"The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet" Really? Atheism has always existed.
Not really. Perhaps one or two individuals prior to the 17th century can be considered real atheists, the rest all worshipped a diety or recognized the existence of some form of higher principle.
'Hurting the fabric of society', it's these claims I take issue with. You don't seem to have any evidence to support them. God is one of the major pillars of various parts of America, but millions of us do fine without this concept. If you think we're somehow worse off, less charitable, etc, than the religious, try finding some evidence to back up your assertions.
Faith can bring people together. It's a unifying factor. Sure, you still got the flag, and the anthem, and Stephen Colbert... but you no longer share a common spiritual life, a common 'idea' of the world. The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world. The word 'church' not only refers to a concrete place of worship, but also to a metaphysical gathering of believers. Through the ceremonies people worldwide come together under Christ.
There is nothing the atheists have that can match something like that.
No spiritual home for people, no shared view of the world and beyond.
And that to me seems pretty vital for a healthy society.
People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit. .. That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.
Yes, I do think religion causes a great deal of harm; virtually any belief in something that's not true is harmful, if not in the short run, then in the long run.
You know exactly what is true and what isn't?
Pretty damn sure at least 20% of your scientific views will be proven wrong in the future.
I don't see why believing in God is harmful per se. Even if it turns out to be a false belief.
Do you have proof that people who are christian suffer more than those who aren't?
I can only speak for myself... but ae, I'm envious of people who believe in God, cause my complete and utter nihilistic views on life & afterlife are anything but a blessing.
But the claim in question was HHC's. If we're looking purely at the positives that religion creates for society, there's little evidence that those positives exceed what the non-religious do. Regardless of which religious organization you want to focus on, the fact remains that by any estimations I've seen, the majority of the average religious organization's money goes towards other factors such as operating expenses, rather than direct charity, and thus the original graph I posted is accurate enough.
You are trying to convert an immaterial asset to material means.
You cannot put a price on things like hope, unity & spiritual salvation.
KRD:
religion would by now be a lot closer to being a thing of the past, and people in large parts of the world would objectively be freer (and thus happier, since everyone wants to bring happiness into this) for it, no?
When that happens
It will never happen. You are overlooking the basic human need for spirituality. Basic questions of life and death & human ethics will always be asked and science will never be able to answer them all. There will always be room (and need) for spirituality and thereby, for religion.
And anyway, the study of religion would still exist in this future, the ideas wouldn't be lost forever or anything, they would merely be treated as myths
It would be lost as soon as you put it into a museum.
Religion has to be experienced. It's not primarily used as a theory to explain how the universe works. It's a way of life, an EXPERIENCE. Without experience there is no understanding.
leverages of power over lower classes or over women or whatever, i.e. what they actually are.
How does this in any way apply to the teachings of Christ? or Buddha, or Muhammed, or any great prophet?
These men were noted for questioning or even overthrowing ruling structures & classes and promoting the equality of every man (and to some extent) women.
You can say the religion was perverted or corrupted by emperors & popes, but you can't possibly say these religions are corrupted by nature.
To anyone who believes the UK has nothing to feel guilty about, I highly recommend watching this documentary series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%282012_TV_series%29
A series like that could be made about any culture. As if these places were paradise before the English came.. or after the English left..
Imperialism and colonialism are still very different from genocide on an industrial scale.
than treating other cultures and systems of belief as intrinsically equal and equally interesting and worthy of study?
Hm. You might need to read your post again and think this over.
There is absolutely nothing in what you say that shows that you consider other systems of belief to be equal to your own. You see them as obsolete, foolish mindsets that hamper any human progress. You only care for them as artifacts of a time long gone.
If you were more open-minded you would see that christianity has played a very healthy role in politics in the West in the last two centuries, and that the real dangers actually came from the mindset of the Enlightenment.
When you consider mankind as ultimately good & consider reason to be the ultimate & only source of progress in this world... you're bound to end up on a very dangerous road. Because if this is true, then anything that doesn't appeal to 'reason' becomes a blockade to human progress. Some like you might resort to discours then to try to persuade the others to join the 'light'-side, but many have also resorted to violence.
The communist paradise could only be achieved by destroying the 'bourgeios'-class, or basically everyone with a 'bourgeios'-mindset, whether they were aristocrats or farmers.. it didn't matter, they were all seen as roadblocks to human progress... and thus, had to be wiped out.
Likewise, the Third Reich could only be achieved if all people who weren't of the right blood, or the right mind or who suffered from all-too-human illnesses were eradicated.
The church on the other hand has always stuck to the doctrine that mankind is inherently 'broken' since the fall of Adam. That might seem a very pessimist idea, but it has saved the christian world from ever going on the same road as the modern secular religions have. The christian utopia is not of this world, and cannot be brought about by human beings, only by God. And yes, there have been sects who thought they could bring closer the coming of Christ by acting all repressive, but the mainstream has always embraced the world as it was. Imperfect, but ruled & sanctified by God.
It's no wonder the church was one of the biggest enemies of both communism & nazism and was brutally repressed in both states. Meanwhile, political wise, the church opted for corporatism (cooperation between the working class & the capitalists) and christian-democracy (decentralised government + focus on human rights). It's very fortunate for us that they did, cause without their support for democracy I don't think we'd be living in free societies right now.
Forums
