Reinterpreting the OP, I’m wondering what would best replace religion as a societal glue (an expansion from individual to communal).
It’s a useful (in terms of order) social construct that gives the prevailing sense of morality an air of absoluteness. It allows those who are cheated and stepped on in life to feel a connection with the Great Beyond as well maintain hope for a proper afterlife recompensation (“good” people get rewarded, “bad” get screwed). In legislation, it helps to put everyone on the same page, more or less. Granted, there are all sorts of pitfalls - warfare, exploitation, etc. - but what other widespread worldview (not speaking of Christianity alone, but of organized religion in general) could maintain such order on so grand a scale?
I know there’s the whole “just think for yourself” arguement, but most people don’t bother with that. I’m thinking of the masses, those people who just want to get from day to day. The guy who drives your cab, the lady who operates the switchboards, the kid who’s just hoping to one day get his hands on a Corvette. The masses. In terms of keeping the populace in check and somewhat hopeful, what could work better than religion?
This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m really asking. Though I don’t believe organized religion (as far as my familiarity with its various incarnations goes) is the best way to go personally - I prefer to figure things out on my own and with others - you needn’t be an anthropologist to see religion’s integral (not necessarily “good,” just “deep-seated”) place in societies past and present. I’m wondering what might happen if that tiny straw is removed from the bottom. Might all the marbles come crashing down? If so, what could be put in its place? Once again, just asking the OP again, but expanding it from individual to societal.
Nothing. As background, I was raised in the Catholic faith, was an altar boy, even considered becoming a priest (it seemed a logical progression at the time). This was of course when my view of the world was clouded by dogma. But then events occurred that did not fit with what I was taught. At the age of 15, after witnessing an assault by the Monseignor of our parish on a fellow catechism student, during class, I decided perhaps I had best rely less on rote, and a little more on impericism.
If God does exist, then he exists whether I choose to acknowledge this existence or not. To paraphrase from Lt. Scheisskopf’s Wife in Catch-22 “The God I don’t believe in is a merciful and loving God”. If God does exist and is vengeful and petulant, why would I wish to inhabit his heaven for eternity. And if he is merciful, and with the attributes with which he created I reason against his existence, would it not be a human trait to begrudge me? This seems silly in a being that is allegedly all knowing and powerful. Surely he should have foreseen that granting logic to his creations would make him replaceable.
But without worrying so much about what would happen to me, the big problem that I had with the Christian (and some other viewpoints) was that it required that a certain amount of people would be damned to eternity, simply because they were never exposed to the correct system of faith. What kind of God would create something so beautiful only to deny it because the invitations weren’t sent out?
Perhaps most importantly there is no direct evidence of this kind of a being. There is, I admit, indirect evidence that something really cool happened a long, long time ago. Maybe this is God. Sort of a “sum of all laws of the Universe God” - Einstein? I know that some theists would argue that “someone must have created all this.” To that I would question, “but who created Him?” The rote answer to my question is “He just is.” Fine, but then why couldn’t the Universe also “just be.”
Our parents. Backwards, ad nauseum, through the fossil record, until? Can’t say for sure. Again this could be evidence for a grander plan, but its no less plausible as an accident.
Morality is normally taught, initially by parents or guardians. This is often, but not always, guided by the tenets of organized religions. In the case of my children, I teach them what I believe to be right and wrong. This is mainly based on my application of the Golden Rule. Although I don’t personally believe in organized religion any longer, that doesn’t automatically mean that every thought which may or may not have been first proposed by religion is inherently wrong or bad. But the motivation which I use in my children is empathy, which can be just as strong a motivator, and much more immediate, than the idea that they might burn in some mythical hell someday if they act incorrectly.
Please define evil? Is violence always evil? How about killing? How about stealing? In all instances? The concept of evil is a moral construct, by definition. I don’t really put any truck with the concept of evil. Malice, sure. In the case of a Jeffery Dahmer, I don’t think that he was evil or sent by Satan, just had some serious psychological problems, possibly inculcated by his parents, perhaps biological. He was sociopathic, which is normally seen as a mental health problem, albeit one which can be a serious threat to others. If you believe that J. Dahmer was evil, what would be the religious / theological construct for his victims? That they were bad or evil? Or that God did not hear or heed their prayers? How would you explain when evil befalls good people? Outside of a religious construct there does not need to be a neat answer to this question. Chaos theory, perhaps, random chance.
These questions became chiefly unanswerable or irrelevant. People have a biological imperative to exist. To peacefully co-exist, we need a social construct which allows us to obey this imperative and not be threatened. In most early cultures this was abetted by the formation of religuous thought. However logical moral strictures against things like stealing, murder, etc, which benefit the vast majority of the populace can easily stand alone, without the dogma of a future reward or punishment.
Apparently, there is not a single belief system, but having read through most of the quotes fairly assiduously, there does seem to be a common theme, and that is that the questions are indeed irrelevant.
I interpret your reinterpretation to mean that people without strong held religious beliefs are generally without moral or social constructs. My personal experience does not bear out your thesis. In addition to whatever moral and social instruction that children receive from their families, they also receive instruction in morality, to some extent from school, in particular, and society, in general. Most people are not big and mean enough to just get away with acting however they damned well please. Additionally there are other social nets in place such as police and our judicial system.
Though I agree with the points you made, that wasn’t what I was saying. For a good many people, religion is the foundation on which morality is based. I’ve heard it from a number of people during arguments over moral relativism, etc. “But if you take that away, there’s no clear right and wrong.” Something along those lines.
I was saying that those who lazily depend on religon for a moral foundation (a good many) might have a tough time adapting if that option was taken away. I was also wondering what might be a good replacement as a moral foundation for such people who, for lack of a better way to put it, “don’t bother thinking for themselves.”
madcow, thanks for the clarification. I understand your question a bit better now, but still mildly disagree with the premise. My thinking is that if you removed the crutch of an easily adopted but not necessarily adhered to religious foundation for morality, I don’t think that most people would stop teaching morality to their children. In fact, it would probably force many to be more involved. I am also not naive enough to think that we would suddenly have a perfect world where everyone was involved in the lives of their children. But is this any different than what occurs now? How many religuous folks take the belief that they are forgiven, have another go round, etc, to use as an excuse for living their lives as moral people today?
I believe that I am probably, in most ways, more moral by Christian standards than when I had blind faith, since I now take into account that I must live immediately with my transgressions against others. I am solely responsible. The devil didn’t make me do it. Its a lot bigger concern than did I miss Mass on a holy day of obligation, which frankly affects no one.
What did it for me was when I was a kid. All the christians
around me (babtist) always were saying how much they truely
loved god. And at the time I would tell myself that too.
But the truth is I just told myself that out of fear of going to hell. To be quite frank that preacher at my church
used to freak me out with all that;hell, fire, and brimstone
for all those who don’t believe! Damn! what a way to traumitize a kid.
Another thing that did it for me is the bible. Its basicaly
too vauge. and you can pretty much get any kind of meaning out of it you want. Say for instance I wanted to find something in the bible about baseball. Well shoot, all I have to do is turn to the first page, its right there “IN THE BE-GINING” (get it? in the big inning. he he)