Would we be better off without religion?

The way I see it, religion has outlasted it's usefullness. The negatives now far outweigh any benefits.

Some argue that without religion, mankind would fall into chaos and moral corruption. But this is not the truth at all. Man has an inherent compulsion for good. This is why religion was started in the first place. This is why so many people still follow religion today. Moralility is not exclusive to religion, religion is only one incarnation of it.

Most of the values and ethics that you may contribute solely to religious institutions are already imbeded deep within our culture and our government (we no longer need to fear the made-up threats of religion, but rather we should fear the very real ones of our government). If all religious belief was to suddenly disappear today, the values, ethics and morality would stay.

Along with religion, international warfare has also outlasted it's usefullness. In this day and age, planet earth could be united as one. But we are still broken, and religious differences are the main cause. You'll notice that virtually all the war and terroism you see on CNN is from deeply religious nations.

Sure, religion provides comfort and hope for the weak-minded. But religion is only a crutch, and the weak-minded will grow stronger when they are forced to walk without it. Besides, science can and will create new and better crutches.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Genetic engineering and similiar technologies are forbidden by religion. Abortion is taboo. The negative implications of these and many other religious restrictions is obvious- We are living in a world full of needless pain and suffering. Religion is like a flat tire on the road to a better future. It's slowing us down and might just get us all killed along the way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The United States was built upon Christian Morals and Ethics. You can't say how a nation would be because there is no country that I am aware of that has no religious influence upon it. You say that people are prone to good even without religion, but that is a fallacy. People are subject to cause and effect, so what may appear as good is none other then a means for survival. I may appear that I am good because I don't jump in the fire, but the real reason I don't is because it hurts and I could die or suffer for years to come. The laws of the land, founded upon christian principle and morals, keep people from being good. The consequences outweigh the cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who told you that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The useless influence of religion

Originally posted by Quigly
----------
The United States was built upon Christian Morals and Ethics.
----------
(I would suggest to you to read what the Founding Fathers wrote. They did not embrace Xianity but a freedom from it. Thomas Jefferson and his peers were enlightened men who saw the evils organized religion could breed. Thomas Paine was an atheist and yet one of the greatest writers of his time. The Pilgrims left England for the religious freedoms they hoped to find in this new land. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe among many other founding fathers of this country were Freemasons. Have you ever had the opportunity to visit Monticello or Mount Vernon? I have, and it's plain to see they weren't following any kind of Xian organized religion. These great men were not Xian at all!)
----------
You can't say how a nation would be because there is no country that I am aware of that has no religious influence upon it.
----------
(You may be right about this, but just look at other countries today and what their organized religion has done for them. Xianity never helped this country either. In fact, it's caused more damage to democracy's rights and freedoms.)
----------
You say that people are prone to good even without religion, but that is a fallacy.
----------
(Humans have an instinctive consciousness of right and wrong, cause and effect, and an innate drive for survival. Religions had nothing to do with teaching morals, although they have taken it upon themselves to do this. Religion interferes with our instinctive consciousness. How many millions of years did the human race survive before man-made religion was established? And since then, humans have been using less and less of their intuitive nature and relied on the church doing the thinking for them. We were born with a conscience. It's genetic memory. There's no need for organized religion.)
----------
People are subject to cause and effect, so what may appear as good is none other then a means for survival. I may appear that I am good because I don't jump in the fire, but the real reason I don't is because it hurts and I could die or suffer for years to come.
----------
(This is different from moral thought. What you are talking about are conditioned resonses. There are some things we learn as we grow. Surely a baby doesn't know that pulling a pot of boiling water off the stove is going to burn them. But I bet the baby won't go near the stove again.)
----------
The laws of the land, founded upon christian principle and morals, keep people from being good.
----------
(Well, Quigly, I'll have to agree with you on this point. That's probably what's wrong with this country today.)
----------
The consequences outweigh the cause.
----------
(If there were no causes, there'd be no consequences.)

 

Quigly,
The United States was built upon Christian Morals and Ethics.


We now have a stable government. Religion has definitely served it's purpose in chaos-management along the way (like pounding a nail with a sledgehammer though). Tradition and heritage is not necessary for survival or prosperity- change is.

You can't say how a nation would be because there is no country that I am aware of that has no religious influence upon it.

I didn't say how any country "would be". I generalized how mankind would behave in lack of religion. It was only an opinion though. Some have faith in mankind, some have faith in God.

You say that people are prone to good even without religion, but that is a fallacy. People are subject to cause and effect, so what may appear as good is none other then a means for survival. I may appear that I am good because I don't jump in the fire, but the real reason I don't is because it hurts and I could die or suffer for years to come. The laws of the land, founded upon christian principle and morals, keep people from being good. The consequences outweigh the cause.

People are prone to behave in a manner consistent with popular values and morality, whether that come from religion, culture, government, or whatever. People like to be perceived as being a good, caring person. People are generally good, even if the reason for being good is self-preservation or self-advancement.

 

Utility is not the same as accuracy, and it seems both pretentious and arrogant to deign to instruct the majority of the world's population as to what has value to them.

 

Re: Re: Would we be better off without religion?

"Deign"? I'm not ashamed to say I had to look it up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since when is expressing an opinion on sciforums the same as instructing the world's population?

 

mantay, stop whining.

What does it mean to say that religion has lost it's usefulness? Did you mean that it lost its usefullness to you? If so, fine. As an atheist, I salute you. If, however, you are claiming that it has lost its usefulness to others, the question remains as to your authority to make such a prognosis. It's a bit like me dictating to you that you no longer like pizza.

 

YES

We would be better off without religion, because most religions put off present day happiness for a dubious future happiness after death.

The problem with morality by law (like the ten commandments), is that reality never falls into such easy catagories. Thou shalt not kill, for instance; Christians have to make exeptions for war, putting a pet "to sleep", eating animals, driving a car (which might result in an accident and death), and executing a criminal, so its not as simple as a clear cut right and wrong as they claim. One has to stay flexible, and do the right thing appropriate to the circumstances. Religion often prevents this.

You can give the example of religious based organizations doing good deeds, like feeding the starving, but they don't know the long term consequences of their actions. It can be cruel to feed a meager meal to a starving person, only to have them starve at a later date; it perpetuates suffering.

To quote the Tao Te Ching:

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

 

Re: YES

Did you come up with that remarkable piece of logic before or after you set down to a comfortable dinner.

 

ConsequentAtheist, don't over do it.

What does it mean to say that religion has lost it's usefulness? Did you mean that it lost its usefullness to you? If so, fine. As an atheist, I salute you.

Religion has lost it's usefullness as a tool for keeping humanity in check. That was the point of my post and I think you know that. Don't over-analyze.

If, however, you are claiming that it has lost its usefulness to others, the question remains as to your authority to make such a prognosis. It's a bit like me dictating to you that you no longer like pizza.

Of course I realize that religion has personal value and usefullness to those who believe it. But this has nothing to do with my post, so lets drop it.

You seem overly-eager to bash on both sides of the religion/atheist debate(although that's really not what my post was). Calm down, it's not a show.

 

Actually, I did not.

• You claimed: "religion has outlasted it's usefullness"
  I assumed that you meant what you said.
• You claimed: "Man has an inherent compulsion for good. This is why religion was started in the first place."
  To assert that religion was started because of some inherent compulsion for good seems silly at best.
• You claimed: "This is why so many people still follow religion today."
  I suggest that you have no basis for making such a claim.

Don't presume to dictate to others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

CA,

You claimed: "religion has outlasted it's usefullness"
I assumed that you meant what you said.

When you take that single sentence and combine it with the context of the rest of the post, something wonderful happens:
a complete train of thought is born and an overall point is made(well sometimes).

You claimed: "Man has an inherent compulsion for good. This is why religion was started in the first place."
To assert that religion was started because of some inherent compulsion for good seems silly at best.


I agree, I could have worded that entirely differently to make it more accurate. But again, take it in context. Man didn't create and adopt a religion based on something demonic; man chose something good and uplifting. This shows that man is drawn towards making things good rather than bad. Of course there are other reasons why religion was created too, but those reasons are not important to my overall point.

You claimed: "This is why so many people still follow religion today."
I suggest that you have no basis for making such a claim.

It is my opinion, that is the only basis I need for making such a claim. I don't think there is such a thing as [my opinion][/my opinion] tags. I would have used them though if I'd known you'd make an issue out of it.

 

Thank you for your honesty.

 

I suggest you read "The Mountain People" by Colin Turnbull. This book describes an anthropological study of the Ik people of Africa, who were prevented from hunting and farming when their territory became a wildlife refuge during a time of drought.
Of, course it seems smug to suggest that feeding the starving promotes suffering, but my point is that in the desire to fufill the definition of goodness, many (especially) religious people end up doing more harm than good. Mr. Turnbull had the ethical problem of studying human behavior and social change during a time of crisis while keeping himself alive, too. He came to the difficult conclusion that feeding a man who is in the process of starving, without addressing the basic cause, only prolongs their suffering.

I have heard about countries that have outlawed child labor, which sounds like a good thing, but what often ends up happening is the family loses their major source of income, and can no longer buy food.

The details of my examples are debateable, but the point is this: I think a major aspect of religion is codifying right and wrong behavior and because these rules are totally out of context, they cause much unneeded suffering.

 

Yes, it is.

So:

• the desire to fufill the definition of goodness ... end up doing more harm than good

Nothing here about 'sometimes' or 'occasionally' or 'frequently' - simply the assertion that A results in B, and in support of this presumably universal law you offer a "study of the Ik people of Africa".

There are plenty of stories concerning the unintended consequnces of thoughtlessly implementing aid in various cultures and environments. Perhaps the answer is to be less thoughtless, rather than join your silly campaign against charity.

 

Charity

We must be more thoughtful that charity should begin at home. I'll be waiting for your hateful reply.

 

Re: Charity

It is more important that chararity begin. That aside, what possible relevancy does your comment (with or without its pitiful appendix) have to the topic under discussion?

 

Re: Re: Charity

Did you not read the previous quote? The relevancy of my comment was directed to the author of the previous quote, not to you, CA, who is about as relevant as the hair on a rat's ass.

 

Re: Re: Re: Charity

Oh, my!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!