Did religion ever bring anything to mankind?

[thucythucy]

187. Each of these points can be disputed

Art exists without religion: very difficult to know which came first. The cave paintings which are humanity's oldest surviving artistic expression would seem to come out of some religious impulse--the idea being that drawing (or naming) an animal will in some way place it under the influence of the artist being a common feature of early religious thought. Difficult to see, otherwise, why people, consumed with the struggle to survive, would take long hikes deep into the interior of a cave to craft art that will not be seen except by torch light, and can serve no practical (i.e. non-religious or non-magical purpose) whatsoever.

If that is the case, then one could say that all art (and music as well, since the first instances of musical expression were basically hymns--the first Greek drama, for instance, occurred in the context of ritual) came out of religion. A pretty major contribution, I'd say, one that continues today.

Liberation theology. As far as I can tell, it was religious people who crafted/came up with Liberation Theology. Many of the early Sandinistas, for instance, were Catholic priests (who were of course censured by Pope JPII for their affiliations to Marxists). It was the moral authority of Liberation Theology--which claimed to be a more true reading of the Gospels--which enlisted so much support from the masses, certainly in Central America. It is true, however, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has historically sided with the elites, which is one reason why Liberation theology was seen as so, well, liberating.

I can't be certain what "the common man" in India of the '20s, '30s and '40s was thinking, but Gandhi himself, who is widely regarded as among the most influential of Indian nationalist leaders, clearly saw himself as a person of faith. Read his autobiography, "My Experiments with Truth." One reason, I would venture to state, he was followed and was so influential was that he was seen as a spiritual man--"Mahatma." Similarly, the Rev. Dr. King Jr. held a high standing in the African American community, especially in the first days of the bus boycott, because he was a minister. No other title would have enabled such a young, and unknown man to assume such a position of leadership. (And King, BTW, was heavily influenced by the writings of another religious man--Reinhold Niebuhr, author of "Moral Man, Immoral Society&quot . The Rev. Jessie Jackson, Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, Rev. Ralph Albernathy, etc, etc., all were obviously ministers. Malcolm X, similarly, was a person of faith who exerted tremendous influence on the liberation struggles of the '60s and thereafter.

China/Tibet. Interesting how, when a cabal of self-avowed Marxists (and atheists) commit mass crimes verging on genocide, this is being done not as a natural outgrowth of Marxism or atheism, but "as a land grab for selfish national interest." Whereas, when self-avowed Christians, say, or some part of a Christian hierarchy commit similar crimes, these are obviously and inextricably linked with their faith. If the subjugation of Tibet, which is billed by the Chinese militarists as a "liberation" from the shackles of oppressive religion by the enlightened proponents of dialectic materialism, can be seen instead as a thinly veiled land-grab (which I think is correct), why can't the brutal campaigns of aggression by the Spanish Conquistadors be seen in the same way? In the one, an atheist ideology--Marxism--is used to justify and conceal an imperialist grab. In the other, it's theist Catholicism. Judging by your own argument, the fact that theism and atheism are present in both instances would seem to eliminate them as prime movers in either case. You think, if the Spaniards had been Marxists instead of Catholics, they wouldn't have acted to subjugate South and Central America? You think if the current Chinese elites weren't Marxists, they still wouldn't be occupying Tibet?

And I wouldn't underestimate the power or importance of a "consoling placebo" that has enabled billions of people--who would have been oppressed and miserable in any case--to live out their lives with a greater sense of purpose, endurance, and dignity. Nor would I under-value the importance of essentially religious reforms among early cultures, as far as hygiene is concerned. Various legal reforms were also religious based. "Lex Talonis" for instance--the notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Today that's seen as barbarism--and it is--but introduced in cultures where a child could have his hands hacked off for stealing a loaf of bread (which was a Roman law at the time of Caligula and Claudius) the notion of a punishment proportionate to the crime was little short of revolutionary.

We'll have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me. But you asked the question, and so I'm giving you my answers.

Best wishes.