What if?

[Stu Pidasso]

It seems that in every culture there is some sort of religion and/or belief in a diety. Its a universal attribute. Other universal attributes cultures develope are counting systems and language. I believe its natural for a people to develope social tools such as language and counting systems. Is religion just another social tool created by man?

Suppose the social tool of language was removed from our culture. There would be utter chaos. Same if we decided to abandon counting. What if religion was removed from our culture, would the human condition improve or worsen?

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
What if religion was removed from our culture, would the human condition improve or worsen?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[Lestat]

I think man would be WAY better off without religion.

On the other hand, I think that beliefs such as religion may actually be evolutionary as a means for man to advance his own culture or even race.

I am vehemently opposed to religion, but I will give it this: it is the best way to enforce a system of ethics upon a common person's conscience. Take religion away from society and you have a people with no concrete idea of morality, thus allowing the government to mold it for them. This can be very dangerous... look at what communist governments have done without a national religion. At least the idea of a higher being keeps people in check and also together as a society, if they hold a common belief.

Should religion rule individual life? No. Should it exist in society? I say yes, not because it is ideal, but because it has to, at least until humans can grow out of it.

The human condition would not worsen without religion, but order in society would. Some may live fuller lives, but others may live in constant fear. The common person just isn't ready yet for the abolition of religion.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am vehemently opposed to religion, but I will give it this: it is the best way to enforce a system of ethics upon a common person's conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree that religious teaching of chastity before the advent of prophylactics and birth control was beneficial to society?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

Stu

[Lestat]

You make some interesting points, but I'm not sure I can agree with you so fast.

I wonder if you live in America (as I do), where 80% of the population belongs to some type of religion (or is the number even higher than that?). Note that this is not the case in Europe or other parts of the world and they seem to get by just fine from a moralistic standpoint. In fact, a case can be made of higher morality at least in terms of crime.

The problem with the communistic countries of which you speak, is that there is very much a God that gets promoted and that God is the government. So you're right that the government molds their beliefs for them, but does this have to be the case? I don't think so.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
At least the idea of a higher being keeps people in check and also together as a society, if they hold a common belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

The last statement seems to fit well with the facts, the first doesn't. A common philosophy is a big help to a society, but it can be quakers, zen buddhists, taoists, secular humanists, etc, the benefit is not dependant on a belief in a personal-intervening-god. Looking around the current world and through history gives no edge to those cultures that develop dependency on a omipotent father figure. The US as the current most religous nation in the leading western group doesn't support the first premise either.

Even in the 'godless' countries, it's not the citizens that turned barbaric it is government treatment of the citizens. No different than the old South Africa, or Taliban ruled Afg, or Iran, or ...

Yes, no religion would improve humanity, but it has to be a culture that arrives at it openly, like current europe or japan, so the social structure fits the belief system.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that religious teaching of chastity before the advent of prophylactics and birth control was beneficial to society?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this pertains to the meaning of my post.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that religious teaching of chastity before the advent of prophylactics and birth control was beneficial to society?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this pertains to the meaning of my post.

[ QUOTE ]
The last statement seems to fit well with the facts, the first doesn't. A common philosophy is a big help to a society, but it can be quakers, zen buddhists, taoists, secular humanists, etc, the benefit is not dependant on a belief in a personal-intervening-god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive my wording. I should have said higher morality, not higher being.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive my wording. I should have said higher morality, not higher being.

[/ QUOTE ] ok, then we are saying very related ideas then. A social structure that the population has adjusted to and of their own volition, that they value, is likely as key as any other factor.

I do live in America, and I was thinking mostly about this this country when I wrote. However, I think what I argued still applies to the majority of societies in the world. Europe may be the only one that is ready to surpass religion, if they haven't already. It also took them many years to get to the point they are at. I think we need to look at it in terms of individual cultures rather than humanity as a whole. That is, European society may be ready to survive without a higher religious concept, but American society is not.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

[/ QUOTE ] Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that. We persecuted Italians simply because they came from Italy, Mexicans simply because they came from Mexico, and Poles simply because they came from Poland. As human beings have a tendency to look down upon or distrust people who are not part of our group. Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

You basically say that religion is effective in getting people to behave in a certain way. I believe religion is/was helpful in preventing the spread of STDs and preventing some unwanted pregnancies. Its an example mans good use of religion.

You say religion should not rule an individual's life. I assume you mean at present. How about in the past. Should religion have ruled the life of a man who lived around 1000AD. If so why?

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do, and those mentionned are tyrants in the same ways that there exists religious tyrants. Religion lends itself to be abused by power mad individuals because it is based on beliefs (the non-rational) which makes it more adept than mere politics at manipulating masses.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe religion is/was helpful in preventing the spread of STDs and preventing some unwanted pregnancies. Its an example mans good use of religion.
Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, do a search on this forum. There were a number of posts with cited sources that contradicts your statement.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[/ QUOTE ] cheeesh. Let's say we could settle to our total satisfaction your question about wheels. what possible bearing would that have on the question about religion? You can't decide things by analogy, an analogy is a pointing device, a conceptual aid even, not a congruency.

To go along with it though, any worthwhile advantages that arise out of religion have been shown to be easily acheived by other methods, so if those methods can be put in place then dispensing with religion is a plus. If we could replace the utility/benefit of wheels with a transportation method that was as effective but reduced carnage then yes, I'd be very against the continued use of wheels.

On my We-They statement-
[ QUOTE ]
Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this makes my claim less true how? Your We-They examples are valid, which strengthens my point, but some of them are harder to get worked up over without some historical grievances to help inflame them. Canada/US is a good example. Very mild historical/political reasons for hatred, but if one was a muslim country and the other xtrian with the same political history as now, that religious difference would be an easy one to build some serious animostity on. Even now the theocratic trend in the US is starting to create a divide between the two countries that wasn't there 30 years ago.

You say you don't agree that religous differences between neigbouring countries or competing factions in a country is a problem because it's an easy basis for we-they anymosity? That a sad blindness to have when you look arond the current or past world situation. Does it contribute to the problem in Iraq? Ireland? Bosnia? etc, etc, .. gawwwwlie.

[chezlaw]

I guess that religon is neutral.

Some say people are religous because they are stupid, if so then they would still be stupid without religon.

Those that do bad things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else.

Those that do good things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Those that do bad things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else. Those that do good things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, it's all part of the realization that it's the man that chooses the religion not the religon that chooses the man. For a lot of people it's just the way they put some form and structure around their innate and nutured human tendencies. Choosing one that suits their personal idiosyncracies ( often by nuturing default) enough to identify with it, nothing changes in their underlying character. A person who is egocentric, bullying, narrow-minded, for example, will have those attributes manisfest themselves through a religious cloaking ( do I need to name names). A nuturing, caring, generous person will find that comes through their religious mantle.

Any major changes, good or bad, that may seem to occur after taking on a new religion ( typically the change had occured prior and inspired the search) is no different than what may occur from a near-death experience in a bar fight, or the birth of a child, or the loss of a friend, or moving to a new country and falling in love, or...