Objective Morals. Are they any better?

[Segev Moran]

Yes, you are right, I fail to see how God can be an objective concept.
How can God be an objective concept?
Even the most fanatic religious person cannot prove God exists, therefore, it is still a belief based on faith.
A belief based on faith is a subjective belief and therefore God should remain a subjective concept.

Regardless if you believe it or not. it exists.
There is no need to prove it in order for it to exist.

The sun exist whether we prove it or not.
Objectivity is not set due to proof. its the other way around.
We use proof to discover objective things.
So far, BTW, we have found none
This doesn't mean there is nothing objective, simply we cannot prove it to be.

 

[Raymann]

Regardless if you believe it or not. it exists.
There is no need to prove it in order for it to exist.

The sun exist whether we prove it or not.
Objectivity is not set due to proof. its the other way around.
We use proof to discover objective things.
So far, BTW, we have found none
This doesn't mean there is nothing objective, simply we cannot prove it to be.

There are many definitions of objectivity but they all mean the same, here is one of them:
Objectivity
Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I can see the sun and I can feel it too, it would make no sense for me to deny its existence.
I cannot see God and I cannot feel either so how can I know it exists?
God is not an observable phenomenon and its existence is based on influenced emotions and prejudices.
Isn't that the right interpretation based on the definition?
Your understanding of "objectivity" is not based on any known definition.
You are misinterpreting the concept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have never heard of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and you have the hide to claim you know anything about the soviet system. Incredible.

Because I have never heared of this man, that means I don't know anything about the soviet system or its barbarity, and/or I I have to hide something?

Really?

He is no supposed authority he IS the authority on soviet brutality and if you do not know the gulag archipelago then you know very very little indeed.

Note that I said "reasons behind Soviet barbarity". I'm very much aware of soviet barbarity.
Someone earlier claimed that the reasons behind it were "they didn't believe in god" and that that somehow was some questionable truth because this Alexander apparantly said so.

That's what I'm responding to.

You could have just Googled him to see if he was relevant it would of saved the embarrassment of showing that you know nothing about what really went on.

What would google have brought up that made his opinion that the reason behind soviet barbarity was that they didn't believe in a god, an unquestionable truth?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, he endured it himself. You really should read him. The Gulag Archipelago is a classic.

I'm responding to the claim that the soviets did what they did "because they didn't believe in god" and that this is not to be questioned because apparantly this Alexander, who I'm sure suffered greatly by soviet hands, said so.

 

[Moz]

Because I have never heared of this man, that means I don't know anything about the soviet system or its barbarity, and/or I I have to hide something?

Really?



Note that I said "reasons behind Soviet barbarity". I'm very much aware of soviet barbarity.
Someone earlier claimed that the reasons behind it were "they didn't believe in god" and that that somehow was some questionable truth because this Alexander apparantly said so.

That's what I'm responding to.



What would google have brought up that made his opinion that the reason behind soviet barbarity was that they didn't believe in a god, an unquestionable truth?

Because I have never heared of this man, that means I don't know anything about the soviet system or its barbarity

If you are not aware of the Gulag Archipelago then no, i don't think you could possibly know anything substantial about soviet brutality other than it seems you have been told that some bad stuff went on. You could not have ever looked into the subject in any depth without running into The Gulag Archipelago and Solzhenitsyn, it is just not possible.
...............................................
, and/or I I have to hide something?

Really?
"you have the hide to claim" is an idiom of speech it was not implying that you had something to hide.

have the hide to do something - definition and synonyms ....PHRASE AUSTRALIAN ........ to be brave enough or rude enough to do something.
...........................................
Note that I said "reasons behind Soviet barbarity". I'm very much aware of soviet barbarity.
Someone earlier claimed that the reasons behind it were "they didn't believe in god" and that that somehow was some questionable truth because this Alexander apparantly said so.


It is not unquestionable, it's a debating platform after all but it is hard to debate about the gulag system and the motivation that drove it when the primary source is unknown to one of the debaters. Other than quoting Marx and his followers, which has been done and you did not respond too, and appealing to common sense and the other examples such as Mao and Pol Pot and NK how would one continue ...

However just to highlight how central Atheism was to Marxist thought......... Excerpts from Karl Marx:...... It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

......................................................

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. ... And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. Alexander Solzhenitsyn”

This is probably Solzhenitsyn's best know quote and to try grapple with it is to try to understand the main reason for Soviet brutality.

 

[Moz]

I'm responding to the claim that the soviets did what they did "because they didn't believe in god" and that this is not to be questioned because apparantly this Alexander, who I'm sure suffered greatly by soviet hands, said so.

It seems you still have not bothered to even read the Wikipedia article on the subject so i will give you his condensed answer to this very question......
If you want to question it .... contend with this.........Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

 

[Augustus]

But Christianity didn't borrow from the past? There seems to be varied opinions as to this.

Of course it borrowed many things from the past, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also revolutionary in certain areas.

it just tends to tell me that religions are rather natural and something to be expected, but not necessarily true and without some rather large complications.

Are any ideologies true or without large complications?

I suppose the former (of course), since what we have today (in striving for various freedoms and in our scientific understanding) was always there to be discovered. I can't really imagine an alternative universe where non-truth was what ruled. And for myself, I do tend to see religions holding back scientific progress although I know there are different viewpoints on this and contributions made.

It's based on an assumption that what we value now has always been valued, and what is useful now has always been useful.

Humans would always invent technologies, but the vast majority of societies in human history have seen no need to invest scarce resources in learning 'pointless' scientific knowledge. Why would they? Experimental science was ridiculed at first and only gained popular legitimacy due to links to theology.

In the west there were numerous factors that contributed to the development of science, and many of them were directly assisted by religion/religious institutions:

Mass education (not directly vocational) - church schools and universities
Mass translation of foreign texts - the church
Willingness to invest scarce resources in 'pointless' science and social prestige for doing so - supporting theology
Belief the universe is ordered along rational principles that can be understood - creation
Belief in a progressive body of knowledge that can be added to - regain knowledge lost during 'the fall of man'
Educated people with free time and access to scientific literature - friars and clergy (who contributed disproportionately to such progress)
Funding for research - the church
etc.

Given these things were very rare across human societies, the probability is against an alternative, religion-free history of the west seeing modern science developing there. It's possible of course, but you aren't likely to be dealt 2 straight flushes in a row at poker.

This is true, but in the past has anything else been so potent?

Religion has both driven change/progress and resisted them. I'm not sure it is particularly potent at resisting change in general.

Of course it has been at times, but all cultures are resistant to change at times.

One man's suicide bomber is another man's executioner - as in, all the religious executions because of heresy, blasphemy, etc. Any difference?

While even 1 is too many, religious executions really weren't that common. Even the big bad Spanish Inquisition 'only' killed a few dozen a year on average. And, AFAIK, no one has ever been executed for promoting scientific theories, other than Galileo it's hard to even name another scientist who was persecuted at all.

20th C totalitarian regimes on the other hand likely executed far more people for 'heresy' than all religions combined, and persecuted more scientists.

 

[Augustus]

I'm responding to the claim that the soviets did what they did "because they didn't believe in god" and that this is not to be questioned because apparantly this Alexander, who I'm sure suffered greatly by soviet hands, said so.

I did give you examples of Marx and Trotsky saying so, isn't that worth something?

In a nutshell: if there is no god and thus religion is false, then religious morality, including the sanctity of human life, is false. No god means humans are at the top of the pyramid, and the Party, which represents the fulfilment of History, is at the top of the human pyramid.

Thus the Party is the supreme arbiter of morality and any action judged to be in the interests of the Party (and thus the people) is objectively moral.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's based on an assumption that what we value now has always been valued, and what is useful now has always been useful.

Humans would always invent technologies, but the vast majority of societies in human history have seen no need to invest scarce resources in learning 'pointless' scientific knowledge. Why would they? Experimental science was ridiculed at first and only gained popular legitimacy due to links to theology.

But was this merely for the religion's own benefit? How recent was it that literacy for the common folk was thought essential at all. Far better to keep them enslaved - to the powerful and to the religious. 19th or 18th century in Britain?

History of education in England - Wikipedia

Prior to the nineteenth century, there were few schools. Most of those that existed were run by church authorities and stressed religious education. The Church of England resisted early attempts for the state to provide secular education.

In the west there were numerous factors that contributed to the development of science, and many of them were directly assisted by religion/religious institutions:

Mass education (not directly vocational) - church schools and universities (see above)
Mass translation of foreign texts - the church (perhaps in their interest and biased?)
Willingness to invest scarce resources in 'pointless' science and social prestige for doing so - supporting theology (says it all)
Belief the universe is ordered along rational principles that can be understood - creation (but wrong?)
Belief in a progressive body of knowledge that can be added to - regain knowledge lost during 'the fall of man' (what pushed us to fall?)
Educated people with free time and access to scientific literature - friars and clergy (who contributed disproportionately to such progress) (sifting through the material to ensure it confirmed their faith?)
Funding for research - the church (against competing religions?)
etc.

Given these things were very rare across human societies, the probability is against an alternative, religion-free history of the west seeing modern science developing there. It's possible of course, but you aren't likely to be dealt 2 straight flushes in a row at poker.

I tend to agree that religions were inevitable but it hardly thus means we have to endure them forever and that they didn't come with a whole lot of problems. I think the current trend in many countries for religions to become less important in the lives of so many is a realisation of this.

While even 1 is too many, religious executions really weren't that common. Even the big bad Spanish Inquisition 'only' killed a few dozen a year on average. And, AFAIK, no one has ever been executed for promoting scientific theories, other than Galileo it's hard to even name another scientist who was persecuted at all.

20th C totalitarian regimes on the other hand likely executed far more people for 'heresy' than all religions combined, and persecuted more scientists.

Well I was thinking more about things like the creation of Pakistan in 1947 where religious tolerance seems to have been missing somewhat. And that is hardly unique.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because I have never heared of this man, that means I don't know anything about the soviet system or its barbarity

If you are not aware of the Gulag Archipelago then no, i don't think you could possibly know anything substantial about soviet brutality other than it seems you have been told that some bad stuff went on. You could not have ever looked into the subject in any depth without running into The Gulag Archipelago and Solzhenitsyn, it is just not possible.

I'm quite aware of what gulags are.

Note that I said "reasons behind Soviet barbarity". I'm very much aware of soviet barbarity.
Someone earlier claimed that the reasons behind it were "they didn't believe in god" and that that somehow was some questionable truth because this Alexander apparantly said so.


It is not unquestionable, it's a debating platform after all but it is hard to debate about the gulag system and the motivation that drove it when the primary source is unknown to one of the debaters. Other than quoting Marx and his followers, which has been done and you did not respond too, and appealing to common sense and the other examples such as Mao and Pol Pot and NK how would one continue ...

However just to highlight how central Atheism was to Marxist thought......... Excerpts from Karl Marx:...... It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

There are plenty of secular countries today with ridiculously low numbers or religiosity, which are nevertheless very peacefull. A lot more peacefull and safe then for example the US, which has very high rates of religiosity.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "not believing in god" is anything but sufficient to explain soviet barbarity. In fact, seeing how many countries in the world today with very low levels of religiosity also happen to be among the best countries to live in, I'm gonna go ahead and say that disbelief of theism has nothing to do with soviet barbarity.


I don't think that "being skeptical of fantastical claims" is the big problem in North Korea or in soviet russia.
Have you ever asked yourself why such regimes like to include a general prosecution of theistic believers?


When people try to say that "not believing in god" was what was wrong with soviet russia (or is wrong with north korea), they are completely missing the point.

These guys has a state religion where the dictator, the Great Leader, was numero uno. The Great Leader was the only one deserving worship. Religion for them is competition. If a theist needs to choose between "the state" or the "Dear Leader" and his god - the theist will choose his god. And the Great Leader can't have that as he demands 150% loyalty.

These guys did what they did because of their communisty ideology.
Not because of any theistic skepticism.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In a nutshell: if there is no god and thus religion is false, then religious morality, including the sanctity of human life, is false.

Millions of atheist in the west, some of which making up the majority of their country which happens to be in the top 10 of safest and most peacefull countries to live in in the world - ahead of the very very religious US of A, prove this wrong every day.

No god means humans are at the top of the pyramid, and the Party, which represents the fulfilment of History, is at the top of the human pyramid.

You're getting closer.

In Soviet style communism, the one at the top is The Dear Leader, just like Kim Jung Un is in North Korea. This is why they don't tolerate theistic religions that places an entity above them.

These are essentially intolerant state religions.
To pretend that soviet style communist ideology is somehow related to, or the outcome of, atheism, is just patently and demonstrably false.

Thus the Party is the supreme arbiter of morality and any action judged to be in the interests of the Party (and thus the people) is objectively moral.

In dogmatic communist ideology, yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems you still have not bothered to even read the Wikipedia article on the subject so i will give you his condensed answer to this very question......
If you want to question it .... contend with this.........Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

And that is his opinion, which I disagree with.

Plenty of other secular western nations have "forgotten about god" also, in the sense that a vast majority isn't religious at all, and yet many of these rank among the safest and most peacefull countries in the world you can live in.

So clearly abbandoning religion, isn't really the cause of soviet barbarity.
Clearly, other stuff is responsible for that.

 

[Augustus]

Millions of atheist in the west, some of which making up the majority of their country which happens to be in the top 10 of safest and most peacefull countries to live in in the world - ahead of the very very religious US of A, prove this wrong every day.

Millions of modern day atheists (such as myself) prove nothing about the philosophy and beliefs of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

To pretend that soviet style communist ideology is somehow related to, or the outcome of, atheism, is just patently and demonstrably false.

Lenin (verbatim): "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"
"Rationalists": To pretend that atheism is related to Marxism is patently and demonstrably false

Lenin: But l literally created the League of Militant Atheists
"Rationalists": To say the League of Militant Atheists is somehow related to atheism is patently and demonstrably false

To say there is no link between the atheism of Marx, Lenin, et al and their political philosophy is as wilfully ignorant as pretending all atheists are commies or all atheists have no morals or whatever. They repeatedly highlighted the link in both their thoughts and actions

Just because being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a Marxist or compel you to agree with Marxism doesn't mean there was no link between the atheism and Marxism: atheism was fundamental to Marx's/Lenin's philosophy. Alternatively, just because you believe in God doesn't make you a Muslim, but that doesn't mean there is no link between Islamic theology and belief in God.

One potential (yet uncommon) consequence of rejecting belief in god is rejecting religious morality including the sanctity of human life ergo Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

In dogmatic communist ideology, yes.

If only the actions of the Soviet Union (which we were discussing) had something to do with dogmatic communist ideology

 

[Segev Moran]

There are many definitions of objectivity but they all mean the same, here is one of them:
Objectivity
Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Yes.
That's how we define something to be objective from our POV.
Quantum physics is already suggesting our entire reality is subjective.
We know for a fact our brain is subjective in grasping reality.

As Neil D. Tyson once said, sight is the worst kind of evidence

I can see the sun and I can feel it too

Actually you can't
You can see the sub 8 minutes ago.
If the sun "shuts down". you will still see it for 8 minutes when the reality is it doesn't exist
The fact is that when you look at your friend, you see him in his past form (a few nanoseconds in the past)
When you see a ball fly through, your brain is filling the gaps of its movement while in reality you can only see a few "frames" of its motion.
Colors are subjective to how our brain interprets them.

In fact, there is no actual smell, or color, or sound these are all vibrations our brain interprets to be those things.

So the statement above is only true to humans on earth.
Once, people thought that a rock is a static object. that is objectively have no motion.
Today we know there is no such thing

, it would make no sense for me to deny its existence.
I cannot see God and I cannot feel either so how can I know it exists?

I can feel it.
I can't see it, but i see its impact on my life.

How can you know it exist? you can't.
Is it objective? none of the humans I've met so far knows the answer to that.

God is not an observable phenomenon

God is observable (it impact i mean).
You just don't accept the fact its God. you rather name those observations in other names. which is great and you should.

and its existence is based on influenced emotions and prejudices.

No. If it exists, it exists.
My, your or any other's emotion doesn't affect its existence.

Isn't that the right interpretation based on the definition?
Your understanding of "objectivity" is not based on any known definition.
You are misinterpreting the concept.

This definition become less and less fitting
Here is an example:

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

 

[Polymath257]

Actually you can't
You can see the sub 8 minutes ago.

You can see the light from the sun and feel the heat generated by such.

If the sun "shuts down". you will still see it for 8 minutes when the reality is it doesn't exist

Pretty much irrelevant here.

The fact is that when you look at your friend, you see him in his past form (a few nanoseconds in the past)

Well, no. You are actually 'seeing' how things were a few hundred milliseconds ago. The time it takes for light to travel is *very* small compared to how long it takes the brain to process the information via neural pathways.

When you see a ball fly through, your brain is filling the gaps of its movement while in reality you can only see a few "frames" of its motion.

There isn't really any evidence of 'frames' in this sense. On the other hand, the receptors in the eye do take time to recuperate after firing. So there is a time limit between photon detections.

Colors are subjective to how our brain interprets them.

As is sound, taste, etc. All are also dependent on the particular physical processes involved in the senses.

In fact, there is no actual smell, or color, or sound these are all vibrations our brain interprets to be those things.

Well, that is more true of sound than the others. Smell doesn't have a 'vibration' at all, while the frequency of light is way to high to be detectable by our senses as a vibration.

So the statement above is only true to humans on earth.
Once, people thought that a rock is a static object. that is objectively have no motion.
Today we know there is no such thing

I can feel it.
I can't see it, but i see its impact on my life.

Well, optical illusions are visible to everyone who looks, but that doesn't make them objectively real.

How can you know it exist? you can't.
Is it objective? none of the humans I've met so far knows the answer to that.

God is observable (it impact i mean).
You just don't accept the fact its God. you rather name those observations in other names. which is great and you should.

What predictive, testable theory uses the concept of a deity as an important aspect of its predictions?

No. If it exists, it exists.
My, your or any other's emotion doesn't affect its existence.

Correct.

This definition become less and less fitting
Here is an example:

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Well, the definition is problematic, but not because of Wigner's friend and quantum effects. Consistent observability alone isn't enough to establish objectivity as optical illusions show. Wigner's friend is more an issue with the concept of the collapse of a wave function.

 

[Earthtank]

The good and bad thing about objective morals is that they can be tested and scrutinized and people can't simply change their morals as they see fit and becoming a hypocrite.

 

[Moz]

And that is his opinion, which I disagree with.

Plenty of other secular western nations have "forgotten about god" also, in the sense that a vast majority isn't religious at all, and yet many of these rank among the safest and most peacefull countries in the world you can live in.

So clearly abbandoning religion, isn't really the cause of soviet barbarity.
Clearly, other stuff is responsible for that.

And that is his opinion, which I disagree with.

You reject the conclusions or to even investigate the primary source.... ok.
.,.......................................................

You claim .....The elimination of God from communist society "clearly" is not the reason for the brutality. What then is the reason that these systems were able to liquidate 100 000 000 people? If you reject the conclusion of eye witnesses and participants... then what did happen?

 

[Shad]

That is nice. Less problems. Diversity brings its own problems. Look at India.

India historical as been diverse due to it's location and environment. Sweden and Norway has been removed from the centers of civilization until the modern era. Japan practiced isolation for centuries. Switzerland has never been an immigration hot spot. Australia was dominated by European since founding as colony.

 

[Raymann]

Yes.
That's how we define something to be objective from our POV.
Quantum physics is already suggesting our entire reality is subjective.
We know for a fact our brain is subjective in grasping reality.

As Neil D. Tyson once said, sight is the worst kind of evidence

Raymann said: ↑
I can see the sun and I can feel it too

Actually you can't
You can see the sub 8 minutes ago.
If the sun "shuts down". you will still see it for 8 minutes when the reality is it doesn't exist

You're saying we are seeing the sun with an 8-minute delay, fine, we are still seeing it.
It is a time and space issue that in no way tells us the sun never existed. I have no problem accepting the 8-minute delay.
Who cares if every time we see a live tv show, in reality, we are seeing it with a delay so technically it is not live.
That brings nothing useful to this discussion.
We cannot see God with delays or without them, that is the real issue here.
No one has ever seen God that can prove it reasonably.

I can feel it. (God)
I can't see it, but i see its impact on my life.

I see, if I say I see the sun you bring quantum physics, time delay, space distance, and the human's limitations to try and convince me what I see is not really there.
But you expect me to believe all that nonsense that you feel God and that you see its impact on your life?
Still, with of without delays you cannot prove it.
You are going from very technical and specific and deeply philosophical to cheap street-level speculation.
Not convincing.

How can you know it exist? you can't.
Is it objective? none of the humans I've met so far knows the answer to that.

You're asking the wrong question.
You keep misusing the word "objective".
Objective means that it can be proven by scientific methods or even by non-scientific methods too. If it can be detected by any of our senses then it obviously is there.
If it cannot then it remains unproven and subjective.

God is observable (it impact i mean).
You just don't accept the fact its God. you rather name those observations in other names. which is great and you should.
No. If it exists, it exists.
My, your or any other's emotion doesn't affect its existence.
This definition become less and less fitting
Here is an example:
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

See you insist in pretending that your strong beliefs somehow prove anything.
They don't.
It only proves your faith is strong but not much more.

 

[Augustus]

But was this merely for the religion's own benefit? How recent was it that literacy for the common folk was thought essential at all. Far better to keep them enslaved - to the powerful and to the religious. 19th or 18th century in Britain?

It doesn't matter whose benefit education was for, church schools and universities educated millions of people who would otherwise have been uneducated (or at least much less educated). Also Protestant desire to read the Bible contributed massively to literacy post printing press.

As for 'why wasn't everyone educated', think of the economy: most people were agrarian workers. There were few jobs that required well educated people. For most people, spending 10 years of your life at school would be counterproductive to your future prospects as you'd miss out on 10 years learning a trade never mind the wasted expenditure and lost income that few could afford. Even if offered it, many/most would have rejected the offer.

Education grew with the middle classes, and the church did offer eduction to a decent number of non-elites who would otherwise have been unable to afford it.

Prior to the nineteenth century, there were few schools. Most of those that existed were run by church authorities and stressed religious education. The Church of England resisted early attempts for the state to provide secular education.

Is it common that any organisation believes another organisation can do their job better than them?

Also universities didn't stress religious education, theology was a post-grad subject and to qualify for that you had to have passed a degree including Greek philosophy, natural philosophy, etc.

Mass translation of foreign texts - the church (perhaps in their interest and biased?) based on the idea that they were valuable and should be translated Toledo School of Translators - Wikipedia
Willingness to invest scarce resources in 'pointless' science and social prestige for doing so - supporting theology (says it all) secular society mostly saw it as pointless and it is possible experimental science wouldn't have caught on if it wasn't for its religious justification. Very few human societies have valued 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge'. Modern humanists tend to assume their beliefs are self-evident, 'neutral' and natural where they are anything but: they are the product of an evolved ideology uncommon in human history.
Belief the universe is ordered along rational principles that can be understood - creation (but wrong?) an important belief regardless of the reason behind it.
Belief in a progressive body of knowledge that can be added to - regain knowledge lost during 'the fall of man' (what pushed us to fall?) it's a Biblical story, what matters is how it made people think, not if it was true.
Educated people with free time and access to scientific literature - friars and clergy (who contributed disproportionately to such progress) (sifting through the material to ensure it confirmed their faith?) Nope. Doing cutting edge 'science' (natural philosophy)
Funding for research - the church (against competing religions?) because it saw it as worthwhile. Anyway it was far more important what people did rather than their underlying justfication.

I tend to agree that religions were inevitable but it hardly thus means we have to endure them forever and that they didn't come with a whole lot of problems. I think the current trend in many countries for religions to become less important in the lives of so many is a realisation of this.

Religion in modernity is a different question to its historical contribution to the modern West.

It's possible to believe it's no longer needed while also acknowledging its historical contributions.

Well I was thinking more about things like the creation of Pakistan in 1947 where religious tolerance seems to have been missing somewhat. And that is hardly unique.

And many societies that tried to replace traditional religions with something new were far from tolerant either.