Religion is a necessary evil

[Gaspode]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.

[slingblade]

How about we believe in ourselves and in each other?

How about we make each other and ourselves the most important thing--the thing we're trying to live well for?

I can't see how displacing all that onto an imaginary being is helpful....

[Katana]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.


Just noticed your signature. Do you share Ayn Rand's feelings on religion?

[Gaspode]

Just noticed your signature. Do you share Ayn Rand's feelings on religion?

Yes I do - and not just religion. I've only recently discovered Ayn Rand (thanks to this forum) and so far know little about her and her writing. I definitely need to find out a lot more.

[Katana]

Yes I do - and not just religion. I've only recently discovered Ayn Rand (thanks to this forum) and so far know little about her and her writing. I definitely need to find out a lot more.


She's worth finding out more about (in my humble opinion, of course).

The Fountainhead is what started it for me.

[Ginarley]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.

Why does anyone need to "believe" in anything?

[Danhalen]

I would not call religion necessary or evil. If religion is the primary source of morality for the masses, then religion is a shortcut to behaving properly (provided religious ethics are actually morally good). So, religion is laziness in some cases. It provides a short-cut to behaving morally without trying to determine how to act well by one's self. In the case of the intellectually lazy, religion could be a good thing for me, because it gives the lazy a means by which they do not cause me harm. However, if it were possible to motivate the intellectually lazy to think for themselves, then religion would not be necessary to instill a sense of morality. Considering religious morality often leads to a perceived objective morality, the differing religious morals often conflict (my god says your god is wrong, therefore I should force you to think like I do). Therefore it seems to me it is more morally necessary to help the intellectually lazy become motivated to think on morallity for themselves.

Religion is not inherently evil. Religion can serve a (good) purpose. Religion is hardly necessary.

[ReligionStudent]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.

Lots of people don't believe in anything instead. Isn't that alright?

[Björn Toulouse]

...snip....I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.


From an economic viewpoint, it gives certain people employment as preachers, secretaries, and other paid functionaries, and in turn they buy land which yields capital gain to the original owner, build churches which employs the construction industry, purchase choir robes and religious literature which increases the business of the garment industry and the printshops, all of which must be delivered by the transportation industry, and they purchase furniture and carpet, all of which trickles down the line too and all of those employed in these industries also have jobs and more monies to purchase their goods and services, and eventually some of these preachers end up on television selling advertising time and in the sweet by-and-by, they get super-rich and indulge in serious luxury items and in the end everybody benefits.

i probably left out a few items or steps but i think you get my point. Any job from drug dealing to flim-flam benefits all.

We don't need to "believe" in anything.

[Gaspode]

Many more people believe in a god than don't. I for one do not believe in any god.

But most people have a need to believe in something. If there were no organised religions to cater for this belief then what would people believe in instead? I think we would see a lot more adherance to other woo beliefs such as mediums, crystal healing, reiki.

The point is that religion offers solace to many people and the major religions do at least purport to follow a moral code. I wonder what would fill the void if religion did not exist. Would the world be a nicer place?

[Beleth]

There are certainly people who imagine that non-believers have no reason to act ethically. To them I say, It is a good thing you believe in God, then; if that's what keeps you in line, then by all means keep doing it.

I need no such belief to keep myself in line, but I understand and accept such a need in others.

[Jorghnassen]

So religion is like coffee...

[darnell11]

I don't think that people in a modern, scientific society need to believe in a god, besides we know better. But it seems that primitive societies need to, it's how the come to understand their world without technology, it gives them rules to live by and peace knowing that there is more to life and that death is not the end. But once a civilization develops and begins to learn about to world scientifically, religion is something we can do without, in my opinion.

But you can't erase it entirely-believing in a higher power seems to be a part of human nature, but our intelligence gives us a way to escape religion once we learn how to understand the world around us. Only some people still have that need to believe in something beyond them and that need for there to be meaning to life.

[Freethinker]

People tend to imagine that others are very much like themselves. Religious people believe that people who don't believe in god have no moral compass and nothing to prevent them from committing crimes. This leads to the thought that these religious people believe that they would become immoral if it weren't for the fear of god sending them to hell.

Who is more moral? Someone who apparently is only behaving for fear of hell, or someone who is behaving in spite of their belief that there is no eternal punishment

[Davidjayjordan]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead? (thenmselves, their power, their politics, their apparrent qualities, etc. etc. they worship all sorts of crazy wierd things, but mainly they worship themselves and make themselves their gods)

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.
(And yes those that think they are gods do the same thing and group together as groupies in all sorts of forums for their self esteem.)

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.

WELL, Gaspode, people, and supposed intellectuals and atheists, and evolutionists, ... they all need groups in which to feel comfortable and sheltered. So we have to allow them the freedom to choose and just hope they can break away from these groups so they can be individuals and free thinkers. But we can't force them, just encourage them.

Sure we'd be better off without these religions of man where they worship their man made gods, but they have to come to that understanding on their own. All we can do is try to patiently help them get liberated.

[darnell11]

People use religion in order to control people. You don't have to believe in the god or gods; but make sure the masses do. People have a need to believe in something beyond them, and people have a need for power and control. Religion is perfect for that. Maybe it's the easiest way to control people? But, I don't think we need to control people with religion; it's a lie.

[Kopji]

Many more people believe in a god than don't. I for one do not believe in any god.

But most people have a need to believe in something. If there were no organised religions to cater for this belief then what would people believe in instead? I think we would see a lot more adherance to other woo beliefs such as mediums, crystal healing, reiki.

The point is that religion offers solace to many people and the major religions do at least purport to follow a moral code. I wonder what would fill the void if religion did not exist. Would the world be a nicer place?

They would believe that being creative gave life meaning. Instead of artists being rare, they would be common. People would meet in the old churches to drink beer, sing happy songs, and throw clay pots. There would be Sunday poetry slams, retreat seminars on writing, film festivals once a month. We would realize that this one life was all the time we had to live, and people would work to help make that time a good and productive one for each person who entered the world, not just for a few lucky ones. :D



we'd gather around all in a room fasten our belts engage in dialogue
we'd all slow down rest without guilt not lie without fear disagree sans judgement

we would stay and respond and expand and include and allow and forgive and
enjoy and evolve and discern and inquire and accept and admit and divulge and open and reach out and speak up

This is utopia this is my utopia
This is my ideal my end in sight
Utopia this is my utopia
This is my nirvana
My ultimate

we'd open our arms we'd all jump in we'd all coast down into safety nets
we would share and listen and support and welcome be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes we would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference be gentle and make room for every emotion

we'd provide forums we'd all speak out we'd all be heard we'd all feel seen
we'd rise post-obstacle more defined more grateful we would heal be humbled
and be unstoppable we'd hold close and let go and know when to do which we'd release and disarm and stand up and feel safe

- Alanis Morissette

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.

There is ample evidence religion plays little or no role in the moral choices of modern humans. The ability to differentiate right vs wrong is embedded in our DNA and society, not religion. Studies have shown that the moral choices between Atheists and those who are Religions are almost identical. Therefore we do not need religion for morality. Link to study (http://forums.randi.org/www.wjh.harvard.edu/%7Emnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf)

It's true that religions people tend to be happier than non-religious people (link (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/78/95776.htm)), but this is only because of genetic causes. The gene VMAT2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMAT2) is said to be the "God gene" in that it causes the religious ecstasy we see in religious people and is involved in monoamines, neurotransmitters which control emotional feelings. This means that non-religious people can hold specific beliefs and philosophies that also cause this gene to work, since Buddhists also benefit from it.

This basically means that religion is pointless and can be replaced by more rational and reasonable beliefs which provide the same emotional benefits.

[ImaginalDisc]

There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity.

The Chinese officially have no religion, but they seem to have some morality. Cuba? The same. The majority of Americans are Christian, but they deplore slavery and public stoning to death for wearing mixed threads, so I don't think they get their morality from religion.

[frank462]

Originally Posted by Katana
Just noticed your signature. Do you share Ayn Rand's feelings on religion?

Originally Posted by Gaspode
Yes I do - and not just religion. I've only recently discovered Ayn Rand (thanks to this forum) and so far know little about her and her writing. I definitely need to find out a lot more.

She's worth finding out more about (in my humble opinion, of course).

The Fountainhead is what started it for me.

Atlas Shrugged was the first one of her's that I read. And IMHO it was her best work even though I have read everything else she ever wrote.
"Who is John Galt?" :D

[Godmode]

If I had it my way, people would believe in the human potential for greatness, and strive for it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
But most people have a need to believe in something. If there were no organised religions to cater for this belief then what would people believe in instead? I think we would see a lot more adherance to other woo beliefs such as mediums, crystal healing, reiki.
<snip>
Or, is their "need to believe" there because religion and culture tell them that they need to have a "need to believe"?

[clerihew80]

I've only recently discovered Ayn Rand (thanks to this forum) and so far know little about her and her writing. I definitely need to find out a lot more.

Then you need to read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things;" specifically Chapter 8: "The Unlikeliest Cult: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Cult of Personality."

Here's his take: "I accept much of Rand's philosophy, but not all of it. Certainly the commitment to reason is admirable...The great flaw in her philosophy is the belief that morals can be held to some absolute standard or criteria. This is not scientifically tenable. Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are only actions - physical actions, biological actions, human actions. Humans act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral only when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is strictly a human creation, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions, just as other human creations are...Just as there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute right type of human action...Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. The historical development and ultimate destruction of her group and philosophy is the empirical evidence that documents this assessment."

(The "no absolute right type of human music," is a reference to Ms. Rand's willingness to utterly reject people who didn't share her taste in art.)

It's worth reading, whether you admire or loathe Rand and Objectivism.

[Davidjayjordan]

People use religion in order to control people. You don't have to believe in the god or gods; but make sure the masses do. People have a need to believe in something beyond them, and people have a need for power and control. Religion is perfect for that. Maybe it's the easiest way to control people? But, I don't think we need to control people with religion; it's a lie.

Exactly as church groupies and actevoath's have to have their groupings to be groupies. Their masters want control, whether it is economic, military, political or religious. All non thinking religions and groups are controlled. (SEE true skeptics are conspiracy theorists.)

[Davidjayjordan]

Act-evo-ath stands for anti-conspiracy theorists, evolutionists and atheists religionists.....

[andyandy]

Why does anyone need to "believe" in anything?

because none of us can know everything....

[Beerina]

She's worth finding out more about (in my humble opinion, of course).

The Fountainhead is what started it for me.

After The Fountainhead, she was huge -- they made a movie of this starring Cary Grant for god's sake. But after Atlas Shrugged, the (religious) conservatives abandoned her because she based freedom as an inalienable right on Man's nature and mind, rather than as a gift from God. So she became a pariah.

I always found it fascinating that one of the biggest philosophical defenders of freedom and capitalism (as derivative of freedom) was a female from the communist USSR (even if she did leave as a child.)

[Foster Zygote]

Act-evo-ath stands for anti-conspiracy theorists, evolutionists and atheists religionists.....

I couldn't help but notice that you are posting in another person's thread. Have you lost your aversion to doing so or do you just refrain from posting in threads that ask questions that make you uncomfortable? Well, I'll just bump my other thread anyway. Feel free to chime in.

[Gaspode]

Thanks for your replies. Apologies if it appears I abandoned this thread - I ended up working very late yesterday.

I would not call religion necessary or evil. If religion is the primary source of morality for the masses, then religion is a shortcut to behaving properly (provided religious ethics are actually morally good). So, religion is laziness in some cases. It provides a short-cut to behaving morally without trying to determine how to act well by one's self. In the case of the intellectually lazy, religion could be a good thing for me, because it gives the lazy a means by which they do not cause me harm. However, if it were possible to motivate the intellectually lazy to think for themselves, then religion would not be necessary to instill a sense of morality. Considering religious morality often leads to a perceived objective morality, the differing religious morals often conflict (my god says your god is wrong, therefore I should force you to think like I do). Therefore it seems to me it is more morally necessary to help the intellectually lazy become motivated to think on morallity for themselves.

Religion is not inherently evil. Religion can serve a (good) purpose. Religion is hardly necessary.

Agreed. But I meant 'necessary evil' in the way that taxes are. Religion has been the cause and justification of many wars over the centuries but it also provides a moral framework for those who need it. It's something I'd rather did not exist but for now it seems we need it.

[Gaspode]

Davidjayjordan - could you please not misquote me again as you did in post 15.

ETA: If necessary I'll remind you when you're back from your suspension.

[Beleth]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead? (thenmselves, their power, their politics, their apparrent qualities, etc. etc. they worship all sorts of crazy wierd things, but mainly they worship themselves and make themselves their gods)
Actually, you have that exactly backwards.

It is the Christian fundamentalists who have called their own egos "the Holy Spirit" and worship it as a god. I at least am humble enough to realize that my basis of ethics comes from myself and my experiences, and I don't have to fool myself (and attempt to fool others) into thinking that my ego is really God talking to me.

I realize that this is difficult for you to understand, DJJ, because you can't imagine your ego being any less than God Himself, and therefore you can't imagine anyone else believing that their own ego isn't God. But it is true nonetheless.

[ReligionStudent]

Actually, you have that exactly backwards.

It is the Christian fundamentalists who have called their own egos "the Holy Spirit" and worship it as a god. I at least am humble enough to realize that my basis of ethics comes from myself and my experiences, and I don't have to fool myself (and attempt to fool others) into thinking that my ego is really God talking to me.

I realize that this is difficult for you to understand, DJJ, because you can't imagine your ego being any less than God Himself, and therefore you can't imagine anyone else believing that their own ego isn't God. But it is true nonetheless.

He is now on a seven day suspension.

[Beleth]

He is now on a seven day suspension.
That is a true statement.

[sCeptic]

It's my opinion that religion is useful, but not as a codification of morality. To claim that an external god is the source of moral behaviour is just plain ignorant. In fact, if someone needed the threat of eternal damnation to prevent them from causing the streets to run red with the blood of the innocent, then I would argue that that person's morality is lacking in substance.

The sense in which I believe organised religion is useful is that it often acts as a community organisation that occasionally steers people towards doing good things: Soup kitchens, charity drives, hospices... these are all worthwhile pursuits that are often embarked upon in the name of religion.

While I don't think that religion necessarily need be invoked in order to motivate people to do these sorts of things, I haven't seen anywhere near as many secular organisations doing the same sort of thing.

(That's not to say that secular organisations don't get involved in charitable works, just that they don't seem to do it as often.)

If religion can motivate someone to do something altruistic, I feel that that is religion doing its job.

[frank462]

It's my opinion that religion is useful, but not as a codification of morality. To claim that an external god is the source of moral behaviour is just plain ignorant. In fact, if someone needed the threat of eternal damnation to prevent them from causing the streets to run red with the blood of the innocent, then I would argue that that person's morality is lacking in substance.

Check out the Toltec, Olmec, and Aztec civilizations. Their gods demanded human sacrifice including the sacrifice of children.

The sense in which I believe organised religion is useful is that it often acts as a community organisation that occasionally steers people towards doing good things: Soup kitchens, charity drives, hospices... these are all worthwhile pursuits that are often embarked upon in the name of religion.

While I don't think that religion necessarily need be invoked in order to motivate people to do these sorts of things, I haven't seen anywhere near as many secular organisations doing the same sort of thing.

(That's not to say that secular organisations don't get involved in charitable works, just that they don't seem to do it as often.)

If religion can motivate someone to do something altruistic, I feel that that is religion doing its job.

The end justifies the means? Brutal dictators also pass out alms to the poor. Does that justify their existence?

[Ginarley]

because none of us can know everything....

So we fill the gaps with beliefs...?

[HypnoPsi]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?


One of the following presumably:

1) That there are X number of Gods (and or good and evil Gods) (Polytheism).

2) That there is no God as such, but there is a Oneness (Buddhism and certain forms of panentheism).

3) That the Universe self-generated or has always existed; or that our Universe is a baby Universe in the Multiverse which self-generated or has always existed; or that our Multiverse is a baby Multiverse in the Hypermultiverse which self-generated or has always existed; or that our Hypermultiverse is a baby Hypermultiverse in a Megahypermultiverse that self-generated or has always existed.... :)

4) That there is no way of knowing which belief is the right one (Agnosticism).

There's no way of testing any of these ideas. Why so many people argue over a stalemate is, quite frankly, bewildering.


There are billions of people living their lives according to a moral code apparently bestowed on them by a benevolent omnipotent entity. This belief brings comfort to these people and makes them happy. Supposedly.

I just wonder what the general opinion here on the Forum is about religion - and whether we're better off with it or without it.


That depends how you define 'religion'. Buddhism, while atheist, is still regarded as a religion (though some sects are more appropriately described as polytheistic). The materialist metaphysic similarly is faith based.

The best moral-code I can think of would be the golden rule combined with enlightened self-interest, but I've noticed that, as a general rule, very few people go in for that idea or are directly attracted to something that they will struggle to follow.

My personal view is that it is probably a combination of the mystery of existence and the death of loved ones that leads most people to believe in an afterlife and God somehow.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Why does anyone need to "believe" in anything?



Well.... that's perfectly okay for the layman; but for the scientist, their efforts studying a subject are supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means the academic has to advance the argument (or research) they believe is showing results (or that they think will show results).

The most obvious case in point here is materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness. While materialists might work on neural-networks and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is merely Information Processing and non-materialists might work on psi-experiments and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is distinct from matter/energy, the layman could simply throw his arms up in the air and say they don't care either way or that they don't know enough about the subject.

So, you have to "believe" in something if you want to do real science/research.

(You could try a thesis defence of "I don't know either way"/"I can't make up my mind"/"I'm frightened of getting ripped appart by skeptics if I choose to say that robots are conscious or psi exists" (but please fund me anyway because one day I might get a set of b*lls or have a clue about what I'm doing), but I don't think any panel of experts would be too impressed!

:)

_
HypnoPsi

[CapelDodger]

There is ample evidence religion plays little or no role in the moral choices of modern humans. The ability to differentiate right vs wrong is embedded in our DNA and society, not religion. Studies have shown that the moral choices between Atheists and those who are Religions are almost identical. Therefore we do not need religion for morality. Link to study (http://forums.randi.org/www.wjh.harvard.edu/%7Emnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf)

Indeed. Religions are shaped to suit the prevailing moral code and then claim to be the source of it.

I've had believers try to sell me their belief on its moral code - with the obvious assumption that I, atheist, would identify with said code by virtue of its obvious merit. Obvious even to an atheist. You can get believers into all sorts of knots after you point this out.

This basically means that religion is pointless and can be replaced by more rational and reasonable beliefs which provide the same emotional benefits.

Democracy. Liberty. Equality. Fair Play. Honesty. Responsibility. Generosity. Team-Spirit.

Hold regular festivals when you celebrate having them, with fun, feasts and partying. Also fireworks. Entrench the value of the principle across the generations - as has been done with Democracy in the US, deliberately and with forethought.

Humanity will be better off without religion. Which one day it will be. I won't see it, though.

[Rufo]

When it comes to religion and morals, my impression is that there appears to be a lot of delusion about the 'other side' when it comes to both theists and atheists. As mentioned, many theists appearently believe that atheists would act less morally than themselves. Atheists then quickly conclude that the reason for such a delusion must be that the theists are held back from doing evil deeds simply because they fear eternal punishment in the form of Hell, bad karma, etc. and that the theists are in fact the immoral ones.

From what I can see, these are both misunderstandings of the others' thinking. Most theists are not actually following their moral code because they are afraid of punishment - they follow it because they are convinced that it comes from a God they love and respect above anything or anyone. Being convinced that the perfect moral code can only come from that being, they conclude that atheists cannot be truly moral. Not because they do not believe in the consequences of not following their moral code, but because they do not believe in the source of the moral code.

This does not mean theists would necessarily be immoral if they did not believe in God. They would be forced to find another source for their moral code - and would probably end up with the same ones atheists have.

When it comes to religion being necessary or not, I personally think it contributes to diversity and would not like to see it disappear. I do not believe organized religion is necessary.

[CapelDodger]

If I had it my way, people would believe in the human potential for greatness, and strive for it.

History shows us what striving for greatness produces, and it's not a pretty picture. Humanity needs to recognise how ungreatly different it is from the rest of nature. And to beware the merchants of greatness. Nobody's that great.

[CapelDodger]

The sense in which I believe organised religion is useful is that it often acts as a community organisation that occasionally steers people towards doing good things: Soup kitchens, charity drives, hospices... these are all worthwhile pursuits that are often embarked upon in the name of religion.

Therefore useful in a social order that calls for soup kitchens. Perhaps not in one that doesn't, by intent and design.

(That's not to say that secular organisations don't get involved in charitable works, just that they don't seem to do it as often.)

Red Cross. Oxfam. Amnesty.

[CapelDodger]

From an economic viewpoint, it gives certain people employment as preachers, secretaries, and other paid functionaries, and in turn they buy land which yields capital gain to the original owner, build churches which employs the construction industry, purchase choir robes and religious literature which increases the business of the garment industry and the printshops, all of which must be delivered by the transportation industry, and they purchase furniture and carpet, all of which trickles down the line too and all of those employed in these industries also have jobs and more monies to purchase their goods and services, and eventually some of these preachers end up on television selling advertising time and in the sweet by-and-by, they get super-rich and indulge in serious luxury items and in the end everybody benefits.

i probably left out a few items or steps but i think you get my point. Any job from drug dealing to flim-flam benefits all.

We don't need to "believe" in anything.

Only connect ... :)

Economies need sinks as well as sources to keep humming, and religion is one of those sinks. Professional sport is another. Las Vegas is an iconic sink.

[sCeptic]

Check out the Toltec, Olmec, and Aztec civilizations. Their gods demanded human sacrifice including the sacrifice of children.



The end justifies the means? Brutal dictators also pass out alms to the poor. Does that justify their existence?

There are obvious exceptions. It is my (perhaps incorrect) perception that 21st century western religion is, in general, not of the variety that requires human sacrifice. I don't discount the possibility that this sort of thing could recur, just that it's not frequently practiced nowadays.

To some extent the end does indeed justify the means. Provided the religion in question doesn't make a habit of requiring brutal practices, but instead promotes a generally altruistic code of behavior then I feel that the end is justified.

As I said, religion need not be invoked in order to motivate altruistic activity, but if "the word of God" is a good motivational tool, should it not be used as such?

[sCeptic]

Therefore useful in a social order that calls for soup kitchens. Perhaps not in one that doesn't, by intent and design.

Intent and design aren't necessarily in line with resultant behaviour. It's quite possible that an organisation is intended and designed to perform one function, but over time has grown to perform another.

But in essence, yes... if an organisation must invoke religion to be motivated towards altruistic action then it is useful. If religion is invoked for any other purpose it is at best useless, or at worst evil.

Red Cross. Oxfam. Amnesty.

Yes, those are good examples of secular organisations that need not invoke religion. It is my (perhaps innacurate) perception that these are in the minority.

Red Cross stands out there though... does it not have religious ties?

[c4ts]

If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?.

Perhaps they would focus their efforts on a more productive philosophy, which gave due investigation to the mysteries of life unhindered by unquestioning belief.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, those are good examples of secular organisations that need not invoke religion. It is my (perhaps innacurate) perception that these are in the minority.

I'd have thought scale was more relevant than numbers, and they don't come much bigger than Oxfam.

Red Cross stands out there though... does it not have religious ties?

No, it was founded on humanitarian grounds. The red cross symbol is a reversal of the Swiss flag with no Chrstian connotations. (Not that some people don't read such connotations into it - hence the Red Crescent.)

[cyborg]

Which god?

Superhuman god?

Animal god?

Spirity god?

Cloudy god?

Old man god?

Pantheon gods?

Triune gods?

Ontological god?

Metaphorical god?

The god concept has gotten pretty overloaded. From what I can see two people agreeing that they believe in 'god' means just about squat. Too many qualifications are required.

[Ginarley]

Well.... that's perfectly okay for the layman; but for the scientist, their efforts studying a subject are supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means the academic has to advance the argument (or research) they believe is showing results (or that they think will show results).

The most obvious case in point here is materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness. While materialists might work on neural-networks and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is merely Information Processing and non-materialists might work on psi-experiments and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is distinct from matter/energy, the layman could simply throw his arms up in the air and say they don't care either way or that they don't know enough about the subject.

So, you have to "believe" in something if you want to do real science/research.

(You could try a thesis defence of "I don't know either way"/"I can't make up my mind"/"I'm frightened of getting ripped appart by skeptics if I choose to say that robots are conscious or psi exists" (but please fund me anyway because one day I might get a set of b*lls or have a clue about what I'm doing), but I don't think any panel of experts would be too impressed!

:)

_
HypnoPsi

Your consciousness one is interesting. All we can do is try to find theories and descriptions that work when describing the system. A working explanation is one that both is consistent with what we observe and that successfully predicts things that we haven't yet observed. It actually doesn't matter too much if they are strictly "correct" or not - we may never know.

The entirety of physics is built on the premise that we have a set of rules that accurately seem to describe what we observe. For example there is no such thing as energy - its purely an accounting concept based on conservation - but with it we can explain much of what we observe in the world. We still have no idea why it works but it does work. Quantum physics is rife with this sort of thing.

If we are genuinely honest, almost all of human understanding is similar. A theory is correct because it works, because it adequately accounts for what we see. It actually doesn't matter why we see what we see or even if its real - only that our theories work. Boil anything down to its absolute roots and the result is "we don't know". The vast majority of research has nothing to do with these fundamentals though - it is higher level research built on other research, all of which apparently works.

You don't need to believe anything whatsoever under this approach - you simply have to make assumptions that what came before works (and it clearly does seem to work). The idea of what is "right" is secondary, and one could even argue it's irrelevant.

[ReligionStudent]

Well.... that's perfectly okay for the layman; but for the scientist, their efforts studying a subject are supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means the academic has to advance the argument (or research) they believe is showing results (or that they think will show results).

The most obvious case in point here is materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness. While materialists might work on neural-networks and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is merely Information Processing and non-materialists might work on psi-experiments and attempt to advance the argument that consciousness is distinct from matter/energy, the layman could simply throw his arms up in the air and say they don't care either way or that they don't know enough about the subject.

So, you have to "believe" in something if you want to do real science/research.

(You could try a thesis defence of "I don't know either way"/"I can't make up my mind"/"I'm frightened of getting ripped appart by skeptics if I choose to say that robots are conscious or psi exists" (but please fund me anyway because one day I might get a set of b*lls or have a clue about what I'm doing), but I don't think any panel of experts would be too impressed!

:)

_
HypnoPsi

I think there is a slight difference, in science, you have to show something. Papers and thesis defenses can be on very minute things, and may in fact show that there is no correlation or that your thesis was wrong. That certainly isn't belief.

[ReligionStudent]

There are obvious exceptions. It is my (perhaps incorrect) perception that 21st century western religion is, in general, not of the variety that requires human sacrifice. I don't discount the possibility that this sort of thing could recur, just that it's not frequently practiced nowadays.

To some extent the end does indeed justify the means. Provided the religion in question doesn't make a habit of requiring brutal practices, but instead promotes a generally altruistic code of behavior then I feel that the end is justified.

As I said, religion need not be invoked in order to motivate altruistic activity, but if "the word of God" is a good motivational tool, should it not be used as such?

Modern Christianity is routed in human sacrifice. Jesus. Also many Christians and Muslims have high regard for martyrs. that's a form of human sacrifice in a very real way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why does anyone need to "believe" in anything?


because none of us can know everything....

I don't think that follows. Plenty of us are happy fully admitting that there's plenty we don't know.

I also challenge the assumption that there's a built-in "need to believe". You'd have to prove that first before worrying about what we should believe in.

[sCeptic]

Modern Christianity is routed in human sacrifice. Jesus. .

Well, yes. But that was one sacrifice two thousand years ago... modern Christiants don't usually strap vestal virgins to altars to be slaughtered as part of the Holy Communion. The sacrificial aspect has become symbolic, not an actual sacrifice of anyone.

Also many Christians and Muslims have high regard for martyrs. that's a form of human sacrifice in a very real way

That is true. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but I don't believe that this point of view is held by the majority of religious people. I think it's more likely to be a value of fringe extremist groups.

[ReligionStudent]

Well, yes. But that was one sacrifice two thousand years ago... modern Christiants don't usually strap vestal virgins to altars to be slaughtered as part of the Holy Communion. The sacrificial aspect has become symbolic, not an actual sacrifice of anyone.



That is true. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but I don't believe that this point of view is held by the majority of religious people. I think it's more likely to be a value of fringe extremist groups.

I think Christians would still value a martyr, or at least believe dying for the religion could be done in a good way.

Some Christians do the stations of the cross each year, that is almost like a reenactment of sacrifice. It gets creapier if you think about how many Christians jump from baby Jesus to Jebus on the cross.

[Molinaro]

Many more people believe in a god than don't. I for one do not believe in any god.

But most people have a need to believe in something. If there were no organised religions to cater for this belief then what would people believe in instead? I think we would see a lot more adherance to other woo beliefs such as mediums, crystal healing, reiki.

The point is that religion offers solace to many people and the major religions do at least purport to follow a moral code. I wonder what would fill the void if religion did not exist. Would the world be a nicer place?

I disagree. I blame religion and it's widespread acceptance for the prevalance of non-critical thinking. Being brought up in a world without religion should draw more people towards science and the need for thoughts and ideas to be based on facts.

[Gaspode]

To some extent the end does indeed justify the means. Provided the religion in question doesn't make a habit of requiring brutal practices, but instead promotes a generally altruistic code of behavior then I feel that the end is justified.

As I said, religion need not be invoked in order to motivate altruistic activity, but if "the word of God" is a good motivational tool, should it not be used as such?

I disagree. I blame religion and it's widespread acceptance for the prevalance of non-critical thinking. Being brought up in a world without religion should draw more people towards science and the need for thoughts and ideas to be based on facts.


I remember a conversation I had with a work colleague who had a similar critical thinking outlook to myself. For reasons I can't recall we were talking about life and death and he mentioned offhandedly that 'when we die we just die and that's it'. Another colleague who's a devout Muslim overheard and expressed absolute horror that we would contemplate the very thought of no life after death, no afterlife.

People will always find something to believe that gives the impression that there is a lot more to this mundane world whether it's psychics or telepathy or magic or gods. And that we when we die we don't just end. Religion fulfills this need.

Religion also provides a moral code which promotes altruistic behaviour - which is nice. Unfortunately thanks to religion we have the phenomenon of religious war.

I don't know if religion has overall caused more good or more evil (dependent of course on your definition of good and evil)

[Ginarley]

People will always find something to believe that gives the impression that there is a lot more to this mundane world whether it's psychics or telepathy or magic or gods. And that we when we die we don't just end. Religion fulfills this need.

It always makes me sad that this is the case. There is literally more wonder and beauty than we'll ever be able to comprehend on this planet alone, let alone the rest of the universe. It is unfortunate people worry about afterlives and religious things because they are missing out on so much.

[CapelDodger]

I think Christians would still value a martyr, or at least believe dying for the religion could be done in a good way.

Quite, and not just for Christians. The generic martyr is someone who doesn't break under oppression; they don't seek martyrdom, martyrdom is a fate inflicted on them. The current usage is an aberration.