Is religion obsolete?

MatthewVII wrote: »

Just to clarify, I'm a former Catholic (by birth, not by choice) and now an atheist

Have you officially left the Catholic Church?
I don't know what the official term is, it's not excommunication but something like it.

You seem to have loads of questions for someone who is so sure.

Maybe its about living a better life then you did yesterday.:D

MatthewVII wrote: »

So before anyone assaults me about what I'm thinking, just hear me out.

Just to clarify, I'm a former Catholic (by birth, not by choice) and now an atheist

So what I was thinking, I can see how religion was a necessary institution in the past, but it's functions have largely been replaced.

1) Religion was used as a way to explain phenomena. We now have science for that

2) Religion and the prospect of damnation for sins was a pseudo-threat of punishment for crimes, misdeeds etc. Now we have laws and law enforcement to carry this out

3) Religion was used as a way of explaining why man is on earth and man's place in the cosmos. Biology and astrology can explain both our origins and the nature of the universe at large

Currently, the only purpose religion serves is as a moral compass or guide, which I believe need not be enshrined in a formal tenet as they are basic ways of being a good person which all people should learn as they grow up without need for organised religion. Respect and caring for your fellow man is a social evolutionary mechanism which came about in early society from the observation that together, societies are stronger, not from ethereal forces commanding us to behave so.

With that, I believe the modern concept of religion no longer is necessary for a healthy society, and years of adherence to strict scriptures may have caused portions of society to become maladaptive and narrow (read: homophobia, secularism, disillusionment)

Any thoughts?

Yes. This is the right place to ask these questions. You have asked your questions in an honest and civilised way and for that I doubt you will be subjected to any written 'assault'!

1. Explaining natural phenomena is indeed something that Christian churches tried in the past, but it was never a central reason for their existence.

Science is good and there is no conflict between science and religion, contrary to popular belief. I think some people think there is because they expect more from science or religion than either can deliver.

Science deals with physics (the physical, material universe) and religion deals with metaphysics (beyond physics; or, explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world).

For instance, science has the potential to show us all the things that exist in the universe and how they function, but it cannot answer the questions like "why is there a universe?", "has is any meaning?", "does God exist?", "is the universe a part of or apart from God?" and so on. For this, religion and philosophy offer their services.

2. Laws existed in the old days too. I think that in the past there was more of a sense that morality was universally true, not invented by human constructs, and not relative to cultures. Thus, morality had more credibility and thus inspired people to take it more seriously. It was indeed a characteristic of the past that people followed religious instruction merely for the fear of going to hell. This is not true Christianity or true Catholicism. It is a symptom of lazy clergymen just telling people what to do rather than helping them to follow Jesus.

3. I think that expecting this much from biology and astronomy is a case of expecting too much, coming back to point 1.

Humans do not need a moral guide like religion simply to know what is good morality. For that we have our consciences, which I believe to be God-given.
However we all know that we are not genuinely good people, because we often act against our consciences.

I agree that organised religion has a tendency to dilute and corrupt the original message which gave rise to it, which is how the highly prescriptive Catholic church here in the bad old days came to so much resemble the strict, self-righteous Pharisees that Jesus rebuked in his time.

One last point is that there are religions, and forms of Christianity, other than Catholicism.

Húrin wrote: »

Science is good and there is no conflict between science and religion, contrary to popular belief. I think some people think there is because they expect more from science or religion than either can deliver.

I wish people could get this through their heads.

Húrin wrote: »

I am a Christian and I think sionnach is right. I don't think he was saying that there would be less violence without religion, he just pointed out that churches have caused intolerance.
The New Testament does not teach tolerance as a virtue because Christians are expected to base their behaviour towards others on love, rather than mere tolerance. Historically a lot of Christians Churches have failed to teach this, and it was thus, not practiced.

I agree with the part in bold, but blaming churches is kind of like blaming football for all the scumbags who fight against each other at matches. Those guys would find any reason to fight with other people. Just so happens that football is their chosen reason. Getting rid of football won't make them happier and more peaceful.
Same with NI and "the troubles". Everyone seems happy to blame it on a Catholic versus Prodestant war and then shout about how religion is the cause of all the suffering, but that's not true in this case. It's essentially an Ireland versus England war if you like (no need to delve into the history here for this example) and the religion thing was just used as a means to identify the origin of anyone in particular. It would have been easier if we had different skin colour like in some countries wars, but in this case we had to settle for which religion one was to decide which "side of the fence" one sat on!

Steven Weinberg wrote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Well Dr Weinberg, I do feel it is somewhat unfair that I am refuting you where you cannot defend yourself - Ireland - but I have a point.

Did you ever consider that for bad people to do good, that takes religion? Who are these good and bad people anyway and who are you to make that judgement?