Christianity

[DemPGH]

IMO, its impact has been overwhelmingly negative, so I have to lean bad. Although, Islam is far worse.

I will say, though, that the interpretations of religion by adherents is usually more insidious than the religion itself, which is interesting and probably says more about the person than the religion.

[DemPGH]

Negative, though Islam is far, far, far worse. I will never understand how seemingly secular and progressive people will go out of their way to coddle and defend Islam.

Definitely agree on the first point. As to the second point, it's simply that it's not "our religion," so secular humanists are kind of careful with it. We also don't have the baggage associated with Islam, while Christianity has more than enough of its own. I agree that there needs to be more criticism of Islam, though, and that that criticism can be respectful.

[DemPGH]

Absolutely, and that's its beauty and why it's good. Any ideology or belief system that claims utility is...perhaps not inherently worthy of hostility, but certainly arouses my skepticism. Scientific and "practical" philosophies top the list. Christianity is so metaphysical and interested in a second, spiritual life that its few suggestions as to how to live a just life end up evaporating into "believe in Christ" and doesn't have much if any actual requirements for behavior beyond "splash some water on your face."

How you can make that argument with a straight face as you make it has perplexed me for a while. Essentially, it's useless, so it's useful.

Then it dawned on me that something that's "useless" is actually useful in a different way, and if you made the argument that way it would make a lot more sense. I find a good movie with good performances edifying for whatever reason(s). I love to watch an epic movie that has a lot of punch, like a good Scorsese movie. Humans love good stories, and they always have - I suspect it's a higher brain function. But to say that myths are more relevant than scientific evidence on general grounds is frankly absurd. The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

[DemPGH]

The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

But metaphysics doesn't compete with astrophysics. "Metaphysics" does mean "after physics", after all.

You have to judge it on some standard, though. It's make-believe because nothing supports it. Which on its own is fine because it's emotionally satisfying. I can and will accept myth on those grounds.

But otherwise it's the Laws of Planetary Motion of 1619 against the Earth-is-at-the-center-because-we're-special. And you better bet on the former. Myth is personal in a way that scientific evidence is not.