New survey: half of Canadians think religion does more harm than good

[LuisDantas]

Something people do not realize is that religions are the primary reasons why the modern sciences didn't have to start from scratch. The preservation of knowledge, philosophy and cultural analysis in regard to socio-anthropology is all a result of massive religions and their capability of stockpiling books.

Not the first time I see that claim.

Still rather unconvincing.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not the first time I see that claim.

Still rather unconvincing.

So you are saying that it is coincidence that the church of Iceland kept the Eddas in their possession and that at least 85% of history as we know it is entirely false?

The fact you have universities established under religious pretenses is proof of this. Granted these same universities are also the reason for the creation of many atheists it does not change the fact that the money and power for much of the sciences and philosophy was a result of the religious institutions. They did a great job suppressing it but does not change the fact they also encouraged it as well.

 

[Quintessence]

We can engage in the arts, imagination, creativity, and storytelling without making truth claims about intersubjectively verifiable facts. When these happen, it crosses the line into pseudoscience, even if the people making the claim don't use the term "science."

Not being an adherent of scientism, I don't agree. If you want to be liberal in your use of the term, go right on ahead. I will not.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are saying that it is coincidence that the church of Iceland kept the Eddas in their possession

By your standards, I guess I am. We have little to no reason to expect the realistic alternatives to be any worse.

I just don't believe the proselitism of Christianity and Islaam brought humanity anything better than what we could have had without them.

and that at least 85% of history as we know it is entirely false?

I have no idea of what you mean by that.

The fact you have universities established under religious pretenses is proof of this. Granted these same universities are also the reason for the creation of many atheists it does not change the fact that the money and power for much of the sciences and philosophy was a result of the religious institutions. They did a great job suppressing it but does not change the fact they also encouraged it as well.

You jump way too quickly to claim to have found proof, as well as to equate Christianity and Islaam with "religion".

Both shortcuts are very questionable by themselves, and entirely unjustified together.

 

[Kapalika]

Indeed: it isn't "theists" proclaiming anyone shallow; it's just you.

It's rather presumptuous of you to assume that I'm going to be the one getting back to you while you haven't given a proper justification for this statement earlier:

Black and white views are shallow, lacking nuance or intricacy. Such a survey is inherently flawed by being framed the way it was.

It's more you that seem to not be able to comprehend that shallow can be descriptive and isn't always conotating something derogatory. I agree as well that the viewpoint is mostly superficial. The average person Canadian or not is not a historian, or a scholar, and don't even know that much about any religion let alone Christianity. Their views and opinions are going to normally be from ignorance. It's not based on a deep understanding or critical thought but more of knee-jerk reactions to some unfortunate things that have happened because of some bad beliefs. But bad beliefs are hardly exclusive to religion.

I'm pretty sure they know there are more religions than Christianity and Islam.

What I meant was that, they don't know anything about them, not that they don't know they exist. And they probably don't know much about those two either, seeing as even church going people in America don't really honestly know much about Christianity, except maybe what little they hear in church from one tiny contemporary viewpoint.

Something people do not realize is that religions are the primary reasons why the modern sciences didn't have to start from scratch. The preservation of knowledge, philosophy and cultural analysis in regard to socio-anthropology is all a result of massive religions and their capability of stockpiling books.

My interest in Islam and its function in society is a primary result of this. But if it comes down to the existence of gods I will blatantly say they are nonexistent and that many such beliefs are inherently harmful due to their ability of legitimizing the ridiculous.



You sound like an atheist at the end of the day. Much of what people call atheism is just atheism+metaphysical naturalism and this is fine and all but they seem to not understand that as an atheist I can pray to any god from Jesus down to Q'uq'umatz and as long as he/she has no legitimate belief in that deity they are an atheist still. Granted it is not normal this is still an atheist by definition. Then there are people like me wo profess anti-theism and acknowledge the reason why deities are conjured yet a only bothered by the belief in deities and their potential harm. This does not mean I hold no respect for religions or disdain them, quite the opposite in fact. I love and appreciate them but I just think the supernaturalism they babble on about is merely an outdated hypothesis that should have been dropped during the 1600s with the advancement of calculus.

Just imagine if the places of science and wisdom looked like this:

I see we are of very similar minds on this subject

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I meant was that, they don't know anything about them, not that they don't know they exist. And they probably don't know much about those two either, seeing as even church going people in America don't really honestly know much about Christianity, except maybe what little they hear in church from one tiny contemporary viewpoint.

We're on the same page with the knowing about them and knowing they exist. But, while from what we have the poll is limited, and doesn't provide the information into the whys. But it does provide a glimpse into a chunk of the population's views. They are designed to do this, and observe trends in society. People can argue the science and psychology behind it all they want and insist it isn't a "real science," but advertising strongly suggests it does work and it is a real science.
And if polls in America hold true in Canada, those unaffiliated with religion generally knew more about religion than those affiliated with it.

 

[Kapalika]

We're on the same page with the knowing about them and knowing they exist. But, while from what we have the poll is limited, and doesn't provide the information into the whys. But it does provide a glimpse into a chunk of the population's views. They are designed to do this, and observe trends in society. People can argue the science and psychology behind it all they want and insist it isn't a "real science," but advertising strongly suggests it does work and it is a real science.
And if polls in America hold true in Canada, those unaffiliated with religion generally knew more about religion than those affiliated with it.

I'm kind of iffy on polls these days because their method of finding people tends to only get the opinions of certain demographics. For example a lot of polling in America is only done by landline... or say this was voluntary. Someone interested in answering that kind of poll by going through polls to answer... will usually say negative, as you don't see a lot of people going around trying to argue that religion is good typically.

And then we of course can't forget how stupidly inaccurate polls can be for elections.

And if this glimpse is accurate I fear what it will actually mean for marginalized religions that do a lot of good and little harm if any. It seems most atheists I meet are as hostile to me as to a creationist, as if we are equally as bad or crazy. They often do this without knowing anything about my beliefs, beyond maybe a label they've never even heard of. Just knowing you are religious is enough, and they don't even realize what religion really is.

A lot of our customs and traditions in society are a religion in some of the worst ways at this point. Many of the "expected to do" things are little more than ritualistic gestures. Take the USA pledge of allegiance and putting a hand on a heart, or the superbowl, or how we date and marry. How we socialize, how we do anything that falls into an expectation as unquestionable and even beliefs that are unquestionable even if unproven (such as the belief about justice, equality and freedom and "rights"), not even if about something spiritual, is so ingrained in us on so many levels that it's like the kind of religion that many atheists are against.

And just like religion, I'd say there are some generally good things, such as the belief of human dignity and justice, but those don't exist... they are just things we feel or believe in. They are not real on their own. We make them real.

Same as I make my religion real in the same kind of way. Without a conscious mind things just are... the Universe doesn't have any justice, or dignity. It just is, brutal and unfeeling. Unfair and deadly.

To me, religion is everything. Belief is only one component. And nothing requires me to believe in theism or supernaturalism or in harming others or to be irrational or illogical or unscientific for it to work. And yet it's painted as if it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And then we of course can't forget how stupidly inaccurate polls can be for elections.

A good number of them were accurate. What was wrong was the EC. They did, accurately, predict that more people would vote for Hillary.

I think your comment falls outside the parameters of the wager. I think the existence of God was always conditional in the wager (i.e. never proven).

The existence of god can't be conditional to the wager because it is saying that "just encase there is." And from the basis of the "wager," there is still much to be determined.

I don't know if his point was to try to prove if Christianity was right.

He is correct; Pascal was a Christian who tried to prove the existence of god.

Yaarp, if I find myself in a foxhole while bullets are whizzing past my ears, I want an atheist next to me - someone who will be thinking of the best way to make a tactical retreat, or a counter attack, not the man who wants to hold an impromptu prayer meeting.

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about their religion, and I'd want someone who can stay calm, think and shoot straight, and focus on staying alive, and most of all because it is the military, someone who has my back.

 

[LukeS]

On what basis are these participants forming their judgements?

Probably, the mainstream media...

And its well known that religion often gets bad press.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And its well known that religion often gets bad press.

Really? Islam maybe, but Christian terrorists we won't even call terrorists. The closest I have ever seen on TV to brutally targeting Christians was specifically eviscerating Christian hypocrites but it was assumed the show was targeting all of Christendom, offended many people (especially the hypocrites it was making the butt of so many jokes), and was canceled after a few shows.