Religion is a necessary evil

If I had it my way, people would believe in the human potential for greatness, and strive for it.
 
Gaspode said:
<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>
Click to expand...
Or, is their "need to believe" there because religion and culture tell them that they need to have a "need to believe"?
 
Last edited:
Gaspode said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
darnell11 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The Fountainhead is what started it for me.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Act-evo-ath stands for anti-conspiracy theorists, evolutionists and atheists religionists.....
Click to expand...

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

Danhalen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Davidjayjordan said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Beleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is now on a seven day suspension.
 
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.
 
sCeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The end justifies the means? Brutal dictators also pass out alms to the poor. Does that justify their existence?
 
Gaspode said:
If people didn't believe in a God what would they believe in instead?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Ginarley said:
Why does anyone need to "believe" in anything?
Click to expand...



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
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom