Even if they're the nicest people in the world, they're still foot soldiers of repressive regimes. The nicest Mormon can treat his wife like a goddess and be respectful of others, but he pays tithing to and stands as an example supporting an organization that feels women should be child-bearing machines and "relief society" members who cannot hold the Priesthood or positions of authority. Ditto for a lot of others.
It's like being a cook for the Nazis. You didn't personally kill any Jews, but you were a cog in the machine that did. This is why religious people who wish everyone would get along are still guilty. Through their own actions and affiliation, they legitimize the full reach of their religion.
ZeaLitY, those are bad grounds. Democracy, the one to which you belong, and science as well, has done some oppressive things. Many of the sciences we use to explore the world came out of those very sorts of systems which you abhor. In making use of them, in being a part of them, you are doing the selfsame thing. Your logic in this is grievously flawed, or else you're in denial about your own belief system. If you think Science doesn't do these things, you're about as far gone in 'delusion' as the most ardent religious footsoldier. You have to understand the flaws and virtues of the system to which you belong, not just sit back and say 'THEY belong to oppression; I belong to the free.' This I'm good and they're not dichotomy is the very one which birthed all such terrors as you condemn... yet you are willingly making use of it because you think Science has given you this moral high ground. But it doesn't. No matter how right it may be, it can still be used as propoganda, it can still be used to propogate an oppressive system, and in speaking as you do, you're playing right into that.
So ZeaLitY, I pronounce you guilty of all the holocaust experiments. Of the testing of mustard gas. Of the oppression of the workers in the factories for the sake of progress. For the destruction of Melos by the Democracy of Athens. Because these are the systems to which you belong, and as such you yourself should share in the blame of their mistakes. You are propogating those beliefs. You are making use of Nazi techology in every endorsement of space exploration. You are buying into an oppressive system. Call this bullshit? Fine, bury your head in the sand because you don't like the facts. But every time you speak as you do, you do so as a radical and entirely halt of logic, and your beloved science has in your hands each and every hallmark of a faith.
Don't like the logic, don't play around with it. You cannot have it both ways. If you do, then you're being self-righteous without logical grounds for it. Ignoring the logical facts because they would otherwise condemn you... you cannot do this and call yourself a scientist. If you call yourself a scientist, you cannot logically condemn the religious without condemning science.
I would like to add that very many of the best and brightest people of history have been deeply religious, whether artists or scientists. Some have even had a mystical type of religion. I know this sounds anathematic and illogical to you, ZeaLitY, but all that means is that there's a problem with your paradigm, and if you're a good science you'll have to adapt it rather than being stubborn in your hatred.
Because Mozart was religious. Bach was religious. So was Milton, and Shakespeare. Homer was and Hesiod and Aeschylus. Many of the great painters were. Pythagoras was indeed a mystic as well as a scientist. And if some of the later scientists were unsure of the organization of it all, many of them were all the same deists. Bare fact shows you that discovery/advancement and religion are not seperate, and can go hand in hand. Indeed, look at me. You've seen the poetry I write. You have seen how I think and query. I do so as much and as deeply as you. And yet I am still deeply religious.
All you can answer with that is a rather logically weak 'but you're still held back.' Really? Well, none of the evidence shows that. All that is is the cry of someone who's theory is fallen and is trying to edge around the facts so that his theory isn't crushed. Dawkins, Sagan, these guys are wrong in that they are not good social commentators. They might be brilliant scientists, but their ability to comment on history and the like is severely weak. This is especially so when they talk about religion as a delusion... a power word that is the harbinger of rhetoric sophistry, and sophistry is the art of making the weaker case the stronger.
So careful how you set yourself out. Do not stand by something just because it is how you want to see things. This way of going about this, indeed this the way you are going about things, is the most unscientific thing imaginable: you are taking a conclusion and making the facts fit. You assume religion does this, and are only viewing the facts that fit it. And no matter how many examples are shown to the contrary, whether humanitarian efforts or what not, you simply cannot countence your view and paradigm being challenged. If there's a revisionist tendancy about, it's coming from that side. You are taking a very partisan view of things, ZeaLitY. You think you have some moral high ground, but it's all built on very light sand. For all that you tell yourself your comments are justified, that does not make them justified. Yes, yes, 'just look at all this it does!' but you make so many logical errors in that! For one thing, you have no proven in any way that the one follows neccessarially from the other. You are listing a set of events, and that hardly makes for an argument, at least not a cogent one. I could list any number of events and common oppresions and ascribe them to whatever I like. That is hardly useful. That it is religion itself that is the cause, and not some other thing working through it, you have in no way shown. For example, say an atom bomb was dropped on a city. A million people die. There is pain and suffering. Where is the responsablity? Why, the atom bomb! It killed the people. It caused suffering! And every person who has ever worked on nuclear technology is equally responsible. But wait a second, there's serious logical problems in that! After all, it was not the bomb that is responsible, but the people who ordered it dropped. And as for the researchers, those who saw themselves working to the advancement of energy techologies... are they to share the guilt when their intent was for good? In part this is what you are constantly doing: you are mistaking the means for the cause; in condemning religion rather than those who misuse it.
Indeed, seeing as there are those who are religious and not like that, it cannot be. Yet you choose to ignore the facts in favour of your belief. You talk about repression, but Christianity espouses stoic principles, which were the basis of our rights and freedoms we hold dear today: how is saying 'everyone is equal before the eyes of God' an oppressive commentary? You see, and this is the error of a great amount of your belief, you are entirely unaware of the context of just about any of this. You are, as it were, a novice in your knowledge of history and ancient works. Hold back a second. Hold back and consider that it might be your own view that is laced with prejudice and misunderstanding, and even oppression. It may not be what you would like to see, but since when has seeing what you 'like' to see been the endeavour of a scientist?
Your paradigm is flawed. There is no logical proof whatsoever that religion is the cause of anything you say here, only a means. And if it is a means, so are many other things you choose not to reject. Since that is the case, you are being a hypocrite at best, and a bigot at worst, choosing who you wish to and not condemn by your biased like and dislike of the respective parties. And please, no bringing up 'but it caused this war' and 'it caused this injustice.' No. It was used as a means, but one can always find other causes, whether power or greed or whatever. In fact, it seems rather unlikely that a social construct rather than a human desire would stand at the base of an action. Your arguments falter because in the end they are so incredibly simplistic, they sound much like the 18th century theories on myth. For example, that everything in religion was based on natural phenomenae. I've heard this said a few times around here, but who amongst those saying that know that that theory was one that arose and was discredited in the acedemic community about a century ago? It seems like a nice simplistic answer, even as yours about religion seem absolutely logical to you. But in fact, it doesn't work. You're holding on to an outdated paradigm.
And I'd like to leave you with one thing. I have a friend who is an atheist. He's a bloody brilliant philosopher who thinks atheism is the way to go through philosophy, but is incredibly well versed in Christian teachings... indeed, one of his favourite books is Augustine's City of God. Mark, a full blow atheist. Doesn't belive God exists. Yet all the same, he will always defend Christianity against such atheistic arguments as you are making because he feels them to be entirely illogical and wrong. Because as he sees it, religion does have benefit. And just the other day he quoted me something interesting he read. This one thinker, also an atheist, who admitted that, far from being a boon to advancement, atheism is typically the hallmark of a dying society. That is what the evidence shows.
PS
If you think all the scientist arguments are logical, then your are assuming a sort of saintly priesthood to them. For example, Dawkins' arguments regarding God. The same argument can be made to disprove the existence of Dawkins himself. This is a form of reductio ad absurdum, a philosophical way of arguing. Watch this. If you think it's silly, you have to believe Dawkins' arguments are silly in the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEisThat is not to say he's wrong when it comes to his science. But he's not a good philosopher.
