Religion.: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Religion. » Religion.

Religion.
Would human life have been better without religion?

Page: 1 2

Religion.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/25/08 - 10:50 PM: Subject: Religion.	#1
Many if not most non-religious people would agree that atrocities unimaginable were carried out in the name of a certain god or gods. To this day religion is considered by many as a major impediment to world peace.Considering this counter factual argument, I wonder how many would agree to the claim that religion was basically a source of evil, and who would contend that life could have been worse had it not been improved by religion.

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/25/08 - 10:55 PM:	#2
If one stops for a moment and realizes that, for what ever reason, religion has appeared to be ingrained in the human psyche, mostly of athiests, so deeply that it has cropped up since we knew to draw on walls. For some reason, as our philosophy, perspective and even thought process has altered drastically from those original 'humans' we keep the ideal going strong. Do not mistake my words, I am not claiming any religion that is out there exists for less than dubious purposes. Religion, honestly, has created devestation, death, fammine and plague, greed, and even individual depression in some. It has rent the world asunder with its arguments and it has almost brought the world down around our ears many times over. Though the simple fact is, that if we had not ascribed anthromorphic personifications to the naturally feared elements of our universe, that we may still be living in caves, terrified of lightning. Assigning the common place diefication, a regular reminder that the terrifying universe that rampages through what ever space it takes up is not so bad.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/25/08 - 11:48 PM:	#3
Well, I may half-agree with you there on account that what you mentioned is what actually happened. But would it have been better if we did not have religion at all? In international relations there is the conviction that ideology never determine alliances and/or wars. Crusades were carried out, it is believed by many, under the 'pretext' of 'saving our brethren in the East', but in reality the motives were no less than political, economical, and individual. Islamic conquest were meant to spread the word of god but stopped half way with out any justification (obviously because they couldn't go on). There are countless examples from history were religion was nothing more than a moblizing tool. Recently after religion lost its vigor (in Europe) conquest was given the name of spreading civilization, curently its freedom and democracy. Where do you find religion in all of this? It seems evident that wars would have been carried out some way or another. Now regarding within the one group interactions it is not much different. If you agree with Foucault you would then agree that some type of deviance was always needed so that the act of externalization or objectification of that deviance functions as a means to emphasize unity, identity, and (homogeniety?)of the one group. There always had to be an Other in every society, so if religion did not exist, we would have had a very similar scenario. I may be wrong, but this is how it seems.

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/25/08 - 11:50 PM:	#4
Correct, but in using Religion as a purpose, or a call to arms, does not make religion itself inherently bad, which was the question.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/26/08 - 12:54 AM:	#5
Religion can be very powerful. And power is as helpful or destructive as the person or people who direct it. I like your point, Abiathar, when you say that, if we had not ascribed anthropomorphic personifications to the naturally feared elements of our universe, we may still be living in caves, terrified of lightning. Perhaps religion was a necessary step in the progress of human civilization. Perhaps we had to believe in Mother Nature literally before we understand it as a metaphor. At the very least, it might not make sense to speculate about what if there never was religion. Instead, we can look towards the future and look at the present. Is religion accurate? How believable is it to us (as opposed to cavepeople)? Is it benefiting our society now? Are there more accurate or healthy ways of understanding and dealing with observed reality and our environment? On those counts, I think atheism is far preferable and less damaging. More important than atheism, I believe, is a firm respect for freedom including freedom of religion.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 04/26/08 - 02:20 AM:	#6
How is religion powerful? Perhaps we can understand it, if we divide religion into two kinds, direct and indirect worship of deities. Indirect worship of deities allows clergy to dictate the will of the deities, and thus they can steer the worshippers to commit atrocities. Now one can wonder how this differs from worshipping clergy rather than deities themselves, that it may constitute religion in the first place. If we allow of such a broader definition, then we see a man-defined-element take precedence over the deity-element, and this impurity is what allows these atrocities to be committed in the first place. An even broader definition would allow us to introduce non-man non-deity elements such as nature or cosmos as a whole. Relating to freedom, worshipping men or nature does necessarily lead to restriction of freedom, while worshipping deities directly does not, if said deities gave us freedom in the first place, and its commandments are such that they command us not to enter into bondage. If this is the case, then worshipping such a deity cannot be "hijacked" by any earthly authority to command us to commit atrocities, enter into bondage nor enslaving others, as the latter also involves entering into bondage. Finally, one can recognize that atheists must stand the same trials - does he bow down to any earthly authority, and so irrespective of this, what does the deity actually contribute in causing atrocities in the first place?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/26/08 - 02:53 AM:	#7
Since the deity does not reveal himself to contemporary people directly, the priests must interpret the old writings. This they do in the most advantageous (to the priesthood) fashion possible. By pointing beyond themselves to the deity for their authority, they divert attention from themselves, just like a successful stage magician.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 04/26/08 - 03:58 AM:	#8
rabeldin wrote: Since the deity does not reveal himself to contemporary people directly, the priests must interpret the old writings. This they do in the most advantageous (to the priesthood) fashion possible. By pointing beyond themselves to the deity for their authority, they divert attention from themselves, just like a successful stage magician. That is a correct analysis of indirect worship. Now if we are not to commit the same magic tricks as the clergy, we are to point out it is not religion that is at fault, but worship of men in authrorative positions(religious or not), and to blame religion is just diversion from looking at the real problem.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 04/26/08 - 05:58 AM:	#9
I consider religion to be essentially a form of insanity. I think it is nothing more than sickness of the mind. Religion is not so much a source of evil as it is evil in itself.
_____________________ kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Kreius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 80

Posted 04/26/08 - 07:18 AM:	#10
kris wrote: I consider religion to be essentially a form of insanity. I think it is nothing more than sickness of the mind. Religion is not so much a source of evil as it is evil in itself. If I'm not being too presumptious, may I ask the justification for this?
_____________________ "Challenge your professors, even when you agree with them." -Herr Iosity

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:00 AM:	#11
kris wrote: I consider religion to be essentially a form of insanity. I think it is nothing more than sickness of the mind. Religion is not so much a source of evil as it is evil in itself. Would that mean that atomism was also a source of evil in that they believed in something they couldn't see and philosophical thought was constructed from its base premises? How was Christianity (or the beginings of) evil when Jesus was around? He pushed for a movement of compassion for the sick, poor, and women. Was Muhammad practicing evil when he pushed for a movement of religious tolerance and equal rights for women? Was the civil rights movement in America an evil ideology? How is something evil when its telos is good? There is nothing inherently evil in any one idea -- it's how you use the idea. To the original question, I will pose the same question: How could religion be considered evil or the most evil when any idology can be attributed to the same amount of caused evil? Nazism was more a political, social, and economical driven ideology than religious. Many of the attempted genocides in africa are over control of land and resources than religion. Nationalism could be said to be more disasterous than religion. The Israeli/Palastinian conflict has less to do with religion than the promises made by Western civilization to the jews and arab nations. Economic and political ideologies could be easily seen as more destructive: communism in China/USSR/Cuba, Capitalism in the United states (indirectly hurts many countries in Africa and other continents). Is the war in Iraq religious, political, economic? Was the Vietnam war religious, political, or economic? Were the two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused by religion, politics, or economics? Are the tamil tigers more nationalistically oriented or religiously? How about the peruvian radiacls: is it more about the economic strangle-hold on the poor or is it because they are mostly christian? As before, the list can go on and on. The point is, people who dislike religion will blame religion; those who dislike capitalism will only see the economic side, etc. The flip-side also needs to be discussed. How has religion, politics, economics helped society as a whole as well. How many good deeds are driven by ethics and morals produced by religious philosophy?

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:38 AM:	#12
I see religion causing far more harm than any good it does. Of course, I am speaking as an outsider to this concept. My exposure to religion mostly comes from people who talk to me very enthusiastically about their religion and seem to want to "convert" me to something. I am happy with the way I am. Why anybody with any sense or sanity would want to "convert" me into something else is very puzzling to me. The term itself reminds me of the Frank Zappa song from the 80's about valley girl lingo. It is quite likely that I do not have a proper appreciation of the sense of the term 'religion'. Terms like this which represent an idea rather than a simple object or action are hard to decipher for those outside the closed group that uses such terms. So my impression of religion is necessarily an outsider's view of what the in group is talking about, which is why I started this thread. Unfortunately, so far I have not received a cogent answer to the questions I have raised there. May be some of you can answer my questions better than others who have tried.
_____________________ kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/26/08 - 12:12 PM:	#13
I think that the basis of this topic has been forgotten. The question was whether or not Religion, in and of itself, was inherently a bad thing for humanity. The actions and statements of other individuals has nothing to do with the concept behind religion, and as such ascribing a label of 'better' or 'worse' due to the actions that have been derived through religion, perpatrated by humans, does not hold to the topic.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:49 PM:	#14
Right Abiathar. I agree with kris too.

Leopald
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/27/08 - 01:13 AM:	#15
I believe religion, in its pure form, provides benefits for humanity. The institution of religion seeks to give explanation. Explanation for why we exist, explanation for what we are existing for, etc. Having faith in one religion or another defines what many seek to define-the purpose of existence. Religion has historically been the main institution for this explanation and has played an important role in creating unique cultures and allowing people to define themselves. Modern times see science as an alternate explanation for existence, but even scientific theories are not absolute. My main point I wish to make is that religion itself is not bad. I, myself, am not religious, but who am I to make such a judgement and say there is not a divine being? People that choose to be religious do so because they seek answers to their questions and they have faith in their particular god(s) ofchoice. It is not these people, in most cases, that give religion a bad wrap, but more-so politicians and extremist groups who seek to use religion as a method of control and manipulation. It is through these people, in my opinion, that the major detriments to human life have been caused. There will always be those that seek ways to manipulate the minds of the majority-the good of the majority must overlook the bad of the minority in this case!

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/27/08 - 03:46 AM:	#16
I think that it hard to say. Clearly religion has been a unifying and force for good in the past, as well as evil. Institutions that promote advantageous and useful dogmas and tenets has surely helped in the past, and I think it can be demonstrated that it has. Could this have been done without superstition? I don't know, would it have been better if it could have? I think definitely. Though I don't think humanity has ever been in a position to shed superstition in the past like it is today. I think that today, it is useless, and we can do without it quite well. Though it may well have been necessary, and a beneficial force in a tribal society. I am fully willing to accept that it was a necessary stepping stone in the development of civilization. We have nothing to compare it to really, so I think it is safe to give it the benefit of the doubt and say it was usefuly and helpful at one time.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 04/27/08 - 08:19 AM:	#17
Abdulation wrote: Many if not most non-religious people would agree that atrocities unimaginable were carried out in the name of a certain god or gods. To this day religion is considered by many as a major impediment to world peace.Considering this counter factual argument, I wonder how many would agree to the claim that religion was basically a source of evil, and who would contend that life could have been worse had it not been improved by religion. I think asking whether humanity would be better off without religion is like asking a painter that you want to him to paint your house, but you do not want him to paint using a 'color' because it wouldn't look right. If the painter wants to get the job done he would have to ask 'which colors' do you want him not to use. By using the blanket assertion 'we would be better off without religion' you are including all religons, even the one's that you are likely do not wish to make this assertion against. However, once you clearly state your position that you are against certain beliefs, but you are ok with others it becomes oblivious that you are merely attacking someone else's religious beliefs because they are not the same as your (religious) beliefs.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:37 AM:	#18
Isn't religion a belief system that conditions the way we see and governs the way we live? If it is, then it is a software, an operating system. Then, if you talk to one Christian, you are talking to all Christians. There are different variations of software. Chink software, Jap software, American software. I find it quite hilarious. That is why I like watching people at Heathrow or Changi Airport. We are not individuals but a bunch of softwares interacting and seeking some form of harmony.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:21 AM:	#19
Yes, a lot of horrors were done in the name of religion, but it doesn't necessarily follow that religion is the cause of those horrors. It was simply used an basis for justification of some horrors. Take religion out of the equation, as was done in the case of the Soviet Union, China and many satellite states. The horror and atrocities were still carried out. But not in the name of any god or gods. That scientifically clears religion of blame and points a more serious finger at human nature, nationalism, greed and the power of indoctrination. On the other hand, some forms of religions, (one without political authority or difficult to corrupt), becomes a uniting force for the average person to overcome an indoctrinating authority. In the end, discussion about the value of religion is moot, since it is just a projection for identity and purpose anyway.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

hipskipdip
_________

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Southern California
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 521

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:36 AM:	#20
I agree swstephe, but I did think of these two quotes: Alan Watts wrote: "Since opposed principles, ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principles will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture." Will Durant wrote: "Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous." To a degree, I think religion justifies their principles and ideologies with intolerance through blind faith. That's not to detract from it being a form of human nature anyway. Religion is a human affair.
_____________________ "What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

hipskipdip
_________

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Southern California
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 521

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:59 AM:	#21
"There is no greater social evil than religion." - A. C. Grayling, Life, Sex and Idea’s I consider Grayling, Hitchens, and Dawkins to be pretty radical in their atheist outlook as they seem to share a belief that religion is an instrument of evil. I see how religion easily leads people astray, but I see religion as an epiphenomenon (it’s a new big word for me - so what about it, look it up!) to human consciousness and cultural identity rather than a perpetuating disease or meme plaguing humanity. Religion is a social tool, social convention and practice predominate throughout human civilization which I disagree with entirely, and vestige in my own life much like the body’s appendix (seeing that it has no necessary use). But even still, far be it from me to tell someone they shouldn’t use it. I think what these three authors would or should want is to bring awarness to our social community so that we might offer more successful and useful alternatives to religion, (given that they’re actually more valuable) rather than simply a different religion. "There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it." - Bernard Shaw I sometimes fear that these radical atheists would prefer to cast all religious content to the flames. I enjoy studying religion/mythology for its poetic perspective of humanity in the hourglass of history. I have no scruples with mythologies when taken within their historical context. I see nothing wrong with various degrees of neuroglycopenia brought on by fasting or meditation resulting in other-worldly sensations common to religious practice; so long as it is taken for what it is... endogenous intoxication (arising from within rather than from the outside), despite what many mystics take to be contact with the holy or spiritual realities. Like Socrates, we’re all trying to answer that first and greatest question: What is virtue? That is, what’s valuable? The divide between most of us is how we approach the question. A question that naturally follows is: Can values be taught? Are values to be taught in order to make people behave as they (the moralist) find acceptable? But the point of equipping people to think about ethics is not to impose some partisan set of principles upon them, but to develop their powers of reflection, and to inform them of possibilities and options so they can think for themselves. Which of those options did you find to be more valuable? A 10th-11th century BCE Iranian prophet Zoroaster believed the following creed: Right Thought Right Practice/Word Right Deed would lead you to asa, truth. I wouldn’t contest that there are cultural conventions which are taught, but the greatest of men and women are those who are equipt to think for themselves, thus bringing the fruits of their trials to the benefit of all those they live with. Socrates always claimed he did not know the answer to the question of virtue. Only after his opponent fully appreciated the confusion of the matter did Socrates offer his input. Dogma must be set aside: "if a man will begin with certainties he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum. A culture is a relationship, not with convention, but with people of all kinds.
_____________________ "What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:27 AM:	#22
"People that believe absurdities will commit atrocities." - Voltaire. I'm not worried about the religious per se, I'm worried about people that believe absurd things. Whether they involve magic or not. I am often turned off by the secular community's instant dismissal and demonization of everything supernatural, while humming and hawing when secular absurdities are brought up. That is why I like Sam Harris the most, because he argues for rationality, and calling stupid ideas stupid ideas. Not necessarily religious ones, and not necessarily supernatural ones, just any absurdities. That is what I think. When something is wrong, and absurd, yet believed by numerous people, that can only even turn bad. I would agree that religion isn't necessarily bad, I do think that superstition is, and religions that involve superstition are thus necessarily bad. Lastly, Hipshipdip Dawkins actually doesn't argue that religion is necessarily bad or evil, he actually has said more than once that it something that could be empirically determined, and he doesn't know what the score would come up as, though he suspects that it likely does more harm than good, but he is just interested in what is true. He doesn't care nearly as much whether it's useful or harmful, it's wrong, and that what matters to him. Harris argues for reason and evidence, Hitchens argues that religion is evil, and Dawkins argues that it's wrong.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:45 AM:	#23
Unless someone can explain how exactly to define and measure and compare the positives vs. the negatives, the whole issue is unresolvable. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/28/08 - 06:59 PM:	#24
Worset said: "I would agree that religion isn't necessarily bad, I do think that superstition is, and religions that involve superstition are thus necessarily bad." Yiming: Hey Worset. Do you know that scientific fact is a supersition?

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/28/08 - 07:00 PM:	#25
Yes, indeed, its listed in the following manual: Webster's Dictionary.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.