Religion, is it really necessary?

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Religion I believe has greatly damaged human society. Not just because of all the wars and casualties it has caused, but also in its way it interferes with science and moral values, yes moral values. Society always progresses from one generation to another. Racism is a good example. How it was socially acceptable to out right discriminate. Now that is looked down upon in most educated societies. And it was done with out the need for religion. People who give the excuse of not following the Bible word for word when are told about its ludicrous ideas, pick and choice between moral lessons. This clearly shows the human being has innate characteristics which help it decide what is moral.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Religion was never necessary,or needed.Perhaps it helped a few people in the beginning,but it has since overstayed its welcome; the bigots,zealots,capitalists,fascists,and countless other groups which go hand in hand with religion can serve as a testament for its damage.

[bcbm]

i think it is hard to look at something like at least 10,000 years of human history and make a black/white judgment about a widespread and diverse institution like religion. for every religious persecution of humans or rejection of science or whatever there are also instances of religious people pushing science forward, fighting for egalitarian lives and so on. like most human institutions i don't think we can say it has been all good or all bad. religion has had plenty to offer humanity, but also been to its detriment... like most other things, including say, science. this is the lot of our species it seems

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree. Can you agree that religion is absolutely unnecessary for any of that? That the fact that your post makes sense is pure coincedence?

[bcbm]

i think religion is often an excuse more than a cause some of the crusades for instance were to divert pressure on the feudal system from insurgent elements, not some religious cause

[GPDP]

It was never really needed, as its origins lie, as with everything, in material conditions. It just kind of happened.

Unlike a lot of atheists, however, my feelings on the impact of religion are more "meh" than anything. A lot of religious people did a ton of atrocious things and ruled millions with iron fists. A bunch of monks also advanced science and helped the exploited and oppressed at various points. Most people just kinda believe, and do nothing extraordinary as a result of their faith.

Should it be criticized in intellectual debate? Of course. Should it be attacked at each and every level of society? IMO, only where it is truly a repressive organ. I'm not gonna go around endlessly nagging my family to give up on their beliefs when it really doesn't influence their life in the slightest, but if some asshole is going around preaching God's hatred of homosexuals to an audience, or if the president says God told him to invade Iraq, then we're gonna have some problems.

[Black Sheep]

What do you mean necessary? :confused:

Religion was our 1st attempt as a species to tackle with the big questions.
Not surprising, in retrospect, and childish, in modern standards.

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Big questions were answered with out the need for religion. Morality and ethics was tackled by great philosophers before jesus such as plato, Socrates and Confucius. Early Christians even tried destroying work from these 'heatans'. On the issue of diverting attention that is no where evident than in this country. The republicans are taking social issues to the front instead of tackling the economy and other problems. Religion provides no benefit for human society.

[hatzel]

Morality and ethics was tackled by great philosophers before jesus such as plato, Socrates and Confucius.

I particularly love how, for example, Confucius's discussion of heaven and the afterlife, Socrates's claim that good character is a god-given attribute and Plato's writings on Apollo are totally positively indisputably absolutely definitely nothing at all to do with religion or what on Earth are you actually talking about in this 'Religion, is it really necessary?' thread? :confused:

[tbasherizer]

Just like capitalism and feudalism, religion is a social phenomenon that had its uses in the past. As much as I'm angry at it's adherents sometimes, I have to realize that as material conditions change, it will lose its psychological niche and fade away for the most part, just like feudalism and slave society did before it.

[bcbm]

Religion provides no benefit for human society.

all kinds of churches run various humanitarian programs at home and abroad. some of these are fucked up and predicated on religious conversion of course but many are not. again, religion is a complex thing and it isn't simply "good" or "bad," but a mixture of the two.

and this is to say nothing of the art, literature, philosophy and other things that came from religion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Nature exists independently of all philosophy. It is the foundation upon which we human beings, ourselves products of nature, have grown up. Nothing exists outside nature and man, and the higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fantastic reflection of our own essence." - Engels

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

and this is to say nothing of the art, literature, philosophy and other things that came from religion.

"The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." - George Carlin

[F9]

I dont consider it necessary, i do however think that the "week" have run to it over the centuries and made it necessary for them.

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Im referring to all the benefits theologians point when seeing the need for religion. All human progress can and have progressed without the need for religion. It has only held society backwards. There is no debating that as societies become more industrious they leave religion behind. And in regards to the whole old philosophers they were talking about mythology and spoke about the good of humanity and no established religion with rules on how to live their.

Religion does do some good but thats menial. They also do it for an expected heavenly award.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed - Einstein

[hatzel]

Religion does do some good but thats menial. They also do it for an expected heavenly award.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed - Einstein

...whilst the Talmud (for example, it being particularly appropriate given Einstein's Jewishness) says 'do not be as slaves, who serve their master for the sake of reward', so please, explain what your point is, because it really doesn't seem as though you actually have one...

[EspirituDeAmaru]

My point is simple...Religion is not necessary for humanity on any ground whether it be for its moral values, enlightenment or academically as many believers try to push onto others.

[hatzel]

My point is simple...Religion is not necessary for humanity on any ground whether it be for its moral values, enlightenment or academically as many believers try to push onto others.

Okay, quick little...piece of advice...don't make a thread based on some vague claim that nobody has made, and rebuke it with your own vague claims which are, for the most part, entirely false (as has been shown); it's just not good discussion technique.

Though, in truth, I still don't know what the point of this thread is and what it's all about. I just remember some bit where a load of religious types came up with some moral ideas but that didn't count because they weren't Christian and Jesus invented religion and then I got lost, sorry...:confused:

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Well yea it got mixed up. I just wanted to hear some arguments in which religion is vital as so many religion figures always tend to put forward. Do people actually buy the idea that without religion this world would be far worse than it is now?

[hatzel]

Well, if you'd like to address and rebuke Carl Jung's ideas about the fundamentally religious nature of the human psyche, for example, don't let me stop you :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's an absurd question. The world without metaphysical speculation wouldn't be the world as we know it, and the question in of itself presupposes a certain value system which is, in a sense, vaguely religious.

[Gears]

I believe religion was not necessary per se, but a natural development of sorts for explaining great wonders which couldn't be explained at that time.

But just because it has been rooted in so much history, it is definitely not needed today. I think we all know that religion has been shown to be extremely destructive.

[Summerspeaker]

Would it better off without creepy organized religious bent on domination and social control? Certainly. Not so much so if some neo-positivist ascendancy beat spirituality of people.

[Revolution starts with U]

Okay, quick little...piece of advice...don't make a thread based on some vague claim that nobody has made,
Quick little point of reference.... this is a common claim made by the religous. Many think ethics and progress are not possible without some kind of theism, particularly an mosaic (correct?) theism (as far as I know Abraham wasn't a monotheist, historically).

[The Grey Blur]

devrim used to say that the american left had an obsession with race, i didn't really buy that, but it seems from the extent of the threads on here that there is definitely an obsession with "religion". that's probably down to the fact that unlike the rest of the modern capitalist states religious belief there is actually on the rise or very high. so long as you fetishize religion as a peculiar social ill or refuse to analyse it as arising from material conditions you're not only going to have shitty analysis you're going to be utterly incapable of interacting with ordinary workers (many of whom hold vague or institutional religious views) on a personal or political level.

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Haha, alright clearly this is an amateur thread. Only thing I have to say is that religion fills the void left by an evolutionary trait human beings used to have and not that our psyche is naturally religious. Look into Richard Dawkins

[The Grey Blur]

rubbish.

[greenwarbler]

this poll reminds me of a certain song epitomized by one George Straight

[hatzel]

this poll reminds me of a certain song epitomized by one George Straight

Ocean Front Property? :confused:

EDIT:


Only thing I have to say is that religion fills the void left by an evolutionary trait human beings used to have

Although I think Dawkins is a complete idiot who has said very few, if any, note-worthy things, your statement here seems to suggest that religion is a biological necessity element of evolution, to fill this evolutionary void, so we could claim it's as necessary as anything else, such as...wearing glasses when evolution makes our eyes grow too big and then we can't see clearly. Depends whether we mean 'necessary' as in actually, totally 100% necessary (like hydrating oneself is necessary) or just very much desirable (like we might say 'I have to / need to / must wear glasses'). So...yup, religion is necessary (despite the fact that I never at any point felt like making that claim, but it's now been proven to me), let's wrap it up! :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

The discussion in this thread is rather bizarre. It seems, as usual, that "religion" is reified into one discernable thing and that this thing is deemed unnecessary and to be abolished- like a law or a tax. However, far be it from me to spoil the party, but religion cannot be reified into one thing and thus be abolished.

For a start, we are talking about a vast array of beliefs, doctrines, creeds and sets of behaviours based on abstract concepts. There is the key word, abstract concept and ideas. You may as well try to abolish numbers ;)- but let's not go there! ;)

If we take one religion in particular, the heterogenous set of Christianity- even if every Church were destroyed and all Bibles burnt in some kind of Pharaonic purge of all things Christian- it would still not eradicate Christianity- short of taking people and shooting them or throwing them to the lions, and let's face it- that's been done before too. :ohmy:

Now, I don't or at least didn't think leftists were about lining up rows and rows of people and shooting them for their beliefs, perhaps I'm wrong and yes it has been tried before and it didn't work.

[hatzel]

You may as well try to abolish numbers ;)

You could only abolish them if they were invented. If they were discovered, they'll inevitably be rediscovered in the end :laugh:

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Im referring to the evolutionay psychology of religion. The need for it was a process of natural selection in human evolution. Religion is a byproduct of our cognitive brain formation which helped us deal with survival and reproductive measures of our prehistoric past. (this opened up the window for more 'modern' religions). One example is one of over detecting an inanimate object such as a vine for a snake in order to raise our survival rate. People had a vague understanding of what seemed abstract before science. But now seeing as people no longer need that sense of security or explanation of mental modules which before seemed vague religion is not necessary.

Even England with an established church is leaving its religion behind and having the catholic church plead with the people. No need to destroy the churches,synagogues, mosques etc ..they seem to be doing that to themselves..

In a large enough group, some individuals will seem better skilled at these rituals than others and will become specialists. As the societies grow and encounter others, competition will ensue and a "survival of the fittest" effect may cause the practitioners to modify their concepts to provide a more abstract, more widely acceptable version. Eventually the specialist practitioners form a cohesive group or guild with its attendant political goals (religion) - Dawkins

[Revolution starts with U]

You're wrong Rabbi. Dawkins is a dick. But he has created some of the easiest ways to explain evolution to the laymen, and computer models that can show you evolution in action. He's a pretentious douche, but he knows what he's talking aboutl

[hatzel]

Maybe the laymen should just read extensively so that they'll be expert enough to not need these simplified explanations :lol:

[ComradeMan]

You're wrong Rabbi. Dawkins is a dick. But he has created some of the easiest ways to explain evolution to the laymen, and computer models that can show you evolution in action. He's a pretentious douche, but he knows what he's talking aboutl

The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene.
:laugh:

[Summerspeaker]

so long as you fetishize religion as a peculiar social ill or refuse to analyse it as arising from material conditions you're not only going to have shitty analysis you're going to be utterly incapable of interacting with ordinary workers (many of whom hold vague or institutional religious views) on a personal or political level.

The fact that ordinary workers (who?) hold oppressive views does not make them any less pernicious. This applies across the board.

[hatzel]

The fact that ordinary workers (who?) hold oppressive views does not make them any less pernicious. This applies across the board.

Doesn't this rely on your having already unilaterally decided that religious beliefs are automatically 'oppressive views'? I don't know who exactly gave you that power :rolleyes:

[Summerspeaker]

Doesn't this rely on your having already unilaterally decided that religious beliefs are automatically 'oppressive views'? I don't know who exactly gave you that power

Personal experience as well as intellectual analysis shows me the oppressive heart of organized religion. However, because of how religion functions in community and identity, I respect folks who employ it for revolutionary ends. I find sky patriarchs automatically problematic, but if faith promotes social struggle for liberty and equality I'm okay with it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you have anything to offer refuting Dawkins, or just ad hominme/appeal to ridicule?
I've not read Selfish Gene. But, the Blind Watchmaker is by far the best book on evolution I have read; even better than Darwin.

[hatzel]

...even better than Darwin.

As Darwin lived and died in my town (in the broadest possible sense of the term), I have to refute this claim. Gotta stick by the homeboys, ya hear? :)

[The Grey Blur]

The fact that ordinary workers (who?) hold oppressive views does not make them any less pernicious. This applies across the board.
right but you've reified religion (which is why i put it into scare quotes in my first post) into a specific form (oppressive, institutional, reactionary) which you object to. there is a much wider spectrum of religious beliefs and the manner in which they correlate with political beliefs is rarely linear (everything from liberation theology, christian socialisms, vague yet non-institutionalised beliefs, through to oppressive right-wing bigotry exist).

i find it disturbing when people equate religious beliefs with sexism or racism and it's an example of how removed some leftists are from the actually-existing working class.

edit: evolutionary psychology is an incredibly controversial field and applying these dodgy concepts in a blanket fashion is terrible argumentation. also, dawkins is not a very good scientist and his social analysis is crap.

[ComradeMan]

Do you have anything to offer refuting Dawkins, or just ad hominme/appeal to ridicule?
I've not read Selfish Gene. But, the Blind Watchmaker is by far the best book on evolution I have read; even better than Darwin.

Can a gene be selfish? :lol: Is the universe a watch?

Where is the material evidence for memes?

Quote Dawkins: "we are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes"

I'm not saying he doesn't know his science but in my opinion he should stick to it and not venture into philosophy and theology.

[hatzel]

Can a gene be selfish?

Potentially


Is the universe a watch?
Potentially


Where is the material evidence for memes?http://images.memegenerator.net/Religion-Pidgeon/File/130280/Religion-Pidgeon.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

Once agian, idk about the Selfish gene... it never really interested me.
But the blind watchmaker is in response to the William Paley argument. You should read it. It gives a very detailed yet easy to understand explanation for how complexity arises through natural processes.
Your ignorance of Dawkins shows up immediately in that comment of yours. The point of the universe being a "blind watchmaker" is that it DOES NOT have a conciousness. He likens evolution to a sieve or a hole that creates complex patterns merely because of the processes behind it, and not because of some direct design.

[ComradeMan]

...

Potentially is not an argument you can use for scientific evidence in materialistic terms. The Wright brothers had to demonstrate their aircraft, they could not just stand there and say it has the potential to fly and ... stop.

That "internet meme" you posted is not a meme as Dawkins describes them.

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca M.D., a critic of memetics, calls the theory a "pseudoscientific (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)dogma (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Dogma)" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of consciousness (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Consciousness) and cultural evolution (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution)". As a factual criticism, Benitez-Bribiesca points to the lack of a "code script" for memes (analogous to the DNA of genes), and to the excessive instability of the meme mutation mechanism (that of an idea going from one brain to another), which would lead to a low replication accuracy and a high mutation rate, rendering the evolutionary process chaotic.[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Potential_lack_of_philosophical_depth (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-20)
[URL]http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf