I don’t think so. Skeptical secular-humanist scientific materialism is a way of thinking fundamentally different from any religion, so different that it could never be said to “supplant” religion even if practically everybody adopted it. Communism, OTOH, while it makes scientific and rationalist claims for itself, is really an all-encompassing doctrinaire belief system, functionally equivalent to religion – in particular, in that it purports to explain/define your role in the universe and in history. That’s what you get when you try to base a “scientific” ideology on Hegelian idealism.
So, without religion you nor anyone else would feel compelled to do such things?
(Herein, by ‘religion’ I mean organized, Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion.)
Religion makes the pious feel good about themselves and life, achieving its effect by assuring them that they are loved, and that things will turn out all right in the end, by answering for them many troubling questions, and by encouraging them to behave in ways (being nice, generous, avoiding addictive substances, etc) that would probably make them feel good even if they did them without prodding.
Religion makes a society more cohesive, if everyone in it is the same religion. It takes over some of the socialist duties of government (such as providing charity, care for the poor, emergency relief, etcetera), allowing the faithful to be politically republican (not evil socialist!) without the entire society falling apart.
Religion also sets those who are members of it in opposition to those who are not. In its weakest form this merely implies the faintest sense of ‘too bad for Joe, he’s going to hell, maybe I should think about talking him over to my side sometime’, and in the strongest form there is no atrocity too harsh to be committed in the name of God against them. Even at moderate levels the faithful are compelled to persuade or force others to comply with the ideals of the pious, often with little or no regard for the rights or preferences of the unpious. In the extreme cases, the pious go along with these crimes against humanity as a direct result of their religion.
Religion also tends to make people more likely to accept authority, even when the voice of authority is not a morally sound one (like, say, a bigot, looney, warmonger, or tyrant). There also seems to be a historical risk of the non-pious gaining the support of the pious through mere rhetoric, and then forcing their agenda through regardless. The adversarial nature of religion with regard to non-members makes this an easy route for those who are willing to couch their desires within the religious agenda (or lie about what they are doing).
So, religion is a balm for the individual, a cohesive element, a divisive element, a force of oppression, and a tool of tyrants. In short, its a great thing until the minute something goes wrong.
BrainGlutton: I don’t think we disagree with each other as to what the communists have/had in mind. My point is that the communist world view did not take. In Russia, the Orthodox church continued to function more or less sub rosa, and re-emerged after the fall of communism (though so far obviously weaker than pre-revolution). Religion continues in China, including the loopy (IMO) falun gong, despite oppression from the government.
The point being that the real thing can’t be supplanted by a surrogate. Communism may have tried to be a religion, but it wasn’t/isn’t. People can tell the difference.
The point is: Der Trihs asserted, “a religion dominated culture is collectively either insane or evil.” Shodan pointed out the destruction caused in the 20th Century by purportedly “atheist” Communist regimes (which would not actually detract from Der Trihs’ point). Der Trihs argued that those regimes are merely more examples of “religion dominated culture” being “insane or evil,” Communism being just a religion that pretends it isn’t one; and I think Der Trihs has the right of it there. There’s a lot of common ground between the Catholic Church’s Inquisition and Stalin’s purges, and that common ground exists because of important elements and characteristics common to Roman Catholicism and Soviet Communism.
No, the point is “Religion- Is It Useful to Society and the Individual?” Der Trihs’s assertion that “a religion dominated culture is collectively either insane or evil” is a subject for a completely different thread. If you look at Calvin’s Geneva, I think you’d be tempted to agree with Der Trihs. If you look at the Ottoman empire before its decadent decline, I think you’d be more tempted to disagree. But regardless of such arguments, what we have here is a digression from the OP.
How is discussion of the negative effects of religion on society a digression from a debate on whether religion is “useful to society”?
It’s a digression because the negative effects are, to my mind, a given. The question was whether or not it is useful. The pronouncements of James Dobson (excuse me, psychologist and author Doctor James Dobson) on the undesirability of all those fags, abortionists, and activist judges are profoundly negative. But the usefulness of religion to an individual like Polycarp (and don’t forget the “individual” part of the OP) has to be beyond denial.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The point is: Der Trihs asserted, “a religion dominated culture is collectively either insane or evil.” QUOTE]
Ok - Burden of proof is on him. Have at it.
More than a few employers I know of habitually employ members of their church almost exclusively. Did they discriminate in hiring no…they never took applications or held interviews, just hired someone they already knew. With this type of thing going on it only takes a handful of churchgoing business owners to keep a higher level of employment among the congregation. This networking phenomenon could easily account for a pretty hefty differential in the average incomes of churchgoers. Such an arrangement also puts greater pressure on the employee as a member of the congregation to be a good little boy since you will probably be seeing your boss at church functions as well as work ones, your obligation and association with this person does not end when you punch the timeclock.
Well, wasn’t one of the reasons that we (America), a “christian” nation kept slavery going is because we tried to make blacks sub-human and non-“christian”? If rationale at the time had said that they were people (and even given “christian” names, not pagan names like “Marcus”, or “Crispus Attucks”) and not animals, we’d have had a lot worse time trying to reconcile that difference.
I’m not a fan of religion. I don’t ascribe to any religious philosophies. I, however, can see how people can become better from it. I can also see how people can use it as a crutch to do despicable things. It seems to me that doing as the framers of the Constitution said, by keeping church and state separate, we simplify the equation. Religion should, in my opinion, should be kept out of politics; it should be a completely private decision and practice.
It has a use, just not to me. Just because I don’t like it and think ithas no place in my life doesn’t mean that someone else can’t glean something positive from it.
You know, for that part of the original post, I COMPLETELY forgot about it and am glad you brought it up. I don’t think it ever got addressed anywhere else in the thread. Your idea sounds relatively viable.
So, it’s a kind of spiritual or societal nepotism?
I think the purpose of religion is to help a person live a better life and be kind to others, it is not the Religion but in how people follow their beliefs that cause religion to look either good or bad. Look at Aphganistan and it’s rule that a person may not believe any other religion or be worthy of death. As I have been told Islam in it’s purest form should tolerate others beliefs.
There are people in this country who would force all others to follow their beliefs.Hence the separation of Church and State prevents this from happening.
To me it is like a drug, good for some bad for others.
I know many good religious people and some bad, but it is because they interpet their beliefs to fit their actions.
Monavis
I’m not a believer, but I strive for (and usually attain) all the attributes you named in your post. Most people don’t need a higher power in order to be good, productive people. We tend to be social, hard-working creatures by nature.
I’m glad to hear that about your church. It seems like fundamentalist has become a bad word because of the few who get all the press. I hope that the kindness you extend to those in need isn’t accompanied with too much pressure to accept Christ.
How large a congregation is it?
With people building these multimillion dollar churches it would be interesting to see what percentage of American congregations actually engaged in community outreach like yours does. Imagine the profound effect on our society if they did.
This, unfortunately, is no more than a complex restatement of the same “no true Scotsman” argument. Any society that commits atrocities is religious by definition.
You are trying to define any ideology held by a large enough group to be “religion”. OK, then there aren’t any societies above a certain size who are not “dominated by religion”, and therefore by definition all cultures are “collectively either insane or evil”.
You are going to have an argument on your hands with MaxtheVool if you want to claim atheism as a religion.
Regards,
Shodan
Organized religion is a very mixed bag. It was organized religion that helped put me on a spiritual path which IMHO has helped me to grow into a better person who sincerely tries to make a positive contribution to those around me. I’ve seen religion do positive things for lots of folks.
It’s also easy to see how religion is used to manipulate people and has been involved in some pretty horrible things.
**
Der Trihs** often says in other threads that religion doesn’t deserve any special treatment or special consideration. I quite agree. He contradicts himself in threads like this. The evils he likes to attribute to just religion because of is own bias is simply part of humanity. Humanity itself is a mix of good and evil and a constant struggle between the two. The solution isn’t getting rid of religion. We saw that attempt in Communism and Der Trihs rationalizes that by claiming it’s a religion. What hogwash. What Communism taught us is that it is within humanity itself that the struggle goes on. If we got rid of organized religion tomorrow the same problems would exist and express themselves in different form. It’s simply a part of being human. Hopefully we won’t be getting rid of humanity any time soon although the fact that it’s a possibility is pretty scary.
No, Shodan. My argument applies only to Communism. And to any dogmatic, cosmically all-explaining, ideological belief-system, regardless of how many adherents it has.
I claim nothing of the kind; see post #21.
Are all “dogmatic, cosmically all-explaining, ideological belief-system[s]” religions, and are all “religions” “dogmatic, cosmically all-explaining, ideological belief-system[s]”?
I would have no argument with the following statement:
‘Insane and evil acts performed en mass by humans, when they occur, are often done in the name of a dogmatic, cosmically all-explaining, ideological belief-system’
Though I can think of some counter-examples (Rwanda, the Congo) which prove that this is not always the case.
Moreover, I can think of many “dogmatic, cosmically all-explaining, ideological belief-system[s]” which are less likely to inspire mass insanity and evil than others - Theravada Buddhism, for example.
I think religion is more of a social affectation – a common ground through which a social group can safely feel connected without really knowing anything about one another. A meme that glues a group of people together with an implied trust that lubricates more cooperative and involved social relationships.
You may have noticed that I didn’t mention god in this proposal.
There must be some evolutionary advantage to the obscenely idiotic fairy tales that the various religions have dumped on society over the centuries. I suspect there is a larger view that will eventually encompass religion, science, personal freedom/responsibility, and social freedom/responsibility.
That may take a while. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.