A world without religion?

[ComradeBadger]

Isn't it also possible to argue that the Stalinist and Nazi regimes relied in a sense on political religion, on things reminiscent or characteristic of religion? As in blind devotion to essentially unsupported ideals?

I'd agree with that.

HEGEMONY is what is wrong with the world. Religion is a type of hegemony.

 

[kirovman]

At least organised religion is.

 

[Kadayi]

You seem to be comparing deaths caused by religion to deaths not caused by religion to justify why religion isn't such a bad thing.

I'm merely pointing out that religion isn't the big bogey man it's made out to be. Personally I think there are much bigger fish to fry . I kind of suspected that after that post innumerable people would try and associate religious motivations to the actions of various despots in order to reverse the argument, and I was right. :angel:

I think it's very important to separate the actions of politically powerful individuals (albeit that they might claim religious motivations, or have them attributed to them) from the actual sanctions of genuine religious organisations and accepted religious instruction. Certainly it can be argued that both Hitler and Stalin may have been personally inspired in their polgroms by religious intolerance of one kind or another, but it is false to claim that these acts were sanctioned by the wider religious communities, or are representative of them as a whole.

If you're going down the route of trying to back end motivations, you might as well cast J.D.Salinger as an accessory to John Lennons death. If Mark Chapman had never read Catcher in the Rye would he have still shot Lennon back in 1980?

HEGEMONY is what is wrong with the world. Religion is a type of hegemony.

Hegemony has been with us since the dawn of time. There will always be the weak and needy and conversely the strong and resourceful. If it is an inherent part of civilisation it can't really be labelled as wrong, it can merely be acknowledged that it exists, and in the circumstance that the recognised hegemony isn't favourable to ones personal situation or beliefs, then the best that one can do is actively work to supplanting it with one that is, but it would be naive to assume that the change is any different. You are merely changing who controls the reins of hegemony.

As I've said in earlier posts I'm all in favour of the idea of state run moral instruction being delivered to children in schools. Long term I'd see that as the perfect mechanism for providing a platform for removing the need for churches, whose only useful role imo is to provide moral instruction in this day and age. However long term having a unified moral code being delivered to the people might not be that beneficial. What might be considered morally acceptable at one stage might become unacceptable at another, without alternative views those distinctions might not become apparent (think brave new world).

 

[Nemesis6]

The world wouldn't neccesarily be better without religion, to claim that it would be would be a little ignorant of the foundation of religion: Our will to somehow understand ourselves or existance better; to make sense of the world, is most likely what spawned it in the first place.

Science damn you, religion! By the name of the Great Dawkins, we shall banish thee!

 

[Biohazurd]

I think the world would be alot different. In the fact that most religions require or suggest that its followers practice peace. So i think that a world with out religion would be very violent.

 

[15357]

I think the world would be alot different. In the fact that most religions require or suggest that its followers practice peace. So i think that a world with out religion would be very violent.

Their peace, not ours.

 

[Stigmata]

I think the world would be alot different. In the fact that most religions require or suggest that its followers practice peace. So i think that a world with out religion would be very violent.

Religions only require you to say that you practice peace. Even then, there are very few people who will follow their religion so very literally. Everyone picks and chooses which parts to follow and which parts to discard, so just because a religion advocates peace is no guarantee that its followers will.

And judging by the wording, you seem to be of the opinion that only religion can uphold moral values. How is this possible, exactly? I've had minimal religious influence, and I in fact reject religion on a daily basis, yet I'm far more open-minded, peaceful, and rational than most anyone you'd care to mention.

 

[Kadayi]

And judging by the wording, you seem to be of the opinion that only religion can uphold moral values. How is this possible, exactly? I've had minimal religious influence, and I in fact reject religion on a daily basis, yet I'm far more open-minded, peaceful, and rational than most anyone you'd care to mention.

Stigmata

Is in not fair to say that the bulk of your moral instruction has been derived from the instructions of your parents and the interaction you have experienced daily within your community? If so then you have to consider where those instructions came from originally (from your grandparents,etc). Down the line you'll eventually find the bulk of those moral lessons come from religious sources of one kind or another (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you being the classic). Some people would like you to believe that we are born innately good, but this is a fallacy.

 

[Gray Fox]

Stigmata

Is in not fair to say that the bulk of your moral instruction has been derived from the instructions of your parents and the interaction you have experienced daily within your community? If so then you have to consider where those instructions came from originally (from your grandparents,etc). Down the line you'll eventually find the bulk of those moral lessons come from religious sources of one kind or another (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you being the classic). Some people would like you to believe that we are born innately good, but this is a fallacy.

Wrong. If we followed religious moral we would long ago have gone extinct. Morals come from 600 million years of evolution telling us to play nice. If our ancestors didn't do so that hundreds of million years ago when mammals were no bigger then mice, we wouldn't be here now, being good is a matter of basic survival, not some higher purpose. Thats why you get such a ****ing feeling in your stomach when you do something bad, why your pulse races, why you get pissed at injustice. Our basic morals come from that. our higher ones come from philosophers, most western laws stem from Humanism thinking .

 

[Stigmata]

Stigmata

Is in not fair to say that the bulk of your moral instruction has been derived from the instructions of your parents and the interaction you have experienced daily within your community? If so then you have to consider where those instructions came from originally (from your grandparents,etc). Down the line you'll eventually find the bulk of those moral lessons come from religious sources of one kind or another (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you being the classic). Some people would like you to believe that we are born innately good, but this is a fallacy.

And likewise, go further down the line and you'll see that religious moral guidelines were created by humans.

 

[Kadayi]

Wrong. If we followed religious moral we would long ago have gone extinct.

Do you even remotely have any evidence to support that somewhat left field position? I mean we've lived with religious instruction of myriad kinds since the dawn of civilisation over 10,000 years ago so I'm all ears to learn how all religious instruction ultimately ends up resulting in mankind's extinction. Or let me guess..you're just not comfortable with the reality of where much of your personal morality comes from? You are born and raised in a predominately Christian/Muslim/Hindu society, you will find that you do adopt Christian/Muslim/Hindu ideas of right and wrong simply through social osmosis. No man is and island and you are in denial if you believe otherwise.

Morals come from 600 million years of evolution telling us to play nice.

Evolution doesn't tell you to play nice (far from it, as any psychologist of worth with testify), your parents/guardians/schoolteachers instruct you to, same way that animals instruct their young through example and due correction (though I've yet to see a cat or dog teach morals it has to be said). You are not hard wired to be naturally good, if that were so we would have neither wars or a need for prisons. That both still exist kind of ruins your argument. Also you grossly overestimate the influence the Greek philosophers have had over the world until recent times.

@Stigmata

The notion of socially correct behaviour amongst humans most certainly pre dates formalised religion, but the recording of those early moral codes generally has occurred through the mythologising of them into religious works/legends as a means to efficiently convey them to others, though discourse rather than individual instruction (which is time consuming). We are an incredibly sophisticated and advanced species compared to any other found on this planet in terms of achievement and social complexity. Without the invention of writing we would have never risen to the heights we have since reached.

 

[delusional]

I mean we've lived with religious instruction of myriad kinds since the dawn of civilisation over 10,000 years ago so I'm all ears to learn how all religious instruction ultimately ends up resulting in mankind's extinction.

We have lived with religious instruction for the last 10,000 years, but religion has evolved with humanities morals as well. Do you see Jews following the rules set out in deuteronomy? Do you see Jews murdering whole cities because one person converts to a religion other than judaism? Clearly religion has evolved along with humanities morals. But if religion didn't evolve then we would be in trouble, because we wouldnt advance as a civilization, since religion wouldn't have a way with dealing with modern problems. Therefore leaving not much room for advancement.

Evolution doesn't tell you to play nice

I guess your not familiar with the selfish gene.

In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

[Cole]

You are not hard wired to be naturally good,

Define "Good". What is good to one person, may be "Bad" to another.

What if one person looks at a country and see's them as "Bad". If he lets them continue there ways he may see that as being "Bad". So he tries to change there ways or kill them so he is cleansing the "Bad" and in his eyes being "Good".

Good and Bad are interchangable words depending on the opinion.

I'd also like to point this new article out:
http://www.physorg.com/news99581802.html

Neuroscientists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health say experiments they conducted have led them to conclude unselfishness is not a matter of morality, The Washington Post reports.

Rather, the two say altruism is something that makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

Grafman and Moll have been scanning the brains of volunteers who were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.

They are among scientists across the United States using imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.

The results are showing many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, opening up a new window on what it means to be good.

 

[Kadayi]

But if religion didn't evolve then we would be in trouble, because we wouldn't advance as a civilization, since religion wouldn't have a way with dealing with modern problems. Therefore leaving not much room for advancement.

Who's arguing that religion isn't redundant? Do you people even read posts a few pages back, or do you just jump in on the last few posts?
My point to stigmata was that it's naive to assume that one isn't touched by the influence of religion even if one isn't an advocate oneself simply because of the resonance of those teachings throughout history and society. I'll repeat: No man is an Island :dozey:

I guess your not familiar with the selfish gene.

Dawkins arguments only hold water when dealing with low end species, humanity is far too socially complex, cerebral and lacking in primal survival requirements (within the first world at least) to suffer the dominance of gene demands. From the same article:-

These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding not to breed because they'd be miserable raising children, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.

Define "Good". What is good to one person, may be "Bad" to another.

I'm failing to see what relevance this has to the discussion tbf. Personal perspective and socially acceptable behaviour/actions are distinctly different things.

I'd also like to point this new article out:
http://www.physorg.com/news99581802.html

If people are hard wired to be generous as the article claims how come we have so many homeless on our streets? Selfishness is hard to measure is it not?

 

[Gray Fox]

Who's arguing that religion isn't redundant? Do you people even read posts a few pages back, or do you just jump in on the last few posts?
My point to stigmata was that it's naive to assume that one isn't touched by the influence of religion even if one isn't an advocate oneself simply because of the resonance of those teachings throughout history and society. I'll repeat: No man is an Island :dozey:



Dawkins arguments only hold water when dealing with low end species, humanity is far too socially complex, cerebral and lacking in primal survival requirements (within the first world at least) to suffer the dominance of gene demands. From the same article:-

Have you actually bothered to read the bible or Koran or any other major religious book. I bet you haven't have you, because if you did you would know that they have he death penalty for basically everything. If we followed religious rules, word by word and lived by their moral we would all be dead.

And stop ****ing arguing against natural evolution built in moral. Because thats beyond restarted seeing as basically everyone here, apart from a few sociopaths have experienced first hand how powerful and persuasive our built in moral code can be. That very code, that feeling in your gut, is where all higher philosophical morals stem from.

 

[Kadayi]

Have you actually bothered to read the bible or Koran or any other major religious book. I bet you haven't have you, because if you did you would know that they have he death penalty for basically everything. If we followed religious rules, word by word and lived by their moral we would all be dead.

Well I've read enough religious books to know that they are all quite distinct and not part of some over arching scheme, or remotely follow the same rules and guidelines as you seem to be claiming, so I'm clearly better read than you are.

And stop ****ing arguing against natural evolution built in moral. Because thats beyond restarted seeing as basically everyone here, apart from a few sociopaths have experienced first hand how powerful and persuasive our built in moral code can be. That very code, that feeling in your gut, is where all higher philosophical morals stem from.

So basically because you can't formulate a cohesive argument to counter my position, I'm a retarded Sociopath? I'm sorry but you'll have to do much better than name calling to convince me that all of our modern moral behaviour is derived solely from natural evolution. As a species we stepped off the evolutionary treadmill of natural selection a long time before we built cities and temples.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

WAs a species we stepped off the evolutionary treadmill of natural selection a long time before we built cities and temples.

Are you ****ing insane? We haven't stopped evolving; we haven't "stepped off the treadmill" we're getting taller, more resitant to disease, fatter, feebler and theres (some) evidence were getting smarter. Creatures never stop evolving, people who say things like that are idiots. Don't try to argue against Richard Dawkins about evolution when you clearly do not understand it. He's a biologist and an incredibly smart guy, along with degrees and stuff like that. Your just a guy on a forum.

 

[jaguar_987]

Religion was used a method of controlling people, nothing more.... get rid of it.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well I've read enough religious books to know that they are all quite distinct and not part of some over arching scheme, or remotely follow the same rules and guidelines as you seem to be claiming, so I'm clearly better read than you are.

I see then. So you have read the old testament which argues the death penalty by toning for
men having long hair,
for children not obeying their parents,
for cursing your parents,
for (men) not being circumcised,
for eating bloody meat,
for girls not being virgins when wed,
working on Sundays
And you are going to say that if we obeyed those laws, because those are the actual laws our whole society would not have perished, is that what you're saying you well versed veteran you?

So basically because you can't formulate a cohesive argument to counter my position, I'm a retarded Sociopath? I'm sorry but you'll have to do much better than name calling to convince me that all of our modern moral behaviour is derived solely from natural evolution. As a species we stepped off the evolutionary treadmill of natural selection a long time before we built cities and temples.

Well actually I wasn't calling you a sociopath, although if you do not have those feelings and lack any empathy you are one, this the legal definition.
Now I do not even know how to continue arguing with you about this, this is like arguing with someone that the sun will come up every day, that you will fall down if you jump of a bridge. You're arguing against something which almost every one of us experiences on a daily basis.

Now I'm sure I am not alone when I say that my biggest understanding for the laws that govern us comes from that gut feeling, I know stealing is wrong because when I do it I feel like shit, I know killing is wrong because when I see it I feel like shit. I can relate to those laws because of it.
And sure humans are influenced by others, I'm not denying that, I'm sure if you constantly get positive feedback on something like rape or stealing you're eventually going to think it's good.

We also see the same behavior in other animals, we see it in big mammals, and small insects, and everything in between. Therefor you can conclude that this evolutionary trait is hundreds of millions of years old. Nature saw it fit to give animals this trait long before it saw it fit to give us bigger brains. That should tell you something.

 

[Solaris]

Are you ****ing insane? We haven't stopped evolving; we haven't "stepped off the treadmill" we're getting taller, more resitant to disease, fatter, feebler and theres (some) evidence were getting smarter. Creatures never stop evolving, people who say things like that are idiots. Don't try to argue against Richard Dawkins about evolution when you clearly do not understand it. He's a biologist and an incredibly smart guy, along with degrees and stuff like that. Your just a guy on a forum.

No, I'm pretty sure that Richard Dawkins agree's that our evolution has slowed down to the point where it's effectively stopped. This is becuase our gene pool is so big.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

No, I'm pretty sure that Richard Dawkins agree's that our evolution has slowed down to the point where it's effectively stopped. This is becuase our gene pool is so big.

We haven't stopped, but we are going slowly. Couldn't care less. I like the human form as it is.:afro:

 

[Gray Fox]

It doesn't matter if it has stopped. So what, empathy and guilt are traits that ware part of our genetic pool even when all mammals were just rodents. So what if evolution stopped in the last 50.000 years?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Yeah either way morality does NOT come from god.

 

[Kadayi]

I see then. So you have read the old testament which argues the death penalty by toning for
men having long hair,
for children not obeying their parents,
for cursing your parents,
for (men) not being circumcised,
for eating bloody meat,
for girls not being virgins when wed,
working on Sundays
And you are going to say that if we obeyed those laws, because those are the actual laws our whole society would not have perished, is that what you're saying you well versed veteran you?

Firstly if you are going to attempt to debate remain civil and on topic I frankly bore of your increasing histrionics simply because the nature of the debate isn't swinging your way. I'm sorry, I disagree with your contentions, get over it and yourself and stay on point.

Also I'm not remotely interested in defending the insanity or redundancy that might exist in religious texts throughout the ages, nor am I interested in getting sidelined into minutiae that so often rely upon context and accurate translation to be made truly clear, rather than sensationalist claims. My position is merely that as early literary works go religious texts often existed as codexes for instructing people socially moral conduct. Your contention is that we are genetically hardwired to be good and all our morals are derived from that.

Now I'm sure I am not alone when I say that my biggest understanding for the laws that govern us comes from that gut feeling, I know stealing is wrong because when I do it I feel like shit, I know killing is wrong because when I see it I feel like shit. I can relate to those laws because of it.

You're arguing against something which almost every one of us experiences on a daily basis.

I hate to break it to you, but your 'gut' feeling that killing/stealing is wrong isn't derived from any hard wired notions of good behaviour derived from your genes, it's undoubtedly come from parental instruction and feelings of guilt you experienced when you broke those commands when you were in your formative years. You seem to have little regard for how influenced a child is by it's upbringing. Biologically we are hunter gatherers, killing is deeply ingrained into our natural behaviour.

No, I'm pretty sure that Richard Dawkins agree's that our evolution has slowed down to the point where it's effectively stopped. This is becuase our gene pool is so big.

Well said Solaris. Also we are much stronger, larger than our forefathers because we have a much higher standard of living throughout the world. Better diet, better living conditions, access to medicines etc.

 

[Gray Fox]

You are a ****ing moron.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I hate to break it to you, but your 'gut' feeling that killing/stealing is wrong isn't derived from any hard wired notions of good behaviour derived from your genes, it's undoubtedly come from parental instruction and feelings of guilt you experienced when you broke those commands when you were in your formative years. You seem to have little regard for how influenced a child is by it's upbringing. Biologically we are hunter gatherers, killing is deeply ingrained into our natural behaviour.

Wrong. Genes make up who we are. Parentenal instruction can only go so far. Why don't you stop pretending you know what your talking about, because everyone else here agrees that genes cause morality. To deny it is silly and just makes you look very ignorent. I'm sure you'll continue to argue despite the fact you wrong however.

 

[Kadayi]

You are a ****ing moron.

Guess your lacking the polite gene then... :dozey:

Wrong. Genes make up who we are. Parentenal instruction can only go so far. Why don't you stop pretending you know what your talking about, because everyone else here agrees that genes cause morality. To deny it is silly and just makes you look very ignorent. I'm sure you'll continue to argue despite the fact you wrong however.

Wrong? Seriously show me some genuine evidence to support your opinions. Simply telling me I'm wrong repeatedly doesn't cut the mustard. Even Dawkins doesn't postulate that all morality is derived from genetic programming (he conveniently leaves the barn door open on that particular debate). That's the whole nature/nurture debate in a hat, which as far as I'm aware hasn't yet been resolved in any shape or form. Yes we inherit certain traits as a result of genes, but the notion that our entire moral framework is wholly set down before we are born borders on the ludicrous. If we as a species were genetically hard-wired to not kill as Gray Fox claims we'd be eating grass like the cows, instead of putting each other to the flame and the sword as we have throughout the dawn of history.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Guess your lacking the polite gene then... :dozey:

Wrong? Seriously show me some genuine evidence to support your opinions. Simply telling me I'm wrong repeatedly doesn't cut the mustard. Even Dawkins doesn't postulate that all morality is derived from genetic programming (he conveniently leaves the barn door open on that particular debate). That's the whole nature/nurture debate in a hat, which as far as I'm aware hasn't yet been resolved in any shape or form. Yes we inherit certain traits as a result of genes, but the notion that our entire moral framework is wholly set down before we are born borders on the ludicrous. If we as a species were genetically hard-wired to not kill as Gray Fox claims we'd be eating grass like the cows, instead of putting each other to the flame and the sword as we have throughout the dawn of history.

I'll go get some. Bear with me.

EDIT: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep03133141.pdf

Specifically, "All traits are caused by interactions between genes"

 

[Kadayi]

I'll go get some. Bear with me.

EDIT: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep03133141.pdf

Specifically, "All traits are caused by interactions between genes"

You stopped mid sentence with that quotation, let's have it fully shall we:-

"All traits are caused by interactions between genes and environmental factors; it makes no more sense to say that one factor contributes more than the other than it does to say that a recipe contributes more to the constitution of a cake than the ingredients and the heat of the oven do."

Hmm..pretty much in line with what I've been saying (nurture & nature). It seems that your Mr Levy and I are in accord.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Enviromental? You were talking about parents! Anyway, the point is moot, everyone is agreed enviromental and genetic factors effect morality. Also, sorry if I was a little harsh in my previous post. :cheers:

 

[Kadayi]

Enviromental? You were talking about parents! Anyway, the point is moot, everyone is agreed enviromental and genetic factors effect morality. Also, sorry if I was a little harsh in my previous post. :cheers:

Environmental is all that isn't inherently genetic in the debate of nature and nurture, IE what you are taught, what you experience and learn as a result of, and what you arrive at yourself though deliberate mental process.

 

[99.vikram]

When I steal something, I feel a bit sick not because I offended God (I'm an atheist), or my parents, or friends, but because I know that someone else will suffer because of it. My morals come from my empathy towards other creatures. This empathy is shared by all intelligent creatures to different extents. The more social this animal, the higher the empathy. That's why a lioness will take care of others' cubs, and elephants always look out for their own.

 

[Tyguy]

when i steal something i usually just feel like the guys in the movie Heat

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Stealing makes baby Jebus cry.

 

[Kadayi]

My morals come from my empathy towards other creatures. This empathy is shared by all intelligent creatures to different extents.

Unless were raised in a isolation and in a a social vacuum you have no way of determining the accuracy of the first statement, and unless you are psychic you have no way of determining the accuracy of the second.

 

[Nemesis6]

Stealing makes baby Jebus cry.

Oh, come on! There are so many things that make baby Jesus cry these days. Damn emo Jesus!