What Virtues Do You See in Religion?

Turtwig

I know it's forum etiquette to give your opinion in the opening post, but I'd rather to hold off in and see how this thread goes first. That way if it turns out to be a trainwreck then I won't have wasted my time. So folks, what virtues, if any, do you see in religion? As of interpretations of the word 'religion' please define what you mean by 'religion'. For example, Dawkins brushed Buddhism to one side by calling it a philosophy of ethics and not really a religion. Oops, I was about to elaborate on my opinion there.:)

pinksoir

I dunno. As hard as I try I find it difficult to imagine a substitute for the community that grows out of being a member of a church/group/whatever. There really aren't any secular alternatives in any meaningful sense.

I always find it weird when I go to christenings, etc. and there is this sense of genuine community within the congregation, dwindling as it is. I think that along with the growth of secularity there has been a decline in community. Whether these are related or not I don't know, but it seems to me that people, myself included, have far less time for other people and pursue mostly selfish goals. Maybe it's a result of rampant consumerism, and with that self centredness.

Without it being hammered into us that charity is good, selflessness is good and community is good on a weekly basis, ie through some sort of structured fellowship where we are coerced into abiding by those precepts through close communality, maybe we forget to act in those ways.

I dunno. A church is more than just the building. I think that is what a lot of us non-religious might be missing out on.

strobe

pinksoir wrote: »

I dunno. As hard as I try I find it difficult to imagine a substitute for the community that grows out of being a member of a church/group/whatever. There really aren't any secular alternatives in any meaningful sense.

I always find it weird when I go to christenings, etc. and there is this sense of genuine community within the congregation, dwindling as it is. I think that along with the growth of secularity there has been a decline in community. Whether these are related or not I don't know, but it seems to me that people, myself included, have far less time for other people and pursue mostly selfish goals. Maybe it's a result of rampant consumerism, and with that self centredness.

Without it being hammered into us that charity is good, selflessness is good and community is good on a weekly basis, ie through some sort of structured fellowship where we are coerced into abiding by those precepts through close communality, maybe we forget to act in those ways.

I dunno. A church is more than just the building. I think that is what a lot of us non-religious might be missing out on.

In terms of the break down of the sense of community, while this is often put down to the diminishing religious influence I think that it more happened in tandem to that rather than because of it.

Personally I think the fact that back in the day it was common for people to grow up in and continue to live in the same area, often on the same street is what was conducive to a strong sense of community. Everyone knew everyone because they had grown up with them, they'd known them (and their parents and cousins and sisters and uncles) all their lives. Where as nowadays it is far more common for people to leave their, estate, village, town, street, county at quite a young age and to move several times hence, frequently to completely different areas each time. In my opinion this is why you don't get that sense of community you did in the past and the assertion that it is due to the lack of religion is misguided.

It's a common misconception imo.

==================

To the OP:

What virtues do I see in religion? Well like you say, first you have to define what you mean by religion. In a thread in AH recently someone was making the argument that religion is simply ritual and tradition. So going to the pub every Friday after work with the same few people could be considered 'religious'. I could see virtues in that but it is a bit of a floppy definition of religion.

For me I would be willing to accept Wikipedia's definition here: 'Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.'

Another facet of religions is that they tend to view themselves as complete, as accurate. They are not malleable or open to later correction without some sort of doublespeak to explain how the fact that the religion is changing now does not mean it wasn't perfect already before (enter the Nazarene for example). This facet in my opinion poisons any virtue that could be attributed to religion. It stifles human progress by it's very nature.

==========

I like a lot of religious art and architecture but I like a lot on irreligious art and architecture too so things of these sort I wouldn't be able to view as virtues of religion. They are just virtues of human creativity that sometimes have a religious flavour.

Giselle

The most obvious benefit of belief was brought home to me by an elderly lady recently. Her husband of over 60 years had died, and she was telling me that although they were separated now, it wouldn't be too long before they were together again.

She really believes this with all her being, and it gave her a solace and comfort that got her through her loss. It gave her serenity.

Its a delusion, its a lie, its just a carrot dangled in front of the faithful by the church to keep people in. A monstrous manipulation in many ways.

But it helped.

Turtwig

Giselle wrote: »

The most obvious benefit of belief was brought home to me by an elderly lady recently. Her husband of over 60 years had died, and she was telling me that although they were separated now, it wouldn't be too long before they were together again.

She really believes this with all her being, and it gave her a solace and comfort that got her through her loss. It gave her serenity.

Its a delusion, its a lie, its just a carrot dangled in front of the faithful by the church to keep people in. A monstrous manipulation in many ways.

But it helped.

Hate to be pedantic but you don't need religion to believe in the afterlife. And, Panda? Jeez with wicknight, jakkass and others I don't know who's who any more.:o

Ickle Magoo

I had a friend who had an awful lot going on in their life; parent very ill, child recently diagnosed with something serious, redundancy looming and so on. I asked how they were doing and she said "God wouldn't give me more than I could bear"...when things get tough I always think it would be really comforting to think that you only ever got as much as you could handle, rather than that horrible feeling of helplessness/rising panic when a heap of issues are really stressing me out and another one lands on my plate.

pinksoir

strobe wrote: »

In terms of the break down of the sense of community, while this is often put down to the diminishing religious influence I think that it more happened in tandem to that rather than because of it.

Personally I think the fact that back in the day it was common for people to grow up in and continue to live in the same area, often on the same street is what was conducive to a strong sense of community. Everyone knew everyone because they had grown up with them, they'd known them (and their parents and cousins and sisters and uncles) all their lives. Where as nowadays it is far more common for people to leave their, estate, village, town, street, county at quite a young age and to move several times hence, frequently to completely different areas each time. In my opinion this is why you don't get that sense of community you did in the past and the assertion that it is due to the lack of religion is misguided.

It's a common misconception imo.

I agree with most of what you say.

But without a structure in place for integration, such as a church, into a new community are we just left with what currently happens, ie social alienation? What are the alternatives?

Churches are as much about community as anything else, hence why immigrant communities are more often than not religiously based.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Hate to be pedantic but you don't need religion to believe in the afterlife.

No, but the public show that is a catholic funeral can be very affirming of somebody's belief that their nearest and dearest isn't dead but just resting.

strobe

pinksoir wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say.

But without a structure in place for integration, such as a church, into a new community are we just left with what currently happens, ie social alienation? What are the alternatives?

I do agree that it is a problem and one the state has not addressed nearly as well as it should have. There are plenty of possible alternatives but they aren't being supported as they should be.

I would like to see a new government department created specifically to address the issue of community. Which would actively try to encourage community. There is a community centre in the area I grew up in which used to be very active in this area when I was a kid. Local people volunteered and where very pro-active in making it accessible to people. They sent out a newsletter twice a month to every single house in the estate detailing things like badminting competitions, pool competitions, tea parties for the oul ones, puppet shows for the kids, street parties. All sorts of stuff to try and get people together. When someone new moved into the estate a couple of people from the centre would physically call in to them to welcome them and invite them down to one thing or another.

I'd like to see a state department created to act as an over body for a pro-active volunteer based community centre programme like above throughout the country. Where it would be well organised and with a clear directive to try and ensure people living in the same area knew each other and facilitate ways they could engage with each other should they wish.

It's not that there are no alternatives to church, there are far better, far more inclusive, far more productive alternatives, but they aren't being ulitised like they should be.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

define what you mean by 'religion'.

That's a toughie and probably worth its own thread(s) In brief, it could be the emergent phenomenon that results from mass individual delusion, or less controversially, religion is what happens when lots of people get together, each one of whom believes that all the others share the same exclusivist beliefs. Religions also tend to operate as teleological service providers and/or cultural systems which define values for actions and symbols in such a manner as to facilitate hierarchy-creation, respect-trading and other social carry-on.

A bit like art, it's one of those things that you know when you see it.

pH

Giselle wrote: »

The most obvious benefit of belief was brought home to me by an elderly lady recently. Her husband of over 60 years had died, and she was telling me that although they were separated now, it wouldn't be too long before they were together again.

She really believes this with all her being, and it gave her a solace and comfort that got her through her loss. It gave her serenity.

Its a delusion, its a lie, its just a carrot dangled in front of the faithful by the church to keep people in. A monstrous manipulation in many ways.

But it helped.

You say that ("It helped") but did it really?

Catholicism* doesn't teach anyone that when you die you'll be together again with your loved ones. At best it says if you follow some obscure set of rules then based on these there's a small chance of getting to heaven - but this is really hard - the likelihood is that you'll end up burning eternally in hell. it's hard to see how Catholicism can give anyone much comfort in this position.

It's also very silent on issues such as spending eternity with your loved ones - most assume it but it certainly isn't a central part of Catholic teaching.

So since it's despite her religion she's arrived at these set of invented and self-comforting beliefs, it's hard to see how she derived comfort from her religion.

* I'm presuming they're Catholic for the purposes of this post but it doesn't really matter.

strobe

pH wrote: »

You say that ("It helped") but did it really?

Catholicism* doesn't teach anyone that when you die you'll be together again with your loved ones. At best it says if you follow some obscure set of rules then based on these there's a small chance of getting to heaven - but this is really hard - the likelihood is that you'll end up burning eternally in hell. it's hard to see how Catholicism can give anyone much comfort in this position.

It's also very silent on issues such as spending eternity with your loved ones - most assume it but it certainly isn't a central part of Catholic teaching.

So since it's despite her religion she's arrived at these set of invented and self-comforting beliefs, it's hard to see how she derived comfort from her religion.

* I'm presuming they're Catholic for the purposes of this post but it doesn't really matter.

This is a very good point re:religious comfort. For every Christian that gains comfort from the fact that their Christian son that died is waiting for them in heaven they have the uncomfort(?) of knowing that their non-Christian daughter that died is spending eternity in unrelenting agony.

Giselle

pH wrote: »

You say that ("It helped") but did it really?

Catholicism* doesn't teach anyone that when you die you'll be together again with your loved ones. At best it says if you follow some obscure set of rules then based on these there's a small chance of getting to heaven - but this is really hard - the likelihood is that you'll end up burning eternally in hell. it's hard to see how Catholicism can give anyone much comfort in this position.

It's also very silent on issues such as spending eternity with your loved ones - most assume it but it certainly isn't a central part of Catholic teaching.

So since it's despite her religion she's arrived at these set of invented and self-comforting beliefs, it's hard to see how she derived comfort from her religion.

* I'm presuming they're Catholic for the purposes of this post but it doesn't really matter.

In the case of the old lady I'm referring to, it certainly helped. She's followed her religion blindly all her life and never let the thought of hell enter her head after gladly following the rules all the way down the line. So of course she's confident that after a 'blameless' life they'll be together.

It is as I said a monstrous lie, but the fact that she could draw comfort from her belief - invented or not, is real.

Undergod

It does give people hope, both about the future of their lives and for the afterlife. Religious organizations do contribute a lot to society (it could be argued the damage some cause outweighs the good, but I'm just listing the positives), in terms of charity. And there is a nice sense of community to going to services - even when I had lost my faith but was still going to mass, I liked the ritual of sitting there with a good chunk of the people from my village. Also, some of the stories are class.

Zombrex

Two main things

1 - Architecture. Religions, due to the inspirational nature of their doctrines, tended to get the money and freedom to be on the cutting edge of architecture throughout the ages, producing some spectacular buildings.

2 - Community. Religion have always put emphasis on forming communities where they have been. Not always successfully and often in exclusive manner.

Neither of these things require religion, but it is easier to do with religion as an excuse. Imagine trying to get an atheist hall build that was impractically huge simply for effect. It would be ridiculed by society has being a waste of space. Slap God into the equation then and things become valuable because they are simply inspiring.

irishh_bob

Giselle wrote: »

The most obvious benefit of belief was brought home to me by an elderly lady recently. Her husband of over 60 years had died, and she was telling me that although they were separated now, it wouldn't be too long before they were together again.

She really believes this with all her being, and it gave her a solace and comfort that got her through her loss. It gave her serenity.

Its a delusion, its a lie, its just a carrot dangled in front of the faithful by the church to keep people in. A monstrous manipulation in many ways.

But it helped.

not all lies cause damage where as sometimes the truth does

irishh_bob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I had a friend who had an awful lot going on in their life; parent very ill, child recently diagnosed with something serious, redundancy looming and so on. I asked how they were doing and she said "God wouldn't give me more than I could bear"...when things get tough I always think it would be really comforting to think that you only ever got as much as you could handle, rather than that horrible feeling of helplessness/rising panic when a heap of issues are really stressing me out and another one lands on my plate.

ive heard my very religous aunt utter that absurd statement on more than one occasion , its nauseantingly offensive to think the starving in africa are up to handling what ( apparently ) god has handed them

Ickle Magoo

irishh_bob wrote: »

ive heard my very religous aunt utter that absurd statement on more than one occasion , its nauseantingly offensive to think the starving in africa are up to handling what ( apparently ) god has handed them

Wouldn't that require the sentiment "God wouldn't give anyone more than they could bear"?

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

1 - Architecture. Religions, due to the inspirational nature of their doctrines, tended to get the money and freedom to be on the cutting edge of architecture throughout the ages, producing some spectacular buildings.

It's far more complex than that -- if I remember, I'll post on this tomorrow sometime. But think states, state resources, founding myths, problem-of-authority resolution services rendered by state-sponsored religions and so on.

Zombrex wrote: »

2 - Community. Religion have always put emphasis on forming communities where they have been. Not always successfully and often in exclusive manner.

I would add that the most exclusivist religions have tended to encourage the most energetically protectionist emotions amongst the believerhood, something which would have given rise to, or which would have been used by, the most expansionist states. And expansionist states which carry this kind of selfish meme beget expansionist states with the same memes. And so it continues.

Take a look at the insanely brain-washed first-hand legitimizing accounts of the Spanish conquest of the Americas by the Spanish, as quoted by Jared Diamond towards the start of Guns, Germs and Steel.

irishh_bob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Wouldn't that require the sentiment "God wouldn't give anyone more than they could bear"?

yes , hence my example of that philosophy being grotesque , the starving in africa can handle it

Ickle Magoo

irishh_bob wrote: »

yes , hence my example of that philosophy being grotesque , the starving in africa can handle it

That's assuming that is the philosophy being held, rather than just they have a god that they believe looks out for them...which isn't much nicer in global terms but it isn't assuming everyone gets what they can bear, either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Malty_T wrote: »

I know it's forum etiquette to give your opinion in the opening post, but I'd rather to hold off in and see how this thread goes first. That way if it turns out to be a trainwreck then I won't have wasted my time. So folks, what virtues, if any, do you see in religion? As of interpretations of the word 'religion' please define what you mean by 'religion'. For example, Dawkins brushed Buddhism to one side by calling it a philosophy of ethics and not really a religion. Oops, I was about to elaborate on my opinion there.:)

I define "religion" differently depending on context but in THIS context I would likely be close to Dawkins in that I would define religion as "Any system of thought that is designed around the existence of a non human intelligence, and the claims to know what that intelligence wants of us, and the claims that we need to pander to those desires in some way".

As such I can think of nothing that falls under that definition, like Islam, Christianity etc. that has anything I would call a "virtue".

sensibleken

Thier 'no sex before marriage' rule means I dont accidentally sleep with them and catch moron.

Sarky

Religion did break down a lot of old tribal barriers, uniting a bunch of disparate people and giving them something in common (even if it wasn't really something true). It provided a sort of framework for societies to work along (Even if some of those guidelines were heinous.). We wouldn't be nearly as advanced if not for the development of religion; It indirectly freed up a lot of people to do things besides toil in fields until they died (Of course it freed some of them up to engage in everything from nepotism to genocide, so not much new there).

It was an unpleasant but necessary stepping stone on our way to wherever it is this species is headed. I can respect it, occasionally even admire it, for that. But it really is time to start letting go of it.

ShooterSF

I really am struggling here. I guess it gives some a sense of community and i agree the art can be quite nice. Maybe it's best virtue is in showing humanity's great imagination!

Giselle wrote: »

In the case of the old lady I'm referring to, it certainly helped. She's followed her religion blindly all her life and never let the thought of hell enter her head after gladly following the rules all the way down the line. So of course she's confident that after a 'blameless' life they'll be together.

It is as I said a monstrous lie, but the fact that she could draw comfort from her belief - invented or not, is real.

Therein lies a new problem. Right now this lady is in a better position with her belief than without. As Irish Bob says, "not all lies cause damage where as sometimes the truth does". The problem though is that's looking at it from a start point of today. If you could give this lady back her entire life with no religious restriction on what she could and couldn't do I'd wager she would have had a more enjoyable life. And whilst perhaps that's not true of her I would be very confident of it being true in large portion of elderly. You just have to look at the constant shame filled life religion demands of you to live closely by it's rules.
Why if she was religious all her life she may only had one sexual partner and he the same. Both possible inexperienced and too fearful of exploration incase it was sinful.

irishh_bob

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's assuming that is the philosophy being held, rather than just they have a god that they believe looks out for them...which isn't much nicer in global terms but it isn't assuming everyone gets what they can bear, either.

my aunt made a blanket statement that god never asks anyone to carry an over heavy load , hence the starving in somalia can carry thiers , pretty clear cut and no less obnoxious

Ickle Magoo

irishh_bob wrote: »

my aunt made a blanket statement that god never asks anyone to carry an over heavy load , hence the starving in somalia can carry thiers , pretty clear cut and no less obnoxious

Which goes back to my initial point that ^^ those weren't the sentiments expressed by my friend or in my post.

UDP

Sarky wrote: »

Religion did break down a lot of old tribal barriers, uniting a bunch of disparate people and giving them something in common (even if it wasn't really something true).

Cant say I agree with this. While religion gave some people something common it created even bigger barriers between them and other religions thus creating a bigger issue.

Sarky wrote: »

It provided a sort of framework for societies to work along (Even if some of those guidelines were heinous.). We wouldn't be nearly as advanced if not for the development of religion; It indirectly freed up a lot of people to do things besides toil in fields until they died (Of course it freed some of them up to engage in everything from nepotism to genocide, so not much new there).

I think it more created shackles on people in that if they didnt do what they were told i.e. follow the rules (created by man/those in power) then they would have eternity of their awful life.

I think the only thing Religion ever gave was hope where there was none. Yes it was a false hope but it was hope that sometimes saved or comforted people.

With regards community, I dont think religion had anything to do with it. In germany for instance (at least in east germany anyway) community villages often rally around the local fire station where kids join when young to become voluntary firefighters. They run events etc that really bring the community together. So basically you don't need religion to bring people together - anything will do. The difference is the fire station way is much more productive for society.

Enkidu

I don't know if this is technically a virtue, but it has inspired some of humanities greatest literature, in particular I'm thinking of Greek, Mesopotamian and Chinese literature and poetry.

Also, in early mankind, I think it did help give some kind of order to the sensory input of the world. It also produced the base for the kinship rituals that would have been common in early Europe, which would have been helpful in establishing peaceful coexistence between groups.

robindch

Enkidu wrote: »

I don't know if this is technically a virtue, but it has inspired some of humanities greatest literature, in particular I'm thinking of Greek, Mesopotamian and Chinese literature and poetry.

With a login like yours, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Sarky

UDP wrote: »

Cant say I agree with this. While religion gave some people something common it created even bigger barriers between them and other religions thus creating a bigger issue.

Oh, it certainly did. I've no doubt more than one tribe got wiped out because they didn't agree with what some other tribe believed. It did sort of create a stable society for the survivors. I'm not saying it was perfect, or even pleasant. It was often quite the opposite. But it helped get us where we are now. It's hardly fair, but there's not much we can do about all the non-believers who were eradicated now, and we are in a position to try and make sure that kind of stupidity doesn't happen again. A few countries have gotten over their habits of warring against people with differences, so we've made some progress, but there are still plenty of countries that need to grow the f*ck up in that regard.

I think it more created shackles on people in that if they didnt do what they were told i.e. follow the rules (created by man/those in power) then they would have eternity of their awful life.

Well, yeah, more or less. But society doesn't work if those living in it don't have rules to follow. Ideally they'd be rules the majority or everyone can agree on, but they had to start somewhere. Often that could be the most powerful bastard saying "Follow the rules, or I'll kill you." or "Follow the rules, or you'll be tortured forever after you die." Thanks to people beginning to think for themselves, it's softened up a fair bit since those days. Eventually I see us all living in a society where the ultimata above are completely replaced by "Follow the rules, because they are pretty sensible, actually, and go a long way to ensuring we can all get along." Again, it's an ideal, and we're not there yet, but I think we're getting there.

I think the only thing Religion ever gave was hope where there was none. Yes it was a false hope but it was hope that sometimes saved or comforted people.

No argument here, religion certainly provided that. Whether it's a good thing or not is open to debate. Personally, I don't like being lied to under any circumstances. I want the truth, warts and all.

With regards community, I dont think religion had anything to do with it. In germany for instance (at least in east germany anyway) community villages often rally around the local fire station where kids join when young to become voluntary firefighters. They run events etc that really bring the community together. So basically you don't need religion to bring people together - anything will do. The difference is the fire station way is much more productive for society.

Indeed. Community can be provided by just about anything. All it takes is for people to gather around it. It just so happens that religion is awfully tempting, and very good at getting people to gather around it. And, well, it kind of got there first.


Yes, religion has been responsible for some truly disgusting, heinous things since it was first cooked up. But it provided something of a template for modern societies. Granted, it's a really, really old template full of restrictions and flaws and it's got no fine detail. It's not going to solve the problems facing modern societies because nobody who write what would end up being scripture could conceive of societies on the scale we have today, and their ideas on equality were, not to put too fine a point on it, barbaric. But I think it was at least partly responsible for getting us to a point where we can work out the fine details ourselves. All that remains is for people to let go of an appealing but outdated idea.