Why we need religion.... (1 Viewer)

[Tulipa]

And you endorsed the Vatican??.. At one point in stage there must been a man who wasnt religious - but then he became and then passed his learnings onto others.

Actually religion can be quite the opposite. Practising religion often requires strict discipline, maybe not eating certain things at a particular time, praying in certain manner, preaching etc etc .. maintaining cleanliness.

So you will find people who are well off, are often religious because its the religious underlying values - of respect, discipline and self-control that helped them to be successful.

In this case people can adopt religion as manner of progressing in life. Whilst others may find other suitable ways to do so.

But to blame religion for the problems of the world - is quite simply what a stupid person would say.

Uh I didn't endorse the Vatican. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was merely illustrating that Hitler and the Church are not separate.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Okay sure but that's part of the reason why he takes the slavery shit, otherwise he would unite with his fellow slaves and overthrow the owner. In fact the social changes like gender and racial equality, the sexual revolution etc. tended to coincide with the secularisation of society.

Hmm, didn't even consider that.

 

[robbie1]

But to blame religion for the problems of the world - is quite simply what a stupid person would say.

Bingo.

 

[Serius]

Okay sure but that's part of the reason why he takes the slavery shit, otherwise he would unite with his fellow slaves and overthrow the owner. In fact the social changes like gender and racial equality, the sexual revolution etc. tended to coincide with the secularisation of society.

Yeah i read a good scifi book about something like that, its a race of "aliens" who have no religion at all and dont beleive in an afterlife. Consequently crime is rediculously low and everyone treats people nicely because they know that their life is the only thing they have.

 

[HotShot]

Yeah i read a good scifi book about something like that, its a race of "aliens" who have no religion at all and dont beleive in an afterlife. Consequently crime is rediculously low and everyone treats people nicely because they know that their life is the only thing they have.

Basically thats how religion works - you only have one shot of making it into the afterlife - and you need to follow certain principles - of which being nice to others is prominent.

This life is like an exam or a trial for the religous - if the fail they are doomed and if they suceed they go to heaven.

But its very to hate people. it very very difficult to like them.

 

[lengy]

All behaviour has consequences NOW! HERE! IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD! NOT SOME FAR OFF FAIRYTALE LAND YOU THEISTS CONCOCTED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING GUILT IN REALITY!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

don't commit crimes because they believe in something like an afterlife and that all behaviour has consequences

Actually people who are suicidal (i.e. have basically no consequences to look forward to) if motivated to want to commit a crime probably would. Those of us who value our mortal lives/a continued happy existance though... why the hell would we commit crimes when we will suffer mortal consequences?

We also have basic morals.

 

[P_Dilemma]

I fail to see how all that could happen just because they dont believe in a religion/afterlife. If anything, if there was a pattern (though i doubt it) it would be the reverse - people are nice and don't commit crimes because they believe in something like an afterlife and that all behaviour has consequences.

I think you fail to see because you're not one of them. Just because they're sentient beings, that does not mean we should push our human assumptions and morals onto them.

Although i understand if you were to apply those circumstances on humans. We are such a sad case.

-P_D

 

[KFunk]

If anything, if there was a pattern (though i doubt it) it would be the reverse - people are nice and don't commit crimes because they believe in something like an afterlife and that all behaviour has consequences.

I don't think people choose to be moral because of the existence of religion (take me for example). Similarly, I definately don't think that morality finds its origins in religion. There are decent evolutionary explanations for why we engage in altruistic behaviour (a good recent publication I'm reading at the moment, by an Australian professor Richard Joyce, is called The Evolution of Morality). But think about it... where did religion draw its values from? --> some kind of common morality.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

was that highly religious people probably have an additional component that hangs around them, thinking that an all-knowing god, that wont let them get away with any bad behaviour, is watching them.

It's possible in the highly religious, but then this doesn't really matter as it's something they've created in their own mind anyway. Charles manson is one such example of someone who probably through there was an all-knowing god watching him. Essentially in almost all cases they'll create something that confirms their pre-concieved ideals anyway, it's no real buffer i'd argue.

Thus the 'all behaviour has consequences'

All people have essentially the same thing, this looming moral conscience that will make them feel bad if they do something bad. Of course if they didn't have such a conscience they would then feel free to do what they want (or at least what they can reasonably get away with) but at the same time a person could create a god and simply make it align with their morals.

Basically what I think i'm trying to get at here (and I think you argument could only even in your opinion apply in some rare cases) is that the god watching over you and a conscience aren't really all that different concepts as you've created them, you decided that it's divine truth that doing X is sin just as an atheist came to the moral decision that say murder is wrong.

This doesn't mean you can simply abandon your conscience or your "god looking over your shoulder", of course - for reasons I'll explain further if someone wants to actually debate this point.

Why hasn't anyone argued this idea that there would be no crime in a theoretical society if there was no religion?

Because that's an utterly stupid idea, what has led you to think that should be something put forward?

 

[nekobutterfly]

It's possible in the highly religious, but then this doesn't really matter as it's something they've created in their own mind anyway. Charles manson is one such example of someone who probably through there was an all-knowing god watching him. Essentially in almost all cases they'll create something that confirms their pre-concieved ideals anyway, it's no real buffer i'd argue.

Out of curiousity, how do you know that it is something that they created in they're own minds? From the way you are speaking i get the feeling that you have only looked at the matter from one perspective, and that is the atheist one. You need to look at it from all POVs before you come to a decision. Also i know that they're are many books which condemn religion saying that it is something that humans have made up and that there is no way religion can be real. Books such as 'The God delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I have read part of this book and can see that it argues from just one point of view ( I also noticed that it took only the parts of the bible that it wanted ). What people forget these days is that the bible is not the only source which tells us about Jesus, there are many other sources from the time he was from that say he was dead whan they took him down from the cross (they decided to stick a spear into his side to make sure) but several days after it has been recorded that a crowd of roughly 500 people saw him alive and these people who recorded this were NOT followers of Jesus, infact they hated him very much. It is a similiar case for many other religions (though they do not have as many radical examples as this religion). Maybe you should try reading CS. Lewis.

When these religions had power and the religion was followed from the book (don't get me started on medieval Catholiscm) there was less crime because they say that half the things we allow in society is wrong. (I believe that if people were patient and waited till they were married to have sex we would have less abortions)


Morality in this present day and age has nothing solid to have as a foundation for its laws and therefore we are all over the place. People do have a sense of morality but everyones boudary is different depending on their circumstances and past which causes there to be no one right answer.We are now seeing the result of this.
You can't compare a religous person with an atheist saying that for a religous person they come to a moral conclusion because their religion says so because how do explain the different views that atheists have to religious people?

Ps.Lengy if we only live for one life sure there would be consequences but why should we care about others? After all we only get to live one life, why create happiness for others rather than ourselves...sure making other people happy makes you feel good but when you don't get recognised or are ignored you definitely don't feel good. And believe it or not theists are usually alot happier than aetheists because they have a solid foundation and Aethists don't. Don't think people who have a religion can't deal with their problem because they can deal with it and usually they deal with it alot better that atheists.

 

[KFunk]

Why hasn't anyone argued this idea that there would be no crime in a theoretical society if there was no religion? I'm still not getting the logic out of this, other than what sounds like another bash at religions.

It hasn't been argued because, I suspect, most people realise that it's extremely unlikely that we could eliminate crime in a society. Perhaps, in a very loose sense, it is possible for a society to be atheistic and without crime, but for the most part I think it's something of a pip dream. I should also mention that my personal aim is not to bash religion. Rather, I aim to bash those arguments which attempt to justify religion but which appear to be invalid. My initial objection was that they seemed to be asserting the worth of religion from a position which already assumed its worth. However, your suggestion is slightly more interesting and so I'll respond to it.

The idea was this: Who is more likely to do something wrong (which is yet advantageous) in a situation where you know you can get away with it? A person who believes there is an all-knowing entity that is going to make you pay later, or someone who doesn't believe that?

I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're suggesting is that: in a given society with an arbitrary moral system religious individuals are more likely to act in accordance with morality so defined. It's a fairly strong claim, and an interesting one. Suppose we take it to be true, does it then make a strong argument for the importance/use of religion?

My personal feeling is no, but I think that it's very much a question of values. An interesting analogy, noticing your signature, would be the society in Orwell's 1984. Functionally you could set up a situation like that of a watchful god if you had the eyes of 'big brother' following you wherever you went. I think many of the arguments against the system of social control in 1984 can also be levelled against religion implemented for the sake of moral entrenchment. The justification of religion-for-the-sake-of-moral-character seems to be a utilitarian one, whereby it is asserted that society is better off being religious because it will lead to less crime and a greater adherence to morality. The issue I have is that the system itself seems to be a giant moral crime - one of manipulation and brainwashing.

Whether a person sees the 'religion leads to moral actions, therefore we should be religious' argument as convincing largely depends on how they weigh up the ends and the means. For my part I think that kind of argument leads to a society which is particularly lacking in social justice (less liberty, freedom of thought, etc), and so I am personally unconvinced by it. (I'm not suggesting that you believe in the argument yourself, of course)

 

[KFunk]

Morality in this present day and age has nothing solid to have as a foundation for its laws and therefore we are all over the place. People do have a sense of morality but everyones boudary is different depending on their circumstances and past which causes there to be no one right answer.We are now seeing the result of this.
You can't compare a religous person with an atheist saying that for a religous person they come to a moral conclusion because their religion says so because how do explain the different views that atheists have to religious people?

How does religion deal with the plurality of moral views within a population? Does it simply deny their validity? Also, consider the case that a mutable moral structure may be a beneficial thing in that it could allow us to modify our moral code in cases where certain moral rules lead to unfavourable outcomes - in particular, cases in which we find a clash between two rules.

Ps.Lengy if we only live for one life sure there would be consequences but why should we care about others? After all we only get to live one life, why create happiness for others rather than ourselves...sure making other people happy makes you feel good but when you don't get recognised or are ignored you definitely don't feel good. And believe it or not theists are usually alot happier than aetheists because they have a solid foundation and Aethists don't. Don't think people who have a religion can't deal with their problem because they can deal with it and usually they deal with it alot better that atheists.

I think that the statement that "theists are usually alot happier than atheists" is a pretty bold claim (can you substantiate it?). Commenting on your rhetorical questions: an atheist will have a natural tendency (derived from the process of evolution) to care, at bare minimum, about one's kin. Whether an atheist cares for people beyond their inner circle of close contacts will of course depend on their personal moral code.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Out of curiousity, how do you know that it is something that they created in they're own minds? From the way you are speaking i get the feeling that you have only looked at the matter from one perspective, and that is the atheist one.

Perhaps my wording confused you, but essentially even if you do have these feelings or this apparent 'contact' with a god, in your mind, I'd still argue what you are left with is a 'creation' because it cannot be certain what is and isn't God.

I imagine very few people would tell me, on honest reflection, that they have certainty about what God wants/when it is God contacting them.

You need to look at it from all POVs before you come to a decision.

Perhaps I have looked at it from different angles (obviously not all, don't be rediculous) and merely see no need to expand on these as they are not where my final conclusions lay.

Also i know that they're are many books which condemn religion saying that it is something that humans have made up and that there is no way religion can be real.

Saying that religion is something that humans have made up isn't necessarily a condemnation of religion. You can still see the good in religion, the virtues of religion, while accepting that it is a human false construct.

Books such as 'The God delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I have read part of this book and can see that it argues from just one point of view ( I also noticed that it took only the parts of the bible that it wanted ).

Of course it only argues from one point of view, if you didn't realise that might be the case upon looking at the title I worry for you. The fact is that while a proper debate needs to argue all sides of the issues, if have come down on one side of the issue there's nothing wrong with you arguing strictly from that perspective.

What people forget these days is that the bible is not the only source which tells us about Jesus, there are many other sources from the time he was from that say he was dead whan they took him down from the cross (they decided to stick a spear into his side to make sure) but several days after it has been recorded that a crowd of roughly 500 people saw him alive and these people who recorded this were NOT followers of Jesus, infact they hated him very much.

When was it recorded that 500 people saw jesus alive after his death? How reliable is this source?

It is a similiar case for many other religions (though they do not have as many radical examples as this religion).

Yes, it is a similar case for other religions. Doesn't that make you wonder, just slightly, that maybe instead of just all those other stories of THEIRS being wrong, perhaps your are too?

Maybe you should try reading CS. Lewis.

I've read much on christian appologetics, if you must know I'm actually rather tired of it. If he makes some remarkable argument hows bout you forward it here and get my response. If I have particular difficulty or am interested, then I might read his work.

When these religions had power and the religion was followed from the book (don't get me started on medieval Catholiscm) there was less crime because they say that half the things we allow in society is wrong. (I believe that if people were patient and waited till they were married to have sex we would have less abortions)

Rape/murder/slavery were the norm. Whoever told you that the times when religion reigned were happier days were revisionists. Now you can choose to not blame it on religion at all but merely the socioeconomic situation at the time (of course my argument would be religion is always in a large way a reflection of that) .

Morality in this present day and age has nothing solid to have as a foundation for its laws and therefore we are all over the place.

It's great that common-day morality isn't "solid" (though there are foundations, such as common history, tradition, evolution [empathy], etc) because if it was it would be failing to recognise reality. Reality is not black and white or simple, whenever you create a system that sets things out in such a black and white way it will fail to meet the needs of reality because it is so grey...

People do have a sense of morality but everyones boudary is different depending on their circumstances and past which causes there to be no one right answer.We are now seeing the result of this.

Peoples sense of morality was always bound differently. You have a different sense of morality etc (most likely) to the guy sitting next to you in the church, or to the preacher up front, perhaps not as much as with other people, but enough to show you that there will never be uniform morality.

You can't compare a religous person with an atheist saying that for a religous person they come to a moral conclusion because their religion says so because how do explain the different views that atheists have to religious people?

I didn't understand the first part, but I'm guessing you're saying that atheists and theists are different morally. Your proof of this is that statistically they probably hold different moral outlooks.

Firstly I agree, they probably are different (though there would be a large middle-ground of similarity between the more apathetic theists and atheists) but this I think can be explained by means other than the religion its self i.e. people who happen to be atheist might be more influenced by utilitarian thinking (just as an example) because atheists are relatively more educated and thus more likely to have had contact with such thinking.

---------------

And believe it or not theists are usually alot happier than aetheists because they have a solid foundation and Aethists don't.

Oh really? What is this solid foundation. To me even if there is an objective moral truth out there (God) the difficulty is in translating it into a form that is applicable to humans.

 

[lengy]

My solid foundation is that there is no 'God', that science has provided so much for humanity with the backing of philosophy there is no need for religion in my life and I'm really happy about this almost to the point of pitying someone like you. In fact, I'm enjoying this pitying of you so much I'm going to throw a party about it.

If you call praying to 'God' dealing with something then sure go ahead and talk to your imaginary friend if it makes you feel better about yourself. I know I'm glad another nutcase has their issues prioritised.

Just because an Existentialist realises the limitations of their mortality doesn't mean they too can't fear taking a course of action which may lead to their humiliation or fatality. They may just be content on how their life is progressing without any need of further stimulation.

If I wanted hallucinations I'll take drugs thanks so keep your religion to yourself.

 

[nekobutterfly]

You are the one i pity because science is forever changing and could never be a solid foundation because of this.

 

[KFunk]

You are the one i pity because science is forever changing and could never be a solid foundation because of this.

Change needn't be a negative thing. Suppose that science constantly betters itself... what's wrong with a foundation which strives towards self-improvement?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You are the one i pity because science is forever changing and could never be a solid foundation because of this.

Science constantly changes because our knowledge of the world constantly changes. God is forever changing too, at least God as percieved by every individual. The god you had when you were young is a very different God to the one you probably now concieve, how do you know that in the future you will not percieve your god and his stance on various issues differently than you do now?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Morality in this present day and age has nothing solid to have as a foundation for its laws and therefore we are all over the place. People do have a sense of morality but everyones boudary is different depending on their circumstances and past which causes there to be no one right answer.We are now seeing the result of this.

We should stick with the morals set down by someone who wrote it years and years ago? And just not question it, not matter what situation?

Is this what you're saying? That religion is good because there are written rules as to what is right and wrong, is also irrefutable because it's God's word, but our laws aren't good because it keeps changing to meet the needs and values of society?

I just want to clarify.

Religion (Abrahamic ones anyway) needs to change via discussion, education and strive for improvement if it wants to stay valuable. I'm afraid that if it stays the way it is (passages are ignored, or taken for its didactic element) people in the future will be less able to identify with it. That or we have increasing amounts of apathetic non-church-going Christians that only know... say 20% of the Bible.

 

[bassguy]

I think the change in 'morality' these days is a good thing.
It seems that people are getting in touch with their instincts, rather than deceiving themselves with the idea of an externalised 'God'.
Christian morality is fairly inconsistent anyway. As far as I can tell, church leaders only take the 'wholesome' parts of the Bible as lessons - love, peace and all that. Stoning your neighbour seems to have been glossed over somewhat, as has Jesus saying 'I came not to bring peace, but a sword'. Religions seem to ignore the parts of their ethical and life teachings that aren't popular nowadays, or don't apply to modern humanity. In fact, the only religion that does apply to modern life in the original form of the religion is Satanism (as espoused by Anton LaVey, not devil worship).