What is the purpose of unregulated religion?

[IDMclean]

It would seem to me that God is the one exiled from the Garden of Eden.

 

In this modern day, what purpose does God truely serve? There is much to be said against religion, and much is said in it's defense.

 

Often it is said that Science can not provide the sense of "magic" that religion can. I do not accept this as true, in one sense of interp, and not as true in the second interp.

 

First interp is sense of "magic" as in wonder or awe. To which I would argue to the affect of "Sufficently advanced technology is indistigiushable from magic." Science in this sense can provide greater wonders than any before. Steel bricks that fly, and Rockets that traverse the distance between here and the moon, and back. Can religion claim the same, and validate or support it's claim? I think not.

 

Second interp is sense of "magic" as in magical thinking. In which case I would say, I certainly hope not. Magical tShinking is not consequtive to running a responsible, constructive society. I am confident in the conviction of science as being antithesis to this type of thinking. That not only does it discourage, but actively seeks out and disrupts, dissolves or otherwise dispels such tendencies.

 

So what is it exactly that religion does that science, philosophy, or ethics can not do, and can not do better?

[sebbysteiny]

So what is it exactly that religion does that science, philosophy, or ethics can not do, and can not do better?

 

1) It provides a set of ethical rules that people with limited intelligence or education can and are willing to follow. I mean, you don't want to receive the wrath of god do you?

 

2) It provides a community of people all of which develop similar cultural traits some of which have a very positive influence.

 

3) It provides a sense of hope to millions who might otherwise have none. This has on many occasions provided the motivation necessary to lift themselves out of all but impossible positions. Science, ethics and philosophy just isn't that inspirational.

[InfiniteNow]

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/6829-religion-lowest-common-denominator.html

 

I believe that religion is a direct result of our evolution as a species.

 

All life evolved from some life which came before it, the parent figure (even single celled organisms split from an organism before it), and this could easily have morphed (for many humans) into a sense that there exists a creator or god (or gods). No life would exist without life that came before it, so it seems a natural extension of this understanding that, with our enhancing intellectual and cognitive abilities, we’d search for something which itself came before life.

 

Also, we have survived largely as a result of being social creatures, supporting one another and symbiotically moving forward as packs. Perhaps in our travels, when disconnected from the pack, we’ve found solace in some “partner” in existence, however imaginary it may be. This partner later translated or grew into the god concept. Maybe the concept evolved and grew when we noticed that there were similarities in what we felt with the feelings of others among the group.

 

We search for meaning in everything. We seek to understand the world. We describe it, and share the description with others. Perhaps religion is just a lowest common denominator for it all. Our evolved tendencies as described above, coupled with our evolved search for meaning, finds overlap in the ideas of others… resulting in shared belief, shared stories, and shared religion (for many).

My idea is basically that those traits which helped us survive and evolve through the millenia have also spawned an inclination toward religion, diety, and spirituality. That humanity's propensity toward religion and god result directly from our group behavior and understanding of life as that which comes from some life previous to it.

[hallenrm]

Religion offers a direction for contentment in life, the reason to love fellow human beings who may not be as privilaged as ourselves! :circle:

[Boerseun]

1) It provides a set of ethical rules that people with limited intelligence or education can and are willing to follow. I mean, you don't want to receive the wrath of god do you?

Faith-based ethics is a bribe. When you follow a certain set of morals simply out of fear (the fear of God's wrath & hell), is that a moral position at all? I hold that there are good people and bad people, regardless of faith. Morality is human nature. Religion is redundant, and served in the old days to streamline society in the absence of strong central government. It has served its purpose - the reason its still hanging around is probably atibutable to cultural momentum.

2) It provides a community of people all of which develop similar cultural traits some of which have a very positive influence.

Religion has nothing to do with other people. Religion is escaping the eternal fear of death by giving people hope that there is life after death. The fear of death is built-in to us, and into every other animal. The fear of death is a handy device to ensure a species' survival. Any set of beliefs that plugs into the believer's most basic fears and instincts will probably have a high rate of success, and survival of the memetic structure of the belief itself. It doesn't give it even the first rudiments of truth, though.

3) It provides a sense of hope to millions who might otherwise have none. This has on many occasions provided the motivation necessary to lift themselves out of all but impossible positions. Science, ethics and philosophy just isn't that inspirational.

Those millions of people could believe in themselves for a change. At least they're real. It does not provide 'a sense of hope to millions', at best it provides the illusion of hope for there is, indeed, no heaven or hell or any of the trappings of formalised faith used to empty my pockets of smallchange. This is the most consistent stance in the whole debate, and the only stance consistent with the evidence at hand.

The Lord might move in mysterious ways, but science is empirical.

[IDMclean]

It would seem that the three issues which are brought up in the talks of institutionally based de-emphasis of a given religion, within the institution, are Ethics, Community, and Purpose.

 

In the Newscientist (Nov 18-24 2006) this issue was written about in responce to Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, hosted by the Science Network at Salk Institute for Biological Studies. In the article three major oppositions pop up. The three given above. Community is expressed as the replacement of an idol, which to me is the same as replacing a Ideal. Something to pull people together and define a common purpose.

 

It is often cited that God, and Religion provides these things and no other can to the degree that religion does. I find this stance contemputious myself, as I am a devout Academician (I have no word I find for what I am, anyone care to chip in?).

 

As I have outlined elsewhere, I hold knowledge, understanding, wisdom and truth as my religion. The closest approximation of what I hold faith in, and place my trust in is Secular Humanism. I need not any "religion" to be good, find community or purpose. My participation here is my practice of what might be called worship. There is a community none the less.

 

I have a vision, and a common purpose. I have ethics. I seek and I find. In my discovery, I grow and become better. More importantly, the more I grow the better I can help others to seek and the more they grow.

 

I know that I need not religion, or god. Not in any form that would be distinct from science, philosophy, ethics, or humanities.

 

I have faith, devotion, reverance, morality, purpose, and community. Religion can not claim responsibility.

[hallenrm]

I know that I need not religion, or god. Not in any form that would be distinct from science, philosophy, ethics, or humanities.

 

I have faith, devotion, reverance, morality, purpose, and community. Religion can not claim responsibility.

 

No dear, don't deny what you have said; :cocktail:

you just said

 

"I hold knowledge, understanding, wisdom and truth as my religion. The closest approximation of what I hold faith in, and place my trust in is Secular Humanism."

 

Religion dear KAC, is not Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and blah blah, it is a concept related to the way one leads one's life in society. It is not limited to any practices prescribed by any high priest or Holy book :esmoking:

[sebbysteiny]

No, you are mistaken, as you have already ppinted out above "You hold knowledge, understanding, wisdom and truth asyour religion.

...

Religion dear KAC, is not Christiany, Hinduism, Islam and blah blah, it is a concept related to the way one leads one's life in society. It is not limited to any practices prescribed by any high preist or Holy book

 

Bla bla bla bla bla. This is a philsophical question of 'what is relgion?' Sadly, the way I see it, this is a social sciences thread, so the standard 'Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu' and any other thing where somebody presupposes some kind of supernatural influence on the world is religion.

 

I'm not buying this 'science is your religion' rubbish. Nothing personal Hallenrm; just a passionate difference of opinion. Further, I think we should not get sidetracked into philosophical tangents as I'm not convinced they contribute to KickAssClown's original thesis; that religion does nothing that accademic reason cannot. Though KickAssClown is free to disagree; it's his thread and his thesis.

 

Religion offers a direction for contentment in life, the reason to love fellow human beings who may not be as privilaged as ourselves!

 

I feel I have been a bit mean to you. So that horrible human weakness called guilt is making me be extra nice to you on this :eek:.

 

I'm trying to work out if this is a new reason or just a combination of the three that I said.

 

Well, you talk about a 'contentment', an 'inner peace' at thinking you live a complete and fulfilled life. The closest I found was 'hope for millions'. I think that is a seperate reason.

 

Shall we call that reason 4: a sense of contentment; inner peace and fulfillment.

 

You also talk about charity, which alas I think comes under my 'code of ethics'. You talk about a 'reason to love human beings' which may come under either my 'ethics' or my 'community' factor.

 

Wow, and all that in just one tiny little sentence.

 

Boerseun

 

The points I made were simply answers to KickAssClown's question.

 

So what is it exactly that religion does that science, philosophy, or ethics can not do, and can not do better?

 

We all know that there are some quite serious flaws with religion too but all I was doing was answering the question.

 

Faith-based ethics is a bribe. When you follow a certain set of morals simply out of fear (the fear of God's wrath & hell), is that a moral position at all?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Still doesn't change things that people obey a code of ethics because of their religion.

 

I hold that there are good people and bad people, regardless of faith.

As do we all :).

 

Morality is human nature. Religion is redundant,

Aha, that's your thesis. If by that, you mean that people are not giving money to charity and doing good deeds thanks to their religion, I think your mistaken.

 

Having said that, I can't help but notice convicted criminals who become religious Muslims tend to go on and join Al Quaeda.

 

Nevertheless, the existance of SOME people on which it's had a positive effect IS a positive influence.

 

As I have outlined elsewhere, I hold knowledge, understanding, wisdom and truth as my religion. The closest approximation of what I hold faith in, and place my trust in is Secular Humanism. I need not any "religion" to be good, find community or purpose. My participation here is my practice of what might be called worship. There is a community none the less.

 

I have a vision, and a common purpose. I have ethics. I seek and I find. In my discovery, I grow and become better. More importantly, the more I grow the better I can help others to seek and the more they grow.

 

The key word here is 'I'. Yes, you have a code of ethics, common purpose, vision, drive etc. You are also a very bright person with prospects.

 

But what applies to you may not apply to every person you pass in the street. They will not have those things and they will not have the intelligence or education to come up with their own personalised code of ethics. So instead, they will need a standardised version given in a religion. You may not need it KAC, but others do.

 

Religion has nothing to do with other people. Religion is escaping the eternal fear of death by giving people hope that there is life after death.

 

Really? So who do you sit next to when you go to Church? Horses?

 

Every congrigation is a community. It's a connection to people that you would otherwise not meet. Think of that lonely pensioner who's friends and family of his generation have all died. He might not meet anybody at all if it wasn't for the religious community. And there are the social contacts for all generations. And the charities that give back to that and other communities.

 

I am atheist. But, although religion in my view has major flaws, this is the part I respect the most.

 

It doesn't give it even the first rudiments of truth, though.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that's relevant. This thread seems to me to be about practical benifits rather than truth.

 

It provides a sense of hope to millions

 

Those millions of people could believe in themselves for a change.

 

They could, but if you were a widow who had 3 babies, 2 of which had aids, you had aids and a dead husband, and all three babies were as thin as rakes and you were so malnourished your milk has run dry, would you have hope?

 

Religion might give them a belief of a better life for them; a reason not to give up. And belief's often have a habbit of becoming a self fulfilling proficy even for the secular.

 

It does not provide 'a sense of hope to millions', at best it provides the illusion of hope

 

You see, I'm not sure I understand the difference. Either a person hopes for a better life or they do not. 'You may think you hope for a better life, but you don't really, it's all an illusion???' Nope, still don't get it.

 

there is, indeed, no heaven or hell or any of the trappings of formalised faith used to empty my pockets of smallchange. This is the most consistent stance in the whole debate

 

You may be right, but I'm not sure it's relevant to the debate at all. Again, truth is not the purpose of this debate, if I understand it correctly.

 

 

 

Still, the points you made were made well. A good cracker about

The Lord might move in mysterious ways, but science is empirical

.

 

Even though I think they all hit the wrong target in the wrong thread at the wrong time, the techniqe of the punches alone deserves a QP in my view.

[IDMclean]

I bring this question, and I placed it here in the Social sciences because I have concerns about organizations being recognized as religions, which are potentially detrimental to our society. Take Scientology for instance.

 

I am all for people having religion, so long as there religion does not interfere with, or disrupt the society they live within. As such I do not think it is appropriate for the state to have an official religion, to give tax cuts on the account of religious beliefs, or otherwise favor, support or elevate in status, a religion.

 

They will not have those things and they will not have the intelligence or education to come up with their own personalised code of ethics.

 

Now contrary to popular belief, I am not anything special. I am just a human being like anyone else. My only parcularity is that I have been educated in such a way as to shape a constructively, critical, curious, consciencious individual. I can claim a good parent and a loving supporting extended family (once again on one side).

 

This however is not unique, it's not inheriented. I have skills, these skills I have been taught, or sought to learn myself. They take practice like anything else.

 

So if they don't have the Intellegence and Education, let's give them that. I will admit that adults are harder to teach new things, but children are very bright and they would be who I am thinking of, they are the target of religion.

 

But what applies to you may not apply to every person you pass in the street.

 

So the laws of physics differ for me? People have more in common than they have in differences. Otherwise some would be people and others would be morphs and yet others would be elves. What I mean is that people are people. A human being needs the same things as any other human being. So I don't buy that if it works for me it won't work for others.

 

Maybe if they hold superstitious beliefs or irrational doctrines, it wouldn't work for them. However that is not the shape of humankind that we want, as a society. Sure people are free to hold whatever religion they want. They are free to worship and free to change. That does not release them from their social obligations.

 

A person who kills in the name of his or her religion none the less kills. Religious beliefs does not make for a legal defense.

 

The idea of reward afterwards which has zero effect on reality, or society, is not a proper impetus and not one I would teach my kids. I know the response to that affirmation. "They'll work hard and be moral for the sake of getting into heaven." or "They won't do bad things because god will punish them for eternity.". That this will result in effects here and now. I have to ask though, what kind of effects?

 

Myself, I work on the assumption that my time is limited, and that what I do here is the lasting effect. I don't worry about my own existence, that would not be prudent.

 

The key difference is that in one frame the person is limited in resource here, but unlimited Thereafter. The focus would be on doing your best, while limiting your time here. The longer you live the more likely you are to mess up and end up in flame for all of eternity (imagine finding out your damned at eight years of age... your only sure fire way out is to martyr yourself).

 

In my frame I have limited time here, and no time afterwards. My focus is on doing my best here and now, and lasting as long as I may, for there is no after and so my best strategy would be to maximize my time and effect. Furthermore It is in my best interest to make my effect constructive, as it is consequitive to my future endevours. What is good for me is good for you. What is good for you is good for me.

 

So instead, they will need a standardised version given in a religion.

Religion would be a good standard if it was at all consistent, or relevant to day to day living. If we want to talk standards, let's talk institutional education. To learn say Christian ethics, you really must read the bible. I don't know how many of you have read that monster, but it's writtings are ages old and make very little sense to those of us who use modern language. Then on top of that, even if you do extract the meaning, you have to piece it together like a jig-saw puzzle and figure out what each thing means in relationship to each other thing.

 

Good as an intellectual puzzle, bad as a easily understandable standard. Hard to teach and hard still to standardize as each person's interp is fairly unique. Also I'll give you a hint. The pieces don't fit together.

 

Now Ethics, as a Philsophical field is concise, can be taught and understood by children and requires less puzzle piece fittings. There are pieces missing sure, but the whole puzzle is laid out before each person who learns it. Ethics is a field of standards. Each has a slight spin for each person but the over all is clear and in modern language.

 

So comparing time, effort and level of intellectual understanding, I would say it would be less time and effort to take up ethics than learn a religion. I mean if you don't like the religion you learn your ethics from, your going to have to go about learning another and that can take more time and effort and your not necessarily going to find any better.

 

Religion was put together by religious scholars with no standard method. Can the same be said of Ethics?

 

In short I would argue that people seek meaning, morality, and community. Independently of religious concearns. So how can a supernatural world view help to make a better brighter tomorrow? Religion has been at the root of Ideological wars, genocide, and all manners of irrational behavior. We have seen it, tested it and we know it's many outcomes. Like violence it is perhaps one of the best recorded experiements in human history.

 

More important than what problems does it create is what can it solve?

 

Will religion herald in a new era of peace, properity, and good will towards man?

 

I would certainly think not.

[HydrogenBond]

Whether one likes religion or not, religion is nevertheless one of the oldest forms of study and learning that is still go strong even today. Its longevity indicates a type of perpetual truth that still has an impact on the human condition. Science is a 'Johnny come lately' thinking it is the best way to go.

 

A good analogy are all the top dog cutures, throughout history, ready to change the world into its own image through imperialism. These empires all eventually fell to be replaced by others who also wanted to do the same. Religion quietly watches them come and go, offering a sense of continuity through the millenia, that the Johnny come lately can't seem to grasp. They offer a "better" short term solution that lacks longevity.

 

For example, the BB theory was the state of the art 50 years ago. This was the new eternal truth about the universe. Within a few decades, oops, we need an addendum, i.e, inflation. Now that was the new everlasting truth of all times. Another decade later, oops, maybe we need something else for the latest and greatest eternal truth that will never change. Religion chugs along holding steady every time the latest absolute final wisdom of science changes its mind. Is science all that equiped to lead human nature when it can't even define it or agree on one definition? It will change the rules of the game every decade or so, helping to promote the latest fad or self interest.

[hallenrm]

Dear HydrogenBond, though I would tend to agree with your opinions expressed above, I can smell a bit of dogmatic character in it! A yearning for permanance and degrading the changes that characterizes true science. Yes, I can sense that people are often uncomfortable with ideas that are changing often and therefore prefer permanent ideas.

 

I therefore very humbly suggest the following ideas:

 

We are!

We are here on the planet Earth.

We are most comfortable when at peace (?)

To survive we have to learn to live togather.

We cannot live togather if we continue to eliminate one another.

 

Can't this set of ideas, that are compatible with almost all religeous teachings constitute an alternative paradigm?

 

:)

[HydrogenBond]

What you say is true. The problem with having no religion is that culture tends to give mixed signals with respect to living these ideal ethics. For example, science likes Darwinism, selective advantage and survival of the fittest. This puts pressure to go the other way. This is reinforced by economic theory of efficiency, competition and allocation of resources. Then there is the conflicting socio-political theory with the contrast between inefficient Socialism and thriving Democracy, etc., If a person wants to do what religion preaches, i.e., ideal ethics without religion, it is three social pressures against one. If we add God to the blend, the one from the "big guy" supersedes the ever changing temporal wisdom of man, giving more weight to follow the more difficult path.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is another angle to consider with respect to modern religion. Lets take Christianty for an example. Back maybe 500-600 years ago there was only one church or orientation. Today there are literally hundreds of distinct churches preaching their own version of Christianity. There are about a half dozen or so big guys, with many subdivided further.

 

It is not coincidental that this change paralleled the Age of Enlightenment and the movement toward reason and science. Logic, reason and science try to differentiate the world into all its details. This works for science since proof can be supplied. When this technique is applied to religion, we get the differentiation, but religon is not able to provide objective data like science but retains a residual of subjectivity.

 

Religion was designed to talk to the right side of the brain. This is the spatial or 3-D side of the brain that uses symbols to express itself. God is the best example of a 3-D concept. It contains so many possible factors, even opposition, that go beyond logic. An intuition about God says the same thing without having to put it into words. This intuition is an output from a fast dense 3-D language in the right side of the brain. It one tried to puff out this 3-D memory called God, using reason, you could fill libaries because of its dense data organization.

 

Since the Age of Enlightment, people have been trying to express the 3-D symbolic language of religion into 2-D. There are trying to make rational sense out of something that is spatial. This puffs them out into umpteen different opinions.

 

A good analogy is the human body. It is a highly integrate organism that works in 3-D. Modern religion attempts to differntiate the 3-D nature of religion into its many aspects. Some are talking about the hands, others about the feet, etc.. There is truth in what they say, creating conviction, but they all seem to forget that the body is more than the hands or feet. This is where the 3-D language of symbols comes. Instead of breaking the body into hands and feets, it uses common threads that are more spatial, than differential, such as the blood supply, nervous tissue, etc.. These are common to both the hands and feets as well as all the body parts.

[Boerseun]

Is science all that equiped to lead human nature when it can't even define it or agree on one definition? It will change the rules of the game every decade or so, helping to promote the latest fad or self interest.

Hey - that's the beauty of science! It is self-correcting, and dynamic, It keeps up with the times, and theories adapt to include and cater for new data. Religion, on the other hand, is also dynamic (think reformation, etc.) but at a snail's pace. Religion (the catholic flavour, at least) have stated through the pope, no less, that Creationism shouldn't be taken too seriously, and that the catholic church's official position on the matter is that evolution happened. This would've been unthinkable a few years ago...

 

Evolution happens in science, all the time. And any theory built solely on self interest as stated above, will be weeded out and replaced with more robust theories supported by the evidence at hand. I think your take on science is slightly flawed!

[IDMclean]

The laws of statistical probability pretty much insure that only the most relevant data will survive for any ammount of time. Society can be seen pretty much as a genetic algorithm that selects for the information that propagates the algorithm of selection.