Better, worse or the same?

[wellwisher]

In the modern era, social experiments were run, where religion was eliminated on a large scale. Stalin comes to mind. If I recall, this godless place became utopia or was it hell?

In more recent history, religion had been made taboo in the USSR, after World War II, to help maintain central control over their many firewall nations. When the USSR collapsed, because too many people and nations wanted out, one of the first things to happen was religion appeared again; Poland succeeds. Eastern Europe became brighter and the world felt safer as religion also came out of hiding in those nations. The fall of the Berlin Wall allowed freedom of religion to return.

It is good to analyze some modern experiments, because much has changed in both religion and secular, in our modern times.

 

[stvdv]

In the modern era, social experiments were run, where religion was eliminated on a large scale. Stalin comes to mind. If I recall, this godless place became utopia or was it hell?

In more recent history, religion had been made taboo in the USSR, after World War II, to help maintain central control over their many firewall nations. When the USSR collapsed, because too many people and nations wanted out, one of the first things to happen was religion appeared again; Poland succeeds. Eastern Europe became brighter and the world felt safer as religion also came out of hiding in those nations. The fall of the Berlin Wall allowed freedom of religion to return.

It is good to analyze some modern experiments, because much has changed in both religion and secular, in our modern times.

Our "core" is Divine, so naturally we are intrigued by Spirituality, unless it's blocked

 

[Heyo]

Other than its role in schools, universities, preserving and translating classical texts, funding sciences, etc. perhaps, although these were not exactly unimportant for development...

... which they could do because they were heavily involved with politics and raked in large wealth. They were the mobsters who gave out trinkets to appear beneficial.

 

[Heyo]

In the modern era, social experiments were run, where religion was eliminated on a large scale. Stalin comes to mind. If I recall, this godless place became utopia or was it hell?

In more recent history, religion had been made taboo in the USSR, after World War II, to help maintain central control over their many firewall nations. When the USSR collapsed, because too many people and nations wanted out, one of the first things to happen was religion appeared again; Poland succeeds. Eastern Europe became brighter and the world felt safer as religion also came out of hiding in those nations. The fall of the Berlin Wall allowed freedom of religion to return.

It is good to analyze some modern experiments, because much has changed in both religion and secular, in our modern times.

Yes, and when you analyse you find that 1. you can't suppress religiosity, you have to root out the cause. 2. Experiments where you change multiple variables, never give conclusive answers.
Religion is dying a natural death in those countries which have a working social net and low wealth inequality. Countries with high influence from the church (Poland), regress. Poland is in conflict with the EU for violating democratic principles.

 

[Augustus]

... which they could do because they were heavily involved with politics and raked in large wealth. They were the mobsters who gave out trinkets to appear beneficial.

Who had ethical fortunes to drive progress back then?

Regardless of the ethics of acquiring that wealth, the fact that they had it enabled these things to happen.

Give peasants their tithes back and they aren't preserving and translating the texts of classical antiquity with it.

Progress is often driven by people, institutions and events that aren't all that ethical after all.

It's easy to say if we kept all the good and removed all the bad society would have been better. But it's not all that rational to assume it probable.

 

[Heyo]

Who had ethical fortunes to drive progress back then?

Regardless of the ethics of acquiring that wealth, the fact that they had it enabled these things to happen.

I didn't say they shouldn't have had any money. I didn't even critique the morality of acquiring it. I pointed out the discrepancy between the ridiculous wealth the church had and what little they did with it.

Give peasants their tithes back and they aren't preserving and translating the texts of classical antiquity with it.

Progress is often driven by people, institutions and events that aren't all that ethical after all.

It's easy to say if we kept all the good and removed all the bad society would have been better. But it's not all that rational to assume it probable.

Martin Luther's critique of the RCC was in part about their unethical conduct with money. The church didn't address this critique but went to war with the critics culminating in a European war with devastating results. Almost anything would have been better than that.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't say they shouldn't have had any money. I didn't even critique the morality of acquiring it. I pointed out the discrepancy between the ridiculous wealth the church had and what little they did with it.

I'd say it was only this vast wealth that allowed them such 'wasteful' spending. Patronage of education and the sciences tended to rely on wealthy benefactors with their ill gotten gains. In this, the church played an important role.

I agree, in theory, the money could have been better spent, but I'm not sure it's likely.

Martin Luther's critique of the RCC was in part about their unethical conduct with money. The church didn't address this critique but went to war with the critics culminating in a European war with devastating results. Almost anything would have been better than that.

If you mean the 30 Years War it really a series of different wars fought for different reasons. In a large part it was driven by rivalry between 2 Catholic Powers: France and Spain and given this and an expiring truce in 1621 between the Dutch Provinces and Spain, and numerous other domestic and international political and economic issues involving countries from Scandinavia all the way down to Spain a war was almost a certainty for a variety of reasons.

So while there was some religious dimension to the war, especially in the first stage, there were also many other factors that were equally if not more relevant, that made the war last as long and be as destructive as it was.

It was also not fought on religious lines, the main backed of the "Protestant" side was France, and many Protestants fought for the "Catholic" side too.

As you know, Europe was never the most stable of places due to shifting balances of power and economic and territorial rivalries.

While it's obviously unknowable, it might be that, over the centuries, religion reduced violence as it acted as a common bond between diverse groups and enabled them to cooperate better via this shared identity. Religion can divide, but it is also one of the greatest forces for unity in human history.