use more paragraphs.. i only skimmed
religion in and of itself is arrogance "i cannot provide any evidence for X, but i'm going to believe X exists because doing so makes me feel good, feel important" - that is the upmost in arrogance.
this study just merely reinforces the opinion I have of religion, based upon observation of it's effects on society: not only is it an expression of arrogance, but it is harmful to those around it
Dude, it's like 150 words. If you skimmed it, please don't respond. We're all grown-ups here.
Anyway, you are mistaking ignorance with arrogance. Your first paragraph is true if you substitute the word arrogance for ignorance. Arrogance is believing that everything in this world, indeed this universe, has value only if it serves us, and that all things are only relevant in the ways they affect mankind.
The very object which you are judging can not be judged on worldly results, since the precise reason it is important is because it is higher (or deeper, call it what you will) than worldly matters. Art, for example, is let's say more noble, though there are probably better words to describe it, than everyday matters, so I do not love art because it produces good results or hate it because it produces bad results, but base my opinion on more personal, more intangible, more mystical reasons.
Except that the entire spiel there is functionally a developed 'defense mechanism' of the cultural idea that is religion. In a sense modern art, facing criticism, also took on the "just cuz" mechanism in the form of "art is what the artist claims it to be."
It's not a defense mechanism, it's an acceptance, indeed an embrace, of the irrationality which characterizes human nature.
Why is love important? It isn't, in any objective or rational sense. Why is art important? Why is nature important? Why is honour, loyalty, brotherhood important? They aren't, none of these things are worth any damn from a reasonable perspective outside of the human mind. But would you not agree that they are important? What I'm saying is that "It's good because we believe it's good, and for no other reason" is a perfectly decent response, and that our own biases and attitudes are just a good a thing to go by as anything else out there.
Much of the time, those things we hold dear or inneficient or even detrimental. Those things we hold dear hurt us, set us back, create extra work and unnecessary suffering, but hat's OK because we believe them to be important, and worth the hassle. I could give a thousand examples, and most likely you can think of as many yourself. A bunch of geese crossing the street are a hassle, an inefficiency, and their lives are in no way important to us. But that inefficency is less important than our illogical desire to preserve animal lives. You decide to build a house, and decide that it's important, for some deluded sense of "home", that you build it yourself. It would be so much easier if you bought a pre-fabricated one, just plopped it in place, but there's that nasty illogical emotion again. You sacrifce comfort for sentimentality. Your brother goes off to far, and you decide to go with him. Your presence will in no way lessen the danger to him, and will only put another person, you, in that same danger, so all things considered it's a waste, a destructive and useless stupidity, but woul you question the inherent value of such comaraderie?
But I will say that if countries with more religious populations are suffering from more social ilss, first of all society is a whole lot more complicated than a single factor, but that the religions of these countries need to ask themselves some very serious questions. Their job is not necessarily to make the world a better place, but they shouldn't be making it noticeably worse.
