Atheists: would the world be better if no one believed in the spiritual/non-physical?

Great Debates
1

If so, in what ways? And how significantly? Would it outweigh any drawbacks that would result?

I don’t want to get into my own beliefs just yet, but the label of spirituality and religion as “irrational” sparked my interest in this question.

(For what it’s worth, I’m not sure whether to ask this question as though spiritual thought NEVER existed, or if it just suddenly turned off in every single brain on Earth tomorrow and never returned, or if all the religious and spiritual people just vanished and never came back. Take whatever tack you like.)

2

Good question. I have no spiritual beliefs, but I’m not sure if the world would be better off or not w/o them. It seems to be human nature to look for differences, and if we didn’t have religious differences to fight over, we’d probably find something else.

3

Doubtful.

4

It would depend on what you mean by better. Without religion and non physical thought, there would have been a lot of lives saved in things like the Crusades, which although not purely religious would have had a lot less backing without people believing in the will of god. However there would also be a lot of drawbacks, many great masterpieces of art would have never come into being, also if humanity had never begun thinking of religion then we would no doubt have no science. Humans naturally wish to explain things, they first did this with religion and this has now moved on to science.

Without religion Humanity would be very different then what it is now, but whether it is better is up to debate. Also this is only my thoughts, no doubt there are people who would disagree with me.

5

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
–Voltaire

6

I’d like to clarify, BTW, that I’m not just talking about religion. I’m talking about Wicca, ghosts, Native American totemic beliefs, Shinto, the whole shebang.

(Yes, I realize that I just mentioned religions in that list up there, but too many people, when talking about “spirituality,” limit themselves to Judeo-Christian religions, and I’d like to get beyond that, if the question allows.

7

It would be a regression to greater ignorance.

8

It would be better if relgious people analysed and understood their religion rather than just blindly believing whatever they are told. Some do this, many don’t.

9

You could mean many things. If you meant that the world was suddenly populated with people who were happy without what are thought of as supernatural/spiritual beliefs, sure, but that wouldn’t be anything like a world without those beliefs, because in the first case we’ve already specified that everyone is happy without them, and in the second we have lots of diverse, real people. Those seem to make some people very happy, and it’s hard to count happiness against whatever emphemeral “what if” benefits we might think a world without those beliefs would be like.

10

The world would be about the same. People would just use different narrative excuses and rationalizations for being jerks at one another, is all.

11

Describing religion as irrational doesn’t necessarily mean that the world would be better off without it. Having said that, I don’t think we have enough information to answer your question. After all, we don’t have a world without religion with which to compare. I think our gradual tendency to take a more scientific, less superstitious view of the universe has lead to longer lives and more material conveniences, but as to whether that is “better” or not is really a judgment call. One thing I can say is, I’m convinced that man’s inhumanity to man would exist with or without religion.

12

I think it’s not a good idea to conflate “spirituality” with “non-physical” or (not to mince words) “supersition.”

I realize you didn’t mean it this way, but I get a little tired of Christians calling atheists “spiritual cripples” as if we’re all unimaginative Morlocks tending our machines, with no appreciation of beauty or poetry, and no concern for matters of meaning or ethics.

As for whether we’d be better off without a belief in ghosties, I don’t think so. Clearly the problem is not so much superstitious religions as ideology. It’s all to easy for someone to say “this book has all the answers, and therefore anyone disagreeing with it is a block to progress who must be destroyed.” In the 13th century the book was the Bible, whereas in the 20th it was the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. (It’s worth thinking of “The Crucible” in this regard. I remember the scenes where people tell the investigator hey, whoah, slow down- maybe we need to think about this before we start hanging people. His response was basically to say that if you doubt his perfect judgement, you’re not possessed of total faith and are therefore an enemy of the state and a witch. And the play was, of course, meant to talk about McCarthyism rather than the evils of reactionary Christianity per se.)

For that matter, there are plenty of UFO cults that don’t believe in the non-physical, but they still lead to lots of nuttery, including mass suicides.

In short, if the Catholic Church weren’t threatening to torture Galileo for disagreeing with Aristotle, someone else would threaten to torture him for the very same reason, using much the same illogic to justify their actions.

BTW, this shouldn’t be taken as resignation, or as a statement of “no matter which side wins, people will always screw things up.” I’m just saying that traditionally the problems associated with “religion” are, IMO, really problems of “ideology.” If throughout human history everyone were taught the value of skepticism and warned about the evils of ideology, we’d probably be a lot better off. (We would also have a lot fewer people believing in religions like Christianity, which IMO require their believers to jump through hoops that are a little too obviously sophistical. We might have a lot of people interpreting their personal experiences in terms of deism, though.)

13

Spiritual - of the human spirit or soul; not physical or wordly. [emphasis mine]

What’s wrong with conflating spirituality with non-physicality? Are they not synonymous?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. I am perfectly capable of appreciating beauty, art, love, and morality without believing in a magical invisible being that lives inside my body. I get tired of people misunderstanding this, too, but is that any reason to play their game?

14

Children’s imaginary friends are all unique. Adults prefer quite the opposite.

15

SentientMeat wrote:

What two adults perceive God in exactly the same way? And why is God in any way analogous to something imaginary? (Careful when you answer, or you will betray a unique perception of God. ;))

16

I think the world is always better off with diversity of thought and belief.

17

I see at least two different interpretations of the words “if no one believed in…”, leading me to two different conclusions.

  1. “don’t necessarily believe in”:

People become generally agnostic about everything (in the manner described or perhaps encouraged by Robert Anton Wilson, to cite a not-entirely-unknown source) and choose not to place blind faith in anything, preferring to wait until all the evidence is in. This sounds like a good thing to me personally, as it would tend to promote general open-mindedness and inhibit robotic “knee-jerk” responses based on strongly-held convictions that may not have ever been examined for usefulness or truth.

  1. “absolutely do not believe in”:

People become generally closed-minded and reject out of hand theories and possibilities which aren’t intuitive and obvious, or which challenge previously-held beliefs. This sounds like a bad thing to me, because it would inhibit new ideas and reinforce currently-held models of reality, which may or may not be correct at all and are certainly far from complete regardless.

18

HeatMiser wrote:

I’m not sure whether I agree with you or not. But perhaps I do. Maybe it is best if we simply do not examine such things since we cannot know for sure. But then, maybe not. Who is to say when the evidence is complete? Maybe you, but what about after you die? I could be wrong, though. Please disregard whatever I’m saying, and I will do the same with you. Perhaps.

19

Impossible to say for sure one way or the other, but in my experience (and to lay my cards on the table, I’m an atheist), the positive effects of religion are generally private and personal (feelings of well-being, contentment, comfort in the difficult times), whereas the negative effects are public, (wars and terrorism, population spiralling out of control because some[expletive deleted]one refuses to allow birth control).

I’m perfectly willing to concede that religion has given rise to some incredibly just, right and charitable actions, and that some people live a genuinely Christian life and help numerous people. Not enough, however, to make up for the down-side.

N.

20

Amusing, I guess. But you’re flailing about somewhat violently in search of ridiculous extremes, and ultimately fail here

that being the exact opposite point of view from that of one who would wish to understand things instead of blindly hanging on to baseless beliefs.