, religion never fails to do so. To each their own? “The idea that the Old Testament is somehow "null and void" because of the "new covenant" is not biblically supportable (in fact, Jesus is quoted as saying that he comes not to change the [Mosaic] law) and will offend a significant number of Christians; are they extremists?” There are a few problems with Con's statement. Firstly, I never actually said that the Old Testament is null and void in Christianity. I said that the old covenant is. They are not the same thing. Secondly, what Jesus says in Matthew 5 is “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The word “change” does not appear in any translation I've been able to find, so saying Jesus is “quoted” as saying it is a bit of an exaggeration. Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the law and established a new covenant with all people. This covenant was built on the foundations of the old one, which is why many of the moral precepts in the Old Testament (the ten commandments, for instance) are still applicable, but the laws concerning what is clean and unclean, or laws discussing the judicial punishments for sin in the nation of Israel, etc., are not. My original point still stands. Any Christians who believe that the entire Mosaic law still applies to them have hugely misunderstood their theology (and seeing how few of them are willing to actually follow the 900+ laws contained therein, I'd say we have a hypocrisy problem as well). "I know this: families are literally torn apart because a son is gay; that sentence needs correction: families are literally torn apart because they are religious; homosexuality is not a choice, religion is." I am unaware of a single passage of Scripture that endorses the appalling treatment of homosexuals that the church has engaged in. I am, however, aware of thousands that condemn it. “I've met people on this site who literally stand for bringing back stoning-to-death because the bible prescribes it... are they extremists? Does their existence or, more properly, do their beliefs not demonstrate the responsibility that religion has for making the World a worse place?” I've seen atheists who believe that the only problem with Communism is that it didn't kill enough believers. I've seen atheists use Charles Darwin to promote and excuse eugenics, murder, rape, and racism. I've seen atheists who claim that anyone who subscribes to religious belief should be thrown into psychological institutions and tortured until they're “cured.” Is the world improved by their existence or beliefs? In my previous argument, I addressed that the bloodiest democidal regimes of the 20th century were almost exclusively spearheaded by atheists, despite the fact that, from a global perspective, atheists are an incredibly small demographic. Is that not reason to be concerned? Furthermore, if a Christian promotes slavery because of Deuteronomy, I can show him Galatians 3:28, which proclaims that there is no slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female, because we are all equal under Christ. However, if an atheist promotes slavery because of naturalism and survival of the fittest (after all, Slave-Making Ants do precisely what their name implies, why shouldn't we?), I have nothing to offer him but pseudo-philosophy and an ethics lecture which he would be well within his rights to dismiss as insufficient evidence. Is that enough reason to condemn non-belief as dangerous? “James Inhofe is potentially the most powerful man on Earth in terms of setting policy regarding man-made climate change, limiting carbon emissions, limiting agricultral chemical run-off, pollution, etc... and he says that there's no such thing as man-made climate change and he seems to think that Bronze Age texts (specifically the book of Genesis) prove that fact. What's worse is that he uses Romans 1:25 to peddle the idea that any climate campaigners are essentially working for the devil by worshipping false gods (worshipping the creation not the creator).” Strange, that, seeing as the very book of Genesis names Man as the steward of Earth, and discusses his responsibility in its subsequent corruption after the Fall. The bible also discusses how creation declares the glory of God. What reason could we possibly have to want for its destruction? Someone who cannot be bothered to read anything more than what they personally find useful is a hypocrite, and someone who thinks that the bible has anything significant to say on a topic as isolated to modern science as climate change (or GMOs, for that matter) is someone I won't hesitate to accuse of using religion as a cover for their personal biases. However, once again, we cannot necessarily blame religion for its idiots. “The Catholic church [peddles] the idea that condoms are universally wicked; the result of this is absolutely, specifically and directly that innocent men women and children suffer horribly and die because of the unnecessary spread of AIDS in Africa [2]. I blame religion for this effect; are you with me?” This is actually nowhere near as cut-and-dried as people think it is. Abstinence, fewer sexual partners, and monogamy are doing more to halt the AIDS crisis than condoms [1] [2]. Strangely, all three of those sound suspiciously like Christian teachings. "in reality, murder rates are not obviously negatively correlated (quite the opposite) with religiosity." Con has not addressed my rebuttals on this point. Finally, I actually would stand to disagree with Con that group selection accounts for morality and renders religion unnecessary in that regard. Group selection is a logical concept, but not a realistic one. After all, while a tribe that shares its food equally among its members will be stronger than a tribe that does not, tribal members that exploit the altruism of their fellows and hoard whatever food they can grab will be much stronger and better off than those they are exploiting, and will therefore be better candidates for natural selection. Even positing social consequence (i.e., they choose not to steal food for fear of a punishment from the tribe) falls flat because it requires there to already be a moral understanding in place (i.e., stealing food is wrong, and deserves to be punished). Morality of the kind that humans currently possess is not realistic through an evolutionary lens, because the “selfish gene” cannot (and has no reason to) act in the best interests of the group, only the individual. Even kin selection only explains altruism within one's genetic group. As far as this debate goes, here's what I acknowledge: 1. beliefs, more often than not, lead to actions. 2. if those beliefs are harmful, the actions will be harmful. 3. if religions preach things that are harmful, and people believe and act on them, it's safe to say that religion does not improve the state of the world. But I also believe this: 1. religion teaches many things that are good, just, merciful, kind, and selfless. 2. religion is not to blame for people who misuse it or misunderstand it. 3. atheism/secularism has just as much capacity to cause evil as religion. In conclusion, this debate has not seen me at my best. I feel it is only right to admit defeat, as I agree entirely that I have not provided sufficient evidence that religion, as a whole, makes the world a better place. I do believe that Christianity, at least, is a force for good, and I believe I can (and have) made that point to one degree or another, but as far as the topic at hand, I acknowledge my lack of a strong case. I thank Con for an insightful discussion, and hope the voters will bestow their points on the deserving winner. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.nationalreview.com...