So, lets throw out religion

[Tawasakm]

I am rather tired but I will attempt to make sense here. People may or may not know that I disappeared for a while. There was a topic I was taking part in at the time which I would like to continue. I think that this is best done in a new thread. There was a thread on what is wrong with the family which became something of a religious debate.

The aspect of this debate which interests me is the practical aspect of what, if anything, should replace it (religion)? How do we then answer the eternal questions that often seize us with such force? Such as the question of death. What happens after we die? From a purely secular point of view how can we provide comfort to the bereaved or to those who approach death? I have twice been injured to a point that medical experts thought I would die. I was concious for the second one and knew what was happening. Believe me there are things which become overwhelming important to you at such times. It changed my life in many ways.

The point is that religion, regardless of many questions of validity, performs many functions that are arguably necessary in society. I have heard the suggestion that these functions are bandaid solutions. To extend that metaphor I could argue that bandaids are better for a scratch then nothing if that is the only alternative. So what are the alternatives? Not just in theoretical terms but in applied practicality - and applied to those more dramatic and hard to answer situations that we all know crop up in life. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? If your view is that religion should NOT be scrapped then please join in and tell me why. Also, I guess, why it cannot be meaningfully replaced by something that is secular.

I realise that a common answer would be that it is up to the indivudual and secularism or religion should bith be a choice within a society but I would like to look at this from the point of view that the abolition of religion has been proposed. I believe that this would enable debate to centre around more functional and practical realities and steer a little away from the more common theoretical and ancient historical debates that always seem the core.

I look forward to replies.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Your hypothetical seems a bit vague: 'scrap religion' needs clarification of both words since it could range from: 'outlaw spiritual beliefs' to 'encourage withering of heirarchically maintained dogma systems'.

Let's consider two modified questions:

1. Without religion, how would we answer questions of metaphysics?

2. Without religion, where can the dying or bereaved find comfort?

As for the first, my opinion is that any attempt to answer metaphysical questions IS essentially a religious exercise, until and unless actual data effectively removes the 'meta' part. If organized and unorganized religions confined themselves to questions of pure metaphysics it would be neither possible nor pertinent to 'scrap' them. However, where they purport to tender non-existent data or apply metaphysical ruminations in preference to data, they generate the motive to scrap them.

As for the second, atheists and agnostics and secret skeptics somehow deal with these events already. Presumably their method(s) could be generally adopted.

[Tawasakm]

Good points. I suppose I am being a little vague. Your second question is a bit more specific then I would intend. Death is one example of an area that relates to unknown reality (or perhaps more accurately to the physical/non-physical interactions of reality) impacting on peoples lives.

To suggest that the viewpoints of atheists etc on death could be applied in a general way may be a misnomer. I would suggest that some people need an answer that provides comfort. Or perhaps religions create that need in people to start with. It seems to me that could only be partly true, however, since there are so many attempts to understand life in physical and non-physical form around the globe an throughout history. It has always seemed that people have a pressing need for an answer to this question. Historically the answer, to me, seems to be built around myth making. Answers are developed which are culturally relevant and intuitively understandable - and always seem to provide hope for the future (or at least a clear model of how to make a better future - be it through reincarnation or whatever) and certainly indicate that life continues after death. If we can no longer address this seemingly universal and pressing question in this manner then how should it be addressed in such a manner that it still provides the same qualities that were previously.

But to address your point about the vagueness of my hypothetical situation perhaps I could make it thus: suppose that the conventions of religion are to be abandoned. Ideology, reality, morality etc are to be defined only by that which is quantifiable and tested to be true. How would this system stand up? Would it be able to fulfill all the functions of that which it is replacing? If it cant, then is that actually a bad thing? I really must be tired. I need to sleep and then work on this a bit...

[Tawasakm]

In addition I would like to ask you, The Terrible Sweal, which definition of metaphysics you are using. I am aware of several and that are not exacty the same. I am banking on this one:

(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment

Dictionary definitions of metaphysics

Am I right or are you usin a different definition?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I hadn't thought about a sharp definition when I used the term, so let's go with that one, subject to the qualification 'unanswerable at this time'.

... suppose that the conventions of religion are to be abandoned. Ideology, reality, morality etc are to be defined only by that which is quantifiable and tested to be true. How would this system stand up? Would it be able to fulfill all the functions of that which it is replacing? If it cant, then is that actually a bad thing?

It seems to me that people only abandon something (voluntarily) when it's benefits are outweighed by its costs. If there are vital functions of religion for which there is no substitute, religion will not be abandoned. I guess I'm saying that your hypothetical as constructed seems impossible (unless you are positing coercion somewhere).

[Tawasakm]

1. Without religion, how would we answer questions of metaphysics?

Questions of metaphysics are not necessarily the province of religion.

Link to the same definitions as before

Now the science conversant about all such inferences of unknown being from its known manifestations, is called ontology, or metaphysics proper. --Sir W. Hamilton

Metaphysics are [is] the science which determines what can and what can not be known of being, and the laws of being, a priori. --Coleridge

Metaphysics, in whatever latitude the term be taken, is a science or complement of sciences exclusively occupied with mind. --Sir W. Hamilton.

n : the philosophical study of being and knowing

There seem to be a few different takes on what metaphysics is actually the study of but none of these mentions religion. So perhaps your reworded first question does not actually need to be asked in the first place.

As to my hypothetical... Lets modify it a little so that it may work for you. Let us say that a government in <insert mythical and/or real nation here> has just been elected by a clear majority. Part of their platform was the advocation of scientific methodology in all aspects of society and the abondonment of belief systems which do not meet these standards. They are going to dismantle, on every level, every religion. Now why don't we attempt to extrapolate the practical affects that such an action would cause. Then we can attempt to determine how these affects may addressed in a secular/scientific way and if that would be adequate for a majority (or perhaps all) of the people in <insert nation>.

Let me know what you think of the revised hypothetical. I encourage more people to join in aswell.

[Newfie Canadian]

Now why don't we attempt to extrapolate the practical affects that such an action would cause.

I am neither a theologian, philosopher or metaphysicist, so my head is spinning a little.

But, my first thought when I saw this question was there would be a breakdown of order, decency and law, as all are based on one form or another on religious doctrine, beliefs, scripture and laws.

However, upon further reflection, I would submit that society (in Canada for example) is cemented enough in regards to constitutional rights and laws for this not to happen.

Unless in your hypothetical the dismemberment of all things religious includes the disposal of the Charter as many things in it (murder for example) are based on religion, and we have to start over.

Hope I haven't rambled, my head hurts.

Then we can attempt to determine how these affects may addressed in a secular/scientific way and if that would be adequate for a majority (or perhaps all) of the people in <insert nation>.

I would submit that this could never happen. It takes numerous religions with their own practices and beliefs satisfy the population. I don't believe 1 could do it.

[Tawasakm]

Unless in your hypothetical the dismemberment of all things religious includes the disposal of the Charter as many things in it (murder for example) are based on religion, and we have to start over.

If murder can be proven to be bad for society based on the study of empirical evidence using the scientific method (and it can be) then such a law would stand up. Just because a law is originally based on religious doctrine does not mean that it cannot also be based on a more rational/scientific formula. I don't believe this is an instance where the removal of religious doctrine would create a vacuum of any kind.

However, I'll bet you could come up with more examples of the way religion influences, perhaps even glues, society together. I would appreciate it if you keep working on this.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... Let us say that a government in <insert mythical and/or real nation here> has just been elected by a clear majority. Part of their platform was the advocation of scientific methodology in all aspects of society and the abondonment of belief systems which do not meet these standards. They are going to dismantle, on every level, every religion. Now why don't we attempt to extrapolate the practical affects that such an action would cause. Then we can attempt to determine how these affects may addressed in a secular/scientific way and if that would be adequate for a majority (or perhaps all) of the people in <insert nation>.

Let me know what you think of the revised hypothetical. I encourage more people to join in aswell.

I think further clarification of the hypothetical would be helpful. Dismantle religion ... okay that means a number of possible things, so please say yea or nay to the various items on this list:

-remove and deny legal/tax/corporate status for organizations with religious purposes;

-eliminate the civil status of clergy (e.g. wedding and funeral certification)

-disaccredit academic programs provided by religious- affiliated institutions

-fund and pursue a policy of specifically challenging and disproving religious doctrines

-prohibit association for religious purposes

-prohibit religious expression

-prohibit religious belief.

Do you mean all of these or just some?

[Tawasakm]

Do you mean all of these or just some?

Why limit our fun? Lets go with all of the above.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Do you mean all of these or just some?

Why limit our fun? Lets go with all of the above.

Okay. Then just ONE more question. Does the policy succeed? I.e. in this hypothetical does religion disappear or do people take religious beliefs underground?

[Tawasakm]

Okay. Then just ONE more question. Does the policy succeed? I.e. in this hypothetical does religion disappear or do people take religious beliefs underground?

Let us suppose that everybody within this nation is committed to appying scientific methodology in all aspects of society and the abolition and abandonment of religion as discussed. They have already begun.

So now we can attempt to predict what problems they will encounter. As we theorise problems we can attempt to overcome them using the scientific method (or other non-religious methods that rely on empirical evidence that you may know of). We can then attempt to see if these problems can be succesfully overcome.

I welcome people of faith to join in and hypothesise certain problems and then to defend them from the point of view of religion (for the sake of the hypothesis we could pretend you are observers from an outside nation...).

Sound like fun to you? Sounds like fun to me.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, I can work with the hypothetical now. What sort of problems might there be ...

a) articulating a common/shared view of what is right and what is wrong;

addressing existential angst;

c) facing personal mortality without being overwhelmed by despair;

d) comforting the bereaved.

I believe that a society as you describe would not have difficulty with (a). For (-(d) the society you describe would have to acknowledge that its methods do not produce conclusive answers. I don't see that there would be any necessary consequence to that admission.

[Tawasakm]

For [b - d] the society you describe would have to acknowledge that its methods do not produce conclusive answers. I don't see that there would be any necessary consequence to that admission.

I don't know if its that simple. Lets look at the role of religion in spiritual life. All of the religions I know of instruct us in how enrich ourselves spiritually and grow. What is spirit? A non-visible entity that is not directly measurable.

Would this society need to abandon the concept of spirituality (or a non-physical aspect of all living things) and how would that impact on morality, mental health and well-being, relationships etc?

Granted some people do not believe in these things and are comfortable with it. But will that hold true for everyone?

Or is there a way for science to embrace spiritualism?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... All of the religions I know of instruct us in how enrich ourselves spiritually and grow. What is spirit? A non-visible entity that is not directly measurable.

Would this society need to abandon the concept of spirituality (or a non-physical aspect of all living things) and how would that impact on morality, mental health and well-being, relationships etc?

As I understood the case, the society would have abandoned 'spirituality' to the extent it deals with what is not observable/measureable/amenable to reasoned inquiry.

Would that have an impact on morality? Yes, it would confine morality to reason-based ethics.

Mental health? Well, that's harder. IF religion/spirituality in some cases is the only thing that can serve as a crutch for some people's mental health, then those people would suffer, I suppose. But I don't regard it as a sure bet that this IF actually obtains.

Relationships? I don't see religion as being necessary to relationships.

Granted some people do not believe in these things and are comfortable with it. But will that hold true for everyone?

But isn't that what your hypothetical now supposes? That people have given up on it?

[Tawasakm]

But isn't that what your hypothetical now supposes? That people have given up on it?

My hypothetical supposes an attempt not success. It does suppose that people may find the consequences other then they might have suspected. That they may find their scientific approach is lacking in some ways. They may find that it does not.

In any event I really need to get moving. I'll return to this another day.

[H3X0r]

Looking for soemthing that's a better-then-band-aid solution?

It occurs to me that to define religion as nothing more than a security blanket, as the answer to the questions of insecure peoples who are afraid and unsure about life and the unkown, is to shortcome it. Religion provides a multifaceted purpose. For that reason I think that to consider the abolishment of religion would be hasty, at best.

In my "religion" I am encouraged to grow as an individual, to become stronger, smarter, and more powerful daily. I'm coaxed to read books, to speak with as many people of like and unlike minds as possible, to seek knowledge, to gain wisdom. Religion also guides me with a moral compass. I am to harm none, through action or inaction. At times this is difficult, really really hard. But because of dedication to something I can see and define through legend, myth, and tale I am set on a path to happiness.

The "alternative" I'm suggesting to the religion we experience today is a religion we can experience tommorow. I'm not talking about changing the church you attend, but redifining the word, the idea, and your life.

[caesar]

In my "religion" I am encouraged to grow as an individual, to become stronger, smarter, and more powerful daily. I'm coaxed to read books, to speak with as many people of like and unlike minds as possible, to seek knowledge, to gain wisdom. Religion also guides me with a moral compass. I am to harm none, through action or inaction. At times this is difficult, really really hard. But because of dedication to something I can see and define through legend, myth, and tale I am set on a path to happiness.

That sounds like a good type of religion. I don't think this is the beliefs of the "religious right" that voted for Bush. Religion should guide; not control, Religion seeks peace not pre emptive strikes nor sending off young people to die,

[Cartman]

Normally, I keep my views on religion to myself, but since there has been so much legitimation of discrimination based on religion lately, I feel justified in sharing them.

I have a very negative perspective on religion, I admit it. It is so irrational that parents have to brainwash children into believing it because if they have the choice in adulthood, they reject it. Why is it that if you talk to God, you are praying; but if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia? If I have an imaginary friend in adulthood, I am suspected to be mentally ill, but if I say I am speaking to God, I am just fine. Why is it that killing people in the name of mainstream religion is "holy", but taking one's life to reach God is cultish? I see no difference between cults and mainstream religion. I suspect that every mainstream religion began as a cult.

Marx was right. Religion is the opium of the masses. You don't need to believe in God to behave properly and ethically. In fact, it is a scary thought that you have to fear God in order to behave properly.

Hatred and discrimination is not created only by religion, but they sure seem to go together quite nicely.

Same sex marriages are wrong. Why? Because God supposedly says so. Let them hide their relations in shame.

Abortion is wrong. Why? Because some mystical being supposedly had someone write as much. Make it illegal.

Taking someone off of life support when they are suffering a violent and painful death is wrong even if they beg for it. Why? It is written in a book. Force them to suffer for what might feel like an eternity.

I am really sick and tired of hearing religious zealots trying to convince me that their ideas hold water.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Worse still, they have (for obvious reasons) given up even trying to 'convince'. They merely assert, and when challenged, whine that people are 'disrespecting their beliefs'.

[Tawasakm]

Sorry it has taken me so long to post a reply to a topic that I started. I'm afraid that it is often the case that I won't get an opportunity to read and reply for days at a time. In fact I only have time for a brief reply now.

H3X0r thankyou for your post. Its good to have a committed religious person posting. Since I am not very religious I may be missing aspects of religion that contribute, perhaps uniquely, to society. So I am grateful to anyone else who can contribute them to the discussion.

Regarding your point of morality and ethics I am curious to know why you feel that only religion can encourage you to such a path. Surely a rational society could measure the harmful effects of certain behaviour and create laws and punishments designed to enforce positive behaviour. Could it not be the case that people educated as to exactly why something has a negative effect on society and individuals would be capable of behaving as ethically as those who do so through "fear of God" (which is how I see it).

Empathy surely can also exist independently of religion.

I am really sick and tired of hearing religious zealots trying to convince me that their ideas hold water.

I sympathise Cartman but that is exactly what I want to hear. And then I want to see how my hypothetical society might handle things differently.

Dear Caesar,

That sounds like a good type of religion. I don't think this is the beliefs of the "religious right" that voted for Bush. Religion should guide; not control, Religion seeks peace not pre emptive strikes nor sending off young people to die,

I appreciate your input but this thread does not relate to the specific policies of the United States (in part or in whole) nor towards its actions in Iraq or elsewhere. How does this relate to the hypothetical?

Unfortunately I am out of time. Hopefully tomorrow I can spend alot more time on this and catch up on all the other topics.

[H3X0r]

"Theytheytheytheytheytheytheytheythey" Dear Gods in the in the greenhouse! Listen to yourselves! Such a display of public ignorance!

That must sound incredibly asshole of me, I know. I'm so sorry, but you have to step back and realise the words that you are typing. You are saying terrible things like "parents have to convince their children, because they would choose differently in adulthood"! After this you go on and on listing the mistakes of others without noticing the mistakes you make as you type those very words! My personal favorite:

"Taking someone off of life support when they are suffering a violent and painful death is wrong even if they beg for it. Why? It is written in a book."

Hmmmm, I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that you are reffering to the Holy Bible? Of course, what other book could there be? Tell me mister religious expert. What do you know of eastern religions? The Tao? Buddhism? Ancient samurai? Tantra? How about pre-christian european religions, like Druidism, or Shamanism? Have you read the Quran? How about the Kabbalah? I'm sorry, that't too hard. How about something way easier. Since you seem to be reffering to religions that are in your immediate vicinity in both time and space, tell me, what do you know about Native American rituals and beliefs? Little or nothing?

You are basing your claims that religion is harmfull not on what religion has to offer, but on what you have seen so far! The truth of religion is not going to just present itself to you, that is not its nature.

Here let me sum it up for you. You don't know alot, but you are very disenfranchised by religion. Who could blame you? Everything that you have been shown on television is dirt! But the only thing on television is soulless, comercialised garbage. Whether it be gatorade commercials or Bush pushing his puritist bull crap, it would seem that our societies take on religion is not one of the beauty and joy that CAN be found if you look.

I suggest you look, I know you will be surprised.

In reply to you Tawasakm

I do not feel that religion is the only way to the path of happiness! Never will you hear me make such a claim! I was merely suggesting one of many alternatives to your question, not the only one. I picked that alternative because I feel strongly about it and try to live up to those ideals, so I know that path well. In fact, those who act within the "fear of God" as you put it are not acting ethicall, but totally outside the idea of ethics. How do you define good as a virtue, as Socrates once tried? That is a discussion for another day! But imagine society, ALL society the world over, had a massive philosophical epiphony and suddenly understood what "good" was. Your hypothetical would work then.

[Tawasakm]

ALL society the world over, had a massive philosophical epiphony and suddenly understood what "good" was. Your hypothetical would work then.

Probably true but lets just try to concentrate on the one society. If I think globally my tiny little mind will implode. While this may be visually appealing it would leave me a little discommoded.

I suggest you look, I know you will be surprised.

I was in fact put through strict catholic primary schools and a somewhat more liberal anglican highschool. University was not religious. I have had something of a look.

Specifically what would surprise me?

You are basing your claims that religion is harmfull not on what religion has to offer, but on what you have seen so far! The truth of religion is not going to just present itself to you, that is not its nature.

If not then whats the point of it? Why should it be mystical and hidden?

In point of fact I think you are wrong - at least in part.

The truth is that many aspects of religion, in all its complexities, right and wrong, can be easily observed. What you are talking about is FEELING religion - which is a different thing.

One aspect of religion is its ability to draw disparate people together and unite them under common goals. Let me use an example which I encountered in a local newspaper today (the Sunday Times from Perth). The article was about a woman who suffered from anorexia. She had fought the disorder for twelve years without success and had dropped to 27kg. She, and her family, were exhausted. They had gone through many professionals without success. Finally she ended up with a clinical psychologist named Bruce Beaton. The problem at this point was that the family was just too wrung out to implement and run another treatment program. But the local church rang him up and offered to help. They gathered 30 volunteers who would (on a rotating basis) visit the lady 3 times a day during meal times and for an hour afterwards. The critical point for the sufferer was the determination and unconditional love that she received from these total strangers. She has recovered, is married, and has doubled her weight. She continues to eat healthily and happily.

Now in this example the church brought together disparate people (from all ages/backgrounds/jobs etc) and united them under a common goal - to save the life of this woman. The patient attributes much of her success to the unconditional love of these people and they attribute that to the guidance of their church.

I do believe that churches/religions around the world contribute vastly to the betterment of the lives of others. I also believe that churches/religion have contributed greatly to wars and other such negative things. Religion has been perverted for many reasons by many people. By its very nature it is easy to do so - because they rely on that which is unseen, unmeasurable and unaccountable.

For my hypothetical situation to work only requires that the positive aspects of religion can be achieved in a secular/scientific society. In this instance would there have been a mechanism to bring together volunteers happy to give of their time and energy to help this person? If the answer is yes then religion (however positive in this instance) is not providing society with anything that it cannot provide itself.

So, do you think there are positives that religion provide that can only be achieved through religion? If not then the hypothetical society is a success.

[Cartman]

Here let me sum it up for you. You don't know alot, but you are very disenfranchised by religion. Who could blame you? Everything that you have been shown on television is dirt!

I do not watch much television and you do not know what I watch. You are judging me without knowing me. Is this sentiment religiously inspired? My ideas on religion do not come from television, but from books, news and personal experience.

I certainly never claimed to be an expert on religion (though I have done some reading on the subject). But then again, most religious folks in Canada are not very knowledgeable about religion either. According to Bibby (the only person to systematically collect information on the effects of religion in Canada), the Project Canada 2000 National Survey indicated that amongst Christians, only 42% could answer correctly "who denied Jesus three times", only 44% could correctly identify "the name of the sacred book of Islam" and only 46% could identify "the first book in the Old Testament". When you sarcastically refer to me an expert, you do not sound very religiously inspired.

This should also not be a big surprise either since the same national surveys carried out every five years since 1975 have indicated that there is essentially only one area where religion speaks with a fairly loud voice in peoples' lives - the area of personal morality, especially sexuality. Religious Canadians tend to be far more opposed to premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, abortion and pornography. In addition, when considering things like happiness, prejudice, anxiety, hope and fear, religious and non-religious people demonstrated little or no difference.

Here, let me sum it up for you. The most credible source on the effects of religion in Canada demonstrates that collectively, religious Canadians do not possess much religious knowledge, they appear to be no more happier or hopeful than others but they do appear to be more concerned about sexuality. Therefore, I can confidently say (scientifically) that religion has nothing to offer me except the ability to judge other's morality. Sorry, not interested.

What really bothers me is when some self-declared religious people (including people on this forum) make claims about marriage being between a man, a woman and God. That is fine if you are married in a church, but not when you go through the effort to keep "God" out of your life.

[Cartman]

Since you seem to be reffering to religions that are in your immediate vicinity in both time and space, tell me, what do you know about Native American rituals and beliefs? Little or nothing?

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-692/disast...ential_schools/

Many of these rituals and beliefs were extinguished with the "help" of other religions.