Is Religion a good thing or a bad thing?

[endboss]

If your statement reads seriously, as it does here, and you don't use emoticons, then, well--draw your own conclusions. But really, most people don't know anything about Norse pagan worshiping patterns, so why should I assume you do? Hell, I didn't for the longest time, until I ran across some Norse revivalist neo-religion types and their recommendations for academic reading. And you'd better believe those revivalists of all stripes (Greek, Egyptian, etc) go into the scholarly stuff deep.

Well I figured that since in the previous paragraph I had just said how all religions are made up and ludicrous...

Anyways, I know exactly what you're talking about when they go deep. After abandoning Christianity I was a Hellenistic Reconstructionist for a little while. Ironically, they chastise the Abrahamic religions for ignoring the clearly immoral and ludicrous aspects of their faith while ignoring the parallels in their own. Religions today are led by very smart people doing very stupid things.

It seems a little odd to me that religion is getting so much credit for war. The vast percentage of wars fought have historically had very little to do with religion. Even when they have had a religious element, such as the Crusades or the whole Middle East/terrorism thing, the primary motivations for the war are secular concerns wrapped up in a religious cloak. If you look at most wars, even most religious wars, you can find real political factors that motivate them and that wouldn't disappear simply because you take religion out of the equation. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else to further the cause in its place.

It's because the infantry is recruited and the population convinced through the guise of religion, after religion has turned them into intellectual zombies. But actually I do think people take this "war of economics" view too seriously in an attempt to remove the blame from religions. Wealth has been a major factor of course, but religion has equally been so, and it clouds the minds of leaders and causes them to do unspeakable things that they can easily justify to themselves.

[Bloodstalker]

It's because the infantry is recruited and the population convinced through the guise of religion, after religion has turned them into intellectual zombies. But actually I do think people take this "war of economics" view too seriously in an attempt to remove the blame from religions. Wealth has been a major factor of course, but religion has equally been so, and it clouds the minds of leaders and causes them to do unspeakable things that they can easily justify to themselves.

And if religion wasn't an available resource to use to cause people to flock to the cause, something else would be. Racial prejudice, differing systems of government and ideologies that have nothing to do with religion, class conflicts, and many other things serve the same purpose.The Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponessian War, Alexanders conquests, Punic Wars and most other Roman conquests, English- Scottish wars, 100 Years War, Napoleon, American Revolution, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and a long list of other wars that far outnumber religious conflicts all had very little to do with religion, including using religion as a recruiting tools as the primary means of filling the ranks.

I've also never really subscribed to the war of economics view. I tend to not subscribe to any theory that tries to tie a broad range of historical events with no real connection to each other together under a common theme simply to try to explain away why they happen. It's sloppy and lazy history in my opinion and usually winds up falling apart when you get into the aspects of individual events.

[endboss]

Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing. All the conflicts you listed had firm basis in reality and progress was actually made through them.

More than wars though, the biggest conflict religions cause is within societies. We we speak of religious wars, more often that not it seems we're speaking about the instability and prejudices that they cause on a daily basis.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I like the idea of a Pasta-farian! :laugh:

[url="http://www.venganza.org/"]Then ye be in fer a treat, ye scurvy seawench - ours be the best religion evarrr. RAmen.[/url]

Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

Small bo...No! Bad Odie - Thoughtful thread...

Humanity? Yeah. I'd go with that. After all, we come from the same line as Chimps, and we have all seen tv footage of just how savage they can be...

Ermm...sorry, you do watch/read the news right? I don't think we need to bring chimps into this, vicious little buggers though they are. No offence but in a thread about religion being a good/bad thing to point to chimps as proof of humanity being nasty pieces of work seems to be kinda superfluous.

Really?! :speech: But what Jesus said in that sermon was absolutely central to his teaching! How can Christianity NOT be about the Sermon on the Mount? I grant you it ISN'T, but it certainly SHOULD be!

One of the foremost pieces of eight...um, wisdom, my tender years have bestowed me is this: Should have, Would have, and Could have are all things that never happened. The world of Should/Would/Could and the World of Is can never be the same.

[fable]

Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing.

So you're saying that if Culture A was next the very different Culture B, who had access to plenty of wealth, and Culture A was the same religion instead of different from Culture B, the former wouldn't attack the latter. Because they'd never have any reason to want seaports, or access to iron mines, or control over cities, or gold, etc.

More than wars though, the biggest conflict religions cause is within societies. We we speak of religious wars, more often that not it seems we're speaking about the instability and prejudices that they cause on a daily basis.

If history shows us anything worth noting, it's that if you remove any differences between two peoples, they will very quickly find others that cause conflict and can be used to promote wars by their clever leaders. Caesar didn't even have religious reasons for his wars on the Franks: he acknowledges their religious similarities. His goal for battle? The might of Rome, and personal ambition. The two world wars, that killed more people than all other wars, combined? Not fought for religion. Prejudice takes infinite forms.

[fable]

Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

But again, you're thinking only of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, and specifically of the various Catholic churches (of which there are several, though the Roman Catholics strongly outnumber the rest) in the latter. It's also true of some forms of Hinduism on the Indian subcontinent, where the pernicious practice of castes still remains a major issue. But in many other religions, the priest doesn't have the sole patent on communing with the god/s. The priest is the one with the time to learn and do all the rites necessary for the community, which is a fulltime job. But any individual can and usually does have a direct line to the deities. For example, in Ancient Rome, there were many temples--Romans prided themselves on their "tolerance"--but each home had its household gods, which included several in the temples, and several that weren't. Anybody could provide a quick gift to a god at home, pray to or commune with them, and hope for results. The temples were more for special civic rites, blessings upon the nation as a whole, auguries, etc.

But shamans are usually, even today, believed implicitly by their communities, because they hear the voice of god/s. Or so I understand. I haven't researched Shamanism, I only know the bits you pick up from reading and other media.

Shamans aren't believed by everybody. Shamans are the slightly mad types who break down the vale between ordered culture and some other level of reality. They function differently in different cultures. But they are not cultural leaders, or heads of religions. They are isolated specialists.

[endboss]

So you're saying that if Culture A was next the very different Culture B, who had access to plenty of wealth, and Culture A was the same religion instead of different from Culture B, the former wouldn't attack the latter. Because they'd never have any reason to want seaports, or access to iron mines, or control over cities, or gold, etc.

If history shows us anything worth noting, it's that if you remove any differences between two peoples, they will very quickly find others that cause conflict and can be used to promote wars by their clever leaders. Caesar didn't even have religious reasons for his wars on the Franks: he acknowledges their religious similarities. His goal for battle? The might of Rome, and personal ambition. The two world wars, that killed more people than all other wars, combined? Not fought for religion. Prejudice takes infinite forms.

All I said was that religion was a stupid reason for war, not that if we removed it it would eliminate all wars. I also said religious wars tends to be used as a blanket term for all the suffering religion has caused, not that it would eliminate all suffering. In fact, what you say I said is the exact opposite of what I was saying, and you're attacking a point I didn't even make.

[fable]

All I said was that religion was a stupid reason for war, not that if we removed it it would eliminate all wars. I also said religious wars tends to be used as a blanket term for all the suffering religion has caused, not that it would eliminate all suffering. In fact, what you say I said is the exact opposite of what I was saying, and you're attacking a point I didn't even make.

When you wrote,

Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing.

...it looks to me as though you're saying "religion causes extra wars than would be necessary," because that's what you said. You may have meant it some other way, Endboss, but I don't honestly see I could have otherwise taken it.

You also wrote that the reasons behind religious war are "the most ridiculous," because again, that's what you wrote. But the reasons behind religious wars are no more or less ridiculous than rulers sending tens of thousands of men to their deaths because they want an extra port, or free access rights to a trading town. Note, I'm not saying the reasons behind religious wars are good--just that the reasons for starting nearly every war (there are, regrettably, exceptions) is bad.

[endboss]

When you wrote,

...it looks to me as though you're saying "religion causes extra wars than would be necessary," because that's what you said. You may have meant it some other way, Endboss, but I don't honestly see I could have otherwise taken it.

You also wrote that the reasons behind religious war are "the most ridiculous," because again, that's what you wrote. But the reasons behind religious wars are no more or less ridiculous than rulers sending tens of thousands of men to their deaths because they want an extra port, or free access rights to a trading town. Note, I'm not saying the reasons behind religious wars are good--just that the reasons for starting nearly every war (there are, regrettably, exceptions) is bad.

Yes, religion causes extra wars than would be necessary. I do feel they are the most ridiculous because at least when land or gold is seized there is a tangible benefit to one side. No, I am not saying wars are good or necessary, only that they serve a real purpose instead of an imagined one, and at least make some sense (even if it is very primitive and barbaric).

[Xandax]

Well - at the core, I do believe religion to be a "bad thing" (as understating as that term might be).
For me, religion is nothing more then a method of keeping the status quo, of keeping control. "Don't question your place, because you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" type control. Why rise up and demand better things when a book tells you to accept it. Why work to enhance yourself and your life, if that leads to suffering. And so on.....
Plus it is a weapon against those who're different.
Unfortunately though - it, like so many other bad things, seems to be a necessary thing for large portions of humans.

However, as many other things I view as "bad", I accept and can respect that other people have those needs/desires and as such feel the need/want to follow some religious dogma or what not - as long as they keep them private and do not use them to harm other people or as reason to do so.

But at the core, I can't view religions as anything positive because of all the evil things done in the name of them/with them as justification.
If there truly were God(s) out there they surely must be sadistic to allow what goes on.

[Fljotsdale]

[url="http://www.venganza.org/"]Then ye be in fer a treat, ye scurvy seawench - ours be the best religion evarrr. RAmen.[/url]

LOL! Nice site!

Small bo...No! Bad Odie - Thoughtful thread...

Passing swiftly on....!

Ermm...sorry, you do watch/read the news right? I don't think we need to bring chimps into this, vicious little buggers though they are. No offence but in a thread about religion being a good/bad thing to point to chimps as proof of humanity being nasty pieces of work seems to be kinda superfluous.

Quite right. Superfluous to need.

One of the foremost pieces of eight...um, wisdom, my tender years have bestowed me is this: Should have, Would have, and Could have are all things that never happened. The world of Should/Would/Could and the World of Is can never be the same.

Again, quite right. However, since the Christian churches all profess to follow the teachings of Jesus, I feel it is not unreasonable to EXPECT them to do so. Seriously. And if they did Christendom WOULD be a better place.

But I'm into the shoulds and woulds again...

[Fljotsdale]

If history shows us anything worth noting, it's that if you remove any differences between two peoples, they will very quickly find others that cause conflict and can be used to promote wars by their clever leaders. Caesar didn't even have religious reasons for his wars on the Franks: he acknowledges their religious similarities. His goal for battle? The might of Rome, and personal ambition. The two world wars, that killed more people than all other wars, combined? Not fought for religion. Prejudice takes infinite forms.

Ah... I don't think Hitler was prejudiced, exactly. He just wanted a scapegoat and the Jews were handy. To the populace, however, it was simple racial and religious prejudice. The attitude of: "The Jews killed Jesus, right? OUR Jesus! 'Cos we're Christians and they're his bloody murderers, right? And they eat babies, right? And anyway, they have more money than us, so it's not fair, right? Why should they have what's ours?!" was pretty common.
Not wholly religious, no, but it was a significant factor in the minds of the general christian public in Germany.

(I don't profess to have any deep knowledge of German thought at the time, but my husband was a Pole brought up in an Austrian household in Poland, and my son reads a lot of German/European history of WW2, and I have at least picked up a good idea of the attitudes of people of the time in those 2 countries.)

[Fljotsdale]

But again, you're thinking only of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, and specifically of the various Catholic churches (of which there are several, though the Roman Catholics strongly outnumber the rest) in the latter.

With respect, Fable, you don't know what I was thinking! You are just making assumptions! However, it is true that I know more about Christianity than any other religions!

On the other hand, since when did Christianity have priestesses, which I specifically mentioned? They go back MUCH further than any of the Abrahamic faiths, as do prophets and oracles. The further back in time you go, the more the priest, priestess, prophet and oracle and shamans and such were revered as intermediaries between god/s and the people; and that still lingers, even today, though it is, as you have said, more a province of Catholicism than anything else. But it is not unknown in other faiths, either.
I have what I know of human religious history going way back in mind, not just the short history of christianity.

It's also true of some forms of Hinduism on the Indian subcontinent, where the pernicious practice of castes still remains a major issue. But in many other religions, the priest doesn't have the sole patent on communing with the god/s. The priest is the one with the time to learn and do all the rites necessary for the community, which is a fulltime job. But any individual can and usually does have a direct line to the deities. For example, in Ancient Rome, there were many temples--Romans prided themselves on their "tolerance"--but each home had its household gods, which included several in the temples, and several that weren't. Anybody could provide a quick gift to a god at home, pray to or commune with them, and hope for results. The temples were more for special civic rites, blessings upon the nation as a whole, auguries, etc.

Yup. I know that. However, those household heads didn't have a direct line to the household gods. They did what all believers do: they prayed to 'em. They didn't have the god telling them stuff directly, as the oracles, etc, were supposed to have done, so the pronouncements of a household head on what the god wanted couldn't possibly have the power of the voice of the Oracle, to whom a god spoke directly. There is a huge difference between praying, which anyone can do, and having a GOD actually SPEAK TO YOU.
The head of a household could only say that it was god's will for his household to do something, An Oracle, or Priest could tell rulers what god wanted them to do, and so could rule the fate of the nation/tribe/whatever.

Shamans aren't believed by everybody.

Obviously! :laugh: But so long as they are believed by their community they have power in the comunity because they speak with the voice of the gods/spirits.

Shamans are the slightly mad types who break down the vale between ordered culture and some other level of reality. They function differently in different cultures. But they are not cultural leaders, or heads of religions. They are isolated specialists.

Mad? Maybe. Personally, I think they are very astute individuals who earn their living the easy way by preying on the credulity of people desperately in need of something... much as some tele-evangelists do.

[fable]

With respect, Fable, you don't know what I was thinking! You are just making assumptions! However, it is true that I know more about Christianity than any other religions!

If I'm having a discussion about theater after seeing an historical production of Shakespeare's The Tempest with someone whose criticisms are all in terms of things it did that were bad because they didn't follow modern stage traditions--which the speaker kept insisting were true of theater for all time--it's only sensible for me to assume that they're unfamiliar with historically based Shakespeare productions.

So if you keep referring to "priests" and "priesthoods" in a modern Christian sense when you're commenting upon pre-Judeo-Christian priesthoods (and their "modern times" role outside a Judeo-Christian framework), I have to assume you're applying the terms anachronistically. Can't help that. With the best will in the world, I can only deal with what you write.

On the other hand, since when did Christianity have priestesses, which I specifically mentioned? They go back MUCH further than any of the Abrahamic faiths, as do prophets and oracles. The further back in time you go, the more the priest, priestess, prophet and oracle and shamans and such were revered as intermediaries between god/s and the people...

I just finished explaining that in Greco-Roman religions, many temple priest positions were elected, and that in any case, every Greek had direct contact with his/her gods, whose three main locations were the home, the polis or city, and the temple. From our limited knowledge of them, every Frank and Celt could also contact their gods directly; the priests were the ones who studied and memorized the rituals, but they were definitely not, in any way, shape, or form, intermediaries in the normal course of human activity between the individual and the gods. And they were not usually revered. They were treated as any other upscale trade--such as scribes and bureaucrats in Egypt, actors and lawyers in the early Roman Empire.

Now it's possible that in pre-historic times, priests acted as you describe, but since that's based on speculation rather than research, we could state that anything is possible in pre-historic times. There's no evidence to lead us to think this occurred, however.

I don't know where you're getting this, and please forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like a view of pre-Judeo-Christian priesthoods based on fictional films. I can give you plenty of book suggestions for fact checking on at least a few of these cultures that have been thoroughly researched, if you'd like.

Yup. I know that. However, those household heads didn't have a direct line to the household gods. They did what all believers do: they prayed to 'em.

They prayed, they bargained, they communed with, they gave suggestions, they berated, demanded, pleaded, threatened, argued with, connived with, etc. They even, on occasion, threw out gods, and invited in other ones. (This last continued into Christian times. There are numerous records of community prayers before saint statues in Italian cities for relief against some disaster--and if the saint didn't deliver, the people would parade the statue down the street, throwing rubbish at it, before either making demands or tossing it out, and getting a new one.)

In other words, they treated the household gods as though they were family, which they were. (And their prayers were not attempts to placate. Again, this isn't Judeo-Christian religion.) We have plenty of evidence, in lots of scrolls and cenotaphs. Your statement just doesn't match up with the mountain of evidence we have of how religion (in this case, hearth religion) was handled.

The head of a household could only say that it was god's will for his household to do something, An Oracle, or Priest could tell rulers what god wanted them to do, and so could rule the fate of the nation/tribe/whatever.

Pre-Judeo-Christian, there's no evidence of priests ordering rulers about, or telling rulers what the gods wanted: this assumption of priest-ruler relationships began to arise in the late 19th century, and was based on an anachronistic understanding of late medieval/early Renaissance priest-ruler relationships. It was popular among fiction writers such as Lord Dunsany or (much worse) Maria Corelli. In fact, the king/queen was in some cultures associated with a local god/dess. (It's been speculated that one of the major reasons the Habiru left Babylon was that their priesthood was ignored by the vast majority of people and the rulers--so they took a tiny minority that followed them like sheep.) For example, in the so-called Middle Kingdom through the Late Period (pre-Hellenic) roughly 2000 BCE to 300 BCE in Egyptian history, the ruler, whether king or queen, gradually came to be regarded as the incarnation of a god, and treated as such. The priests didn't dictate what they did, and even the kings usually understood that their own dictatorships were limited--nuanced ruling meant you knew your limits.

You mention auguries. You may be confusing the role of the oracular priesthood with community priests. The oracles were located far away from communities. Their priests only offered advice based on questions that were asked--they never offered it, first. Their advice was not regularly adhered to, and it was not considered inevitable. They did not have any role in the running of communities, and it would have been a very strange Doric Greek community that asked anybody, whether or god or human from the outside, what to do about the way things were run. They were not regularly consulted, either. We have the detailed records of at least a few of the most popular oracle sites, and what went on in a day-to-day fashion, there.

On the other hand, since when did Christianity have priestesses, which I specifically mentioned? They go back MUCH further than any of the Abrahamic faiths,

I had to return to this, because I'm not sure what you mean, and why you're bringing this up. Yes, some priesthoods were male, some were female, and some permitted either sex to the priesthood.

[fable]

Ah... I don't think Hitler was prejudiced, exactly. He just wanted a scapegoat and the Jews were handy.

Biographies of Hitler emphasize that long before he ever had any ideas of political power, he was still a bigot, hating alike Jews, gays, and gypsies, among others. What you or I may believe about him is irrelevant. The facts establish these prejudices.

Different members of his political elite had different views on Jews, etc. For example, Goebbels was a cynic. He had nothing against Jews, gypsies, or gays. Their deaths were a means to an end for him, a way of utilizing fear and hatred of scapegoats to control the populace.

[Bloodstalker]

On the other hand, since when did Christianity have priestesses, which I specifically mentioned? They go back MUCH further than any of the Abrahamic faiths, as do prophets and oracles. The further back in time you go, the more the priest, priestess, prophet and oracle and shamans and such were revered as intermediaries between god/s and the people; and that still lingers, even today, though it is, as you have said, more a province of Catholicism than anything else. But it is not unknown in other faiths, either.
I have what I know of human religious history going way back in mind, not just the short history of christianity.




Yup. I know that. However, those household heads didn't have a direct line to the household gods. They did what all believers do: they prayed to 'em. They didn't have the god telling them stuff directly, as the oracles, etc, were supposed to have done, so the pronouncements of a household head on what the god wanted couldn't possibly have the power of the voice of the Oracle, to whom a god spoke directly. There is a huge difference between praying, which anyone can do, and having a GOD actually SPEAK TO YOU.
The head of a household could only say that it was god's will for his household to do something, An Oracle, or Priest could tell rulers what god wanted them to do, and so could rule the fate of the nation/tribe/whatever.

Even leaving aside the issue of how much direct access the priests of common people may have had to any of their gods in ancient times, the gods themselves weren't viewed in the same way as most people assume they were. We live in a monotheistic world for the most part, and the one god system generally means that god is taken to be everywhere and and perfect in some way. It wasn't at all like that for the Greeks, Romans or the Celts.

Polytheistic religions allowed for a division of duties among the gods. There was generally one overall god who was more powerful than the others and thus at the top of the chain, but all ancient gods were considered to be imperfect. They had flaws, and could be either beneficial and helpful or decietful and prone to spin you around for their own amusement. It really depended a good deal on the mood of the god at any given time. Religious ceremonies were were more a way of trying to baragin with the god, especially under the Romans. A common saying among the Romans in worship was ,pretty much "I give that you may give".

You can see the diference in the Greek oracles. Oracles were notoriously cryptic. They never really came out and told anyone anything. Instead, they gave out answers that the individual had to decipher for themselves and that did their best to cover both sides of the deal. A typical answer from an oracle could be interpretted just about any way the individual wanted. And even when they were more clear, they weren't always listened to. Throughout the Persian War the Oracle at Delphi seems to have kept up a constant stream of pro Persian rhetoric that was ignored by the Spartan/Athenian contigent.

Ancient gods were full of human failings. They were as prone to be spiteful, vindictive, and unreliable as they were to be good and nurturing. because of this, the ancient were wary of the gods in a way that seems foriegn to people raised in a monotheistic environment. The gods weren't always trusted, and they weren't always right even if they were being forthright at any given moment. They weren't even allpowerful. They were subject to the whims of Fate and couldn't counter anything that was fated to happen. By extension, the preisthood wasn't in any way in a postition of real power over the large majority. That would have been impossible to acheive anyway even if the gods had been viewed as perfect. There were just too many gods available to choose from,with too many differing agendas, for any global consensus or doctrine to be involved. You just can't really say "Do this because Apollo commands it be so" when the people can just say "Screw that. Dionysus is my god of choice. I'm going out and get drunk. And besides, the preist at the temple of Athena said Apollo was full of it." Individuals were free to shop around a bit and choose whatever god they liked best as their main object of devotion. In no way did a certain god ever have the religious clout that the Judeao-Christian god had, and their priests never had the power that the Pope has had at certain points.

[endboss]

They were as prone to be spiteful, vindictive, and unreliable as they were to be good and nurturing. because of this, the ancient were wary of the gods in a way that seems foriegn to people raised in a monotheistic environment. The gods weren't always trusted, and they weren't always right even if they were being forthright at any given moment. They weren't even allpowerful. They were subject to the whims of Fate and couldn't counter anything that was fated to happen.

Replace "they" with "he" and this sounds exactly like Yahweh. Well, what he actually is of course, and not what he claims to be.

[fable]

Just came across this review of Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which isn't anything like what it sounds; in any case, the review itself does a fine job of reminding us of religion-as-experience, before it became a center for group-think. Granted, she concentrates on monotheism, but still, it sounds interesting, and the review itself offers provocative matter for thought.

[Bloodstalker]

Replace "they" with "he" and this sounds exactly like Yahweh. Well, what he actually is of course, and not what he claims to be.

Maybe, but that's not how the Christians view him. Therefore, they react to their god differently than the ancients did. Regardless of how similar anyone thinks the description is between the varying religions, what matters is what the believers think and how that influences the way they treat the religion. You just can't project the kind of blind devotion that people often attribute to Christianity back in time and think it applies to a society that viewed its gods in a very different light. You can't apply the more modern view of the position of the priesthood in religious affairs on a society that had a very different way of looking at religion.

[Aegis]

One aspect I am rather surprised has not surfaced (especially given the pedigree of some of the participants) is the nature of why religion came about to begin with. You have all touched on many of the fallacies, accuracies, misconceptions, inconsistencies, and many other wonderful notions you can associate with religion, and whether it is good or not, yet have not addressed the simple question of its core.

Religion was a means to understand that which could not be understood, at the current state of human development. Many of these religions came from a simple fear of the world around them, one they could not possibly fathom an explanation. Take the Greek pantheon for example. They did not understand the finer points of ocean, and what influenced gale winds, or large tidal waves, or other phenomena, beyond claiming it the will of a greater being. Same could be said about Egyptian religion, and even elements of the Judeo-Christian faith. You can read some of the old surviving accounts of people, and they are ripe with superstitious belief and understanding of God and his interactions with people. Hell, Martin Luther's conversion can almost be directly connected with a thunderstorm!

To get back to my point, however, religion, and invariably faith, have their roots in the desire to understand, and quantify human surroundings. As such, in its most base form, you can argue religion has been a good thing for human development, as much as it has been a negative. It has driven some of the greatest scientific minds (whether it was out of curiosity, or to disprove some notion) to learn and understand physics, the elements and energy, as well as having lead to great persecution and hardship.

The dividing line, though, comes from those who steer such power. It is the organizations that can sour a religious fervor, or make it the most pious of forces. Religion in its purest form, whether one has faith or not, is inherently a good thing, but the potential of being something truly terrible.

And just for a quick disclaimer, I am in no way a spiritual or religious person, but I have seen how it has helped other around me find some form of balance in their life. While it is not my way, it may be others. It is for the individual to decide whether it is good or bad.