The World without Religion

Would the world have been a better place without religion?While I am an athiest I am not entirely decided on this point.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
Would the world have been a better place without religion?

​

While I am an athiest I am not entirely decided on this point.

​

---

I'm not sure I follow your question. Are you talking about "organized religion" in the sense of a more-or-less rigid set of beliefs (the kind of meme complex we refer to when we're talking about "religion" today)? Or are you talking about the fundamental biology-based processes that provided the physiological framework upon which cultural selection acted to bring about "religion" in the first place?In either case, I think the subjective value-judgement "better" is probably the wrong word. Things would certainly have been different. Sorry - I think the question is vacuous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I'm not sure I follow your question. Are you talking about "organized religion" in the sense of a more-or-less rigid set of beliefs (the kind of meme complex we refer to when we're talking about "religion" today)? Or are you talking about the fundamental biology-based processes that provided the physiological framework upon which cultural selection acted to bring about "religion" in the first place?

---

I'm speaking about organized religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

In either case, I think the subjective value-judgement "better" is probably the wrong word. Things would certainly have been different. Sorry - I think the question is vacuous.

---

I'll have to look up the meaning of vacuous.What I'm looking for here is completely subjective. There is no right or wrong answer.If you think a 'better' world would be one without wars the I would expect something like; "The world would be better without religion because of the wars it caused" or whatever. Understand what I'm driving at?Maybe this should have been in under miscellaneous?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

I'm speaking about organized religion.

---

Okay - see below.

quote:

---

I'll have to look up the meaning of vacuous.

---

I used it in the sense of "meaningless", or "without content". Basically, I don't think the question is a very good one (no offense intended).

quote:

---

If you think a 'better' world would be one without wars the I would expect something like; "The world would be better without religion because of the wars it caused" or whatever. Understand what I'm driving at?

---

Got it. I suppose there are two answers to your question.1. If I rephrase it to ask: "Do I think the modern world would be better without religion today?", then I think the answer is "yes". Not because of any "evil" or whatever inherent in religion per se, but rather because I feel that the meme complex we call "religion" is no longer an effective (adaptive) response to the vicissitudes and complexity of modern society. In our evolutionary past, a hypothetical protean "religious" meme probably DID play a positive role (or at least I can envision one). Unfortunately, what worked for our "primitive" ancestors as an adaptive response to the predatory leopard-in-the-night doesn't work in the era of cyberterrorism and nuclear weapons. Again, unfortunately, the "religion" meme complex is almost indestructible - it's been around a REALLY long time, and is highly evolved. It will be very difficult to unseat.2. As to the other way of reading your question: "Did religion play a net positive or negative role historically?" This is the question I consider to be meaningless. There have been a lot of wars and suffering even today that could justifiably be laid at the feet of religion. However, I think that assessment is in error. The blame really resides in the fundamental nature of the hierarchical, aggressive, and extremely territorial species known as Homo sapiens. There have been quite sufficient examples in the past (and today) where individuals have seized on political ideology or other routes to gain power. The problem with religion is that it appears particularly amenable to cynical manipulation by "cheaters" (in game theory terms) desiring to buck the normal reciprocal altruism that provides group cohesion at the family/troop level in our more benign cousins (like the bonobos - chimps are more like us) to gain personal reward. However, I'd probably venture to guess that - in the absence of religion - we'd have come up with some other way to screw each other. In essence, then, the modern world would probably be different - but recognizable - whether or not organized religion existed in the past.Just a quick post. I'd be happy to expand on any of the above if you're interested. Gotta go for the moment, however.

quote:

---

Maybe this should have been in under miscellaneous?

---

I personally think it is a valid topic within the "Faith and Belief" forum.I think organized religion is important as a source of moral guidance. But, like other philosophies, this guidance can be taken to excessive extremes. But the dividing line between proper and excessive is quite subjective, and thus a hazy grey area.Moose

[QUOTE]Originally posted by compmage:
If you think a 'better' world would be one without wars the I would expect something like; "The world would be better without religion because of the wars it caused" or whatever. Understand what I'm driving at?
[/B][/QUOTE]men will always find something to quarrel over no matter how frivalous. most religions set out to prevent these quarrels and promote friendship but that isnt always true and doesnt always happen

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
Would the world have been a better place without religion?

​

While I am an athiest I am not entirely decided on this point.

​

---

My husband and I have talked about this subject before, and we jokingly came to the completely unfeasible conclusion that everybody should get a "little bit of religion" when they are young; just enough to instill good values and a sense of community but not enough to stifle critical thinking and a questioning mind.I think that if we could have religion kind of like we have Santa Clause it would be good. Use the simplistic version of God when we are small to get the points across, but have that childish way of kind of fade away as we get older.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

You mean, of course, what is the value of religion from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise religion is worth its face value, saving people in the afterlife.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You mean, of course, what is the value of religion from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise religion is worth its face value, saving people in the afterlife.

---

Well, I would maybe state it like the value of religion from an agnostic perspective. Or maybe, from a cultural or practical perspective.

Gene gave it black and white terms. You've managed to haze it down to grey terms; like what's practical and agnostic.Gene seems to cut-to-the-chase; albeit, agnosticim (that fence-straddling arbitrary term that seems to invoke a lothing for both scientific (empirical) atheism and/or theism alike) may have some credence in this purely philosophical inquiry.But, philosophically, agnosticism seems the ultimate cop-out. Like saying, It's all just totally arbitrary, without any scientific nor metaphysical conclusions to be drawn.[This message has been edited by Philip, 09-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Gene gave it black and white terms. You've managed to haze it down to grey terms; like what's practical and agnostic.

​

Gene seems to cut-to-the-chase; albeit, agnosticim (that fence-straddling arbitrary term that seems to invoke a lothing for both scientific (empirical) atheism and/or theism alike) may have some credence in this purely philosophical inquiry.

​

But, philosophically, agnosticism seems the ultimate cop-out. Like saying, It's all just totally arbitrary, without any scientific nor metaphysical conclusions to be drawn.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 09-02-2002]

---

No, agnosticism is fully embracing empiricism, and, to my mind, the most honest conclusion.To be agnostic means that I don't know if the supernatural exists or not, because there is no way that I can tell by using my five senses.Therefore, I don't know if God exists or not, or gods, or whatever, and I leave it at that.Very simple.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

To be agnostic means that I don't know if the supernatural exists or not, because there is no way that I can tell by using my five senses.

​

Therefore, I don't know if God exists or not, or gods, or whatever, and I leave it at that.

---

I hope that you have not fallen into the trap of thinking that atheism is a belief that god does not exists. Since atheism is simply the lack of a 'god belief', I can't see the difference between an agnostic saying 'I don't know' and an atheist. Or am I missing something?------------------
compmage

[QUOTE]Originally posted by compmage:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

To be agnostic means that I don't know if the supernatural exists or not, because there is no way that I can tell by using my five senses.

​

Therefore, I don't know if God exists or not, or gods, or whatever, and I leave it at that.

---

Hmmm, I have had atheists describe atheism both ways to me; "without faith" and "there is no God".If you describe Atheism as "without faith", then my views could be described as Atheist. [QUOTE]I hope that you have not fallen into the trap of thinking that atheism is a belief that god does not exists. Since atheism is simply the lack of a 'god belief', I can't see the difference between an agnostic saying 'I don't know' and an atheist. Or am I missing something?[/B][/QUOTE][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Hmmm, I have had atheists describe atheism both ways to me; "without faith" and "there is no God".

---

I sometimes wish I could get my hands on these people. The word atheism litterally means without (a-) theism (a god belief). Saying that atheism is a belief that god doesn't exists is like saying that an amoral person has 'bad' moral standards (he doesn't, he has no moral stardards).------------------
compmage

compmage and Schraf:There's an interesting philosophical disagreement between different forms of atheism. From the Internet Infidels discussion boards:"strong atheism" generally refers to the philosophical position "There is/are no god(s)" - an active statement. Since it is essentially a philosophical position (i.e., not necessarily scientific), it doesn't have to conform to scientific logic/epistemology. IOW, in one sense it is a statement of "faith" like any other philosophy."weak atheism" generally refers to the position, "There is nothing that leads one to believe in, or requires, the existence of god(s)" - a somewhat less strong statement than the above. This statement leaves a bit of a door open to new evidence, and is probably closer to being consistent with a "pure rationalist" worldview.There is a substantial quantitative/qualitative difference between strong and weak, here. Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all gods. Others limit their atheism to specific gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making general denials."agnostic" generally refers to what schraf described, "There is no way to answer the question" (strict agnostic), or alternatively, "The evidence is inconclusive one way or the other" (empirical agnostic). Agnostic and weak atheist are often confused - in fact there may some overlap between weak atheism and empirical agnosticism.In other words, it is safe to generalize that atheism is characterized by a "lack of belief", but there are shadings and gradations in the way people apply (or how strongly they state) the disbelief. Dawkins is a strong (and quite vocal) atheist. Gould was what I would characterize as a weak atheist. Futuyma is probably agnostic (of the second type). Huxley was a strict agnostic (first type), etc.The key point here is that the philosophical stance "atheist" is a generic term covering a wide divergeance of beliefs, opinions, and worldviews. I think it would be a fallacy of the "no true Scotsman" kind to claim that people who state "God does not exist" are not atheists. And vice-versa, of course.