Well, the main reason for that big plain-into-building debacle was US going to the middle east to do some bombing, and the main reason for that is economical (well, and racist, but that’s a given). The only religious part there was people doing suicide bombing instead of shooting rockets.
Why make an ideological argument against ideologies?
Science also led to eugenics and atom bombs. Religion also builds food pantries, wells, and hospitals. It is not about the tool but how we choose to use it.
Science did not lead to eugenics. People used a young science as an excuse to advance their ideals by willingly misinterpreting genetics. Also, atom bombs are arguably more technology than science, and technology is rather neutral with its purpose.
Religion also builds food pantries, wells, and hospitals.
Do they, though? A woman called churches for baby formula and the majority of churches weren’t very cooperative. Also, even if the religious build hospitals, who’s to say they won’t follow some insane creed like Mother Teresa did, who willingly let people suffer because she believed that suffering led people to God? Not to mention that a lot of religious ideas tend to make people worse off, like denying blood transfusions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, or so many other topics that leave people out of proper care like objecting to abortions and IVF, prioritizing faith healing over evidence-based medicine, historical opposition to preventative medicine like vaccines, etc. More often than not, religion seems to get in the way of major health interests.
What religion does do is build community, and communities come together to provide for necessities like community wells, but even an absolutely secular community would build a well. I think it’s a little undeserving to give so much credit to religion.
What anecdotes? The woman who called dozens of churches and only got 3 willing to provide emergency food for a hungry child? You can listen to these calls yourself in the video I shared. Notice that I’m not arguing about food pantries, but rather congregations not willing to help adequately.
And still, your emphasis on food pantries is exaggerated. They were invented in the 1960s and are a distinctly American religious invention, so naturally, they would be primarily religious. Your article even mentions the negative effects these food banks have and questions their efficacy:
Despite the rise in charitable food, there is a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness in addressing the main issue of food insecurity. At the individual-level, the charitable food system has been shown to contribute to stigma and shame among patrons [13–15], offer poor nutritional value [11, 16], provide insufficient and inconsistent food supply [11–17], consist of limited food choice and variety [16], and exacerbate pre-existing chronic health conditions [11, 18, 19]. Furthermore, “pantries spring up wherever someone is moved to create them” [20] (p221). In this way, the geographical distribution of food pantries may not follow any systematic pattern or necessarily reflect need. Many food pantries operate out of churches and volunteers are often motivated to volunteer because of their religious commitments. Given these circumstances and undercurrents, faith is an important and dynamic element of the charitable food system. However, faith-based affiliations within the current charitable food system is unknown and likely context-specific.
I also found this:
a study involving case studies in Indonesia, Fiji and Samoa (Thornton, Sakai, and Hassall, 2012) showed that the contribution of religious groups in providing disaster relief and welfare services to their members and advocacy for the poor is often present but not always comprehensive or positive. The influence of religious groups in the public sphere and as institutions can also exacerbate unresolved tensions between different ethnic and secular groups.
Regardless, food pantries and poverty in general are symptoms of great social inequality and of a society that doesn’t prioritize welfare, despite its religiosity. So why limit ourselves to questionable religious initiatives? I’d much rather focus on the overall investment in social programs and their impacts between religious and secular countries.
I agree that religion is useful for bringing communities together and alleviating the hardships of poverty by providing people with a coping mechanism, but it’s by no means towering over secular initiatives because charity is innately human. Religion arguably only serves as a reminder of that with regular church attendance.
No argument here. Science was also used to develop airplanes and buildings. You can create with the knowledge earned from science, but religion (can) give the justification to misuse those creations.
It is not about the tool but how we choose to use it.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
“God Speed, John Glen”
Well, the main reason for that big plain-into-building debacle was US going to the middle east to do some bombing, and the main reason for that is economical (well, and racist, but that’s a given). The only religious part there was people doing suicide bombing instead of shooting rockets.
Why make an ideological argument against ideologies?
Science also led to eugenics and atom bombs. Religion also builds food pantries, wells, and hospitals. It is not about the tool but how we choose to use it.
Science did not lead to eugenics. People used a young science as an excuse to advance their ideals by willingly misinterpreting genetics. Also, atom bombs are arguably more technology than science, and technology is rather neutral with its purpose.
Do they, though? A woman called churches for baby formula and the majority of churches weren’t very cooperative. Also, even if the religious build hospitals, who’s to say they won’t follow some insane creed like Mother Teresa did, who willingly let people suffer because she believed that suffering led people to God? Not to mention that a lot of religious ideas tend to make people worse off, like denying blood transfusions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, or so many other topics that leave people out of proper care like objecting to abortions and IVF, prioritizing faith healing over evidence-based medicine, historical opposition to preventative medicine like vaccines, etc. More often than not, religion seems to get in the way of major health interests.
What religion does do is build community, and communities come together to provide for necessities like community wells, but even an absolutely secular community would build a well. I think it’s a little undeserving to give so much credit to religion.
Science doesn’t take anecdotes.
Most food pantries and beds for the homeless in the USA are faith based. Here are the scientific papers that show it.
A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location
Assessing the Faith-Based Response to Homelessness in America: Findings from Eleven Cities
What anecdotes? The woman who called dozens of churches and only got 3 willing to provide emergency food for a hungry child? You can listen to these calls yourself in the video I shared. Notice that I’m not arguing about food pantries, but rather congregations not willing to help adequately.
And still, your emphasis on food pantries is exaggerated. They were invented in the 1960s and are a distinctly American religious invention, so naturally, they would be primarily religious. Your article even mentions the negative effects these food banks have and questions their efficacy:
I also found this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0272-3
Regardless, food pantries and poverty in general are symptoms of great social inequality and of a society that doesn’t prioritize welfare, despite its religiosity. So why limit ourselves to questionable religious initiatives? I’d much rather focus on the overall investment in social programs and their impacts between religious and secular countries.
I agree that religion is useful for bringing communities together and alleviating the hardships of poverty by providing people with a coping mechanism, but it’s by no means towering over secular initiatives because charity is innately human. Religion arguably only serves as a reminder of that with regular church attendance.
Not science.
No argument here. Science was also used to develop airplanes and buildings. You can create with the knowledge earned from science, but religion (can) give the justification to misuse those creations.
Well said.
Credit where it’s due, science built the plane.