"Imagine no religion..."

Hi, Hoot Mon. So, do you think a world without religion would also be a world without capitalism?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

One hell of a good question, Bluejay! Doesn't the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, if effect, displace religion with communism? In a world without religion we might not need either capitalism or communism. Someday I think we will evolve there, but we humans are still juvenile delinquents in our growth toward that level of maturity. I predict the evolution of religion will also follow suit: instead of the focus being on getting rich as hell and going to heaven, it will shift over to compassion, charity, and good will. The only thing standing in our way will be testosterone, so all the men will need to be castrated. And all the women will probably need to be lobotomized...Nah, it will never work. In the absence of religion, there would be a cascade of hedonism to fill the craven void. And that, as we know, is good business for capitalism.”HM

Hi, Hoot. So, what do you think will be the view on "human rights" in a world without religion?I see a couple of possibilities:

1. Total hedonism, anarchism and no consideration as to the dignity or value of a human life---this is clearly what most of the religious would predict in your (Lennon's) "no religions" scenario.
2. Recognition of cooperation and social order as a tool for self-preservation and/or an easier/happier/better life, very similar in most practical ways to modern civilization---no doubt most atheists see this as the most likely outcome.

-----Personally, I tend to lean towards the second option, but I don’t see it is absolute, either way (i.e., if we replayed your scenario multiple, independent times, we might find both 1 and 2 happening).I have a tough time imagining a world without religion of some sort, though. I mean, every civilization and remote tribe that I have ever heard of has had something resembling spiritual, mythological or supernatural beliefs. I personally believe that religion is an almost inescapable outcome of human consciousness, so I don’t think the human-like intelligence could evolve without resulting in some form of religion.I sometimes wonder whether religion is one of those aspects of humans that helped us create civilization as we know it. I want to believe that a purely practical mindset would be capable of producing civilization, but I can also see how such a mindset in a Paleolithic tribe could become bogged down in survivalism and resistant to change and development.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Actually this isn't much different from what I see already. I attribute this to religion,not as religion, but to all the various denominations which in many cases, can't stand each other.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

What seems endemic or symptomatic of your dilemma is not religion in itself, it's mankind, as mankind is the common denomonator, not religion. Religion is just one more thing man seeks to corrupt for his own ends. Whether there are religions or no religions, something cult-like can spawn out of the most seemingly innocuous of things. You destroy Buddhism today, tommorrow something far sinister will take its place. And then you are left wondering how Buddhism was so bad in the first place. You paint with an awfully big brush. People will find a way to exploit another human being. That in no way means that religion is either the cause or the necessary outcome. Religion was an excellent vessel to corrupt because of its trusting and forgiving nature. I mean, if you read the gospel narratives, the entire thing condemns such things from top to bottom. But instead you would rather assimilate the corrupted in to those who resisted sin. You've done this by virtue of association. That is neither fair nor is it intelligent.If by saying, "I'm a Christian," makes you a Christian, without any evidence in that life and despite contradiction, then by simply saying "I am an atheist." regardless of whether my actions or beliefs stand up to the definition, I get to be an atheist. Do you see where I'm going with this? You are charging all of religion with the death of a thousand qualifications. Consequently, your own qualifications. No more stress or disease or poverty is the outcome of a world with no religion? What relevance does religion bear on any of those things, particularly the biological one? You know, this was the world envisioned by Stalin and Lenin... Too bad they ended up perpetrating the biggest crimes in all of humanity, which make the atrocity of the Crusades pale in comparison. Stalin attempted to wipe out any notion of God from history. It was the largest massacre the world has ever seen. How quickly you forget that without an objective moral value, the latter is always worse than the former. Because what is to stop an completely amoral human being, where only the threat of violence upon them is the only real deterrant? If a person like that cannot be reasoned with through morality, what will break their grip on such a grim reality?The utopia devolves in to a dystopia, as the delusions of granduer crumble in to oblivion. Don't be so naive to think that by destroying religion all social ills will all but vanish away. Think of this from a naturalistic stand point. If naturalism is all we have, then evidently nature has selected religious affinity for some purpose. That should seem bleedingly obvious given how pervasive it is, and how fascinated man is with spirituality, the supernatural, and the divine.Be careful what you wish for... You just might get it.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

We can already tell from experience that (1) doesn't happen. The reality appears to be undramatic. These two charts show levels of theism in two traditionally monotheistic areas of the world. {ABE} Dark blue is high theism. SourceThe western European countries which have never had anti-theistic regimes and where any religion can be practised freely are the most interesting to me. Note the variety. The big fall off in religiosity in Europe has come since 1950. It's interesting, because we may be looking at the least religious societies ever.A period under anti-theistic regimes doesn't seem to have made much difference in the east, which shows the same variety. That makes sense to me. Who the hell would change their private beliefs with a change of government?Edited by bluegenes, : clarifying chartsEdited by bluegenes, : correct link

That already exists now with religion. Society either continues with relative cooperation with occasional spats, it improves markedly, or total hedonism destroys the lot of us. I agree. So one of two conclusions could be drawn from these, and this is in no way a prognostication: Either the pervasiveness of the religious affinities is evidence of something beyond the physical, or it is evidence that nature selected religion to serve a beneficial purpose. Either way it is there for a good reason. Why then does someone Dawkins fight it with tooth and nail?On the one hand showing the effects of global terror via Muslim extrmeists or the Crusades presents compelling evidence of the dangers. But why is that the focal point when it is undisputed that far more benevolence has come out of it at the same time? Nothing of the mindset of "Paleolithic Tribes" is known. I mean, absolutely nothing whatsoever. And this is partly what I was referring to earlier about assigning "mythical biological reasons" for why humans are the way they are. Staunch atheists often rail against any form of theism as being a relic of a past that is more injurious than it is beneficial. And they claim that it is all concocted out of elaborate myths. But what of strict naturalists? Do they not also have elaborate myths for why things are the way they are? You watch the Discovery Channel and through wild imaginations, they guess as to things like behavior of animals long dead, only they present it as if fact. They invent vocalizations, social interactions, and even things like thoughts. They could not possibly deduce as much information as they invent simply by looking at bones.We here the load roars of the T-Rex, a vicious meateater who targets its prey by movement. Is any of that information verifiable? No, it really isn't. It is hypothesized. Yet ask a child what a T-Rex sounds like, what it ate, how it tracked its prey, and you can almost guarantee that the fantasies of scientists have made an indelible impression on those impressionable ones.Somehow it is seen as "cruel" to teach people about the life of Jesus, because it is assumed that it is all mythical. And really, whether or not it is mythical doesn't undermine that Jesus serves as a perfect moral compass. Who can dispute that, epsecially going point by point? Yet it is not seen as cruel to tell elaborate and mythical biological stories, none of which can be corroborated with any veracity.These are the times in which we live...

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I have to agree. Paleolithic tribes were not yet ready for a utopian democracy where reason and logic displace belief and spirituality (i.e., the primitive condition). It's an evolutionary thing. First we have the spooks and then we get the facts (i.e., from Jaynes' bicameral mind to fully formed consciousness). In a world without religion there would be no place for the spooks to hide. So the real questions becomes: If we abolish religion do the spooks go away? And if the spooks go away will something else replace them?"Imagine no religion..." could be taken to mean "Imagine no delusion..."”HM

But I can't help imagining what a world would be like without institutionalized delusion. I want to know what would happen if religion disappeared from the face of the earth. Would humans revert to predator-prey relationships amongst each other? Or would we finally drop our penchant for natural aggression in favor of universal cooperation? Is the eat-or-be-eaten gene so fixed in the human population that we could never evolve beyond our natural instincts? Religion does not seem to help very much in that regard. But science certainly does!”HM

I see no reason to assume that, we'd act like social primates. We'd be more inclined to be aggressive towards 'out groups' and support and even make significant sacrifices for our 'in group'. Religion is one way to define groups, so I'd imagine there are less reasons to act poorly to someone - but there'll remain plenty of others (for example, which end of an egg they eat from). We have evolved beyond our natural instincts many times already, I see no reason to assume that we won't again, assuming we survive long enough. I do not think there is any eat or be eaten gene: though 'Male Bonded Coalitionary Violence' may have significant genetic background. (I don't think the link is the best explanation, but its a good starting point, google provides better and longer discussions)I'm sure we can reduce this by engaging in Eugenics. We could start by neutering violent criminals and maybe provide incentives for pacifistic types to create more offspring. I don't think it's possible, and I don't think that it is necessarily a good idea even if it was.

But we're going to evolve somewhere, and I'm guessing we'll leave religion behind when we do.In an interesting book by Authur S. Iberall, Toward A General Science of Viable Systems (1972), he sees the evolution of moral code in five stages:

quote:

---

1. The "traffic policeman" code. The crush of human traffic requires that an orderly sequencing of human conduct is developed. (Possibly this came into existence 6,000 years ago, in the law 4,000 years ago.)

​

2. The code of justice. The rights of other individuals and groups are to be respected. (Possibly this came into existence 4,000 years ago, in law 2,000 years ago. It is quite generally codified by today, with only a few exceptions. Our own Constitutional Congress in capturing the intellectual development of that century represented the beginning of its general codification.)

​

3. The code of love. Beyond respecting other individuals' rights, the individual is fully responsible for the quality of his interpersonal relations with others. (It possibly came into existence 2,000 years ago but has yet been accepted in law and is only practiced to limited extent.)

---

That takes us to, say, Christianity. But what does the future hold for us beyond "the code of love"? (I might even say the code of religion.) Iberall goes on to speculate:

quote:

---

These are the moral codes known to man today. Two more may be projected.

​

4. The code of responsibility. Beyond being responsible for the quality of his interpersonal relations, the individual is fully responsible for the consequences of his acts. (Barely in existence, it may be considered to be the foundation for real professional ethics. Today, we would be considered too ignorant to know how to apply this morality. It is not unreasonable that a growth of all the sciences may make this a feasible code within 2,000 years.)

​

5. The code of olmniscience. Beyond responsibility for the consequences of his acts within his existing capabilities, the individual is responsible for modifying the characteristics of other individuals for the optimal preservation of the species. It would be considered improper meddling. Yet a target of 4,000 years hence is not beyond imagination.)

---

If Iberall's sequence is meaningful, it implies (I think) that religion will be left behind for something a whole lot better.”HM

Hi, Bluegenes.I'll never cease to be amazed by the amount of data you can procure about theism and atheism in Europe and America.But, what do these graphs have to do with hedonism in atheistic societies?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Nemesis Juggernaut. I think Dawkins and Bluegenes fight it because you’ve created a dichotomy where it likely is more of a polychotomy. For instance, your second option (an evolutionary advantage for religion) does not cover all the alternatives to the truthfulness of religion. There is no reason to believe that religion would be selected for in an evolutionary process.It may be quite neutral, in fact: as long as the primitive tribe is able to successfully collect enough food to feed themselves, and to defend themselves against wild animals and the elements, what difference could it possibly make what mystical stories they told around the campfire? Even if those stories served an evolutionary purpose (e.g., to strengthen community bonds), it wouldn’t make much difference if it was just small talk about the fish that got away or a creative, mythological narrative about where the sparkly dots in the night sky came from.Alternatively, religion could be a side-effect of something that is selected for. For instance, abstract intelligence has obvious survival value, as do our emotions. Abstract intelligence could, however, lead to pondering, which could arouse emotions, which cause us to invent religion to deal with them. But, since the survival value outweighs the emotional baggage, the traits persist.So, you’re right that the persistance of religion could be evidence of the supernatural, or that it could be evidence of an evolutionary advantage for the religious. But, you err in presenting these as the only alternatives.Religion could, in fact, exist for no real reason at all. I did not imply that we did know anything about Paleolithic mindsets (though I am rather inclined to disagree with your statement). Here's what I said: See, I presented two possible outcomes of a purely practical mindset in a Paleolithic tribe: it might lead to an advanced and enlightened civilization, or it might lead to a non-progressive, survivalistic barbarian culture. Perhaps my introspective writing style glossed over my point in the sentence. But, I didn't actually assume that such a mindset did or didn't exist in Paleolithic tribes.Basically, my position is that a lack of religion could be good or bad. I don’t believe it would seriously alter the basic patterns in social structure and development that we see in our real, religion-inundated world.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

There is no reason to assume much of anything from an evolutionary perspective, least of all complex social issues completely unique to humans, such as, but not limited to, religious affinities. Then perhaps we should take a neutral position. Good scientific inquiry takes a neutral position -- a kind of scholarly detachment. None, unless they were attempting to describe the ineffible. You know, some of the most basic things in life still can't be explained by physical science. That is to say, there is no significance unless of course these stories have some element of truth to them -- spirituality. The fact that it is so deeply ingrained within the human conscious is at least worthy of something more than total incredulity or scorn, wouldn't you say? I am curious as to why it is investigated so little from biological point of view. They don't talk about fish that got away thousands of years later, but they do talk about the creator of hosts... And if they wonder about the sparkly dots in the sky, they also wonder of their (stars) creator. How you reduce this deep inate desire in man is not being fair to the grandeur of it, even supposing it is nothing but massive wild imagination and a massive denial that has spanned millennia by peoples of have never met or influenced another. It served a purpose long ago, and it serves a purpose today whether or not we would like to admit it. And other animals would be exempt from this, how? Though I guess I am unclear on what you mean by abstract intelligence? Is this a roundabout way of mentioning philosophy? Could you name another? It seems like you simply repackaged what I've already said and presented it as a new hypothesis. There are only two sources for existence. Either the natural or the supernatural. If you can think of a third I'd be happy to hear it. There is always a reason for something. It does not mean that everything is guided by the hand of some sentience beyond us, but there is always a reason that could be apart from cognizance... though you'd be hard pressed not hear naturalists invariably gravitate towards anthropomorphizing nature. Seems almost like an inevitability. Perhaps not you, but if we're going to be honest here it is worth mentioning that many, many do. And the way I see it is that dressing up these hypotheses as truth, however subtle or tacit it comes across, could easily be construed as fact to a layman. And isn't that what some of them are going for?There are deep philosophical questions in both theism and atheism that present conundrums for one another. This is not to say these tough questions are insoluble, but suffice it to say that it is with good reason that both theism and atheism exist. As much as theists and atheists would like to present their counterparts as being totally vacuous and unfounded, it really is not the case. It could go either way, I suppose. On the one hand, religion unchecked produces countries like Argentina... not exactly picturesque of a theocracy. But on the other hand, religion unchecked has produced countries exaclty picturesque of a theocracy full of its entrapments... namely, Iran. On the flipside of the coin, as the result of little to no religion, you could have a country like Sweden... Not exactly hordes of insulent and godless monsters roving the streets in search for blood. But conversely it could spawn brutal dictatorships, totalitarian oligarchies, and monstrous despots of the godless persuasion, such as Mao and Stalin had envisioned.Indeed it could all go awry or come together in so many different directions. And really, it is too complex to indict theism or atheism as the sole culprit for a good or bad society. It is merely one factor out of many that could determine how well a society is run.My point is that perhaps only focusing on the bad things that come out of either is perhaps not optimal. It sure doesn't bring people together. It just causes more dissension and fosters an Us vs Them atmosphere.But such is the way of the world. If we could live in total harmony, we would have done it by now. Seems like a crying shame when that is what we all really want in our heart of hearts.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I don't know. It would be very presumptuous in either direction I suppose. As Bluejay touched on, we could all fall in to hedonism and total anarachy from a loss of moral absolutes, or everything would come together and we'd all skip off in to the sunset holding hands.The only thing that I am suggesting is that you not lose sight of the big picture. I don't think that religion is the cause of man's problems. I think man is the cause of man's problems and his depth for depravity. A religion, when weilded incorrectly for personal gain, certainly could be described as the summation of all things evil and wrong in this world. But the same could be said of just about anything. Because conversely, what if everyone actually did live as someone like Jesus prescribed??? Can anyone really find fault in him, per say? Or is it his followers who screw it up? I wouldn't go that far. Science and religion serve very crucial roles. Science helps us with pragmatic things. It helps clothe us, feed us, etc... It is indispensible, really. But things like philosophy and religion serve to offer the backdrop to why we would do these things in the first place -- why something would even be considered either good or bad. Science and the philosophy of science are both indispensible in their own right. But even as fundamentally good they both are, they both can go so wrong with a little manipulation.Unless of course you think that tortuous Nazi medical experiments, done in the name of science, was a good thing...

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"