Is there place for religion in a modern world?

topmanamillion

When I see Muslim extremists terrorists committing atrocities in the name of their religionI think there's a much broader issue at play.
The main thing I have gotten from the whole situation is there just isn't any room in modern society for organised religion of any kind
It doesn't matter if it's Christianity/Judaism/Islam or any other religion. The main point of every religion is the other guys are wrong and are going to end up in Hell. There can never be equality when that's the case. There will always be some reason to kill someone from a different religion.
We need to move on from reading books written 2000+years ago and believing they have any relevance to our modern lives.
There's as much proof that any deity of a major religion exists as there was for Apollo sitting on a mountain throne or Posidan ruling the seas.

looksee

I agree with your argument generally, especially your last sentence. However I think that a lot of people find benefit in belief in god, and kept to a personal level that is good. There seems to be a need in the human psyche to believe in a greater power, which would not be a problem; there seems to be an equally great need to force or persuade everyone else to accept this belief, and this is where the problems arise.

It is a bit like having a smoker in the room, one person's personal satisfaction necessitates discomfort for a roomful of people. If life could be kept neutral in terms of belief in a deity, while allowing everyone freedom to believe or not as they prefer, this would remove much of the reason for dispute in the world.

Religion reflects the desperate insecurity of individuals who need to validate their views by imposing them on other people. The need of religious leaders to hold power by demanding allegiance for their particular ethos, even at the point of a gun, demonstrates the inherent weakness of their arguments; the term 'belief' suggests confidence in an idea, this is not something that can be forced. Forcing a particular behaviour of clothing or worship in a population, or insisting that a particular pattern of worship be imposed on young children is not belief, it is indoctrination. If you catch them young enough children can be taught to accept anything, at least in the short term; there is a need in people to be part of the herd. For genuine belief people have to come to conclusions independently and as rational adults. If they choose to satisfy their herd instincts by getting together with others to follow a particular belief system, that's fine, but society should not be structured by these preferences.

It occurs to me that this argument of insecurity is shown in microcosm in these forums. The pro-religion forums have rules that insist that believers should not have to endlessly defend their beliefs, acceptance of the belief system is the basis for discussion. (and this does save a lot of repetitive argument). However in this forum the supporters of the 'no gods' view do not demand that everyone accepts this basic premise - people are free to express views on either side, though believers are not protected and have to cope with their ideas being debunked. The discussion is not so much how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as whether there are any angels in the first place.

Nodin

topmanamillion wrote: »

When I see Muslim extremists terrorists committing atrocities in the name of their religionI think there's a much broader issue at play.
The main thing I have gotten from the whole situation is there just isn't any room in modern society for organised religion of any kind
It doesn't matter if it's Christianity/Judaism/Islam or any other religion. The main point of every religion is the other guys are wrong and are going to end up in Hell. There can never be equality when that's the case. There will always be some reason to kill someone from a different religion.
We need to move on from reading books written 2000+years ago and believing they have any relevance to our modern lives.
There's as much proof that any deity of a major religion exists as there was for Apollo sitting on a mountain throne or Posidan ruling the seas.

Personally I think there's room for it as long as its not in the way, if you follow me.

endacl

Nodin wrote: »

Personally I think there's room for it as long as its not in the way, if you follow me.

Best kept private? What goes on in the bedroom, once they're not shoving it my face, and all that?

Agreed.

silverharp

Bertrand Russell gave a very simple summary of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s

Nodin

endacl wrote: »

Best kept private? What goes on in the bedroom, once they're not shoving it my face, and all that?

Agreed.

Essentially yeah. They can do more or less what they want to, or not do what they want to not do, and they can do it in public or wherever as long as the rest of us aren't forced to follow the same rules.

Fleawuss

The world is modern post modern primitive medieval and dark ages simultaneously. It's one of the problems: believers of a 7th century myth have access to 21st century communication and weaponry and visit their myth upon people with wanton savagery. There is no grasp of proportionality or even a wish to consider it.

Even in Ireland we are governed by a 1937 constitution which in large part shows RC social thinking from the 1890s on. So does religion have a place? Undoubtedly. Billions believe it across the globe. Should it have a place? Not in any developed western country. We know better than ancient crazies who thought they could con people by claiming god told them how humanity should live. I wish we could grow up as a country that little bit more and make up our own minds without turning to "holy" books and men or women who claim to speak for the alleged deity.

Kiwi in IE

The only places for religion are the private dwellings and places of worship of those who are followers.

Datallus

There is a line of thought that the recent "Islamic terrorism" we have been seeing for the past 20 or 30 or so years in the West has less to do with religion and more to do with the expansion of Western militaries across the globe and dropping bombs more recently from remote controlled aircraft onto mostly civilian populations.

But that's none of my business

equivariant

Datallus wrote: »

There is a line of thought that the recent "Islamic terrorism" we have been seeing for the past 20 or 30 or so years in the West has less to do with religion and more to do with the expansion of Western militaries across the globe and dropping bombs more recently from remote controlled aircraft onto mostly civilian populations.

But that's none of my business

Of course that is true. But god puts the gun in their hands and tells them that it's not a sin. And equally God tells our western societies that we are the chosen ones and therefore we can't be doing wrong because we have God on our side.

Hotblack Desiato

Datallus wrote: »

There is a line of thought that the recent "Islamic terrorism" we have been seeing for the past 20 or 30 or so years in the West has less to do with religion and more to do with the expansion of Western militaries across the globe and dropping bombs more recently from remote controlled aircraft onto mostly civilian populations.

But that's none of my business

Complete bollocks.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Complete bollocks.

I was trying to find some more gentle way of saying the same thing, but failed.

antiskeptic

A few clarifications sought

looksee wrote: »

there seems to be an equally great need to force or persuade everyone else to accept this belief, and this is where the problems arise.

Taken at the level of a discussion forum where I outline my beliefs and why and you outline your beliefs and why, is there any difference between our respective "needs". That is, my religion (as in my expression) has no greater need to persuade or force that your belief system

If so, and assuming there are many like me, wouldn't it be better not to generalise? Or would you prefer I think of you as a mini-Dawkins?

If life could be kept neutral in terms of belief in a deity, while allowing everyone freedom to believe or not as they prefer, this would remove much of the reason for dispute in the world.

It would, but would leave many other areas for dispute in the world. Which would seem to indicate that dispute, rather than the specific means of dispute is part and parcel of the human condition.

Religion reflects the desperate insecurity of individuals who need to validate their views by imposing them on other people.

Some individuals you mean, surely. Wouldn't you exclude the zillions who don't impose their views on others

The need of religious leaders to hold power by demanding allegiance for their particular ethos, even at the point of a gun, demonstrates the inherent weakness of their arguments; the term 'belief' suggests confidence in an idea, this is not something that can be forced.

Aren't there many religions or sectors of religions who do nothing of the sort?

The folk Forcing a particular behaviour of clothing or worship in a population, or insisting that a particular pattern of worship be imposed on young children is not belief, it is indoctrination.

Your talking about the globalisation of secular youth culture aren't you?

If you catch them young enough children can be taught to accept anything, at least in the short term; there is a need in people to be part of the herd. For genuine belief people have to come to conclusions independently and as rational adults. If they choose to satisfy their herd instincts by getting together with others to follow a particular belief system, that's fine, but society should not be structured by these preferences.

Does the secular/atheist hand not also rock own childrens cradle? Free thinking is not without it's background philosophies.

It occurs to me that this argument of insecurity is shown in microcosm in these forums. The pro-religion forums have rules that insist that believers should not have to endlessly defend their beliefs,

Which they endlessly do and seem to enjoy doing.

It is reasonable to allow folk to have internal discussion about a topic of common interest without constant interruption however. If atheism has no need for uninterrupted discussion then that's simply a characteristic of atheism and/or the folk who post in that forum.

Have you considered the sole reason for limits is sufficiently explained thus:


"this does save a lot of repetitive argument".

looksee

You have, as usual, managed to distort, sidestep or selectively quote every point made. I will just respond to one of the issues you have raised, which actually covers most of the others:

Taken at the level of a discussion forum where I outline my beliefs and why and you outline your beliefs and why, is there any difference between our respective "needs". That is, my religion (as in my expression) has no greater need to persuade or force that your belief system

The difference between the 'beliefs' is that religion is proactive - it is created and promoted by people who choose to follow it, whereas atheism is reactive - it would not exist if it were not for religion. There is no reason for atheism if there is no theism.

In fact there would be no real need for atheism if theists just got on quietly with their beliefs and did not proselytize or force those beliefs on populations in the form of governmental controls, from Sharia law in Muslim countries to legislation based entirely on the dogma of one faith in Ireland. Equally, if atheism were corrupted into a belief system and denied people the right to their own beliefs, that would be wrong too. In a neutral situation where governance was based on an agreed morality rather than reference to church (any church) dogma, people would be free to believe or not believe in god, as they chose.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

You have, as usual, managed to distort, sidestep or selectively quote every point made.

I was probing the generalisations you were making that didn't seem to take account of the fact that there are a wide range of expressions of belief.

The difference between the 'beliefs' is that religion is proactive - it is created and promoted by people who choose to follow it, whereas atheism is reactive - it would not exist if it were not for religion. There is no reason for atheism if there is no theism.

Leaving aside the unproveable assertion that all religions were created by people (which is effectively stating positively, that there is no God (a 7 on Dawkins scale which even he doesn't aspire to)


You don't suppose that from the word go, there were folk who didn't believe in God and who sought to ensure that the direction of society would be shaped by whatever philosophy they used to answer the questions which religion attempts to answer? That they were passive in expression of their philosophies and beliefs in the face of those who were religious?

And isn't the attempt to propagate religious view to those without them merely reactive. If there were no unbelievers there would be no need to propagate a conversion message.

In fact there would be no real need for atheism if theists just got on quietly with their beliefs and did not proselytize or force those beliefs on populations in the form of governmental controls, from Sharia law in Muslim countries to legislation based entirely on the dogma of one faith in Ireland.

You mean organized, socially active atheism surely? Atheism (the worldview) is merely a word to describe folk who don't believe in God and that word will be required for as long as there are such folk.

Equally, if atheism were corrupted into a belief system and denied people the right to their own beliefs, that would be wrong too.

It's a view you see quite often in this forum

In a neutral situation where governance was based on an agreed morality rather than reference to church (any church) dogma, people would be free to believe or not believe in god, as they chose.

I'd agree. The problem is how you reach such neutrality when you've parties on both sides with conflicting worldviews and who both want to shape society in the direction of those views.

Atheism might be described as merely a lack of belief in Gods. But there sits, inevitably, an alternative-to-religion philosophy within each atheist. They don't operate in a worldview vacuum.

Which makes your "we're only reactive" comment slightly off the mark.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was probing the generalisations you were making [...]

Pots and kettles here, antiskeptic :rolleyes:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Leaving aside the unproveable assertion that all religions were created by people (which is effectively stating positively, that there is no God (a 7 on Dawkins scale which even he doesn't aspire to)

God(s) can exist without religions and religions can exist without god(s) - there's no connection between the two. And religions can be created by people which do or do not represent one or more gods accurately.

looksee

God(s) can exist without religions and religions can exist without god(s) - there's no connection between the two. And religions can be created by people which do or do not represent one or more gods accurately.

Exactly my point.

robindch

looksee wrote: »

Exactly my point.

A little bit different - antiskeptic seems to think that only gods can create religions when - unless one is to accept the existence of multiple creator deities with very similar properties - is manifestly false. Otherwise, how could the two religions co-exist when each denied the existence of the other's deity?

And on a more general note, what keeps on surprising me is the splendid shallowness of most religious thought - it really is embarrassingly easy to poke holes in everything that shows up.

#scarletforskeptic

looksee

I would suggest that religion is the human expression of belief in a god, and since humans have a strong herd instinct they want to share that expression with others, or in some cases a need to dominate and have one's views validated by other people sharing your beliefs, even under duress, leads to religion.

Even when a god has listed his demands of those whom he wishes to follow him, human intervention and interpretation has been needed to make them available to the followers.

On that basis god has nothing to do with the creation of religion, beyond being the subject of it, religion is a codified expression of belief.