Replacing Religion

ford2600

A thread to generate some discussion around replacing religion in the modern world.

I'm going to write pretty bluntly(not to offend and believers who wonder through) but to just to get my points across as imply as possible.

I'm a atheist and a firm advocate of the appliance of reason/rational thought to best understand and live in the modern world. From a rational point of view the belief's of any religion don't stand up to any scrutiny; the big three having there genesis in illiterate men hearing voices from the sky in a pretty small geographical area.

However, we as a species don't make all that many choices entirely from a rational viewpoint; our older ancient brain still has significant influence in all areas of our life; making social connection, sex, food, work, sport etc.

As such there is some elements of the mainstream religions, for example, which are clearly beneficial at a societal level. Here are a few from the top of my head
*the sense of community from regular weekly meet up and working together to fundraise, paint building, cut grass whatever
*The chanting of prayers, either in a group or alone, (Muslims, Catholic rosary etc etc) is it that different to meditation/mindfulness? CBT which is an evidence based science, will often promote the use of meditation/mindfulness to heal patients deal with the modern world
* Confession. From a rational point of view, going into a wooden box with an older man and confessing your "sins" to get forgiveness from a higher power is clearly nonsense. However if it allows a person racked with guilt (for whatever crime serious or otherwise) to park it up and get on with life is there not some benefit to it
*Making room for wisdom. One of the saddest aspects of the religious abuse scandals is the position of the older man, especially single men, is society. There should always be room in society for wisdom, especially the wisdom of mean and women who have lived and experienced many of the tragedies that will effect most of us eventually. I recently had to deal with a very painful bereavement, and was struck by and very grateful of the way in which the priest dealt with my wife and I. While most of what he read from his books was nonsense, the way in which he dealt with a very painful situation in assisting in us having an intimate respectful ceremony certainly has a value to the community at large. Most science based therapies still place a high importance on the benefit of rituals around death when dealing with the initial stages of grief.


So while atheists generally do a good job of challenging the nonsense/prejudices/wrong doing of mainstream religions, is there a benefit in the critical analysis of religions with an eye to producing an alternative to the accidental benefits of religion?

smacl

ford2600 wrote: »

So while atheists generally do a good job of challenging the nonsense/prejudices/wrong doing of mainstream religions, is there a benefit in the critical analysis of religions with an eye to producing an alternative to the accidental benefits of religion?

As a life-long atheist now in my early 50s with atheist parents, my short answer would be 'No'. I think it is worthwhile analysing the value religious people derive from their religion if they're considering ditching religion, such that they can find alternatives, but I don't believe analysis of religion is necessary to understand our fundamental needs as individuals and as a society. My feeling is that practises like confession are only valuable because Catholicism seems to instil an undue amount of guilt in people. Philosophically I'd have a problem with it as well, in that if you're going to make amends for a wrong doing it should be the person you've wronged, it is not the place of the priest to let you off the hook or not based on how many hail Marys you can recite. I think things like contributing to the community and having them there for you are huge, but it should be pluralistic and inclusive for all without a need to share common beliefs. While never into GAA myself growing up, having spent some time with friends in rural Ireland, the whole thing of everyone of all ages and abilities trooping up to the pitch for a few hours on a Sunday strikes me as a far better way of bringing a community together that attending a church and listening to a priest.

nozzferrahhtoo

ford2600 wrote: »

A thread to generate some discussion around replacing religion in the modern world.

I wonder what needs replacing though. When you lost your belief in Santa (assuming you had one, otherwise parse the question rhetorically) did you replace it with something that served a similar purpose, or did you grow up and get over it and move on?

When the training wheels came off your bike did you put something in their place or go on without them?

You offered a list of things though, which themselves are nothing to do with religion, but for which religion was a kind of "packaging" for the product. A social meet up group where people come together and mutually support each other.

This happens a lot without religion. People who go to football games together do it. I recently got a lot of support from people with whom I played a certain location based augmented reality mobile game. My dad gave a lot of support to people not so long ago that were in his circles at the local pub. He did the same thing many times in the last 30 years for friends and companions he has formed while helping found and run a particular north Dublin fishing Club.

So I do not see that religion needs to be replaced in that regard, so much as people themselves, in the absence of religion, would likely find their own replacements. "replacements", for want of a better word, already exist. And many of them do not have the potential for generating irreconcilable differences that religion suffers from.

ford2600 wrote: »

*The chanting of prayers, either in a group or alone, (Muslims, Catholic rosary etc etc) is it that different to meditation/mindfulness?

I think there are a lot of differences yes. For example there is little about vipassana mindfulness meditation that attempts to instill a message, a group think, or a moral in the same way as a prayer might. Mindfulness meditation of that form is a way to observe thought.... whereas prayer and the like are a method of implanting them. The Nicene creed for example is something you would be hard pushed to find a parallel for when you sit down and read "Wherever you go there you are".

Further such meditation tends to be a solitary introspective process whereas group chanting is more of a strengthening of faith, and in-group out-group boundaries.

ford2600 wrote: »

However if it allows a person racked with guilt (for whatever crime serious or otherwise) to park it up and get on with life is there not some benefit to it

Not sure I am convinced by that one either. I think facing things like guilt and grief and working through them, owning them, and over coming them is far more preferable, and beneficial, that using some fantasy to paper mache over them and essentially brush them under the carpet.

Not to mention when people who rely on their faith to achieve such things later lose that faith. Dealing with things like grief in the moment for example can be much better than dealing with it years after the fact without many of the resources we would have had sooner.

ford2600 wrote: »

Making room for wisdom.

That is hardly the sole purview of, let alone an area dominated in any useful way by, religion. I would feel the loss of religion as a phenomenon in our species would leave MORE room for wisdom not less of it. As such once again I am not seeing anything requiring "replacement" here.

You talk about "rituals around death" and I am all for them. There are many out there and religion has no monopoly on it. Again: Nothing to replace. Religion is, at best, just another service provider in that industry. And as I said I think using fantasy, as religion does, to deal with the "stages of grief" are ones that are potentially harmful rather than helpful. It is a methodology of avoiding dealing with the realities and finality of death rather than helping the people in question actively face it, deal with it, and work through it.

ford2600 wrote: »

is there a benefit in the critical analysis of religions with an eye to producing an alternative to the accidental benefits of religion?

As I guess I said above, but can make more explicit here, I do not think there are any such benefits from religion so much as religion is a service provider that has successfully associated itself with things that are themselves a benefit.

Rituals around death are a good example which you yourself used. That has nothing to do with religion. It is a thing in any of itself. Each religious business empire has however made itself a service provider of such rituals. It is a re-seller of an idea or a product, rather than something that brings a useful product or service of it's own.

Morality is another example, not really mentioned in your post. Clearly morals and a system of morality is a good thing for people to have. Religions do not bring that to our species or culture. Rather religions are packaging used to sell one particular brand/modality of such a product.

Charity is another good example. Religion is not something that gave charity to the world. However it has made a very successful and lucrative business for itself in becoming essentially a charity-broker. It is a business model that has worked very well for them and theirs.

So in summary I am not seeing anything requiring replacement. Rather religions seem to be little more than businesses which have become brokers or service providers for things we already know to be beneficial.

Michael Nugent

I wouldn't describe what you are talking about as "accidental benefits of religion".

They are evolutionary benefits of living together as social animals.

In the absence of religion, these behaviours would not be replacing religion, they would just be there anyway (in some form) without being labeled as religious.

uck51js9zml2yt

Quote =
the big three having there genesis in illiterate men hearing voices from the sky in a pretty small geographical area.

I question that assumption from a Christian perspective. What illiterate men are you referring to?
Jesus was a carpenter and in all likelihood educated.Paul, a Pharisee ..again educated, Luke , a Greek and a doctor...educated, Matthew, a tax collector, again educated. Mark educated, it's believed he wrote his own gospel.

If your appraisal of Christianity is based on Catholicism and Protestantism, them I'm not surprised you've given up on religion. I gave up on Catholicism over 30 years ago.

Michael Nugent

Braylee Howling Pensioner wrote: »

Quote =
the big three having there genesis in illiterate men hearing voices from the sky in a pretty small geographical area.

I question that assumption from a Christian perspective. What illiterate men are you referring to?
Jesus was a carpenter and in all likelihood educated.Paul, a Pharisee ..again educated, Luke , a Greek and a doctor...educated, Matthew, a tax collector, again educated. Mark educated, it's believed he wrote his own gospel.

If your appraisal of Christianity is based on Catholicism and Protestantism, them I'm not surprised you've given up on religion. I gave up on Catholicism over 30 years ago.

The genesis of the stories that evolved into Judaism, Christianity and Islam long predated Jesus (or whoever the Jesus stories are based on), Paul, and the unknown people who wrote the gospels that the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were later added on to.

The genesis of the stories would have been whoever made up the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. These stories were originally passed on orally, not in writing.

Hotblack Desiato

Braylee Howling Pensioner wrote: »

I question that assumption from a Christian perspective. What illiterate men are you referring to?
Jesus was a carpenter and in all likelihood educated.Paul, a Pharisee ..again educated, Luke , a Greek and a doctor...educated, Matthew, a tax collector, again educated. Mark educated, it's believed he wrote his own gospel.

:rolleyes:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057011991

Hotblack Desiato

Fcuking last thing we need to be doing on this island is replacing religion.

Haven't we suffered enough?

robindch

Whatever about society replacing religion, it seems that the RCC is going to have to come up with a new wheeze soon enough as the number of trainee priests hits a new low. And in an ironic twist of fate, there are now more priests in training for the CofI than there are for the RCC in Ireland. That has got to hurt.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/number-of-new-trainee-priests-at-maynooth-hits-record-low-1.3233625

Irish Times wrote:

Just six men have begun training for the Catholic priesthood at St Patrick’s College Maynooth this autumn, believed to be the lowest number since its foundation in 1795. Twice as many students started training for ministry in the Church of Ireland this month, with 12 admissions, including two women, to the Church of Ireland Theological Institute in Dublin. In total there are 34 students in training at the institute, 10 of them women.

There are 41 men studying for priesthood in Maynooth. According to the 2016 census, 78 per cent of the Republic’s population, or 3.7 million people, declared themselves Roman Catholic. The census found the Republic’s Church of Ireland population was 126,4 00, or 3.4 per cent of the population.

The six men admitted to Maynooth include two seminarians from Killaloe diocese, and one each from Tuam, Cork & Ross, Elphin, and Kilmore. In addition, two seminarians began training at the Irish College in Rome, one at St Malachy’s in Belfast and two at Beda College in Rome.

Earlier this year the Congregation for Clergy in Rome issued a document, The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, which strongly recommended that bishops around the world introduce a pre-seminary (propaedeutic) year for new candidates who wished to discern whether they had a vocation. Eight men have begun this propaedeutic year in locations around Ireland and abroad. Last year 14 men began as seminarians in Maynooth. In 2015 the figure was 17, 14 in 2014 and 20 in 2013.

In August last year the college was at the centre of controversy when it emerged the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said he was no longer going to send seminarians there because of its “poisonous” atmosphere. He said students were accessing gay dating apps and anonymous letters were being circulated accusing seminarians of misconduct.

The college administration said it shared “the concern” of Archbishop Martin about the “poisonous atmosphere”, created by anonymous correspondence and blogs. It added, however, there was “no concrete or credible evidence of the existence of any alleged ‘active gay subculture’,” at the seminary. Last May it was announced a new president, Fr Michael Mullaney, had been appointed at the seminary and would hold office for the next three years as the Catholic bishops prepared plans to separate the seminary from the Pontifical University there. A rector will then be appointed to oversee the seminary with a separate office of president appointed to run the associated university.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Whatever about society replacing religion, it seems that the RCC is going to have to come up with a new wheeze soon enough as the number of trainee priests hits a new low. And in an ironic twist of fate, there are now more priests in training for the CofI than there are for the RCC in Ireland. That has got to hurt.

Well, just to pick nits, from your own cite there are currently 34 ordinands in training in the C of I Theological Institute (which accommodates all C of I trainees) but 41 Catholic trainees in Maynooth alone, besides those in other seminaries.

New entrants this year are lower in for the Catholic church than the CofI - 11 versus 12 - but total in training is higher.

looksee

But then again, 78% and 3.4%.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, just to pick nits, from your own cite there are currently 34 ordinands in training in the C of I Theological Institute (which accommodates all C of I trainees) but 41 Catholic trainees in Maynooth alone, besides those in other seminaries.

New entrants this year are lower in for the Catholic church than the CofI - 11 versus 12 - but total in training is higher.

A more interesting question is the difference in the number of priests qualifying each year versus those retiring as raised the ACP, and what those young priests are facing into

Younger priests “were distressed by the reality they faced: increasing work-loads; few vocations; wondering whether or why they would stay with priesthood; the difficulty of saying Mass when so few of their peers attend; and the difficulty some experienced of even attending meetings with older priests with whom they had little in common”.

It doesn't exactly paint a picture of the Church being any happier a place from the pulpit than the pews.

Sesame

Good post and I agree with some nice aspects of life getting lost with religion.

I think the church building for one. I enjoy the gravitas of a church wedding. The impressive architecture, the booming organ and the long aisle walk. The hotels or registry office settings can't really live up to that.
Some sort of grand space used for community events with the same sort of monetary upkeep and tax free allowance as churches have would be good.

Coming of age ceremonies is another. The christening and confirmation. My children didn't have a christening which I'm happy about, but they were never officially welcomed in anywhere. I feel like a ceremonial entrance into their home or something could replace it.
Likewise with the age 11-12 cusp of teenage ceremony. The end of childhood should be marked some way.

In schools, its obvious that philosophy and science are natural replacements for the religion lesson. It goes without saying how important it is to improve the new generations knowledge of science.
The world seems to be changing to become less accepting of nonsense as fact and more questioning for evidence and this new enlightenment era should equip our children with the tools for it.

Regarding the peace and comfort that people get from religion, its the repetition and ceremony of it that people find relaxing. For example, I make a big ceremony out of making my coffee each morning. It starts my day the same each way and its slow and careful and mindful. We would all find natural replacements for prayer in any kind of different procedures we carry out every day.

smacl

Sesame wrote: »

Coming of age ceremonies is another. The christening and confirmation. My children didn't have a christening which I'm happy about, but they were never officially welcomed in anywhere. I feel like a ceremonial entrance into their home or something could replace it.
Likewise with the age 11-12 cusp of teenage ceremony. The end of childhood should be marked some way.

I'm not so sure that we actually get that much value by regularly punctuating our children's lives with lavish displays of pomp and circumstance. It seems to be celebration for the sake of celebration with ever more time and expense being devoted to competitive consumerism and occasions that never really live up to expectations. Personally, I think spending the same amount of time and money actually doing something active with the children that everyone enjoys is going to provide far better memories all round. A good gig, a family 'Hell and back', whatever floats your boat really. I don't think Christenings, Communions, and Confirmations are something that need to be replaced any more than religion itself.

Hotblack Desiato

Ludicrous in any case to regard 11 or 12 as the end of childhood.

There's an important event every child goes through at the age of 12 or 13 - finishing primary school and starting secondary.

silverharp

the one thing Religion did was to get dumb people to follow rules. there hasnt really been a replacement

pH

silverharp wrote: »

the one thing Religion did was to get dumb people to follow rules. there hasnt really been a replacement

The older I get the less and less I agree with this. In the past I've certainly seen organisations like the Catholic church as driving their agenda and scaring the illiterate uneducated masses into its particular form of bigotry and thinking.

But I think common sense tells us this is not the whole story. It supposes some sort of pre-Catholic utopia of tolerance and equality, which can be dismissed in a moments thinking. The ideas of organisations such as Catholicism and Islam are very much a reflection on how people actually feel, the worst parts of our human nature.

Its become a convenient scapegoat, Catholicism was 'done to us' the poor mindless uneducated, led astray by these powerful bad men, in pretty much the same way as Nazism is seen as the cause of 1939's unpleasantness, without considering that Catholicism and Nazism both emerged from and were embraced by the populations to a great degree.

There is certainly some insight in viewing Catholicism as the driving social force, but also in accepting that its socially conservative views felt very right to many people. The evidence from today is that religion doesn't seem to have as much power as we might have thought when it comes to driving a social agenda that's at odds to what the public actually wants.

silverharp

pH wrote: »

The older I get the less and less I agree with this. In the past I've certainly seen organisations like the Catholic church as driving their agenda and scaring the illiterate uneducated masses into its particular form of bigotry and thinking.

But I think common sense tells us this is not the whole story. It supposes some sort of pre-Catholic utopia of tolerance and equality, which can be dismissed in a moments thinking. The ideas of organisations such as Catholicism and Islam are very much a reflection on how people actually feel, the worst parts of our human nature.

Its become a convenient scapegoat, Catholicism was 'done to us' the poor mindless uneducated, led astray by these powerful bad men, in pretty much the same way as Nazism is seen as the cause of 1939's unpleasantness, without considering that Catholicism and Nazism both emerged from and were embraced by the populations to a great degree.

There is certainly some insight in viewing Catholicism as the driving social force, but also in accepting that its socially conservative views felt very right to many people. The evidence from today is that religion doesn't seem to have as much power as we might have thought when it comes to driving a social agenda that's at odds to what the public actually wants.

It was more of general comment of Religion in the West and from the perspective of average people. Going back through history there was no welfare state so people had to abide by social rules even though it meant a huge compromise in individual freedom but on average a society that had stricter social rules enforced by religion did better.
looking at the 20th C its gets complicated because along with the decline in religion you have big changes in the way people live however as a parent for example one's job is to pass on a social code which hopefully gives ones kids the best chance for success when they grow up and part of that code can be socially conservative , youd be a bad parent if you didn't set out any rules for your kids. The "illiterate uneducated" people today have lost whatever control religion had over them and nothing has replaced it.

Hotblack Desiato

We are lucky to live in times of plenty when even those without work do not starve. We are lucky to live in times when no church man can (teachers excepted) dictate whether we deserve to be allowed to earn a living, or should instead be cast out by our community. We are very lucky to live in a time of (relative) enlightenment and in a part of the world where the effects of the French and American revolutions, which gave the norm of established churches a good kicking, are still being felt.

It is safe and easy today, in Ireland, to say that you do not believe in a god and/or that the locally favoured god probably does not exist. It was a lot less safe and easy 30 years ago when the Late Late Show audience disdained 'heretics' and audibly gasped when an atheist dared to come on stage. Even 20 years ago Dawkins was ridiculed unjustly on RTE and vile comments phoned in were scrolled across the bottom of the screen with no right to reply.

Well, it's still not safe today as a parent to openly be an atheist. That depends on the attitude of the staff of the state-funded but religious run school your kids are almost certainly obliged to attend.

ratsorizzla

Im not an atheist or a religion person either - i believe in my own life and I believe in helping others who need it and ask me for help and i will if i can - just the same as if im stuck and need help - i will ask - im not into groups of people with the agenda of making people outside their group feel small or not worthy to be in their group - be it catholicism buddhism spaghettigodism or atheism - i dont give 2 ****s about your preferred brand - such narrow minded thinking is the problem - its bull****e - grow up - you are an individual so you can make your own mind up about whats what without trying to vilify people who don't believe what you believe or don't believe - who ****ing cares we;re all going into the ground alone eventually - atheism is a ****ing joke too - get over it - we are not sheep- and we dont need a leader - you are your own leader - get it?

Hotblack Desiato

You appear to be falling into the trap of thinking that atheism is what 'the church' defines it to be, rather than what it actually is. A non-belief in a god or gods and NOTHING else.

I wouldn't care a thing about what religious people think or believe, if they didn't try to impose their beliefs upon me and, worse, my children, by abusing the law, the constitution and the state-funded education system. You can't even go into an A+E without being asked what your religion is, with the assumption being that you have to have one, because it's the norm that state-funded services pander to religion. And even when they're caught raping kids wholesale taxpayers will bail them out. When mass graves are found, we'll wait until the nuns who might be implicated die in their comfortable beds before any proper investigation is done.

ratsorizzla

yes of course - i fell into the trap - how could i be so stupid - it must be the church lol - thankyou for telling me how stupid i am - hey can i be in your club? Do you realise that I already know everything you said?? When are you going to grow up? Hey the bbc raped kids and aetheists raped kids and nuns and priests and parsons and ****ing everyone - paedophilia is not entirely an irish catholic thing - its kinda everywhere - i dont know if i said it - im not a member of any religon or organisation cos i have my own brain and body and raping kids is not my thing - or women or men or dogs or chickens - come on - what are you preaching?? Is this like turning on the radio to hear another lgbt womans rights bull****e story - its ****ing never ending now - arseholes preaching to me from every angle

ratsorizzla

If everyone said to themselves - hey Im an individual - Im going to change - Im going to treat everyone with respect - Im not going to be a ****ing puppet for anyone - I am going to make the world a better place - I dont need some **** to tell me what to do - I dont need some arsehole to organise my life I can do it myself - then I would say there would be a massive change - the machine wud stop - the capitalism thing does not work obviously - and we would soon see the bad ***** as they would be weeded out

uck51js9zml2yt

silverharp wrote: »

the one thing Religion did was to get dumb people to follow rules. there hasnt really been a replacement

Define dumb?

looksee

Mod: Ratsorizzla it is clear that you feel passionate about your position, to the point of wanting everyone else to have the same position - of independent thinking! However it would be appreciated if you could do this with civil language and less of the asterisks please.

Samaris

Uhm, atheism doesn't have a position on how to run your life. Not believing in a god means nothing else than not believing in a God. Sure, some people might meet for tea and cakes on Thursdays, but that's their own thing. Or might chat in a forum, but again, that's their own thing.

There's no rules for not believing. One does or does not and that's it, it's really no-one else's business unless someone is shoving it in your face. I don't agree with hunting down Christians to try and convert them and I'd really prefer if Christians didn't hunt and try to convert me. And keep it out of the laws of the country. That's about my position. Whether you personally are a christian, atheist or flying spaghetti-goddist makes no bones to me, so long as you don't try to convert me to it as The One Truth.

smacl

ratsorizzla wrote: »

If everyone said to themselves - hey Im an individual

We're all individuals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

silverharp

Braylee Howling Pensioner wrote: »

Define dumb?

a flippant answer would be the type of people that end up on a Jeremy Kyle type show. :pac: