Originally posted by finneganFunny how the Latin Renaissance happened centuries earlier without robbing monks.
Even if you do believe in a religion, there is room for concern on this topic and always has been.
Maybe you will recall the decision by Henry VIII of England to abolish monasteries and confiscate their (fabulous) accumulated wealth? It bankrolled a splendid period of Renaissance. Without knowing the reference from memory (Byzantine history is tedious! ...[text shortened]... starting a new religion.[/quote]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html
Originally posted by sh76they offer a product and are compensated for it. they are productive.
Let's assume arguendo that you don't believe in the narrative of any one particular religion.
Is it nevertheless productive to cater to people's perceived spiritual needs? Money donated to churches and redistributed when spent or given away by the church would seem to have a similar economically stimulative effect (maybe even more so) to other forms of comme ...[text shortened]... if the congregant only "needs" or "enjoys" the services due to his belief in a false narrative?
should they get tax exemption just for being a religion? no
Originally posted by EladarActually, the one thing you can do is prove something false with certainty. That is because one can establish a contradiction and two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.
That is a useless assumption since you can't prove what is false and what is not. It is all opinion.
Of course someone like yourself would assume that all religious leaders are spewing false doctrine since you like many others around here believe in a Godless Society.
It is proving something true that cannot be done with certainty, although there is a level of support at which it becomes irrationally sceptical to dispute the evidence. For example, The Rosetta Mission's ten year journey to catch up with and land on Comet 67P/Churymov–Gerasimenko was only feasible because of the near certainty as to where the comet would be. This was not "just an opinion."
So there are things of which we have a high degree of confidence and statements that we can certainly prove to be false. What remains is to enquire which religious statements can be tested, in order to permit them to be either falsified or supported with evidence. Turns out there are quite a lot.
For example, Leone Festinger did a study of a group that prophesied the end of the world and reported this in a classic book: When Prophecy Fails: a Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, Stanley Schachter. It's a good read and an allegory for many other aspects of social life. You might enjoy it.
Festinger did not set out to challenge rellgion as such of course. Someone who did was Victor Stenger, in his book: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. His approach was to take a range of predictions that are made in mainstream Christianity and subject them to a test against the evidence.
Stenger, of course, has to confront the same obstacle as Festinger, which is that evidence and reason will not convince people who are determined to be deceived. Such people will make a statement like your one, that it is all a matter of opinion. They are wrong but they are not going to be persuaded of this. This is, however, a problem of human psychology, not a problem about logic, reason, or science. The fact that people refuse to admit the evidence does not mean the evidence is deceptive; it means the people are intentionally choosing to be deceived.
That is your problem too.
Suppose the atheists are right. Then all that the various religions do is make their followers happy. In fact they'd be along the same lines as the entertainment industry. So the question is the same as "Is the entertainment industry economically productive?".
Incidentally I'm an agnostic, maybe there is a god or are gods, but that doesn't really change the argument.
Originally posted by EladarSo if I charge you for reading your stars I am economically productive?
Service industry that can't get people to contribute are not fulfilling a service. The money determines if the industry services people or not.
But if I read your stars and rob you I am not?
Both scenarios have me doing the same amount of "work".
In both scenarios the same amount of money changes hands.
Originally posted by wolfgang59If I pay you to read my stars, then yes you are economically productive.
So if I charge you for reading your stars I am economically productive?
But if I read your stars and rob you I am not?
Both scenarios have me doing the same amount of "work".
In both scenarios the same amount of money changes hands.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf atheist are right and there is no God, or if Christians are right and there is a God fitting their description, or if the Zoroastrians are right or wrong, not one moment of history is going to be different and not one aspect of society is going to be altered. History and society are what they are.
Suppose the atheists are right. Then all that the various religions do is make their followers happy. In fact they'd be along the same lines as the entertainment industry. So the question is the same as "Is the entertainment industry economically productive?".
Incidentally I'm an agnostic, maybe there is a god or are gods, but that doesn't really change the argument.
Henry VIII was not an atheist when he abolished the monasteries, he was a Christian. He just judged (or Cromwell on his behalf did) that it was economically beneficial to transfer resources from monasteries to secular uses. The point established there was that resources previously silted up for the enjoyment of the religious orders, were released into the economy. The same happened in the Byzantine empire, where monastic life was even more prevalent.
If one wishes to believe the televangelists are a useful economic agent in the US economy, then that is a judgement one is entitled to make, but I do not agree. I think it is relevant that wealth is transferred to wealthy individuals for excessive personal consumption, or for hoarding, because I do not think that the spending on luxury goods or hoarding in financial products does sustain the same economic forces as the spending of the poor on their food, clothes and housing needs.
Originally posted by finneganThat's not so much an argument against any given Church not being economically productive, as an argument that concentrations of wealth can be economically disadvantageous.
If atheist are right and there is no God, or if Christians are right and there is a God fitting their description, or if the Zoroastrians are right or wrong, not one moment of history is going to be different and not one aspect of society is going to be altered. History and society are what they are.
Henry VIII was not an atheist when he abolished the ...[text shortened]... n the same economic forces as the spending of the poor on their food, clothes and housing needs.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think the monasteries were an example of the unproductive uses to which wealth was put by the monastic movement in two different regions. Certainly, they and the televangelists are examples of the capacity of religion to secure an excessive share of wealth in any economy. but again, the transfer of resources to the religions (as also to the very wealthy) is at the expense of the real economy.
That's not so much an argument against any given Church not being economically productive, as an argument that concentrations of wealth can be economically disadvantageous.
Originally posted by sh76You seem to be suffering under the delusion that productivity is the ultimate criteria by which things should be judged.
Let's assume arguendo that you don't believe in the narrative of any one particular religion.
Is it nevertheless productive to cater to people's perceived spiritual needs? Money donated to churches and redistributed when spent or given away by the church would seem to have a similar economically stimulative effect (maybe even more so) to other forms of comme ...[text shortened]... if the congregant only "needs" or "enjoys" the services due to his belief in a false narrative?
Originally posted by finneganWhat is the real economy? This is one of those phrases I've heard and accepted without really questioning it. Intuitively it involves the production of commodities, but where are the boundaries? My feeling is that it's a term used for political ends to exclude whatever is being disapproved of by the speaker. While the derivatives market may not have much value to anyone outside the banking industry, is what they are doing any less real than say a plumber? Is the "real economy" a useful concept in economics?
I think the monasteries were an example of the unproductive uses to which wealth was put by the monastic movement in two different regions. Certainly, they and the televangelists are examples of the capacity of religion to secure an excessive share of wealth in any economy. but again, the transfer of resources to the religions (as also to the very wealthy) is at the expense of the real economy.
The Church of England run soup kitchens and so forth, which has value to the people who they are helping. They have vast investments as witness the way they found they had investments in Wonga when they were trying to get them shut down. If that wealth keeps their charitable work going are they entitled to it?
Are we justified in the statement that they are unproductive? If so are we justified in a statement that they're charitable works are insufficient to compensate for the wealth locked up? And am I asking the right questions?
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganHenry VIII's coffers were much more productive. Just ask the head of the Church of England. She agrees 100%.
I think the monasteries were an example of the unproductive uses to which wealth was put by the monastic movement in two different regions. Certainly, they and the televangelists are examples of the capacity of religion to secure an excessive share of wealth in any economy. but again, the transfer of resources to the religions (as also to the very wealthy) is at the expense of the real economy.