I would argue that humans, not religions, caused those horrors. It is easy to use religion to excuse amoral actions or to blame religion for them but the common denominator for amorality is mankind.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Religion was created by humans in order to control other humans. When you want to take over a landmass that has humans living on it, you either murder them all or alter their mindset using religion, torture and execution.
Eventually the ones that are left will fall in line and become obedient.
I would argue religion was invented to understand the unexplained. Most early religious people were those that understood, in a non scientific sense, nature. The seasons. Sun moon cycles and such. Understanding this gave these people a place of status. Abusing this status is the true flaw.
I would argue that religion was created because people were afraid. They feared that the sun might not return when it went away so they prayed and made sacrifices hoping that would ensure its return.
Most scholarly articles I have read suggest it was an attempt to answer two questions 1) Where we came from and 2) where we go after death. Early humans began to bury their dead with possessions which supports an early belief in an afterlife.
Is this the Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People™ argument in favor of not holding religion accountable for its deeply cherished and exhaustively documented history of immorality?
Yes. The difference is guns are made for one purpose. A human invention to make killing more efficient. But a gun can kill no one without a person pulling the trigger.
Given that people are the common denominator in ALL things related to humanity, I'm not prepared to view your thesis statement as especially pithy or resonant.
So it's actually the To-Err-Is-Human-But-To-REALLY-Foul-Thi gs-Up-Requires-A-Computer™ argument for not holding religion accountable for its deeply cherished and exhaustively documented history of immorality that you're advancing here?
Not really, just applying the basic principles of humanism or other non-religous moral frameworks could never be misinterpreted to such results. However, with religious texts, you could justify almost any cruelty. I agree that humans have a capacity for amorality however.
No it doesn't. If it is a tool, which I'd also argue it isn't. Then it is not at all useful for deduction of the unknown. Nor is it useful for morality.
To me, it would seem to have only one practical use. The preservation of time specific, regional cultures. Even when outdated. Which it does well.
And to your point about it not being a useful tool for explaining the unknown. Agreed. That is why science was invented.
As far as morality I again agree. Even laws today cannot do that. They can only hope to dissuade people from doing amoral things. I would argue a truly moral person needs no laws
Comments
Eventually the ones that are left will fall in line and become obedient.
The common denominator is still people.
To me, it would seem to have only one practical use. The preservation of time specific, regional cultures. Even when outdated. Which it does well.
As far as morality I again agree. Even laws today cannot do that. They can only hope to dissuade people from doing amoral things. I would argue a truly moral person needs no laws