Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The benefits of religion, and a proposal

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Hence alacarteism.

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


  • Options
    #36
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    stingray75
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭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...


  • Options
    #43
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    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 :confused:


  • Options
    #45
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    bluewolf wrote: »
    No, I really dont think it is :confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #46
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    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"


  • Options
    #47
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    It's in our nature; to rule or be ruled.
    That's true of authoritarian societies, but not of liberal ones.


Advertisement