Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

[Yygdrasil]

Just as the title suggests, I'm curious what your opinions are. I ask only that everyone maintain a level of maturity and not mudsling or flame anyone else for their opinions. Such behavior will result in this thread being locked immediately. Discuss.

[Taskmage]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Oh ye gods, this is going to be awful. This started because I was watching this:

And I said that I was disappointed with the level of discourse that even hand-picked intellectuals brought to the subject.

[Armando]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Religion is necessary insofar as science is incapable of answering questions people want answers to. When floods or earthquakes or hurricanes would come out of nowhere and destroy everything you worked for, religion let people sleep at night by providing some explanation.

I think the number of important life questions that remain unanswered by science has shrunk so much that religion does more harm than good right now. But if someone finds some nonrational belief that gives them comfort during hard times and they still manage to act like sensible people, I won't judge them for it.

[Taskmage]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Being that I am, apparently, implicitly, committed to giving this hell-bound snowball a chance, I would ask that any brave soul willing to reply do their damnedest to speak about organizations and ideologies in a way that is not patently insulting to its adherents. For example, stay away from words like "delusional," and if "delusional" is exactly what you mean, then at least try to find a more politic way to express it.

Y'know what? For each page this thread remains on topic without necessitating a lock, I will eat another hat. I predict I will consume a minimal amount of empty calories as a result of this.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

I'm going to say it's probably a wash. The perceived problems and benefits of religion both basically boil down to being issues with people. There are people who do good and people who bring ruin and suffering. Religion just happens to be one of the many things people attribute their actions to, but at the end of the day it's still an issue grounded in people.

[Mezlo]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

I... agree with Cid? Yeah, I do. Something must be wrong...

[Aksannyi]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

As someone who considers herself to be spiritual but not necessarily religious, and who also grew up in a religious household, I will say that while I believe in some sort of higher power, the world in general would be better off without, though only marginally so.

Too much killing in the name of X, too much hatred that people use X religion as an excuse for ... not saying that the killing and hatred would go away, though some of the so-called "holy" wars would not have happened.

However, I feel religion gets a bad rap because of the way people use it as their excuse for anything. The only thing I do in the name of religion (so to speak) is from the privacy of my own home. I'm not public about it. If someone asks me what I believe, I will tell them, but only if. But I'm the minority when it comes to religious and/or spiritual people. Most at least go to some organized service, which in and of itself is not bad. But many take it much further - and some take it far enough to be a nuisance - like my mother, for example, bugging me about going to church and becoming Catholic again. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but a part of my life I could do without, like getting oil changes or female problems.

With all that said, I think without, people would find their own ways to cope with the world around them. But I'm not sure we'd be anywhere different than we are right now. People would still kill other people. People would still hate other people, and use something else as the scapegoat for it. (No more "God hates fags," now it's say ... "Santa hates fags." etc.) I don't think much would change either way, which is why I always find it amusing when people who shun religion cite all the horrible crimes that have happened as a result of it. It's true those have happened, but you can step back and look at the world and see that the same shit would have happened regardless, just maybe in a different way. So conclusion: I don't know. I'd say yes, the world would be better without, but marginally. I think the change wouldn't be as big as one might surmise.

[Armando]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Religion just happens to be one of the many things people attribute their actions to, but at the end of the day it's still an issue grounded in people.

I've always felt religion is more concerned with the afterlife than the current life. If you don't care whether your soul is eternal or there's some sort of end-of-life judgement, rational thought or game theory will do your moral compass as much good.

[Icemage]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Religion does not change fundamental human nature. The effect is probably neutral overall in terms of how people behave toward one another. Religion doesn't have a choke-hold on stupidity. Many of the objectively bad dictators of the 20th century like Stalin were atheists (I refuse to invoke Godwin's Law here, this topic is incendiary enough without it).


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

I... agree with Cid? Yeah, I do. Something must be wrong...

That's the sobriety kicking in.

[Armando]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Religion doesn't have a choke-hold on stupidity.

The death of the GOTO statement didn't usher in a new era of great programmers and clean code, but it was still a step in the right direction. The death of religion may not be a silver bullet but I think it's fair to question if it's still of any use to us right now. Isn't atheism/agnosticism on the rise? I think the very fact that we can have this discussion shows it doesn't have as much of a chokehold on society as it used to.

[Icemage]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

The death of the GOTO statement didn't usher in a new era of great programmers and clean code, but it was still a step in the right direction. The death of religion may not be a silver bullet but I think it's fair to question if it's still of any use to us right now. Isn't atheism/agnosticism on the rise? I think the very fact that we can have this discussion shows it doesn't have as much of a chokehold on society as it used to.

It is, at least in the USA.

Survey: One in five Americans has no religion – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Roughly 20% of US population now identifies as non-religious. Still a minority, but a growing one.


Icemage

[Aksannyi]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

Guess this fits here then:

[Aeni]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

We need to separate out Religion and Spirituality. Yes, they are at times closely associated with each other, but the defining difference is that religion is ONE of varying ways to express spirituality. Therefore, religion by itself is not required for spirituality, in both expression and practice.

Also, my opinion of religion is that it is a belief system, so therefore if you subscribe to either believing in a religion or believing in the non-existence of that religion (and all that comes with it) you're being religious. Saying something like, "I don't believe in God or I don't believe God exists and therefore I'm not religious" is an inaccurate statement because you're still "believing" in an ideology. If you are not religious, you are simply choosing not to observe any beliefs, which is an entirely different discussion altogether.

[Taskmage]

Re: Religion. Is the world better for it, or without it?

I think that religion as a package for stories, values, and concepts to be shared and passed down, has been useful in the evolution of ideas, but as communication becomes easier over the course of history, religion begins to lose its benefit and even become detrimental to intellectual progress. For example, there's an implicit imperative in the Abrahamic tradition that if you believe in the Ten Commandments then you must also believe that homosexuality is an abomination. To everyone here that's probably absurd, but you know there are places in the US where this kind of thinking prevails. More and more over the last few centuries, this idea that if you believe in the Bible then you must accord to everything in it has been eroded. I think the more people can evaluate these things critically and individually, the healthier we will be as a people, and the pinnacle of that will be the Bible becoming just another book, with some great ideas and some terrible ones, and not the centerpiece of a major world culture.

There are specific tenets of some religions that I think are inherently destructive that the world would be better off without. The idea of afterlife is one. If afterlife is important, then moral actions are motivated either by the fear of punishment or the promise of reward, both of which I find to be a disgusting basis for moral reasoning. If when you die you simply cease to exist, and the only way to evaluate your life in retrospect is the legacy of your earthly works, I think that creates a much more sound frame of mind for making moral judgements and conducting your life. Now, some Christians may say that it's not about that at all; that Christians act morally because that's the example set by Jesus. I find that more honorable, but still flawed. That's still accepting a concept of morality whole cloth from an authority figure, albeit one whose authority is based on trust and reverence still an authority figure, which is a somewhat inflexible one-size-fits-all morality that doesn't necessarily consider its consequences on a case-by-case basis as I think should be done. Even taking that to be the case, the postulation of an afterlife, then, is unnecessary and religion would be better off without it.

As far as the historical triumphs and atrocities that are attributed to the existence of religion, "religion" can take no more credit or blame for these things than the concept of "nation." Tribes of humans war with each other and care for their kin, some tribes being more accepting of others and some less, and the character of particular tribes not even being constant over the ages. Religion in that sense is just another way that like people band together, and it's more to do with the people that good or bad things happen, rather than the banner they fall behind.

So the answer isn't yes or no. As always on these boards, it's situational.