Organized Religion

I am quite glad we've established on one point a legitimate benefit of organized religion. I also concede that the distortion of established scientific fact is a major failing of religion in the modern world, especially seeing that religion has, as a whole, furthered science more than hindered it in the past. (This point is largely irrelevant, but I feel a great responsibility to back it up. When people think religion and science, they think Galileo and the suppression of his findings or some other transgression of the Roman Catholic Church. To this I say look East. Look at the discoveries in the Islamic world in the fields of science, mathematics, economics and politics. Look to the Catholic Church's advancement of mathematics through architecture or art. I simply feel that the good done for science by religion outweighs the bad. However, this debate focuses on the present day, and so, I will remain on topic and in time frame) I will nonetheless, be scrutinizing the proposition that it is the fault of organized religion. Henceforth, when speaking on the first point as defined in round one, I will preface it with a "1." Likewise, I shall preface any expansions on my second point with a "2." Should a new point be introduced I shall title it and then number it appropriately. 1. I put it to you that organized religion in its broadest sense does not foster a climate of fundamentalism. I would shift the blame to smaller factions within organized communities of faith promoting literal interpretation of their religious credo and would not qualify such groups that were not sanctioned by the larger body as "organized religious groups". To take an extreme example, look at Al Qaeda. This is not a religious organization. It is a lay group of religious fanatics with a political agenda. The vast majority of Muslims do not wish to be associated with this group and as such they are not a good exemplar of an organized religious group. Their motivations are political, twisted by religion, yes, but they chiefly cite a free Palestine as their ultimate goal. Likewise, on a smaller scale, there are certain extremist factions in America who would teach Creationism alongside or even above Evolution. I would point anyone reading this to a group like the Tea Party. Such groups, more often than not, have definite political agendas, and are not sanctioned or led by any organized religious group. They simply profess allegiance to a Church. These groups are lay groups, and if you can point me to a large, well supported organized religious group who actively oppose science, I will attempt to argue that point. First, a brief note on cults. It is interesting to note you distinguish between organized religions and cults, labeling the Church of Scientology the latter. I congratulate you on this distinction. Cults are by definition distorters of the truth, and should be put to one side. These groups are however, both organized and religious. Therefore I feel we must zero in on better populated communities of faith for the purposes of the argument. It confirms the point I have made up to now that a small faction of zealots cannot be taken as a representative branch of a faith. I presume we are willing to label some of the most extreme branches of Calvinism or aforementioned religious groups with political agendas as cults. 2. On morality and moral absolutes. Now, your point here seems to focus on religious morality in its original context. While I concede, aspects of certain religious moral codes including Sharia law and the laws laid out in the Biblical book of Leviticus are barbaric, for the purposes of the debate we must take the point that Dawkins ridiculed seriously, "we've grown out of it". From your definition I understood the debate to focus on organized religion in the modern day and I will deal with this argument in a modern context. If a comprehensive historical argument must be constructed in order to prove my point to your satisfaction I will make one at your request, as I believe on exists. At present I have not the time though. I also assumed it to be irrelevant. Dawkins' argument is a valid one but it focuses on the development of moral philosophy over time, not the present day. Organized religion has adapted to survive and moral codes have been altered to be rendered acceptable in the modern world. For example, look at the Roman Catholic Church. Like all other major organized world religions, they do not base their moral philosophy on their single sacred text alone. Rather, their sacred text (in this instance the Bible) colours their philosophical thought on moral subject. Ask yourself, why did the church oppose contraception? The answer is because it removes the capacity of sexual intercourse to create life. However recently, the Pope declared contraception morally acceptable in certain instances where there was a risk of sexually transmitted disease. Why? Because in these circumstances, sexual intercourse has the capacity to take life. It's not black and white, written in the Bible that sex is immoral and condoms can never be used. (to my knowledge) In Christian thinking, sex is a gift from God, and if you conceive a child through sex, it is God's will. There is a great assumption among antitheists that the religious have no logical basis for their moral philosophy, the truth is that moral philosophy is a combination of logic and what the religious view as divine revelation. Ergo, as the world changes, so does religious philosophy. Now I don't feel Richard Dawkins dealt with the point made well enough. The point made was that atheism offers no absolute moral certainty. Dawkins did not dodge this, but he only made half an argument. He negated rather well religious absolute morality but did not provide an adequate proof of absolute atheist morality, nor did he negate the need for absolute morality to my satisfaction. My proposition, which, in my view, still stands, is that organized religion provides a good template for one to base one's own morality on. Look at the charity work carried out by Christian missions, look at the Islamic practice of Zakat. (Almsgiving) I anticipate an argument that these practices do not quite work, but the point is that they come from a real desire to do good and are motivated by a sense of morality. Finally, while I would not consider your statistics overstated or unreasonable, I would like to see a source if one could be found, as any statistics could establish a lot for the purposes of the debate. Thank you once again for remaining reasonable and making use of external sources as well, something I have failed to do, so far.