God according to New Scientist

[klr]

Svarty, saying religion is good because it is responsible for great things would seem to require proof that the great things wouldn't have happened without religion.

Would Michelangelo have sculpted his Piéta, Bernini Teresa of Avila, or Leonardo painted the Last Meal or the Virgin at the Rocks without chretinity?

Would any of those have been an artist without religious commissions?

We have no way of knowing. Religious organisations weren't the only ones paying for art in the renaissance. Many high-class people also paid for the works of great artists.

... which very often had little or nothing to do with the religion of the day. The Birth of Venus (Botticelli) for example.



... and the Mona Lisa, which was for a middle-class customer (and never delivered).

[Tero]

There is no indication religion is good or bad for society, as religion is made to reflect the values in a society.

Plus most of them are hypocrites. Rules are for others.