Reply
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 04:54 pm
There can be no doubt that religion has had a powerful effect on society. Some historians and historiographers have suggested that with the ascension of a new religion has come a renewal of civilization. Studies in the social sciences have suggested that religion facilitates cooperation among unrelated people, including strangers, within a culture or society (assuming that all or most members of the society are members of the same religion.) There have been cultures based around common religious belief and practice, theocratic states, and even theocratic empires. There have also been many conflicts caused by religious differences, including wars waged by the members of one religion against the members of another, the purging of heretics, and lesser conflicts in the form of verbal and social attacks.
IMHO, the purpose and function of religion is to unite people. We can look at this statement in two different ways:
1)The function of uniting people that religions have had in the evolution of social order. This would be the materialist view.
2)The purpose of uniting people that the founders of religions have had and/or that the Supreme Being has had in inspiring the revelation upon which a religion is founded. This would be the theist point of view.
Likewise, IMHO, the conflicts which religion has caused are due to the those tribal instincts which we share with our closest genetic relatives, the great apes. While religions have, through the ages, provided common identity, common goals, common moral laws, and cooperation within large groups of people, it has not eased competition and conflict between large groups with different religions.
I believe that conflicts can be ended, and humankind's potential increased, by a religion which grows by its power to attract people's hearts, which appeals to our highest aspirations and ideals while also satisfying our intellect, and which promulgates the oneness of humanity (that is, that expands the group to include all people everywhere, whatever their races, cultures, nationalities, or original religions), the oneness of religion, universal education, unity of nations and the development of a common world language and script.
@1CellOfMany,
1cellofmany wrote:Likewise, IMHO, the conflicts which religion has caused are due to the those tribal instincts which we share with our closest genetic relatives, the great apes. While religions have, through the ages, provided common identity, common goals, common moral laws, and cooperation within large groups of people, it has not eased competition and conflict between large groups with different religions.
The more in common you have with your fellow "tribes people", the less you have in common with others. The less you have in common the easier it is to come into conflict. The spurning of 'out groups' may come from our tribal instincts but I think you can show that religion tends to exacerbate that like nationalism can. This depends on the religion. I think the effort today is to make religions more accepting, certainly. But a lot of the features that lead to unity, promote intolerance. Unity is increased by knowing that you will follow the same moral rules that I do. You know this because we have both been raised that way, and I will be spurned or punished if I do not. So what happens when everyone has been raised to think homosexuality is immoral?
It seems like the kind of freedoms and liberties we expect from our modern societies are a trade off with the kind of unity you get from Religion.
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;139727 wrote:The more in common you have with your fellow "tribes people", the less you have in common with others. The less you have in common the easier it is to come into conflict. The spurning of 'out groups' may come from our tribal instincts but I think you can show that religion tends to exacerbate that like nationalism can. This depends on the religion.
I agree that religion can and does tend to exacerbate the spurning of and conflict with out-groups, and that it depends on the religion. I am of the opinion that much of the conflict is caused by the influence of society on the religion, in the form of clerics and pseudo-clerics with a desire for control. It has been found in the villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan that education can strengthen a society against the influence of so called Fundamentalists, who try to recruit terrorists by using lies about Islam. This is especially true when girls are educated the same as boys. (See the book "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson.)
Quote:I think the effort today is to make religions more accepting, certainly. But a lot of the features that lead to unity, promote intolerance. Unity is increased by knowing that you will follow the same moral rules that I do. You know this because we have both been raised that way, and I will be spurned or punished if I do not. So what happens when everyone has been raised to think homosexuality is immoral?
It seems like the kind of freedoms and liberties we expect from our modern societies are a trade off with the kind of unity you get from Religion.
The religion that I am speaking of, which appeals to the intellect as well as the emotions, places unity as the summum bonum of ethical decisions. The moral rules that are considered most important are not restrictions about sex and what are referred to currently as "victimless crimes". (These seem to have become popular excuses for "outing" people, and are the topics of gossip and scandal in the U.S., although not so much in France.) Rather, slander, gossip, and backbiting are considered the worst of sins because they cause disunity. On the other hand, "victimless" sins are mainly considered to be between the individual and God. So, for example, instead of stigmatizing promiscuity, chastity is encourage.
@1CellOfMany,
Quote:The religion that I am speaking of, which appeals to the intellect as well as the emotions, places unity as the summum bonum of ethical decisions. The moral rules that are considered most important are not restrictions about sex and what are referred to currently as "victimless crimes". These seem to have become popular excuses for "outing" people, and are the topics of gossip and scandal in the U.S. (not so much in France.) Rather, slander and backbiting are considered the worst of sins because they cause disunity.
The question is whether you can really appeal to the intellect in that case. Disagreeing is an intellectual mainstay. If you are going to appeal to the intellect, then it will be surely be debated whether unity is important. Some people will think it i, some won't. Thus you are divided already. Some people are of a more devotional temperament, others are more carefree. Slander and backbiting may promote disunity, but what about social shunning of those who don't go with the mainstream? Doesn't that promote unity? But we consider negative gossip and shunning to be a bad thing. But they are very much a part of human nature.
I think the future isn't in a religion that unifies us, but the elimination of things that divide us in bad ways. The western world which was once terribly divided is much less so now, and not for religious reasons.
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;139761 wrote:
I think the future isn't in a religion that unifies us, but the elimination of things that divide us in bad ways. The western world which was once terribly divided is much less so now, and not for religious reasons.
Please elaborate: what are some of these "things that divide us in bad ways", and how would you suggest that they be eliminated?
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;139856 wrote:Please elaborate: what are some of these "things that divide us in bad ways", and how would you suggest that they be eliminated?
He already pointed one out. If a majority of Christians are against homosexuality, then by all means this is not unity. Being against a person for their sexual orientation or life style is not going to bring people together.
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion because from my point of view you are either trying to carry out the same lies or you have not considered your argument completely.
Religion pins people against each other from different groups of people. If there is something that the religion is against, like say drug use or alcohol consumption it will ultimately condemn those people. Where is the unity in that?
Not to mention that religions especially Christianity have a very low tolerance for other religions. What you see in the US is evident that Christians want their rights, they cry foul when their religious views are not considered but any time any other religion wants their views heard Christians try to quiet them. Why is it that they will put the ten commandments in a park but any time any other religion wants to place their precepts in a park it is somehow wrong?
Religions have not earned the right in my opinion to have any say in political or social discussions. It has a long history of condemning people unjustly and unfairly all because it believes it to be self righteous and inerrant.
Religion IS only about unity if you adopt it's beliefs. If you oppose it's beliefs it wants to kill you or criminalize you. Just look at fundamentalist Muslims. If you defect from the faith, it is punishable by death. How is that unity?
Religion generally has no tolerance for anyone outside it's faith.
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;139856 wrote:Please elaborate: what are some of these "things that divide us in bad ways", and how would you suggest that they be eliminated?
Extreme nationalism, economic disparity, fundamentalist religion, and old prejudices.
On the whole, when nations become more prosperous and "western" these issues decrease. I don't know how to solve the world's problems though :bigsmile:
@Krumple,
Krumple;139916 wrote:
Religion pins people against each other from different groups of people. If there is something that the religion is against, like say drug use or alcohol consumption it will ultimately condemn those people. Where is the unity in that?
Not to mention that religions especially Christianity have a very low tolerance for other religions. What you see in the US is evident that Christians want their rights, they cry foul when their religious views are not considered but any time any other religion wants their views heard Christians try to quiet them. Why is it that they will put the ten commandments in a park but any time any other religion wants to place their precepts in a park it is somehow wrong?
Religions have not earned the right in my opinion to have any say in political or social discussions. It has a long history of condemning people unjustly and unfairly all because it believes it to be self righteous and inerrant.
Religion IS only about unity if you adopt it's beliefs. If you oppose it's beliefs it wants to kill you or criminalize you. Just look at fundamentalist Muslims. If you defect from the faith, it is punishable by death. How is that unity?
Religion generally has no tolerance for anyone outside it's faith.
Hi, Krumple, you are always welcome to join the discussion. As I have said before, I agree with your disgust with the fanaticism, intolerance, and hypocrisy that is shown by some people in the name of religion. I do not perceive, as you seem to, that all religions are guilty of these abuses. I would not indite most denominations of Christianity, nor most Christian churches in the United States today, for these crimes. The media tend to show the extremes, and it appears to me that that is what you are speaking of, but then, I am not in your shoes and don't know just what it is you are perceiving.
Please read the article at this link for different view:
Reclaiming Freedom of Conscience, Religion or Belief to Promote Social Integration — Baha'i International Community -- United Nations Office
@1CellOfMany,
"Such as the priest will the people be" reads a biblical verse. It means that if the priest or pastor worships idols, nature, images or money the result of such idolatry will be hunger and misery. However, if the spiritual leader really worships the only true God and Creator the result will be a healthy development of reason and science in the world. That`s why the greatest scientists in history have been neither pagans or atheists but biblical believers in a Creator such as Newton, Pascal, Mendel, and many others like Flemming who was the father of the first anti-evolutionist movement.
@1CellOfMany,
sword;143833 wrote:if the spiritual leader really worships the only true God and Creator the result will be a healthy development of reason and science in the world.
Hi Sword, there is something I have been meaning to ask a Biblical Christian, which you appear to be. It is a simple question: Do you think that Biblical Christians place limitations on God by declaring that there is only one book - the Bible - and only one person - Jesus - in which He can be made visible?
Wouldn't it figure that as there are many different cultures in different places and times, that God might also appear to them in various forms, books and names?
Or do you think that all of the people and cultures of other places and times have rejected God and are therefore doomed to perdition?
The reason why is that, if God is infinite, all knowing, and all powerful, I would think He could choose to reveal himself howsoever He wished, without a particular group of people, like Biblical Christians, saying they are the only ones who really knows what He means.
I would be interested the hear your view on that.
@sword,
Quote:That`s why the greatest scientists in history have been neither pagans or atheists but biblical believers in a Creator such as Newton, Pascal, Mendel, and many others like Flemming who was the father of the first anti-evolutionist movement.
I think the last part of your quote is misleading. Shouldn't we take into account the fact that religion held the grand majority of all people during the times of the fore mentioned scientists? Include the social stigma involved with being an atheist, and there likely existed more closet atheists than we could be aware of, which certainly isn't a refutation of your statement, but it should be taken into consideration.
The old saying will always reign supreme: correlation does not imply causation.
Religion will always be a negative factor on humanity. A blind belief in an ultimate source of judgment independent of the person is not compatible with free human development.
I also reject the idea that religion is corrupted by society. It was created by society for the single purpose of control. It's not really corrupted so much as it just has an abhorrent origin.
Edit: I should clarify that my first point is limited to theism more than normal spirituality. My second point is limited to the dominant abrahamic traditions.
@Rwa001,
Rwa001;143907 wrote:Religion will always be a negative factor on humanity.
And that is what I would call a statement of pure prejudice. There are many people who say that nowadays - but no matter what horrors religious institutions have visited upon human society (and I don't deny it), the Judeo Christian ethos is still a bedrock of Western society and one of the foundations of civilization.
There are millions of people today being fed, clothed and educated by religious charities, and billions living according to religious codes and ethics.
@Krumple,
Krumple;139916 wrote:
Religion pins people against each other from different groups of people.
................
Religion generally has no tolerance for anyone outside it's faith.
The problem lies with the adherents, and their interpretations. This is more true of Abrahamic Religions. They are all self centred. To be cautious, one should be able to recognise the seperateness of Religion (in the scriptural and philosophical form) from its followers (in the physical, cultural and traditional form).
@1CellOfMany,
actually I am starting to wonder if there is a distinction we can usefully make in all of this.
One of the earliest and most dogmatic of Catholic dogmas was: extra ecclesiam nulla santora. It means 'no salvation outside the Church'. This was aimed specifically at anyone who thought that you could find 'salvation' by some other means - other religions, philosophies, or whatever.
Now it occurs to me that I am someone outside the church. Maybe I am not actually religious at all. Maybe what I think is 'religious' is not actually religion. I should probably stop defending it, or talking about it. What I am interested in is not religion, it is
something else. After all, the Buddha's final words were said to have been 'work out your own salvation with diligence
'.
And doing that - working out your own salvation - is not religion, as the religious would understand it.On the other hand, saying that anything that even SOUNDS religious - any talk of anything spiritual or sacred- should be treated the same way as dogmatic religion, is another dogmatic view.
Phew. Glad we got that clear
.:bigsmile:
@1CellOfMany,
Saying there is only one way to God is not limiting Him but exalting the truth that shines among so many wrong ways. The truth is always unique in every field of knowledge: 2 + 2 is 4 not 8 or 10. So true science cannot be developed on esoteric relativistic views. That`s why only a unique concept of God can be the true one. Worshiping nature instead of the Creator prevents science from being developed. Only when man stopped considering the moon as a goddess he could get there. Only when man stops worshiping himself and starts exalting the Creator through Jesus His Messiah no more antichrists like Hitler will appear on this earth.
@sword,
Quote:And that is what I would call a statement of pure prejudice. There are many people who say that nowadays - but no matter what horrors religious institutions have visited upon human society (and I don't deny it), the Judeo Christian ethos is still a bedrock of Western society and one of the foundations of civilization.
It's not prejudice. There is a premise in all the Abrahamic religions that places God as the final judge and jury of all humans. This is incompatible with free human development, which I think is a good thing. So rather than prejudice, it's just logical for me to feel that way. You're certainly free to reject my assumption that God is incompatible with free human development, or that free human development is a good thing, but to label it as prejudice is just weak.
I agree that it is a foundation of our civilization, but is that much to its credit? Are you suggesting we might be worse without it? Do you have a reason to believe that? These are all questions we have to address.
@Rwa001,
Rwa001;144137 wrote:
I agree that it is a foundation of our civilization, but is that much to its credit? Are you suggesting we might be worse without it? Do you have a reason to believe that? These are all questions we have to address.
We will never know if civilization would have developed the way it did without religious thought, but despite the unquestionable corruption and evils of the churches, it played an intrinsic role. The ideals of human freedom and individual rights, the value of education and many other things were originally nurtured by Christianity when our forefathers were raping and pillaging and burning down villages.
I just 'religion will always be a negative factor' is simply a sweeping generalisation and a prejudice. If I point out any of the positive contributions the religious have made, and make every day, you will probably always find a way to rationalise them away.
Besides, what is 'free human development'? Is there anything beyond the human ego, and what I want to do, and how I want to express myself, to aspire to? If religions are a metaphor for the human situation, and you get rid of the metaphor, then what metaphor can it be replaced with? What does it stand for? What does it seek to address, and why do people seek religious answers? They're some of the questions you will have to answer if you think it is something to be gotten rid of.
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;144337 wrote:We will never know if civilization would have developed the way it did without religious thought, but despite the unquestionable corruption and evils of the churches, it played an intrinsic role. The ideals of human freedom and individual rights, the value of education and many other things were originally nurtured by Christianity when our forefathers were raping and pillaging and burning down villages.
I just 'religion will always be a negative factor' is simply a sweeping generalisation and a prejudice. If I point out any of the positive contributions the religious have made, and make every day, you will probably always find a way to rationalise them away.
Besides, what is 'free human development'? Is there anything beyond the human ego, and what I want to do, and how I want to express myself, to aspire to? If religions are a metaphor for the human situation, and you get rid of the metaphor, then what metaphor can it be replaced with? What does it stand for? What does it seek to address, and why do people seek religious answers? They're some of the questions you will have to answer if you think it is something to be gotten rid of.
Some have seen the emergence of science and philosophy as a product of the tension between the mystical and analytical sides of the Greeks... Dionysus and Apollo.
When you come down on one side or the other, you define your own part in a bigger relationship. But the dynamism of it comes from the on-going interaction. Subtract out the religious side and we'd remove a lot of painful and pointless episodes in human history. But for the loss of the spark that came from the tension, what would we have lost?
@1CellOfMany,
well I perfectly agree! I would be totally cool with closing the Vatican, selling off all the silverware and giving the money to the poor! (But then, probably, it would all end up in the Swiss bank account of some middleman, anyway...) I am not defending religion or religious institutions from criticism. They should be criticized all the time. I am just trying to point out that statements beginning with 'Religion Is...' are nearly always expressions of one or another type of prejudice. Because, like it or hate it, religion is many, many things, and it ain't going away anytime soon.....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace