Chaos and the End of Religion

[Jolly_Penguin]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas. I think she is wrong, and I encourage the continued breakdown of religion everywhere.

Do you think she has a point at all? Without religions organizing group thought and unified takes on ethics, do you think chaos could ensue? Do you have confidence that people thinking for themselves is a good thing, and that they will create a better world?

This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

 

[Politesse]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas. I think she is wrong, and I encourage the continued breakdown of religion everywhere.

Do you think she has a point at all? Without religions organizing group thought and unified takes on ethics, do you think chaos could ensue? Do you have confidence that people thinking for themselves is a good thing, and that they will create a better world?

This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

This was, as I recall, the position of Emile Durkheim. An agnostic-possibly-atheist Jew and early sociologist with quite a lot of influence, he supported the idea of a state church for much of his lifetime despite not believing its claims, because his fear of anarchy and destruction was greater than epistemological concerns. He felt that religion was, at its heart truly "society worshipping itself", with "God" being only a justification for its necessary social role, meaning that the specific nature of that justification could and should take a backseat to the cohesive power of religious faith.

 

[Angry Floof]

Religion is just the codification of our human tendencies to stick together in groups and become somewhat uniform in beliefs. It's created by us through our social behaviors. You can't talk about the effects of religion on human thought and behavior without recognizing that human thought and behavior create religion.

Where does your friend think religion comes from?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don’t know about that.

Think two words - Texas and South Korea. Which strikes you as more chaotic and dangerous?

 

[bilby]

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population, and their country is splitting in half, with great fires spouting up from the fissure, and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions of alarming frequency. The weather is horrendous, with howling winds, freezing cold, and blizzard conditions commonplace.

If that's not enough of a warning, then what is?

 

[Bomb#20]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas.

Folks, it sounds wonderful, right, a totalitarian government, no decisions, no freedom, but, who is gonna pay for it? - Dana Carvey

 

[Wiploc]

Sapiens is an interesting book, full of epiphanies. It probably sides with your friend.

Let me try to confabulate an argument, heedless of the danger of misrepresenting:

First, let us define religion in a broader way, one that includes, for instance, morality, money, nationalism, capitalism, and democracy.

Then note that when a village reaches a population of 300, it splits into rival villages. An exceptionally charismatic leader might hold a bigger village together for his personal life span.

What holds larger groups together is religion, things to believe in that unite you into a loyal group. We are the Confederacy, and one of us is worth a hundred of them. Those are godless communists--bad guys--against whom we must all stand together.

Note that creating such group loyalties (New York Yankees vs New York Giants (not that I would date myself)) generates less hatred than love. That is, yes, it turns us against outsiders, but it also unites us as insiders, and the unification is stronger and more important than the hatred it generates towards those darn Yankees fans.

Religion (in this larger sense) is what made civilization possible. And religions (in the smaller sense: gods and churches) are certainly among the more effective religions (larger sense again).

---end of inept representation of the Sapiens viewpoint ---

I wouldn't try to defend the Sapiens viewpoint. But I do think your friend isn't alone.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think we should equate religion with culture. And without religion humanity will get along just fine, no different than it does now. There are no cosmic babysitters, only people pretending.

Now if people could no longer pretend, no longer had the ability, then we might have problems.

 

[Kharakov]

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population, and their country is splitting in half, with great fires spouting up from the fissure, and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions of alarming frequency. The weather is horrendous, with howling winds, freezing cold, and blizzard conditions commonplace.

If that's not enough of a warning, then what is?

All the atheists stuck on Pluto? It's not even a planet.

 

[Jobar]

All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher. - Lucretius
(Similar quotes are attributed to Seneca the Younger, and to Edward Gibbon.)

Personally I think that religious ideas, especially the ones seen as god-given absolute truths, are some of the most dangerous ideas that exist. Viewing any idea or set of ideas as infallible, unchangeable and unquestionable will result in bad things.

Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism... It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities... It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil. -Frank Herbert

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg

If people can be convinced that some awful action is the very Will of God (or required by the force of the historical dialectic, or any other unquestionable authority), they'll do it. They'll even convince themselves, and try to convince others, that their crimes against humanity are virtuous.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that's more due to ideologies in general than religious ideologies specifically. You also had good people doing evil things for the good the State in communist systems, for instance.

 

[Treedbear]

...
This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

If the God in question had humanistic values it might work. But when God's primary means of showing love is totalitarian rule then it serves to justify that same behavior by humans towards each other. Which is why it's so popular in the first place.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Since mainstream Christianity and inerrant Christianity can be construed by the believers to be consistent with genocide (as committed by God), slavery (which it in fact permits in its scriptures), subservient role for women (all over the scripture), religious intolerance and intolerance of the unbeliever, and support of Trump -- I fail to see how religion has much correlation with ethical norms. In fact, it's extremely malleable -- you can be as repulsive or as admirable as you like and find the scripture to support your standard of conduct.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...
This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

If the God in question had humanistic values it might work. But when God's primary means of showing love is totalitarian rule then it serves to justify that same behavior by humans towards each other. Which is why it's so popular in the first place.

No matter the crime, you can always pretend there is a cosmic forgiver that loves you for your loyalty.

 

[Lion IRC]

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population...

Perhaps that explains the extraordinarily high suicide rates per capita and consumption of anti-depressant medication.

 

[Angry Floof]

Iceland is almost 100% atheist in population...

Perhaps that explains the extraordinarily high suicide rates per capita and consumption of anti-depressant medication.

"Extraordinarily high"? They're at 10.1 suicides per 100,000 and the US is 10.4 per 100,000. Of the 26 countries listed, 14 have a higher rate than Iceland and 11 have a lower rate.

To get an "extraordinarily high" rate, you have to go to South Korea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

 

[Copernicus]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas. I think she is wrong, and I encourage the continued breakdown of religion everywhere.

Do you think she has a point at all? Without religions organizing group thought and unified takes on ethics, do you think chaos could ensue? Do you have confidence that people thinking for themselves is a good thing, and that they will create a better world?

This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

Religion is not inherently good or bad. It can be used to manipulate people in either direction. However, most people grow up learning morality from adult authorities, and gods represent a continuation of that type of thinking. Hence, they see lack of religion as absence of a moral compass. In reality, nonbelievers get their values from the same place that believers do--the society that they were born and raised in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas. I think she is wrong, and I encourage the continued breakdown of religion everywhere.

Do you think she has a point at all? Without religions organizing group thought and unified takes on ethics, do you think chaos could ensue? Do you have confidence that people thinking for themselves is a good thing, and that they will create a better world?

This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

This was, as I recall, the position of Emile Durkheim. An agnostic-possibly-atheist Jew and early sociologist with quite a lot of influence, he supported the idea of a state church for much of his lifetime despite not believing its claims, because his fear of anarchy and destruction was greater than epistemological concerns. He felt that religion was, at its heart truly "society worshipping itself", with "God" being only a justification for its necessary social role, meaning that the specific nature of that justification could and should take a backseat to the cohesive power of religious faith.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a society worshipping itself, depending of course on the society. Christianity is basically as harmless as a kid pretending he's an airplane. The society will construct its god as a reflection of itself, which is precisely what christianity does, create a god that is itself.

The problem, obviously, is that people have hates and prejudices, fears, phobias, desires, and all manner of behaviors with which they empower themselves and their gods. So they get to burn witches and heretics, and practice genocide. If they remained simply kids pretending to be airplanes, no one would care or pay much notice.

 

[LordKiran]

I had a brief discussion today with a fellow atheist who believes that organized religion is a good thing. She says that it unites people and keeps them from thinking dangerous ideas. I think she is wrong, and I encourage the continued breakdown of religion everywhere.

Do you think she has a point at all? Without religions organizing group thought and unified takes on ethics, do you think chaos could ensue? Do you have confidence that people thinking for themselves is a good thing, and that they will create a better world?

This seems to ultimately be a question of whether we have faith (ironic word I know) in humanity to live without a cosmic babysitter.

This was, as I recall, the position of Emile Durkheim. An agnostic-possibly-atheist Jew and early sociologist with quite a lot of influence, he supported the idea of a state church for much of his lifetime despite not believing its claims, because his fear of anarchy and destruction was greater than epistemological concerns. He felt that religion was, at its heart truly "society worshipping itself", with "God" being only a justification for its necessary social role, meaning that the specific nature of that justification could and should take a backseat to the cohesive power of religious faith.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a society worshipping itself, depending of course on the society. Christianity is basically as harmless as a kid pretending he's an airplane. The society will construct its god as a reflection of itself, which is precisely what christianity does, create a god that is itself.

The problem, obviously, is that people have hates and prejudices, fears, phobias, desires, and all manner of behaviors with which they empower themselves and their gods. So they get to burn witches and heretics, and practice genocide. If they remained simply kids pretending to be airplanes, no one would care or pay much notice.

I think its easy for us to say now in a time where the churches have been consistently failing in their moral duties to say that they never succeeded. From my perspective that's certainly true but I don't deny that the old religions have/have had their benefits to society.

I don't think people need 'religion' specifically, what we need is a social framework by which we guide ourselves to be better people and to live harmoniously with others. It's especially useful if we manage to take that framework, codify it into a book people can read and understand without an interpreter, and then act it out.

The question for me is do we need the authoritarian element too? That to me is a real interesting question.

 

[ruby sparks]

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I always wince when I see that one.

I don't buy it. As Tom says, almost any ideology will do. Also, lots of other things can lead to a 'good person' (whatever that is) doing evil things. Money, for example. Jealousy. Lust......alcohol.......oh by the way, have you seen the Stanford Experiment and the Milgram experiment?