|
|
Aside from literalist cranks, no one believes that religion helps in any way to explain the functioning of the universe. Since at least the 1800s, science has been the field everyone turned to if they wanted to know how the universe works. At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science. Religion just can't explain nature.
So what use does religion serve in modern society? The religious often claim that religion serves a purpose that science cannot - moral guidance. But that claim is bunk, too. It is plainly obvious to anyone who has studied history, and who can understand statistics in even the most basic way, that religious people are not more moral than non-religious people. Indeed, philosophically, the very notion of morality just doesn't work with religion. Religion just can't explain morality.
The only thing left seems to be... religion. As in, religion describes religion. The only thing religion can tell us about is what is in the religion - religion can tell us volumes about gods, demons and angels... but nothing else. And gods, demons and angels don't have any practical relevance in daily life - you don't clean your teeth every morning by praying to gods, and you don't do your job by relying on the assistance of angels. Society's very functioning has no reliance on, or even care about, demons. So, yes, while religion can tell us about religious stuff... that stuff doesn't really matter.
So what is the usefulness of religion? It cannot help us with nature or morality, and while it can help us understand gods and spirits better... who cares?
To make the question practical, put yourself in the shoes of an urban planner, laying out the landscape of a city. Space is at a premium, so you don't want to waste it on crap... but at the same time, you want to make sure your city has all the services it needs to survive. Let's say you have a plot of land you have to allocate. Your choices for what to put there include:
- Housing (for people to live in)
- Commercial (for people to work, and get services from)
- Green space (for health reasons)
- Schools, libraries (for education)
- Stadiums, rinks, arenas (for health reasons, entertainment, and some employment, too)
- Theatres, play houses, art galleries (for entertainment, culture, and some employment, too)
- Hospitals, police stations, fire stations (for obvious reasons)
- And more!
Given all of those options... what possible reason could you have for selecting a church (where a church represents religion in general)? What benefits to the city you are planning can the church possibly provide? How does including religion in your city plan make it a better city?
I would agree with most of the things you said in your question and being a scientist and having not an ounce of religion in me, I still think religion serves a purpose in the human culture. The truth is science can't answer all the questions like:
What are we here for? what is the meaning of life? is there a greater scheme?
But people can't help to keep asking themselves these questions and I think for many people religion is the best to find a comforting answer, maybe not the true answer but a comforting one. I also think churches are a way for a community to get together and work together. I am personally not part of a church, but I know people that goes to church feel they are part of something greater and I bet that is a good feeling.
So, if you are looking for a practical purpose for the church...I don't know...but it has its purpose for people and this is obvious because of how popular they are!
One thing some of the religions can provide is peace of mind to some of the followers.
A benefit of a church in a city is it allows for a sort of community club, even though it's exclusive to a certain sect. One could argue that a church doesn't benefit the population as whole since it's not open to all walks of life (without wanting to change others to their way of life at least) and doesn't contribute anything in the way of jobs. Ignoring the latter short coming, the former shouldn't be grounds for denying this kind of establishment since not everyone makes use of theaters, art galleries, libraries, etc.
Churches have some use in the community even if it is much more limited.
| miacps wrote: | Ignoring the latter short coming, the former shouldn't be grounds for denying this kind of establishment since not everyone makes use of theaters, art galleries, libraries, etc.
Churches have some use in the community even if it is much more limited. |
There's a difference, though. Not everyone makes use of libraries, art galleries, theaters, etc... but... there's more to that story. You have to a theater to have a theater. You have to have a gallery to set up a gallery. You have to have an ice ring for ice skating. You do not, however, have to have a church (and by that, I mean a traditional church building) to have a church community. People often set up churches in schools (since they're out on Sundays anyways), garages, public auditoriums, etc.
If I were to set up my city, I would have houses take up the majority of the area. If there are not houses/apartments, then you have no residents. That leads to a limited economy. The second biggest percentage of land would go to shopping center/business areas. Between the many residents and many opportunities, the economy should do well. I would have the library right in the center of the city, easy for anyone to get to. I would have the schools on the corners/edges of the city. Between each school would be the parks, green areas, recreational activities...
To try and visualize it, this is how it would be: several schools set up around the perimeter with the recreation between each school... the town center would the library... surrounding the library would be the shopping centers, and between the shopping centers and schools would be the houses. I would also leave several areas available for private purchase, so that if any group of people want to build a church, they can purchase property and build it.
Edit: Oh crap! I was reading back on this and realized that I completely forgot the police/fire stations/hospitals/etc. The hospital should go next to the library in the center of the city so that an ambulance can get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. The fire station and police station would be on opposite sides of the cities between schools where the recreational activities go.
| Indi wrote: | | So what use does religion serve in modern society? |
There is no usefulness attached to religion. It is not supposed to be useful. It is supposed to be so much more than that. Religion is supposed to be the reason for living, and to explain why we are around and where we are heading.
| natilovesmike wrote: | The truth is science can't answer all the questions like:
What are we here for? what is the meaning of life? is there a greater scheme?
But people can't help to keep asking themselves these questions and I think for many people religion is the best to find a comforting answer, maybe not the true answer but a comforting one. |
There is a huge different between is and should be. Right now, religion is the most popular way to answer these questions ("best"? Hardly. Don't confuse most popular with best.). But should it be?
i don't deny that right now the solution is to slap a church in these zones and call the job done. But what i am asking is should that be the solution we reach for? Is religion really the "best" way to address this social need?
These questions are not scientific questions, yes, but does that mean we have to throw up our hands and pass them off to religion? Is there no other option?
As a matter of fact, there is, and it's one half of the name of the very forum you are reading right now: philosophy. Philosophy attempts to answer these questions, but it does so in a way that is far more productive and educational than religion does. Rather than simply saying "trust the religion", it provides reasoning for any answers it gives, and rather than saying "dissent is heresy", it encourages listeners to challenge its claims. Both of these facts mean a much healthier intellectual environment for the citizens.
So let me throw this out, just off the top of my head. Rather than zone areas for churches, why not zone an area as a "free speech zone". Build it up in an architecturally interesting manner, letting local artists and architects show off their design chops - for example, you could make it look like the steps of the Parthenon! Then the city could bring in speakers for weekly or semi-weekly presentations - thinkers from all around the world to share their ideas on philosophy, or even futurism. For example, in the space of a month you could have:
- Ben Bova - talking about the morality of extended life spans and immortality.
- David Levy - discussing love and sex with artificial partners.
- Brenda Brathwaite - talking about the future of computer entertainment.
- Frans de Waal - who has studied politics in chimpanzee populations, and their parallels in humans.
- Daniel Levitin - talking about music and its influence on the brain.
- Paul Watson - on eco conservation.
- Pier Giorgio Di Cicco - talking about Catholicism.
- Gregory Harper - on the future of an information society.
How awesome would that be? (These speakers and topics were just plucked from ideaCity - in reality the real speakers may not be so famous, due to the cost, but the topics are representative.) Furthermore, to offset the cost to the city of bringing these speakers and paying for the electricity and so on for their presentations, whenever there are no official presentations, anyone who wants can rent out space on the cheap and present whatever they want, from archaeology to Zoroastrianism - the only rules being they cannot do hate speech or disturb presentations in other spaces. This may not only offset the costs of special speakers, it may even turn a profit! (Churches make no money for cities.) And anyone who doesn't want or can't afford an official platform with electricity, screens and boards - anyone who can share their message with a placard and a bullhorn - can speak for free anywhere they want, so long as they do not disturb other speakers (or preach hate).
How about that? A space where anyone can speak freely on any topic they want, so long as they respect others, and where - if you want to pay a small fee - you have access to power and presentation aids (projectors and stuff). Furthermore, aside from being able to hear from any number of unofficial speakers, there are regularly scheduled special speakers talking about a range of topics. And all of this, plus being a show site for artists and architects, plus possibly even turning a profit for the city!!! And this is just what i thought of just now.
Tell me that doesn't beat a church.
| natilovesmike wrote: | | I also think churches are a way for a community to get together and work together. I am personally not part of a church, but I know people that goes to church feel they are part of something greater and I bet that is a good feeling. |
Certainly, but the same feelings exist in any group. You don't need a church to have a community group. In fact, a church community group is inferior to a general, secular community group for two reasons. First, they would focus their "group love" on the religion... which benefits no one but the religion. They would spend time and effort trying to spread the message about how great their religion is - the focal point of the community group - which is not bad per se, but benefits only the religion, not the general public. Whereas a secular community group would focus their energies on bettering the community. They would spend their time and effort trying to make the focal point of their group look good, too - but unlike in the case of religion, the focal point of their group is the community in general (or some small part of it, like a sports team or individual school). Spending effort to make that good helps the whole community, not just the congregation.
Or to put it another way, suppose you had two community groups - one centred around a religion, and one centred around a group of residences and businesses along the lake shore. Both will do things to help the community. But then, some of their efforts will go into glorifying the source of their group. As they do whatever community work they do, the religious group will chant "God rocks!" while the other group will chant "Lake shore rocks!". The religious group will make sure they have have pride in the source of their group by making sure their religion is pride worthy - by making the church clean and appealing - the other group will do the same by making sure their area is pride worthy - by making the lake shore area clean and appealing. But do you see the difference? If the church is clean and appealing, only the religion benefits. The community in general isn't really any better for having a clean, appealing religion. But if the lake shore area is made clean and appealing, the entire city gets a boost, property values go up, other areas are motivated to compete and improve, etc. Both groups do the same good deeds, but the city gets more out of groups oriented around the city than they do out of groups oriented around a religion.
| natilovesmike wrote: | | So, if you are looking for a practical purpose for the church...I don't know...but it has its purpose for people and this is obvious because of how popular they are! |
Again, do not confuse what is with what's best.
| miacps wrote: | One thing some of the religions can provide is peace of mind to some of the followers.
A benefit of a church in a city is it allows for a sort of community club, even though it's exclusive to a certain sect. One could argue that a church doesn't benefit the population as whole since it's not open to all walks of life (without wanting to change others to their way of life at least) and doesn't contribute anything in the way of jobs. Ignoring the latter short coming, the former shouldn't be grounds for denying this kind of establishment since not everyone makes use of theaters, art galleries, libraries, etc.
Churches have some use in the community even if it is much more limited. |
Let's consider this notion carefully.
First of all, your comparison between churches that only benefit a few, to theatres or art galleries that only benefit a few, is flawed on many levels. Here are just a few problems with it:
- Although only a small group of people may choose to enjoy a particular art gallery, it is open to everyone. Religions are not - they are, by their very nature, exclusive.
Even if i can't stand sculpture - even if i find it so revolting that it makes me sick to my stomach - i can still partake of that gallery without having to change who i am. i won't enjoy it very much, but i can still pay my admission, see the art and leave exactly like someone who loves the gallery would (i can even purchase a sculpture just to take it home and smash it... the community would still benefit, despite my pettiness and ignorance!). We - myself the sculpture hater, and the sculpture fan - are equal as far as the gallery is concerned. Everyone is, and everyone is free to get the same experience and the same benefits, if they want to, without having to change who they are.
But in order to reap the benefits of a religion - this rapturous "peace of mind" that you talk about - i would have to change who i am. You can't get peace of mind from a religion you don't believe in. How am i supposed to walk into a synagogue and get "peace of mind" right now? Most religions even go so far as to say they are not even interested in helping me unless i change who i am to suit their particular profile.
- Religions provide no real good for the community at large (aside from the old joke of getting all the Christians off the street at least for a few hours every week each Sunday). An art gallery provides jobs for the curator, a showcase for the works of local artists (and hence, sales for them), a way for the general public (anyone, not just a congregation) to purchase assets that may count as investments or may simply increase their quality of life, tax income to the city, a cultural life (because artists can make a living easier, they can produce more, which increases cultural offerings), and more! Religions offer none of this. i don't know what they do offer (which is why i am asking), but they certainly offer none of that.
So, to put it bluntly ^_^, yes it is too grounds for denying that kind of establishment. Art galleries and the like provide real benefits, even if not everyone chooses to take advantage of them. Religions provide no real benefits, and introduce divisiveness in the community because of their exclusive nature. It's not just a matter of not everyone chooses to take advantage of religions - religions can't and often won't help people unless they change who they are to suit the religion. Why should i, who wants to build a cohesive society, allow that? Frankly, i shouldn't... but i am still open to the possibility of making space for religion if it provides some good to mitigate that bad stuff. i just haven't heard of any good that it provides yet.
Ah, but there is one thing that has been suggested! "Peace of mind" for at least a few. This would be a good thing, if it's true. Is it? Let's consider.
First of all, there is a huge difference between what is and what should be. Just because religion is the most popular source for "peace of mind", doesn't mean that it should be. Are there any other candidates?
Yes! Several! And millions of people who find these alternatives quite soothing to their peace of mind. i'm one! i am not suffering from any particular disturbance of mind. ^_^; And i don't use religion to help me sleep peacefully.
Are these alternatives better than religion, from the perspective of someone trying to make a nice society? As a matter of fact many of them are, because they stress society and peace as important - contrast that with Christianity (for example), that says society is just a temporary phase were you only live to be judged before going on to your real life (the eternal one in Heaven), and that while peace may be nice it's not that big a deal because God both expects and wants us to fight amongst each other (both in the context of being soldiers for Christianity, and in the context of the eventual Armageddon). So on the one hand, i have a collection of world views that offer peace of mind and say "society is important", and on the other i have a collection of world views that offer peace of mind but say "society is evil and/or unimportant". Which do you think i would choose to promote in my society? ^_^;
Oh, but wait! There is more!
You see, the "peace of mind" offered by religions is conditional and shaky - and only works if you assert that only the one religion you work in is correct. You can't get "peace of mind" from knowing there is a god that loves you and forgives your transgressions as a Christian while at the same time saying that Muslims - who insist that your belief is wrong - may also be right, too. That's nonsense. Either you're right and they're wrong, or they're right and you're wrong - and "peace of mind" requires that you insist the former. In order to get "peace of mind" from religion, you must insist that everyone who doesn't buy into your religion is wrong! And that's not a great way to build a society, now is it?
And how much "peace of mind" can a religious person really have, when their beliefs are under such constant threat? That doesn't really sound "peaceful" to me. That sounds like living in denial.
Meanwhile, non-religious "meaningfulness" and "peace of mind" is compatible with pretty much any religion - and most modern, liberal religions have co-opted it into their philosophies (for example, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not actually Christian, and is, in fact, the opposite of what Jesus teaches... it is a humanistic philosophy that has become part of mainstream Christianity). So if i were to build a society as inclusively as possible, it makes sense to stress a humanistic philosophy. Then, if you want religion, you can add it on top. But under that logic, adding religion should be a personal choice, and a personal initiative. As the society planner, i shouldn't include it. i should design the best society possible, and then you should find a way to fit your religion into that framework. Your religion should work within a good society - a good society is not obligated to set aside space for your religion at the cost of being the best society possible.
Of course, if religion actually does provide a social benefit - which is what i really asked - then space should be made for it. But i am still waiting to hear one.
| deanhills wrote: | | Religion has no purpose. It is supposed to be more than purpose. It is supposed to be the reason for living, and to explain why we are around and where we are heading. |
"More than purpose" makes no sense, grammatically or logically.
Furthermore, in the space of three sentences you say it has no purpose, then you say it is more than purpose... then you offer a purpose.
So which is it?
| Indi wrote: | "More than purpose" makes no sense, grammatically or logically.
Furthermore, in the space of three sentences you say it has no purpose, then you say it is more than purpose... then you offer a purpose.
So which is it? |
I'm trying to write this at Gatwick Airport. Barely able to submit postings but will try again.
Religion always works in the realm of the abstract, faith, belief, that which cannot be measured by science. Science will probably ask for example: What is the purpose of religion? The specific religion that answers the question would say: What do you mean what is our purpose, God is everything. We are nothing without God? Our whole existence is God. Every breath we take is God. He is our reason for living. I cannot see how a religion can answer your question about what its usefulness or purpose is, as it is a purpose of its own in the abstract that cannot meet science or the needs of science. There is simply not a meeting point between the two.
| Indi wrote: | | i don't deny that right now the solution is to slap a church in these zones and call the job done. But what i am asking is should that be the solution we reach for? Is religion really the "best" way to address this social need? |
But is church the solution to answering those bigger questions? I was considering that when I was trying to find the usefulness of religion. I was having difficulty finding a purpose for it (which is why I did the exercise that you posted... although it still didn't help me find a real purpose for religion because I ended up having fun planning an entire city and before I knew it, I was finished and I had left no room for a church!). Church may offer some of those solutions, but I do not think that many people take in those solutions. It seems like many people just accept that we're here and then never ponder the idea. If you ask a Christian what our purpose is, they'll likely say something like "to serve God" but do they really mean it? Most Christians it seems like these day just say stuff about their religion with no real meaning behind it... they're Christians simply because of inertia... they've always been Christians so they see no reason to stop.
Peace.
Sorry indi  but i disagree with the majority of your post.
| Indi wrote: | ...science has been the field everyone turned to if they wanted to know how the universe works.
|
An assumption behind this post is that a major purpose of religion is to explain how the universe works. It isn't. Or at least it isn't in Islam. Religions are the why. E.g. why are we here?
| Quote: |
At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science. Religion just can't explain nature.
|
The logical choice isn't science to a believer. Just like the logical choice isn't religion to an atheist. If one believes completely in what their religion teaches, then if science contradicts it, science will be wrong. The reasoning behind this? One believes their religion is absolutely true, whereas sciencitific theory can be wrong. E.g. the idea that the brain healing itself was impossible was believed for a hundred years until recently.
Also, i don't see much conflict between religion and science. One does not disapprove the other. They are different fields. One deals with morality. The other deals with the acquiring of knowledge of the working of physical things through the scientific method.
| Quote: |
So what use does religion serve in modern society?
|
It serves as a moral authority.
It encourages its followers to be 'good': to be honest, be kind to others, respect your elders and parents, not commit murder (let's ignore self-defence and war to avoid red herrings), to not betray your spouse with adultery, to not steal.
It encourages it followers to not become materialistic and to seek mental ascension (whether it be enlightment or mental peace or other).
| Quote: |
The religious often claim that religion serves a purpose that science cannot - moral guidance. But that claim is bunk, too. It is plainly obvious to anyone who has studied history, and who can understand statistics in even the most basic way, that religious people are not more moral than non-religious people. |
You've misunderstood morality's position in religion. Religion does not create morally perfect human beings. It encourages to try our hardest to be morally good.
There are plenty of people who are better people, or at the very least help others, because they are religious. I'm not saying religion is the only way of being morally good. Merely that it acts as a strong encourager to be morally good. It's quite an incorrect to generalisation to say that religion has no effect on the moral character of anyone.
E.g. Muslims are commanded to give 2.5% of their income to charity. Regardless of how else one Muslim might act, if he/she is still giving to charity, then religion is serving the purpose of helping the poor.
| Quote: |
Indeed, philosophically, the very notion of morality just doesn't work with religion. Religion just can't explain morality.
|
?
I don't understand what you mean.
Religion is a source of morality. Try debating moral issues with an atheist and it usually resolves down to "because it feels wrong", especially on issues which don't feel wrong. Atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Indeed, the whole point of your post is that religion has no purpose; on the contrary, correct me if i'm wrong, it's the source of many, if not most, moral laws in countries. So religion is serving a purpose as a moral source.
Religion has a solid ground for its morality. You don't do this or that because it says so.
| Quote: |
The only thing left seems to be... religion. As in, religion describes religion. The only thing religion can tell us about is what is in the religion - religion can tell us volumes about gods, demons and angels... but nothing else. And gods, demons and angels don't have any practical relevance in daily life - you don't clean your teeth every morning by praying to gods, and you don't do your job by relying on the assistance of angels. Society's very functioning has no reliance on, or even care about, demons. So, yes, while religion can tell us about religious stuff... that stuff doesn't really matter.
|
Sorry but your generalisation is false, because Islam doesn't fit in. Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. For example you mentioned brushing your teeth: In Islam, the prophet told his followers to brush their teeths.
"gods, demons and angels don't have any practical relevance in daily life". Well actually if religion is true, then so is god, and therefore what you do now will affect what happens after you die.
Religion may not matter to you, but it matters to christians who recieve support from their holy spirit, it matters to muslims who are united by their faith, it matters to those who are being oppressed so they can use it as a valid excuse to appeal to the oppressors, and so on.
| Quote: |
So what is the usefulness of religion?
|
Religion acts a social medium e.g. congregational meetings, such as sunday church, jewish sabbath, muslim friday prayers, can help the community as a whole. It can be a medium for social interaction; a medium far superior to pubs, where one drinks a drug that intoxicates the mind and over time damages the liver.
Religion acts a source of morality. You follow this moral law, because religion said so.
Religion is an encouragement to be morally good. You don't lie or steal because God said so.
Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength.
Some religions encourage scientific advancement. E.g. Islam which produced the golden age of muslims.
That isn't a full list.
Peace.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Indi wrote:
...science has been the field everyone turned to if they wanted to know how the universe works. |
An assumption behind this post is that a major purpose of religion is to explain how the universe works. It isn't. Or at least it isn't in Islam. Religions are the why. E.g. why are we here?
|
Interesting then that they so often do try to explain the how.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science. Religion just can't explain nature. |
The logical choice isn't science to a believer. Just like the logical choice isn't religion to an atheist. If one believes completely in what their religion teaches, then if science contradicts it, science will be wrong. The reasoning behind this? One believes their religion is absolutely true, whereas sciencitific theory can be wrong. E.g. the idea that the brain healing itself was impossible was believed for a hundred years until recently.
Also, i don't see much conflict between religion and science. One does not disapprove the other. They are different fields. One deals with morality. The other deals with the acquiring of knowledge of the working of physical things through the scientific method. |
You don't think that religion contradicts science. Since religion does attempt to explain the universe, and does so wrongly, it contradicts science all the time. Scientific theories can be wrong, know why? because science is an ever expanding basee of knowledge. Unlike religion science attempts to correct its mistakes in order to better itself. And since religion also tries to explain the universe its sole purpose is nott morality.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
So what use does religion serve in modern society? |
It serves as a moral authority.
It encourages its followers to be 'good': to be honest, be kind to others, respect your elders and parents, not commit murder (let's ignore self-defence and war to avoid red herrings), to not betray your spouse with adultery, to not steal.
It encourages it followers to not become materialistic and to seek mental ascension (whether it be enlightment or mental peace or other).
|
1. You assume that materialism is wrong. What makes your system of morals the right one?
2. You assume all religions preach the same moral values. They Don't.
3. You, like so many others, assume morality can only be associated with religion. It Isn't.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
The religious often claim that religion serves a purpose that science cannot - moral guidance. But that claim is bunk, too. It is plainly obvious to anyone who has studied history, and who can understand statistics in even the most basic way, that religious people are not more moral than non-religious people. |
You've misunderstood morality's position in religion. Religion does not create morally perfect human beings. It encourages to try our hardest to be morally good.
There are plenty of people who are better people, or at the very least help others, because they are religious. I'm not saying religion is the only way of being morally good. Merely that it acts as a strong encourager to be morally good. It's quite an incorrect to generalisation to say that religion has no effect on the moral character of anyone.
E.g. Muslims are commanded to give 2.5% of their income to charity. Regardless of how else one Muslim might act, if he/she is still giving to charity, then religion is serving the purpose of helping the poor.
|
You misunderstand morality's position in religon. Certain religions command people to stone those who are different from them.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
Indeed, philosophically, the very notion of morality just doesn't work with religion. Religion just can't explain morality. |
?
I don't understand what you mean.
Religion is a source of morality. Try debating moral issues with an atheist and it usually resolves down to "because it feels wrong", especially on issues which don't feel wrong. Atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Indeed, the whole point of your post is that religion has no purpose; on the contrary, correct me if i'm wrong, it's the source of many, if not most, moral laws in countries. So religion is serving a purpose as a moral source.
Religion has a solid ground for its morality. You don't do this or that because it says so.
|
Religion is not required to have these moral laws. Remove religion and the laws will still be there. These laws can actually be traced back to an ancient system of law known as the Code of Hammurabi. Look it up.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
The only thing left seems to be... religion. As in, religion describes religion. The only thing religion can tell us about is what is in the religion - religion can tell us volumes about gods, demons and angels... but nothing else. And gods, demons and angels don't have any practical relevance in daily life - you don't clean your teeth every morning by praying to gods, and you don't do your job by relying on the assistance of angels. Society's very functioning has no reliance on, or even care about, demons. So, yes, while religion can tell us about religious stuff... that stuff doesn't really matter. |
Sorry but your generalisation is false, because Islam doesn't fit in. Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. For example you mentioned brushing your teeth: In Islam, the prophet told his followers to brush their teeths.
"gods, demons and angels don't have any practical relevance in daily life". Well actually if religion is true, then so is god, and therefore what you do now will affect what happens after you die.
Religion may not matter to you, but it matters to christians who recieve support from their holy spirit, it matters to muslims who are united by their faith, it matters to those who are being oppressed so they can use it as a valid excuse to appeal to the oppressors, and so on.
|
I bet you would still brush your teeth even if Allah didnt tell you to...
Oh look lets all jump on the bandwagon! Yay! religion is useful because it matters to people! Just because something matters to you doesn't mean that it has use.
| Quote: | Religion acts a social medium e.g. congregational meetings, such as sunday church, jewish sabbath, muslim friday prayers, can help the community as a whole. It can be a medium for social interaction; a medium far superior to pubs, where one drinks a drug that intoxicates the mind and over time damages the liver.
|
And it is far inferior to a theatre or gallery where one can grow intellectually
| Quote: | Religion acts a source of morality. You follow this moral law, because religion said so.
|
Good idea lets stone everybody! Yay!
| Quote: | Religion is an encouragement to be morally good. You don't lie or steal because God said so.
|
I've said this twice now, but lots of people are supposed to be killed because god says so.
| Quote: | Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength.
|
Except to those who are persecuted because they believe in a different religion. And there are other places/people that those who need those things can turn to.
| Quote: | Some religions encourage scientific advancement. E.g. Islam which produced the golden age of muslims.
|
Umm... So?
Because Islam has so much of that lately.
I'm short on time, so i couldn't read everything, but here goes:
Religion is not useful. It is the opposite, it gets in the way of free thinking, by telling what i consider "fairy tales" to people who (if they are dumb enough to listen, you never know...) might believe them, they are creating the illusion that god is the one who created universe, can grant you wishes and so forth, by doing this they set a limit(not physicaly speaking) to the nature of the universe, a.k.a. any information you'll gain you're likely to cram under your already established belief, and hence you are more likely to fail to grasp what this information might mean. Your perception is limited if you follow a religion.
As for this whole "comfort" people mentioned. More self-delusion, inspired out of fear and ignorance.
Pittyful.
Don't forget to consider how many people religion killed, while it saved, in the physical(the one that matters) meaning of the word, none. It is the evil it accused others of.
| loyal wrote: | | Also, i don't see much conflict between religion and science. One does not disapprove the other. They are different fields. One deals with morality. The other deals with the acquiring of knowledge of the working of physical things through the scientific method. |
I kind of stopped reading here. Sorry =/
Religion has lots of uses.
It allows the leaders to control communities.
In this way communities develop.
It can motivate people to lead morally good lives.
But then the adverse can also happen.
History and today's world full of ethnic and communal conflicts show how religion is working.
| Xanatos wrote: |
Interesting then that they so often do try to explain the how.
|
No they don't.
| Quote: |
You don't think that religion contradicts science. Since religion does attempt to explain the universe, and does so wrongly, it contradicts science all the time. Scientific theories can be wrong, know why?
because science is an ever expanding basee of knowledge. Unlike religion science attempts to correct its mistakes in order to better itself. And since religion also tries to explain the universe its sole
purpose is nott morality.
|
Since religion does not explain how the universe works, your point is irrelevant. And by the way, I never said religion's sole purpose was morality.
| Quote: |
1. You assume that materialism is wrong. What makes your system of morals the right one?
|
Greed for materials is useless when you've got the bare essentials (e.g. shelter). Excess accumulation of materials does nothing for you. Whereas the religious system of morals where people are altruistic
is good for the community.
| Quote: |
2. You assume all religions preach the same moral values. They Don't.
|
Most religions share many same moral values, including: don't kill (leaving self-defense and war aside to avoid red herrings), don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, and so on.
| Quote: |
3. You, like so many others, assume morality can only be associated with religion. It Isn't.
|
You've incorrectly assumed what I think. I said: "I'm not saying religion is the only way of being morally good. Merely that it acts as a strong encourager to be morally good". I know that religion isn't the
only source of morality. I know of the Euthyphro dilemma. However, regardless of that dilemma, if you believe in religion, religion remains a source of absoluete authority when it comes to morality.
Whereas, without religion, there is no solid ground for many moral laws.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
You've misunderstood morality's position in religion. Religion does not create morally perfect human beings. It encourages to try our hardest to be morally good.
There are plenty of people who are better people, or at the very least help others, because they are religious. I'm not saying religion is the only way of being morally good. Merely that it acts as a strong
encourager to be morally good. It's quite an incorrect to generalisation to say that religion has no effect on the moral character of anyone.
E.g. Muslims are commanded to give 2.5% of their income to charity. Regardless of how else one Muslim might act, if he/she is still giving to charity, then religion is serving the purpose of helping the
poor.
|
You misunderstand morality's position in religon. Certain religions command people to stone those who are different from them.
|
How does saying I've misunderstood morality's position in religion refute what I wrote in any way?
Apart from Judaism's stoning punishments (which are mostly in principle and not in practice), and apart from the (wrong) punishment for adultery in Islam, religions don't prescribe stoning. Especially not
for religious differences.
| Quote: |
Religion is not required to have these moral laws. Remove religion and the laws will still be there. These laws can actually be traced back to an ancient system of law known as the Code of Hammurabi.
Look it up.
|
So you have the religion, then remove the parts you don't want. Religion has still served the purpose of providing those laws. Hence my point remains. A real example of this is that many countries draw
their laws from religion.
The code of hammurabi? If you are claiming that countries get their laws from the code of hammurabi, then you're wrong. If you are claiming that religions get their laws from the code of hammurabi,
then you're wrong again. Just because they share similar laws doesn't mean that one is derived from the other. It would be a far better claim to say that alot of the religions practised today are derived
from the religion of Zoraster. And by the way, that isn't the oldest law ever.
| Quote: |
I bet you would still brush your teeth even if Allah didnt tell you to...
|
In this day and age yes. But 1400 years ago? No. Thanks to the prophet's command, cleanliness and hygiene became an important part of the practices of Muslims. (E.g. abultion at least once a day for the
five daily prayers, whereas many countries in the west only recently started washing frequently).
| Quote: |
Oh look lets all jump on the bandwagon! Yay! religion is useful because it matters to people! Just because something matters to you doesn't mean that it has use.
|
If it matters to someone, then it has some use for that person. It has a use for a believer. It might not have a use for you, but it has a use for me.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion acts a social medium e.g. congregational meetings, such as sunday church, jewish sabbath, muslim friday prayers, can help the community as a whole. It can be a medium for social interaction; a
medium far superior to pubs, where one drinks a drug that intoxicates the mind and over time damages the liver.
|
And it is far inferior to a theatre or gallery where one can grow intellectually
|
Actually it is uncommon for people in galleries and theatres who don't know each other to talk to each and become friends. Whereas in a church or a mosque, you are bound to that person because you
discuss the sermon or share the same prayers or talk to each other for finding out the date of some religious event or help organise an event.
And your claim is also false because watching a play or looking at art doesn't make you more intellectual.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion acts a source of morality. You follow this moral law, because religion said so.
|
Good idea lets stone everybody! Yay!
|
See earlier response to stoning.
You've completely missed my point. I said: "Religion is a source of morality. Try debating moral issues with an atheist and it usually resolves down to "because it feels wrong", especially on issues which
don't feel wrong. Atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Indeed, the whole point of your post is that religion has no purpose; on the contrary, correct me if i'm wrong, it's the
source of many, if not most, moral laws in countries. So religion is serving a purpose as a moral source." If you believe in religion, religion remains a source of absoluete authority when it comes to
morality. Whereas, without religion, there is no solid ground for many moral laws.
Peace.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | i don't deny that right now the solution is to slap a church in these zones and call the job done. But what i am asking is should that be the solution we reach for? Is religion really the "best" way to address this social need? |
But is church the solution to answering those bigger questions? I was considering that when I was trying to find the usefulness of religion. I was having difficulty finding a purpose for it (which is why I did the exercise that you posted... although it still didn't help me find a real purpose for religion because I ended up having fun planning an entire city and before I knew it, I was finished and I had left no room for a church!). Church may offer some of those solutions, but I do not think that many people take in those solutions. It seems like many people just accept that we're here and then never ponder the idea. If you ask a Christian what our purpose is, they'll likely say something like "to serve God" but do they really mean it? Most Christians it seems like these day just say stuff about their religion with no real meaning behind it... they're Christians simply because of inertia... they've always been Christians so they see no reason to stop. |
Afaceinthematrix, you are using reason to figure out things about the church. The people who go to church use faith to figure out things for themselves. How could reason ever reason with people who subject their reason to faith in something that your reason cannot except on the basis of blind faith? Isn`t this a bit of a futile and VERY frustrating exercise for someone like you who are rational in every sense of the word to have a meaningful debate? Guaranteed you will never find any usefulness as how could it be useful to someone who is rational and has to reason things out? On the other hand, people who are religious, subjecting their reason to blind faith, will see plenty of usefulness in the particular religion they are pursuing. It may be useless to you from where you are, and useful to them from where they are, i.e. in terms of all the rewards the religion will have in store for them, like going to heaven perhaps and so on. The more intense their faith, the more useful their religion is to them, and conversely the more useless it has to be for you.
| Quote: | How does saying I've misunderstood morality's position in religion refute what I wrote in any way?
Apart from Judaism's stoning punishments (which are mostly in principle and not in practice), and apart from the (wrong) punishment for adultery in Islam, religions don't prescribe stoning. Especially not
for religious differences.
|
I love how you think that you can cherry pick your moral values out of religion. What made you say that Islam's punishment for adultery was wrong. Certainly if you followed that religion it would be the right thing to do seeing as this is the source of your moral values. Could it possibly be that you think that the punishment........ Feels Wrong? Oh I can't find another reason for it so I think that must be the answer.
| deanhills wrote: | | Religion always works in the realm of the abstract, faith, belief, that which cannot be measured by science. Science will probably ask for example: What is the purpose of religion? The specific religion that answers the question would say: What do you mean what is our purpose, God is everything. We are nothing without God? Our whole existence is God. Every breath we take is God. He is our reason for living. I cannot see how a religion can answer your question about what its usefulness or purpose is, as it is a purpose of its own in the abstract that cannot meet science or the needs of science. There is simply not a meeting point between the two. |
Everyone seems really hung up on the relationship between science and religion, asserting over and over they are different fields. i know this. ^_^; It was what i said in the first paragraph of the opening post in this thread. Science explains nature, religion does not. Thus science has a purpose, whereas if religion does have a purpose, that's not it.
As for the rest of what you said... doesn't that all condense to "religion describes religion" (the third paragraph in my opening post)? Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself.
| loyal wrote: | | An assumption behind this post is that a major purpose of religion is to explain how the universe works. |
No, that is not an assumption behind any post made in this thread so far. As was clearly laid out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first post, that is something that some religious people claim. Also clearly laid out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first post is the fact that it's not true. So i don't see how you get from that that it is an assumption made anywhere. It is dismissed as nonsense in the very first sentence of this thread.
Unfortunately, despite your objection, you are one of the people who make that claim. The claim that you just said was a bad assumption. ^_^; Observe:
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: | | At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science. Religion just can't explain nature. |
The logical choice isn't science to a believer. Just like the logical choice isn't religion to an atheist. If one believes completely in what their religion teaches, then if science contradicts it, science will be wrong. |
See, first you tell me that religion explains the "why" of the universe, not the "how". Then you tell me that not only does religion also explain the "how", you tell me that if religion's version of the "how" doesn't agree with science's, religious people should "logically" disregard science!!!
Excuse me? ^_^;
And THEN!!! You go back to saying that religion doesn't talk about the "how" because religion and science are "different fields"!!!!!!!!!!!!! After you just finished saying that when they do conflict religious people should deny science and choose religion!!!
i seriously think you are far too confused about what you believe to make any sense of this at all. ^_^;
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: | | So what use does religion serve in modern society? |
It serves as a moral authority. |
It has already been well established in several other threads (including the one that spawned this thread) that religion is either not a moral authority at all, or a very lousy one. There is no point in repeating them all here again. If you still believe religion serves as a moral authority, then by all means, create a new thread and try to argue for why this is true. Good luck.
| loyal wrote: | | E.g. Muslims are commanded to give 2.5% of their income to charity. Regardless of how else one Muslim might act, if he/she is still giving to charity, then religion is serving the purpose of helping the poor. |
Yeah, see ^_^; - you offer that as an example of religious morality, as if there is something moral about any of that. So, what if i took Islam out of the picture altogether, and implemented a tax: 2.5% of the income of every citizen, to be put toward charitable purposes. If that kind of thing makes Islam moral, then logically doing this tax would make the government moral. And if it makes Muslims good to give 2.5% of their income to charity under orders, then this tax will make all citizens good. And, more than that, by having all citizens give 2.5% means more charitable money than if just Muslims did. So, a government tax is superior in every way to the Islamic version:
- It makes all citizens as moral as Muslims who do this.
- It makes the government moral to command the tax, just like it makes Islam moral to command the donation.
- It brings in more money to do more good than just Muslims alone.
So once again, Islam serves no useful purpose. ^_^;
| loyal wrote: | | Try debating moral issues with an atheist and it usually resolves down to "because it feels wrong", especially on issues which don't feel wrong. Atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. |
That is because when atheists are asked to explain morality to a person who thinks - and i quote - that "Religion has a solid ground for its morality. You don't do this or that because it says so.", they are forced to use the simplest terms they can possibly think of. In fact, there are dozens of ways you can implement morality without the help of a religion at all, and many have nothing at all to do with feelings. But explaining them to someone who thinks being told what to do is a valid system of morality is too much to ask of most people.
Again, if you seriously think that "it tells you what is wrong, and you have to do what it says" is a valid system of morality - and if you think that all non-religious systems of morality boil down to "because it feels wrong" - feel free to create a new thread and make those claims, and see how well they stand up.
| loyal wrote: | Religion acts a social medium e.g. congregational meetings, such as sunday church, jewish sabbath, muslim friday prayers, can help the community as a whole. It can be a medium for social interaction; a medium far superior to pubs, where one drinks a drug that intoxicates the mind and over time damages the liver.
Religion acts a source of morality. You follow this moral law, because religion said so.
Religion is an encouragement to be morally good. You don't lie or steal because God said so.
Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength.
Some religions encourage scientific advancement. E.g. Islam which produced the golden age of muslims.
That isn't a full list. |
- Religion is a horrible social medium, because it encourages divisiveness and alienation. It may encourage remarkable unity within the religion, but it divides the society into separate religious groups that then - quite often - end up at odds with each other. Furthermore, as a medium for social interaction, religion frankly sucks. Are you allowed to chat with the people around you during prayers? Hardly. Most religious services require either silence or participation in carefully choreographed ceremonies that sometimes go on for hours. That is not social interaction. Social interaction is interacting with society. There is more and better social interaction at a bowling alley than in any given religious service.
- This has been debunked numerous times, in numerous places. If you want to continue to advocate it, do it somewhere else. That issue is closed here.
- See above.
- Religion also heaps oodles of guilt and existential dread on people. Furthermore, comfort, support and strength are by and large not provided by religions, but by the people within the religion... which is the same way it works for any group. You don't need the religion, you just need the group.
- Islam also ended the golden age of Muslims. And we frankly don't need the Qur'an to encourage scientific advancement. We get plenty of encouragement just from the results we have observed so far.
| Xanatos wrote: |
I love how you think that you can cherry pick your moral values out of religion. What made you say that Islam's punishment for adultery was wrong. Certainly if you followed that religion it would be the right thing to do seeing as this is the source of your moral values. Could it possibly be that you think that the punishment........ Feels Wrong? Oh I can't find another reason for it so I think that must be the answer. |
Peace.
I wasn't 'cherry-picking' moral values out of feeling. I was referring to the debate surrounding adultery's punishment in Islam, which is briefly outlined below. That's why I called it wrong.
--------Punishment for adultery in Islam------------------
Under a Muslim state which uses Shari'ah law (Muslim law derived from the Quran and the prophet's words and actions, then the companion's words and actions, then scholarly reasoning), an adulterer is to be punished by stoning to death.
However the Quran says in the beginning of chapter 24 that: (The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment) (An-Nur 24: 2)
(Ignoring the reason and purpose behind the choice of flogging as a punishment since it's irrelevant to the debate of what the punishment actually is), we see that the Quran does not mention stoning for the adulterer. It mentions flogging.
When those, who support the view that stoning is the punishment for adultery, are questioned, it usually boils down to quoting a few Hadiths (orally transmitted statement) as evidence for their postion. These hadith say that Umar (a companion to the prophet and later the second leader of the Muslims after the prophet died) said that the punishment for adultery is stoning. Some hadith also say that umar said he knew of a verse which prescribed stoning but was omitted from the Quran.
However this view derived from the hadith are contested. There are numerous problems with these hadiths including their authenticity, contradiction with the practices of other companions including Ali ibn Abu Talib (a companion to the prophet and later the fourth leader of the Muslims after the prophet died),and the fact that only Umar held the view that this supposed verse was omitted, no other person held this view.
At the end of the day, the Quran is the ultimate source of authority in Islam, and both sunni Muslims and shia Muslims uphold that it is complete and has not been changed. So if a hadith contradicts it, the hadith is wrong.
You might ask why the Shari'ah law contains stoning and not flogging as its punishment. The Shari'ah law is an intepretation of the sources. The punishment has been incorrectly interpreted and not changed since (why the shari'ah law isn't readily changed opens up another topic. It's partly to do with the doors of 'Ijtihad' closing).
A more detailed anyalsis of the debate is here: http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning.htm .
Chapter 3 (http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm) deals with the hadiths to do with stoning for adultery.
It should be noted that it's very difficult to convict someone of adultery. You need four witnesses or a freely-given confession. So it is is very difficult to hand out this punishment. In-case you think I'm 'cherry-picking' out of feeling, see:
In 4:15-16 the Qur'an says: "As for those of your women who are guilty of indecency, call to witness four of you against them..."
And in 24:4 "And as for those who accuse chaste women [of adultery], and then are unable to produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes..."
Islam sees a woman's reputation as important, and so four witnesses are required for such a serious accusation.
---------------------------
| loyal wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: |
I love how you think that you can cherry pick your moral values out of religion. What made you say that Islam's punishment for adultery was wrong. Certainly if you followed that religion it would be the right thing to do seeing as this is the source of your moral values. Could it possibly be that you think that the punishment........ Feels Wrong? Oh I can't find another reason for it so I think that must be the answer. |
Peace.
I wasn't 'cherry-picking' moral values out of feeling. I was referring to the debate surrounding adultery's punishment in Islam, which is briefly outlined below. That's why I called it wrong.
--------Punishment for adultery in Islam------------------
Under a Muslim state which uses Shari'ah law (Muslim law derived from the Quran and the prophet's words and actions, then the companion's words and actions, then scholarly reasoning), an adulterer is to be punished by stoning to death.
However the Quran says in the beginning of chapter 24 that: (The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment) (An-Nur 24: 2)
(Ignoring the reason and purpose behind the choice of flogging as a punishment since it's irrelevant to the debate of what the punishment actually is), we see that the Quran does not mention stoning for the adulterer. It mentions flogging.
When those, who support the view that stoning is the punishment for adultery, are questioned, it usually boils down to quoting a few Hadiths (orally transmitted statement) as evidence for their postion. These hadith say that Umar (a companion to the prophet and later the second leader of the Muslims after the prophet died) said that the punishment for adultery is stoning. Some hadith also say that umar said he knew of a verse which prescribed stoning but was omitted from the Quran.
However this view derived from the hadith are contested. There are numerous problems with these hadiths including their authenticity, contradiction with the practices of other companions including Ali ibn Abu Talib (a companion to the prophet and later the fourth leader of the Muslims after the prophet died),and the fact that only Umar held the view that this supposed verse was omitted, no other person held this view.
At the end of the day, the Quran is the ultimate source of authority in Islam, and both sunni Muslims and shia Muslims uphold that it is complete and has not been changed. So if a hadith contradicts it, the hadith is wrong.
You might ask why the Shari'ah law contains stoning and not flogging as its punishment. The Shari'ah law is an intepretation of the sources. The punishment has been incorrectly interpreted and not changed since (why the shari'ah law isn't readily changed opens up another topic. It's partly to do with the doors of 'Ijtihad' closing).
A more detailed anyalsis of the debate is here: http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning.htm .
Chapter 3 (http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm) deals with the hadiths to do with stoning for adultery.
It should be noted that it's very difficult to convict someone of adultery. You need four witnesses or a freely-given confession. So it is is very difficult to hand out this punishment. In-case you think I'm 'cherry-picking' out of feeling, see:
In 4:15-16 the Qur'an says: "As for those of your women who are guilty of indecency, call to witness four of you against them..."
And in 24:4 "And as for those who accuse chaste women [of adultery], and then are unable to produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes..."
Islam sees a woman's reputation as important, and so four witnesses are required for such a serious accusation.
---------------------------
|
And flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then? You do realize that this can cause serious injury or most likely death.
I can sum it up in one word:
HOPE
| Jinx wrote: | I can sum it up in one word:
HOPE |
Hope for what? Please elaborate.
| Jinx wrote: | I can sum it up in one word:
HOPE |
Again, for the particular people of [insert religion], sure. Never mind the other other millions of people who don't associate with [insert religion]. Which means we're back at the "religion is useful only in upholding itself." And that's not really the point of discussion....the point of the discussion is to discuss what religion offers SOCIETY.
One can choose his morals basing his research on philosophy. I use a bit of utilitarianism and some of Kants. I can spell it all out if you want me to but I'd rather not waste time. And this at least allows for reasonable explanation of my morals. Yours is just The magic pink unicorn said it, I believe it, I follow it, you are inferior.
And yeah, Golden Age of Islam... Let's look how Islamic countries are fairing now? Why are most of them in the third world, aye? Probably because they're so damn altruistic.
A religious person can say "I do it in the name of God..." and commence with hate and attacks while a nonreligious person would have to say "Damn, I'm an ****** for doing this, but it makes me feel good". What's the difference? The second person ain't lyin'.
Also, a non religious community would be better off for the reasons posted above: it would focus on the community. All too many times I see a strong christian community where I am that won't do shi*t for homeless people. Yeah, they'll do charity. Some times. BUT when a homeless guy knocks on the church door they turn him down saying it ain't their business.
| Xanatos wrote: | | Jinx wrote: | I can sum it up in one word:
HOPE |
Hope for what? Please elaborate. |
Hope that there is something after death, whether it is heaven, valhalla, the summerlands, or just a chance to come back and try again.
Hope that all of the suffering we endure in life has some greater meaning - either as part of a bigger plan, or because we were awful in a past life and need to pay for it, or because we need to learn whatever lesson, etc...
Hope that there's something more to life than what we can see, hope that we might see our loved ones again after death. Hope that a few heartfelt words or prayer will have an effect on the troubles we are enduring. Hope that someone out there is listening to our dreams and wishes.
There may not be a measurable benefit to society, but to individuals going through tough times religion offers a way to cope with grief and uncertainty by offering hope.
As far as I can figure, that's it. Science explains the world better, logic can give us better rules of morality, secular humanism does a good job of putting together a compassionate society, so religion's real use must be to give hope.
Double posting!
(One duplicate post removed)
| Indi wrote: |
Everyone seems really hung up on the relationship between science and religion, asserting over and over they are different fields. i know this. ^_^; It was what i said in the first paragraph of the opening post in this thread. Science explains nature, religion does not...
...As was clearly laid out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first post, that is something that some religious people claim. Also clearly laid out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first post is the fact that it's not true. So i don't see how you get from that that it is an assumption made anywhere. It is dismissed as nonsense in the very first sentence of this thread.
|
It doesn't look like you're saying that at all in your first paragraph. I apologise if i've misinterpreted, but it looks alot like you're saying religion tries to explain how nature works.
Especially when you say "science has been the field everyone turned to if they wanted to know how the universe works. At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science." Why would they contradict over how the universe works if one explains how the universe works and one doesn't? The misinterpretation was reinforced when you used 'can't, and not 'doesn't: "Religion just can't explain nature".
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, despite your objection, you are one of the people who make that claim. The claim that you just said was a bad assumption. ^_^; Observe:
| loyal wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science. Religion just can't explain nature. |
The logical choice isn't science to a believer. Just like the logical choice isn't religion to an atheist. If one believes completely in what their religion teaches, then if science contradicts it, science will be wrong. |
See, first you tell me that religion explains the "why" of the universe, not the "how". Then you tell me that not only does religion also explain the "how", you tell me that if religion's version of the "how" doesn't agree with science's, religious people should "logically" disregard science!!!
|
I never said I think that religion explained the how. I was responding to your point where you say "if and when" science and religion contradicts, science is the logical choice. My response was based on your point's assumption that they contradict ("when") and objected to your point that science would be the logical choice.
As you correctly noted, I believe religion and science are different fields.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | It serves as a moral authority. |
It has already been well established in several other threads (including the one that spawned this thread) that religion is either not a moral authority at all, or a very lousy one. There is no point in repeating them all here again. If you still believe religion serves as a moral authority, then by all means, create a new thread and try to argue for why this is true. Good luck.
|
No point? Certainly there is point if you wish to actually refute my point. You don't need to write an essay. I'm sure you could sum it up in a small paragraph.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | E.g. Muslims are commanded to give 2.5% of their income to charity. Regardless of how else one Muslim might act, if he/she is still giving to charity, then religion is serving the purpose of helping the poor. |
Yeah, see ^_^; - you offer that as an example of religious morality, as if there is something moral about any of that.
|
It is morally good to help the poor or needy. Hence my point remains.
| Quote: |
So, what if i took Islam out of the picture altogether, and implemented a tax: 2.5% of the income of every citizen, to be put toward charitable purposes. If that kind of thing makes Islam moral, then logically doing this tax would make the government moral.
|
Yes the government could then be morally good in that sense in relation to the charity tax.
I already know that people can copy what they like from religion, 'the good bits', and then throw away the rest of religion. It is possible people either copy this 'charity tax' from Islam or come up with it themselves. But it is much more likely that a government implents this tax if it's a part of a religion.
Religion is believed to be fully true, and hence religious followers will carry out this charity tax. Whereas a government who consider implenting this tax would be met with opposition, including an argument from the people themselves that they don't need more taxes.
| Quote: |
And if it makes Muslims good to give 2.5% of their income to charity under orders, then this tax will make all citizens good. And, more than that, by having all citizens give 2.5% means more charitable money than if just Muslims did
|
Actually since Muslims number 1.5 billion, any single government, bar several united governments, will be beaten on sheer numbers.
| Quote: |
. So, a government tax is superior in every way to the Islamic version:
[list][*]It makes all citizens as moral as Muslims who do this.
|
Government tax? Islamic version?
It's the same tax! The differenced is that it is enforced by different authorities. One enforced by belief and one enforced by force (you must pay the charity tax or a punishment). You might say that Islam also punishes those who don't pay the tax, but as far as I know such punishment is not earthly punishment but after death, and also no-one will make sure you pay; a Muslim could not pay and no body would force him/her to pay.
| Quote: |
[*]It makes the government moral to command the tax, just like it makes Islam moral to command the donation.
|
Sure. The government can copy any religious moral laws it wants. However religion still serves the purpose of being the source of the copied law (obviously not true in cases where it wasn't copied from religion, but thought up of) and providing a different deterrent ("I don't want to sin against God").
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Try debating moral issues with an atheist and it usually resolves down to "because it feels wrong", especially on issues which don't feel wrong. Atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. |
That is because when atheists are asked to explain morality to a person who thinks - and i quote - that "Religion has a solid ground for its morality. You don't do this or that because it says so.", they are forced to use the simplest terms they can possibly think of. In fact, there are dozens of ways you can implement morality without the help of a religion at all, and many have nothing at all to do with feelings.
|
Implenting morality has nothing to do with whether you consider the moral law, e.g. cheating is wrong, to be true or false.
Religion has solid moral laws. Without religion, many moral laws are highly debateable. Cheating is wrong. Why? If no-one finds out and no-one is affected by it and the cheater gets glory, then surely it's fine. But than again, you're decieving your friends. The debate would go on and on.
Whereas with religion, cheating is wrong because God says so. Much simpler.
| Quote: |
Again, if you seriously think that "it tells you what is wrong, and you have to do what it says" is a valid system of morality - and if you think that all non-religious systems of morality boil down to "because it feels wrong" - feel free to create a new thread and make those claims, and see how well they stand up.
|
I don't see how that refutes my point. Religion is a solid source of morality, because the believers will follow it because God says so. Without religion, it is very difficult and often impossible to prove a moral law is right or wrong, true or false. Because there is no backing for moral exclamations you make, because you can argue either way.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion acts a social medium e.g. congregational meetings, such as sunday church, jewish sabbath, muslim friday prayers, can help the community as a whole. It can be a medium for social interaction; a medium far superior to pubs, where one drinks a drug that intoxicates the mind and over time damages the liver.
|
Religion is a horrible social medium, because it encourages divisiveness and alienation. It may encourage remarkable unity within the religion, but it divides the society into separate religious groups that then - quite often - end up at odds with each other.
|
Religion isn't a bad social medium if it encourages unity within the religious followers. It's better to have some unity, then no unity.
As for dividing society into seperate religious groups, that doesn't make seperate religious groups enemies. Islam urges its followers to identify what they have in common with other monotheistic faiths. Christianity tells its followers to love their enemies.
Besides, any number of things are going to divide society, including culture (people tend to band together based on where their parents came from or where they grew up and so on), language, race, and so on. Even differences over which scientific theory on a particular topic can divide a group.
There will always be differences in a group. That doesn't make the seperating cause bad. As long as people don't let their differences make them enemies, that'll be fine.
(You might object that religious followers aren't currently living in peace. However such situations, such as the iraqi sectarian war or the israeli/palestinian conflict, are often political conflicts and not religious. Even al queda is a political group (i think the CIA agrees and lists it as a political group) whose aim is to liberate the middle east from the 'evil' west.)
| Quote: |
Furthermore, as a medium for social interaction, religion frankly sucks. Are you allowed to chat with the people around you during prayers? Hardly. Most religious services require either silence or participation in carefully choreographed ceremonies that sometimes go on for hours. That is not social interaction. Social interaction is interacting with society. There is more and better social interaction at a bowling alley than in any given religious service.
|
What service goes on for hours? I know that Muslim friday Congregational prayers are often five or ten minutes long (unless the leader makes it longer). I've never been to church on sunday, but doesn't it only go on for about an hour or two?
You chat to the people before and after the prayers. Whenever someone enters the mosque, people say "peace", often become familar with each other, start asking about each other's family's health, and later become friends. When prayers end, people often shake hands with each other. Before and after the prayers, people can chat to each other and often do. People are united in coming to the mosque together or leaving together. I made good friends with a group of Muslims when we used to go to a mosque together. I've met someone who one of my Christian friends made friends with at church.
Far better for people to come together to pray to their beloved God, than for people to go to a pub where they toxify their bodys.
All the times i've ever been to a bowling alley no group of friends talked to another group. So much for making new friends at a bowling alley!
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion acts a source of morality. You follow this moral law, because religion said so.
|
[*]This has been debunked numerous times, in numerous places. If you want to continue to advocate it, do it somewhere else. That issue is closed here.
|
Right so because you say it's wrong, it's wrong? You never debunked it in the first place. I apologise if i'm asking to repeat something you wrote elsewhere, but surely it doesn't take that much effort to paste or write one paragraph? It's not like you need to write an essay.
What's wrong with my point that religions is a solid source of morality? Without religion, it's very difficult and often impossible to prove a moral law true or false.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion is an encouragement to be morally good. You don't lie or steal because God said so.
|
[*]See above.
|
?
Religion is a deterrent. It is rare to find a government whose people don't break the law because they love the government. But religion has alot of followers who don't sin, because they love God.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength.
|
Religion also heaps oodles of guilt and existential dread on people.
|
How? Only religious followers follow religion. And of those, only those who sin 'major' sins feel alot of guilt, e.g. fornication or adultery or murder. But in most countries, the religious followers who murder are a minority of the total religious followers in that country.
And even if someone did sin 'big time', there's forgiveness in many religions. In Islam, any sin can be forigiven (in this life) and all sins after you die bar idolatry. In Christianity, Jesus is a sacrifice and so forgiveness is available for any Christian (bar possibly cursing the holy spirit). So even if someone did sin, they wouldn't be feeling guilty long, because the religious follower would seek God's forgiveness.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, comfort, support and strength are by and large not provided by religions, but by the people within the religion... which is the same way it works for any group. You don't need the religion, you just need the group.
|
It's nice to have someone to talk to, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point is that the ideas religion offer, an afterlife, is a source of comfort to the followers. Especially to those who are so sad and depressed because they loose relatives or their spouse, and would love to see them again.
Religion can offer strength to followers in times of suffering. For example, alot of Christians are reinforced by the holy spirit.
It can offer Hope to those who are oppressed, starving, and others in need.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Some religions encourage scientific advancement. E.g. Islam which produced the golden age of muslims.
|
Islam also ended the golden age of Muslims. And we frankly don't need the Qur'an to encourage scientific advancement. We get plenty of encouragement just from the results we have observed so far. |
Islam did not end the golden age. I don't see how that makes sense. How could a religion which promote the truth end the scientific advancement?
The golden age was ended by the main weakening factors of the crusaders' invasions and mongul invasions who weakened the Muslim empire,s acking Baghdad (a main city in the empire), and killed the Caliph (leader of the Muslims), resulting in disunity.
We do get scientific encouragement now. But alot of sciencific research is only advancing in areas where it would be possible to make money. Massive corporate companies frequently sponser universities to advance in areas which would help them.
We might get scientific encouragement. But before, we didn't. Islam encouraged
Peace.
| Indi wrote: | | Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself. |
Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purposes. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose. Common sense?
| Indi wrote: | | Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself. |
Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purpose. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose.
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself. |
Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purpose. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose. |
To society 
| liljp617 wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself. |
Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purpose. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose. |
To society |
Which is the whole issue here. Those arguing that religion has a use seem to be forgetting that we are talking about society as a whole, not just one individual person or one group of people.
| Xanatos wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Religion creates a problem - "God" and the fact that the onus is on us to have a relationship with him - and then offers itself as the only solution to that problem. A slick marketing tactic, sure, but that still leaves us with the problem: religion serves no useful purpose in modern society. It exists only to support itself. |
Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purpose. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose. |
To society |
Which is the whole issue here. Those arguing that religion has a use seem to be forgetting that we are talking about society as a whole, not just one individual person or one group of people. |
Yes. I think somebody should change the thread title to "What is the usefulness of religion to modern society?", because most people either aren't comprehending it or simply aren't reading the opening post (this would be my guess).
| Xanatos wrote: |
Which is the whole issue here. Those arguing that religion has a use seem to be forgetting that we are talking about society as a whole, not just one individual person or one group of people. |
The perspective of society would still be an individual one. What would your "all society" be for example? Your view of it would be one viewed through your own specific individual lenses, that will be different from the next person's perspective of what "all society" is and how useful religion would be for their version of "all society". Some may have an atheist perspective of what "all society" means and the use of religion would be dominated by that view. Someone else who is religious, may have a totally different perspective of what "all society" means and have a different view of whether religion has any use for their version of "all society".
It seems pretty simple. The question is asking what usefulness does religion provide to society as a whole. That has little to do with an individual's perspective; an individual can't just decide some people aren't part of society and others are. Society is "the whole." It's not subjective.
How is it even possible to have a different idea of what all society means? All society means everybody. Period.
| Xanatos wrote: |
And flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then? You do realize that this can cause serious injury or most likely death. |
Peace.
You confirm my point: Without religion, there are no solid grounds for morality. This is wrong because you feel its wrong? With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. I could argue that the adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, and you have sexual pleasure.
Anyway, this punishment can rarely be handed out (lawfully - i.e. if the Muslim authority is following the rules). Notice how you need four witnesses? That makes it nearly impossible.
Thus, it's very difficult to convict someone of adultery. You need four witnesses or a freely-given confession.
| loyal wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: |
And flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then? You do realize that this can cause serious injury or most likely death. |
Peace.
You confirm my point: Without religion, there are no solid grounds for morality. This is wrong because you feel its wrong? With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. I could argue that the adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, and you have sexual pleasure.
Anyway, this punishment can rarely be handed out (lawfully - i.e. if the Muslim authority is following the rules). Notice how you need four witnesses? That makes it nearly impossible.
Thus, it's very difficult to convict someone of adultery. You need four witnesses or a freely-given confession. |
How does this in any way confirm your point? You mention here that the punishment is only carried out when the muslim government is strictly following the word of God. In a sense they are cherry picking the moral laws they want. God/Allah/whoever commands that you intentionally severly disable or kill another human being. Is this right? No, and apparently you don't think it is right either. So explain to me again how we gain all our morals from religon?
| Quote: | | and you have sexual pleasure. |
Ummmmm..... What?
| loyal wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: |
And flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then? You do realize that this can cause serious injury or most likely death. |
Peace.
You confirm my point: Without religion, there are no solid grounds for morality. This is wrong because you feel its wrong? With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. I could argue that the adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, and you have sexual pleasure. |
No this is simply nonsense. There are plenty of non-religious moral/ethical systems. You can take a purely pragmatic approach, a utilitarian approach, an ethical humanist approach, etcetera. The idea that religion provides some sort of moral absolutism is clearly nonsensical - it depends which religion you follow, which means it is inherently subjective.
| loyal wrote: | | It doesn't look like you're saying that at all in your first paragraph. I apologise if i've misinterpreted, but it looks alot like you're saying religion tries to explain how nature works. |
So when i say, "... no one believes that religion helps in any way to explain the functioning of the universe... Religion just can't explain nature", you somehow manage to read "religion tries to explain how nature works"? Interesting.
| loyal wrote: | | Why would they contradict over how the universe works if one explains how the universe works and one doesn't? |
Er... reality check. (On several levels. ^_^)
First, i know religion doesn't. i said religion doesn't. i even mocked everyone who says religion does! ^_^; i don't know how much more clear i can make it. Try and grasp this: i am not saying religion explains nature. i am saying it can't, even if it tries to. Understand? That is what i am saying. That is my position: religion cannot explain nature.
Now, for many people and many religions, religion does try to explain nature. Grasp that? i know, i know - you say it doesn't in your particular theory of religion. i got that. But the fact is: many people, and many religions do believe that religion explains nature. (And you are one of them, but i'll get back to that in a minute.) This is a fact. i don't care about your opinions on that matter. The evidence is as plain as day: many people do believe that religion can and does explain nature.
So that is why - try and stay with me now! - that is why i wrote that first paragraph. The paragraph in which i clearly said that religion is useless at explaining nature. i wrote that paragraph because many people and many religions claim religion explains nature - not me, understand? them - i wrote that paragraph to rebut them and their claims, which are not my claims. And despite your claims, many people do think religion can explain nature. That first paragraph was my reply to them: and the reply was, "no, it doesn't, dumbasses."
Understand now? They believe that religion can explain nature, and of course, inevitably, it fails and contradicts scientific knowledge. That happens because they believe religion explains nature, not me... them.
Whew ^_^;
Ok, now, second problem.
You keep telling me that religion doesn't try to explain nature, that they can't contradict because they're completely different fields, yadda yadda... but then... you go and say this: "Allah... made Adam from clay and water." Do you see the problem? That is a statement about nature. Which you just finished saying was entirely distinct from science, so much so that they could never contradict. Now, it just so happens that if you try hard enough, you can make that claim sorta kinda sound like it agrees with science... which is the kind of thing i referring to when i said: "At best, religion doesn't contradict science...".
See what i'm getting at? One minute you're saying that you're completely at a loss to understand how religion could even dream of stepping into the domain of science... the next you're talking about what the Qur'an says about nature.
Fact: Islam makes dozens of claims about nature - some of which can be sorta-kinda interpreted to work with science, some which can't - all the way back to its six "day" creation myth (and yes, i know they're not interpreted as six literal days -_- but regardless of the length of the "days", the order of events doesn't jive with what we know today). Even if and when Islam agrees with science, it is still treading in science's domain. It doesn't matter if it agrees or not. If it agrees, that's a happy accident, but it doesn't make Islam useful for explaining nature. If it doesn't agree then you have to choose between Islam and science.
So there's your dilemma. You can't say Islam supports science without admitting that Islam and science overlap - and thus, are not completely diffferent fields. As long as Islam says anything about the natural universe, it is stepping on science's toes. Even when it seems to agree today... science marches on, the Qur'an does not.
| loyal wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | It has already been well established in several other threads (including the one that spawned this thread) that religion is either not a moral authority at all, or a very lousy one. There is no point in repeating them all here again. If you still believe religion serves as a moral authority, then by all means, create a new thread and try to argue for why this is true. Good luck. |
No point? Certainly there is point if you wish to actually refute my point. You don't need to write an essay. I'm sure you could sum it up in a small paragraph. |
Yes, no point. Religion has been ruled out as a plausible basis for morality by philosophers since the dawn of philosophy, and it has been completely trashed here on Frihost several times. There is no need to repeat those arguments: either you've seen them and just refuse to accept them, or you haven't seen them and are just too lazy to look them up. Either way, my time can be better spent than by just repeating them yet again.
And no, i cannot sum it up in a small paragraph, because it is a huge problem with dozens of solutions - and you have already rejected the "short answer" people give to avoid writing the essays (essays, which, by the way, already exist in a couple threads around here).
As i said, the issue is closed here. i have no need to "refute your point", because your point has been refuted over and over and over and over and over again on these forums (and i have no desire to refute it again because i find the whole claim you are making ignorant and offensive). If you don't agree, tough. Go complain somewhere else. Start a new thread and try to argue that religion is a sound basis for morality and see how far you get. And if by some miracle you manage to outsmart thousands of philosophers and dozens of Frihosters and show that religion is a sound basis for morality, then by all means, come back here and offer morality as a use for religion. But until then, i'm going to bow to convention and call that question closed. Religion is a lousy basis for morality.
| loyal wrote: | | Actually since Muslims number 1.5 billion, any single government, bar several united governments, will be beaten on sheer numbers. |
That has to be the most dishonest use of statistics i have seen in a long time. ^_^;
What you are doing is lying by statistics - specifically, changing the population between your two measurements. First you quote the population of Muslims in the world, then you compare them to the individual governments. That's two entirely different groups.
Either stick to the global population: in which case the 1.5 billion Muslims are only ~22% of the 6.75 billion... so if the goverment was a world government (100%) it would make more than Islam (~22%).
Or, stick to individual governments: let's pick the United Arab Emirates - just for kicks - which is 85% Muslim. Still, if the government of the UAE implemented the tax it would bring in more (100%) than Islam alone (85%).
Unless everyone in the society is Muslim, a government tax will always earn more than an Islamic tax. So if you want to impose mandatory charity, Islam is still useless compared to a government (not to mention the fact that the government could adjust the tax as necessary - up to 5% in times of wealth and down to 0.5% in tough times... the goverment doesn't only bring in more charity, it brings in better charity).
| loyal wrote: | | Religion isn't a bad social medium if it encourages unity within the religious followers. It's better to have some unity, then no unity. |
And it is better to have total unity than to have several small united groups fighting against each other. The first case is world peace. The second is world war.
Religion is a bad social medium because it encourages unity within the group and - and this is the part you carefully excluded - enemnity with other groups. You carefully went out of your way to mention how "tolerant" Muslims are supposed to be toward other monotheistic religions... but what about polytheistic religions? A billion Hindus await your answer curiously. What about religions that worship idols? What about religions that deny gods?
If the goal is a united society, then it makes no sense whatsoever to deliberately include things in that society that divide people. What is the sense in that? If the people create their own groups and divide themselves, fine - they are free to do what they want... but why intend for them to gang up into competing groups? You try to pass of religion as being useful for building a society, then handwave away the fact that religion means fragmenting society - and whether they end up fighting or not is irrelevant. You are trying to sell religion as a social enabler when it draws lines in society and separates people. That just doesn't make sense.
| loyal wrote: | | (You might object that religious followers aren't currently living in peace. However such situations, such as the iraqi sectarian war or the israeli/palestinian conflict, are often political conflicts and not religious. Even al queda is a political group (i think the CIA agrees and lists it as a political group) whose aim is to liberate the middle east from the 'evil' west.) |
This is just absurdly dishonest. -_- First, who cares how the CIA classifies al-Qaeda? They made al-Qaeda as a political (anti-communist group)... then lost control of it. But regardless of what they think it is:
- It was originally formed and funded by Muslim groups (and still is).
- It recruits new members in mosques.
- It trains people in fundamentalist Sunni Islam alongside of their para-military training.
- It uses religious arguments to justify its actions.
- It uses religious rewards to motivate its members.
- There have been differences of opinions recorded amongst the leaders of al-Qaeda... but none of them were political... they all boil down to "how far should we go to spread Islam" (for example, they debated whether they should spare Muslim nations, or attack them too if they were "not Muslim enough").
Seriously. -_- What political promises do you think they make to suicide bombers? "Oh, if you blow yourself up, we'll consider a flat tax."? Do you know what the last thing the 9/11 hijackers said as they rammed their planes into the buildings? Do you think it was, "This is for socialism!"?
Seriously, grow up. -_- al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist Sunni organization. Their "politics" goes no further than "Islam should be the law". But that doesn't mean that Islam caused al-Qaeda. All it means is that it is possible to be Muslim and al-Qaeda at the same time. Which should come as no great surprise to anyone. Anyone who doesn't realize that it is possible to be horrifically evil and tremendously religious at the same time is living with their head in the sand.
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi, that fits in with your outlook in life, which is strictly rational. From the head. Religion comes from a different place, starting with faith first in something that you with your rational outlook would find completely rediculous. So to have a debate about this can only be a loose loose situation. For someone who believes in God, religion has a definite purpose. For someone who does not believe in God, religion cannot have a purpose. |
i don't really care where religion "comes from". It can come right out of peoples's asses for all i care. i asked whether or not it has any use in the real world. Where religion "comes from" is utterly irrelevant to that question. The question is: what use is religion?
To put it another way, consider a hammer. It has a use - driving nails. i don't care where hammers came from. i don't care what the original intended purpose of hammers was. All i care about is the fact that hammers have a real use. i can believe hammers evolved from early forms of conveniently shaped rocks, you can believe hammers were handed down to humanity by a benevolent deity... it does not matter. Either it has a use, or it does not have a use, and any other issue is just a red herring.
You're just overcomplicating the question, and trying to turn it into an "us-vs-them" issue, when it's not. If religion has a use, then it has a use regardless of whether my belief system is the same as yours or not.
And no, it doesn't have a use just because you say you need it, or you feel like you need it - if that was all it took for something to be useful, then crack cocaine is useful, according to crack-addicts.
If religion is useless, as you have already said it is, then it is useless. There is no point in discussing its "purpose" if it is useless. There is no point is telling me how i "just don't get it" because i'm not in the god-fearing club, because it is still useless whether i get it or not. If you "get it" and say its useless, then i don't see what i'm missing - i've come to the same conclusion without "getting it", so why even bring up the fact that our views are different? And if you've come to the conclusion that it's useless, why say the debate is pointless? It's not pointless if it arrives at a definite conclusion - one that we both apparently agree on. A question was asked, and is being discussed - you arrived at a conclusion, and i am heading toward the same conclusion - and whatever the conclusion is, it tells us something about both religion and society. It seems like a perfectly worthwhile debate, and it seems to be going just swimmingly. If you are going to bring up our personal beliefs and start talking about irrelevant questions (like the purpose of religion), that will do a good job of making the debate pointless. But otherwise it's going just fine.
| liljp617 wrote: | | Yes. I think somebody should change the thread title to "What is the usefulness of religion to modern society?", because most people either aren't comprehending it or simply aren't reading the opening post (this would be my guess). |
i doubt very much that that would help, and it is overly specific. If religion is useless to modern society, what makes it useful to past or future societies? Note: not what made it seem useful, what actually made it useful. Ignorance about the universe in the past may have made religion seem useful, but was it really? i don't see it.
What would be very helpful is if anyone sees people trying to substitute "usefulness" for "purpose" - and several people have done that already - call them out on it. The question is specifically "usefulness", not "purpose". Just because religion has a purpose, that doesn't mean it is useful. The purpose of a fart machine is to generate noises that sound remarkably like flatulence. But a fart machine is hardly a generally useful device.
| Bikerman wrote: | | loyal wrote: | | You confirm my point: Without religion, there are no solid grounds for morality. This is wrong because you feel its wrong? With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. I could argue that the adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, and you have sexual pleasure. |
No this is simply nonsense. There are plenty of non-religious moral/ethical systems. You can take a purely pragmatic approach, a utilitarian approach, an ethical humanist approach, etcetera. The idea that religion provides some sort of moral absolutism is clearly nonsensical - it depends which religion you follow, which means it is inherently subjective. |
i don't want this discussion to sidetrack the main point of the thread. Everyone knows that religion is a lousy basis for morality... that fact has been clear since Socrates and Euthypro had their little chat. Only loyal apparently disagrees (or at least, he is the only one brave enough to speak up about it) and i've already told him that if he doesn't understand why that claim is a dead issue, he can start a thread dedicated to that question and discuss it there. It is pointless to repeat that discussion here when it has already been done to death in other threads, and does nothing for main point of this one. And if we have to rehash every single philosophical point that every first year philosophy student knows in every single thread, then we're never going to get anywhere.
So the issue is closed. The verdict (as far as we care here): even if religion provides a sound basis for morality, secular ethical systems provide just as sound - if not more sound - a basis... so it is not necessary to have religion for morality. Case closed.
If you don't understand why, or if you disagree, feel free to create a thread dedicated to that topic.
| Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | Yes. I think somebody should change the thread title to "What is the usefulness of religion to modern society?", because most people either aren't comprehending it or simply aren't reading the opening post (this would be my guess). |
i doubt very much that that would help, and it is overly specific. If religion is useless to modern society, what makes it useful to past or future societies? Note: not what made it seem useful, what actually made it useful. Ignorance about the universe in the past may have made religion seem useful, but was it really? i don't see it. |
Well, maybe just add society on there without modern  It just seemed like people were ignoring or missing the detail of "society" in the question.
| Quote: | | What would be very helpful is if anyone sees people trying to substitute "usefulness" for "purpose" - and several people have done that already - call them out on it. The question is specifically "usefulness", not "purpose". Just because religion has a purpose, that doesn't mean it is useful. The purpose of a fart machine is to generate noises that sound remarkably like flatulence. But a fart machine is hardly a generally useful device. |
I think this needs to be highlighted if the thread is to continue on a good track and provide good discussion...so I'm going to make it larger!
Peace.
-----------------------
| Xanatos wrote: |
How does this in any way confirm your point?
|
You said certain religions command its followers to stone those who are different. I then mentioned that stoning is wrongly used as a punishment for adultery in Islam. You then accused me of saying it was wrong because i felt it was wrong. I responded to this assumption by briefly explaining the debate on the punishment of adultery in Islam (i.e. it's wrong because i side with one side of the debate, and not out of some random feelings). You then said "flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then?". This confirmed my point because you are using your feelings to suggest it's wrong.
My point says without religion, it's difficult or impossible to determine right or wrong, because people judge with their feelings, and people's feelings differ. We could be plunged into a debate on whether flogging is a justifiable punishment, but I doubt very much we could determine the answer, because of our different opinions and feelings on the subject. Whereas with religion, a believer accepts the punishment as acceptable because God says it.
As I've already explained, my point is that without religion, you could 'cherry-pick' what is right according to your feelings. But because people are different, there are different feelings on the same subjects. Hence there are different rulings on whether it is morally right or wrong to do something. So there can be little agreement over many moral issues of whether an action or something is right or wrong. But with religion, you accept what is right or wrong because the religion says so.
| Quote: |
You mention here that the punishment is only carried out when the muslim government is strictly following the word of God. In a sense they are cherry picking the moral laws they want.
|
?
I mean: if a Muslim government is actually following Islam, then the punishment can rarely be handed out. The reason I said this is that most, if not all, Muslim governments do not follow Islam completely. They are picking and choosing what they want from Islam. This is incorrect Muslim behaviour. Muslims should submit completely to God. They should be following all of Islam.
| Quote: |
God/Allah/whoever commands that you intentionally severly disable or kill another human being. Is this right? No, and apparently you don't think it is right either.
|
In the first place, the punishment can rarely be handed out. How often are you found cheating, in the act itself, by four people?
In the second, I didn't say it was a bad punishment. I accept the punishment. And you can't use your feelings to justify it. Why should your feelings be superior in deciding whether this punishment is right or wrong, to mine?
In the third, the intention of the punishment was not to kill or disable. I'm pretty sure there are hadith regulating the punishment.
-------------------------------------
| Bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: |
Without religion, there are no solid grounds for morality. This is wrong because you feel its wrong? With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. I could argue that the adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, and you have sexual pleasure.
|
No this is simply nonsense. There are plenty of non-religious moral/ethical systems. You can take a purely pragmatic approach, a utilitarian approach, an ethical humanist approach, etcetera.
|
And that's the point: With all these different ways of approaching the moral issue, and with many people disagreeing on the correct way to approach the moral issue, and many people disagreeing on whether the moral issue is right or false...with all of this, it's very difficult or impossible to determine morally right or wrong.
| Quote: |
The idea that religion provides some sort of moral absolutism is clearly nonsensical - it depends which religion you follow, which means it is inherently subjective.
|
It's not nonsensical because religion does provide moral absolutism. Religion says do this, don't do this. You follow because you believe in religion.
Depends on which religion? Many religions agree on many of the same moral issues. Many, if not most, of the moral laws are agreed onto a certain extent.
--------------------------------
| loyal wrote: | Peace.
-----------------------
| Xanatos wrote: |
How does this in any way confirm your point?
|
You said certain religions command its followers to stone those who are different. I then mentioned that stoning is wrongly used as a punishment for adultery in Islam. You then accused me of saying it was wrong because i felt it was wrong. I responded to this assumption by briefly explaining the debate on the punishment of adultery in Islam (i.e. it's wrong because i side with one side of the debate, and not out of some random feelings). You then said "flogging someone 100 times isn't wrong then?". This confirmed my point because you are using your feelings to suggest it's wrong.
My point says without religion, it's difficult or impossible to determine right or wrong, because people judge with their feelings, and people's feelings differ. We could be plunged into a debate on whether flogging is a justifiable punishment, but I doubt very much we could determine the answer, because of our different opinions and feelings on the subject. Whereas with religion, a believer accepts the punishment as acceptable because God says it.
As I've already explained, my point is that without religion, you could 'cherry-pick' what is right according to your feelings. But because people are different, there are different feelings on the same subjects. Hence there are different rulings on whether it is morally right or wrong to do something. So there can be little agreement over many moral issues of whether an action or something is right or wrong. But with religion, you accept what is right or wrong because the religion says so.
|
But what if the law of God is wrong? are you telling us to shut up and not question? Are you saying that all moral laws givin by religon are good? Because if you aren't then you are confirming mine and indi's and bikerman's points by admitting that the moral laws given by religion can be wrong.
There are different ideas as to what is right or wrong according to different religons as well.
| Xanatos wrote: | | But what if the law of God is wrong? |
On what provable basis would the law of God be wrong? Similarly, on what provable basis would the law of God be right?
We are dealing with probabilities here. How can a debate be feasible when the probability of both religion and non-religion is equal with regard to provability?
| deanhills wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: | | But what if the law of God is wrong? |
On what provable basis would the law of God be wrong? Similarly, on what provable basis would the law of God be right?
We are dealing with probabilities here. How can a debate be feasible when the probability of both religion and non-religion is equal with regard to provability? |
1. Right or Wrong is a matter of popular opinion.
2. Right or Wrong is a matter of personal perception.
3. "Nothing is either Right or Wrong, but thinking makes it so".
P.S. I believe that 2&3 are distinct, the later destroying the whole concept of Right or Wrong, amongst other things.
This is not a thread about moral relativity.
The fact is that even if religion can be used to provide a moral framework (which it can't), it is not the only way you can construct a moral framework... and the alternatives are much simpler. Therefore, we don't need religion to construct a moral framework.
QED.
If you want to debate moral relativity, make a thread about moral relativity.
If you want to challenge the claim that religion is not the only way to construct a moral framework, make a thread about constructing secular moral frameworks.
This thread is about trying to find out what use, if any, religion might have to make it worth keeping around. Since we already know that we can form moral frameworks without religion, there is no further need to discuss moral frameworks, or religious morality.
| Indi wrote: | This is not a thread about moral relativity.
|
which is why I was inclined to end that proposition before it got a chance to develop, obscurring the issue at hand.
Peace.
I hope you blew off any steam with your condescending manner during your post.
| Indi wrote: |
So when i say, "... no one believes that religion helps in any way to explain the functioning of the universe... Religion just can't explain nature", you somehow manage to read "religion tries to explain how nature works"? Interesting. |
Your statement "At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science" does make it look like you think they conflict: It appeared that you said they do contradict "if and when religion does contradict science".
But you've explained your position very clearly, so now this matter can put to rest.
| Indi wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Why would they contradict over how the universe works if one explains how the universe works and one doesn't? |
...i am not saying religion explains nature. i am saying it can't, even if it tries to. Understand?
That is what i am saying. That is my position: religion cannot explain nature.
|
Thank you for explaining.
| Quote: |
Now, for many people and many religions, religion does try to explain nature. Grasp that? i know, i know - you say it doesn't in your particular theory of religion. i got that. But the fact is: many people, and many religions do believe that religion explains nature. (And you are one of them, but i'll get back to that in a minute.) This is a fact. i don't care about your opinions on that matter. The evidence is as plain as day: many people do believe that religion can and does explain nature. |
Many religions explain nature? You'll need to prove that with a list of religions and a few examples; for I've never seen an explanation of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution or the theory of something or another in a religious scripture. Sure I've read the occasional Muslim or Christian article on how this book or that book has the occasional statement of scientific knowledge beyond the time of revelation, but the articles don't claim that the book(s) give an entire explanation; merely that they mention one or two facts, which were unknown at that time but are known now. Alot of people do believe that religion occasionally gives a scientific fact, but not much more beyond that. They don't beleive that the entire explanation is given in the religion or give a full theory.
| Quote: |
You keep telling me that religion doesn't try to explain nature, that they can't contradict because they're completely different fields, yadda yadda... but then... you go and say this: "Allah... made Adam from clay and water." Do you see the problem? That is a statement about nature. Which you just finished saying was entirely distinct from science, so much so that they could never contradict. Now, it just so happens that if you try hard enough, you can make that claim sorta kinda sound like it agrees with science... which is the kind of thing i referring to when i said: "At best, religion doesn't contradict science...".
|
???
1) I never wrote the words "Allah... made Adam from clay and water" in this topic. I wrote them in a previous topic. Which means you're quoting them to try and make me contradict myself. Which I didn't do because:
2) I never said they are completely different fields that never ever meet so they can't ever contradict. I said they were different, which they are. But I explained my full position on the religion/science issue in my first response to you. I said:
'(An assumption behind this post is) that a major purpose of religion is to explain how the universe works. It isn't. Or at least it isn't in Islam. Religions are the why. E.g. why are we here? '
I also said:
'i don't see much conflict between religion and science. One does not disapprove the other. They are different fields. One deals with morality. The other deals with the acquiring of knowledge of the working of physical things through the scientific method.'
In other words, religion's major purpose is not to explain how the universe works. Religion and science don't conflict much. The reason why is because they are different fields; one deals with morality and the 'big questions', the other with the acquiring of knowledge of the working of physical things through the scientific method. There could be a few conflicts because some religious followers claim there are a few scientific statements in religious books. However these conflicts are in the minority due to the small number of 'scientific statements' when you compare them to the total number of verses. These 'scientific statements' are often simply just stating a fact (assuming it's right). Most of the time (I'd rather not say 'never', without being totally sure), a full theory or a full explanation is not given; it's just stating facts. So religion and science can't conflict too much, because religion never majorily interferes with science; only with the occasional odd fact.
| Quote: |
Fact: Islam makes dozens of claims about nature
|
Correction: some Muslims interpret a minority of verses scientifically.
| Quote: |
- some of which can be sorta-kinda interpreted to work with science, some which can't - all the way back to its six "day" creation myth (and yes, i know they're not interpreted as six literal days -_- but regardless of the length of the "days", the order of events doesn't jive with what we know today).
|
It's not interpreted as six literal days, because it isn't six days. Because the word 'yawm' in classical arabic might mean a 24 hour day, but it means a period of time. Hence a translator could either translate the word as 'period of time' or 'day'. Translators are well aware that it means period of time (since science has revealed the universe and earth took more than 24*6 hours to make), but translate it as 'day'; since 'day' in english also can refer to a non-24 hour period. Confirmation of the fact that 'yawm' in the Qur'an does not refer to a 24 hour day, can be seen from other verses describing different 'yawm' as 50,000 days and 1000 days. The fact that the Qur'an uses different figures for different 'yawm' show it does not refer to a 24 day. A Muslim believes the Qur'an is from God, so he/she believes God did not mean a 24 hour period.
What order of events? Scientifically speaking, the Quran mentions very simple statements about the
creation of the universe. I don't think any important scientist or even an important non-scientist could disagree with them:
"Say, "You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe."
He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four days, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants.
Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly." Thus, He completed the seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every universe. And we adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and placed guards around it. Such is the design of the Almighty,
the Omniscient." 41:9-12 (note the translation here isn't perfect).
All you learn, scientifically speaking, is that God created the earth from gas/smoke (or whatever the correct translation is) in two periods of time then put mountains on it. Hardly a ground breaking revelation or one that would cause major conflicts between religion and science. Last time I checked, scientists accepted that there are mountains on earth. And, correct me if i'm wrong, no-one knows how long it took for the universe or earth, and even if they did, the Quran does not specify how long each 'yawm' (day/period of time) is.
| Quote: |
Even if and when Islam agrees with science, it is still treading in science's domain. It doesn't matter if it agrees or not. If it agrees, that's a happy accident, but it doesn't make Islam useful for explaining nature. If it doesn't agree then you have to choose between Islam and science.
|
Accident? If the verses to which you and some Muslims refer to are actually scientific, then it's not an accident in my point of view. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. I'm just contesting your use of the word 'accident'.
If it doesn't, then I have to choose between religion and science? I would choose religion. I believe Islam is wholly correct. Whereas science is constantly learning from its errors.
I think some of the 'scientific' statements in the Qur'an depend on interpretation or translation, and some are mere simplistic observations (e.g. mountains on earth). The rest, if they are factual scientific statements that are: only recently discovered with the latest technology, highly scientific statements, then I would believe them to be right.
| Quote: |
So there's your dilemma. You can't say Islam supports science without admitting that Islam and science overlap - and thus, are not completely diffferent fields. As long as Islam says anything about the natural universe, it is stepping on science's toes.
|
Islam does support the advance of science. Sure the Qur'an might give the occasional scientific fact (ignoring interpretation, translation, and so on), but apart from that, it doesn't interfere with the scientific knowledge itself.
Even if one of scientific facts (again assuming they are scientific and so on) are in the Qur'an, it does not matter to me. It doesn't matter whether the earth was created in six periods of time or fifty or whatever. It doesn't affect how I practice Islam. Practising Islam correctly, learning the religious answers to the 'big questions', knowing the moral laws...those are the main practises of Islam for me. Not looking at the few verses of science, which are questionably translated. Why do I need to gain science from religion, if I have science already? If we assume those verses are scientific, then their purpose is to convince people that this or that religion is true. Not to teach us science. If Islam did try to explain science and how it works and then try to teach it that, then it would be moving greatly into the scientific field. But it merely gives (again assuming...) a few scientific statements for the purpose of convincing. Questions or statements such as 'have the disbelievers not seen....?' are often in the same verse, in the next verse, or in a near verse, which shows that the Qur'an is trying to convince its listeners (or readers).
| Quote: |
Even when it seems to agree today... science marches on, the Qur'an does not.
|
Obviously...The Qur'an is already fully revealed, so it doesn't change. Scientific isn't complete or
completely correct so it changes. Besides, you're implying that the scientific statements (assuming they are scientific) in the Qur'an are wrong. Of course you think so, but Muslims would disagree.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | It has already been well established in several other threads (including the one that spawned this thread) that religion is either not a moral authority at all, or a very lousy one. There is no point in repeating them all here again. If you still believe religion serves as a moral authority, then by all means, create a new thread and try to argue for why this is true. Good luck. |
No point? Certainly there is point if you wish to actually refute my point. You don't need to write an essay.
I'm sure you could sum it up in a small paragraph. |
Yes, no point. Religion has been ruled out as a plausible basis for morality by philosophers since the dawn of philosophy, and it has been completely trashed here on Frihost several times. There is no need to repeat those arguments: either you've seen them and just refuse to accept them, or you haven't seen them and are just too lazy to look them up. Either way, my time can be better spent than by just repeating them yet again.
And no, i cannot sum it up in a small paragraph, because it is a huge problem with dozens of solutions - and you have already rejected the "short answer" people give to avoid writing the essays (essays, which, by the way, already exist in a couple threads around here).
...i'm going to bow to convention and call that question closed. Religion is a lousy basis for morality.
|
I should point out the obvious: Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
You can complain as much as you like that I'm wrong, and that a million books have been written about how I'm wrong...but if you don't present me with the argument, you can't complain I'm refuted.
It wouldn't take an essay to write a response.
I also find it rather pointless that you chose to write a paragraph on how i'm wrong because you say i'm wrong, rather than to quote a post you've read, which has a suitable response. If you were willing to find a quote from a previous post of mine from another topic to try to make it look like I contradicted myself, surely you won't mind finding a quote from a previous post you've read that responds to my point.
Furthermore, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying i'm wrong about when it comes to religion and morality. I made more than one point on religion and morality, including (quoted from memory):
-Religion is a source of morality: i.e. it's a thing you can find moral laws in. I think alot of countries have taken some moral laws for religion and used it for their Law.
-Religion as an extra deterrent: i.e. 'I won't break this moral law, because I love God'.
-Religion as a solid source of morality: i.e. believers will follow the moral laws in a particular religion,
because the scripture comes from God. Whereas, without religion, there is no correct way of determining whether a moral action is right or wrong...often it's just feelings.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Actually since Muslims number 1.5 billion, any single government, bar several united governments, will be beaten on sheer numbers. |
That has to be the most dishonest use of statistics i have seen in a long time. ^_^;
What you are doing is lying by statistics - specifically, changing the population between your two measurements. First you quote the population of Muslims in the world, then you compare them to the individual governments. That's two entirely different groups.
Either stick to the global population: in which case the 1.5 billion Muslims are only ~22% of the 6.75 billion... so if the goverment was a world government (100%) it would make more than Islam (~22%).
Or, stick to individual governments: let's pick the United Arab Emirates - just for kicks - which is 85%
Muslim. Still, if the government of the UAE implemented the tax it would bring in more (100%) than Islam alone (85%). Unless everyone in the society is Muslim, a government tax will always earn more than an Islamic tax. So if you want to impose mandatory charity, Islam is still useless compared to a government (not to mention the fact that the government could adjust the tax as necessary - up to 5% in times of wealth and down to 0.5% in tough times... the goverment doesn't only bring in more charity, it brings in better charity).
|
I'm not being dishonest. I'm being realistic and using the correct definition of Islam's followers. There are 1.5 Muslims on earth (who we will assume all practice zakat, because the majority do) who all give 2.5% of their earnings to the poor and needy and charity. They do this now. Whereas there is no world government (you can't just make up situations that aren't close to being plausible (although I suspect there will be a world government far off in the future) to respond to a point). If an individual government was to implent 2.5% percent of earnings for charity/poor/needy as a obligatory tax (realistic), then you're wrong to say that the government would bring in more money than Islam. Because Islam applies to all of its followers; it isn't bound by a nation or by a group. Hence when you refer to Islam's followers, you refer to all of its followers. All 1.5 billion of them. Who outnumber any individual country.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Religion isn't a bad social medium if it encourages unity within the religious followers. It's better to have some unity, then no unity. |
And it is better to have total unity than to have several small united groups fighting against each other. The first case is world peace. The second is world war.
Religion is a bad social medium because it encourages unity within the group and - and this is the part you carefully excluded - enemnity with other groups.
|
Logical contradiction. You can't say religion is a bad social medium if it makes unity in the group.
I did not exclude groups outside of the groups. Notice how I said 'It's better to have some unity, then no unity'. It's better to have people united by religion, then not to be united by anything.
Anyway, people are always going to be divided by something.
I also notice your use of the emotive word of 'enemnity'. Just because people are different, it doesn't mean they are enemies. I'm not automatically an enemy of every non-Muslim.
| Quote: |
You carefully went out of your way to mention how "tolerant" Muslims are supposed to be toward other monotheistic religions... but what about polytheistic religions? A billion Hindus await your answer curiously.
What about religions that worship idols? What about religions that deny gods?
|
If monotheistic religions are all united by their monotheism, then this is about half (counting the two biggest monotheistic followers alone, 1.5 billion muslims + 2 billion = 3.3...half of 6.6 billion total people) of the world. Half of the world united? Pretty good.
Polytheistic religions? A treaty/constituion/an official ruling document of Medina was made between the prophet, peace be upon him, and the people living in Medina; the idol worshippers were included in the document and given rights. During the time of the Muslim Caliph, Hindus and others were included under the title of 'people of the book', which gives them rights.
I don't know exactly what position an atheist has beyond not being an enemy of the Muslims if you're not at war with them. If you want, I can try to find out next time.
| Quote: |
If the goal is a united society, then it makes no sense whatsoever to deliberately include things in that society that divide people. What is the sense in that? If the people create their own groups and divide themselves, fine - they are free to do what they want...
|
So if they want to divide, it's fine? Well then stop objecting to those follow religion freely. Also, people aren't/don't become religious to divide themselves. There are quite a few families with mixed sect or mixed religions in them. That doesn't make them divided. It just means that they practice religion differently and have different beliefs on some things. If you're going to say their differences make them divided, well then many many things make them divided. Eye colour, skin colour, language, culture, as well as hobbies, interests, job/career, and so on. Is a wife divided from her husband because they may have completely different jobs? No. They go out and practice their jobs differently.
| Quote: |
but why intend for them to gang up into competing groups? You try to pass of religion as being useful for building a society, then handwave away the fact that religion means fragmenting society - and whether they end up fighting or not is irrelevant. You are trying to sell religion as a social enabler when it draws lines in society and separates people. That just doesn't make sense.
|
Everything could be termed as "fragmenting" society, including culture, money, jobs and so on. But these things don't necessarily divide people. They just make them different. I have hindu, english, irish, scottish, friends. It only means I'm different to them; not divided. We're all friends.
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | (You might object that religious followers aren't currently living in peace. However such situations, such as the iraqi sectarian war or the israeli/palestinian conflict, are often political conflicts and not religious. Even al queda is a political group (i think the CIA agrees and lists it as a political group)
whose aim is to liberate the middle east from the 'evil' west.) |
This is just absurdly dishonest. -_- First, who cares how the CIA classifies al-Qaeda? They made al-Qaeda as a political (anti-communist group)... then lost control of it.
|
I was referring to the idea, which alot of people seem to have, that al-quaeda are a group whose aim is to kill all non-muslims in the world. I was simply pointing out they are fighting because of politics. I referred to al-qaeda in-case you objected that religious followers aren't currently living in peace. Hence, I referred to them to clarify they aren't fighting because of religion, but because of politics.That doesn't make it dishonest in any way.
| Quote: |
...[*]It uses religious arguments to justify its actions.
|
Not all of its arguments. It does likes to promote the idea that the 'evil west' has weakened the Muslims and ended their golden age (which the west are not guilty of), but it also says they are further weakening the Muslims with their invasions and attacks on Muslim countries. It also promotes feelings of discord because of any Muslims killed. One of its main arguments is "get out off our land and stop killing our people".
| Quote: |
[*]It uses religious rewards to motivate its members.
|
Huh? What religious rewards? Religious rewards only come from God or messengers. Not random terrorists.
Do you mean 'paradise for all sucide bombers'? Sucide bombing idea has been mass condemned by many Muslims. There's even a document (http://www.pathofislam.net/2008/peace-and-war/terrorism/condemnations-of-suicide-bombing-by-muslims/) which quotes important people, including scholars, condemning sucide bombers.
| Quote: |
Their "politics" goes no further than "Islam should be the law".
|
Not right. The main reason why they are fighting is because they want America and other Western counteries out of the Middle East.
| Quote: |
But that doesn't mean that Islam caused al-Qaeda. All it means is that it is possible to be Muslim and al-Qaeda at the same time. Which should come as no great surprise to anyone. Anyone who doesn't realize that it is possible to be horrifically evil and tremendously religious at the same time is living with their head in the sand.
|
It is possible to claim to be religious and be evil. But if you are following all of your religion correctly, unless your religion calls for violence or other acts of evil then you can't be evil.
There is the debate whether you can call people who don't practice their religion correctly (not sectarian debates, but violating basic agreed upon rules on purpose), hypocrites or non-followers. Al-qaeda are either hypocrites or non-Muslims. Either way, they don't follow the war ethics of Islam, including: not trying for all methods peace, not attacking only the army but also attacking innocent people including women and children, killing Muslims, not harming the environment greatly, and so on.
| Indi wrote: |
i don't want this discussion to sidetrack the main point of the thread. Everyone knows that religion is a lousy
basis for morality... that fact has been clear since Socrates and Euthypro had their little chat. Only loyal
apparently disagrees (or at least, he is the only one brave enough to speak up about it)...
|
All you had to do was mention two words 'Euthyphro's dilemma'. But you didn't see it fit to mention that to me. Only to assure me that I was wrong.
Am I right in saying your response to me is the Euthyphro dilemma? Well that doesn't answer any of my points on religion and morality.
Also I mentioned it on page; I said: 'I know of the Euthyphro dilemma. However, regardless of that dilemma, if you believe in religion, religion remains a source of absoluete authority when it comes to morality.' Even if one didn't know the answer to the dilemma, that wouldn't make religion's morality useless. It would still be followed by its followers. Religious followers never claimed to know everything single question possible in religion. There are unanswered questions in science too; doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it.
| Quote: |
So the issue is closed. The verdict (as far as we care here): even if religion provides a sound basis for
morality, secular ethical systems provide just as sound - if not more sound - a basis... so it is not
necessary to have religion for morality. Case closed.
|
?
That totally ignores my point. A copy and paste summary from an earlier post: 'my point is that without religion, you could 'cherry-pick' what is right according to your feelings. But because people are different, there are different feelings on the same subjects. Hence there are different rulings on whether it is morally right or wrong to do something. So there can be little agreement over many moral issues of whether an action or something is right or wrong. But with religion, you accept what is right or wrong because the religion says so'
Did you respond to this, by the way, 'Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength'?
I apologise in advance for any typos or wrong sentences. I haven't read through all of it properly. Apologies for wrong formatting (formatting went weird).
Have a nice day.
| Indi wrote: | | So what use does religion serve in modern society? |
This was your original question Indi. Not whether religion is serving a moral purpose, but whether religion is useful for modern society. We were not talking about morality (or I at least thought you were not talking about morality here). So what I was saying is that the use of religion would be relative to your and my beliefs. If religion is centre in my existence, then its use will be overwhelming in every aspect of my life. If I think religion is nonsense, then it would have zero uses for me, in fact, some feel so strongly against religion as deleterious to society that they would say religion has negative uses for society.
The link below is the BBC one for all the religions in the world. It actually mentions atheism as a religion. Whether you wish it to be or not, atheism always seem to feature along with a list of religions. These religions have meaning to those people who follow them and the use of religion in general would come from their specific persuasions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
I never said that religion does not have a use, to me it was common sense, without even having to debate it, that atheists would find no use for religion and that theists would find a million uses for religion. Those uses would be relative to their specific religion and outlook of life.
I strongly feel that any "religion"(atheism was called that I believe) not based on 'god' and one that doesn't involve 'worshiping' should cease to be called religion and be pronounced "philosophy on life", for the sake of stereotyping. Since, if I am to speak for myself, I would not like to be called religious if I am an aitheist (or agnostic), we should revise that aspect of the cannon.
I do admire one particular satire of the above mentioned problem, it is a quote fom Einstein:
| Quote: | | I am a deeply religious non-believer. |
| The-Nisk wrote: | I strongly feel that any "religion"(atheism was called that I believe) not based on 'god' and one that doesn't involve 'worshiping' should cease to be called religion and be pronounced "philosophy on life", for the sake of stereotyping. Since, if I am to speak for myself, I would not like to be called religious if I am an aitheist (or agnostic), we should revise that aspect of the cannon.
I do admire one particular satire of the above mentioned problem, it is a quote fom Einstein:
| Quote: | | I am a deeply religious non-believer. |
|
Good news! Atheism is not a religion. It's never been a religion. So it does not need any revision.
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/religion/Atheism.html
Maybe you should study it a little bit? There is some good info about this topic on Frihost.
| loyal wrote: | Your statement "At best, religion doesn't contradict science, but that's not very helpful because if and when religion does contradict science, the logical choice is always science" does make it look like you think they conflict: It appeared that you said they do contradict "if and when religion does contradict science".
But you've explained your position very clearly, so now this matter can put to rest. |
Hardly. ^_^;
Because you have - in all of your long, meandering post - said exactly what i said in the first paragraph of the first post. You have said that science and religion do conflict (you try to play it down by saying they don't conflict "much", but this is not a question of quantity, it is a question of quality). Furthermore, you have also said that when they do conflict, you would choose religion over science! You have quite literally identified yourself as one of the literalist cranks i was mocking in the first sentence!!!
i honestly don't know where your head is at in this discussion:
- You feign indignance at my wording in the first post, then you turn around and give almost identical wording to describe your own position. Huh?
- You ask me to provide you with examples of religions that make statements about nature... in the very same post that you admit that Islam - your own religion - does. Clearly you know that religions do make statements about nature - despite your explicit denial. (And are you seriously unaware of the creationism debates? It was headline news today the various Christian churches are still trying to convice people not to take creationism seriously! Are you seriously so ignorant about religion in general that you don't know that many have creation myths, and often make claims about how or why things happen?) Why ask me to make a list for you? Do you just want to waste my time?
- You keep responding to my points about what religion does and does not do by giving me examples from Islam, as if that matters. If i say that many cars run on gas and you reply that the Tesla Roadster doesn't... so what?!?! The fact remains that most cars do run on gas. Similarly, if i say that most religions make claims about nature you reply that Islam doesn't... even if that were true, so what? Obviously all religions are different, so some have characteristics that others do not, and vice versa. If one (or even two or a dozen) religions don't have some characteristic - whether yours is one of them or not - that doesn't change the fact of whether most do.
- You are also spending a depressing amount of time trying to justify your one particular flavour Islam when - quite frankly - i don't really care about it. So your interpretation of Islam does not include reading certain verses scientifically? Whoopee. Because clearly some interpretations do (you admit this yourself)... which was the point. i am talking about religion in general, of which there are many hundreds - possibly thousands - of religions. Your particular religion is just one tiny little data point in the crowd.
- i say many religions try to explain nature, and your reply is to ask me which religions include a theory of gravity. Does that strike you as an intelligent reply? If no religion gives a theory of gravity (and yes, some do!!! In fact, Newton's original explanation for gravity was a religious one!), does that make the statement "many religions try to explain nature" false? Of course not. So what point are you trying to make?
i could go on, but by and large it sure seems like for most of the replies you make, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing without any coherent point. To speed things along, maybe it would help to put things in point form, with yes or no questions. Let's see how this works out:
- Many religions make claims about nature. T/F?
- Many religions try to offer explanations for various natural phenomena. T/F?
- As long as a religion makes claims about nature, or tries to explain natural phenonema, it runs the risk of conflicting with science. T/F?
- If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, science is the best choice. T/F?
- If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, the religion of the person choosing is the best choice. T/F?
- If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, your religion - your version of Islam - is the best choice. T/F?
For the record, my answers, which are probably no surprise, are:
- T
- T
- T
- T
- F
- F
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: |
Fact: Islam makes dozens of claims about nature
|
Correction: some Muslims interpret a minority of verses scientifically. |
No, i meant exactly what i said. No correction necessary, or even wanted. There are dozens of statements about nature in the Qur'an, starting with the statements about how the Earth was created. (And by the way, your comprehension skills are appalling. You write a 150 word paragraph to explain to me that the six "days" are not six literal days... after i said so myself!!!! Look! These are my words: "and yes, i know they're not interpreted as six literal days".) That quote of yours that you got so indignant about me bringing up is another example. (And i don't understand why you object to me pulling that quote from another thread. Is it not what you believe? Or have your beliefs changed since you made that statement? Is it not a statement about nature made in the Qur'an? Are we not talking about statements about nature made by religions? Sounds pretty relevant to me.)
You don't deny that the Qur'an makes statements about nature, do you? (That would seem to be an odd thing to do, given that i actually quoted you saying it does, hm?) And any statements the Qur'an makes about the universe must be true, regardless of what science says, right? If you answered yes, then you think the Qur'an explains nature better than science - despite all of your long-winded objections and denials - and that even if science tells us more, what the Qur'an tells us is better.
Your response to me includes "In other words, religion's major purpose is not to explain how the universe works.". That's debatable, but beside the point. It does not matter what religion's "purpose" is, major or not. What matters is what religion can do... what use it has. If it really can explain nature better than science, then that would make it pretty damn useful, i'd say. A scientist could formulate a hypothesis, and then just crack open the Qur'an to see if it conflicts with anything there. If it does, then a lot of time and money doing experiments can be saved. That would definitely make religion useful, wouldn't it?
| loyal wrote: | I should point out the obvious: Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
You can complain as much as you like that I'm wrong, and that a million books have been written about how I'm wrong...but if you don't present me with the argument, you can't complain I'm refuted. |
i should also point out the obvious: while me saying you're wrong doesn't make you wrong, you saying something that is wrong would. And you are. i don't care if you don't think i've refuted you or not. If you cared about the truth, you would follow my advice and make a thread to discuss it. It is off-topic here, and even if it wasn't, a dedicated thread would get you better answers, faster. Since you'd rather waste everyone's time here whining about how i won't introduce a whole off-topic discussion to satisfy your curiosity, i can only conclude you don't really care about finding answers at all.
| loyal wrote: | | It wouldn't take an essay to write a response. |
And how would you know that? ^_^;
| loyal wrote: | | I also find it rather pointless that you chose to write a paragraph on how i'm wrong because you say i'm wrong, rather than to quote a post you've read, which has a suitable response. If you were willing to find a quote from a previous post of mine from another topic to try to make it look like I contradicted myself, surely you won't mind finding a quote from a previous post you've read that responds to my point. |
i did not say you were wrong because i say you're wrong. i said:
- You are wrong because philosophy, as a whole, says you're wrong.
- But explaining why philosophy says you are wrong would take far too much time and space for this thread because it is off-topic.
Furthermore, if you care so much about finding out why you are wrong that you persist in bringing the issue up even though it is off-topic, why don't you go grab an introductory book on moral philosophy and find out for yourself?
And for the record, i did tell you how to find out how and why your claim is wrong. And i will tell you again:
CREATE A THREAD WITH THAT QUESTION AS THE TOPIC AND ASK THERE!
| loyal wrote: | Furthermore, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying i'm wrong about when it comes to religion and morality. I made more than one point on religion and morality, including (quoted from memory):
-Religion is a source of morality: i.e. it's a thing you can find moral laws in. I think alot of countries have taken some moral laws for religion and used it for their Law.
-Religion as an extra deterrent: i.e. 'I won't break this moral law, because I love God'.
-Religion as a solid source of morality: i.e. believers will follow the moral laws in a particular religion,
because the scripture comes from God. Whereas, without religion, there is no correct way of determining whether a moral action is right or wrong...often it's just feelings. |
Every one of those three arguments is flawed, for different reasons. As i said, as i've repeated, refuting this properly would take far more than a single paragraph. But, here are short answers to the three:
- Even if that were true, the fact is that moral laws can also be derived without appealing to religion at all. So we don't need religion to be a source for morality.
- Religion introduces the idea of an afterlife. Without religion a death penalty would be as effective as any punishment religion can dream up.
- This is just complete nonsense. There are several deontological ways to mark an action as right or wrong without appealing to gods or feelings. Furthermore, the truth is that when religious rules are used as the source of morality, feelings come into play far more often than not. If we were actually to use Islam as a source of morality, for example, we would still have slavery (oh, correction, we do still have slavery... but only in a handful of countries which are all predominantly Muslim).
| loyal wrote: | | I'm not being dishonest. I'm being realistic and using the correct definition of Islam's followers. There are 1.5 Muslims on earth (who we will assume all practice zakat, because the majority do) who all give 2.5% of their earnings to the poor and needy and charity. They do this now. Whereas there is no world government (you can't just make up situations that aren't close to being plausible (although I suspect there will be a world government far off in the future) to respond to a point). If an individual government was to implent 2.5% percent of earnings for charity/poor/needy as a obligatory tax (realistic), then you're wrong to say that the government would bring in more money than Islam. Because Islam applies to all of its followers; it isn't bound by a nation or by a group. Hence when you refer to Islam's followers, you refer to all of its followers. All 1.5 billion of them. Who outnumber any individual country. |
Yes, you are being dishonest, and being pretty disingenuous about it to boot. The question is not and never has been about "the correct definition of Islam's followers". It has been designing a society - a society - with or without religion, and what difference that would make. Now, we can make this society a single nation, or we can make it the whole world, or we can make it just all Muslims in the world. Your choice. But whatever you choose, you have to be consistent. You can't choose a single nation for one statistic, and the whole of Islam for the other.
Let's say the society we choose is Canada. In that case, we count the contributions when only Muslims give 2.5%, or when the secular law is that everyone should give 2.5%. What do the Muslims in Zaire matter to what happens in Canada? They can be giving all of their money - not just 2.5% of it - but that has no bearing on what is going on in the society in question: Canada.
Let's say the society we choose is "all Muslims in the world". In that case, we count the contributions with and without the 2.5% law... and find there is no difference. This is the limiting case, when the population is 100% Muslim. And in that case, the law could simply be upped to 2.6%... and out do Islam anyway.
It doesn't matter which society you choose. Just pick one and stick with it. (Besides, your ridiculous objections are still lame even if i accept your warped statistics, because even if pick a single nation while you pick all Muslims in the world, the secular law can still outdo the Islamic contribution. All i'd have to do is raise the tax high enough that it outdoes whatever 2.5% of all Muslims earn (which wouldn't be hard in a rich country, because something like 95% of the world's Muslims live in poor countries in Northern Africa and the Middle East, where 2.5% of nothing is still nothing).)
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: | Religion is a bad social medium because it encourages unity within the group and - and this is the part you carefully excluded - enemnity with other groups.
|
Logical contradiction. You can't say religion is a bad social medium if it makes unity in the group. |
First, you should look up what a logical contradiction is. A logical contradiction occurs when two premises or conclusions make statements that cannot both be true at the same time.
Second, i most certainly can say that. Street gangs, the mafia, the Klu Klux Klan... all of these make for wonderful unity within the group. Especially in the case of the mafia, they swear loyalty to the group and know they will die if they leave it. Are they good for society?
Third, you did it again. You left off the second half of what i said. That changes the meaning of what i said completely. Because i didn't just say religion is a bad social medium, i specifically said why. It is not better to have united groups that are at odds with each other. That is actually very bad. It would be better if there were no groups at all than if there were warring factions. People do much nastier things when they think they have the support of a group than when they are alone.
And yes, most religion do promote enmity with other religions. And yes, Islam is one of them. What does the Qur'an say about co-existing with non-Muslims? Does it not say not to trust non-Muslims? "...وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوٓا۟ إِلَّا لِمَن تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ"?
| loyal wrote: | | If monotheistic religions are all united by their monotheism, then this is about half (counting the two biggest monotheistic followers alone, 1.5 billion muslims + 2 billion = 3.3...half of 6.6 billion total people) of the world. Half of the world united? Pretty good. |
Yeah? ^_^; You've had 1400 years of monotheistic dominance (more than that, actually, i'm just counting Islam). If this is so easy, why aren't they united yet?
Furthermore, it doesn't matter how big a gang is. Even if the gang is huge, it still spells trouble for peace (actually, especially if the gang is huge). Once again: it doesn't matter how much unity a belief fosters - what matters is how well that belief fosters unity with the rest of society. Religion has a horrible track record for that.
| loyal wrote: | Polytheistic religions? A treaty/constituion/an official ruling document of Medina was made between the prophet, peace be upon him, and the people living in Medina; the idol worshippers were included in the document and given rights. During the time of the Muslim Caliph, Hindus and others were included under the title of 'people of the book', which gives them rights.
I don't know exactly what position an atheist has beyond not being an enemy of the Muslims if you're not at war with them. If you want, I can try to find out next time. |
^_^; Didn't you say "At the end of the day, the Quran is the ultimate source of authority in Islam... if a hadith contradicts it, the hadith is wrong."? (And that was from this thread, so i can't see how you would object to me quoting it.) If that's true, then why not tell me what the Qur'an says about idolaters? It overrides everything else, after all, it is the ultimate source of authority. In fact, ^_^; what does the Qur'an say about treaties with idolaters, hm?
Anyway, your language is evasive. So what if sharia gives idolaters rights? It also gives rights to slaves. That doesn't make them equals in society, now does it? Because they're still slaves, hm? You see, i never asked about rights, because i don't care about how Islamic law hands out rights. This thread is about building a cohesive society under a new system that may or may not include religion. The question was how well Islam will foster social unity, not how it will dish out rights. Does Islam foster unity with idolatrous religions? Or nonbelievers? How does the Qur'an say you should deal with these people on a day-to-day basis (assuming they are not attacking you, of course)?
And... this is the kicker... what if they do attack you? It happens in a free society. Depending on your perspective, you can argue that i am attacking Islam right now, by challenging its place in the world. What does the Qur'an say you should do in this case? Does it tell you try and find a peaceful solution (which would be good for the society as a whole)?
| loyal wrote: | | So if they want to divide, it's fine? Well then stop objecting to those follow religion freely. |
Yes, if they want to divide into groups, let them.
And have you not read this thread at all? Like even from the first post? i am not objecting to people following religion freely. Never, anywhere, have i said anything like that. Certainly not in this thread. The question is should i build a society that includes religion in its construction, or should i build a society without taking religion into account at all? If i build a society without taking religion into account, that doesn't stop the people in it from having any religion they want. They can worship goats for all i care.
i would never, ever deny anyone the right to practice whatever religion they want, so long as they respect the rights and freedoms of others. But i don't need to do anything to make it easier.
It's rather like if i were building the only restaurant in a small town, and i wanted to put only pork on the menu. If i knew that some people in the town didn't eat pork for religious reasons, should i offer meals without pork? Should i take their religious objections seriously, or not? They can always just eat at home if they don't want to eat pork at my place. That is similar to this question. Do i build a society that supports religion, or do i just build a good society, and let the people find ways to support their own religions privately?
| loyal wrote: | All you had to do was mention two words 'Euthyphro's dilemma'. But you didn't see it fit to mention that to me. Only to assure me that I was wrong.
Am I right in saying your response to me is the Euthyphro dilemma? Well that doesn't answer any of my points on religion and morality. |
No, you are not right in saying that. -_- If all i had to do to answer your question was explain the Euthypro dilemma, then i would have done that. i am getting tired of repeating this: Answering your question would take far too long, and would be off-topic here, adding nothing to the discussion. The vast majority of people here already know the answer, as it's basic moral philosophy, and don't need to see it all repeated yet again. If you want an answer, make a thread, and ask the question there.
That is the end of it. i will not repeat it again.
| loyal wrote: | | Did you respond to this, by the way, 'Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength'? |
Yes, several times. The two responses are:
- But religion also provides guilt and fear. Since you insist on using your own religion as the exemplar for all religion, let's use Islam. How comforted is a devout Muslim man supposed to feel when he feels sexually attracted to another man? How does Islam support a person who has been raped, but the rape was not witnessed? How strong is a Muslim woman supposed to feel when they're forced to keep their eyes downwards?
- People provide comfort and support. Support groups provide comfort and support. You don't need religion just to provide comfort and support.
As for "strength", i'm not sure what "strength" religion provides that can't be provided by just about any cause. And if i wanted to endorse a cause, why would i choose to endorse religion - which still does nothing useful for society, so far as we can tell - instead of a cause that benefits the society? Two people have two different causes; one to please God, the other to end world hunger. Pardon me if it seems like the obvious choice for me - if my goal is to make the world better - is the second.
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | So what use does religion serve in modern society? |
This was your original question Indi. Not whether religion is serving a moral purpose, but whether religion is useful for modern society. We were not talking about morality (or I at least thought you were not talking about morality here). So what I was saying is that the use of religion would be relative to your and my beliefs. If religion is centre in my existence, then its use will be overwhelming in every aspect of my life. If I think religion is nonsense, then it would have zero uses for me, in fact, some feel so strongly against religion as deleterious to society that they would say religion has negative uses for society.
The link below is the BBC one for all the religions in the world. It actually mentions atheism as a religion. Whether you wish it to be or not, atheism always seem to feature along with a list of religions. These religions have meaning to those people who follow them and the use of religion in general would come from their specific persuasions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
I never said that religion does not have a use, to me it was common sense, without even having to debate it, that atheists would find no use for religion and that theists would find a million uses for religion. Those uses would be relative to their specific religion and outlook of life. |
i'm... really not sure what the point of all of this is. i am well aware that i never said anything about religion serving a moral purpose. In fact, in the very first post i said that it doesn't. loyal is the one who brought it up, and refuses to let it drop.
Yes, we were not talking about morality, and we're still not. So... what's your point?
Second, the question was - as you... for whatever reason... pointed out - what use does religion have for society. You say that if you have religion, its use is "overwhelming"? Then tell us how. How exactly do you use religion in such a way that makes it important for me to include in a plan for civilization?
And, er, yes, you did say religon does not have a use. You said: "There is no usefulness attached to religion. It is not supposed to be useful." i don't see it getting any plainer than that.
| Indi wrote: | To make the question practical, put yourself in the shoes of an urban planner, laying out the landscape of a city. Space is at a premium, so you don't want to waste it on crap... but at the same time, you want to make sure your city has all the services it needs to survive. Let's say you have a plot of land you have to allocate. Your choices for what to put there include:
- Housing (for people to live in)
- Commercial (for people to work, and get services from)
- Green space (for health reasons)
- Schools, libraries (for education)
- Stadiums, rinks, arenas (for health reasons, entertainment, and some employment, too)
- Theatres, play houses, art galleries (for entertainment, culture, and some employment, too)
- Hospitals, police stations, fire stations (for obvious reasons)
- And more!
Given all of those options... what possible reason could you have for selecting a church (where a church represents religion in general)? What benefits to the city you are planning can the church possibly provide? How does including religion in your city plan make it a better city? |
OK, back to the drawing board, I tried to stick with this framework of your topic Indi and thought very deeply about it, and then remembered many years ago when I was completely bowled over by Salt Lake City. Note: I am not a Mormon (I don't see anything wrong with being a Mormon either), however I would say that the Mormon religion has a long list of benefits (uses) along the ones you asked for under every heading above. I probably don't have to cite them as they are fairly general knowledge for everybody. In the event that some refreshing is needed there is lots of info and links to more info about Salt Lake City in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City,_Utah
I was particulary bowled over by the State Capitol. At the time when I visited I was told that the Mormon people who had been in charge of Salt Lake City at the time when the State Capital of SLC was planned and built, had been built ahead of deadline as well as within budget, which was the opposite of what had happened to the State Capitol in Washington DC. They thought the difference was religious outlook of the Mormons in that they were more disciplined, more motivated, more hard-working. The Mormons also had the foresight of building very wide roads so that horse carriages could use two lanes. Mormons try not to have beggars in the street, and apparently take care of them. They look after their people in an organized way. They are a highly-organized society. Probably would be controlling (for me who is a free spirit), but I think you can find quite a long list of uses of the Mormon religion:
(1) Commercial - people employ Mormons, look after Mormons, Mormons have quite a successful record in business dealings based on their religion
(2) Green space - lots of Green Space in Salt Lake City with famous parks that are in excellent maintenance all the time
(3) Schools, Libraries, think Salt Lake City is quite famous for its Family History Library and of cause the Temple in centre of Salt Lake City
(4) Theatres, play houses etc. In abundance. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is world famous.
| Indi wrote: | You have said that science and religion do conflict (you try to play it down by saying they don't conflict "much", but this is not a question of quantity, it is a question of quality).
|
I wasn't just talking quantitatively but qualitatively too. Both are important. Religion and science are different fields. Quantitative-> There may be the occasional overlap. That hardly makes them massively contradicting fields. Religion only occasionally overlaps with science. (Assuming correct context, correct translation, and so on) these scientific statements are a minority in the religious books. Qualitative-> They also tend to be simple statements, rather than full-fleged theories. You've also forgotten the purpose of these statements. Science tries to understand the world through empirical technique. Religion isn't issuing these scientific statements for the same purpose of science, to understand the world, but to convince us.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, you have also said that when they do conflict, you would choose religion over science! You have quite literally identified yourself as one of the literalist cranks i was mocking in the first sentence!!!
|
I am not a 'literalist crank'. I have implied, if not said, that I am rather skeptical of these scientific statements and think that translation and context and more are being ignored. Furthermore, I do not interpret the entire Qur'an literally.
You've completely ignored my reason behind my position. I said that if religion and science did contradict, believers would most likely believe the statement from religion over the statement from science because believers believe that their religion is perfect, whereas science is constantly improving and learning from its errors. Believers would choose to believe a statement from a perfect source, rather than a flawed source, regardless of the fact that they believe the former source is perfect.
| Quote: |
[*]You ask me to provide you with examples of religions that make statements about nature... in the very same post that you admit that Islam - your own religion - does.
|
No. I said, many times, that I was assuming for this or that point, that the statements were scientific. I am rather skeptical of these statements as was implied.
I asked you to provide me with a list of religions that explain nature, because of your generalisation that "many people do believe that religion can and does explain nature", which I don't agree with. You should justify it with evidence.
| Quote: |
Clearly you know that religions do make statements about nature - despite your explicit denial.
|
I am not denying anything. Indeed, I am being quite careful. Instead of saying religions make these claims. I am saying that some religious believers make these claims, and that they may have done so while ignoring context, translation, and other factors.
| Quote: |
(And are you seriously unaware of the creationism debates? It was headline news today the various Christian churches are still trying to convice people not to take creationism seriously!
|
Do you live in USA? I live in the UK, a rather sensible place at most times. Creationists don't tend to make the major headlines, which are the only headlines I listen to.
| Quote: |
Are you seriously so ignorant about religion in general that you don't know that many have creation myths, and often make claims about how or why things happen?) Why ask me to make a list for you? Do you just want to waste my time?
|
You're now changing your statements. First you claimed "many people do believe that religion can and does explain nature." Now you claim "many [religions] have creation myths". Those are vastly different statements. The former implies that people believe that religion is interfering in science, correctly explaining exactly how the world works, and giving detailed explanations. The latter says that many religions presented a scientific alternative to how the world was created.
And please don't say you think creation myths are a form of scientific explaining. Stories with giants vomiting the universe or the breath of gods becoming the universe don't count as real science.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but not the majority of religions have creationist myths. The Abrahamic religions have their creation myth. The Aboriginals, and the Hindus have their own creation myths. I can't think of anymore, although I know that there many be some pagan creation myths.
A look at the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths shows many, if not most, of the creation myths to be of a racial/tribal nature, and not a religious nature.
| Quote: |
[*]You keep responding to my points about what religion does and does not do by giving me examples from Islam, as if that matters. If i say that many cars run on gas and you reply that the Tesla Roadster doesn't... so what?!?! The fact remains that most cars do run on gas. Similarly, if i say that most religions make claims about nature you reply that Islam doesn't... even if that were true, so what? Obviously all religions are different, so some have characteristics that others do not, and vice versa. If one (or even two or a dozen) religions don't have some characteristic - whether yours is one of them or not - that doesn't change the fact of whether most do[...]i am talking about religion in general, of which there are many hundreds - possibly thousands - of religions. Your particular religion is just one tiny little data point in the crowd.
|
By the way, it would be very helpful, and quite appreciated, if you quoted what you're responding to, because I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.
You are talking about religion in general. But it is also necessary to talk about specific religions. Because religions differ, and different religions can offer different benefits to society.
| Quote: |
[*]You are also spending a depressing amount of time trying to justify your one particular flavour Islam when - quite frankly - i don't really care about it. So your interpretation of Islam does not include reading certain verses scientifically? Whoopee.
|
Again, it would very helpful if you quoted what you're responding to, instead of leaving me to guess. As far as I can see, I don't see anything in my previous post that would be contested by the majority of Muslims:
I've never come across anyone claiming that 'yawm' in the Qur'an means six literal twenty-four periods; the vast majority of Muslims and scholars do condemn sucide bombing, for example see my link; some Muslims believe that there are scientific statements in the Qur'an and some are more skeptical.
I doubt any Muslim would contest those statements.
| Quote: |
[*]i say many religions try to explain nature, and your reply is to ask me which religions include a theory of gravity. Does that strike you as an intelligent reply? If no religion gives a theory of gravity (and yes, some do!!! In fact, Newton's original explanation for gravity was a religious one!),
|
Please don't misquote me. My exact words were: "Many religions explain nature? You'll need to prove that with a list of religions and a few examples; for I've never seen an explanation of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution or the theory of something or another in a religious scripture".
In other words, my sensibly skeptical reply is that I doubt your generalisation and that you're ignoring that believers make claims that their religious books have a small number of scientific statements. Religion can't interfere with science greatly since many of these scientific statements (assuming they are scientific) are simple statements, rather than detailed explanations or entire theories.
| Quote: |
does that make the statement "many religions try to explain nature" false? Of course not.
|
What makes it doubtful is the generalisation without evidence as well the ignoring the fact that religions don't "try to explain nature", but actually provide scientific statements to convince people.
| Quote: |
To speed things along, maybe it would help to put things in point form, with yes or no questions. Let's see how this works out:
[*]Many religions make claims about nature. T/F?
|
Are we not making any progress? Did you not notice my careful wording? I'll try again.
False. I'll bolden the important bits:
Some religious believers claim that this or that religious book has a scientific fact in them.
Further points:
-As pointed out before, these verses are a minority
-As pointed out before, religion's major aims involve morality and the 'big questions'. It is irrelevant to many people, including myself, whether religious books actually make scientific statements, since it does not help them practice their religion or help them answer the 'big questions'.
-As pointed out before, assuming that the believers are right, these scientific statements are simple. They are not detailed explanations trying to explain the world around nor are they entire theories. They are simple statements, regardless of whether the knowledge behind the statement was known when the religious book was revealed or not.
-Most, if not all, religious books have these scientific statements (again, assuming that they are scientific) not to explain the world...not to take up science's position...but to convince people.
| Quote: |
[*]Many religions try to offer explanations for various natural phenomena. T/F?
|
You'll have to be more specific. Some/many pagan religions say natural events, such as thunder and lightening, are 'the anger of the Gods'.
Most, if not all, monotheistic religions don't explain general or present natural events (in other words they don't say the thunder is the anger of God).
Some have claimed past events, such as earthquakes, came as punishment for the inhabitants sinful behaviour. We were not there, and we don't know exactly where these punishments came, so we can neither confirm nor deny whether it was the anger of God. In-fact, I doubt we could do so anyway, since most believers believe God most of the time chooses to work through nature and not miracles (using Hume's definition that a miracle is a scientific impossibility).
Your current wording is false though. Most religions do not give detailed explanations as to how the world works. Some believers claim some religions make some scientific statements.
| Quote: |
[*]As long as a religion makes claims about nature, or tries to explain natural phenonema, it runs the risk of conflicting with science. T/F?
|
(Assuming they are scientific claims), True. But don't forget quantity. Religion only overlaps with a minority of verses. And don't forget qualitative nature of this interference (see above).
| Quote: |
[*]If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, science is the best choice. T/F?
|
False. I have explained this before. Science is constantly improving and learning from its mistakes. It is not a complete field of knowledge. Whereas, this or that religious book is complete and, according to the belief of a believer, from an infallible God.
| Quote: |
[*]If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, the religion of the person choosing is the best choice. T/F?
|
It would depend on circumstances of the conflict.. If a religion claimed the moon was made of cheese, then science would be the better choice if it proved that the moon was not made of cheese.
| Quote: |
[*]If and when science and religion do conflict and you have to choose which one to accept as true, your religion - your version of Islam - is the best choice. T/F?
|
My version of Islam? Please do point out to me what I've said in this entire topic that counts as "my version of Islam". As far as I am aware, everything I have wrriten would be agreed upon by the vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars.
If science and Islam did contract, then I would pick Islam.
| Indi wrote: |
| loyal wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Fact: Islam makes dozens of claims about nature
|
Correction: some Muslims interpret a minority of verses scientifically. |
No, i meant exactly what i said. No correction necessary, or even wanted. There are dozens of statements about nature in the Qur'an, starting with the statements about how the Earth was created.
|
You mean what you said? That's fine. But you're still wrong.
The number of verses claimed to be scientific are a minority.
If I remember rightly there are 6666 verses in the Qur'an. There are about twenty or thirty of these 'scientific' statements. (30/6666) * 1000 = 4.5% Therefore, I'm right. These verses are a minority.
Not all Muslims agree that these verses are scientific, and context is often ignored, as well as the use of poor translations with these verses.
| Quote: |
(And by the way, your comprehension skills are appalling. You write a 150 word paragraph to explain to me that the six "days" are not six literal days... after i said so myself!!!! Look! These are my words: "and yes, i know they're not interpreted as six literal days".)
|
I gave that explanation precisely because of your wording. 'i know they're not interpreted as six literal days'. No-one I've ever come across interprets it as six literal days. It is an accepted fact, not interpretation, that the universe was created in more than six twenty four periods.
| Quote: |
That quote of yours that you got so indignant about me bringing up is another example. (And i don't understand why you object to me pulling that quote from another thread. Is it not what you believe? Or have your beliefs changed since you made that statement? Is it not a statement about nature made in the Qur'an? Are we not talking about statements about nature made by religions? Sounds pretty relevant to me.)
|
I wasn't indignant. You misunderstood my position and tried to make me contradict myself. I explained my position.
[quoted]
You don't deny that the Qur'an makes statements about nature, do you? (That would seem to be an odd thing to do, given that i actually quoted you saying it does, hm?)
[/quote]
I'm skeptical about it; I've never put too much effort into studying these claims of some Muslims in great detail.
If the Qur'an said it though, it's true. So if the Quran says God made Adam from clay and water (I object to my own previous use of the word 'clay', since that's likely a mistranslation although I'd need to check), then I believe it. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I believe in creationism or that Adam and Eve were the first human beings or other related things. Just that I believe in what it actually written: Adam, a human, was made from clay and water.
| Quote: |
If you answered yes, then you think the Qur'an explains nature better than science - despite all of your long-winded objections and denials - and that even if science tells us more, what the Qur'an tells us is better.
|
?
The Quran does not "explain" nature. It gives occasional facts. I've made this point before in this post.
| Quote: |
Your response to me includes "In other words, religion's major purpose is not to explain how the universe works.". That's debatable, but beside the point. It does not matter what religion's "purpose" is, major or not.
|
Actually it does matter. You seem to have misunderstood the relevancy of my point. In response to the claim that science and religion do conflict, (remembering the other points, which are also written in this post above) religion cannot conflict with science greatly, because of the difference in the purposes of science and religion. If their purposes are different, they can't conflict much. Religion's purpose is 'why', 'big questions', and so on. Science's purpose is to explain how the universe physically works.
| Quote: |
What matters is what religion can do... what use it has. If it really can explain nature better than science, then that would make it pretty damn useful, i'd say. A scientist could formulate a hypothesis, and then just crack open the Qur'an to see if it conflicts with anything there. If it does, then a lot of time and money doing experiments can be saved. That would definitely make religion useful, wouldn't it?
|
Sure; but the Qur'an isn't a science handbook. Even the Muslims who claim that the Qur'an has some scientific verses often remember to point this out. Having a few scientific statements is hardly the same as having all the theories, with full details of the universe.
| Quote: |
i should also point out the obvious: while me saying you're wrong doesn't make you wrong, you saying something that is wrong would. And you are. i don't care if you don't think i've refuted you or not.
If you cared about the truth, you would follow my advice and make a thread to discuss it. It is off-topic here, and even if it wasn't, a dedicated thread would get you better answers, faster. Since you'd rather waste everyone's time here whining about how i won't introduce a whole off-topic discussion to satisfy your curiosity, i can only conclude you don't really care about finding answers at all.
|
...?
I made three specific points (as far as I remember) regarding religion's usefulness because of its relationship with morality. Ignoring all my points, and claiming I'm wrong, doesn't make me wrong. You didn't even say how I was wrong. You just wrote that I was wrong. You later mentioned Euthyphro's dilemma (and I count myself lucky that you even mentioned that), regardless of the fact that I wrote a response to that problem in my very first post, which I later pointed out.
I have made my points, concerned with morality, and all that is left for you to respond to them. You can say I'm wrong as many times as you like. But until you actually write a response, or even perhaps give me a link to a post which you remember has a response to my point, my points will remain standing, whether you address them or not and claim they are all wrong...and you finally have written a response.
You say it's offtopic. No it's not. Those points were made specifically as reasons for religion being useful. In my eyes, the conflict between religion and science, which you don't mind engaging in as far as I can see, is much more irrelevant.
I think the only time wasted here is you writing paragraphs saying I'm wrong. You could have just responded to my point which you finally did.
| Indi wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | Furthermore, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying i'm wrong about when it comes to religion and morality. I made more than one point on religion and morality, including (quoted from memory):
-Religion is a source of morality: i.e. it's a thing you can find moral laws in. I think alot of countries have taken some moral laws for religion and used it for their Law.
-Religion as an extra deterrent: i.e. 'I won't break this moral law, because I love God'.
-Religion as a solid source of morality: i.e. believers will follow the moral laws in a particular religion, because the scripture comes from God. Whereas, without religion, there is no correct way of determining whether a moral action is right or wrong...often it's just feelings. |
Every one of those three arguments is flawed, for different reasons. As i said, as i've repeated, refuting this properly would take far more than a single paragraph. But, here are short answers to the three:
|
Finally!
| Quote: |
[*]Even if that were true, the fact is that moral laws can also be derived without appealing to religion at all. So we don't need religion to be a source for morality.
|
Just because there are alternatives, doesn't make it useless. Chocolate ice cream isn't useless, because strawberry ice cream is also available.
Besides, how many laws do you know derived from utilitarianism? Many moral laws, at least as far as i know in England and America and the middle east, are derived from religion. Religion is/was useful if it provided those the source of those laws.
| Quote: |
[*]Religion introduces the idea of an afterlife. Without religion a death penalty would be as effective as any punishment religion can dream up.
|
That ignores half of my point. I didn't mention fear, I said: 'i.e. 'I won't break this moral law, because I love God'. Loving God is the extra deterrent.
| Quote: |
[*]This is just complete nonsense. There are several deontological ways to mark an action as right or wrong without appealing to gods or feelings.
|
I don't know what you mean. Please explain.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, the truth is that when religious rules are used as the source of morality, feelings come into play far more often than not.
|
No they don't. For most situations, the moral laws in the books determine right or wrong. Killing is wrong in most cases.
| Quote: |
If we were actually to use Islam as a source of morality, for example, we would still have slavery
|
Islam is against slavery. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, bought and freed many slaves.
| Quote: |
(oh, correction, we do still have slavery... but only in a handful of countries which are all predominantly Muslim).
|
A very basic mistake here: equating religious teachings with its followers. Islam forbids slavery. It's not the prophet's fault, rulers later ignored what he said and did and re-established the slave trade, in the middle east. To prevent any sort of "Islam does encourage slavery" here's links on this subject:
-A history of Islam attacking slavery during the time of the prophet http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/3.htm
-Here's a Muslim scholar who answers against slavery
-Here's a Quran-only Muslim website which establishes slavery as wrong using the Quran only: http://www.submission.org/islam/slavery.html
| Indi wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | I'm not being dishonest. I'm being realistic and using the correct definition of Islam's followers. There are 1.5 Muslims on earth (who we will assume all practice zakat, because the majority do) who all give 2.5% of their earnings to the poor and needy and charity. They do this now. Whereas there is no world government (you can't just make up situations that aren't close to being plausible (although I suspect there will be a world government far off in the future) to respond to a point). If an individual government was to implent 2.5% percent of earnings for charity/poor/needy as a obligatory tax (realistic), then you're wrong to say that the government would bring in more money than Islam. Because Islam applies to all of its followers; it isn't bound by a nation or by a group. Hence when you refer to Islam's followers, you refer to all of its followers. All 1.5 billion of them. Who outnumber any individual country. |
Yes, you are being dishonest, and being pretty disingenuous about it to boot. The question is not and never has been about "the correct definition of Islam's followers".
|
I'm not being dishonest. I'm using correct terminology. You were the one who tried to compare Islam's effectiveness against a government. We're judging how good one thing is over another by the number of people who are forced to follow it. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. No individual government has more people. It's not about society. It's about which thing can bring in the most charity money. Islam, with its 1.5 billion followers, makes more charity money, than any government. You can't complain I'm using global statistics versus country statistics, because it's not about society. It's about which thing has the most followers to tax charity money from. No government rules more people than Islam rules people.
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter which society you choose. Just pick one and stick with it. (Besides, your ridiculous objections are still lame even if i accept your warped statistics, because even if pick a single nation while you pick all Muslims in the world, the secular law can still outdo the Islamic contribution. All i'd have to do is raise the tax high enough that it outdoes whatever 2.5% of all Muslims earn (which wouldn't be hard in a rich country, because something like 95% of the world's Muslims live in poor countries in Northern Africa and the Middle East, where 2.5% of nothing is still nothing).)
|
You ignore that some of the richest people in the world are Muslims, often in countries like saudi arabia or the arab emirates. So I'm sure they could make up the difference.
I agree that if raise the tax higher than 2.5% and the government would be more moral in that sense for this law than the Muslims.
| Indi wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: | Religion is a bad social medium because it encourages unity within the group and - and this is the part you carefully excluded - enemnity with other groups.
|
Logical contradiction. You can't say religion is a bad social medium if it makes unity in the group. |
First, you should look up what a logical contradiction is. A logical contradiction occurs when two premises or conclusions make statements that cannot both be true at the same time.
|
Yes. And you made a logical contradiction. Religion can't be bad social medium because it encourages unity within the group.
| Quote: |
Second, i most certainly can say that. Street gangs, the mafia, the Klu Klux Klan... all of these make for wonderful unity within the group. Especially in the case of the mafia, they swear loyalty to the group and know they will die if they leave it. Are they good for society?
|
Identifying small groups of extremists doesn't disprove anything. Religion remains an excellent social medium because it encourages unity within a group. You have conviently ignored that just because people might be in different religions, it doesn't make them enemies.
| Quote: |
Third, you did it again. You left off the second half of what i said.
|
No i didn't.
| Quote: |
That changes the meaning of what i said completely. Because i didn't just say religion is a bad social medium, i specifically said why. It is not better to have united groups that are at odds with each other. That is actually very bad. It would be better if there were no groups at all than if there were warring factions. People do much nastier things when they think they have the support of a group than when they are alone.
|
As I said in the last post, and again in this one: just because you're different to someone else, doesn't make you their enemy.
| Quote: |
And yes, most religion do promote enmity with other religions.
|
Yet another generalisation. You going to provide any evidence for this one?
| Quote: |
And yes, Islam is one of them. What does the Qur'an say about co-existing with non-Muslims? Does it not say not to trust non-Muslims? "...وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوٓا۟ إِلَّا لِمَن تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ"?
|
Quoting random Arabic without giving me a chapter and verse number doesn't mean I'll automatically know where to find it. Could you please provide me with a chapter and verse number?
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | If monotheistic religions are all united by their monotheism, then this is about half (counting the two biggest monotheistic followers alone, 1.5 billion muslims + 2 billion = 3.3...half of 6.6 billion total people) of the world. Half of the world united? Pretty good. |
Yeah? ^_^; You've had 1400 years of monotheistic dominance (more than that, actually, i'm just counting Islam). If this is so easy, why aren't they united yet?
|
Being united doesn't mean they'll merge into one group. It means they'll be united by their faiths; by respect and common beliefs.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, it doesn't matter how big a gang is.
|
Of course it does! That's the point. The more people united, the better; the more people united by religion; the more useful religion is.
| Quote: |
Even if the gang is huge, it still spells trouble for peace (actually, especially if the gang is huge). |
How does more people united, spell trouble for peace? It actually means, in this day and age, that there will be a greater urge to reconcile any conflicts.
So china is bad because it unites so many people under a common government? China should be broken up into small groups?
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | Polytheistic religions? A treaty/constitution/an official ruling document of Medina was made between the prophet, peace be upon him, and the people living in Medina; the idol worshippers were included in the document and given rights. During the time of the Muslim Caliph, Hindus and others were included under the title of 'people of the book', which gives them rights.
I don't know exactly what position an atheist has beyond not being an enemy of the Muslims if you're not at war with them. If you want, I can try to find out next time. |
^_^; Didn't you say "At the end of the day, the Quran is the ultimate source of authority in Islam... if a hadith contradicts it, the hadith is wrong."? (And that was from this thread, so i can't see how you would object to me quoting it.) If that's true, then why not tell me what the Qur'an says about idolaters? It overrides everything else, after all, it is the ultimate source of authority. In fact, ^_^; what does the Qur'an say about treaties with idolaters, hm?
|
It would be nice if you quoted the verse you're referring to. As far as I am aware, treaties cannot be broken by the Muslims (who, let us assume, are following Islam perfectly for this point). Especially treaties of peace.
| Quote: |
Anyway, your language is evasive. So what if sharia gives idolaters rights?
|
I didn't mention the Shariah. I mentioned a document in which the prophet helped form. That means it's part of the Sunnah (actions and words of the prophet) and hence part of how Muslims should be behaving. If the prophet made rights for idolators, it's important otherwise there would be potential to claim they have no rights in a Muslim society.
| Quote: |
It also gives rights to slaves. That doesn't make them equals in society, now does it? Because they're still slaves, hm?
|
Equals in society? What does that mean exactly?
| Quote: |
You see, i never asked about rights, because i don't care about how Islamic law hands out rights. This thread is about building a cohesive society under a new system that may or may not include religion. The question was how well Islam will foster social unity, not how it will dish out rights. Does Islam foster unity with idolatrous religions? Or nonbelievers? How does the Qur'an say you should deal with these people on a day-to-day basis (assuming they are not attacking you, of course)?
|
So rights aren't what you're talking about, but you're asking about how the Qur'an deals with people?
Those are part of the same subject. Islam fosters unity with idolatrous religions...as pointed out earlier, idolaters were given rights by the prophet himself, and pagans are included under the title of 'people of the book', giving them the same rights as Jews and Christians.
| Quote: |
And... this is the kicker... what if they do attack you?
|
I assume you mean physically. You defend yourself. Self-defence is justified.
| Quote: |
It happens in a free society. Depending on your perspective, you can argue that i am attacking Islam right now, by challenging its place in the world. What does the Qur'an say you should do in this case? Does it tell you try and find a peaceful solution (which would be good for the society as a whole)?
|
The Qur'an says:
[33:48]: "...disregard their insults..."
| Quote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Did you respond to this, by the way, 'Religion helps people by providing comfort, support, and strength'? |
Yes, several times. The two responses are:
[*]But religion also provides guilt and fear.
|
I remember now. I responded to that. I said: "How? Only religious followers follow religion. And of those, only those who sin 'major' sins feel alot of guilt, e.g. fornication or adultery or murder. But in most countries, the religious followers who murder are a minority of the total religious followers in that country.
And even if someone did sin 'big time', there's forgiveness in many religions. In Islam, any sin can be forigiven (in this life) and all sins after you die bar idolatry. In Christianity, Jesus is a sacrifice and so forgiveness is available for any Christian (bar possibly cursing the holy spirit). So even if someone did sin, they wouldn't be feeling guilty long, because the religious follower would seek God's forgiveness."
| Quote: |
...let's use Islam. How comforted is a devout Muslim man supposed to feel when he feels sexually attracted to another man?
How does Islam support a person who has been raped, but the rape was not witnessed?
|
[/quote]
If someone does something wrong, yes they should feel guilty. It's often a sign that they know it's wrong. However, the emphasis is not on the guilt. It's on fixing the wrong and preventing it happening again.
The first example: Bad example. I'd rather not discuss this, especially when this is resolved down to cultural (including the influence of religion) differences, because this can easily become a long but pointless and irrelevant debate.
If a Muslim man felt sexually attracted to another man, he would get over them and try to change them. At the very least, he would refrain from any sexual acts with any person of the same sex.
The second example: To quote, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541: "The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment [loyal: this is the punishment which was mentioned earlier on in this topic: stoning or lashes] if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (that is, if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her".
| Quote: |
How strong is a Muslim woman supposed to feel when they're forced to keep their eyes downwards?
|
?
Both Muslim men and women are commanded to 'lower their gaze' from someone they are not married to (i.e. not stare lustfully).
| Quote: |
[*]People provide comfort and support. Support groups provide comfort and support. You don't need religion just to provide comfort and support.
|
Religion is always accessible in the sense that you can always turn to God.
Support groups on the other hand often cost money.
Support groups don't provide the comfort and support like religion does. In Christianity, the Holy Spirit can help you anywhere, at any time.
| Quote: |
[/list]As for "strength", i'm not sure what "strength" religion provides that can't be provided by just about any cause.
|
'strength' e.g. inner confidence. It's different with causes; they make you feel like you have a purpose. Religion already does that.
| Quote: |
And if i wanted to endorse a cause, why would i choose to endorse religion - which still does nothing useful for society, so far as we can tell - instead of a cause that benefits the society? Two people have two different causes; one to please God, the other to end world hunger. Pardon me if it seems like the obvious choice for me - if my goal is to make the world better - is the second.
|
God would be pleased if you ended world hunger. Religion acts an encouragement for people to get together to end world hunger; (yes, no need to point it isn't the only encouragement around. but alternatives don't make it useless. see earlier for the point on alternatives).
Apologies in advance for any wrong spelling or wrong sentences. Haven't read through all of it.
Have a nice day.
Peace.
| loyal wrote: | | but alternatives don't make it useless |
I didn't read through your entire post, lots of stuff there, but I think this one statement sums up your main argument quite nicely and so I will respond to it. Alternatives can and often do render other alternatives obsolete. Washing your clothes in a river is an alternative to using a washing machine, but would you wash your clothes in the river if you had the choice? I don't think you would. The better alternative is always the better choice.
I haven't read all the replies, I promise I will, but I just wanted to answer the question. Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike.
I think either you or bikerman made a more or less similar metaphor in another thread.
| tingkagol wrote: | I haven't read all the replies, I promise I will, but I just wanted to answer the question. Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike.
I think either you or bikerman made a more or less similar metaphor in another thread. |
That seems silly to me. What would a religion offer in "balancing the bike" that something else couldn't do equally as good or even better?
| Xanatos wrote: | | loyal wrote: | | but alternatives don't make it useless |
I didn't read through your entire post, lots of stuff there, but I think this one statement sums up your main argument quite nicely and so I will respond to it. Alternatives can and often do render other alternatives obsolete. Washing your clothes in a river is an alternative to using a washing machine, but would you wash your clothes in the river if you had the choice? I don't think you would. The better alternative is always the better choice. |
Peace.
Nice profile picture.
Better alternatives sometimes do make the lesser alternatives obsolete. But which moral system do you use? You can either use one of the new (within the last few centuries) systems to determine whether a moral law (e.g. "do not lie") is true or false, or you can use religion.
With religion, something is wrong because God says it's wrong. It's absolute; there's no questioning why we have to follow the moral law (although we can speculate), and there's no questioning the authority behind the moral law, because the authority is God, who believers must try their best to obey.
Without religion, atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Why is something wrong? Often you can't determine that beyond feelings. Oh sure, some people have invented systems/methods to determine morality, such as utilitarianism. But often, if not always, the new method is flawed. And even if you were to pick a method you liked, such as situation ethics; how would you then justify the use of that moral system over another of the new moral systems? How would you justify the use of that moral system over religion, remembering that many people believe in religion and so will try to follow the religious moral laws (sometimes blindly), when no-one believes that a deity revealed the moral system?
Religion will be obeyed, even if an atheist thinks it has problems, because the believer believes in it.
I could argue that an adulterer deserves a flogging because they broke their spouse's heart and broke the commandment of God. But then someone could argue that if it's done discreetly, then it doesn't break the spouse's partner, you enjoy some more sexual pleasure, and it doesn't end in divorce, traumatising the kids.
Peace.
Same old flawed argument that keeps getting repeated.
a) The notion that religious people base their morals on what 'God said' is laughable. Read the Old Testament and tell me that either Christians or Jews live their life by what it teaches. We can be thankful that they do not otherwise the world would be even more brutal and intolerant than it is.
b) You say that there are different systems of ethics and no single system can claim to be the 'best' or the most ethical. True. EXACTLY the same applies to religions.
c) Secular humanism and universal morality are based on rational principles, far more 'solid' and reliable than the supposed commands of a supposed God as filtered through ancient texts, translations, interpretations etc.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | tingkagol wrote: | I haven't read all the replies, I promise I will, but I just wanted to answer the question. Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike.
I think either you or bikerman made a more or less similar metaphor in another thread. |
That seems silly to me. What would a religion offer in "balancing the bike" that something else couldn't do equally as good or even better? |
I was referring to the two extra wheels attached to the rear wheel of most children's bicycles (I don't really know what it's called). Sorry for being incredibly unclear.
| tingkagol wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | tingkagol wrote: | I haven't read all the replies, I promise I will, but I just wanted to answer the question. Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike.
I think either you or bikerman made a more or less similar metaphor in another thread. |
That seems silly to me. What would a religion offer in "balancing the bike" that something else couldn't do equally as good or even better? |
I was referring to the two extra wheels attached to the rear wheel of most children's bicycles (I don't really know what it's called). Sorry for being incredibly unclear. |
They are called 'stabilisers' (at least they are here in the UK).
| loyal wrote: | | Without religion, atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Why is something wrong? |
Morality is about right and wrong isn't it? Are you saying that only religious people can see right from wrong?
| loyal wrote: | | Without religion, atheists have no solid ground to support their morality. Why is something wrong? |
I wish people would quit with that bullshit.
Chimpanzees cannot swim yet have been seen drowning trying to save another one.
All great apes have complex social structures that include looking out for family members.
Elephants will go and search for their young if they get lost.
Wolves have pretty tight packs...
Piranhas are ruthless killing machines, yet they don't kill each other. They just kill to eat and for protection...
The list goes on...
Many animals have some social structure that includes morality. Do they all worship some god?
| tingkagol wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | tingkagol wrote: | I haven't read all the replies, I promise I will, but I just wanted to answer the question. Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike.
I think either you or bikerman made a more or less similar metaphor in another thread. |
That seems silly to me. What would a religion offer in "balancing the bike" that something else couldn't do equally as good or even better? |
I was referring to the two extra wheels attached to the rear wheel of most children's bicycles (I don't really know what it's called). Sorry for being incredibly unclear. |
I know what you were referring to. But my question was, what would religion offer that something else couldn't do better?
P.S. In the U.S. they're called training wheels. Bikerman mentioned that they're called "stabilizers" in the U.K. and I don't know about elsewhere.
| deanhills wrote: | OK, back to the drawing board, I tried to stick with this framework of your topic Indi and thought very deeply about it, and then remembered many years ago when I was completely bowled over by Salt Lake City. Note: I am not a Mormon (I don't see anything wrong with being a Mormon either), however I would say that the Mormon religion has a long list of benefits (uses) along the ones you asked for under every heading above. I probably don't have to cite them as they are fairly general knowledge for everybody. In the event that some refreshing is needed there is lots of info and links to more info about Salt Lake City in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City,_Utah
I was particulary bowled over by the State Capitol. At the time when I visited I was told that the Mormon people who had been in charge of Salt Lake City at the time when the State Capital of SLC was planned and built, had been built ahead of deadline as well as within budget, which was the opposite of what had happened to the State Capitol in Washington DC. They thought the difference was religious outlook of the Mormons in that they were more disciplined, more motivated, more hard-working. The Mormons also had the foresight of building very wide roads so that horse carriages could use two lanes. Mormons try not to have beggars in the street, and apparently take care of them. They look after their people in an organized way. They are a highly-organized society. Probably would be controlling (for me who is a free spirit), but I think you can find quite a long list of uses of the Mormon religion:
(1) Commercial - people employ Mormons, look after Mormons, Mormons have quite a successful record in business dealings based on their religion
(2) Green space - lots of Green Space in Salt Lake City with famous parks that are in excellent maintenance all the time
(3) Schools, Libraries, think Salt Lake City is quite famous for its Family History Library and of cause the Temple in centre of Salt Lake City
(4) Theatres, play houses etc. In abundance. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is world famous.
|
You know ^_^; i could write a page about all of the things that are wrong with this post. i mean... it is ridiculous in the highest order. There are so many logical fallacies in there, under other circumstances i would swear it was meant as a joke.
But i am not going to bother going into details. Instead, i will just make two, simple rebuttals to the whole thing.
Rebuttal 1
Correlation does not imply causation. Even if it is true that Salt Lake City represents a high-point in modern civilization, and even if it is majority Mormon, that does not imply that Mormonism is in any way responsible for any of these successes. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
For example, you mentioned that the city was built ahead of schedule and under budget, and chalked it up to "the Mormon people who had been in charge". Yes, sure, they were Mormon. They were also (successful) pioneers, which would imply much more strongly that they are hard-workers and capable of working well in a community than their religion would, hm? They were also an incredibly homogenized group, and it is much harder to get a culturally diverse group - such as what would have been the case in Washington DC - to work together than a group that is all the same. They were also under the impression that they were being persecuted - again, unlike those in DC, who were quite comfortably in power at the time DC was founded - so they had a fire under their ass to work hard and fast. They were also... you know what? ^_^; i could go on and on. But i think the point is made. There is no reason to assume that it was their religion that made them plan the city well, or build it ahead of schedule. There are tons of other possibilities.
And the same goes for all of those other points. Commerce, greenspace, education and culture - they all exist in places without Mormons... and often in far greater quantities. And do you seriously believe that the singers' religion makes their voices better? Or could it be, perhaps, that since they came from such a limited stock that polyamorously interbred like the dickens, perhaps one or two of the early pioneers were incredible singers and passed that genetic gift throughout the society widely?
Rebuttal 2
Despite popular perception, Mormons are a minority in Salt Lake City, and have been for quite a while. ^_^; Zing.
| tingkagol wrote: | | Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike. |
Philosophy is one of the few disciplines where, when given a book, philosophers don't care about the ending. Your conclusion is uninteresting. In science, many scientists reading a journal article will skip to the conclusions of the article, and only go back to read the methodology when their interest has been piqued. Not so in philosophy - your conclusing is not nearly as interesting to philosophers as how you came to it.
So your conclusion - "Religion is the balance wheels of a bike or some sort. It serves a purpose, but non-compulsory to the ultimate goal of learning how to ride a bike." - is philosophically vapid. It means nothing to philosophers. We want to know how you came to that conclusion. You can see this already: that is what Afaceinthematrix is asking you for.
So don't just tell us "religion is _____". Tell is why religion is ____. Show us how you came to the conclusion that religion is ____. That's where philosophy happens.
Sorry if I'm limited to really short posts. Sure, there are tons of other things that could be better "stabilizers" for the bike. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just thought it would be pointless to argue about something most people around here already agree about.
Wait a minute, do you people agree that religion can at least be a barely passable set of "training wheels" in today's "bikes"? We can argue if it is ABSOLUTELY USELESS.
cheers.
| Indi wrote: | Rebuttal 1
Correlation does not imply causation. Even if it is true that Salt Lake City represents a high-point in modern civilization, and even if it is majority Mormon, that does not imply that Mormonism is in any way responsible for any of these successes. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. |
Perhaps it is Indi. Mormonism is very successful. Everyone knows that. It has to be one of the must successful religions in the world for keeping families united, keeping communities united, going a few extra miles for everyone, very strong motivation for community services as well as doing well in business, probably because there is such a cohesive and thriving inner network from the bottom up. It is very well organized.
| Indi wrote: | Rebuttal 2
Despite popular perception, Mormons are a minority in Salt Lake City, and have been for quite a while. ^_^; Zing. |
Let's make this a little more factual Indi as "minority" and "quite a while" give the impression of a small percentage and a long period of time. Mormons consist of 45% of the population in the inner city core of Salt Lake City, however they are in the majority in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. The growth that I described, the foundation of the city happened at a time when they were in the majority. The "quite a while" has been since 2004. Yes, Mormons have not grown that much, but the city is still standing, and is still an example of achievement that can be ascribed to the Mormon faith.
This is a quote from PBS Website http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/structure.html:
| Quote: | Mormons make up roughly two-thirds of Utah's population. While the church maintains a policy of political nonpartisanship, the impact of the faith's popular majority is clear in state politics.
Utah's Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R), U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Bob Bennett (R), and all three of the state's congressmen are Latter-day Saints. Since becoming a state in 1896, Utah has had only two non-Mormon governors.
Within the city limits of Salt Lake City, Utah's capital, the population is about 55 percent non-Mormon. However, the city limits circumscribe a very small part of the county of which Salt Lake City is the county seat. In the suburbs surrounding the city, the population is overwhelmingly Mormon. |
I found the following a good explanation about reasons for being good at business in Wikipedia Philosophy:
| Quote: | The church has programs that teach business and leadership skills. Youth, as young as 12-years-old, hold positions of leadership within the church. Mormon youth have the unique opportunity of conducting meetings, planning activities, and giving speeches at a relatively young age. The Mormon youth program strives to instill self-esteem and independence in each young person. Although not sponsored by the church, many Mormon young men are encouraged to participate in the Boy Scouts of America program. Mormon youth participate regularly in service projects. Through these experiences, Mormon youth tend to be a savvy group. At the age of 19, all worthy Mormon young men serve a mission for the church. The missionary experience is demanding and teaches young men to love others and work hard. Missions transform boys into mature men. On the mission, many become better communicators and learn how to serve those around them. The missionary program calls young men to serve throughout the world, giving the opportunity to many to learn a foreign language. Many return and use their language skills in their careers. The mission essentially teaches young men how to live a regimented and organized life. They are already at an advantage. Many returned missionaries find success in sales because for two years, they convinced and persuaded people to believe in Christ, a message they are passionate about. The Mormon Church gives its members necessary skills needed to survive in the business world.
Retrieved from "http://mormon.wikia.com/wiki/Mormon_Businessmen" |
| tingkagol wrote: | | Wait a minute, do you people agree that religion can at least be a barely passable set of "training wheels" in today's "bikes"? |
How can anyone agree to that if you don't explain what it means?
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Rebuttal 1
Correlation does not imply causation. Even if it is true that Salt Lake City represents a high-point in modern civilization, and even if it is majority Mormon, that does not imply that Mormonism is in any way responsible for any of these successes. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. |
Perhaps it is Indi. Mormonism is very successful. Everyone knows that. It has to be one of the must successful religions in the world for keeping families united, keeping communities united, going a few extra miles for everyone, very strong motivation for community services as well as doing well in business, probably because there is such a cohesive and thriving inner network from the bottom up. It is very well organized. |
And perhaps it is not. It has a history of human rights issues relating to polygamy and racism, and even today has been criticized for various psychological abuses on its members. It's not hard to keep a family "united" if you apply tough enough social pressures to keep them that way... and they do. i recommend you talk to lapsed Mormons and see what they say about their treatment when they decided to leave the church. And let's not forget about the issues with corrupting history, hm?
But here's the bottom line: the question is what use is religion, and implied in that is what use is it that can't be taken care of without it. You don't need the book of Mormon to have a community whose members believe strongly in community service. And you don't need the book of Mormon to have a good business sector. So exactly what do you need the book of Mormon for? And more specifically, what do we need the book of Mormon for that we can't accomplish without it... especially considering all of the negatives that come attached with Mormonism (such as historical inaccuracies, and its treatment of attempted apostates)?
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Rebuttal 2
Despite popular perception, Mormons are a minority in Salt Lake City, and have been for quite a while. ^_^; Zing. |
Let's make this a little more factual Indi as "minority" and "quite a while" give the impression of a small percentage and a long period of time. Mormons consist of 45% of the population in the inner city core of Salt Lake City, however they are in the majority in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. The growth that I described, the foundation of the city happened at a time when they were in the majority. The "quite a while" has been since 2004. Yes, Mormons have not grown that much, but the city is still standing, and is still an example of achievement that can be ascribed to the Mormon faith.
This is a quote from PBS Website http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/structure.html:
| Quote: | Mormons make up roughly two-thirds of Utah's population. While the church maintains a policy of political nonpartisanship, the impact of the faith's popular majority is clear in state politics.
Utah's Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R), U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Bob Bennett (R), and all three of the state's congressmen are Latter-day Saints. Since becoming a state in 1896, Utah has had only two non-Mormon governors.
Within the city limits of Salt Lake City, Utah's capital, the population is about 55 percent non-Mormon. However, the city limits circumscribe a very small part of the county of which Salt Lake City is the county seat. In the suburbs surrounding the city, the population is overwhelmingly Mormon. |
|
i don't deal with Mormons as often as i deal with Scientologists, but i've definitely had dealings with them that have taught me certain facts about how they operate. You should know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has one of the most inflated rolls of any church in the world. You don't say where you get your 45% from, but it must have either come from checking the church's roll count and comparing it to the population... or from a survey of the state that asked for religious identification. Both methods are highly flawed.
First, the Church's records have long been criticized for being heavily inflated. Anyone who was ever baptized in the church is counted, even if no one's seen them in a hundred years. Yes, literally. There are people on their list who have been dead for decades, and people who don't even know they're on the list. And if you were baptized as a child but no longer Mormon, good damn luck getting your name off the list. ^_^; Tallies done by external groups have found their numbers inflated by a factor for 4 regularly... and sometimes a factor as high as 8. (for example)
Second, counting the religious in the US always over-estimates. Why? Because atheism is so socially unacceptable that people who never go to church, never pray and don't believe a word of any church's dogma will still self-identify as Christian. In Utah, where Mormon culture is so widespread, it is quite common for people to identify themselves as Mormon when they wouldn't even count as Mormon to Mormons. In that article linked in the paragraph above, it gives the correction factor for this as 2, which means that - right now - there are not 45% Mormon in Utah, there are 22%. i've heard correction factors for that as high as 5, but 2 is good enough for now. ^_^;
The moral of the story is Mormonism isn't as prevalent as Mormons would like to believe it is. And it is certainly not as influential as you make it sound, and hasn't been for decades.
But even if Salt Lake City were 100% Mormon the question remains: so what? Why do you need Mormonism for all of the good things in Salt Lake City. No one denies that it is possible to have a decent society with religion present. The question of this thread is whether religion is necessary for a decent society. Pointing out Salt Lake City is both nice and Mormon is ultimately an empty point. Explain why it cannot be nice without being Mormon. Do you think if Mormonism was taken away today that the business sector would fall apart, everyone would stop being nice and charitable and the greenspace would just all shrivel up?
| deanhills wrote: | I found the following a good explanation about reasons for being good at business in Wikipedia Philosophy:
| Quote: | The church has programs that teach business and leadership skills. Youth, as young as 12-years-old, hold positions of leadership within the church. Mormon youth have the unique opportunity of conducting meetings, planning activities, and giving speeches at a relatively young age. The Mormon youth program strives to instill self-esteem and independence in each young person. Although not sponsored by the church, many Mormon young men are encouraged to participate in the Boy Scouts of America program. Mormon youth participate regularly in service projects. Through these experiences, Mormon youth tend to be a savvy group. At the age of 19, all worthy Mormon young men serve a mission for the church. The missionary experience is demanding and teaches young men to love others and work hard. Missions transform boys into mature men. On the mission, many become better communicators and learn how to serve those around them. The missionary program calls young men to serve throughout the world, giving the opportunity to many to learn a foreign language. Many return and use their language skills in their careers. The mission essentially teaches young men how to live a regimented and organized life. They are already at an advantage. Many returned missionaries find success in sales because for two years, they convinced and persuaded people to believe in Christ, a message they are passionate about. The Mormon Church gives its members necessary skills needed to survive in the business world.
Retrieved from "http://mormon.wikia.com/wiki/Mormon_Businessmen" |
|
What part of this requires the book of Mormon? Why can't we have programs that teach business skills to youth run by secular organizations? Why can't we have exchange programs for youth that actually do some good - such as work exchange programs - rather than proselytizing missions?
The question Indi was not whether religion was good or bad, the question was whether religion is useful. I believe I have shown that the mormons did a good job building a city on the strength of their faith. If their faith had good results, such as being good and savvy leaders and training young people to be good and savvy leaders, obviously there must have been some success in their religion. I find it quite convenient in favour of your argument against the usefulness of religion to want to separate religion from its structure and organization.
Obviously there are flaws in the Mormon faith, but I don't think that is what you asked for. You asked for practical examples of the usefulness of religion in the building of a society. I believe I demonstrated that.
| Quote: | What part of this requires the book of Mormon? Why can't we have programs that teach business skills to youth run by secular organizations? Why can't we have exchange programs for youth that actually do some good - such as work exchange programs - rather than proselytizing missions?
|
Exactly my point. We can have all the other programs (and even better ones) that achieve the said goals, but you have to acknowledge that religion (in this case, mormonism) at least did its share in building Salt Lake City as it is today, albeit unnecessary. "Unnecessary" isn't always synonymous to useless.
Two points in original post made me wonder:
- "religion serves": could be evaluated as opposite;
- "usefulness of religion" without questioning this.
You know, there are different people on the Earth...
| Crinoid wrote: | Two points in original post made me wonder:
- "religion serves": could be evaluated as opposite;
- "usefulness of religion" without questioning this.
You know, there are different people on the Earth... |
What?
ahh time to play simcity .... errrrrh hehe
In my country religion has ONE function - social service... as what to do with a corpse, marriage in a nice environment (we also have the state marriage), naming our children in a nice environment (we must name people in the state).
That is about it... Actually it has separate tax money and work seperately from other services.
And that is what the best way of a church is ... to just handle corpses! There is no way for the state to handle corpses here!
^^So then what you're saying is that religion is completely useless? A simple state function (like in numerous other countries) would be able to sufficiently handle corpses, which would render religion to be obsolete.
| deanhills wrote: | The question Indi was not whether religion was good or bad, the question was whether religion is useful. I believe I have shown that the mormons did a good job building a city on the strength of their faith. If their faith had good results, such as being good and savvy leaders and training young people to be good and savvy leaders, obviously there must have been some success in their religion. I find it quite convenient in favour of your argument against the usefulness of religion to want to separate religion from its structure and organization.
Obviously there are flaws in the Mormon faith, but I don't think that is what you asked for. You asked for practical examples of the usefulness of religion in the building of a society. I believe I demonstrated that. |
Actually, the question is whether religion would be useful for a new society, not whether it has been useful in the past.
i don't believe you've done a particularly good job of showing that Mormons did a good job of building their city because of their religion... but even if you had, so what? You say "obviously there must have been some success in their religion", but again, so what?
Let me try and show you what you are doing wrong by doing the same thing:
Ancient Greece was the gem of the ancient world, providing the intellectual engine that eventually ended up driving the most powerful empires the world has ever known, and eventually blossoming into the modern era.
They also kept slaves.
Now, you may object "but slavery is bad!", but it certainly did a lot of good for Greece. Aside from the obvious benefit of enabling the construction of the famous Grecian architectural achievements like the Parthenon, slaves were also used to develop science and technology - for example, very few people know that the original power source for the Archimedes screw was slaves. The fact that they freed up the upper class for more intellectual pursuits is probably why Greece was as advanced intellectually as it was.
Virtually all of the Ancient Greek philosophers had nothing but nice things to say about slavery - including Plato and Aristotle (Socrates we are not sure about, because he never wrote anything... everything we know about what Socrates said comes via Plato). And it's not like slaves didn't benefit from their slavery - they were often captured in barbaric and backwards lands, and brought to the civilized life of Greece, and some did quite well, too, like the slave-turned-philosopher Epictetus.
To paraphrase your final paragraph: Obviously there are flaws with slavery, but i didn't ask what the flaws in slavery are. (You think that) i asked for practical examples of the usefulness of slavery in the building of a society. i believe i demonstrated that.
...
i could construct similar arguments for all kinds of nasty stuff, ranging from institutionalized rape to Nazism. If you try hard enough you can find arguments "for" just about any nasty thing. Religion included.
That is why what you are doing is just a waste of time - and why it is not what i asked for. i did not ask for examples of religion serving a useful purpose in the past. i asked what use it would have in the future. i said if i were building a society, why would i want to include religion? What can religion provide my theoretical society that either:
- Nothing else can provide.
- It provides at a lower cost than anything else.
And in both those cases, your Mormonism in Utah example fails miserably. All of those benefits you listed could just as easily be provided for by careful town planning, and by simple initiatives to train young entrepreneurs and provide green space.
- We don't need Mormonism for any of those things, because there is nothing you mentioned that cannot be provided for by other means.
- The social costs of Mormonism are extremely high - just look at how often they're in the news, and how often that news is good. There is nothing that you mentioned that cannot be so much easier with a simple a government program... no stuffy underwear required.
| tingkagol wrote: | | Exactly my point. We can have all the other programs (and even better ones) that achieve the said goals, but you have to acknowledge that religion (in this case, mormonism) at least did its share in building Salt Lake City as it is today, albeit unnecessary. "Unnecessary" isn't always synonymous to useless. |
It is when the question is about what is required to build a good society. Anything not required, that is, unnecessary, is useless if i want just the bag of tools required, with no extra junk.
...
Let me say this yet again, because as many times as it gets repeated (and not just by me), it still doesn't seem to be sinking in. I UNDERSTAND THAT RELIGION HAS PROVIDED SOME BENEFITS TO SOCIETIES IN THE PAST. Ok? Is that clear enough? Yes, religion has been useful... IN THE PAST. i do not deny that.
i also don't care about that, because the question is not about the past, it is about the future. To repeat the question that makes up pretty much the entire first post: the question is what i should include if i am building a society from scratch now, as in today, not in the mid-1800s, or even further back. Somehow i have been granted a large area of land and a big chunk of cash, and i have to design a good society... but my resources aren't unlimited so i can't just throw everything in, i have to carefully design a stable society, and add only those elements that i need to add to make that society the best it can possibly be. Anything that does not meet those goals is useless to my task.
And just to make this crystal clear... i am not denying the existence of religion in the society. Even if i decide that religion is entirely useless and build the society without it, there is no reason people can't bring it in on their own. All that means is that rather than me having to make space for religion in my social plan, the religion will have to make space for my social plan.
And that, ultimately, is the issue - what use does religion serve in society that makes it necessary to include in the plan for a new society? What is the use of religion in society? NOT "how has religion been useful", but rather "how will religion be useful".
It's like i am asking what use would Albert Einstein be if i were putting together a scientific dream team to do physics. You keep telling me that Albert Einstein did many useful things in physics in the past, to which i respond, "yes, fine, sure, whatever... but this helps me not one squat, because i am not putting my physics dream team together in the past, i am putting it together in the future and Albert Einstein is dead... so he won't be much use in the future, now will he?"
Now, if you want to use examples from the past to show how religion will be useful in the future, fine. But that's not what anyone here is doing. i don't care if Mormonism made Utah a paradise anymore than i would care if Albert Einstein advanced physics a thousand years. That was then, this is now. The question is what can Mormonism do for me now that makes it worthwhile - what use does it have now? Not a hundred or more years ago. Now. This is not a history forum, it is a philosophy forum.
Thanks Indi. I got it. You want us to show how "religion" can be useful to a future brand-new city that has not been built yet.
Every religion has a past. If it does not have a past, it cannot be credible for its followers. There are more than one religion as well. I cannot take a religion, then go to a future city and say this is your religion. You must have faith in this religion, as when you do, these will be the benefits for you. You cannot separate the religion from the people and use it as a utility. I don't think it is the same as slavery. Religion is spiritual, something of faith love and hope. And for some it is a way of life, they live their lives by their religion. Slavery is something different, of bondage. Human capital.
I can look at how religion has been useful in the past. But not in the future. Can you?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ^^So then what you're saying is that religion is completely useless? A simple state function (like in numerous other countries) would be able to sufficiently handle corpses, which would render religion to be obsolete. |
Yes...
Stupid religions (including a non omnipotent god) are useless - unless u want to make a war och just use it as a powertool...
We hav alot of art and design culture in our vintage churches so the main reason to use a church is just the artfulness.
Okay, now that everything's a bit clear, I believe religion can still be of some use in the future. NOT NECESSARY, of course. I can think of nothing but basic moral direction for our morally handicapped brothers & sisters- there are other ways of course.
And like Indi, I doubt religion will ever go away. For some people, the existence of a supreme entity will always be a valid answer to life's greatest mysteries.
| spinout wrote: | | Stupid religions (including a non omnipotent god) are useless - unless u want to make a war och just use it as a powertool... |
So are all religions stupid, or only those that are useless?
Hm, all religions don't have semigods so all aint "stupid". Well u can use a lot of religions IF u rewrite some texts - like the ultra stupid holy bible!!! 
| deanhills wrote: | | Thanks Indi. I got it. You want us to show how "religion" can be useful to a future brand-new city that has not been built yet. |
To any future, not just a future city that hasn't been built yet. The "future city" is just a convenient framing device for the question. If religion has no use to a future city yet-to-be-built, what use could it have to a city that exists today? A band-aid over past bad decisions that won't be made in a new city? If so, how?
| deanhills wrote: | | Every religion has a past. If it does not have a past, it cannot be credible for its followers. There are more than one religion as well. I cannot take a religion, then go to a future city and say this is your religion. |
This is all gibberish. The first statement is a tautology, the second is irrelevant, the third is obvious (and irrelevant) and the fourth is actually not true.
| deanhills wrote: | | You must have faith in this religion, as when you do, these will be the benefits for you. You cannot separate the religion from the people and use it as a utility. |
Again, the first statement is nonsensical because you still won't say what these benefits are in any way that actually makes sense. You can keep repeating to me that "religion provides benefits" until the sun burns out... but until you actually describe what these "benefits" are, it's all just hot air. So far, the only "benefits" you've mentioned are either fake benefits - situations where the religion creates a problem and then offers the solution - or much easier to provide without religions. i'd love hear an actual benefit, rather than you repeatedly telling me how unfair i am being to religion.
And i am not trying to "separate the religion from the people" (i don't even know what that means), i am asking what would a society need to provide for the people that requires it to support religion.
It's simple: here is a society... i am responsible for making sure that this society has everything it needs to make it the best society possible... why would i include religion in that? What does society need that religion provides?
Note: if they want religion, they are free to have it. i am not denying them religion. i am just asking why i (as the social planning person) should be responsible for giving it to them. i will give them safety (by giving them fire departments, and laws to prevent harm of various kinds), i will give them security (by giving them police), i will give them entertainment (by funding the arts), i will give them freedom (by drafting laws to protect civil liberties), etc.... because all of these abstract things are necessary for a healthy society, and those services and laws are useful for providing those abstracts. What is religion useful for providing?
| deanhills wrote: | | I don't think it is the same as slavery. Religion is spiritual, something of faith love and hope. And for some it is a way of life, they live their lives by their religion. Slavery is something different, of bondage. Human capital. |
You're not really into analogy, are you? ^_^;
The fact that religion is... "spiritual"... (whatever that means) while slavery is not is a difference that has no bearing on the analogy. Both religion and slavery are social institutions. Both offer benefits and drawbacks to the society. Both have uses to a well-functioning society... and in both cases (so far as i can see), all of the uses they have are capable of being served by other institutions that don't have nearly as many drawbacks.
Furthermore, realistically speaking, religion is as much about bondage as slavery is. In order to belong to a slave master, you have to be physically or socially bound in some way. In order to belong to a religion, you have to be mentally bound by the religion. Take Christianity as an example: once you are a Christian, you must believe in Jesus. You have no choice. You can't not believe in Jesus and be a Christian. (You can fake it, of course, but that's irrelevant because you can also fake being a slave - and i understand that's quite popular in some circles.) Now if the religion actually provides any real benefits (as you keep insisting), and you only get those benefits if you actually believe (as you just said), then in order to keep reaping those benefits you must give up your freedom of belief. You must submit your mind to Christian bondage, and accept whatever they tell you you must accept in order to be a Christian. Whatever religion you choose to belong to, if there are real benefits to believing in that religion (as opposed to just faking it), then you must surrender your freedom of belief and accept the mental bondage of believing in that religion's precepts. (This may seem like no big deal to you; you may be perfectly fine with surrendering yourself to this kind of mental bondage, whereas the idea of surrendering to social/physical bondage may be appalling to you. Keep a few things in mind though: you grew up in a society where social/physical bondage is utterly intolerable but mental bondage is acceptable. In a society where social/physical bondage is acceptable, things may be different, and in fact, many real life slaves were quite happy to be slaves. Some even sold themselves into slavery or refused to go when set free. Not all were pleased with the situation, of course - but then not everyone today is ok with the idea of mental bondage... personally, i find the notion abhorrent.)
| deanhills wrote: | | I can look at how religion has been useful in the past. But not in the future. Can you? |
i can, but why would i? Past performance is not always a great indicator of future success, and this case, you can't even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that past success was actually due to the religion.
If you want to use past "success" as an argument for future use, you have to show:
- That past success was not just luck.
- That whatever conditions caused past success still exist.
Besides, if you really want to look at past performance for religion, you can't look at it with eyes half-closed the way you are. You say Mormonism did some good things for Salt Lake City? Fine. Now, what bad things has it done? You can't look at one and not the other - at least not as long as you intend to be intellectually honest. If religion's past performance is guaranteed to be repeated in the future, that means i have to worry about the good and the bad, not just the good... unless you can provide reasonable evidence to show that the bad will never happen but the good definitely will.
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | You must have faith in this religion, as when you do, these will be the benefits for you. You cannot separate the religion from the people and use it as a utility. |
Again, the first statement is nonsensical because you still won't say what these benefits are in any way that actually makes sense. You can keep repeating to me that "religion provides benefits" until the sun burns out... but until you actually describe what these "benefits" are, it's all just hot air. So far, the only "benefits" you've mentioned are either fake benefits - situations where the religion creates a problem and then offers the solution - or much easier to provide without religions. i'd love hear an actual benefit, rather than you repeatedly telling me how unfair i am being to religion. |
1. Sense of purpose when people wake up in the morning. Gives structure to their lives as they do their prayers, say thanks for a new day, and pray for good things for the day.
2. Where I am taxi drivers are quite happy, joyful and playing around early in the morning. They have a sense of pride in their jobs, Moslems are very proud of being chosen people and being chosen in their professions, whether taxi driver or cleaner. Makes for very happy people who tend to be more satisfied in comparison with people who have no religion. I compare it with Vancouver in the early morning bus when most of the people look very unhappy to be on the way to work, and you can smell alcohol and hopelessness everywhere.
3. People are encouraged to look after their families, more so than no religion. Honour thy father and thy mother lines, taking the shirt off your back for your brothers and sisters. This is not to say that those people who do not have religions do not do that, but quite possibly it would be more prevalent among religious people.
4. Religion related activities such as going to church and participating in events are good for keeping old folk occupied and happy. Give them a purpose and keep them on the go.
5. Religion is also a means of educating people. Quite a number of missionaries who are doing that around the world, education brings enlightenment to some.
6. Many organized social activities, teaches people to organize, youth movements etc etc, assisting single mothers and mothers going through divorce, networking for jobs, etc. etc.
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I don't think it is the same as slavery. Religion is spiritual, something of faith love and hope. And for some it is a way of life, they live their lives by their religion. Slavery is something different, of bondage. Human capital. |
You're not really into analogy, are you? ^_^;
The fact that religion is... "spiritual"... (whatever that means) while slavery is not is a difference that has no bearing on the analogy. Both religion and slavery are social institutions. Both offer benefits and drawbacks to the society. Both have uses to a well-functioning society... and in both cases (so far as i can see), all of the uses they have are capable of being served by other institutions that don't have nearly as many drawbacks.
Furthermore, realistically speaking, religion is as much about bondage as slavery is. In order to belong to a slave master, you have to be physically or socially bound in some way. In order to belong to a religion, you have to be mentally bound by the religion. Take Christianity as an example: once you are a Christian, you must believe in Jesus. You have no choice. You can't not believe in Jesus and be a Christian. (You can fake it, of course, but that's irrelevant because you can also fake being a slave - and i understand that's quite popular in some circles.) Now if the religion actually provides any real benefits (as you keep insisting), and you only get those benefits if you actually believe (as you just said), then in order to keep reaping those benefits you must give up your freedom of belief. You must submit your mind to Christian bondage, and accept whatever they tell you you must accept in order to be a Christian. Whatever religion you choose to belong to, if there are real benefits to believing in that religion (as opposed to just faking it), then you must surrender your freedom of belief and accept the mental bondage of believing in that religion's precepts. (This may seem like no big deal to you; you may be perfectly fine with surrendering yourself to this kind of mental bondage, whereas the idea of surrendering to social/physical bondage may be appalling to you. Keep a few things in mind though: you grew up in a society where social/physical bondage is utterly intolerable but mental bondage is acceptable. In a society where social/physical bondage is acceptable, things may be different, and in fact, many real life slaves were quite happy to be slaves. Some even sold themselves into slavery or refused to go when set free. Not all were pleased with the situation, of course - but then not everyone today is ok with the idea of mental bondage... personally, i find the notion abhorrent.) |
So Indi, does this mean that you are completely free in your thinking when you are not religious? I doubt it. Not having a religion, is a belief in its own right. Being an atheist, or nihilist, or any such belief is still something of a bondage. Having no beliefs is also a bondage of "no beliefs". Not being religious bonds you to "no religion". I think that the very state of thinking puts us into bondage, whether we want to be or not.
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can look at how religion has been useful in the past. But not in the future. Can you? |
i can, but why would i? Past performance is not always a great indicator of future success, and this case, you can't even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that past success was actually due to the religion. |
Religion has been around for quite a number of centuries. It has been around from the beginning of time. Some of it has been good and some of it has not been so good. In the end it is all in the eye of the beholder. Your choice, your beliefs. If you have an above average brilliant mind you will be able to extract everything you need to defend your beliefs, whether they are religious, atheist, whatever. I think everyone is right and everyone is wrong and the usefulness is up to ourselves. We can make anything useful or useless as we wish it to be.
| deanhills wrote: | 1. Sense of purpose when people wake up in the morning. Gives structure to their lives as they do their prayers, say thanks for a new day, and pray for good things for the day.
2. Where I am taxi drivers are quite happy, joyful and playing around early in the morning. They have a sense of pride in their jobs, Moslems are very proud of being chosen people and being chosen in their professions, whether taxi driver or cleaner. Makes for very happy people who tend to be more satisfied in comparison with people who have no religion. I compare it with Vancouver in the early morning bus when most of the people look very unhappy to be on the way to work, and you can smell alcohol and hopelessness everywhere.
3. People are encouraged to look after their families, more so than no religion. Honour thy father and thy mother lines, taking the shirt off your back for your brothers and sisters. This is not to say that those people who do not have religions do not do that, but quite possibly it would be more prevalent among religious people.
4. Religion related activities such as going to church and participating in events are good for keeping old folk occupied and happy. Give them a purpose and keep them on the go.
5. Religion is also a means of educating people. Quite a number of missionaries who are doing that around the world, education brings enlightenment to some.
6. Many organized social activities, teaches people to organize, youth movements etc etc, assisting single mothers and mothers going through divorce, networking for jobs, etc. etc. |
- Since people without religion manage to wake up in the morning, we clearly don't need religion for that.
- So the benefit of religion is that it makes people content sheep? ^_^; Even if we accept that one would want people to be content with whatever deal they get handed and not strive for something better, is this really something religion provides? i don't see that. i see just as many content underachieving atheists as religious people. And i see just as many discontent religious people as atheists. In fact, there is no shortage of religious people who are totally unhappy with their situation to the point that they are willing to do things as extreme as - oh, for example - blowing people up in order to make the world better. (No, i am not saying all or even most religious people are nuts -_- i am saying that not all religious people are content with their lot in life.)
- Do you actually have any evidence that non-religious people are any worse at parenting than religious people? Or is this just bigotry? You know, atheists have just as much motivation to raise their kids right and do well by their families as religious people. -_- They just don't need a two thousand year old book to tell them that. Furthermore, while it is true that the Old Testament says honour thy father and mother, the New Testament says hate your family. And it's not like many religions haven't encouraged young people to cut off all ties with their families and live an ascetic life.
- Providing something for old people to do? Do you seriously believe we can't find secular organizations to do that much better? Rather than going to church meetings and praying, singing and clapping, they could be encouraged to join community projects that do things like collect stories from older folk to record as community history (for example, and that's assuming that they are incapable of doing anything else more productive).
- Full disclosure: i witnessed first-hand the "good" that some of these missionaries do... and i ain't that impressed. But aside from that... what part of any of that can't be done better by secular "missionaries" sent under programs that have nothing to do with religion? Put it this way: if two people are sent to help a poor country, one on a mission, one as part of a secular program, then the second will always do at least as much good as the former... if not more. Why? Because let's say the missionary spends 90% of her time teaching math and 10% teaching religion. Meanwhile the other person will spend 100% of her time teaching math (because she has nothing else to teach). And if the missionary isn't going to be teaching any religion at all, and doing 100% math... why do you need the religion at all?
- All of which can be (and often are, these days) provided by non-religious groups.
Bottom line: religion isn't necessary in any of these cases.
| deanhills wrote: | | So Indi, does this mean that you are completely free in your thinking when you are not religious? I doubt it. Not having a religion, is a belief in its own right. Being an atheist, or nihilist, or any such belief is still something of a bondage. Having no beliefs is also a bondage of "no beliefs". Not being religious bonds you to "no religion". I think that the very state of thinking puts us into bondage, whether we want to be or not. |
Yes, it does mean i am free. i can choose to believe whatever i want, and i am not bound to "no religion". That is the point of "no religion". Nothing restricts me from taking one: i can accept mental bondage any time i want, if i think these benefits you talk about are worth it. i am not a nihilist, and as has been pointed out many times in these forums, atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of a belief.
The difference is that any given religion has rules about what you have to believe in order to be a legitimate member of that religion. The lack of religion has no such rules. If i like some of the beliefs that Christianity requires but not others, i can pick and choose as i please. A Christian cannot, as long as they wish to remain a Christian. They have to accept the whole package of required beliefs.
Now, i have chosen to bind my own thinking: i choose to believe only that which is warranted by evidence or reason. As long as i want to stick to that, my thinking is bound. But i am not claiming that there are any benefits to this, so there is no motivation for me to accept this mental bondage except that i want to. If i choose to give it up and believe in fairies, i lose nothing. If a Christian chooses to give up Christianity and assert the non-existence of any gods, then they lose the benefits of being Christian. As long as they want the benefits of the religion, they are bound to the religion. i am not bound to believe only what is evidenced or reasoned, because i am not getting any benefits from it. i just choose to, and if i stop, i lose nothing. My mental bondage is by choice, with parameters set by me, and under no coercion. Religious mental bondage is coerced (in order to get the benefits you speak of), and the parameters are set by the religion. If you don't like what the religion requires you to believe, tough. Either suck it up, or give up the benefits of the religion. If i don't like where believing in only what is evidenced or reasoned leads me, i can quit any time i want... with no consequences or costs.
So yes, i am free. i am so free, i can even choose to bind myself, and release those bonds any time i feel like.
| deanhills wrote: | | Religion has been around for quite a number of centuries. It has been around from the beginning of time. Some of it has been good and some of it has not been so good. In the end it is all in the eye of the beholder. Your choice, your beliefs. If you have an above average brilliant mind you will be able to extract everything you need to defend your beliefs, whether they are religious, atheist, whatever. I think everyone is right and everyone is wrong and the usefulness is up to ourselves. We can make anything useful or useless as we wish it to be. |
?
| Indi wrote: | | So yes, i am free. i am so free, i can even choose to bind myself, and release those bonds any time i feel like. |
I'm happy you are free. I am not free. I have to work for a living to start off with. I can't see with the back of my head. I am completely limited in my movement. I would like to be able to fly, and that would make me feel much more free. Instead all I can do is walk, perhaps run a little. My vision is limited. I would have liked to have the ability to turn on automatic microscopic vision, not all the time, but that would have made me feel more free. Also to rotate my head right round my neck. I would have liked to beam myself to places like in Starwars, so that time and space would be virtually non-existent. Think there is lots of scope for improvement in the human make-up all of which could make me feel more free. I feel quite limited by this body I am occupying, the fact that I am getting older, will die one day, and can only have limited knowledge of what is going on around me, and not all of it accurate. A tree is not always a tree. I would like things to be completely clear with no ambiguities or need to figure out what the truth is. Truth seems to be treacherous in its beckoning and placing limitations on my freedom, I think I have figured it out and the next day I discover I have just seen one side of it, and it has made truth into a lie. The pursuit of truth both excites and frustrates me, reminds me of how limited I am.
The moment I am born there are people trying to educate me to think certain ways. All in the name of love of course and knowing what is best for you. People trying to manipulate you, playing games. I've never been good at playing games, but of course have had to do some of that in order to survive in the work environment. I do not like that part of me and see it as a curb on my freedom. An entrapment of a kind. When I go to school I have to learn according to specific pre-designed curriculae and sometimes am taught by people who can put me on the wrong track by their own pre-conceived ideas and I have to figure this out by trial and error in a non-confrontational way. Their thoughts are messy and don't always make much sense. Fortunately there are exceptions and I have known some fantastic born teachers who have made learning a great pleasure in my life.
I can go on and on. I think real freedom is when we are no longer part of earth and only spirit. A state of being with no need for thinking. Thinking in itself can be an encumbrance, a limitation of freedom. I could only be really free if the thinking machinery in my head can be switched off at will. In that way I think ignorance is bliss and sets you free. So yes, when Sparticus was in bondage I can imagine that religion (in his thinking) would have set him free and motivated him. It would have been a mirage of course, but at least there is some usefulness in that.
religion is what binds you to a certain section of the society in a particular way, and lets you see through some aspects of life which would otherwise come to mathematical probabilities and possibilities.
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | So yes, i am free. i am so free, i can even choose to bind myself, and release those bonds any time i feel like. |
I'm happy you are free. I am not free. I have to work for a living to start off with. I can't see with the back of my head. I am completely limited in my movement. I would like to be able to fly, and that would make me feel much more free. Instead all I can do is walk, perhaps run a little. My vision is limited. I would have liked to have the ability to turn on automatic microscopic vision, not all the time, but that would have made me feel more free. Also to rotate my head right round my neck. I would have liked to beam myself to places like in Starwars, so that time and space would be virtually non-existent. Think there is lots of scope for improvement in the human make-up all of which could make me feel more free. I feel quite limited by this body I am occupying, the fact that I am getting older, will die one day, and can only have limited knowledge of what is going on around me, and not all of it accurate. A tree is not always a tree. I would like things to be completely clear with no ambiguities or need to figure out what the truth is. Truth seems to be treacherous in its beckoning and placing limitations on my freedom, I think I have figured it out and the next day I discover I have just seen one side of it, and it has made truth into a lie. The pursuit of truth both excites and frustrates me, reminds me of how limited I am.
The moment I am born there are people trying to educate me to think certain ways. All in the name of love of course and knowing what is best for you. People trying to manipulate you, playing games. I've never been good at playing games, but of course have had to do some of that in order to survive in the work environment. I do not like that part of me and see it as a curb on my freedom. An entrapment of a kind. When I go to school I have to learn according to specific pre-designed curriculae and sometimes am taught by people who can put me on the wrong track by their own pre-conceived ideas and I have to figure this out by trial and error in a non-confrontational way. Their thoughts are messy and don't always make much sense. Fortunately there are exceptions and I have known some fantastic born teachers who have made learning a great pleasure in my life.
I can go on and on. I think real freedom is when we are no longer part of earth and only spirit. A state of being with no need for thinking. Thinking in itself can be an encumbrance, a limitation of freedom. I could only be really free if the thinking machinery in my head can be switched off at will. In that way I think ignorance is bliss and sets you free. So yes, when Sparticus was in bondage I can imagine that religion (in his thinking) would have set him free and motivated him. It would have been a mirage of course, but at least there is some usefulness in that. |
You know, most people would define "free" to mean "able to do as pleased within the bounds of what is reasonable", not "able to do anything at all"... which means your entire response is just silly.
But i'll tell you what... i'll use your definition. In which case, i am not free because i cannot spin my head around in circles (etc.). But! i am still more free than you. ^_^ Because i can do everything you can do... and more. Up until the strictures of religion, there is no difference between what you and i can do.... but once we get to the religious stuff, there come up things you cannot do. If you are Christian, you cannot believe God doesn't exist. If you are Muslim, you cannot believe that Mohammad was a liar. i, however, am free to believe both things, as i wish. i am also free to believe that God does exist or that Mohammad was divinely inspired, as i wish.
So sure. ^_^ i'm not really free, you're not really free... no one's really free. But i'm still more free than you are... and than anyone with a religion is.
| Chinmoy wrote: | | religion is what binds you to a certain section of the society in a particular way, and lets you see through some aspects of life which would otherwise come to mathematical probabilities and possibilities. |
When you say it binds you to a certain section of society, you mean that it creates a subgroup in society with a shared culture people who are members of that group can share in. That in itself is not harmful... but it's not really useful either. What is the use of creating subgroups in society? Why would i want to take a unified society, and create a bunch of sub-societies in that society?
But it goes a step further, doesn't it? A religion doesn't just create a group... it creates a group that thinks it's "right" and all other groups are wrong! And that is harmful. But still, sometimes it is necessary to have a bad thing, so long as we get something good out of it. What good do we get out of religion that makes it worth keeping even though it creates this dividing of society?
As for the rest - "... lets you see through some aspects of life which would otherwise come to mathematical probabilities and possibilities" - this is just standard religious mumbo-jumbo that means nothing in the end. In reality, religion doesn't answer any questions authoritatively except those that it creates itself. Everything else is just bald-faced guesswork, and we don't need religion for that. Observe: let's say that what happens after death is an aspect of life that cannot be answered "mathematically"... how does religion answer this question? "Oh, well, that depends on the religion." Ok, fine, i pick Roman Catholic Christianity (official Roman Catholic Christianity). That's pretty specific. What does RCC say about what happens after death? "It says that if you die a sinner, you go to Hell, and if you don't you go to Heaven." Well, it sounds like we have a solid answer... or do we? Because... what happens to dead babies? Didn't RCC say they went to Purgatory... then later changed their minds? That doesn't sound like they know the answer at all.... (And RCC is actually a hard target to pick on... as vague as it is, most religions aren't anywhere near as clear as RCC about what happens after death.)
Lots of people claim religion gives answers to questions that cannot be answered by "mathematics" or "science" (which probably includes philosophy and any other body of evidence and/or reason). i know religion says it answers these questions... but it doesn't. It offers half-baked half-answers... and anytime someone challenges religion to give a clearer and more reasonable answer, it cries foul. There is a big difference between saying you have an answer, and actually giving one. Religion falls in the first category.
| Indi wrote: | | If you are Christian, you cannot believe God doesn't exist. If you are Muslim, you cannot believe that Mohammad was a liar. i, however, am free to believe both things, as i wish. i am also free to believe that God does exist or that Mohammad was divinely inspired, as i wish. |
This does not make sense to me Indi. If I do not believe in God, I would not be a Christian. Everyone has that choice and is free to choose. If you wish to define freedom along those lines, then I am one of the freest people in the world. By your definition I have to be a very free spirit. By my own definition I could not be free enough. If I get to absolute freedom, I think I would have reached nirvana.
I thought it was such a coincidence. Tonight after work when I turned on the telly, Spartacus was showing with Kirk Douglas. And at one point he was telling this Roman business guy whom he was negotiating with what the value of freedom was for him and how much more propelled slaves are in order to be free, than wealthy slave owners. I wish I could have quoted it in exact words as he put it really well. So possibly the more suffering in the world, which can be something of a bondage, the greater the freedom at death for those who are not free.
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | If you are Christian, you cannot believe God doesn't exist. If you are Muslim, you cannot believe that Mohammad was a liar. i, however, am free to believe both things, as i wish. i am also free to believe that God does exist or that Mohammad was divinely inspired, as i wish. |
This does not make sense to me Indi. If I do not believe in God, I would not be a Christian. Everyone has that choice and is free to choose. |
It's simple: is there a real benefit to being a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or whatever)? Yes/No.
If you say yes, then: is that benefit actually important? Yes/No.
If no, then we don't need Christianity at all. But if yes, then you have a choice: give up your freedom to believe what you will and believe in the dictates of Christianity... or go without this important benefit.
If you choose the benefit, then you give up your freedom to believe what you will. Therefore, you are less free. QED.
You are not free to choose. Your "choice" is this: slavery+benefit OR freedom-benefit. That is not a free choice, no matter how you try to spin it - it is "accept the mental bondage or suffer without the benefit". It is as if i put a gun to your head and told you to rape someone, did you freely choose to rape that person? Hardly. Your "choice" was this: rape+staying alive OR no rape-staying alive. "Accept being a rapist, or die". That's not a free choice.
Since you believe there is a benefit to Christianity (because you said so), then you are not free. You are being coerced to either believe in Christianity, or suffer. (And the same is true for any religion you choose.) You must be a Christian, whether you want to or not, or pay the cost (of not getting the important benefits of being a Christian). Even if you happen to want to be a Christian, that doesn't make your choice free.
Since i do not believe there is any benefit to Christianity, i am under no coercion to believe or disbelieve. Nothing is forcing me either way. i could be a Christian if i wanted to, or not, with no costs. My choice is as free as a free choice is possible, because nothing compels me either way.
| deanhills wrote: | | Tonight after work when I turned on the telly, Spartacus was showing with Kirk Douglas. And at one point he was telling this Roman business guy whom he was negotiating with what the value of freedom was for him and how much more propelled slaves are in order to be free, than wealthy slave owners. I wish I could have quoted it in exact words as he put it really well. So possibly the more suffering in the world, which can be something of a bondage, the greater the freedom at death for those who are not free. |
One of the things religion has done very well over the millenia is redefine things to their opposite meaning. One common trick in Judaistic religions - especially Christianity - is to say what sucks on Earth means awesomeness in Heaven. The least among men will be the most favoured in Heaven, those who live dirt poor on Earth will have riches in Heaven, etc. etc.
That's all this is - a temporal redefinition. "If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose", etc. Or the more restricted your life, the more free you will be in the afterlife (Heaven). It's all just the old religious saw: just shut up and accept all the misery here, because it will be better in Heaven! And the more you suffer, the more glory in Heaven!
That's not freedom, it's just what they call a "long con".
| Indi wrote: | It's simple: is there a real benefit to being a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or whatever)? Yes/No.
If you say yes, then: is that benefit actually important? Yes/No.
If no, then we don't need Christianity at all. But if yes, then you have a choice: give up your freedom to believe what you will and believe in the dictates of Christianity... or go without this important benefit.
If you choose the benefit, then you give up your freedom to believe what you will. Therefore, you are less free. QED. |
I have to get back to it again Indi. Christians do not necessarily believe in God because there is a benefit for them to believe in God. Most Christians that I know believe in God, because there is no alternative, it just is the way it is. They would probably cringe at the thought of believing in God because of usefulness.
But yes, given that "unconditional" belief in God, I believe that would narrow their freedom in a great way, as Christians would believe there is simply no other way except God's way.
| Indi wrote: | | Since you believe there is a benefit to Christianity (because you said so), then you are not free. You are being coerced to either believe in Christianity, or suffer. |
I think a person can believe that there is a benefit to Christianity without being a Christian. As much as they can believe that there is a benefit to being Muslim, without being a Muslim. From the outside in.
| Indi wrote: | | One of the things religion has done very well over the millenia is redefine things to their opposite meaning. One common trick in Judaistic religions - especially Christianity - is to say what sucks on Earth means awesomeness in Heaven. The least among men will be the most favoured in Heaven, those who live dirt poor on Earth will have riches in Heaven, etc. etc. |
I think there is some of that Indi, but when you are being tortured in the extreme as a slave, I can imagine my last thoughts would not even be about religion or God as freedom, except to ask God to take me away as soon as possible. The story about my death as a tortured slave however will no doubt be exaggerated along the way you described.
|
