Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

[onenerdykid]

We've talked about the existence of God, about whether or not it is possible to know this. But what about asking a more pragmatic question: Would the world be better off without religion?

Religion has without a doubt given positive meaning to millions of peoples' lives, given them hope, and given them instructions for how to live and interact with their fellow humans. But, religion has also been the cause of incredible amounts of death, suffering, violence, oppression, suppression, sexism, and homophobia. Moreover, we know that ethics/morality can and does exist independently from religion, which means people can do good things without religion. So given all of this, it is a very interesting question to ask.

While it is interesting, it is not to be confused with questioning the existence of God, as they are two separate topics. For example, one can believe in God yet not be religious. This question instead is about the amount of good versus the amount of bad that religion causes.

If you have the time, watch this highly interesting debate (whose panelists include the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin) from Intelligence Squared:

So NS, what do you think?

 

[saskskier]

This really only addresses the assumption that religion causes war and conflict and doesn't address the topics of general morality, etc, but interesting none-the-less.

"Research published in October from the New York and Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace looked at all of the wars that took place in 2013. It found no 'general causal relationship' between religion and conflict.

In fact, religious elements played no role at all in 14 (40%) of the 35 armed conflicts in the research, and only five (14%) had religious elements as their main cause, the report showed. All of the wars had multiple causes, and the much more common motivation was opposition to a government, or to the economic, ideological, political or social systems of a state, which was named as a main factor in nearly two thirds of the cases studied.

The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as 'religious in nature' – a little under 7%.

The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace.

Countries with the highest levels of atheism - mainly communist or former communist states like Russia and the Czech Republic - were not necessarily the most peaceful. North Korea, which has one of the lowest rates of people practising religion, was one of ten 'least peaceful' countries in world last year, according to the report."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html)

 

[ggfski42]

I don't know if the world would be better off without religion, because man would probably find some other way to exploit the weak and helpless. But at least without religion there would be one less excuse.

 

[onenerdykid]

This really only addresses the assumption that religion causes war and conflict and doesn't address the topics of general morality, etc, but interesting none-the-less.

"Research published in October from the New York and Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace looked at all of the wars that took place in 2013. It found no 'general causal relationship' between religion and conflict.

In fact, religious elements played no role at all in 14 (40%) of the 35 armed conflicts in the research, and only five (14%) had religious elements as their main cause, the report showed. All of the wars had multiple causes, and the much more common motivation was opposition to a government, or to the economic, ideological, political or social systems of a state, which was named as a main factor in nearly two thirds of the cases studied.

The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as 'religious in nature' – a little under 7%.

The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace.

Countries with the highest levels of atheism - mainly communist or former communist states like Russia and the Czech Republic - were not necessarily the most peaceful. North Korea, which has one of the lowest rates of people practising religion, was one of ten 'least peaceful' countries in world last year, according to the report."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html)

War & death are for sure the worst results of our society (let alone religion) and it would be pretty bleak state for religion if it was the main perpetrator here. Religion has most always played a huge role in tension and unrest in areas, even if war does not break out.

But we shouldn't ignore that the main orthodox religions (even if they have not been the main cause of wars) do seek to divide, oppress women, be opposed to most kinds of progression through science. Aside from the big no-no (war), religion has almost always stifled progression because each they all hold that the truth was handed down a long long time ago and anything that runs counter to that must be oppressed. Whether it was the end of the Golden Age of Islam or in the Dark Ages of Christianity, religion played a central role in stifling scientific and philosophic progression.

If religious texts are truly followed, religions claim that they each have the right account and that you must believe it to. If not, you will pay/suffer in one way or another. And this inherent divisiveness and arrogance, while it may not result in a war, definitely promotes intolerance and quite often leads to strife in one way or another.

 

[Rachy]

I would love to say yes to this. But it will likely always exist to some extent.

I think we are in a very very slow process of a disassociation with religion. As many centuries it took for modern religions to exist, it may take as long to fully not exist.

The loss of religion requires a scientific explanation for every question we have which may or may not ever happen. As long as there are still theories, there will still be religion.

The religion that survives the longest will likely be the one that adapts and accepts scientific facts/theories before the others. (This is of course thinking 1000 years from now, not 50.)

 

[_Ryan_]

I personally believe that organized religion is a detriment to the world, heres why. Organized religion gives you a belief system and some sort of proof (physical or non physical) in order to sustain your belief. I think that every religion in the world holds truth but over thousands of years have become mis interpreted and manipulated by higher power figures in order to change the true nature of what religion and "god" is.

The fact that there are as many religions as there are tells me that there is most likely a universal truth behind them all. To say that since you were born into (or chose to subscribe to) a specific religion that all other religions are wrong and you are right.... To me that is so egotistic and goes against core beliefs of most religious entities. Why can't we all embrace the spirituality and love that is life itself... Why are we so hung up on the specifics on who's right and who's wrong... The reality of the situation is nobody fucking knows what is going to happen after death. Some people who use hallucinogens feel they connect with some sort of afterlife or other dimension, people who go into deep meditation feel they reach a state of out of body, after life type deal... People who attend the church,mosque,temple etc... say they connect with god and are guided and helped by him in this life. What if there were multiple ways of attaining a similar state and level of love/acceptance.

Keep in mind that most religions are based around the "we know what's going REALLY on and nobody else does"... Maybe somebody or some collection of people really do know what is going on and what the fuck this all is... But until we know what they know i think it is important to rid your life of restriction and fear, wether that come from a job, school, religion, friend or family group, etc... There should be no restrictions, your life is to be lived as you choose it because that is what you chose. I think that any afterlife that may occur will reflect ones ability to remove the cloaks that this world stacks on you from the time you are born and see the truth behind the veil. Do what resonates with you and makes you feel true and at peace. If your religion brings you all of that without taking from you or causing fear then your religion is the right thing for you. If you feel trapped by your lifestyle it isn't the right one, no matter what you are told. Remember that nobody knows what the fuck is really going on, everyone is just doing...

I think religion is good and bad but i believe that without it we would all be able to unite, drop the boundaries, and still attain that same (probably higher) connection with ourselves, the earth and the spirit/god realms.

Just my opinion.

 

[onenerdykid]

I would love to say yes to this. But it will likely always exist to some extent.

I think we are in a very very slow process of a disassociation with religion. As many centuries it took for modern religions to exist, it may take as long to fully not exist.

The loss of religion requires a scientific explanation for every question we have which may or may not ever happen. As long as there are still theories, there will still be religion.

The religion that survives the longest will likely be the one that adapts and accepts scientific facts/theories before the others. (This is of course thinking 1000 years from now, not 50.)

True, but this is kind of why I said the question of God/existence of God is a separate discussion from if the world would be better or not. If God is the ultimate cause of the universe or not has almost no bearing on the oppression of women, stifling of scientific/medical progression, and cultural strife caused by religious differences.

Given that secular ethical/moral theories provide an answer for every religious ethical/moral question, do we still need religion to tell us what to do?

 

[chacha33]

Im definitely bringing this up in my next religion class (I go to a catholic hs) and I cant wait to hear what some educated "high level" theologians have to say about this.

I myself do not like to associate with the Roman Catholic Church in particular, too many nutbags. I hate to say it, but Futurama had the religion thing down with that whole one religion for everybody thing. Thats how we're gonna get shit done.

 

[.Hugo.]

War, conflict and killing would have most likely happened with or without religion. If not fighting about religipn it would have been something else

 

[californiagrown]

War is caused by the struggle for power. In the middle east the most powerful people are religious leaders. THAT is the connection war has to religon. People are the problem, not religon.

People love to shit on religon and ignore all the good it brings about through charity work and social services.

 

[onenerdykid]

War is caused by the struggle for power. In the middle east the most powerful people are religious leaders. THAT is the connection war has to religon. People are the problem, not religon.

People love to shit on religon and ignore all the good it brings about through charity work and social services.

Yes, but every good thing that religion teaches us can be found in secular ethical/moral philosophy. Both religion and moral philosophy require education and to be taught right from wrong. Without moral education (secular or religious) people will most likely not do the right thing.

And you can't deny that the main orthodox religions (if you adhere to the text) contribute to divisiveness by claiming that they possess the truth and those in opposition are (in some fashion) going to be punished.

 

[californiagrown]

Yes, but every good thing that religion teaches us can be found in secular ethical/moral philosophy. Both religion and moral philosophy require education and to be taught right from wrong. Without moral education (secular or religious) people will most likely not do the right thing.

And you can't deny that the main orthodox religions (if you adhere to the text) contribute to divisiveness by claiming that they possess the truth and those in opposition are (in some fashion) going to be punished.

I'd bet my life savings that the amount of time a money given to charity per person is far greater for religious folks than it is for athiests. Why? Probly because of the peer pressure a religious community invokes to "give back".

And only fucking morons follow religious texts literally. That is a small percentage of religious folks.

If religon didn't exist secular philosophies would be at war with each other. War is natural. Conflict, greed, and selfishness are all natural.

 

[SKI.ING]

Threads for the video

 

[onenerdykid]

And only fucking morons follow religious texts literally. That is a small percentage of religious folks.

If religon didn't exist secular philosophies would be at war with each other. War is natural. Conflict, greed, and selfishness are all natural.

While I don't disagree with your first point, I would argue that if people do cherry-pick what they want to hear out of the Bible/Qur'an/etc they are ignoring a lot of God's "truth". And why? Because they don't find it ethical. If they don't find it ethical, by what basis are they judging it unethical? Surely, not by God's basis, otherwise they would not disagree with it. They must be doing it because reason/common sense/experience itself says it's foolish to want to cut off your wife's hand if she stops the fight you're in by grabbing the other guy's balls (that is in the Bible, btw). Religion just seems to clutter the moral waters, so why use it for solving ethical issues?

Arguably the truest believers are the one's who follow the text literally, for it is the ultimate truth, the one set down by God. People who don't follow it literally, are guided more by reason than by faith.

And for sure conflict, greed, and selfishness are all natural -but they can all be overcome with reason and secular philosophies. And to achieve that, it would require the same amount of proper education to do so but without all of the nonsensical stories/weirdness that religion puts forth. Moreover, if you picked the 3 main ethical philosophies and the 3 main religions, you would find more peaceful, generous, virtuous, etc advice & guidance in the philosophies than in the religions. But again, if you don't study them you don't learn them.

 

[californiagrown]

While I don't disagree with your first point, I would argue that if people do cherry-pick what they want to hear out of the Bible/Qur'an/etc they are ignoring a lot of God's "truth". And why? Because they don't find it ethical. If they don't find it ethical, by what basis are they judging it unethical? Surely, not by God's basis, otherwise they would not disagree with it. They must be doing it because reason/common sense/experience itself says it's foolish to want to cut off your wife's hand if she stops the fight you're in by grabbing the other guy's balls (that is in the Bible, btw). Religion just seems to clutter the moral waters, so why use it for solving ethical issues?

Arguably the truest believers are the one's who follow the text literally, for it is the ultimate truth, the one set down by God. People who don't follow it literally, are guided more by reason than by faith.

And for sure conflict, greed, and selfishness are all natural -but they can all be overcome with reason and secular philosophies. And to achieve that, it would require the same amount of proper education to do so but without all of the nonsensical stories/weirdness that religion puts forth. Moreover, if you picked the 3 main ethical philosophies and the 3 main religions, you would find more peaceful, generous, virtuous, etc advice & guidance in the philosophies than in the religions. But again, if you don't study them you don't learn them.

You have a very black and white view of religion. Black and white views are ignorant views.

Everyone has doubts, even the truest believers... The pope will even admit this. The pope doesn't take the bible as literal, he interprets it and its teachings. Same with everyone. Everyone uses the bible as a guide, and each person's truth is their individual truth. Everyone has an individual relationship with God that is different from everyone else. Similar to how each child in the family has a different relationship with the father. It's not about books, its about you and god.

It's like politics. No one 100% believes the democrats or republican platform. They choose the party that best represents what they believe. Similarly, religious folks congregate with other like minded folks and create a denominational church.

 

[onenerdykid]

Black and white views are ignorant views.

That's a pretty black and white statement to make...

 

[californiagrown]

That's a pretty black and white statement to make...

Outside of math, they almost always are haha

 

[Nikolaus]

DUH

 

[Stadtski]

I'm taking a class right now called the Cognitive Science of Religion and this is literally what we explore. It talks about what makes religion religion and like how it has affected out evolution as a species, and basically in all theories about evolution, those who are truly religious should in theory die off, but those who just pretend to be and gain the benefits without having to do the moral things such as sacrificing their time and energy and sometimes even safety for others.

 

[CHORIZO]

 

[stinky_cheese]

i definitely don't think so.

religion is sometimes a cause for wars, but there are always other causes as well, it is usually not the main reason. Also, religion generally promotes a positive sense of unity among members which can be strengthening to people of that faith, and a lot of churches are involved in many humanitarian projects world wide which obviously is a good thing

 

[onenerdykid]

Everyone has doubts, even the truest believers... The pope will even admit this. The pope doesn't take the bible as literal, he interprets it and its teachings. Same with everyone. Everyone uses the bible as a guide, and each person's truth is their individual truth. Everyone has an individual relationship with God that is different from everyone else. Similar to how each child in the family has a different relationship with the father. It's not about books, its about you and god.

While this may hold true for the Bible and certain segments of Christianity, I think you would be hard pressed to claim the same for Islam. One of the main points of Islam is that the words of Allah (the Qur'an) and words of Allah through Muhammad (the Hadith) were recorded as soon as possible, leaving the chance that something could be misinterpreted or wrongly recorded to be as minimal as possible. While that point in itself is its own matter of debate among scholars of Islam, it nonetheless attempts to allow interpretation of God's will to be rather impossible. For this reason, Islam is said to be the truest account of the will of God and acting against such a will receives great punishment. So, in regards to Islam, it is most certainly about the books.

In this regard, you can see the super close intention to link religion and politics. The two are quite inseparable in Islam (and think link is less strong in Christianity) and the teachings (both very positive and extremely negative) are tightly woven into their culture. In such a culture, there is little room for interpretation and tolerance of different ideas. And when you mix this intolerance with absolutism, a religious justification and encouragement for war/violence, and a prophet whose violent life was regarded as fulfilling the will of Allah you can easily see why there are so many problems in the Middle East. Their religion absolutely encourages people to be violent.

 

[californiagrown]

While this may hold true for the Bible and certain segments of Christianity, I think you would be hard pressed to claim the same for Islam. One of the main points of Islam is that the words of Allah (the Qur'an) and words of Allah through Muhammad (the Hadith) were recorded as soon as possible, leaving the chance that something could be misinterpreted or wrongly recorded to be as minimal as possible. While that point in itself is its own matter of debate among scholars of Islam, it nonetheless attempts to allow interpretation of God's will to be rather impossible. For this reason, Islam is said to be the truest account of the will of God and acting against such a will receives great punishment. So, in regards to Islam, it is most certainly about the books.

In this regard, you can see the super close intention to link religion and politics. The two are quite inseparable in Islam (and think link is less strong in Christianity) and the teachings (both very positive and extremely negative) are tightly woven into their culture. In such a culture, there is little room for interpretation and tolerance of different ideas. And when you mix this intolerance with absolutism, a religious justification and encouragement for war/violence, and a prophet whose violent life was regarded as fulfilling the will of Allah you can easily see why there are so many problems in the Middle East. Their religion absolutely encourages people to be violent.

The 10 commandments were not transcribed, there were literally written by God. Those are the "truest" accounts of God's word.

Basically, it sounds to me like you think islam is the problem. You have moved away from hating on Christianity, and havnt mentioned Judaism, Hindu, or any other religions. Is that true?

 

[onenerdykid]

The 10 commandments were not transcribed, there were literally written by God. Those are the "truest" accounts of God's word.

Basically, it sounds to me like you think islam is the problem. You have moved away from hating on Christianity, and havnt mentioned Judaism, Hindu, or any other religions. Is that true?

Your first point is one of the main things I dislike about religion in general: at their very basis is an absolutism that seeks to divide us from one another: "my religion is the truest, yours that claims to be also is necessarily false. I have no proof, other than this text, which says that you ought to be punished for your impiety."

To your second point, we're only on page 1 of this thread and I can't tackle it all at once But I will say that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that Islam is the most violent of them all. Sure Judaism and Christianity have their unquestionably violent aspects, but it is much more prevalent and encouraged in Islam. The Hadith is almost a polar opposite in comparison to the life of Christ. Jesus is by (almost?) all accounts an incredibly positive figure who never spoke of having sex with a 9 year old or raping slaves or stoning people or waging war in the name of God. Unfortunately, it was his followers that took it down that (similar) road. So, in terms of being the mediator/conduit through which God delivered His message, I do think that Jesus was far less violent than Muhammad.

But ultimately, you could pick any one of the worldly religions and find lots of evidence for an inherent divisiveness that pits believers against non-believers and evidence for the oppression of women, homosexuality, and the sciences. For these (and other) reasons, I do think that religion has done great harm to the human species.

 

[The.Fish]

Its pretty much a fact that jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Its a good thing that we have religion because its saved my sister from suicide, ive pretty much met all of my super close friends at church, and you just feel good following the rules because they lead you to happiness which is what God wants. The problem is that nobody can understand what the bible is saying so everybody thinks their way is the better way which is where conflicts come into play, if everybody followed the same religion and practiced it 100% then the world would be perfect. However we are human so that is impossible until jesus saves us when we die.

 

[californiagrown]

Your first point is one of the main things I dislike about religion in general: at their very basis is an absolutism that seeks to divide us from one another: "my religion is the truest, yours that claims to be also is necessarily false. I have no proof, other than this text, which says that you ought to be punished for your impiety."

To your second point, we're only on page 1 of this thread and I can't tackle it all at once But I will say that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that Islam is the most violent of them all. Sure Judaism and Christianity have their unquestionably violent aspects, but it is much more prevalent and encouraged in Islam. The Hadith is almost a polar opposite in comparison to the life of Christ. Jesus is by (almost?) all accounts an incredibly positive figure who never spoke of having sex with a 9 year old or raping slaves or stoning people or waging war in the name of God. Unfortunately, it was his followers that took it down that (similar) road. So, in terms of being the mediator/conduit through which God delivered His message, I do think that Jesus was far less violent than Muhammad.

But ultimately, you could pick any one of the worldly religions and find lots of evidence for an inherent divisiveness that pits believers against non-believers and evidence for the oppression of women, homosexuality, and the sciences. For these (and other) reasons, I do think that religion has done great harm to the human species.

Eh, when I was going through confirmation classes back in the day, the first question our pastor asked us was "why are you Lutheran?". We all have the stock bullshit answers. Then he said "no, you all are Lutheran because you had the good luck to be born in the usa, to your Lutheran parents. Could have just as easily been Hindu".

Absolutism sucks. A religon is " the one true" religon to someone because it feels that way to them. Religon is a personal relationship with God/s. Organized religon helps develop a sense of community, and can help you to make sense of aspects of religon that you don't understand.

And you don't think if humans were philosophists, they would band together in certain groups and fight each other? I do. I think humans are inherently fucking assholes. War has been around since before religon. Fucking chimps have turf wars all the time.

 

[Lonely]

The 10 commandments were not transcribed, there were literally written by God. Those are the "truest" accounts of God's word.

I'm sorry but what?

The thing I hate the most about religion is the pick and choose.

Also all the contradiction and the hypocriticalness of it.

 

[las.]

Absolutely, 100%. It offers nothing

 

[californiagrown]

I'm sorry but what?

The thing I hate the most about religion is the pick and choose.

Also all the contradiction and the hypocriticalness of it.

To my knowledge the ten commandments are the only religious text that were supposed to be written by God himself and not transcribed by some guy as God dictated. I'm speaking only of the abrahamic religions.

It was in response to homeboy saying that the muhammeds texts were the least filtered version of God's word.

 

[onenerdykid]

Its pretty much a fact that jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Its a good thing that we have religion because its saved my sister from suicide, ive pretty much met all of my super close friends at church, and you just feel good following the rules because they lead you to happiness which is what God wants. The problem is that nobody can understand what the bible is saying so everybody thinks their way is the better way which is where conflicts come into play, if everybody followed the same religion and practiced it 100% then the world would be perfect. However we are human so that is impossible until jesus saves us when we die.

For starters, your first sentence is not a fact, it is a hope. Facts are things that have happened, and since this hasn't happened yet it is not a fact.

Secondly, while misunderstandings about the Bible have contributed to conflict, it is not the only reason that causes conflict. The absolutism that religion promotes is by far a greater cause.

Thirdly, when people do follow/practice religion 100%, you can and for sure do have conflict from within the religion lead to war/violence/strife. When one sect claims to follow the text 100% is at odds with another sect who interprets the same text differently (yet also claims to be 100% faithful) you will for sure get conflict in some way, shape, or form.

 

[saskskier]

Absolutely, 100%. It offers nothing

Except the charities and community resources and support and comfort billions of people around the world get from it?

I'm not saying religion is perfect, but to say it offers nothing is wilfully ignorant.

 

[onenerdykid]

And you don't think if humans were philosophists, they would band together in certain groups and fight each other? I do. I think humans are inherently fucking assholes. War has been around since before religon. Fucking chimps have turf wars all the time.

While humans may be assholes, I have yet to come across a truly philosophic text on ethics that promotes war, greed, injustice, oppression, or any other detestable element found in religion. Again, war will for sure exist without religion but that doesn't mean we need religion in order to be peaceful. It just means that those who seek war are not ethical.

 

[las.]

Basically, it sounds to me like you think islam is the problem. You have moved away from hating on Christianity, and havnt mentioned Judaism, Hindu, or any other religions. Is that true?

Islam is currently the central religious problem. It doesn't just claim to be the only true religion, it says it is the final solution. It is by far the most extreme and absolute of all the main religions

 

[theabortionator]

Yes and no. For me it would be. I actually think about it sometimes. Trying to find the location farthest away from any churches.

The thing is that t really does give some people hope. When something bad happens and they just can't go on. Whether it's real or not, it's real to them, and helps to give them strength.

Also some of the people in prison who believe in god and then turn their lives around for the better.

Some people use god to help them kick drugs and get clean.

I'm not saying that there aren't a ton of people who do fine without god, but some people seem to need that something to believe in to keep going. That an all knowing/loving entity has control of their lives and that everything is part of his greater plan. That can really bring some people peace in some tough times.

So I'm torn on the issue. For me religion has been nothing but negative in the long run. It has distanced me from my family greatly, given me several years of self hatred, and just made things a lot more difficult for me. Questioning things, and moving 100% away from the church over time was the best thing I've ever done for myself.

So I guess it all depends. I can't really think of any goo alternatives for people at the moment to match that feeling. That said they might pop up if given the chance, with religion moving out.

 

[californiagrown]

While humans may be assholes, I have yet to come across a truly philosophic text on ethics that promotes war, greed, injustice, oppression, or any other detestable element found in religion. Again, war will for sure exist without religion but that doesn't mean we need religion in order to be peaceful. It just means that those who seek war are not ethical.

Mein kampf to name a famous one, lol.

We don't need religon to be ethical, or to have wars. I agree 100%. Yet a lot of folks like to blame religon for both.

 

[Lonely]

To my knowledge the ten commandments are the only religious text that were supposed to be written by God himself and not transcribed by some guy as God dictated. I'm speaking only of the abrahamic religions.

It was in response to homeboy saying that the muhammeds texts were the least filtered version of God's word.

Ahh okay. I thought you were a) stating it as fact and b) applying that to Christianity.

 

[Dustin.]

I've become convinced that nations will find ways to hate each other no matter what, religion is simply the easiest excuse.

 

[Simon.k]

feel like religion has been great for the world for a long time, people were scared shitless and it gave them hope. Have a feeling it will die out in the next 100 years though when science really starts blowing shit outa the water

 

[deleted5]

Yes we would be far more scientifically advanced.

 

[onenerdykid]

While humans may be assholes, I have yet to come across a truly philosophic text on ethics that promotes war, greed, injustice, oppression, or any other detestable element found in religion

Mein kampf to name a famous one, lol.

While Mein Kampf is a book it is not a truly philosophic text on ethics. Just because someone wrote a bunch of hateful nonsense in German and bound it together doesn't make it a philosophy. It's an interesting text for historical purposes though.

 

[onenerdykid]

Yes we would be far more scientifically advanced.

Here is an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson who discusses this exact point:

Aside from religion doing obvious/direct things to stifle scientific progression, such as imprisoning Galileo for his support of heliocentrism or contributing to the fall of the Golden Age of Islam, religion also works passively to stifle scientific progression.

As deGrasse Tyson notes, even religious scientists like Newton came to a point where their calculations could not answer their questions and at this limit was where God was, which is now the realm of the unknowable. Their belief in God's existence led him and others to stop their scientific work rather than continue on and solve the problem. Tyson argues that if they left their personal beliefs at home, their quest for knowledge and solutions to the problems at hand would have gotten solved sooner.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

Just think about how foolish it is to believe in the words of a book (or books) written by old men thousands of years ago with no general sense of how the world actually worked.

 

[californiagrown]

While Mein Kampf is a book it is not a truly philosophic text on ethics. Just because someone wrote a bunch of hateful nonsense in German and bound it together doesn't make it a philosophy. It's an interesting text for historical purposes though.

It's a mix of political philosophy and general philosophy. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

People want to feel powerful, and better than others. They want to hold the moral, racial, economic, etc high ground.

 

[onenerdykid]

It's a mix of political philosophy and general philosophy. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

Nonsense. In the absolute loosest sense or commonplace definition of "philosophy" it might qualify but that's why I prefaced my position by saying "truly philosophic text on ethics", of which it is neither. Mein Kampf is an autobiographical account of Adolf Hitler that outlines his political ideals. It is neither a truly philosophical work (i.e. an actual system of thought that uses formal and informal logic to arrive at its conclusions) and it is not considered by any philosophic authority to be a treatise on ethics.

 

[Chron_Rabbit]

Only read the title.

I believe that in this point in time in our society humans would benefit more from getting rid of religion because this would abolish labels/stereotypes about religious groups. However, religion helped shaped our values that we hold today and the guidance ultimately helped our society flourish/act civilized.

 

[safety.third]

Organized religion helps develop a sense of community, and can help you to make sense of aspects of religion that you don't understand. .

sounds like a frat.

 

[californiagrown]

sounds like a frat.

Sounds like NS

 

[californiagrown]

Nonsense. In the absolute loosest sense or commonplace definition of "philosophy" it might qualify but that's why I prefaced my position by saying "truly philosophic text on ethics", of which it is neither. Mein Kampf is an autobiographical account of Adolf Hitler that outlines his political ideals. It is neither a truly philosophical work (i.e. an actual system of thought that uses formal and informal logic to arrive at its conclusions) and it is not considered by any philosophic authority to be a treatise on ethics.

You don't think a great leader could easily hijack a philosophy, say it is the one true philosophy, and convince the followers to convert everyone else to their system of thought?

I guess that I don't think you are giving enough credit to man when the killing and war starts. You are blaming religon for something I think is inherent to life with or without religon.

 

[onenerdykid]

You don't think a great leader could easily hijack a philosophy, say it is the one true philosophy, and convince the followers to convert everyone else to their system of thought?

Your statement here just proves to me that you haven't read and/or understood any of the main ethical philosophies because their philosophies prevent this kind of shit from being justified. Basically all of them from Plato, to Aristotle, to Kant, to Mill all value human equality, freedom, justice, fairness, truthfulness, etc without any of the barbaric nonsense that accompanies the religious moral teachings. What you propose could only happen if such a charismatic leader misinterpreted, misunderstood, or grossly/purposefully twisted the meaning and in doing so deviated from the philosophy.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

The 10 commandments were not transcribed, there were literally written by God. Those are the "truest" accounts of God's word.

Proof?

 

[californiagrown]

Your statement here just proves to me that you haven't read and/or understood any of the main ethical philosophies because their philosophies prevent this kind of shit from being justified. Basically all of them from Plato, to Aristotle, to Kant, to Mill all value human equality, freedom, justice, fairness, truthfulness, etc without any of the barbaric nonsense that accompanies the religious moral teachings. What you propose could only happen if such a charismatic leader misinterpreted, misunderstood, or grossly/purposefully twisted the meaning and in doing so deviated from the philosophy.

Which is the same thing that happened with religon. The message has been mutated to fit the charismatic leader's personal goals.