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.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

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.

Hence alacarteism. The majority of people who profess to be religious simply discard the rules their religion sets out for them when they don't suit them. It's the very definition of having one's cake and eating it.

Shenshen

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?.

I blame anthropomorphism.

I've noticed that one of the main attractions of religion is that the general message is that the universe in the shape of a god or gods actually pays attention to what we are doing, for good or bad.
Philosophy has to content with an uncaring, inanimate universe.
Most people are happier believing that there is a bigger purpose, that things can be explained on a "human" level (as in, god created the world and made all the animals) rather than consider that we are after all just an evolutionary by-product, and that the laws of physics don't need us or anyone around to function.

b318isp

Dades wrote: »

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.

LOL!

I wouldn't fully agree with a generalisation, certainly a number of people I have known are christian because they believe it helps them guidance on living their lives.

b318isp

Galvasean wrote: »

Hence alacarteism.

That's a new one! Sounds like something from Family Guy.

Dades

b318isp wrote: »

LOL!

I wouldn't fully agree with a generalisation, certainly a number of people I have known are christian because they believe it helps them guidance on living their lives.

They can believe it all they want, but do you think they'd be out raping and pillaging without Jesus? :pac:

cavedave

Dades

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.

I am not sure that is true. It is the main rational choice theory of religions, where religion functions as a compensator for unobtained rewards. But there are other explanations. Many of the weird practices religions carry out (circumcision, dietary requirements etc) seem to exist to help with humans need to divide ourselves up into groups so we can hate each other.

Many people on this thread seem to want to replace religious instruction with the teaching of ethics. But is there any evidence that people taught ethics act more ethically? For example there is some evidence ethicists steal sweets and that ethics books get stolen more often from libraries

If people who study ethics don't act ethically there is not much point teaching it to make people act more ethically.

ethics books were actually 25% more likely to be missing than non-ethics books.

b318isp

cavedave wrote: »

But is there any evidence that people taught ethics act more ethically?

A very good point. I'm not sure how it could be established. I'm not even sure who the "people" referred to are.

And, at risk of stating the obvious, of course there is huge evidence that many "religious" people do not act religiously.

However, maybe appealing to rationality and reason may be more effective than fear, hypocrisy and violence.

cavedave

b318isp

A very good point. I'm not sure how it could be established. I'm not even sure who the "people" referred to are.

The people who some small amount of evidence exists for are ethics lecturers and philosophy students who study ethics. I would like to see evidence that people who studied ethics in school were less likely to act unethically.

himnextdoor

Religion, philosophy, doctrines the same.

Religion itself isn't the problem, it's the pedlars of religion and replacing religion with philosophy will simply attract those who would profit from religion into philosophy.

There is nothing inately wrong with religion it's just that it opens the door to exploitation. The leaders of the various religious denominations are actually more interested in power and wealth than in the salvation of mankind. Even Buddhist leaders make huge sums by publishing books on their philosophy.

Society has to be governed somehow and religion provides a control lever. For many people religion acts as an equaliser; poor people think they are special in the eyes of God and it suits the great and the good to allow such views to persist. It means they have less need to administer control by means of tanks and guns.

himnextdoor

b318isp wrote: »

However, maybe appealing to rationality and reason may be more effective than fear, hypocrisy and violence.

No, fear and violence are more effective than rationality and reason.

stingray75

owing to atheism being the conscious and individually made decision that it is....

1. 'conversion' to atheism is a slow process that has less chance of surviving into the next generation than an organised indoctrination has.

2. numbers of 'converts' are therefore, IMO, not to be taken as an indication of future numbers.

3. the arrival at the point of 'conversion' is due to a careful and detailed consideration of reasoned-out factual analysis of religious ideas.

4. atheism has (almost) no equivalent of a church, where people can congregate and be communal...except buswell's hotel and boards of course!

5. pushing people into their own badly formed ideas of atheism, would in effect create exactly the same tpe of stifled thinking that we hold the quasi-religious in contempt for (i do anyway).

6. whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that prevents a significant proportion of people from doing bad things.

7. it is better, IMO, to have people adhering to some form of moral code, whether it is individualised and reasoned rationality or medieval metaphysical propaganda.

8. philosophy would be an excellent attempt at filling the void that many will point to after the (fingers crossed) secularisation of the education system.

9. unless we become some sort of totalitarian police state, reason will over time come to naturally replace religion as the principal motivating factor in social order...but it will take a very long time...

10. feel free to add your own...

strobe

stingray75 wrote: »

6. whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that prevents a significant proportion of people from doing bad things.

Hmmm, the thing is though that, if we take that to be true (I'm not sure that I do. At least not the "significant proportion" part) the same can be said in reverse 'whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that causes a significant proportion of people to do bad things.

There is that quote by that guy paraphrased by a thousand others and by me now;

"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things....that takes religion."

I don't think I know any Christians that don't stab me in the face 'cause Jesus was against it. I'd imagine a significant proportion of the Christians that do only avoid getting all stabby 'cause Jesus wouldn't approve tend to end up looking down at people through telescopic scopes from bell towers i.e they are maniacs, and maniacs snap.

stingray75

stingray75 wrote: »

owing to atheism being the conscious and individually made decision that it is....

1. 'conversion' to atheism is a slow process that has less chance of surviving into the next generation than an organised indoctrination has.

2. numbers of 'converts' are therefore, IMO, not to be taken as an indication of future numbers.

3. the arrival at the point of 'conversion' is due to a careful and detailed consideration of reasoned-out factual analysis of religious ideas.

4. atheism has (almost) no equivalent of a church, where people can congregate and be communal...except buswell's hotel and boards of course!

5. pushing people into their own badly formed ideas of atheism, would in effect create exactly the same tpe of stifled thinking that we hold the quasi-religious in contempt for (i do anyway).

6. whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that prevents a significant proportion of people from doing bad things.

7. it is better, IMO, to have people adhering to some form of moral code, whether it is individualised and reasoned rationality or medieval metaphysical propaganda.

8. philosophy would be an excellent attempt at filling the void that many will point to after the (fingers crossed) secularisation of the education system.

9. unless we become some sort of totalitarian police state, reason will over time come to naturally replace religion as the principal motivating factor in social order...but it will take a very long time...

10. feel free to add your own...

No, I really dont think it is

pH

bluewolf wrote: »

No, I really dont think it is

I agree, look at Rwanda ...

Nearly 98% religious, see here for detail.

Now I'm not *blaming* religion for the genocide, merely pointing out that the Rwandan genocide was carried out en masse by theists (mainly Christian), now genocide is included in my list of "bad things", and if belief in God can't stop mass murder then I fail to see how it stops anyone doing lesser evils as well.

pH

pH wrote: »

I agree, look at Rwanda ...

Nearly 98% religious, see here for detail.

Now I'm not *blaming* religion for the genocide, merely pointing out that the Rwandan genocide was carried out en masse by theists (mainly Christian), now genocide is included in my list of "bad things", and if belief in God can't stop mass murder then I fail to see how it stops anyone doing lesser evils as well.

Yes, and it should be noted that "failed to stop bad things" as a counter to a previous point doesnt mean "religion causes bad things"

Mark Hamill

stingray75 wrote: »

owing to atheism being the conscious and individually made decision that it is....

Its personal, but not conscious. I no more choose to be atheist than I choose to believe in gravity (not that atheism is a belief). Atheism is a inescapable conclusion.

stingray75 wrote: »

1. 'conversion' to atheism is a slow process that has less chance of surviving into the next generation than an organised indoctrination has.

What makes you think its slow? For some it might be, but for some its quite fast and for some more its non existent (ie they always where/are atheist).

stingray75 wrote: »

2. numbers of 'converts' are therefore, IMO, not to be taken as an indication of future numbers.

Non sequitor, even if 1 was true.

stingray75 wrote: »

3. the arrival at the point of 'conversion' is due to a careful and detailed consideration of reasoned-out factual analysis of religious ideas.

Hopefully.

stingray75 wrote: »

4. atheism has (almost) no equivalent of a church, where people can congregate and be communal...except buswell's hotel and boards of course!

It doesn't one. Atheism is not a belief system, its a conclusion. Ideally, one should reach that conclusion through logic and rationality, of which there are many forums for discussion.

stingray75 wrote: »

5. pushing people into their own badly formed ideas of atheism, would in effect create exactly the same tpe of stifled thinking that we hold the quasi-religious in contempt for (i do anyway).

Indoctrination is bad regardless of what you indoctrinate. Teach people how to think, not what to think.

stingray75 wrote: »

6. whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that prevents a significant proportion of people from doing bad things.

Wrong and there examples from every religion all over the world of people doing the most horrible things in the name of religion. Humans are social animals, we have evolved social constructs and taboos that inform our morality, religion has tried to take responsibility for these but in reality they are natural. Most species act in a vaguely moral ways (anything that lives in packs) and some species have been seen to engage in altruistic behaviour.

stingray75 wrote: »

7. it is better, IMO, to have people adhering to some form of moral code, whether it is individualised and reasoned rationality or medieval metaphysical propaganda.

No. As always, its not about what people do but why. Fix the "why people do what they do" and then you dont need to worry about "what they do". Moral codes can be corrupted and misinterpreted, and a population of unquestioning sheep is not going to be able to tell if that happens.

stingray75 wrote: »

8. philosophy would be an excellent attempt at filling the void that many will point to after the (fingers crossed) secularisation of the education system.

Most here, i would imagine, would be in favour of some sort of ethics class ins school.

stingray75 wrote: »

9. unless we become some sort of totalitarian police state, reason will over time come to naturally replace religion as the principal motivating factor in social order...but it will take a very long time...

And yet you think that atheism will die out? Atheism is not a reasoned position in your opinion?

himnextdoor

stingray75 wrote: »

owing to atheism being the conscious and individually made decision that it is....

1. 'conversion' to atheism is a slow process that has less chance of surviving into the next generation than an organised indoctrination has.

2. numbers of 'converts' are therefore, IMO, not to be taken as an indication of future numbers.

3. the arrival at the point of 'conversion' is due to a careful and detailed consideration of reasoned-out factual analysis of religious ideas.

4. atheism has (almost) no equivalent of a church, where people can congregate and be communal...except buswell's hotel and boards of course!

5. pushing people into their own badly formed ideas of atheism, would in effect create exactly the same tpe of stifled thinking that we hold the quasi-religious in contempt for (i do anyway).

6. whether we like it or not, religion is one of the things that prevents a significant proportion of people from doing bad things.

7. it is better, IMO, to have people adhering to some form of moral code, whether it is individualised and reasoned rationality or medieval metaphysical propaganda.

8. philosophy would be an excellent attempt at filling the void that many will point to after the (fingers crossed) secularisation of the education system.

9. unless we become some sort of totalitarian police state, reason will over time come to naturally replace religion as the principal motivating factor in social order...but it will take a very long time...

10. feel free to add your own...

What is it that makes the world bad? Religion? Men? Religious men?

I think the world is bad because bad men use religion as a tool to motivate their armies.

Getting rid of religion won't make the world a better place though because there will still be bad men and they will still seek power.

The truth is, for civilisations to grow the way they do requires that there is some method of controlling people. Without control, law, religion, we could not have come down from the trees as a species. Societies would not develop past the 'survival of the fittest' stage.

Control, law and religion are an evolutionary solution to the brains versus brawn problem (how long would Bill Gates survive in an untamed society?) and have themselves evolved.

All societies are pyramidal, whether it be ants, antelopes or humans; there is always a pecking order and the ones at the top are in control of the ones underneath. What is important to those underneath is the method of control. We don't want to be coerced by a whip or a gun and we'd rather be coerced by reason and sense but in order to avoid the whip and knowing that we are easily confused we have submitted to law and religion. It's a necessary compromise.

Ultimately though, law and religion are administered by men and sometimes men are bad and sometimes bad men have their own agendas.

And now, brains is the new brawn. Bullies with brains have replaced the bullies with braun and the more things change, the more they remain the same.

It's in our nature; to rule or be ruled.

robindch

himnextdoor wrote: »

It's in our nature; to rule or be ruled.

That's true of authoritarian societies, but not of liberal ones.