Religiosity and 'Goodness'

[person0]

Quote

Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.

- Penn Jillette (NYT)

A post in another thread reminded me of this article and of Penn's position on morality and its non-relationship to God.  I completely disagree with his assertions.  The Light of Christ enables us to all have a conscience and to act upon our awareness of good and evil (but an atheist wouldn't believe that, of course).  However, just for the sake of stipulation, and curiosity, what are your thoughts?  How different would you be if you 'realized' today that God doesn't exist?

If I am being honest, I would have the same personality, but I would also make very different choices.  I would have no problem with pornography, sexual immorality, drinking, taking advantage of other people, etc, etc, etc.  While I'm not sure I would have the emotional fortitude to kill someone in cold blood, I personally would have a moral compass that points only towards me and my self gratification.  Penn Jillette seems to think this is a problem, but honestly, I do not at all.  The scriptures speak of men fearing God, and I believe that is very important.  The law exists to instill fear of punishment so that people won't do the things prohibited.  Why would religion be any different?  Where there is no law, there is no punishment, and if there is no punishment or law, then there is no responsibility.

If you look at the animal kingdom, the strong rule and the weak follow.  Eat or be eaten.  If the entire world were without religion, why would the human race as a whole act any differently?  Just because one person doesn't want to kill, or rape wont stop others!  Even religion sometimes isn't enough to stop people.

Anyway, perhaps I'm out of the norm, but without the gospel, my foundation for morality crumbles.  Therefore, I am ever grateful for the gospel truth's I know, and for having my savior, and his love and strength and motivating power to keep the natural man at bay.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

A post in another thread reminded me of this article and of Penn's position on morality and its non-relationship to God.  I completely disagree with his assertions.  The Light of Christ enables us to all have a conscience and to act upon our awareness of good and evil (but an atheist wouldn't believe that, of course).  However, just for the sake of stipulation, and curiosity, what are your thoughts?  How different would you be if you 'realized' today that God doesn't exist?

If I am being honest, I would have the same personality, but I would also make very different choices.  I would have no problem with pornography, sexual immorality, drinking, taking advantage of other people, etc, etc, etc.  While I'm not sure I would have the emotional fortitude to kill someone in cold blood, I personally would have a moral compass that points only towards me and my self gratification.  Penn Jillette seems to think this is a problem, but honestly, I do not at all.  The scriptures speak of men fearing God, and I believe that is very important.  The law exists to instill fear of punishment so that people won't do the things prohibited.  Why would religion be any different?  Where there is no law, there is no punishment, and if there is no punishment or law, then there is no responsibility.

If you look at the animal kingdom, the strong rule and the weak follow.  Eat or be eaten.  If the entire world were without religion, why would the human race as a whole act any differently?  Just because one person doesn't want to kill, or rape wont stop others!  Even religion sometimes isn't enough to stop people.

Anyway, perhaps I'm out of the norm, but without the gospel, my foundation for morality crumbles.  Therefore, I am ever grateful for the gospel truth's I know, and for having my savior, and his love and strength and motivating power to keep the natural man at bay.

Well, there is a God, and apart from religion, there is so much proof of God in science and elsewhere that one would have to be willfully blind to overwhelming evidence (or have not thought about it sufficiently) to believe otherwise.  I do not mean to offend our atheist and agnostic friends, but I am frankly overwhelmed by just how much proof there is of God outside of religion (e.g., a witness from the Spirit, etc.)

That said, if somehow I were to stop believing in God, I would probably see at least some decay of my morals.  I am sure I would be breaking the Word of Wisdom, engaging in internet piracy, maybe even be living in concubinage.  I would be eating, drinking, and being merry, because I would inwardly be so depressed that my life is a meaningless blip that would soon be over that I would be doing anything I could to forget this reality.

I might not turn into a killer, because conscience and empathy provide powerful restraint, but I am sure there would be some degradation of morality.

[NeuroTypical]

"Humans have morality."  Ok.  Where do we get it from?  The universe doesn't give a crap.  Nature and evolution only care to the extent that various species propagate themselves.  Our morality springs from some other source. 

Yeah, we have morality - the light of Christ is present in every man, and we are given a way to judge.  Call it a conscience if you like.  Involve God in it or not, yeah, we have morality.  

Edited November 3, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[james12]

21 minutes ago, person0 said:

The scriptures speak of men fearing God, and I believe that is very important.  The law exists to instill fear of punishment so that people won't do the things prohibited.  Why would religion be any different?  Where there is no law, there is no punishment, and if there is no punishment or law, then there is no responsibility.

Yes the law exists to instill fear of punishment and it is needed to bring about righteousness. But religion does not end there. If it was all about fear and punishment religion would be very disappointing indeed and I might agree with how the author of the article puts it, "Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion." The problem here is that he misunderstands the purpose or end of religion. In the end we will find that we are not bound by law, because law applies to the disobedient as Paul said, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and the sinners..." (1 Tim 1:9). 

The righteous man is clean and follows the Spirit, which is amenable to circumstances, which gently whispers. There is no fear of punishment or threat. It is as Mormon said, "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law...for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law." (Moroni 8:22,24). 

21 minutes ago, person0 said:

If you look at the animal kingdom, the strong rule and the weak follow.  Eat or be eaten.  If the entire world were without religion, why would the human race as a whole act any differently?  Just because one person doesn't want to kill, or rape wont stop others!  Even religion sometimes isn't enough to stop people.

This theory of eat or be eaten must be banished from our collective thought. The animal kingdom is much complex and does not evolve solely by competition. Yes looking by species only it often involves prey and predator, but viewing it from a larger ecological standpoint it involves self organizing systems, whole ecosystems that increase complexity and order in the world.  

[zil]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats.

I find it fascinating that people who don't think [X] are in such a rush to define what it means to think [X].  ::shaking head::  Some religious people may well fear punishment.  Some may well focus on the promised reward.  But others act because they want to become.  Others act out of pure love for God and/or Christ.  And others act because they are convinced of truth and believe that acting in harmony with truth is the right thing to do (regardless of punishment, reward, self-improvement, or love).  ETA: And others may well have some motive I haven't thought of.

Edited November 3, 2017 by zil

[Fether]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

A post in another thread reminded me of this article and of Penn's position on morality and its non-relationship to God.  I completely disagree with his assertions.  The Light of Christ enables us to all have a conscience and to act upon our awareness of good and evil (but an atheist wouldn't believe that, of course).  However, just for the sake of stipulation, and curiosity, what are your thoughts?  How different would you be if you 'realized' today that God doesn't exist?

If I am being honest, I would have the same personality, but I would also make very different choices.  I would have no problem with pornography, sexual immorality, drinking, taking advantage of other people, etc, etc, etc.  While I'm not sure I would have the emotional fortitude to kill someone in cold blood, I personally would have a moral compass that points only towards me and my self gratification.  Penn Jillette seems to think this is a problem, but honestly, I do not at all.  The scriptures speak of men fearing God, and I believe that is very important.  The law exists to instill fear of punishment so that people won't do the things prohibited.  Why would religion be any different?  Where there is no law, there is no punishment, and if there is no punishment or law, then there is no responsibility.

If you look at the animal kingdom, the strong rule and the weak follow.  Eat or be eaten.  If the entire world were without religion, why would the human race as a whole act any differently?  Just because one person doesn't want to kill, or rape wont stop others!  Even religion sometimes isn't enough to stop people.

Anyway, perhaps I'm out of the norm, but without the gospel, my foundation for morality crumbles.  Therefore, I am ever grateful for the gospel truth's I know, and for having my savior, and his love and strength and motivating power to keep the natural man at bay.

I don’t lik comparisons like this. Atheists and Christians are under completely different assumptions. Before we can make comparisons or arguements, you need to agree on rules and standards. 

The disconnect here is that:

atheist assume that our nature has nothing to do with god

We know that allvgoodness in our nature is BECAUSE of God.

in Penn’s arguements, she is both wrong and right. Right from the atheist standing and wrong from the LDS standing

[Fether]

46 minutes ago, zil said:

I find it fascinating that people who don't think [X] are in such a rush to define what it means to think [X].  ::shaking head::  Some religious people may well fear punishment.  Some may well focus on the promised reward.  But others act because they want to become.  Others act out of pure love for God and/or Christ.  And others act because they are convinced of truth and believe that acting in harmony with truth is the right thing to do (regardless of punishment, reward, self-improvement, or love).  ETA: And others may well have some motive I haven't thought of.

Oaks says it Best

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/11/why-do-we-serve?lang=eng

[person0]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I don’t [like] comparisons like this. Atheists and Christians are under completely different assumptions. Before we can make comparisons or [arguments], you need to agree on rules and standards.

In Penn’s [arguments], she he is both wrong and right. Right from the atheist standing and wrong from the LDS standing

Honestly, my line of thinking is that Penn is still wrong, even from the atheist perspective. I, person0, if an atheist, would be a 'bad person' or at least an immoral person.  Just because some other atheist isn't or wouldn't be, has no bearing on the rest of the population.  You say that, 'Atheists assume that our nature has nothing to do with God'; if I were to become an Atheist I would have the same assumption.  In estimating my reaction to such a belief system, this is already taken into account.

The idea of human nature having anything to do with God is irrelevant tot e discussion, except to state the fact that a difference in perspective does exist.  If I, as an atheist, actually believed there would be no eternal punishment, then the things I now consider to be wicked, I would no longer consider to be wicked.  Even murder would be justifiable to bring about a personal advantage.  I would only attempt to avoid getting caught breaking the law in a way that would dramatically impact my life.  Otherwise, I would do whatever I wanted.  Yes certain emotions like compassion, etc, would still play a role, however, that would have no impact on temporal appetites.  Homosexuality, abortion, transgender issues, doctor assisted suicide, drug use, etc.  I could just become a politician and offer to give people whatever they wanted, and get rich off the peoples support (essentially priestcraft) because, why not?

There has to be a reason to do and to not do something.  Its even an accounting principle called opportunity cost.  As an atheist, perhaps I would still care a lot about what people thought of me.  I could resolve this by surrounding myself with a Gadianton style brotherhood, and distancing myself from those I harm.  I could also decide to just be nice most of the time, but I would end up making that decision just based on the greater benefit to me and not based on right and wrong.  People liking me might be the most important thing, if not, something with a higher opportunity value would take precedent.

People already make decisions like this every day, but remove a belief system from the equation and your window opens.  I might not be a drug dealer because of the risks involved with jail time.  That might not stop me from using drugs though, or from making deals with drug cartels for political or financial gain.  If I got overly angry, would I have any problem hitting a child or spouse?  What would be the risk of getting caught and having charges pressed against me?  How would that impact me emotionally, or my relationship?  Those might still be factors, but I would never even once have to consider, "What will God think of me? Will this impact my salvation? Will I lose the Spirit? Will I have to confess?  Will this impact my eternal family?  Will this impact someone else's eternal salvation? etc, etc, etc."

Personally, I just don't see it.  Without an absolute moral authority, I make up the rules, and so do you.  False religions already do this all the time.  If one exists, I will need a better explanation of the atheist perspective on what would motivate me personally to be a 'good person' if I didn't have God and my religion.  To me the only thing would be the perceived opportunity cost of each decision as opposed to a sense of morality.

EIDT:  BTW this is Penn (the magician)
 

Edited November 3, 2017 by person0

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I would be eating, drinking, and being merry, because I would inwardly be so depressed that my life is a meaningless blip that would soon be over that I would be doing anything I could to forget this reality.

Or, like many atheists, you would come to peace with the scope of your existence and just try to live the best life you can while you have it. 

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Humans have morality."  Ok.  Where do we get it from?  The universe doesn't give a crap.  Nature and evolution only care to the extent that various species propagate themselves.  Our morality springs from some other source. 

Somewhere along the line of hominid evolution, we became social creatures. Based on the behavior of the modern-day primates that we share ancestry with, I'd say it probably happened pretty early on in our evolution. Self-preservation interests dictated that we behave certain ways when interacting with each other, because we were stronger in numbers and behavior that would divide us wasn't sustainable. You might say that this was the birth of morality. Crude perhaps, but it's a start. As time passed, our moral codes became more complex and got tied into the religious structures that we created to explain how our world works. Modern man has outgrown the need for religion to explain the natural and scientific phenomena that escaped the comprehension of our ancestors. I would argue that we've also outgrown a need for a diety to tell us that we shouldn't be horrible to each other. At our core, we still have that survival instinct that drove early humans to band together and coexist (relatively) peacefully. We are still social creatures. We still have that instinct to coexist peacefully in the interest of self-preservation. 

Yes, there are non-survivalist moral behaviors that deteriorate in the absence of religion. WoW and chastity stuff mostly. Does drinking and fornicating make you a bad person? Much of our society would say no. Immoral in the eyes of religion, perhaps. But behaviors like that, when practiced within acceptable parameters (ie no raping, no driving drunk), aren't inherently destructive to ourselves or the well-being of our community. And ultimately that's what matters the most when we're talking about atheist morality.  

[Fether]

25 minutes ago, person0 said:

Honestly, my line of thinking is that Penn is still wrong, even from the atheist perspective. I, person0, if an atheist, would be a 'bad person' or at least an immoral person.  Just because some other atheist isn't or wouldn't be, has no bearing on the rest of the population.  You say that, 'Atheists assume that our nature has nothing to do with God'; if I were to become an Atheist I would have the same assumption.  In estimating my reaction to such a belief system, this is already taken into account.

The idea of human nature having anything to do with God is irrelevant tot e discussion, except to state the fact that a difference in perspective does exist.  If I, as an atheist, actually believed there would be no eternal punishment, then the things I now consider to be wicked, I would no longer consider to be wicked.  Even murder would be justifiable to bring about a personal advantage.  I would only attempt to avoid getting caught breaking the law in a way that would dramatically impact my life.  Otherwise, I would do whatever I wanted.  Yes certain emotions like compassion, etc, would still play a role, however, that would have no impact on temporal appetites.  Homosexuality, abortion, transgender issues, doctor assisted suicide, drug use, etc.  I could just become a politician and offer to give people whatever they wanted, and get rich off the peoples support (essentially priestcraft) because, why not?

There has to be a reason to do and to not do something.  Its even an accounting principle called opportunity cost.  As an atheist, perhaps I would still care a lot about what people thought of me.  I could resolve this by surrounding myself with a Gadianton style brotherhood, and distancing myself from those I harm.  I could also decide to just be nice most of the time, but I would end up making that decision just based on the greater benefit to me and not based on right and wrong.  People liking me might be the most important thing, if not, something with a higher opportunity value would take precedent.

People already make decisions like this every day, but remove a belief system from the equation and your window opens.  I might not be a drug dealer because of the risks involved with jail time.  That might not stop me from using drugs though, or from making deals with drug cartels for political or financial gain.  If I got overly angry, would I have any problem hitting a child or spouse?  What would be the risk of getting caught and having charges pressed against me?  How would that impact me emotionally, or my relationship?  Those might still be factors, but I would never even once have to consider, "What will God think of me? Will this impact my salvation? Will I lose the Spirit? Will I have to confess?  Will this impact my eternal family?  Will this impact someone else's eternal salvation? etc, etc, etc."

Personally, I just don't see it.  Without an absolute moral authority, I make up the rules, and so do you.  False religions already do this all the time.  If one exists, I will need a better explanation of the atheist perspective on what would motivate me personally to be a 'good person' if I didn't have God and my religion.  To me the only thing would be the perceived opportunity cost of each decision as opposed to a sense of morality.

EIDT:  BTW this is Penn (the magician)
 

I am familiar with Penn, don’t like him haha.

but I do not agree with you.

From an atheist view, there is no God. Therefore, how could we have come to the place we are now? Look st today’s society and isolate it from all others and ya... I don’t do bad because I will be punished and we can leave it st thatsnd concoide The only reason we don’t do bad is because of laws that prevent it... BUT HOW DID WE GET THERE???

Someone at some point who had an amount of power was like “I don’t want to kill or be killed... I’m ganna make a law against it.” Whether that is a moral idea that was imbedded in him or if it was just for the better of society, it still came about without a god (atheist view).

If man naturally wanted to kill, rape, steal, lie, etc... we would have never gotten to where we are now. Look at the economics of it. This would only bring about exclusive governments and no technological growth would never occur, no moral law would ever have been made. But this isn’t the case, so at many points in history, man obviously chose to live morally rather than immorally and there was no God to make them or teach them. They chose to do so by their own means.

(again, I’m playing as his advocate and how his quotation actually makes some sense. I do disagree with the assumption hay religious people only do good out of fear of punishment)

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

They chose to do so by their own means.

Except that, from an atheistic perspective, religion was invented in order to suppress and coerce the people into desired behaviors.  So really, the people got there by someone lying to them and convincing them that they needed to be scared of eternal punishment, or seek eternal joy.  The order that was created by the intelligent but deceitful leaders of the past was based on lies.  If you never had religion throughout history, would mankind still have made such advancements on their own?  Doubtful.  Either way, someone exerted power over others, whether psychological, or physical, and created what they themselves wanted, because they had or obtained the power to accomplish it.

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

I do disagree with the assumption hay religious people only do good out of fear of punishment

This is the only statement I expressed initially, however, doing something for a positive reward has the same effect.  It is part of the opportunity cost considerations.

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, person0 said:

Except that, from an atheistic perspective, religion was invented in order to suppress and coerce the people into desired behaviors.  So really, the people got there by someone lying to them and convincing them that they needed to be scared of eternal punishment, or seek eternal joy.  The order that was created by the intelligent but deceitful leaders of the past was based on lies.  If you never had religion throughout history, would mankind still have made such advancements on their own?  Doubtful.  Either way, someone exerted power over others, whether psychological, or physical, and created what they themselves wanted, because they had or obtained the power to accomplish it.

Are you suggesting that all moral, ethical and social improvements were made by only people that believed in God?

Even if that were true, belief in god does not mean there is a god. So a fake god was made up, and people started doing good. Are you suggesting that from the atheist view, we are all accidentally miral and ethical people?

Anyway, I agree with all of Penn’s quote up until his denial of God and religion. With the condition that it is from an atheist view.

The main question seems to be. Do we live in this moral and ethical world with a God, or without?

If the answer is “with a god”, the. All good must come from him and without him there can be no good. If the answer is “without a god”, then obviously we became moral and ethical on our own.

Now I don’t know how to deal with the idea that we tricked ourselves into believing there is a God and all moral, social and ethical improvements came because of this made up greater being.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Fether

[person0]

42 minutes ago, Godless said:

Or, like many atheists, you would come to peace with the scope of your existence and just try to live the best life you can while you have it. 

Somewhere along the line of hominid evolution, we became social creatures. Based on the behavior of the modern-day primates that we share ancestry with, I'd say it probably happened pretty early on in our evolution. Self-preservation interests dictated that we behave certain ways when interacting with each other, because we were stronger in numbers and behavior that would divide us wasn't sustainable. You might say that this was the birth of morality. Crude perhaps, but it's a start. As time passed, our moral codes became more complex and got tied into the religious structures that we created to explain how our world works. Modern man has outgrown the need for religion to explain the natural and scientific phenomena that escaped the comprehension of our ancestors. I would argue that we've also outgrown a need for a diety to tell us that we shouldn't be horrible to each other. At our core, we still have that survival instinct that drove early humans to band together and coexist (relatively) peacefully. We are still social creatures. We still have that instinct to coexist peacefully in the interest of self-preservation. 

Yes, there are non-survivalist moral behaviors that deteriorate in the absence of religion. WoW and chastity stuff mostly. Does drinking and fornicating make you a bad person? Much of our society would say no. Immoral in the eyes of religion, perhaps. But behaviors like that, when practiced within acceptable parameters (ie no raping, no driving drunk), aren't inherently destructive to ourselves or the well-being of our community. And ultimately that's what matters the most when we're talking about atheist morality.  

Obviously as a person of faith I disagree that what you have said is correct.  Even so, good answer.  If I understand - essentially, morals originated as a construct of a survivalist nature.  Ultimately, however, that still means that the morals themselves are relative, and that going against them is not actually wrong, but is only considered to be wrong because of the societal factors at play.  In Africa, many tribes still practice what we would consider sexual abuse of children as a normal activity.  In the USA and many cultures, this is highly immoral, even to our atheists, but really, who's to say there's anything wrong with it if the society has determined for themselves that it's okay?

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

In Africa, many tribes still practice what we would consider sexual abuse of children as a normal activity.  In the USA and many cultures, this is highly immoral, even to our atheists, but really, who's to say there's anything wrong with it if the society has determined for themselves that it's okay?

I like this rebuttal! Christianity, the main opponent to athiesm, has roots in the Middle East, Europe and the USA. Where do we find the most moral, technological and ethically advanced nationals? With the exception of the Middle East, we find them in nations where Christianity flourished!

Then That brings up Rome, probably the most advanced nation of its time, but it wasn’t Christian. So obviously they had some progression without the true God being worshipped.

[Guest Godless]

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

Then That brings up Rome, probably the most advanced nation of its time, but it wasn’t Christian. So obviously they had some progression without the true God being worshipped.

I would add China as well.  And let's not forget that the Christian establishment has a history of fighting tooth and nail against intellectual and artistic innovation. Many of the advances in Western Civilization occured in spite of Christianity, not because of it. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, Godless said:

I would add China as well.  And let's not forget that the Christian establishment has a history of fighting tooth and nail against intellectual and artistic innovation. Many of the advances in Western Civilization occured in spite of Christianity, not because of it. 

Intellectual innovation-sort of. That's why to this day some people can't accept evolution. That's also why some Christians are afraid of any kind of study of history or philosophy or science. So there is some truth to that. However in the dark ages the Catholic Church kept education alive while the secular world was killing one another. And philosophy was basically dead from Augustine-Aquinas, so Christianity deserves credit for that too. So it's kind of complicated. 

 Artistic innovation-some of the greatest art ever created was Christian in nature, so I'm not sure about that one. 

Some atheists dislike religion so much that they can't accept that religion has ever done anything good in the history of the world. That's nonsense of course. (I don't think you are one of those atheists @Godless. And some religious people are so deluded that they can't accept that sometimes religion has been anti science and anti progress. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by MormonGator

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I would add China as well.  And let's not forget that the Christian establishment has a history of fighting tooth and nail against intellectual and artistic innovation. Many of the advances in Western Civilization occured in spite of Christianity, not because of it. 

Ya but us Normans have an answer for that

the apostasy

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Ya but us Normans have an answer for that

Ha!  I knew your name wasn't "Fether".  Wait.  Or are you claiming to be from Normandy?  Is this an invasion!?

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Ha!  I knew your name wasn't "Fether".  Wait.  Or are you claiming to be from Normandy?  Is this an invasion!?

No! The Normans! Your a Norman, we are all Normans!

except Godless, he is not Norman...

Edited November 3, 2017 by Fether

[zil]

Just now, Fether said:

No! The Normans! Your a Norman, we are all Normans!

My name is not Norman.  I'm pretty sure no one today would consider me Norman.  But I did have an ancestor who apparently participated in the Norman invasion of England, so we could say I'm descended from a Norman.  Pretty sure my dad had a brother named Norman, but no one ever called him that, so I'm not positive that was his real name.

Maybe I'm actually a Norwoman.  This sounds like futuristic short-hand for "normal woman", but I'm pretty sure I'm far from normal, so that doesn't work.  Nope, no Normans here.

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Intellectual innovation-sort of. That's why to this day some people can't accept evolution. That's also why some Christians are afraid of any kind of study of history or philosophy or science. So there is some truth to that. However in the dark ages the Catholic Church kept education alive while the secular world was killing one another. And philosophy was basically dead from Augustine-Aquinas, so Christianity deserves credit for that too. So it's kind of complicated. 

It was definitely a mixed bag, intellectually speaking. There was undeniable positive influence in academia from the major religious institutions, but some of those same institutions (at other points of history in many cases) were also responsible for defiant (and often militant) closed-mindedness in the face of any scientific progress that contradicted the ecclesiastical worldview.

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Artistic innovation-some of the greatest art ever created was Christian in nature, so I'm not sure about that one. 

Yes, historically some of the greatest art on the planet has been religious in nature. I'm not sure why I threw that statement in there, to be honest. I guess I was thinking more of some modern attempts to censor artistic expression, but even that has never been very severe. And to be fair, the censors aren't always religious groups. 

[Sunday21]

Religion gets a bad rap as a hindrance to science. Overblown.

Also the study of nature and therefore evolution got a hand from the diligent work of Anglican clergy taking copious notes of nature. The Anglican Church allowed many clergy to spend their time cataloging God’s creation. 

[Sunday21]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

My name is not Norman.  I'm pretty sure no one today would consider me Norman.  But I did have an ancestor who apparently participated in the Norman invasion of England, so we could say I'm descended from a Norman.  Pretty sure my dad had a brother named Norman, but no one ever called him that, so I'm not positive that was his real name.

Maybe I'm actually a Norwoman.  This sounds like futuristic short-hand for "normal woman", but I'm pretty sure I'm far from normal, so that doesn't work.  Nope, no Normans here.

Really? You are the most Normon Mormon I know! Your whole nature cries out to be labelled Normon!  ‘You have always told me it was Normon  I have introduced you to every one as Normon. You answer to the name of Normon.  You look as if your name was Norman. You are the most normon-looking person I ever saw in my life.  It is perfectly absurd your saying that your name isn’t Normon. ‘ (With apologies to The importance of being Earnest. Take that @MormonGator). 

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, Godless said:

It was definitely a mixed bag, intellectually speaking. There was undeniable positive influence in academia from the major religious institutions, but some of those same institutions (at other points of history in many cases) were also responsible for defiant (and often militant) closed-mindedness in the face of any scientific progress that contradicted the ecclesiastical worldview.

 

Agree totally. Well said bro. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

51 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Religion gets a bad rap as a hindrance to science. Overblown.

Also the study of nature and therefore evolution got a hand from the diligent work of Anglican clergy taking copious notes of nature. The Anglican Church allowed many clergy to spend their time cataloging God’s creation. 

Amen Miss @Sunday21.