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.
Jon Wolfe
“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.”
Joseph Campbell
This quote really sums up why religion or the notion of god will not and should not outlive its usefulness. I do not wish to argue that many of the dogmatic belief systems are archaic, in many ways they cannot related to the current age. This, however, does not diminish their meaning’s or purpose which are allegorical in nature.
A religion is there to help guide one through life, so that they may be happy and serve their finite time on earth meaningfully. It gives people faith, not just blind faith, but faith that things can and will get better in times of darkness or destruction.
Science and technology will never be able to answer all questions. I will leave you with this final quote.
“Wherever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history, or science, it is killed. The living images become only remote facts of a distant time or sky. Furthermore, it is never difficult to demonstrate that as science and history, mythology is absurd. When a civilization begins to reinterpret its mythology in this way, the life goes out of it, temples become museums, and the link between the two perspectives becomes dissolved.”
"The Hero With a Thousand Faces", Joseph Campbell
Tim Colgan 50+
He had one statement, though, that really gets to the crux of the problem that I have with religion:
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." Joseph Campbell
Considering the damage that occurs when religious metaphors are interpreted as facts, is it inappropriate for us to object to this kind of thinking?
Jon Wolfe
What about the damage that can and has occured through the advancement of science( e.g. atom bomb, chemical, biological weapons)? Should we "object to this kind of thinking"? Or should we accept the fact that along with the good there is a capacity of bad or misuse.
>>Is it inappropriate for us to object to this kind of thinking?
Specifically, what kind of thinking ,using allegorical stories in general or treating allegorical stories as facts? Can you have one without the other?
Tim Colgan 50+
You've really got me thinking about the meaning of myth in general (btw - have added "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" to my reading list). So perhaps it just comes down to a battle of mythologies. As Steven Hawking has said:
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
On the other hand, maybe science will just get us in trouble and we would have been better off just remaining hunter-gathers living in tribal communities.
One big issue with "religion" in the traditional sense is that there are so many of them and they tend to be in conflict. How do you see this resolving?
anthony bruni 30+
Instead of dismissing myth cause it is easily abused we need to constantly question religion. If for some reason 99% of scientist were faking result we would not say the scientific method was bad and prone to abuse, but rather would work on exposing the bad methodology and trying to create our own science.
Tim Colgan 50+
I can see the value of a body of literature telling stories for us to ponder and ask "do they have relevance to our life?".
Can a religion emerge which allows all myths to be accepted as possible useful metaphors, yet none to be singled out as the sole truth?
anthony bruni 30+
Nicholas Mascheroni
Mind S 30+
Why don’t you seek “meaning”, “purpose” and something to “help guide one through life” by way of reason and logic, and by adopting humanitarian thoughts instead of relying on “dogmatic” and “archaic” belief systems that “cannot related to the current age”(Quotations are from your comment). I wonder (particularly because you have introduced yourself as a scientist.) about your submission to delusional myths to achieve these goals instead of adopting logical, factual and reasonable ever evolving alternatives that can provide you with peace of mind, better human relations, existential meaning and purposeful life.
Tim Colgan 50+
Just to play the "devils" (slash that out), God's advocate here - do you see anything in religions (sense of community, etc.) that would be missing in a society without religion? What are the other ways to get provide those things?
Jon Wolfe
Also, mentioning reason and logic, read some David Hume or Karl Popper, you will quickly see that logic and reasoning is not as cut and dry as you may expect.
Tim, I think religions do offer a great sense of community. It is a shame that many of the greatest minds today don't have a weekly get together much like a religion would. I guess in a way TED is trying to achieve just that, getting highly intelligent people together to better the world.
Finally, there is something to be said about the tradition involved in many religions, allowing you to connect back to something people have felt throughout history, linking us all together.