For the greater good?

Galvasean

Alright, here's one I've been thinking about.
Hypothetical situation: Let's say you find yourself in a utopian society (future, alternate dimension, new planet what have you). Everything is (near enough) perfect. There's no war, no bigotry, no racism, no violence. Everyone is happy.
The only catch is everyone subscribes to this wacky religion (none in particular, some hypothetical one).
Now, would you be happy to play along for the sake of people's happiness or would you strive to make the truth known (the truth can be atheism or your prefered religion - as not to exclude anyone), knowing that there is a chance that the wonderful society might fall apart due to your meddling?

Basically it boils down to which is more important to you; the truth or keeping the masses happy?

Oh, good question...

I'd be quite happy and content living as a secret atheist among the society, as long as the prevalent religion didn't retard science or scientific enquiry. If it did, then I'd fight for the truth; there's no point living in a happy society, if it's a scientifically stupid one.

RedXIV

If everyone was happy i'd keep my gob shut. no point rocking the boat if only unhappiness can arrise

The Mad Hatter

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Oh, good question...

I'd be quite happy and content living as a secret atheist among the society, as long as the prevalent religion didn't retard science or scientific enquiry. If it did, then I'd fight for the truth; there's no point living in a happy society, if it's a scientifically stupid one.

+1

Edit: I'll probably change my answer later, though, if/when my brain wakes up...

Dave!

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Oh, good question...

I'd be quite happy and content living as a secret atheist among the society, as long as the prevalent religion didn't retard science or scientific enquiry. If it did, then I'd fight for the truth; there's no point living in a happy society, if it's a scientifically stupid one.

Not sure I agree with that...


Personally I'd probably keep quiet unless the religion started to interfere with the society to any significant degree. Like if everything was perfect, except... every 3 months a baby was sacrificed to the FSM. That would kinda wreck the buzz.

Mena

I think I need more details to be able to answer this. What effects does this whacky religion have? Do you have to partake in silly ceremonies? Daily? Weekly? Does it affect healthcare in anyway, with regard to choice... Think blood transfusions to save someone etc.

This being said, I don't know really. Perhaps it would be best to leave well enough alone if you look at the big picture, though I somehow doubt I could sit there and say nothing.

Malari

Galvasean wrote: »

Alright, here's one I've been thinking about.
Hypothetical situation: Let's say you find yourself in a utopian society (future, alternate dimension, new planet what have you). Everything is (near enough) perfect. There's no war, no bigotry, no racism, no violence. Everyone is happy.
The only catch is everyone subscribes to this wacky religion (none in particular, some hypothetical one).
Now, would you be happy to play along for the sake of people's happiness or would you strive to make the truth known (the truth can be atheism or your prefered religion - as not to exclude anyone), knowing that there is a chance that the wonderful society might fall apart due to your meddling?

Basically it boils down to which is more important to you; the truth or keeping the masses happy?

Without a doubt, the truth. I'd also be pretty convinced that I wasn't the only one who held my view in secret. Plenty of wacky religions already keep masses happy but I would see no problem in striving to make the truth known to them.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

Alright, here's one I've been thinking about.
Hypothetical situation: Let's say you find yourself in a utopian society (future, alternate dimension, new planet what have you). Everything is (near enough) perfect. There's no war, no bigotry, no racism, no violence. Everyone is happy.
The only catch is everyone subscribes to this wacky religion (none in particular, some hypothetical one).
Now, would you be happy to play along for the sake of people's happiness or would you strive to make the truth known (the truth can be atheism or your prefered religion - as not to exclude anyone), knowing that there is a chance that the wonderful society might fall apart due to your meddling?

Basically it boils down to which is more important to you; the truth or keeping the masses happy?

It is an interesting question but I think it turns some what into an oxymoron, bit like asking "Would you kill to end all violence", as I don't believe such a utopian soceity could exist with religion almost by definition.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't believe such a utopian soceity could exist with religion almost by definition.

Do you believe it could exist without religion? Serious question.

Dades

For me it depends on what you mean by "play along".

Could you live your life and ignore it, or would there be compulsory stuff you'd need to be involved with? The whole "worship" thing would have to be optional, as I'd imagine that would be the hardest part to stomach.

Anything like this, and I'd rebel! :pac:

RedXIV

PDN wrote: »

Do you believe it could exist without religion? Serious question.

I think they could be right. Its hard to imagine a utopian society when it requires EVERYONE to believe in the one idea. no belief is probably the only way i can imagine it happening

Dades

I think a Utopian society would require the removal of more than religion - and it would take mass lobotomies.

We're nowhere even near it in our present evolutionary state.

jimbling

I would automatically assume that I am in one of the early iterations of the Matrix... before they realised that humanity is not even capable of believing a utopia society, never mind actually creating one. :pac: :pac:

Seriously though. Everyone happy.... will never ever ever ever ever happen. That is, of course, unless god does exist and we do attain high level of spirituality and exist in heaven on earth.

RedXIV

jimbling wrote: »

Seriously though. Everyone happy.... will never ever ever ever ever happen. That is, of course, unless god does exist and we do attain high level of spirituality and exist in heaven on earth.

or they start giving away everything for free

The only way a utopian society could exist with a religion would be if that religion was confirmed to be true: but, that's likely never to happen. The only way it could exist with atheism would be if all religions were confirmed false: but, that's likely never to happen.

So going by that, a utopian society can never exist. But, I think in the current world, it would be easier to achieve one with atheism than with any particular religion.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Do you believe it could exist without religion? Serious question.

No, not really. I don't think such a utopia is feasible simply because of the way humans are. The only way such a utopia would be possible is to drastically physically alter humans, for example using some kind of drug or physical/mental alteration.

Which is why ideas such as anarchism and communism, which ultimately rely on trusting the goodness of humans, worry me.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as I said famously yesterday at dinner

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Let's say you find yourself in a utopian society (future, alternate dimension, new planet what have you). Everything is (near enough) perfect. There's no war, no bigotry, no racism, no violence. Everyone is happy. [...] Now, would you be happy to play along for the sake of people's happiness or would you strive to make the truth known

This sounds a plotline from the Star Trek; in fact, I'm fairly sure it is

Regardless, I suppose you'd have to consider what the ultimate goal of society should be, but do so on behalf of everybody else, and they figure out what course of action could bring that about. If you decide that the highest aim of people is (and should be) to be happy, then I suppose it's reasonable to leave them as they are. However, if this happiness requires some bizarre view of the world as most (all?) religions do, then I can't imagine that any society would be stable enough to self-propagate peacefully unless at least a reasonable portion of the population is able to see reality as it is, and not as they'd like to think that it is -- requiring the universal religion-based happiness at least to be questioned by their reality-based members, if not actively doubted too. So, I suppose that Wicknight's on target and such a society is pretty much impossible.

Reversing the problem's polarity -- most religious people seem to think that they are introducing happiness into an unhappy world and are prepared to do whatever it takes to do that, including ignoring the risk of a breach of the peace.

So if there is an analogy between your idea and religions as they do operate, then it seems that an awful lot of people (religious propagators) who are presented with a similar dilemma choose to "inform", so I'd expect that in this notional world, any reality-based humans would choose to default against the prevailing ideology too, with all the risks that this would entail.

wylo

It would work if it was the "Church of Richard Dawkins" :P

Good Question though, but impossible to anwer, I guess Id have no problem telling people I didn't believe in it , after all there is no bigotry so surely they would accept me no matter what I believe???

BUT, if I did know that my non belief was going to affect this perfect world, then yea Id just play along.

Húrin

Utopian communities already do exist and have long existed, based around religions and ideologies. However they only work on a small scale, and the religious ones tend to last the longest.

If this hypothetical religion had managed to improve all individuals to a sufficient degree so as to produce a perfect society, and it was not Christianity (though it does sound a lot like a Christian utopia), the very fact of its perfection would make me doubt that Christianity was true, and I hope that it would also make atheists doubt.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The only way a utopian society could exist with a religion would be if that religion was confirmed to be true: but, that's likely never to happen. The only way it could exist with atheism would be if all religions were confirmed false: but, that's likely never to happen.

So going by that, a utopian society can never exist. But, I think in the current world, it would be easier to achieve one with atheism than with any particular religion.

It would make more sense to think that it could be achieved with religion if proven true, than with atheism if that was proven true. This is because religions generally command acts conducive to peace, while atheism does not require anything. Indeed, if atheism was proven true, all moral restraints on human brutality would instantly and irretrievably melt away.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, not really. I don't think such a utopia is feasible simply because of the way humans are. The only way such a utopia would be possible is to drastically physically alter humans, for example using some kind of drug or physical/mental alteration.

Which is why ideas such as anarchism and communism, which ultimately rely on trusting the goodness of humans, worry me.

I agree, possibly for the first time ever with you.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, if atheism was proven true, all moral restraints on human brutality would instantly and irretrievably melt away.

Nice to know the only thing stopping you from a hedonistic, murderous rampage is a dusty old book.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Nice to know the only thing stopping you from a hedonistic, murderous rampage is a dusty old book.

Rather worrying too, since there are at least two other regular Other-Forum posters who say exactly the same thing.

Makes you wonder how many of your average church-going population struggle with similar demons.

jimbling

Húrin wrote: »

Utopian communities already do exist and have long existed

eh... what? where? when? how?

ChocolateSauce

Assuming everything was actually perfect, I'd leave it. But if it was just seen to be perfect, I'd......destroy.

jimbling

robindch wrote: »

Rather worrying too, since there are at least two other regular Other-Forum posters who say exactly the same thing.

Makes you wonder how many of your average church-going population struggle with similar demons.

the amount of people who can't grasp the fact that morality lies outside religion is absolutely phenomenal.

When I told my mother that I was agnostic (I couldn't bring myself to tell her I was an atheist) she immediately started crying and saying how would my children know right from wrong* :eek: :eek:


* What's most bizarre is that I don't even have children :pac: :pac:

pH

Dades wrote: »

Nice to know the only thing stopping you from a hedonistic, murderous rampage is a dusty old book.

I think the time has come to petition for a law to handle these folks.

If they're admitting that the only thing keeping them from these sorts of crimes is their religious belief, we need a secret religious police who spy on all church goers. If at any stage they seem to waver they need to be locked up in a Gitmo type system and re-educated before release. I know this sounds harsh, but after all it's for all our good, how many children will be murdered by these people who can't control their murderous impulses on their own? This is no time for liberal secular sensibilities, someone please think of the little ones!

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

Nice to know the only thing stopping you from a hedonistic, murderous rampage is a dusty old book.

You surely do not read this in my post do you? What stops you from committing acts of brutality? Conscience? Sure we all have one of those. But what makes you think that it can be applied to anyone else? You couldn't say that anyone else is doing something wrong because it goes against your conscience. Christians know that this moral conscience points to a universal moral law.

The other thing that you (probably deliberately) fail to grasp is that Christians internalise our morality with the help of the holy spirit. It is not a matter of external compulsion.

jimbling wrote: »

the amount of people who can't grasp the fact that morality lies outside religion is absolutely phenomenal.

Why do you all have such a simplistic view of morality? You're just reverting to assumptions about what my arguments are.

Without religion there is no objective, universal morality. We have moral consciences, but these are entirely subjective, and cannot be used to extrapolate a moral law for a society let alone humanity.

Morality does exist outside religion, but in a meaningless universe, it lacks any consistent force and credibility. It relies on our feelings.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Without religion there is no objective, universal morality.

Which religion?

Húrin wrote: »

Morality does exist outside religion, but in a meaningless universe, it lacks any consistent force and credibility. It relies on our feelings.

Better to rely on our feelings today than those of a multitude of people from a different era.

Zamboni

I suppose it would depend on how much sex I was getting.

Zamboni

Húrin wrote: »

Why do you all have such a simplistic view of morality? You're just reverting to assumptions about what my arguments are.

Without religion there is no objective, universal morality. We have moral consciences, but these are entirely subjective, and cannot be used to extrapolate a moral law for a society let alone humanity.

Morality does exist outside religion, but in a meaningless universe, it lacks any consistent force and credibility. It relies on our feelings.

Nonsense. There is nothing special about morality. It is simply unwritten rules that the human species uses in order to survive. It constantly changes over time and adapts. Your religious book looks ridiculous because you folks don't change. Don't rob your neghbours goats and all that stuff that I purposely forget.
Each society dictates its own morals. Our current form of legislation is merely a bearuacratic version of what the species has been doing anyway for thousands of years.

Dragan

I don't want a Utopia. To me, a Utopia is a complete antithesis, simply because some of mankinds greatest moments and progressions were born of social and political upheaval.

You can't forge anything without a fire.

Dave!

Húrin wrote: »

Why do you all have such a simplistic view of morality? You're just reverting to assumptions about what my arguments are.

Without religion there is no objective, universal morality. We have moral consciences, but these are entirely subjective, and cannot be used to extrapolate a moral law for a society let alone humanity.

Morality does exist outside religion, but in a meaningless universe, it lacks any consistent force and credibility. It relies on our feelings.

Bud, morality is simply a (often unspoken) consensus reached by society on how it should run.

The fact that no religions fit perfectly into our societal consensus should be a hint that it does not function as an objective, universal guide to morality. If it did, Christians would still be stoning hookers, and Muslims would sti--ehh nevermind...

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

This sounds a plotline from the Star Trek; in fact, I'm fairly sure it is

Yes, it was the 'Dino-Darwin' episode.

In the end 'Dino-Darwin' holds back his evolutionary theory because if he published it the Dino government would kill his friends - the Enterprise Crew, who couldn't intervene, something to do with the non-intervention of undeveloped worlds or some such... but I digress

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

You couldn't say that anyone else is doing something wrong because it goes against your conscience.

I never got that argument. Why not?

Why can't I say what you are doing (beating up an old woman) is wrong.

Yes it is wrong according to me, not according to you, but then do I need anything more?

I never understood where this idea that I should respect your lets-beat-up-old-women morality with equal footing as my you-shouldn't-beat-up-old-women morality.

The argument But how do you know you are right is flawed because it implies a comparison to a universal moral standard that we have already dropped.

I'm right in relation to my morality. Society then groups based on shared morality. Some one disagrees then they can convince me or bring a big stick.

Húrin wrote: »

Christians know that this moral conscience points to a universal moral law.

And biologists know that this "universal moral law" is actually moral instincts that have developed due to evolution. Which explains by the way the varying nature of morality across people and cultures, rather better than God or ideas such as the Fall.

If God doesn't exist (he doesn't btw) then this evolved morality still exists. We don't all start raping and pillaging each other.

Húrin wrote: »

Without religion there is no objective, universal morality.

I think it is pretty obvious that even with religion there is no objective universal morality.

What religion you follow, what version of this universal morality you choose to believe is the correct one, is totally subjective.

The idea of a universal morality is simply a vale religious people pull down to hide the fact that their morality is as subjective as anyone else. It is a pretend justification that their moral choices are some how given greater authority than others, when in fact the version of this universal morality they pick to believe in is based on their subjective choices.

The advantage of the atheist idea that there is no universal morality is that they at least recognise this, where as theists justify their subjective morality with calls that it matches the universe one and as such must be right. This removes a chance to change one's mind or to rationalise a new version of ethics or morals. A good example of this is homosexuality, where theists believe this practise is wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the idea that a bunch of old men living 5,000 years ago were communicating with the correct god who holds the correct interpretation of the correct universal morality. They then say that this idea (homosexuality is wrong) is not subjective but in fact universal and cannot be re discussed or re debated. End of story, as it were.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

What stops you from committing acts of brutality? Conscience? Sure we all have one of those. But what makes you think that it can be applied to anyone else?

If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

Would you agree?

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

That's actually a brilliant little summary you've got there.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

That's actually a brilliant little summary you've got there.

Don't expect it'll make a blind jot of difference though. It can't be long before a religious poster whinges "yes, but that can't be right, since it's just so selfish". At which point, I'll be hanging up my hat and going for beer

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

Would you agree?

Yes I do agree. Morality extends far beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to murder. Do you agree?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Yes I do agree. Morality extends far beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to murder. Do you agree?

That doesn't make sense. The right or wrong of something is the morality of it.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. The right or wrong of something is the morality of it.

I mean, what is the point of acting as if that is the only moral question? Or that the prohibition on killing can be taken as a blueprint for all other moral questions?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I mean, what is the point of acting as if that is the only moral question? Or that the prohibition on killing can be taken as a blueprint for all other moral questions?

Who is acting as if murder is the only moral question?

The "blueprint" for moral question is the golden rule. Even people without conscience (psychopaths) have motive to act within it.



and before anyone says it, versions of the golden rule pre-date Jesus by thousands of years