Religion is a necessary evil

[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.