Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

FBM wrote:

You seem to be equating religion and metaphysics. They are quite distinct, I think.

Yes, I am absolutely equating religion and metaphysics (I suppose formally religion is a subset of metaphysics). I would be interested in knowing how you think they are distinct. I think that the two are closely related and serve the same function in society.

Religion is a subset of metaphysics, therefore they are not synonymous. Religions are faith-based. Other branches of metaphysics, including the sciences, are empirical. Big difference.

Quote:

You haven't answered my specific question FBM about human rights (which you said is part of metaphysics).

Can you give me an explanation for the existence of human rights that doesn't serve equally well as an explanation for the existence of God?

I'm pretty sure I did answer that, but in case my memory is weak, I'll give it another go. Better yet, I'll let others who know more about it do it for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights

Quote:

History of human rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world the idea of human rights, that is the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human began during the era of renaissance humanism in the Early Modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. The idea of human rights lay at the core of the American and French revolutions which inaugurated an era of democratic revolution throughout the nineteenth century paving the way for the advent of universal suffrage. The world wars of the twentieth century led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The post-war era saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[1] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing World.[2]
Some notions of righteousness present in ancient law and religion is sometimes retrospectively included under the term "human rights". While Enlightenment philosophers suggest a secular social contract between the rulers and the ruled, ancient traditions derived similar conclusions from notions of divine law, and, in Hellenistic philosophy, natural law.

Quote:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.)

The decrees Cyrus made on human rights were inscribed in the Akkadian language on a baked-clay cylinder.
The decrees Cyrus made on human rights were inscribed in the Akkadian language on a baked-clay cylinder.
Cyrus the Great, the first king of Persia, freed the slaves of Babylon, 539 B.C.
Cyrus the Great, the first king of Persia, freed the slaves of Babylon, 539 B.C.
In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.
Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights

From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.
...

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html

Quote:

Secular humanism
The Atheist's Guide To
Atheism

Secular humanism refers to a branch of humanism that is based on exclusively secular principles. It is often associated with atheism and agnosticism, however, it should be noted that not all atheists and agnostics identify as secular humanists.
Secular humanism aims to establish moral principles conducive to the freedom and well-being of humans based on ethical reasoning that is independent of all alleged supernatural sources of morality.[1] It is not a fixed ethical system and even less an ideology itself, but rather a set of general guidelines for the development of a more concrete programme to increase the knowledge available to humanity and use this information to further our well-being.[2] Because of its explicit rejection of the supernatural and moral codes based on religious convictions, secular humanist philosophy offers a way to develop an alternative to these traditional conceptions of morality.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

So, the secular aspect of the evolution of the concept of human rights is an explanation that doesn't serve equally well as an argument for the existence of any god. It's humanist and atheists may adhere to the concept as well as theists. I suspect that you may be falsely equating belief and religious belief. Those, too, are distinct. That's why we have different terms for them.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Max wrote:

Can you give me an explanation for the existence of human rights that doesn't serve equally well as an explanation for the existence of God?

Good FBM.

To summarize the your post (including the wikipedia quotes)...

You are making the argument that God exists because many early civilizations believed in a monotheistic god, and that these beliefs were developed and passed on through history and through many cultures until we reach our modern understanding of God.

Can you see how the same argument could be used to support human rights?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

This sort of question brings to mind that early moment in life in which clever children start to ask why do flies exist ?
Well...my question these days goes the other way around...if it exists it has a purpose and probably a reason...if I don't see what it is I get curious. What is it that I have yet to grasp in order to understand why flies exist ? ...or for that matter, religion, human rights, or societies...I am way past the idea that mistakes exist which is a red herring at linear thinking. Even so called "mistakes" have a useful function if they exist. When they lose their purpose they go extinct !

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Max wrote:
Can you give me an explanation for the existence of human rights that doesn't serve equally well as an explanation for the existence of God?

Good FBM.

To summarize the your post (including the wikipedia quotes)...

You are making the argument that God exists because many early civilizations believed in a monotheistic god, and that these beliefs were developed and passed on through history and through many cultures until we reach our modern understanding of God.

Can you see how the same argument could be used to support human rights?

I've edited my post to include some more information about the secular aspect of human rights. I do not follow your twist in logic above, no. The belief in gods can be explained by social anthropology and/or evolutionary psychology, just as the belief in human rights can. To claim that either the god(s) or human rights themselves are an intrinsic property of the universe is an unfounded metaphysical claim. However, the beliefs in gods and rights are a totally different matter. The existence of those beliefs can be demonstrated empirically.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

The belief in gods can be explained by social anthropology and/or evolutionary psychology, just as the belief in human rights can. To claim that either the god(s) or human rights themselves are an intrinsic property of the universe is an unfounded metaphysical claim. However, the beliefs in gods and rights are a totally different matter. The existence of those beliefs can be demonstrated empirically.

I think you are saying

My paraphrase wrote:

I can demonstrate that someone believes in God.
I can't demonstrate that God exists.

I can demonstrate that someone believes in human rights.
I can't demonstrate that human rights exist.

If I understand this correctly, then I agree with it.

My main point on this thread is that humans as social animals need to have faith in some set of core principles that can't be proven (these core principles vary from society to society). This is important for us to be able to find meaning and live in social groups.

A belief in one or more gods serves this function. A belief in human rights can also serve this function. Either way, each society has something that most individuals have faith in to provide a sense of meaning and social cohesion.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Now you have focus on something interesting for evolutionary sociology scientifically speaking...belonging to a herd requires high levels of trust...if you don't commit to trust beyond the obvious the given and depart into the invisible the implausible how can I risk trust you when tomorrow we go down hunting in the jungle ? You sharing my implausible beliefs, my cultural background is a way of proving your commitment to the group and through it to its energy efficiency as a whole. Well done thank you for the Eureka moment with your hint !

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
The belief in gods can be explained by social anthropology and/or evolutionary psychology, just as the belief in human rights can. To claim that either the god(s) or human rights themselves are an intrinsic property of the universe is an unfounded metaphysical claim. However, the beliefs in gods and rights are a totally different matter. The existence of those beliefs can be demonstrated empirically.

I think you are saying

My paraphrase wrote:
I can demonstrate that someone believes in God.
I can't demonstrate that God exists.

I can demonstrate that someone believes in human rights.
I can't demonstrate that human rights exist.

If I understand this correctly, then I agree with it.

Yes, you understood correctly.

Quote:

My main point on this thread is that humans as social animals need to have faith in some set of core principles that can't be proven (these core principles vary from society to society). This is important for us to be able to find meaning and live in social groups.

A belief in one or more gods serves this function. A belief in human rights can also serve this function. Either way, each society has something that most individuals have faith in to provide a sense of meaning and social cohesion.

On the whole, yes, I would tend to agree with this, as most societies have traditionally believed in spirits of one sort or another. Nationalism, patriotism, ethnocentrism, etc, can be other binding factors. It would be a fallacy of composition to attempt to apply that to any particular individual, though. I don't see why a person who holds no beliefs would automatically turn into a burden on or detriment to society. Pyrrho of Elis, for example, and the members of his school of skepticism, which lasted a few centuries.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Tell that to your neighbours while stating that you don't hold dear none of their main principles...you could start with human rights...if you get shot at in a dark alley afterwards you have your answer.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You are confusing human rights with tribalism, Fil. Tribalism is generally sufficient to keep you from getting shot at in a dark alley and is much more universal than any concept of human rights. Tribalism is at the core of human nature is one of the only constants across cultures.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Tell that to your neighbours while stating that you don't hold dear none of their main principles...you could start with human rights...if you get shot at in a dark alley afterwards you have your answer.

I don't hold dear none of your main principles. Wink

Anyhoo, I'm not talking about going around and proselytizing about disbelief. The Pyrrhonism I alluded to suggests as a practical means of living a peaceful life, one would best just go along with social norms and mores without believing in them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I think Michelangelo was being modest, Max...and a bit ironic.

I think he never for a second supposed the only true sculpture that could possibly come from that stone was the one he made. It seems to me it was not meant that way, but if you want to conceive of it otherwise, you can. Neither of us knows what went on in Michelangelo's mind when he said it...but as I remember, he was saying it to a pope...and in his day, one tended to be careful of what one said to a pope or a king.

In any case, I do know what was going on in my mind when I offered the quote...and that was merely a light-hearted play on what Fil was saying about his regard for the word "invention"...which he sees to be more of a "discovery" than truly invention...an interesting concept, and one I think was furthered by Michelangelo's remark no matter how motivated.

I guess someone could say that no one ever invented the "wheel"...it was merely a discovery of the use of a round object...mostly to move heavy things. It might be a bit more difficult to say that no one actually invented the electric light bulb...merely discovered how to put the ingredients together in a way that allowed it to function as it does now.

Not sure how this applies to the topic of the thread, but I stand by my earlier remarks on that score.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I guess someone could say that no one ever invented the "wheel"...it was merely a discovery of the use of a round object...mostly to move heavy things. It might be a bit more difficult to say that no one actually invented the electric light bulb...merely discovered how to put the ingredients together in a way that allowed it to function as it does now.

I like that because the light bulb is used as a symbol (depicting ) over someone's head when that person has an idea. Irony?

1 Reply

@argome321,

That's good, Argome. I hadn't thought of that...the bulb hadn't gone on for me.

Thanks.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQE1XNLpDtYs9WM1qF8mGYmtxvzdbh46tyPF-J7IwqTFq8yrisP67k_w

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are confusing human rights with tribalism, Fil. Tribalism is generally sufficient to keep you from getting shot at in a dark alley and is much more universal than any concept of human rights. Tribalism is at the core of human nature is one of the only constants across cultures.

I don't see how I am confusing both as in fact I am the one making the remark that if you don't share your group beliefs in any way then you are not a group member. Human rights are universal in principle and universal when we are analysing how all tribes maintain internal cohesion. But history itself and psychology studies have shown people tend to think of other tribe members as not being human beings...they don't extend the human rights shared in the tribe to those who don't share their set of beliefs. So there is this awkward relation on which by one side these human rights refer in principle to everybody and explain how tribes themselves work in terms of cohesion and energy efficiency everywhere but on the other hand also explain how tribalism undermines the extension of the principle that is the core of an operating social group to other social groups, Darwinism at its best. The principle of how societies work at large is no less Universal even when in practice people tend to apply it exclusively to their own tribe members. So where is the confusion ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Tribalism explains human nature perfectly well.

In reality humans have racism, humans fight wars, humans allow starvation in other countries, humans torture people (and all their government to use torture), humans support drone strikes.

This is tribalism, and this is human nature. Tribalism is constant across cultures and hasn't changed over the years. It is still true, killing people in our tribe is considered bad. Killing people in other tribes is not so bad.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

... and ironically even what you would consider "human rights" is really just an example of tribalism.

You and I would probably agree that the recent societal changes in the area of so-called human rights are progress in a directly that we would call the right directly. But even these changes are examples of tribalism, not of any universal understanding of human rights.

The key to our society giving rights to the LGBT community was for us to include them in our tribe. A homosexual was considered an outsider who was to be feared and mistreated. Now he or she is considered one of us. The people behind this movement understood tribalism very well... a priority for them was to get homosexuals portrayed as normal Americans on TV and in pop culture at large.

We still have outsiders who we still feel comfortable mistreating, those included or excluded from our tribe have just changed a little.

Humans are tribal by nature. That's how we evolved.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No one denies this but the principle of cohesion by which "human rights" are attributed and that works as the back bone of any tribe which wants to be successful is not in question either. I haven't been stressing much other that there are no accidents or things without purpose or reason to be. Human rights are not an invention but rather the natural outcome from a social need of cohesion within tribes. The form time and who brought them up formally in history is irrelevant and mere technicality...it matters to say that in one way or another formally or informally they always existed to a greater or smaller degree and that their application is the glue for tribe success. Efficiency requires trust within groups and trust requires mutual respect. This is common sense. Debating it is losing time. Again it is an error in judgement to suppose one thing does trump the other. Enlargement of concept of tribe through cultural enlightenment whether successful or not doesn't change the underlying principle.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Enlightenment is a religious word. It has no objective meaning. People going to fight with ISIS consider their process of realizing the purpose of ISIS as noble to be a process of enlightenment.

In many areas our concept of tribe has enlarged. In many other areas it has shrunk. Modern western culture doesn't look very kindly on patriarchy, or on religious fundamentalism. Patriarchs and Religious fundamentalists are not in the tribe of modern culture. We are quite comfortable mocking them and excluding them.

There is a interesting thread here where someone supporting LGBT rights is justifying quite strident anti-Catholic bigotry. Many other people here jumped right in to defend her... it doesn't seem like overall tolerance has increased.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Enlightenment can have many meanings and cultural associations I think you just presented yours...it is not mine nor I am a religious kind of person.

As for the overall increase of social cohesion and tribe expansion we have made progress from the Savannah's in Africa, but I agree with the advent of a global society recently there has been more noise then consensus, these are odd times, we are in the middle of the most profound revolution since the advent of agriculture.

If I had to guess there is a discrepancy between our evolutionary development which prepared us to deal with small groups and not to deal with crowds...this is to say, the rhythm of technological advancement and cultural development does not fit the rhythm of the natural evolution of the species which is far more slow. Back n fourth issues with social cohesion result of this discrepancy.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Anyone who agrees with me about the way things should be is enlightened. Anyone who disagrees with me is unenlightened.

Everyone who uses the word "enlightened" uses it in the same way.

1 Reply

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know