Sports or religions: What's more useful to society?

[RickJay]

@Abirode

But I’m not asking about individual utility.

Well, you are. You’re just asking for a lot of them.

As to the question as a whole, it strikes me as being almost qithout question that the elimination of religion would be of almost incalculable value to the human race.

The notion that religion provides people with a moral or ethical centre just doesn’t strike me as being even the slightest bit true. I have never seen a shred of evidence that religion has a substantial impact on a person’s relative level of morality, decently, or ethics. Randy’s claim seems to be that the loss of religion would cause people to lose thair moral compass is dependent upon the assumption that there is any connection between the two, which

1. Does not fit with my perception,
2. Is inconsistent with almost any widespread measure you care to come up with - crime and generally crappy behaviour is not less common in highly religious places than less religious places, once you control for other factors, and
3. Doesn’t really make any sense.

With respect to number three, the reason I don’t think it makes a lot of sense is simply that there is no substantial difference between any religion, faith, or any other widely accepted and sane belief system in terms of fundamental morals. Almost all the non-psychopaths who have ever lived will generally agree that it is wrong to hurt people, kill people, steal things, and such. Where religions differ from each other, and from non-theistic systems of ethics, is in details that really have very little to do with the morals and ethics of interpersonal behaviour - whether you should go to this or that church, whether or not you should wear a hat, whether or not you should eat pork.

Absent religion I really don’t buy into the notion a lot of people will lose their ethical center (I am assuming some relatively smooth transition, not some sudden catastrophe that causes 5.9 billion people to lose their faith and go nuts) for the simple reason that there is no evidence at all that people without religion lack an ethical center in any higher a proportion than those with it.

[ITR_champion]

@Abirode

Obviously, there are reasons why sports and religions exist, and persist. But, which one has had the most positive effect on society?

It seems to be fairly obvious. Religion has had the most positive impact on society, since without religion there’d be no society. While baseball, football, et al are entertaining and sometimes enlightening it’s tough to credit them with bringing any part of the human race out of the stone age.

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR champion

It seems to be fairly obvious. Religion has had the most positive impact on society, since without religion there’d be no society. While baseball, football, et al are entertaining and sometimes enlightening it’s tough to credit them with bringing any part of the human race out of the stone age.

Neither has religion. Quite the opposite; it’s been a major drag on society, typically opposing or destroying any form of intellectual advancement or moral progress.

And societies, if anything, function better the less religion there is. The theocracies and more religiously dominated nations/cultures are neither the best run places, nor the best to live in.

[YamatoTwinkie]

@RickJay

Absent religion I really don’t buy into the notion a lot of people will lose their ethical center (I am assuming some relatively smooth transition, not some sudden catastrophe that causes 5.9 billion people to lose their faith and go nuts) for the simple reason that there is no evidence at all that people without religion lack an ethical center in any higher a proportion than those with it.

Absent religion, I think there would no longer be a logical basis for morality, yes. Of course, people will still behave morally (for awhile, at least), because that is how everyone is wired.

But once people realize that morality is just an evolutionary response that rewards group behavior at the occasional expense of the individual what then? Will we continue to hold “morality” to the same standard, or will humanity begin a slow decent into nihilism?

[Der_Trihs]

@YamatoTwinkie

Absent religion, I think there would no longer be a logical basis for morality, yes. Of course, people will still behave morally (for awhile, at least), because that is how everyone is wired.

But once people realize that morality is just an evolutionary response that rewards group behavior at the occasional expense of the individual what then? Will we continue to hold “morality” to the same standard, or will humanity begin a slow decent into nihilism?

No. First, because religion doesn’t provide a logical basis for morality; quite the opposite, if provides the perfect excuse for immorality. It teaches people to ignore the real world consequences of their actions, and that it’s more important to follow arbitrary rules based on a fiction than to care about actual people. To the extent the religious are moral, it’s in spite of religion, not because of it.

And second, the biological and instinctive reasons to be moral will remain; without religion undercutting them, I expect they’d become stronger.

[Duhkecco]

@RickJay

As to the question as a whole, it strikes me as being almost without question that the elimination of religion would be of almost incalculable value to the human race.

Okay. Interesting opinion.

So, are you saying that:

1. Religions are of no use.
2. Sports are useful.
3. Therefore, sports are more useful than religions?

Or, something like this:

1. Religions are bad.
2. Sports are good.
3. Something that is good is more useful than something that is bad.
4. Therefore, sports are more useful than religions?

Randy’s claim seems to be that the loss of religion would cause people to lose thair moral compass is dependent upon the assumption that there is any connection between the two, which

1. Does not fit with my perception,
2. Is inconsistent with almost any widespread measure you care to come up with - crime and generally crappy behaviour is not less common in highly religious places than less religious places, once you control for other factors

#1 is an opinion based on personal observation. For #2, do you have a cite?

I realize that you addressed Randy Seltzer’s argument regarding morality, but are you saying that religion provides nothing of value to society, or are you saying that it provides less in comparison to sports?

[YamatoTwinkie]

@Der Trihs

No. First, because religion doesn’t provide a logical basis for morality; quite the opposite, if provides the perfect excuse for immorality.

You assume that I am arguing in favor of one particular religion or another. I’m not, and agree with you that organized religion has, on many occasions, created an excuse for immoral actions.

However, for good or bad, right or wrong, religion does provide a logical foundation for morality. Nothing else can.

@Der Trihs

And second, the biological and instinctive reasons to be moral will remain

Read my argument again. I already conceded this. But, as a long-time smoker might give up his biological nicotine addiction for greater individual gain, so might many others give up on morality (hypothetically, through surgery, pills, or sheer willpower alone) Why wouldn’t you, assuming you had the power to?

[Eben]

@YamatoTwinkie

But where does your moral compass (logically) stem from? By removing a “higher power” from the equation, the only other explanation is that you are wired that way because natural selection decided that social groups of humans with an innate sense of altruism and morality survive better as a whole. Thus, your brain gets a “reward response” when helping others.

However, this is not the most beneficial route for an individual to take. In this case, the optimal course of action is to put up a facade of morality while secretly stealing from the community.

From where I sit, it sure looks like the majority of religious leaders do in fact “put up a facade of morality while secretly stealing from the community.” Although when you have tithing, it doesn’t really have to be all that secret.

[Der_Trihs]

@YamatoTwinkie

However, for good or bad, right or wrong, religion does provide a logical foundation for morality. Nothing else can.

Religion DOESN’T provide a logical basis for morality, or anything else. It’s fundamentally illogical. Nor does it make people more moral, it makes them less moral - all over the world, the stronger religion is, the less moral and more generally dysfunctional a society is. Religion undercuts morality.

Or in other words, why isn’t Iran morally superior to less religious nations ? Why has the weakening of religion’s grip on society, all over the world, produced greater morality ? Equality of women, for example.

@YamatoTwinkie

Read my argument again. I already conceded this. But, as a long-time smoker might give up his biological nicotine addiction for greater individual gain, so might many others give up on morality (hypothetically, through surgery, pills, or sheer willpower alone) Why wouldn’t you, assuming you had the power to?

Because it’s not a gain, and because we aren’t wired that way. And because religion deosn’t make people more moral in the first place. This sounds like a reprise of the old all-morality-comes-from-religion-so-atheists-are-monsters routine.

[Duhkecco]

@Eben

From where I sit, it sure looks like the majority of religious leaders do in fact “put up a facade of morality while secretly stealing from the community.” Although when you have tithing, it doesn’t really have to be all that secret.

The majority? :dubious:

And some professional athletes are willing to win at all costs, while some restrain their behavior merely because it will hurting their bargaining power and their endorsements. So?

Okay, morality is *one * aspect of society (and, yes, it’s an important aspect), but it’s not the only aspect of religion and sports.

How about this? (Since some posters think it’s a slam dunk that sports are more useful than religions):

1. Do religions offer any benefit, value, or usefulness to society?
2. Do sports cause any harm to society?

[Der_Trihs]

@Abirode

How about this? (Since some posters think it’s a slam dunk that sports are more useful than religions):

1. Do religions offer any benefit, value, or usefulness to society?
2. Do sports cause any harm to society?

My view :

1 : Yes, but the negatives massively, massively outweigh the positives.

2 : Yes, but much less than religion. And also, it’s not delusional, unlike religion. You don’t see crowds of tens of thousands cheering imaginary teams in stadiums with empty fields.

[Malthus]

@RickJay

Well, you are. You’re just asking for a lot of them.

As to the question as a whole, it strikes me as being almost qithout question that the elimination of religion would be of almost incalculable value to the human race.

The notion that religion provides people with a moral or ethical centre just doesn’t strike me as being even the slightest bit true. I have never seen a shred of evidence that religion has a substantial impact on a person’s relative level of morality, decently, or ethics. Randy’s claim seems to be that the loss of religion would cause people to lose thair moral compass is dependent upon the assumption that there is any connection between the two, which

1. Does not fit with my perception,
2. Is inconsistent with almost any widespread measure you care to come up with - crime and generally crappy behaviour is not less common in highly religious places than less religious places, once you control for other factors, and
3. Doesn’t really make any sense.

With respect to number three, the reason I don’t think it makes a lot of sense is simply that there is no substantial difference between any religion, faith, or any other widely accepted and sane belief system in terms of fundamental morals. Almost all the non-psychopaths who have ever lived will generally agree that it is wrong to hurt people, kill people, steal things, and such. Where religions differ from each other, and from non-theistic systems of ethics, is in details that really have very little to do with the morals and ethics of interpersonal behaviour - whether you should go to this or that church, whether or not you should wear a hat, whether or not you should eat pork.

Absent religion I really don’t buy into the notion a lot of people will lose their ethical center (I am assuming some relatively smooth transition, not some sudden catastrophe that causes 5.9 billion people to lose their faith and go nuts) for the simple reason that there is no evidence at all that people without religion lack an ethical center in any higher a proportion than those with it.

I do not think that the utility of religion lies in the dubious proposition that being religious, in the traditional forms religion takes in our present-day society, makes anyone a better person than not being religious (I also do not subscribe to the belief that being religious makes you worse).

To my mind, the main utility of religion, present-day, is that what is likely to replace established “religion” were it to disappear (suddenly or gradually) is not necessarily some form of advanced secular humanism, but rather some form of mass superstition, movement or cult - such as nationalism or communism, the scourges of the last century.

I believe that this remains a significant concern these days, should our society be exposed to truely stressful situations. There appears to be something within human nature that requires identity with something greater than the self in times of stress or danger. Religion fills that role, and provides at least some protection against being swept up by the latest mass movement.

The established religions, if you will, are an innoculation of traditional beliefs (in our society at any rate mostly completely benign) that can be analogized to a vaccine against more active and virulent forms of mass belief. Remove it at one’s peril.

[YamatoTwinkie]

@Der Trihs

Religion DOESN’T provide a logical basis for morality, or anything else. It’s fundamentally illogical.

I don’t care if the religion states: “god says everyone must love their neighbors”

or: “the great purple dinosaur says everyone must kill all non-believers”

Either way, it provides a LOGICAL framework for morality. Once one supposes that there is a higher authority out there, it is logical to take those commands and teachings as truth. no matter how wrong they may be, in actuality

@Der Trihs

Or in other words, why isn’t Iran morally superior to less religious nations ? Why has the weakening of religion’s grip on society, all over the world, produced greater morality ? Equality of women, for example.

I am not arguing that religion “always”, or even “most-of-the-time” produces greater morality. All I am saying is that religion offers a logical framework for morality(whether right or wrong, it doesn’t matter). Once that is gone, all that is left is the biological explanation for its origins.

I think many people have yet to realize this. Hence, the reason why the absence of religion has not corresponded with an increase in nihilism. Yet.

@Der Trihs

Because it’s not a gain.

Yes it is. Imagine that there was an untraceable box of cash accidentally left on the subway. It was originally intended to fund a children’s orphanage/hospital in some third-world country. You know for a fact that you won’t get caught if you take it. Do you?

By taking the money for yourself, it would be an immense individual gain. Because religion is (hypothetically) gone, only your biological sense of group morality, evolved eons ago, is stepping in the way. Why would you give in to it? Why not get rid of the moral impulse altogether, if you could?

[Duhkecco]

YamatoTwinkie, you present an interesting argument about morality.

What do you think about sports?

[Der_Trihs]

@YamatoTwinkie

I don’t care if the religion states: “god says everyone must love their neighbors”

or: “the great purple dinosaur says everyone must kill all non-believers”

Either way, it provides a LOGICAL framework for morality. Once one supposes that there is a higher authority out there, it is logical to take those commands and teachings as truth. no matter how wrong they may be, in actuality

No, it doesn’t. How do you know the “higher authority” isn’t lying ? Or insane, or evil ? And what qualifies God as a “higher authority” ? Power ?

Nor is is logical to take those teachings as truth when the make no sense, or contradict or ignore reality.

And obeying orders isn’t morality in the first place. Doing something or not doing something because God told you to isn’t moral.

@YamatoTwinkie

I am not arguing that religion “always”, or even “most-of-the-time” produces greater morality. All I am saying is that religion offers a logical framework for morality(whether right or wrong, it doesn’t matter). Once that is gone, all that is left is the biological explanation for its origins.

Nonsense. There’s the obvious fact that a moral society is more pleasant to live in than a society where everyone is a predator. Self interest provides a “logical framework” for morality, while religion does not.

@YamatoTwinkie

I think many people have yet to realize this. Hence, the reason why the absence of religion has not corresponded with an increase in nihilism. Yet.

No, it tends to correspond to more stable, ethical, functional people and cultures. Religion isn’t a source of morality in the first place; it’s a source of corruption, malignance, and madness.

@YamatoTwinkie

Yes it is. Imagine that there was an untraceable box of cash accidentally left on the subway. It was originally intended to fund a children’s orphanage/hospital in some third-world country. You know for a fact that you won’t get caught if you take it. Do you?

By taking the money for yourself, it would be an immense individual gain. Because religion is (hypothetically) gone, only your biological sense of group morality, evolved eons ago, is stepping in the way. Why would you give in to it? Why not get rid of the moral impulse altogether, if you could?

Because the result would be death and destruction on a worldwide scale; the war of all against all. Your argument is badly flawed.

First, you NEVER “know for a fact” you won’t be caught. The prisons are full of people who were sure they wouldn’t get caught.

Second, my moral code has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I regard religion as evil.

Third, my “biological sense of group morality” evolved for a reason; because it’s a better way to live. The idea that evil is superior and being good stupid is incorrect.

Fourth, I DO have that sense of morality.

And fifth, “Morality is better for everyone” is a perfectly adequate reason to be moral.

[YamatoTwinkie]

Didn’t mean to hijack the thread, sorry :smack:

As it can probably be gathered, I’m genuinely afraid for a world without the influence of religion on morality.

If sports were to go, well, it’d be a loss, but the world isn’t going to end in one giant mass-suicide. At least I’d hope not.

[Der_Trihs]

@YamatoTwinkie

As it can probably be gathered, I’m genuinely afraid for a world without the influence of religion on morality.

If sports were to go, well, it’d be a loss, but the world isn’t going to end in one giant mass-suicide. At least I’d hope not.

Religion is far more likely to cause mass suicide than prevent it, judging from history. It’s the religious people who think the end of the world is a great idea and they can go to heaven.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@YamatoTwinkie

Once one supposes that there is a higher authority out there, it is logical to take those commands and teachings as truth. no matter how wrong they may be, in actuality

And why would you make that supposition?

[Duhkecco]

@Bryan Ekers

And why would you make that supposition?

I think that Yamato is referring to a “higher authority” who is *way * higher than us in power, understanding, and wisdom. Starting with that assumption, it seems reasonable to take “those commands and teachings as truth”, though not blindly.

Now, is that *assumption * reasonable? Well …

In sports, there are “ultimate” authorities, and we (usually) accept their decisions as final.

Of course, we can see and hear them, and we acknowledge that they are human …

[Eben]

@Abirode

The majority? :dubious:

Yep, the majority. I know very few religious leaders who do not live off of the hard work of their followers. Given that many of these same religions claim charity to be a great virtue, the leaders must either be deluded or lying. I vote for lying. Now if the Pope was working nights as a bartender to make ends meet, I might feel diferently.