Is/was there value in Religion?

[volco]

I believe in existence, that it exists, and nothing outside existence could exist. What a sylogism! :S

I don't know if we live in a universe or a multiverse, but I know it is cognoscible. Once I called "God" a metaphor for what we wont be able to learn in an infinite universe after and if we extinct

My question is not so much of Objectivism but to Objectivists:

Do you aknowledge value in religion- at least historically?

Isn't, hasn't always been, God, an euphemism, a void center like a central park around which reason and civilization grows?

Judaism used that void rock exalting the value of code: words are the most important thing in this religion.

Christianity raised the stakes. It made God, Man. A single man. Wasn't that the first -populist- exaltation of individualism?

Is it just a coincidence that certain religions like the ones mentioned above achieved a level of civilization above the polytheists and the nihilists?

Praying may be the art of not thinking, but, just as when you flex a muscle you need to relax it, just as when we stay awake we then need to sleep: don't we need to sometimes shut off (while awake) our minds, as it may be requiered by our nature as man qua man?

Please level with me, I know how religion has acted brutally materially and psychologically against men; but I still get goosebums when I listen to sacred music and follow the words.

Furthermore my ever unanswered question is: Do you guys think Civilization could have grown to the level of giving birth to someone like Ayn Rand or Ray Kurzweil, without the previous steps? Aren't we evading hierarchy when we attack religion on philosophical grounds?

[JMeganSnow]

Is it just a coincidence that certain religions like the ones mentioned above achieved a level of civilization above the polytheists and the nihilists?

They *did*? So it's your contention that the Dark Ages were superior to the Roman and Greek civilizations that came before (both ancient Rome and Greece were polytheistic, after all)? What are you basing this on?

I think Leonard Peikoff said in OPAR that, qua primitive philosophy, religion has some value. Qua supernatural, identity-denying, blind-faith affirming, religion has no value. The trick is to distinguish between the two elements and be precise in identifying what you're keeping and what you're throwing out. Personally, I agree with this. However, you seem to be attempting to smuggle in far more than this admission would warrant.

[volco]

They *did*? So it's your contention that the Dark Ages were superior to the Roman and Greek civilizations that came before (both ancient Rome and Greece were polytheistic, after all)? What are you basing this on?

It wasn't my direct contention, but I'd say that yes, it's a myth that the Middle Ages were worse than the Classical World. You look (genetically) northern or central european Jenni. Would you have rather been born within a goth tribe in the classical era, or in a Burgundian walled city?

I think Leonard Peikoff said in OPAR that, qua primitive philosophy, religion has some value. Qua supernatural, identity-denying, blind-faith affirming, religion has no value. The trick is to distinguish between the two elements and be precise in identifying what you're keeping and what you're throwing out. Personally, I agree with this. However, you seem to be attempting to smuggle in far more than this admission would warrant.

I am by no means smuggling "honest" praying as a value. I agree with Peikoff on that, and with you, isbut still doesn't answer the question. In distinguishing both ellements, historically wise, is like wanting to have your cake (proto-philosophy) and eat it too (not having the brutality its inperfection entails)

[softwareNerd]

I think the question needs to be clarified further.

Religion can be very broad: for instance it can include education, socializing, and even the music you enjoy. If you look at any of these religious activities, there is clearly some value in many of them. Many of these activities did not have to be religious though. One can easily imagine non-religious version that have the same value: non religious education, socializing, and music.

So, is the question really: was the religious aspect of the religious activity something of value?

Unless one separates the religious aspect out by some means, any answer one arrives at does not have current-day relevance, because it does not address the causal factors.

One problem with a historical such an approach is that religion was so widespread. If a whole lot of cultures were religious, we would need to compare cultures that were similar except for the degree of the religious aspect within their religion. or, we would have to compare two close-by periods within a culture when the religious aspect of their religion suddenly increase or decreased significantly.

If one teases out the conceptually relevant aspect, one is left with a question like: did the use of faith, rather than rationality, help some cultures progress?

[adrock3215]

Do you aknowledge value in religion- at least historically?

I do. As sNerd pointed out, there is much of value in religion, in terms of human thought that originated in religious belief. Take Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Hugo, Spinoza, and Goethe for instance. I guess you could call it a historial appreciation if you wanted. However, I don't think there is any value in pure faith, but even granting that one would have to acknowledge that pure faith did not begin with religion, at least not religion in the Judeo-Christian sense. Indeed, paganism thrived for centuries before. Also, remember that, judged solely as a work of art (that is, on aesthetic merit), nearly the entire Old Testament is terrific, and it brought inspiration to many artists and thinkers long after it was written. Think about Vivaldi's Gloria, Da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks, Milton's Paradise Lost, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or his wonderful statue of David, and Raphael's Madonna of the Meadows. Also, in terms of economic-political theory, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, etc. In some way or another, nearly all human thought can be traced back to the Greeks and the Old Testament.

Furthermore my ever unanswered question is: Do you guys think Civilization could have grown to the level of giving birth to someone like Ayn Rand or Ray Kurzweil, without the previous steps? Aren't we evading hierarchy when we attack religion on philosophical grounds?

In short, no to the first question and yes to the second. Whatever you hear, there is no Socrates without Homer; there is no Plato without Socrates; there is no Aristotle without Plato, etc. Similarly, there is no Liszt without Beethoven; there is no Tchaikovsky without Liszt; there is no Rachmaninoff without Tchaikovsky, etc. Lastly, there is no Augustine without Christianity; there is no Kant without Augustine; there is no Rand without Kant, etc.

Edited February 25, 2009 by adrock3215

[AllMenAreIslands]

The value of religion is in its attempts to answer basic questions about the nature of existence. Compared with not thinking at all, it was definitely a step up.

When one clings to beliefs (whether social, religious, political or what-have-you) regardless of evidence to the contrary, is when one is on an unhealthy road. Such wilful blindness is detrimental to every individual who tries it.

When one goes further and punishes those who openly question the beliefs, incalculable harm is done.

So, on balance and based on the evidence available to us today, religion and religious beliefs are on balance harmful. However, in the context of mankind's history, value can be ascribed to the process of attempting to understand the world and existence.

[watson]

The value of religion is in its attempts to answer basic questions about the nature of existence. Compared with not thinking at all, it was definitely a step up.

When one clings to beliefs (whether social, religious, political or what-have-you) regardless of evidence to the contrary, is when one is on an unhealthy road. Such wilful blindness is detrimental to every individual who tries it.

When one goes further and punishes those who openly question the beliefs, incalculable harm is done.

So, on balance and based on the evidence available to us today, religion and religious beliefs are on balance harmful. However, in the context of mankind's history, value can be ascribed to the process of attempting to understand the world and existence.

Scientific understanding has refuted many reasons for god to be excluded, and will continue to do so for the religious ideologues.

As far as I'm concerned, in many cases, gods were created, as alluded to above, to explain the unexplainable at the time. As our scientific knowledge continues to expand our understanding of the universe, i'm confident more and more atheists will emerge.

[tito]

I think the answer is that religion qua religion, as and for itself, is not of any value: it is a vice.

However - things associated with religion can be virtuous: although if they are, they are probably antithetical to religion qua religion: and so are practised by contradiction.

[volco]

I do. As sNerd pointed out, there is much of value in religion, in terms of human thought that originated in religious belief. Take Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Hugo, Spinoza, and Goethe for instance. I guess you could call it a historial appreciation if you wanted. However, I don't think there is any value in pure faith, but even granting that one would have to acknowledge that pure faith did not begin with religion, at least not religion in the Judeo-Christian sense. Indeed, paganism thrived for centuries before. Also, remember that, judged solely as a work of art (that is, on aesthetic merit), nearly the entire Old Testament is terrific, and it brought inspiration to many artists and thinkers long after it was written. Think about Vivaldi's Gloria, Da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks, Milton's Paradise Lost, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or his wonderful statue of David, and Raphael's Madonna of the Meadows. Also, in terms of economic-political theory, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, etc. In some way or another, nearly all human thought can be traced back to the Greeks and the Old Testament.

In short, no to the first question and yes to the second. Whatever you hear, there is no Socrates without Homer; there is no Plato without Socrates; there is no Aristotle without Plato, etc. Similarly, there is no Liszt without Beethoven; there is no Tchaikovsky without Liszt; there is no Rachmaninoff without Tchaikovsky, etc. Lastly, there is no Augustine without Christianity; there is no Kant without Augustine; there is no Rand without Kant, etc.

Just come from a biz trip and began reading all these posts. Tito and Snerd were most helpful, but your answer on hierarchy is pretty much what I was looking for.

I had become increasingly worried about some "factions" or rather some individuals who take ellements of Objectivism, and like the neotech, imagine a linear history where if reason had prev ailed to a 100% degre (I consider that a Platonic utopia- anti reality)

then mankind would have evolved in some sort of perfection.

In summary, my question of Objectivism is: Does it requiere absolute certainty? Ayn Rand said something like, yes, as long as new evidence comes up to refute it. I'm alright with that. I'm not alright with some interpretations that turn her exaltation of reason into a dogma.

Edited March 8, 2009 by volco

[Hazmatac]

I think the main element to come out of religion is the ethics of duty, based on blind faith. That is extremely destructive to the individual following this doctrine and to society if the government is set up by the same principles.

[volco]

I think the main element to come out of religion is the ethics of duty, based on blind faith. That is extremely destructive to the individual following this doctrine and to society if the government is set up by the same principles.

Yes, I agree, and I'm clarifying this to everyone of you:

That is the destructive and pragmatic ways of religion. Why do I say pragmatic? Because it is, it serves a purpose "bigger than one man". While I don't like those causes (not purposes), I am afraid -from a historical point of view- that without great, inmoral as they were, pragmatic operas such as the Roman Empire, Western Christiandom, or the Spanish and British Empires..... individuals I greatly admire would not have had the chance to even know how to write.

How many geniuses were born, and died without ever writing a word? And how many geniuses wrote their works, after their ancestors were forcefully incorporated into civilization?

Was there any example before the great United States of America, of a voluntary incorporation of barbarians to civilization?

And even on that case many native Americans wouldn't think so... but not all.

Do you guys understand I'm not challenging basic tenets for the sake of challenging them, but because I'm trying to figure out the truth?

Do you understand that I respect Ayn Rand for her absolutism on reality? Fidelity to reality is a value higher than a stablished philosophy. That is Ayn Rand's great contribution, not the tag Objectivism. I remember Leonard Peikoff talking about just that in his radio show; that is part of the reason that I still consider the Institute, A.R.'s not only legal but genuine heir.

[Jake_Ellison]

...without great, inmoral as they were, pragmatic operas such as the Roman Empire, Western Christiandom, or the Spanish and British Empires..... individuals I greatly admire would not have had the chance to even know how to write.

They weren't immoral. They were half immoral (to the extent that they were religious or tyrannical), and half moral (to the extent they were rational). If the rational elements in those empires didn't exist, those men you mentioned wouldn't have existed. If however, the irrational elements in those empires didn't exist, those men, and far more, would've thrived, and been able to achieve even more.

The specific things which made it possible for those inventions and achievements to come about were the specific rational ideas that came from specific Greek and later Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers.

You seem to be attributing some of those achievement to religious ideas within those cultures you mentioned. Which specific religious ideas lead to which specific achievements?

[edit]One specific thing you mention is writing. Which Commandment of God says: Thou shall teach everyone to write. If there is such a rule, why did the Church keep everyone illiterate and in fact outlawed the translation of the Bible from latin, thus keeping even its contents secret, during the Dark Ages?

Edited March 8, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[volco]

They weren't immoral. They were half immoral (to the extent that they were religious or tyrannical), and half moral (to the extent they were rational). If the rational elements in those empires didn't exist, those men you mentioned wouldn't have existed. If however, the irrational elements in those empires didn't exist, those men, and far more, would've thrived, and been able to achieve even more.

The specific things which made it possible for those inventions and achievements to come about were the specific rational ideas that came from specific Greek and later Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers.

.

True. But that's what I mean with pragmatism: the good HALF couldn't have existed with the bad half, for the sake of the empire's self-interest.

You seem to be attributing some of those achievement to religious ideas within those cultures you mentioned. Which specific religious ideas lead to which specific achievements?

[edit]One specific thing you mention is writing. Which Commandment of God says: Thou shall teach everyone to write. If there is such a rule, why did the Church keep everyone illiterate and in fact outlawed the translation of the Bible from latin, thus keeping even its contents secret, during the Dark Ages?

.

The whole Jewish religion is based on a -granted implicit- commandment that all males should be able to read because they consider GOD is a CODE, a piesce of writing. You don't see value in that? I mean of their greatest symbolic value, god, being code?

[Jake_Ellison]

The whole Jewish religion is based on a -granted implicit- commandment that all males should be able to read because they consider GOD is a CODE, a piesce of writing. You don't see value in that? I mean of their greatest symbolic value, god, being code?

Yes, I do see value in that, and in other aspects of ancient Jewish religion-and other ancient religions. The empires you mentioned however have nothing to do with that culture. I assumed we're talking about religion in the past 2000 or so years, in the West.

( I think it's been mentioned in one of these threads that before the Greeks religion did further philosophy, or was a beneficial precursor to it-however you want to put it-and that this was a view Ayn Rand did in fact express.

Plus I'm sure there are tribes and cultures which to this day are primitive enough to have arbitrary commandments be beneficial. All I'm saying is that this is not the case with Western Culture in the past 2000-2500 years, or with all the territories at one point under European or American influence in the past 400-500 years, across the Globe-including most of Africa and Asia)

[volco]

The jewish example is just the best. But there are others that I don't like so much. Actually the example I'm about to provide is for me so hard to digest it became the reason of these disturbing threads:

Christianity as the first Individualist force on a great scale.

I got this idea first from jew Marcos Aguinis and then furthered by "Atheist Christian*" Oriana Fallaci:

In Christianity, God is Man. Not a monster (vishnu, idols, etc) not a people (Israel), and not a King (pharaoh, Inca, Japanese Emperor) but a "common" individual. Jesus did not present himself as divine, just as a dissenting rabbi. But the subsequent Christianity that formed from that outcast, almoast apostate, jewish sect, DOES consider a simple carpenter GOD.

If Christianity does see some value in the individual soul at least if not body as well, then isn't that a greater value compared to those of animistic religions or pharaonic religions like the Inca's? Then the horrible Spanish Empire would be seen as a force of expansion of -some- individualism.

For this to work we havye to deal with half-values, or not perfect values, or rather of who's less horrible than who. By that I mean the problem of pragmatism.

If fidelity to reality (objectivism!) is the standard of knowledge: then we just can't deny that this imperfect empires and religions, and forced conversions, were much better than animism and autocracy.

My question about Objectivism is therefore: isn't reality, that is, metiaphysics, above in hierarchy to, let's say politics? even ethics...

My other version of the same question is cruder: Is Objectivism an Idealistic Philosophy? Yes. But is it idealistic in a utopic way? Can it turn into it? Have you fellows seen it turned into it?

*Oriana's self definition. Her words.

Edited March 9, 2009 by volco

[Jake_Ellison]

Actually the example I'm about to provide is for me so hard to digest...

I agree, the example is distasteful, and I consider the matter settled then.

[volco]

Great, now I'll have to work on another thread to figure out whether a dose of pragmaticism is necessary to be honest to reality.

Edited March 9, 2009 by volco