This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Has religion outlived it's usefulness?
I'd like to start this conversation with a quote from Richard Dawkins:
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"
The Guardian, October 11, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/11/afghanistan.terrorism2
So my question is - assuming religion ever did serve a useful function for humanity, is it perhaps time that we get beyond religion and develop other tools to provide for human needs?
NOTE: To people making comments - I encourage you to not only give a brief response to the main question but also try to respond to one or more of the other comments. Keeping it brief, respectful and perhaps phrased as a question will help generate a true conversation. Thanks. And come back and visit when you can.
Closing Statement from Tim Colgan
Many thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. Upon starting this conversation I was concerned that ted wasn't the right place, fearing it would be dominated by a single mind-set. But the diversity of opinions expressed here is amazing. These threads represent a true mosaic of human opinion. Perhaps not a perfect sampling, but a fascinating cross-sample of personal beliefs. The conversations themselves reveal a bit about humanity - filled with sibling rivalries, with moments of compassion. Highly recommended to anyone to take the time to read.
Although it's probably obvious from the conversation's introduction that my intentions included an agenda, that agenda was soon blown out of the water. We had trouble coming to agreement on the definition of religion. Whether it's called religion or not, humans need institutions to provide it's function. To me religion is most symbolized by it's place - temple, mosque, synagogue, church... A place where people gather to share their humanity and ponder the infinite, and their place in it. Perhaps ted is one of those places.
Thanks again to all who contributed. It has been truly enlightening. That's to say, each of you has shone light into some aspect of our topic.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Volney Faustini 100+
The radicals - on any matter, issue or belief are a danger to themselves and others: if he is a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist. Of course any bad or wrong behaviour should be adressed by law and justice. But subjectively what can a disagreer do?
Try to eliminate or to put any kind of limits or restrain on people's creed is just impossible. And using the argument that it is for the sake of humanity is just like throwing the baby away with the dirty water.
Religion cannot be properly defined or characterized. Any kind of human movement in groups motivated by some kind of idealism or subjectivity can fall into the same trap. Anti religion is another kind of religion. Freedom above all is the best policy.
Christianity has shown itself to be extremely bad on many occasions, and extremely good on others. The same applies to other religions. September 11 - how awfull and heartbreaking - is one example of the many attrocities played by man.
Many give the argument that Western society would not be what it is otherwise if it wasn't for its Christian pressupositions and beliefs.
Now, as we live in times where Institutions are on the brink - let the reactions, the reform movements, the self healing efforts and so on, be natural, spontaneous and nevertheless human.
Tim Colgan 50+
If more people in Bush's or Blair's inner circle had confronted them on their divine inspirations, perhaps it could have had a significant effect.
John Wallace
BTW, I agree about Bush. But I was not presented with his situation and his responsibility.
Mr Internet 30+
Jon Wolfe
First off, what archaic principles are shaping society? I just want some clarification of the specific principals your talking about and why they are bad. Also, which of these ideas run counter to reason?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Prove it.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I mean the laws are immutable, but I don't see them meaning what you conclude for them. Systems evolve within those laws of nature, laws that are synonymous with the way particles interact which each other and how space-time itself takes form. I think you're skipping a lot of steps between your conclusion and premise;
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Michael McLoughlin
For Miss. K,
I hold a great contention for your argument about the energy scientists talk about and religion's concept of spirit. The concept of energy is fundamental to physical sciences and is astoundingly well understood. If you could provide evidence for, a definition of, and the connection therein to energy, for the for the concept you presented in the word 'spirit', I would appreciate it.
Moreover, nitpicking on words and harassing Mathieu for not looking up the particulars of a definition or the etymology of a word is an ad-hominem attack and is a logical fallacy that does not negate his argument nor advance yours whatsoever.
Also, claiming that one's mind is too intellectually dense for 'spirituality' holds no weight and is not an argument. Therefore, it does not diminish the statements of others or advances yours.
Also, this idea of the 'immutable law of nature' is complete bunk.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
"Plant an apple tree, rely on it producing apples, not figs.
A cow will bring forth a calf, not cubs."
Is in not true that given enough time, from one species other species can be borne out? The apparent immutability of organisms is only but an illusion of a short timescale.
Sure there are laws of nature that don't ever change for our particular Universe, but from none of these can we seriously conclude your so-called 'elegant' conclusion. Things bringing forth their kind? On the contrary I see transformation everywhere. The elements that compose us were forged in the hearts of massive stars for example.
Like Michael says, your immutable law of nature idea is complete bunk.
Steve Frazee 500+
Surely the human mind holds onto religion for a specific reason. A frontal, logical, attack on the belief systems does little good. Dawkins talks about helping the "middle of the road" people to know that living a life without religion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If that is his end goal, then maybe his approach is working.
Minds that hold tightly to the religious meme do so for a reason. Subtlety is required. I call that work "meme tweaking" whereby new ideas are submitted in a way that does not trigger a defensive response by the core meme.
It continues to surprise me that Dawkins uses such a brute force technique.
Tim Colgan 50+
So just taking one issue for discussion - might it not be very important, from a societal deprogramming perspective, of a movement such as prohibiting prayer in publicly funded schools?
Volney Faustini 100+
His 2008 book The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It - challenges us to a higher and more noble position that is more than being tolerant: to be civil. And I agree with him. The public square is not to be naked (stripped of any religion) nor to be sacred (as some Muslim Societies are - and sad to say - some radical Christians would love).
Although the question was not posted - but it comes about that when we want to square in on religion (or better saying to put religion on the table and try to strip it). This is just an impossible task for the quest to believe is innate in the human being, and that is what gives us power to decide and live. Each one of us has a personnal faith - Philosphy and Epistemology will give us more light on the matter.
So as I tryed to make my point in my other comments - we fall into a trap not being able to separate Religion from other forms of 'ism's. The assumption that Religion follows a sacred text is limited. What counts is not what we explain for our deeds and behaviour (afterward) but what came before, and caused us to act (and live) and that is ... our personnal belief system.
Tim Colgan 50+
So maybe we can divide the discussion into two parts:
Scriptural based religions: Do you believe it is wrong to confront scriptural based thinking and "evangelize" in favor of reason?
Non-scriptural based religions: How do you define this? If the definition is "a personal belief system", then I guess the original question could never be answered in the negative, for how could personal belief systems ever cease to be useful?
Tim Colgan 50+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXzgs7Tyys
Os is definitely a master of the metaphor. Thanks for your suggestion. Although you and I differ on technicalities, I appreciate your sticking it out in our discussion.
Volney Faustini 100+
RD does in fact create a new religion to fight a widespread creed under the umbrella which peolple believe in a Supreme Being. It is easy to fall into a cry mourning for having to live in the same world where people don't accept the same 'ism as we do.
I understand perfectly well - even though being a Brazilian - that American Society is in a constant strugle with the religious influence perpetuaded by those with political power. But the Democratic Sistem has to find ways to minimize any kind of bad influence.
I would say - since Mr. Bush is mentioned - that the great majority of the Latin American Christians (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) did not endorse his decision for war, and felt that his motivations were more personnal than religious.
Peter Law
We have the same thing in the central belt of Scotland, divided by football team. What has this to do with sincere faith in Jesus Christ ? Absolutely nothing, but many people just lump it together in their mind.
I think freedom of speech is sacrosanct , should be protected at all costs & if young men want to follow 'religious' football teams then ; subject to the rule of law; that should be allowed. If we start banning religion, then it will only be a matter of time before they ban bingo, fishing, or whatever your particular thing happens to be. We must protect the freedom of others if we aspire to freedom for ourselves.
The Americans seem to have a problem with their democracy. Doesn't the guy with the most votes get in ? If not then fix it, or maybe folks don't vote for Atheists. It's democracy right ?
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
One which is most striking to me is your associating belief in reason to a form of religion. I can see the parallel in terms of both being a belief system. But when I talk about religion, I'm referring to a belief system based on a holy scripture and/or a divinely based authority.
I'm wondering - what is your opinion concerning the usefulness for this type of religion? Can you understand my interest in seeing this type of thinking diminish?
Steve Frazee 500+
But to @Tim's points above, I am a fan of Stephen Prothero's push to teach comparative religion in public schools with a focus on the top ten religions by population. In addition, I believe our schools would do well to teach a modernized from of Aristotelian Ethics. Science and Public Eduction have let go of the subjective discussion of the a fulfilling human experience. I think this may be the unmet demand that religion fills.
When we begin to have modern discussions of human thriving I believe much of revealed religion will begin to naturally fade away. I see no need to directly confront the irrational constructs of revealed theology from the Abrahamic traditions. Instead, something should be offered to humanity that is more relevant and useful. When that happens, the archaic belief forms to wither.
Society is a memetic marketplace with major brands holding much market share. Any group wishing to displace stalwart brands will need to supply something that fulfills the existing demand. Personally I believe there is an enormous unmet demand for rational spirituality. Or maybe it should be called applied spirituality.
daniel hehir 20+
Tim Colgan 50+
In my comments in other threads, I've searched for benefits of religion, but had trouble coming up with anything more that "meeting a need for community".
But your phrase - "fulfilling human experience" - open my mind to other ideas such as:
. where one can go to teach
. hear music and participate in it's making
. be in a visually interesting environment
. get involved in social movements
. be part of a book club
. do some meditation
. etc, etc
Which are perhaps all related to a need for community but somehow (for me at least) broadens the purpose of religion.
Do you know of any good examples of religion-like communities developing which provide these benefits without resorting to a dogmatic and/or exclusionary mindset?
Steve Frazee 500+
The concept is to service the group of people that are Spiritual But Not Religious through discussion of applied spiritual practices and the wonder of every day experiences. It will be a community based on intersection values not belief. It is non-dogmatic except in its dogmatism of being non-dogmatic. It's on a shoestring budget right now as we get it going and is only a glimmer of what it is intended to be.