Benefits of Religion

[Keneke]

Is religion such a bad thing? Yes, there are millions of people who are lied to and even fleeced or killed, but consider the alternative. Without a perception of some ultimate overseeing authority (which would be absent in today's society if there were no religion), would the world descend into premature chaos? I find it hard that the majority of men would stand firm to their morals in the face of complete freedom. (Look at college debauchery, hazing, hate crimes, and rape stats for an analogous example.)

So, in my mind, religion is good for keeping the masses in line. Opiate of the masses, and all that. This also means that morality for its own sake and the rejection of the notion of God is a position of high standing, almost like a step up the evolutionary scale. It's certainly not for everyone.

Therefore, perhaps religion is needed TEMPORARILY until some other form of social control is implemented?


(Is this an elitist POV? You bet your ass it is.)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Keneke
Is religion such a bad thing? Yes, there are millions of people who are lied to and even fleeced or killed, but consider the alternative. Without a perception of some ultimate overseeing authority (which would be absent in today's society if there were no religion), would the world descend into premature chaos?It's an interesting question. While it is true that morality is not dependant on religion, religion does not guarantee morality. Likewise, not having religion does not guarantee immorality.

Ultimately, how one behaves is dependent on authority and self-control (which, I suppose, is actually the same thing). If you remove religious authority, another will have to take it's place. What that other authority would be is anyones guess. It could be personal philosophy enforced by self-control like what many atheists use to determine moral decisions. It could also be government regulations enforced by physical punishment or iimprisonment.
So, in my mind, religion is good for keeping the masses in line. Which only works when those in charge of the religion and, thus, the masses choose to keep everyone in line and that the "line" is in keeping with whatever standard of morality society as a whole chooses to keep. That isn't to say that most religions don't do this, but some haven't. Really, I don't think any system is fool proof because morality isn't definitive.

[Dancing David]

Let us examine the roots of religion, if we look at human history, archaic homo sapiens arose 60,000 years ago. the rise of agriculture ans society as we know it is about ten percent of that time.

What use does religion have, is it sociatal or personal.

I believe that it addresses the metaphoric/intuitive/emotional side of our natures.

There are some really tough issues to deal with prior to the advent of modern medicine, like how to cope with death, when a scratch can lead to blood poisoning. When childbirth is a huge risk.

So religion answers a lot of questions that humans like to have answers to.

Modern religion is unfortunately just another political tool.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's an interesting question. While it is true that morality is not dependant on religion, religion does not guarantee morality. Likewise, not having religion does not guarantee immorality.

Certainly not individually, but as a whole I perceve it to be a beneficial to adhering to societal mores.

Really, I don't think any system is fool proof because morality isn't definitive.

It's better than no system at all. I'd hate for the population as a whole to try and gain self-actualized morality all at once. (It's a nice dream, though.)

Perhaps, as Dancing David implies, religion just fills in gaps, and as more gaps are filled religion will occupy a smaller and smaller area of society, until it is virtually gone. That's an okay way of doing it.

[espritch]

This appears to be an arguement for Plato's "Great Lie" as described in "The Republic". Karl Popper argued that Plato was one of the enemies of democracy in part because of his advocacy of this idea ("Open Society and It's Enemies, Volumn I"). I seem to recall that he mentioned the Naxis were advocates of the idea.

I'm pretty sure any idea advocated by a Naxi is probably a bad one. A couple of great lies from the Naxis:

In the size of the lie is always contained a certain factor of credulity, since the great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.
-- Adolf Hitler

From: http://members.aol.com/TheMassLine/MLch33.htm

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


From: http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/war_goering.html

Of course using a lie as a means to promote morality is not quite the same as using a lie to promote a political agenda but it is just as subject to abuse and bad consequences.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Keneke
Without a perception of some ultimate overseeing authority (which would be absent in today's society if there were no religion), would the world descend into premature chaos? .)

I don't think so. The world has been pretty chaotic with religion. How much worse could world history have been without it?

I think there are enough Earthly incentive to good behavior without bringing in the prospect of divine retribution/reward. If I behave like a selfish jerk, then I won't retain many friends and people will generally treat me badly. If I behave like a maniac, then I'll end up in jail or be killed. On the other hand, if I am kind and cooperative with others, then I'll have lots of friends, people will be well disposed toward me and I'll probably not end up in jail.

I think religion is a useful back-up system for creating social order of some kind, but I do not believe it is a necessary ingedient.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Keneke




It's better than no system at all. I'd hate for the population as a whole to try and gain self-actualized morality all at once. (It's a nice dream, though.)



But to some extent, is it actually better?

When you become mired in a system of benefits and rewards based on false ideologies, do you not hamper the development of a more honest and practical sense of morality in society?

For example a child who spends all his life being good to et presents from Santa Clause faces a longer and tougher climb to practical morality than one who was taught to deal with others on a civil level for societal reasons.

Likewise by using religion as a temporary measure I would think it tends to obscure the actual practical benefits of morality as it pertains to the functions of society as a whole.

If we look to some higher power for the source of our morality, don't we thereby avoide personal responsibility that much longer?

[Igopogo]

I tend to believe that human morals evolved as a result of being successful survival traits. Assuming that you're more likely to survive and procreate if you're a member of a group, (due to stronger defence, sharing duties, pooling strengths & covering for weaknesses...), it becomes important to be able to function in a society - and even be an asset to the group. The social minded members of the group would then benefit further by casting out those who display traits that are detrimental to the group's success, (ie: the one's who kill, rape, steal...). These outcasts then would find it more difficult to survive & pass on their genes.

Religion would come along much later as an early attempt at a scientific &/or political structure to organize for the group what already tends to work as a successful meme.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Dancing David
There are some really tough issues to deal with prior to the advent of modern medicine, like how to cope with death, when a scratch can lead to blood poisoning. When childbirth is a huge risk.

So religion answers a lot of questions that humans like to have answers to.

Religion kept people from asking questions that were not answerable at the time (yes, and many that were), thus keeping people working on what they could do with what they had. A conservation of (social) mental energy, perhaps? And it keeps people working in harmony with eachother.

[BroodingSkill]

Religions' staying power is undeniable. It is a very successful tool for social cohesion in what has become a super-tribal existance for humanity at large. The Gods may have changed but the basic model has not.

I see it as nothing more than this. I find no answers in it, only as one more reason for humans to group together.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Andonyx

If we look to some higher power for the source of our morality, don't we thereby avoide personal responsibility that much longer?

And if you say there is no higher power, then there are no, or minor, consequences for our actions.

I can see it both ways.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But to some extent, is it actually better?



Of course self-actualization is better, but that's not my point. I'm just talking short-term. This mirrors the "tell you children about Santa Claus?" thread we had earlier this year. We didn't really answer that one definitively to my satisfaction.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


And if you say there is no higher power, then there are no, or minor, consequences for our actions.

I can see it both ways.

There are plenty of non-trivial consequences for our actions regardless of whether their are gods.

Try being a two-faced liar and see how far that gets you socially.

Try robbing a bank or murdering someone and see how long you get to keep your freedom and even your life. These consequences are anything but minor.

[Iacchus]

What would be the purpose in maintaining any degree of morality if there were no afterlife? Because ultimately we would all wind up "non-existent" and who would we have to answer to?

So perhaps there is a purpose to religion, to teach us about the afterlife and, how to take the "high road" in order in to achieve that.

Of course that would all be contingent as I say, upon an afterlife.

[Yahweh]

Contrary to popular belief, religion is not necessary to give people morals, its pretty damned decietful if it serves to "fill in the gaps", pretty damned dishonest if it serves to "give people hope".

Religion is good for starting conversations about religion as far as I can tell...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What would be the purpose in maintaining any degree of morality if there were no afterlife?
The purpose would most likely be to aid general tolerance of this life.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What would be the purpose in maintaining any degree of morality if there were no afterlife? Because ultimately we would all wind up "non-existent" and who would we have to answer to?

So perhaps there is a purpose to religion, to teach us about the afterlife and, how to take the "high road" in order in to achieve that.

Of course that would all be contingent as I say, upon an afterlife.

There are plenty of reasons for having morals if you don't believe in an after-life.

Are you really saying that you would be immoral if there was no after life?

Life is musch easier if you live by a few simple rules:
1. Be nice.
2. Avoid destruction.
3. Consider the well being of others.

i maintain that these priciples will make my life better if I follow them, no need for after life, the benefits are here.

[c4ts]

Benefits of religion:

1) MONEY
2) Millions of suc- loyal followers
3) Moral and divine justification for any act
4) Command over logic, fact, myth, and opinion
5) Feel big by holding all the answers to deep questions
6) Self isolation to feed the ego

Wait, I think that's just Televangelism.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Flaherty


There are plenty of non-trivial consequences for our actions regardless of whether their are gods.

Try being a two-faced liar and see how far that gets you socially.

Try robbing a bank or murdering someone and see how long you get to keep your freedom and even your life. These consequences are anything but minor.



This is STILL morality by fear of retribution.

We have to teach people to have a concience. To do good things not necesarily because it's better for them, but because it's good for everyone. (Otherwise, what's stopping me from maxing out my credit card, killing everyone I hate then commiting suicide? My concience, that's what.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Keneke
Is religion such a bad thing? Yes, there are millions of people who are lied to and even fleeced or killed, but consider the alternative. Without a perception of some ultimate overseeing authority (which would be absent in today's society if there were no religion), would the world descend into premature chaos? I find it hard that the majority of men would stand firm to their morals in the face of complete freedom. (Look at college debauchery, hazing, hate crimes, and rape stats for an analogous example.)

You mean like the hate crimes now that we've decided there should be such a category, or the regular lynchings practiced in the uber-religious old-time South?

[Kopji]

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.
Roman historian Polybius (quoted in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

The purpose would most likely be to aid general tolerance of this life. Okay, well let's just say there were an afterlife. First of all we would have to ask ourselves why this is so, and then we would have to have a means by which to convey it to other people. That, I believe would be the purpose of religion. ;)

Whereas the instituting of morals would be a necessary requirement in order to see that religion fulfills its purpose.

On the other hand, what people do in the "name" of religion is an entirely different story.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by sorgoth
This is STILL morality by fear of retribution.

Sure, but no less so than the Middle East religions. "Play nice with each other," those religions tell us, "or you'll burn in hell."

Besides, there are plenty of carrots in this world to induce good behavior without the promise of an afterlife reward.

Also, when you're an evil little s**t, your stress level is constantly elevated compared to that of a nice guy because you have to look over you shoulder all the time.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Contrary to popular belief, religion is not necessary to give people morals

Straw man. Of course it's not, but that's not my point. The fact is, that mainstream Christiantity (and perhaps other religions as well) try their best to instill good values in their members. The fact that bad ones make their way in as well (because, hey, religion's a lie) is irrelevant to my question.

its pretty damned decietful if it serves to "fill in the gaps", pretty damned dishonest if it serves to "give people hope".

Yup. Again, my question is not about the rightness of religion, but whether the benefits of controlling the masses outweigh the drawbacks. Also, this relates somewhat to the "moral relativism" thread: Is religion the lesser of two evils, to be used (and eventually discarded) in order to control the masses who may never self-actualize?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by epepke

You mean like the hate crimes now that we've decided there should be such a category, or the regular lynchings practiced in the uber-religious old-time South?

How rife with misunderstanding your post is.

1. There's no such thing as regular lynchings. Take it from a local. Heck, even the Matthew Shepard incident was out in the West, not the South.

2. Like I said, it may the lesser of two evils. What method do you propose to instill in the interim between now and a mature society with no need of religion?

[Finella]

I keep looking at religion's purpose as a part of society's psychosocial development. If you look at a baby and then a kid, we all need concrete, specific guidance and boundary setting in order to understand how to get along with our family and then our society. Religion is another form of Mom and Dad setting parameters on our behavior while, a la Joseph Campbell, helping us to understand the experience of human life based on millennia of human experience told in the form of stories and myths. Basically.

Just as there are people who develop abnormally and with personality disorders, there will be religions that form with personality disorders. Thus I do think it is possible to have healthy religions that allow people to continue to develop and thus people may eventually leave that religion and move onto another kind of faith -- faith in life, faith in God, faith in a life force, faith in the universe, whatever. Not all religions are appropriate for all people and all stages of development.

---,---'--{@

[Keneke]

Thus I do think it is possible to have healthy religions that allow people to continue to develop and thus people may eventually leave that religion and move onto another kind of faith -- faith in life, faith in God, faith in a life force, faith in the universe, whatever.

And eventually to no faith at all. That's what I think the next stage is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keneke

And eventually to no faith at all. That's what I think the next stage is. This may very well be the case, but does that mean we should wipe out every trace of it? I mean what's wrong with understanding that there's a God if, in fact that was our heritage?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This may very well be the case, but does that mean we should wipe out every trace of it? I mean what's wrong with understanding that there's a God if, in fact that was our heritage?

As my heritage and culture, I plan on keeping some European and American religious symbolism, such as Christmas, some classical music, and my particular brand of likes and dislikes that was based upon a Christian upbringing. However, this has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, which I doubt very much. I assume that it eventually will be relegated to museums, much like mythological gods that are no longer worshipped. I'm glad the history will be kept, but have no desire to see the continuation of religion except as bridge toward independence, and as a social police force during that time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keneke


As my heritage and culture, I plan on keeping some European and American religious symbolism, such as Christmas, some classical music, and my particular brand of likes and dislikes that was based upon a Christian upbringing. However, this has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, which I doubt very much. I assume that it eventually will be relegated to museums, much like mythological gods that are no longer worshipped. I'm glad the history will be kept, but have no desire to see the continuation of religion except as bridge toward independence, and as a social police force during that time. I'm just looking at it in terms of a point of origin, because if this how we came into being, then this is where we'll very likely return (to God). In fact it may help us in making certain decisions, like what to do with the planet for instance: i.e., in that maybe we don't need to be so materialistic and "consumption" minded (if we understood there was an afterlife).

So in that sense I don't see what's wrong with understanding that. :)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

How about a few benefits of materialism!
1. You are smarter then everyone else and you aren’t to be questioned!
2. You know exactly what fits into right thinking!
3. You get to bitch about the rising tide of irrationality!
4. The best reason is you know that consciousness and pain are a product of firing neurons so they are really illusions under materialism! Since they are illusions it won’t be a big deal if you get hurt! If you offend the mafia by being so f**king smart and they sent someone to whack you and you get shot in the foot it won’t mean anything because that pain will just be an illusion! Religion could never do anything that good!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
How about a few benefits of materialism!
1. You are smarter then everyone else and you aren’t to be questioned!
2. You know exactly what fits into right thinking!
3. You get to bitch about the rising tide of irrationality!
4. The best reason is you know that consciousness and pain are a product of firing neurons so they are really illusions under materialism! Since they are illusions it won’t be a big deal if you get hurt! If you offend the mafia by being so f**king smart and they sent someone to whack you and you get shot in the foot it won’t mean anything because that pain will just be an illusion! Religion could never do anything that good! Almost sounds like an argument in favor of religion, in which case I agree.

However, what are we to do about the tyranny of religion?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm just looking at it in terms of a point of origin, because if this how we came into being, then this is where we'll very likely return (to God).

If?

You are assuming the existence of a God. You're basing your whole position on this unproven, unproveable statement.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Almost sounds like an argument in favor of religion, in which case I agree.

However, what are we to do about the tyranny of religion?

We will start a non-religious holy war under the process of natural selection against the believers and we must spread skeptiscientisuperioristism because it is our only hope!

It is all covered here!
http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/sk.html

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I posted twice!

:bricks:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keneke

If?

You are assuming the existence of a God. You're basing your whole position on this unproven, unproveable statement. But what if we were able to ascertain it for ourselves? That would kind of exclude the need for religion wouldn't it? ... And yet, we would still be allowed to believe.


33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Jeremiah+31))

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


We will start a non-religious holy war under the process of natural selection against the believers and we must spread skeptiscientisuperioristism because it is our only hope!

It is all covered here!
http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/sk.html Am not sure where you're coming from here? I guess I better check out the link.

So tell me, why can't one believe in natural selection and still believe that God did it? Why not? He has the whole of eternity in order to do so?

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what if we were able to ascertain it for ourselves?

You won't. You'll either believe, or not. Proof means repeatable, testable standards, of which religious happenings have never succeeded. Now, if you feel that people will never drop religion because of their psychological makeup, that's fine. That's what "finding God for yourself" means to me. It means you make up something ad hoc, you wish-fulfill, and never again will you use your common sense. Such a waste.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am not sure where you're coming from here? I guess I better check out the link.

So tell me, why can't one believe in natural selection and still believe that God did it? Why not? He has the whole of eternity in order to do so?

We know as a scientific fact that materialism has been proven so there can be no life after death when the consciousness dies with the material brain! We have also scientifically proven beyond any doubt that the material universe is closed to anything outside of it leaving no room for God and this is 100% scientific fact! I don't think anyone who understands science has ever questioned materialism those anti-science people who question it are doomed!

Also there is an infallible scientific rule called occam's razor and if you ask occam's razor it will tell you that there is no God for certain!

[Finella]

Originally posted by Keneke

And eventually to no faith at all. That's what I think the next stage is.

Well, we can get into the application of the word "faith", but I understand what you mean.

Sure, on a societal level that can happen. We may find ourselves, millenia from now, a society that largely is athiest/agnostic. I should warn you, though, that some models of spiritual development state that athiesm is a normal spiritual stage, and that one does come to a new form of spirituality after this stage.

---,--'--{@

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Finella
I should warn you, though, that some models of spiritual development state that athiesm is a normal spiritual stage, and that one does come to a new form of spirituality after this stage.


Interesting. What would the next level be, and how would it be reached?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Finella

I should warn you, though, that some models of spiritual development state that athiesm is a normal spiritual stage, and that one does come to a new form of spirituality after this stage.Yes, much like the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly. ;)

Actually I think I should correct this and say it's in reference to "the afterlife."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keneke

You won't. You'll either believe, or not. Proof means repeatable, testable standards, of which religious happenings have never succeeded. Now, if you feel that people will never drop religion because of their psychological makeup, that's fine. That's what "finding God for yourself" means to me. It means you make up something ad hoc, you wish-fulfill, and never again will you use your common sense. Such a waste. And all we are is dust in the wind man!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

We know as a scientific fact that materialism has been proven so there can be no life after death when the consciousness dies with the material brain! We have also scientifically proven beyond any doubt that the material universe is closed to anything outside of it leaving no room for God and this is 100% scientific fact! I don't think anyone who understands science has ever questioned materialism those anti-science people who question it are doomed! I don't know, but it seems like an awful waste to me.

Ever get the feeling that our being here is a lot like going to school? ;)


Also there is an infallible scientific rule called occam's razor and if you ask occam's razor it will tell you that there is no God for certain! And where was Occam's Razor when the world was considered flat?