So, lets throw out religion

[Big Blue Machine]

Lets not and say we didn't.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

'Religion' cannot be thrown out nor eradicated.

It began as an explanation to the meta-physical, surely, but science and logic whittled down that which was once inexplicable. Not too many people are sacrificed to the 'volcano god' as an appeasement anymore, for example.

As a devout agnostic, I realize that all religious text was written by people. Religion, especially text based ones, use heavily, 'personification and deification', to 'explain' the meta-physical. Part of the arrogance of the species, I suppose.

One cannot tell another that their beliefs are wrong, however, without providing at least rudimentary evidence to the contrary. I believe the current imbroglio in Georgia State over the teaching of Creationism is an example.

[lowly_caterpillar]

Hello everyone, I feel like a moron, and my head is whirring with this redundant vocabulary, I am but a lowly law 12 student and am fascinated (dont let your egos swell too much) by this discussion. I too consider myself an atheist but in this hypothetical world that you describe it seems to me that morality of any kind would be greatly compromised if we were to solely use science to explain consequence. It seems to be that science only exists because of our desires to disprove and in some cases prove religions truth, but science can only progress if religion is there to fuel it's fire so if religion was abolished not only would sciencee become stagnant but morals wouldnt need explaining and the fibre of our democratic society would disintegrate. Imagine murder and genocide would be justifiable under the premise of overpopulation and an imbalanced supply and demand. Anarchy would in my opinion be rampant because there would no longer be a looming figure or ideal of fairness and good.

Please someone tell me if any of this makes sense!

[August1991]

I am but a lowly law 12 student

What's that?

It seems to be that science only exists because of our desires to disprove and in some cases prove religions truth, but science can only progress if religion is there to fuel it's fire so if religion was abolished not only would sciencee become stagnant but morals wouldnt need explaining and the fibre of our democratic society would disintegrate.

One of the main motivators of science is simple curiousity. Some scientists believe in God and others don't.

Imagine murder and genocide would be justifiable under the premise of overpopulation and an imbalanced supply and demand. Anarchy would in my opinion be rampant because there would no longer be a looming figure or ideal of fairness and good.

Do you mean that only religion can provide morality? Our non-secular legal system is concerned with justice.

Therefore, I can confidently say (scientifically) that religion has nothing to offer me except the ability to judge other's morality. Sorry, not interested.

Very good post, Cartman. It's made me think. I agree, except for...

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.

Tawak, the story here I think is really about friendship.

IME, a church provides people with a place to meet other people. Now, church-going people tand to have their own set views but they also try to be "good Christians". This means doing "good works" - as they view that idea.

Now, it worked in this case. But I'm reminded of the Bible-thumper who has the young stutterer and older paraplegic come up on stage, stand behind a curtain and then invokes the Lord's Power to Cure.

Then, there is a loud crash.

"Tell us Tommy, what has happened."

"Mr-rs Wh-wh-ithers ju-just fell-ll d-down."

[Tawasakm]

my head is whirring with this redundant vocabulary

Redundant vocabulary? In what way?

in this hypothetical world that you describe it seems to me that morality of any kind would be greatly compromised if we were to solely use science to explain consequence.

I'm not entirely sure what leads you to make this assertion. While this is not the first time I have encountered the argument that religion and ethics are inseperable I've yet to have anyone explain to me why this is so. It almost seems to me that religion has hijacked all credit for the more "enlightened" aspects of humanity.

I've known quite a few individuals who do not believe in religion of any kind who act ethically. If you define ethically as behaving with the best interests of others in mind. Many historical figures both religious and non-religious have acted ethically. Many from both sides have acted otherwise. It seems to me that "ethics" exists independently of religion.

Imagine murder and genocide would be justifiable under the premise of overpopulation and an imbalanced supply and demand.

Imagine that a society so geared toward rational thinking could find other answers for these problems. They might, thinking rationally, decide to implement better recycling, more efficient vehicles, better mass transit public transport systems, reduce their own personal allocation of resources to a more sustainable level, expend greater resources to solving global problems etc etc. Being culturally geared toward thinking more rationally (arguably) and possessing greater curiosity (more of a need for answers arguably) they may indeed be better geared to find peaceful solutions than religious neighbours. Genocide, to me, never seems to be the result of rational thought and I don't agree with your premise that a non-religious society would lack ethics.

'Religion' cannot be thrown out nor eradicated.

It began as an explanation to the meta-physical

Surely there are other ways to search for answers to meta-physical questions. Surely in a reasoned society the medthodology of religion can be discarded - while at the same time retaining those aspects (and answers) of religion that are proven to be true. Maybe a society can be contented to know what they know and to wait to discover what they don't know - not being content with insubstantial answers to such important questions. In any event this is a hypothetical that I've constructed. In such a situation I am conveniently (and arbitrarily) able to postulate that this society has, indeed, thrown out religion. Perhaps we can argue over whether or not that is possible later and just look at the possible effects for now?

August 1991 I like your joke

[Tawasakm]

Lets not and say we didn't.

Also, what does this mean?

Lets not what?

[willy]

Cartman

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?

This unfortunately is a typical response from a secular person. I respect your experience but I would like to challenge the validity of your perception.

I was agnostic until I was in my mid 20's. My parents to this day would not be considered religious people. When I became a Christian, I had already finished university, and ran a business in the real world. I am a successful thinking person. I am exposed to many view points and I’m well read. I would not think of myself as a non thinking person and yet because I believe in God, I am some how less of a thinker than you. Explore what you avoid and prejudge. What do you have to lose?

If there is no God you will only end up on the wrong side of the grass.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I was agnostic until I was in my mid 20's. ... I had already finished university, and ran a business in the real world. I am a successful thinking person. I am exposed to many view points and I’m well read. I would not think of myself as a non thinking person and yet because I believe in God, I am some how less of a thinker than you. ...

You raise a very important issue here. Obviously many persons who claim a religious affiliation operate effectively in the world. Unfortunately, to the extent they make rational choices, followers of JudeChrisLam and other religious traditions must do so in spite of their adherence to these faiths.

This has to do with the elemental characteristic of these religions. They assert the authority of the dogma over the real/experienced which is incompatible with the very concept of rationality.

Some religious flavors have a relatively confined area in which they assert this authority (e.g. United, Anglican), while others have an extensive area (e.g. fundamentalist JudeChrisLam of various types). Thus the former are in some sense 'less irrational' than the latter, but at the core they cannot claim to admit rationality either.

[H3X0r]

I apologize for the sarcasm. I thought it would prove my point on diversity of religions the world over, which was what I was suggesting you take a look at, and what would surprise you. Comparitive religion is enlightening.

It's time for me to geek out. Does anyone like Star Trek? I like Star Trek. In science fiction, and in this case specifically Star Trek, you get to explore hypotheticals like this one all the time.

The Vulcans(fictional) are a race that have found out a way to live in such a society where rational thought governs the actions of all individuals. To accomplish this they subdue emotion and trade it for logical thought. Through intensive meditation and extensive use of will power to help them along the path of logic they have constructed a culture wherein issues such as over-population simply do not arise. The problem with this is that with a constant rational mind set they never explore the irational, which has also proven usefuful in the past. If a problem arises they thing about solutions in a systematic way, starting with the most likely fix and working their way through every idea they have until their logical thought process runs out. Whereas a less rational person would think differently, perhaps work on a hunch, and also perhaps arising at a solution swiftly.

It seems to me that for this hypothetical to be a success, for us to arrive at an alternative solution, we would have to kill the part of human intellect that helped us create religion. I'm not saying that atheists and all unbelievers have something missing from their brains(or perhaps something added), but if we wanted to make sure that this culture keeps away from religion all together, and it appears that religion has proven itself to be a natural extension of society, than it would seem something unatural would have to have occured. Just a thought.

"If you aren't having fun with your religion than something is wrong." - some guys wife.

[Tawasakm]

To H3X0r:

The Vulcans(fictional) are a race that have found out a way to live in such a society where rational thought governs the actions of all individuals.

I understand the appeal of this example however I'm not sure we should extend the hypothetical to fictional alien reactions.

The problem with this is that with a constant rational mind set they never explore the irational, which has also proven usefuful in the past.

I'm afraid you'll need to expand on that for me. I don't understand how the irrational is useful. I'm more then happy to listen to a good explanation.

Whereas a less rational person would think differently, perhaps work on a hunch, and also perhaps arising at a solution swiftly

Rational people, with experience, develop problem solving schemas (a psychological term). This enables people to arrive at quick solutions which are most likely to succeed. Its an adaptive trait. Rational people are as likely, I would argue, to react quickly to situations which require it. It would be irrational to do otherwise. By definition an irrational reaction, as I understand the term, is less likely to produce an appropriate response not more - even if it is swift. Or to put it another way - I don't really see what your point is here. Please expand on it.

we would have to kill the part of human intellect that helped us create religion.

I don't understand how applying a consistent scientific approach can kill your intellect in any way. Such an approach would change the answers that are found acceptable - I don't see it changing the questions or diminishing curioisity (I could see it increasing curiosity).

it appears that religion has proven itself to be a natural extension of society, than it would seem something unatural would have to have occured. Just a thought.

There may be something to what you say. I made a comment earlier (which I'm too lazy to quote and will paraphrase from memory) wondering if spiritualism could exist in this society. By this I mean a method for exploring the meta-physic. Searching for the meaning of the unseen, the intangible, the non-physical, perhaps for fulfillment.

I have been unable to think of any reason this cannot be done but perhaps you can. I would love it if you could pursue this line further.

To willy:

I would not think of myself as a non thinking person and yet because I believe in God, I am some how less of a thinker than you.

I have absolutely no wish to insult anybodys intelligence or rational faculties. If I have done so, at any time, then I offer an unreserved apology. I, personally, find religion irrational.

If there is no God you will only end up on the wrong side of the grass.

Sounds like Pascalls wager there.

[Guest eureka]

In philosophy, the irrational is real and the reverse. Philosophers are, broadly, divided into the rationalists and the irrationalists How does this fit into the view that religion is irrational? How would it fit into ideas about the existence or otherwise of God.

[Tawasakm]

In philosophy, the irrational is real and the reverse. Philosophers are, broadly, divided into the rationalists and the irrationalists How does this fit into the view that religion is irrational? How would it fit into ideas about the existence or otherwise of God.

Exactly how is this relevant to the hypothetical? I'm not having a go at you - just failing to join the dots. Could you try expressing this again or expanding on it for me. Feel free to join the dots.

Remembering, of course, that the hypothetical relates to the practical effects on a society that completely abandons religion in favour of applied scientific principles.

[Tawasakm]

For the sake of simplicity here are links to dictionary definitions of rational and irration (I'll include one definition from each here):

Irrational

Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment

Rational

Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Just so we at least some frame of reference when using the terms.

[lowly_caterpillar]

wow so you guys owned me when i said that ethics wouldn't exist without religion(not what i intended to imply at all), I will correct myself and say that religion is the earliest recorded proof that humans have the ability to afford compassion (and all of that other lovely human stuff to others). In saying this religion is a stepping stone to modernization of thought in society, first came complete religious thought and in this hypothetical world would come complete scientific thought but there will always be an element of spirituality because there will always be the meta-physical.

I apologize for my terrible mechanics

[Tawasakm]

I will correct myself and say that religion is the earliest recorded proof that humans have the ability to afford compassion (and all of that other lovely human stuff to others).

Can you back up that assertion with evidence?

[lowly_caterpillar]

nope.

[Tawasakm]

I'll just return to the thing about Vulcans briefly. I don't want to be dismissive so I'll attempt to justify my exclusion of them. Firstly they belong to a different 'hypothetical' with different conditions. Secondly, they aren't human. Thirdly, who says that the humans in my hypothetical would discard emotion? I said religion NOT emotion. I said (back on page 1):

Ideology, reality, morality etc are to be defined only by that which is quantifiable and tested to be true.

Happiness, for example, is a defined concept:

Happiness

Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy

which is observable and measurable (if not with pin point accuracy). Is there any basis for supposing they would discard emotion because they have discared religion?

[Tawasakm]

nope.

I will not, at this point, respond to that assertion then. Feel free to work on it a bit.

[Guest eureka]

I am responing to your assertion that religion is irrational. Does that deny reality? I am not so sure that it denies reason either since reason is no more than a concept that we attribute to ourselves. where we, in human terms are irrational animals.

I would leave stunred dictionary definitions out of things that are so complex.

Hannah Arendt wrote that; "Modern philosophy founders on the paradox that all that is real is irrational and all that is rational is unreal." It does, indeed, and philosophers for the last few centuries have struggled with that forming, virtually, two camps. This has extended into deep questioning of religion and of God from both points of view.

Some have thought to have proved the existence of God. For those who accept the "proofs," how can they abandon religion? Some deny that exostence though I am not aware of any who has offered proof for the denial.

Therefore, that denial is also based on a faith and that faith, in my opinion, makes a religion of Atheism or Agnosticism.

The human race is in that view, incapable of abandoning religion.

[lowly_caterpillar]

can you disprove that the torah or any of the fundamental religious books, are the first rcorded proof. Im not well read on religion so i wouldnt even know where to begin to look.

[Tawasakm]

can you disprove that the torah or any of the fundamental religious books, are the first rcorded proof. Im not well read on religion so i wouldnt even know where to begin to look.

Its up to you to back up your assertions lowly_caterpillar (fascinating name by the way). When you have backed up your assertion then I will respond to it. By the way you never answered August1991's question that was directed to you.

Therefore, that denial is also based on a faith and that faith, in my opinion, makes a religion of Atheism or Agnosticism.

There is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of God. Therefore believing in God is an act of faith (not necessarily unreasoning faith). If I do not believe in a thing for which there is no quantifiable evidence that is not an act of faith that is a logical conclusion drawn from observable evidence. I don't believe in unicorns either - that is not an act of faith. I get the sinking feeling that you won't like that example. If there was quantifiable evidence for the existence of God and I still didn't believe in him then I would be irrational.

However I think I'm allowing myself to move a little off topic here. If you would like to start another thread around this concept (whether it is an act of faith to be secular) I would be happy to join in. I would appreciate your views on the hypothetical situation. What are your thoughts on any difficulties the society would be facing? Do you think their secular approach would be unable to provide something necessary which only religion can provide?

[willy]

There is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of God. Therefore believing in God is an act of faith (not necessarily unreasoning faith).

Jesus is quantifiable. He existed.

Liar, idiot, or God.

[H3X0r]

Listen, about the thing about Vulcans. I'm really sorry man, I can't amswer all of your questions, they're almost socratic. I may have misunderstood your first post but I was under the impression that you asked everyone for some alternatives for a society to egsist without religion, but still persued morality and ethics in the same way thay we wish everyone did here, only defining them through rational and scientific thought. Was I right? That was how you said the hypothetical society functioned correct?

I mentioned Gene Roddenbury's work simply because he had created a fictional species whose culture was based on those values. You wanted alternatives, so I just pointed out an interesting one that everyone can already recognize from pop culture, that's all. And I wasn't trying define rationality or get into a debate about whether or not the idea of the Vulcan mindset can egsactly fit your hypothetical society. I was just trying to point out an alternative, like you asked for at the start. I can't explain past that, I thought that was what you were looking for. I'm sorry if I was confusing but I'll try to be more specific in the future I guess.

On atheism and non-believing!

Clifford A. Beckover wrote in his book "The Egsistence of God and the Science of Omnisciene," that atheism was defined as a skeptic attitude toward the possible egsistence of God. An Atheist might tell you he dosn't believe in God because you can't prove he egsists. But by mirroring that same logic, by putting faith in the same school of skepticism but looking at it in a different way, one could say that as much as you can't prove that he's real you can't prove that he isn't real. Both points have no evidence, you can't support one side more than the other.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of God. Therefore believing in God is an act of faith (not necessarily unreasoning faith).

Jesus is quantifiable. He existed.

Liar, idiot, or God.

But whether Jesus existed is not the issue. His theological claims/characteristics are the issue.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Clifford A. Beckover wrote in his book "The Egsistence of God and the Science of Omnisciene," that atheism was defined as a skeptic attitude toward the possible egsistence of God. An Atheist might tell you he dosn't believe in God because you can't prove he egsists. But by mirroring that same logic, by putting faith in the same school of skepticism but looking at it in a different way, one could say that as much as you can't prove that he's real you can't prove that he isn't real. Both points have no evidence, you can't support one side more than the other.

Internally this argument is valid. However, most religions make claims much higher, greater, broader and more universal that a simple equivalence of ontological disprovability. Most religions make a positive claim to knowing ontological truth at the very least. Most religions elaborate a highly developed, interlocking narrative about metaphysics and the nature of reality. The advance of reason and science has demonstrated the implausibility of most of these elaborations.