The benefits of religion, and a proposal

b318isp

Being a recent mover from being Agnostic to Atheistic, I've had trouble completely shaking the idea that religion is completely useless. This is a separate thought from it's non-validity to a person who doesn't believes in any gods, but as a value to a cross section of society.

This seems to stem from my upbringing, where I could see a number of members of my family getting genuine guidance on how to live their lives. From this stemmed a thought on morality and where the general public get it from. This I surmise to be:

- Parents (or other other such role models)
- A religion
- Society arrangements (such as laws, precedents, social norms/acceptabilities)
- Education (esp. schools, but includes self education)
- The media, including films and TV

If you accept that I'm talking in a very generalised way, it would seem to me that none of these are perfect in demonstrating matters of morality with any consistency. Perhaps religious based guidance (ignoring the method of the teachings) are the most consistent of the lot? If all the worshipping and threatening aspects of religious doctrines are removed, there are strong messages of use there. In other words, it may the best of a bad lot.

Now, for me, that is not good enough. The principles of morality predate "modern" Christianity. Philosophic foundations can be seen to have evolved many years before Christ arrived. There is precious little I can find in Religion that I cannot find in Philosophy, even with my scant knowledge of it. Furthermore, I get all the benefits with justifications and none of the distractional god nonsense.

So why hasn't Philosophy evolved over Religion in the general public's eye? Is it deemed too elitist or too difficult to understand, compounded by Religion being deeply established? Will we see a reversal in the years to come - and is this an automatic reaction to better education?

To go a proactive step further, why do we not teach Philosophy in (secondary) schools? I'd suggest that most teenagers would be able to have discussions on the basic principles - and perhaps get more from this than any amount of Religious Education forced into them.

I'd contest that philosophical knowledge and debate with the kids of today would deliver more free thinking adults of tomorrow, and perhaps a better understanding of our actions, decisions and place in the world...and it is need now.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

Being a recent mover from being Agnostic to Atheistic,

As agnosticism concerns knowledge and atheism concerns believe, its possible to be both (and most atheists are).

b318isp wrote: »

Perhaps religious based guidance (ignoring the method of the teachings) are the most consistent of the lot? If all the worshipping and threatening aspects of religious doctrines are removed, there are strong messages of use there. In other words, it may the best of a bad lot.

First, what exactly is left in a religion when you remove the worshipping bits and the threatening bits?
Secondly, how is religion better than the rest (parents, laws, education)? If religion is untrue, then its moral guideance will be inconsistent with reality? Laws and parenting and education may not be very well structured to explain morals, but if the morals they eschew are more consistent with reality then they are better (although the methods of teaching should be improved).

b318isp wrote: »

So why hasn't Philosophy evolved over Religion in the general public's eye? Is it deemed too elitist or too difficult to understand, compounded by Religion being deeply established? Will we see a reversal in the years to come - and is this an automatic reaction to better education?

Easy answer, just think: who controls the schools?

b318isp wrote: »

To go a proactive step further, why do we not teach Philosophy in (secondary) schools? I'd suggest that most teenagers would be able to have discussions on the basic principles - and perhaps get more from this than any amount of Religious Education forced into them.

I'd say many people here would be supportive of ethics classes in schools to replace the religious morals taught today.

Guill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'd say many people here would be supportive of ethics classes in schools to replace the religious morals taught today.

I would!

b318isp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

First, what exactly is left in a religion when you remove the worshipping bits and the threatening bits?
Secondly, how is religion better than the rest (parents, laws, education)? If religion is untrue, then its moral guideance will be inconsistent with reality? Laws and parenting and education may not be very well structured to explain morals, but if the morals they eschew are more consistent with reality then they are better (although the methods of teaching should be improved).

To consider the first, I'd say that there is guidance on conduct - love thy neighbour and help the needy type maxims.

For the second, perhaps religion could be seen as better if it is applied in a more consistent and widespread way (at, say, a national level) - in its execution. It could be debated that it is more consistent than parenting! However, my argument is that if you distil down the intent of such religious guidance, you don't need religion - just philosophy, a justification for my atheism.

However, what can be practically done about it now is the key point of the post.

strobe

b318isp wrote: »

To consider the first, I'd say that there is guidance on conduct - love thy neighbour and help the needy type maxims.

For the second, perhaps religion could be seen as better if it is applied in a more consistent and widespread way (at, say, a national level) - in its execution. It could be debated that it is more consistent than parenting! However, my argument is that if you distil down the intent of such religious guidance, you don't need religion - just philosophy, a justification for my atheism.

However, what can be practically done about it now is the key point of the post.

What can be practically done is what is being practically done and has been for a good long while now. Remove religions privileged place free from criticism and ensure secularism is in place. It is happening, it just takes time. Religion has had a few thousand years to get it's claws into the hearts and minds of people and society and civilisation and develop it's defenses and it used every dirty trick in the Book, to accomplish that and continues to do so to hang onto it.

But look what's been accomplished in just a couple of centuries in a lot of the world. Look what's been accomplished in just the last couple of decades. Religion as the primary dictator of what is moral is in it's death throws. The internet and the freedom of information and speech it has brought has helped to kick that whole process up into yet another gear.

Now we just sit back with mojitos and enjoy the funeral.

b318isp

Thanks for the reply. I suspect that you may be correct for well developed nations; I'm not so convinced that it is in the death throes of developing countries (or where free thinking is being suppressed).

A question is that if and when religion is diminished, what should replace it?

Guill

A good moral and ethical understanding of the world we live in?

strobe

b318isp wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I suspect that you may be correct for well developed nations; I'm not so convinced that it is in the death throes of developing countries (or where free thinking is being suppressed).

A question is that if and when religion is diminished, what should replace it?

I dunno, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems like an ok starting point.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Penn

b318isp wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I suspect that you may be correct for well developed nations; I'm not so convinced that it is in the death throes of developing countries (or where free thinking is being suppressed).

A question is that if and when religion is diminished, what should replace it?

Why do we need anything to replace it?

Pygmalion

b318isp wrote: »

A question is that if and when religion is diminished, what should replace it?

Nothing.

Let it die, we don't need it or anything like it.
Good people will still be good people without it; Bad people will have one less excuse for their behaviour.

If you're for some reason assuming it has some role to play in morality or ethics (An odd position for a self-proclaimed atheist. Since you don't get moral guidance from it I have no idea why you'd assume others need it) then in that respect I think we should just replace it with an open and honest discussion about the world.
If instead of spending an hour in school talking about Jesus kids spent an hour in school talking about current events, discrimination and suffering I imagine they'd actually have a much deeper respect for the whole "Do unto others" thing.

Dades

b318isp wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I suspect that you may be correct for well developed nations; I'm not so convinced that it is in the death throes of developing countries (or where free thinking is being suppressed).

It's definitely on the up outside of the 1st World - at least in pure numbers.

The teaching of philosophy or "ethics" will never fill the hole left by religion, where education and prospects are poor, and mortality is an everyday threat.

Besides, religion is a much a business as it ever was, and so has a big marketing machine to match.

b318isp

Pygmalion wrote: »

If you're for some reason assuming it has some role to play in morality or ethics (An odd position for a self-proclaimed atheist. Since you don't get moral guidance from it I have no idea why you'd assume others need it) then in that respect I think we should just replace it with an open and honest discussion about the world.

I think you are misquoting me, I suggested it HAD (or even HAS) a role in morality. I am not suggesting it should into the future.

b318isp

So, where should the general public get it's ethics from?

How to we* get the general population to aspire to a more ethical or moral life?

*[whatever "we" is]

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

To consider the first, I'd say that there is guidance on conduct - love thy neighbour and help the needy type maxims.

But then what does religion bring to the table that the other options dont? Without the ceremonies and threats, what authority or compulsion does religion have that your parents dont?

b318isp wrote: »

For the second, perhaps religion could be seen as better if it is applied in a more consistent and widespread way (at, say, a national level) - in its execution. It could be debated that it is more consistent than parenting! However, my argument is that if you distil down the intent of such religious guidance, you don't need religion - just philosophy, a justification for my atheism.

However, what can be practically done about it now is the key point of the post.

I dont understand why you seem to think that you need to distil your philosophical principles from religion though? They existed before, are better explained without and what with state run education systems, we dont even need religion as an infastructure to get the message across to people. I'm all for bringing in ethics and philosophy in school, but I dont see the need to reference religion at all.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

A question is that if and when religion is diminished, what should replace it?

Is there something that you think religion supplies that we cant currently get anywhere else?

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

I think you are misquoting me, I suggested it HAD (or even HAS) a role in morality. I am not suggesting it should into the future.

In what way?

b318isp wrote: »

So, where should the general public get it's ethics from?

How to we* get the general population to aspire to a more ethical or moral life?

*[whatever "we" is]

By explaining the logical underpinnings of ethics, which can be done, quite well, without recourse to religion (picture is a bit long, so I'll just leave a link). The reason why we aspire to a system of morality and ethics is that it makes sense to do so, it increases peace and happiness, so we just need to explain that better.

b318isp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont understand why you seem to think that you need to distil your philosophical principles from religion though? They existed before, are better explained without and what with state run education systems, we dont even need religion as an infastructure to get the message across to people. I'm all for bringing in ethics and philosophy in school, but I dont see the need to reference religion at all.

I think I have answered that, it's the point of my original post. Philosophy can mean that religion has no purpose (not the other way around). My relatively late reading of philosophy has put the nail in the coffin for any nebulous religious belief I had held onto.

The point I'm making is about others who haven't had the same experience and are still religious in absence of other ethical guidance (in their minds).

I have also suggested that religion in schools is replaced by philosophy.

b318isp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way?

By explaining the logical underpinnings of ethics, which can be done, quite well, without recourse to religion (picture is a bit long, so I'll just leave a link). The reason why we aspire to a system of morality and ethics is that it makes sense to do so, it increases peace and happiness, so we just need to explain that better.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that religion SHOULD be a forum for ethics - and I fully agree that we can justify and explain ethics without recourse to religion.

The question I still ask is HOW should it be done?

Where or what is the leadership? Government? Schools? Media? Parents? Richard Dawkins?

And how are others convinced?

Dades

What you have to remember is that people have inbuilt ethical guidelines.

Certainly, in the early years we basically inherit what our parents/teachers ell us, but as we get older we reject what we see as in conflict with our own sense of right and wrong.

This is no clearer than in the typical Irish "catholic". They claim to be catholic, and yet they aren't homophobic, eat meat today (Ash Wednesday), have sex - with contraception - before marriage, and don't bother going to mass.

So they nominally follow a religion while rejecting many of it's basic tenets using their own innate sense of morality.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

I think I have answered that, it's the point of my original post. Philosophy can mean that religion has no purpose (not the other way around). My relatively late reading of philosophy has put the nail in the coffin for any nebulous religious belief I had held onto.

The point I'm making is about others who haven't had the same experience and are still religious in absence of other ethical guidance (in their minds).

So then the point is to give them better ethical guidelines than the religious ones they have? You would still want to avoid mentioning religion as much as possible, as it just muddies the waters.

b318isp wrote: »

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that religion SHOULD be a forum for ethics - and I fully agree that we can justify and explain ethics without recourse to religion.

The question I still ask is HOW should it be done?

Where or what is the leadership? Government? Schools? Media? Parents? Richard Dawkins?

And how are others convinced?

I think the whole point of good ethics is that we are largely our own leaders. We should teach ethics from the point of view of people figuring out for themselves what is right and wrong, using simple rules, rather than having to return to some big single moral source for every issue (which is very corruptible).
The golden rule (see the picture I linked, which explains it ethically and in terms of game theory) is a self correcting rule - you come to a situation and act based on what you would have others do to you in the same situation. Teaching people this and then giving them situations to see that they are applying them right (can people put themselves in other situations properly) would be a good way to get it across. I actually think a lot of parents do this, ever hear a parent stop a child from misbehaving towards someone else and ask the child "would you like that if it were done to you?".

b318isp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So then the point is to give them better ethical guidelines than the religious ones they have? You would still want to avoid mentioning religion as much as possible, as it just muddies the waters.

Yep.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think the whole point of good ethics is that we are largely our own leaders. We should teach ethics from the point of view of people figuring out for themselves what is right and wrong, using simple rules, rather than having to return to some big single moral source for every issue (which is very corruptible).

But does this generally work? We still have crime, for example. Who is to say what is and isn't ethical, and where do the simple rules come from?

Is environmental care ethical? If so, why is it only recently growing in the popular conciousness?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The golden rule (see the picture I linked, which explains it ethically and in terms of game theory) is a self correcting rule - you come to a situation and act based on what you would have others do to you in the same situation. Teaching people this and then giving them situations to see that they are applying them right (can people put themselves in other situations properly) would be a good way to get it across. I actually think a lot of parents do this, ever hear a parent stop a child from misbehaving towards someone else and ask the child "would you like that if it were done to you?".

Yes, I like this - and easier to grasp than Kant! The difficulty that I see is that of applying it.

b318isp

Dades wrote: »

What you have to remember is that people have inbuilt ethical guidelines.

Certainly, in the early years we basically inherit what our parents/teachers ell us, but as we get older we reject what we see as in conflict with our own sense of right and wrong.

Are you saying that a proportion of our ethics are inbuilt and a proportion applied?

Dades

b318isp wrote: »

Are you saying that a proportion of our ethics are inbuilt and a proportion applied?

Absolutely.

Red Hand

strobe wrote: »

But look what's been accomplished in just a couple of centuries in a lot of the world. Look what's been accomplished in just the last couple of decades. Religion as the primary dictator of what is moral is in it's death throws. The internet and the freedom of information and speech it has brought has helped to kick that whole process up into yet another gear.

Now we just sit back with mojitos and enjoy the funeral.

It isn't like that at all imo. This is only a brief breathing space...secularism is doomed in the long run.

So enjoy it while it lasts!

strobe

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

It isn't like that at all imo. This is only a brief breathing space...secularism is doomed in the long run.

So enjoy it while it lasts!

Orly? Care to explain your reasons for thinking that? Short of us all dying by sword stabbings and starvation and being eaten by pigeons and badgers, of course.... Or is it just a hunch sort of thing?

Give onto Caeser man.

b318isp

Dades wrote: »

Absolutely.

How could the application bit be done better across society as a whole; could a consistent approach be developed? How would personal opinion or bias on ethics be avoided (take homosexuality for an example)? Back to the leadership bit again!

Dades

b318isp wrote: »

How could the application bit be done better across society as a whole; could a consistent approach be developed? How would personal opinion or bias on ethics be avoided (take homosexuality for an example)? Back to the leadership bit again!

You can never avoid personal bias considering one's parents are usually the primary force in the shaping of our ethics. These are then subject to whatever innate sense of morality (personality?) we are born with. The more intensive the upbringing the more the imbibed morality survives.

The real problem is there is no universal morality. All you can do is teach kids (in schools) to obey the law, encourage them to think for themselves, and perhaps expose them to ancient and modern philosophical and ethical thinking.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

But does this generally work? We still have crime, for example. Who is to say what is and isn't ethical, and where do the simple rules come from?

Well we are to say what is and isn't ethical, who else is there? If you mean specifically, then I'd say whoever is good at explaining the basis of ethics, whoever wrote the SMBC comic I posted before would be a good start. The rules themselves are very easy to explain, imo. We all want happiness and peace, so all our rules need to do is minimise conflict went when two or more peoples desire for happiness conflict (as they inevitably will, on a planet with nearly 7 billion).

b318isp wrote: »

Is environmental care ethical? If so, why is it only recently growing in the popular conciousness?

I do believe environmental care is ethical. We need the environment to live, and the golden rule (do unto others ...) does apply to animals too (some would say to a lesser extent, but it still applies). Its hard for people to really get into environmental ethics because the actions needed to be more environmentally ethical are either pretty hard on the level of comfort people expect (using less fossil fuel means more physical effort, less deforestation for cheap crops means less cheap foods) or they are poorly implemented stealth taxes (carbon taxes).

b318isp wrote: »

Yes, I like this - and easier to grasp than Kant! The difficulty that I see is that of applying it.

Its like anything else you teach someone, all you can do is explain it to people, give them examples to think upon and hope they have the intelligence to act on it. I cant think of any perfect way of teaching this concept, that will ensure people understand it and use all the time, no more than I can think of a perfect way of teaching calculus that results in everyone understanding it.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

How could the application bit be done better across society as a whole; could a consistent approach be developed? How would personal opinion or bias on ethics be avoided (take homosexuality for an example)?

Is there a consistent approach for teaching maths that removes all personal opinion and bias? I'm not sure its possible in any subject.

b318isp wrote: »

Back to the leadership bit again!

Call me a cynic, but I dont like the idea of moral leadership. Besides there being no universal perfect morality, there is no single person perfect enough to show everyone else a consistent morality. Leaderships are corruptible and you will either end up with a leadership abusing its own power or a leadership failing its own morality (same thing really) and thus the trust in the leadership will dissolve and people will end up back where they started. People need to learn to think for themselves, and while I'm not entirely sure the best methods for teaching the tools needed for good ethical thinking (beyond explaining the basics and giving examples to be pondered on) I think that it wouldn't be too hard for people to develop efficient methods.

b318isp

Maybe perfection would remain an ideal.

However, I couldn't see how the general public would develop efficient methods without some guidance. If it was that easy, it would already have been done and religion would be widely obsolete.

It would appear that a conclusion from this thread is that there is no applied ethical system in the public domain (other that imperfect religions), responsibilities lie with individuals and that (organised) progress without religion is with a select few (such as active free thinkers, atheistic groups and some vocal intellectuals).

It seems to me we're missing something, but I feel a tide of change. Whether a social responsibility for ethics or morality lies with society itself or a societal body (e.g. government) is an argument in itself.

Dades

b318isp wrote: »

However, I couldn't see how the general public would develop efficient methods without some guidance. If it was that easy, it would already have been done and religion would be widely obsolete.

Religion doesn't continue because it offers good guidance as to how people live their lives (how could it - every religion says something different?)

It continues because it promises you'll meet your loved ones after they die, that there's someone in the sky looking after you, that you have a special place in the world...

People don't really care about the rules - they just want the perks.