Religion and modern society.

[Cralor]

Religion is and always will be in our society, as it will always be in our daily lives - whether it be direct participation or from others. As for the specific question "Do we/society need it?" - No; I don't think it is necessarily needed, but everyone acknowledges it.

Princeton's definition of religion says it is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". While you may not believe "in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny", you still recognize that you do not believe this, so you, in effect, partake in religion. So, in other words, I believe you do need religion as everyone partakes in it!

Okay, so enough technicalities Here is my take on religion, etc.:

I respect any religious views, of course, and have a better understanding of those that have different interpretations of "religion" (as defined above - believing in something). But atheism, I can't wrap my head around - how can one not believe in any "higher power"? Whether it be someone or something - do you really believe that we are just here? - that planets, animals, life, gas; everything is just here?

Also, how can others be hateful to other religions (or religion itself)? If you believe in God, so what? What do you mean you have to give up yourself to your religion? You are choosing to believe in someone or something to explain your (and everything's) very existence.

TL;DR - Religion may not necessarily be needed in society - but it will always be - and there is nothing that can be done to change that.

[Vlad]

Religion yes perhaps I could agree, but remember religion and belief are two very different things. Anyway I wouldn't vote for anything specific as some people are deeply religious (mostly by tradition) and if you think their religion is obsolete they may rage on you and call you things.

[haylie]

Oh boy. Brace yourselves, for Miss I-Have-An-Opinion-About-Everything is gonna crit your face with her massive wall of text.

Religion. One of my favorite topics to discuss (read:troll people about). Let's start with the poll. The question "Is religion needed in a modern society?" is way more complicated than you could possibly imagine. First off, how do you define a "modern society"? Secondly, how do you define "religion"?

A modern society can be defined in about 2545745552131645728 ways, depending on who you ask and how you look at it. Politically? Socially? Economically? Technologically? Scientifically? All of the above? Which definition is more accurate? By whose logic?

As for religion, well that term is even more ambiguous. At which point does a system of beliefs become a religion? At which point does a ritualistic practice become a religion? Can you have ritualistic practices without the presence of one or more gods? Can you believe in one or more gods without some sort of ritualistic practices? Hell, to quote one of my teachers, you could even consider football a religion if you wanted to.

Now combining the two gets even worse. You now have to define "necessity" as well as everything that entails. Do you mean necessity for the society as a whole or for the individual? Is your society tolerant of religion? Is it tolerant of multiple religions? Can you pick a religion or do you have to choose the one imposed by the state.

You live in Belgium, Led. Belgium is largely catholic. It's a monopolist system, in the sense that other religions are regarded as "outsiders" and are generally only practiced by foreigners. Hell, my own uni has "Catholic" in its name. But guess what effect this religious monopoly has had - Belgian society nowadays has largely given religion the middle finger. In this society, the political world is generally opposed to religion and when they do mix it's generally with not much success (when's the last time you voted for a catholic party?). Therefore, the Belgian society would not need religion to function properly.

Now if you look at the United States, guess what. There is no religious monopoly. There is not "one" religion that is being "imposed" to everyone. Everyone can believe what they freaking want to believe. As a result, the US society, with this large diversity of religions is largely more religious than the monopolist societies. In this society, religion is the one that allows democracy to take place and enforces it, which is the exact opposite of what happens in Europe. The US society needs religion to function properly

It's not a question of what people believe in or freedom or stuff like that. It's nothing more than a social phenomenon. Think of religion and state as complementary. If the state provides everything the individual AND the community need to function properly, then religion is largely not needed. Religion is only used to fill the "gap" left when the state doesn't satisfy all your needs. As an example, look at social aid. In Belgium and other European countries it is provided by the state. In the US it is not. Guess in which society religion has to step it to fill that gap. If, hypothetically speaking, the state doesn't provide free schooling, it would be religion that provides it. If the state doesn't provide a clear moral code it's religion that provides it. If the state values the individual above the community, it's thanks to religion that people DO organize themselves in communities (this is actually the case in the US).

As for what people actually believe in? Stop fooling yourself. What exactly DO we know about the creation of the universe, whether or not God exists, whether or not aliens exist, whether or not the Easter bunny exists? I mean, what's the difference between believing God created the world cause some guys in black coats said so or believing a huge explosion created the universe cause some guys in white coats said so? Which is more absurd? The answer is, of course, that you don't know if God exists or not, you don't know if the Big Bang actually happened or not, and until you do know there's no freaking reason to tell anyone their beliefs are wrong just because YOU think so. That's about as ignorant as you can be.

[Dawn]

As long as people don't grow up with all necessary ethics, peace, love and understanding implemented in their DNA... mankind needs every help it can get.

For some it's religion, for others philosophy or whatever helps them to not do the wrong kind of thing is a good thing.

That's all that matters, teaching people the way to get along with each other and their surroundings. Religion was strong back in the days when people were less educated, due to science being week. However, science is not teaching anyone any ethics or proper behaviour. It just helps to understand things better, which in turn should lead to a more sophisticated/open minded view on the world and people.

There is no YES or NO to answer this question, the question - with all due respect - is pretty short minded and can only result in people bitching at each other.

[Vlad]

I like haylie

[sevti]

Originally Posted by Cralor I respect any religious views, of course, and have a better understanding of those that have different interpretations of "religion" (as defined above - believing in something). But atheism, I can't wrap my head around - how can one not believe in any "higher power"? Whether it be someone or something - do you really believe that we are just here? - that planets, animals, life, gas; everything is just here?

I take atheist to mean no belief in a deity specifically, no inherent moral, decision-making power behind it all, rather than abject faithlessness. I consider myself an atheist, though I like to believe in a power we can't quantify that makes the things like miracles possible. Maybe it's magic, or the Force. No midi-chlorians though.

As for things "just here," I suppose you're trying to get at a purpose, or origin belief - I'm ok with not having a cosmic purpose. I'll be the first to admit my origin theories are shaky at best, but that's not important to me. However it all got here, it's here, and I'm more interested in the present and near future than I am the far remote past (some history is important, but I don't believe knowing the truth of all creation has a reasonable practical application).

I guess in summary, if I needed answers about creation and purpose to get to sleep at night, I might have to turn to god. But I don't. The only purpose I need is love. Live as long as I can to love as much as I can, and make myself and others happier for it. I'm probably not the "typical" atheist, but there you have it.

Originally Posted by haylie Think of religion and state as complementary. If the state provides everything the individual AND the community need to function properly, then religion is largely not needed. Religion is only used to fill the "gap" left when the state doesn't satisfy all your needs.

I had never thought of it this way. I recognized that the simplest answer was "it depends," but this reason is eye-opening to me.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Vladinator I like haylie

You should know that I cheated since we talked about religion's role in a society today in Sociology and Anthropology class. Uni classes freaking rock.

Also, the logical conclusion that should be derived from my post is that we need a pizza option.

[Vlad]

When talking about cheating you should look at Dan Ariely about cheating and our fudge-factor -hehe

[Ferous]

I want to agree with Haylie. Humans are still short of knowing what is outside of our orb we live on, so we should never exclude the idea of a higher being or the thought of evolution. Both could be right, both could be wrong, who knows really.

We have come along a far way as a race but we still got a long way to go as a race sadly.

[Led ++]

Princeton's definition of religion says it is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". While you may not believe "in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny", you still recognize that you do not believe this, so you, in effect, partake in religion. So, in other words, I believe you do need religion as everyone partakes in it

Well you can't not participate in religion, cause it's everywhere. Does that make it right?

But atheism, I can't wrap my head around - how can one not believe in any "higher power"? Whether it be someone or something - do you really believe that we are just here? - that planets, animals, life, gas; everything is just here?

So because we don't know everything about the creation of our universe we should all believe in some kind of power that made everything for some kind of purpopse?

I think we're just an effect from what happened to our planet in it's first billion years. A reaction. How did this universe came to an existence? I honestly don't know, but we do have various leads which lead to logical assumptions. We know we don't know everything, but that doesn't matter. It's only logical people 4000 years ago gave some explanation and meaning to it. But that doesn't make it true, certainly not 4000 years later when we discovered so much.

I truly believe we are "just" here yes. Our life in this universe is of no importance. At all. The only meaning we can give ourselves is what we do on earth (so far). We're on this planet and we just have to make the best of it. Someday we might all just die (meteor, the sun dying, ...).

Anyway I wouldn't vote for anything specific as some people are deeply religious (mostly by tradition) and if you think their religion is obsolete they may rage on you and call you things.

If they rage, throw tomatoes or shoes at me, call out a Fatwa, whatever. They're just proving my point.

A modern society can be defined in about 2545745552131645728 ways

With a modern society I meant the USA, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, China, ... you get the idea. I'm well aware that religion has a different meaning in other parts of the world where it basically is their only tool to survive. I'm talking about economical, cultural, scientifically, technological, .. countries yes.

As for religion, well that term is even more ambiguous.

Basically any organised form of religion. It has nothing to do with rituals. Rituals get used in religion yes, but they can just be used without religion too. It has nothing divine in it. Ofcourse in this discussion it's mainly about the major religions, which can very for every country. Clearly no football

You now have to define "necessity" as well as everything that entails. Do you mean necessity for the society as a whole or for the individual? Is your society tolerant of religion? Is it tolerant of multiple religions? Can you pick a religion or do you have to choose the one imposed by the state.

As I said, I find that everyone has the right to worship whatever space dad he wants. In private. That doesn't mean they can't be organised, it just means they don't have anything to do with the nation. Tho this would mean that for example schools, would have to be under the watching eye of the nation. (Would you want to send your kid to a school where they get creationism instead of evolutionary biology for example?)

Now I don't know anything about making or changing a society of course, I'm just raising the question. But isn't the society as a whole also the individual? If you want to have a good society for everyone you have to look at the individuals. There will always be people who have it better of course, but the difference is gigantic this moment.

You live in Belgium, Led. Belgium is largely catholic. It's a monopolist system, in the sense that other religions are regarded as "outsiders" and are generally only practiced by foreigners.

It's true that Roman Catholicism is the main religion in belgium yes, however it is not the only recognized one. You are free to believe in what you will. All the other recognized religions get funded by the government too. However, EVERY Belgian inhabitant pays taxes to the Church, that's just how it works. The number of people that pay aren't counted by their belief. It's just the population number that gets used for this. So you, me, my local kebab store owner, the Chinese restaurant owner ... everyone who pays taxes pays to the Church. That's how our taxes system work. Churches, priests, religion teachers, .. get payed by the government.

But yes, our politicians aren't that influenced by Christian beliefs, but I'm pretty sure it's still in there somewhere. Well, it's been like 2 year since we actually HAD a government but ah well.

Now if you look at the United States, guess what. There is no religious monopoly. There is not "one" religion that is being "imposed" to everyone.

Neither is it in Belgium. However I'm quite sure that the main religion in America is still Christianity. I don't think they ever had a president that's not Christian (and surely not an atheist).
Even in their Senate which is how big? Somewhere in the 300 or 400 people, there isn't (or barely is) any atheist. In one of the elections (I don't know for what exactly tho) there were more candidates that believed in the story of Adam and Eve then in evolution. The people leading the USa are people that believe in the talking snake, and that a woman came out of a rib etc. I for once wouldn't want people that think like that run my country.

If the state provides everything the individual AND the community need to function properly, then religion is largely not needed. Religion is only used to fill the "gap" left when the state doesn't satisfy all your needs.

And is that because they think Jesus would do that, or is it because it fills their pockets with a whole lot of money? And where does the money from the Church come from? And again, I don't believe for one second that we need religion for morality. Religions morality at it's core isn't even something I would teach my children (if I had any). We are a smart race, we evolved beyond anything else on our planet, our brain is big enough. We don't need a god to tell us what's good or not. We can think about that for ourselves. It's in our nature. Like we know that murder is bad, it's bad for our species. But that doesn't mean a human wouldn't be able to murder. Everyone is able to murder. The nazis are a fine example of that. We, as humans, can build a society on our own which isn't based or influenced around dogmas.

As for what people actually believe in? Stop fooling yourself.

So because we don't know we're not allowed to pick a side? Or we're not allowed to discuss and search for the answers?

what's the difference between believing God created the world cause some guys in black coats said so or believing a huge explosion created the universe cause some guys in white coats said so?

It's quite big. Now believing that a god just created our world and that's it (Deism), wouldn't be to bad. However a god that made our world, told us what to do and what not to do, who to hate/murder and who not is a whole other thing. Especially when people have different gods every 500km (so to speak). Cause that god in itself is already discriminating. Not only towards other gods, but also at minorities like gay people for example. Things like abortion, stem-cell research etc. The answer whether a god made our universe and us, or whether he didn't sounds far more important then the question whether aliens exist. (Which they probably do btw)

You're right, I don't know the answer. I'm not 100% sure that the Big Bang is real, but scientifically speaking I can quite easily say it's the latter. Only time, time that I won't be seeing, will tell.

I'm not telling people they're wrong (altho I think they are). I'm trying to get them out of their bubble and think rational for a minute. Even tho I know it's almost pointless because faith is something strong.
And yes, to a certain point I do think that religion is actually dangerous.

As long as people don't grow up with all necessary ethics, peace, love and understanding implemented in their DNA... mankind needs every help it can get.

Bad things happen, it's in our system. Religious people do bad things, non religious people do bad things. Religion won't help people be "perfect", it never has.

Education, social security, health security, .. those are things that help you become a better person, or a better society in general.

There is a Yes or No, cause I'm not talking about the existence of a god. I'm talking about the need for religion in society.

[Dridzt]

Most institutionalized religions emphasize the aspect of "belief".

They define belief as a self-conviction that needs no proof other than an internal harmony or in any case existential benefits.

There's also usually a catch-22 situation in that you only reap said benefits if you actually take that "leap of faith" and that's when everything will suddenly make sense.

That's what you "give up" to become religious.

Skepticism on the other hand (and if anything I'd define myself as a skeptic) is in perpetual denial of absolute truths on which religions flourish.

I "believe" a bus hitting me is not going to do my health any good so I avoid stepping infront of one, through observation of similar effects on less fortunate individuals.
I can also deduct and theorize beyond the sphere of the immediately tactable but there is no leap of faith involved.
I am also at peace with the idea that knowledge is a moving target and there is no absolute truth;
that does not invalidate all truths, it just makes them historically defined and gives them a field of application.

Religion on the other hand claims possession of eternal truths (and here speaking mostly about religions dominant in the western world) through revelation that not only are immune to empirical testing or deduction but are a "higher order" of truth by which all "transient" truths are to be measured.

I see beliefs in anthropomorphic higher entities or superpowers as a progressive step in early man.
It comes as a side-effect and at the same time stepping stone to self-consciousness and empathy.
Moving beyond the animal state of being one with nature to being something of an "observer".
"I can destroy an ant-hill to protect my grain so maybe when a mud-slide buries my village there's a higher being that's punishing me for doing something wrong?"
Making that power similar to themselves they can plead / appease / hope to understand and find patterns that mimic their own behavior and eventually empower themselves to conquer their environment.

It's still primitive and much less efficient in the long run than understanding why and where not to build your huts.

Before the advent of causality and empirical testing "blind faith" could be a progressive force.
As it stands it's a few millennia out of date.
The fact that it still holds the minds of so many people is both a symptom of imbalance in social evolution (that allows part of society a much greater control over their lives and environment than the majority) and the institutionalized religions' amazing willingness to side with anything standing opposite man as an uncontrollable force that surpasses him (be it their state/government, corporations or plain old money).

I have to say that the original question is indeed misleading and as such either answer is unsatisfactory to me.
Q: "Does the modern society need religion?"
A: "Depends who you talk to".
Those that have to gain from religion playing its part in society (and those are not necessarily the believers themselves)
would emphatically say "yes".

I can answer only for myself in saying that personally I have found no need or use for religion nor "god" to get through life.

[Led ++]

Yes well the question is perhaps a bit to simple. because I tried to keep it as simple as possible.

I could rephrase it in something like:

"If you had the power to build a brand new society, would you have the feeling that you NEED to have a place for religion in it? Or would you rather make a society which isn't based upon religion. Where religion basically, adds nothing of value to the society."


And do mind that you wouldn't be building a society like current 3rd world countries or a place where an tsunami just killed 300.000 people.


Dridzt imo already answered it by saying he personally has no need for religion in his life. So I assume he also thinks that another person wouldn't need it (tho in the current world this is different because of various situations). So I'm guessing his perfect world, let us say, wouldn't have a need for religion.

I hope it's all more clear now.

[Unkn]

Complicated wall of text incoming!


Its a personal answer to a public question. Everyone here is going to have a different response for different reasons.

I have family members who have different beliefs or ideas about the world than I do. To me it looks like they can not get thru the day without having had a "personal" conversation with who they refer to as God. To them the answer to the question would be yes, modern society does need religion. For them their life, morale code, and actions revolve around what they believe in.

To me, no, modern society doesn't need religion. But just because we do not need it, does not mean we do not want it. Religion was a way to control, subdue, bind together a community or region of people. It was a way for people who were used to answering to someone above them to also answer to a higher power for action that weren't controlled by other men. If you think about it from the earliest memory you have, there has been someone that has known more than you, had more experience, had a plan, or a morale compass that has helped guide you and shape you into the person you are. I think religion basically built from that. Our, humanity’s want, to have someone there that knows more than them- That has a master plan. I say we do not need religion anymore because as a whole, we are stronger, better educated, more connected than anytime before in history. This thread is a perfect example. But at the end of the day, what we need and what we want are very often different things.

So no we do not need religion. We can successfully sustain ourselves without religion. And the world might be a more peaceful place without it. We can live without we want, but we don’t need to in this case.

[Coote]

Originally Posted by Led ++ I feel that religion and government should be two divided by law.

I agree with this COMPLETELY. I always find my government to be a bunch of hypocrites when it comes down to the separation of church and state. Religion always comes up, and politicians are sworn into office with a hand on the bible. Doesn't sound much like there's ANY separation.


Another reason I believe religion has no business with government stems down to several points in history, mainly the dark ages. If it weren't for the clergy forcing the kings' hands, we would have had several golden ages, and technology would be much further ahead at this point. Automobiles would have likely been created a couple hundred years ago, computers would likely be far more powerful, and smaller, and we might even be colonizing the moon, or even Mars at this point were it not for religion's say in government (sorry for the run-on sentence >.<).

Originally Posted by Haleth Myself, I base my morals on my own common sense, because I know I can trust it most of the time. I don't want to harm anyone, I can't even stand seeing someone in pain, the humanity in me just instantly wants to help and comfort them.

I'm fairly similar. I base my morals on both my own common sense, as well as my own personal belief of justice. I prefer being able to help anybody I can that's in need of it, but on the other hand, I'm not above causing harm, but only if one is deserving of it.

Originally Posted by Led ++ To a certain point we're all agnostic, I mean no one can be 100% sure about the existence of god. No one can be 100% sure if there is no god either.

Sure, nobody can be 100% certain, but that's where faith comes in.

[Hoern]

The thing about religion is, it usually circles around books or other documents written by humans. Now, from personal experience, I know for a fact how insanely hard it is to explain Baseball to someone who never watched a game and didn't grow up with it. And that's a man-made concept.

How much more complicated, if not impossible, must it be to communicate something that's presumably so much "higher" than man made in its intent and execution.

Instead, religion seems to be a rather overt attempt at taking old writings and using them to justify modern fears and unwillingnesses. If arguments get low or if something is - for lack of want or not - foreign, it's a short reach into a book or body of works that has "all the answers".

We've seen these things outside of organized mainstream religions before. Politicians manage to interpret about anything they want in their opponent's statements. "Mentalists" and other scam artists use the art of cold and hot reading to lead someone into believing they know things they shouldn't. And so, at least to me, seem those books and texts.

It's easy to use something that has been written long ago and whose authors are long gone, whose meaning has been changed over six or seven translations, changes based on current sentiment, redactions, and amendments, for just about anything. The same verse is used by Televengalists to justify asking for more and more money from relatively poor victims as it is used by asketes and monks to reason their voluntary poverty (Matthew 19:23-24), for example.

Do we need religion? Some evolutionary biologists actually believe that we do. Dawkins himself allows for this, quoting one milestone study which links the survival of the human race to our unique ability to take for granted and accept as truth things that seem outlandish and have no proof behind them. Authority, in general, is an evolutionary concept which enables group activity and survival, and as such any authority - real or imagined - creates the cohesion as a species we need to evolve.

And that's what religion is, in its core. The trust into something that can not be proven, just because someone we accept as authority says so.

Another study (Hassert et al, 2004) poses another interesting model for this - our brains, when faced with concepts we are not able to fully grasp, reverts to a more primal level, creating assistive models. Lightning and thunder, death, the universe, are just some of those concepts. Sooner or later we all meet that level, from cave man to modern day rocket scientist. And that's when our brain just says "a wizard did it" and moves on.

In modern America we see a reversal of religion into fanaticism, however. This is different and not the fault of religion. As I say above, the texts and tenets of religious movements are easily abused to create authority, rally large numbers of followers, or explain away things. As the Pope, himself not necessarily someone who is anti-religion, so famously said "if you attack Evolution because you can not read about it in the Bible, you are missing the point of religion and are perverting it into old-god worship akin to praying to the god of thunder".

[Hoern]

Originally Posted by Unkn To me it looks like they can not get thru the day without having had a "personal" conversation with who they refer to as God.

Einstein (who, contrary to some claims, never was big on religion) once said this: "If you talk to your God, that's healthy. If he answers then it's time to see someone about that problem of yours."

A better quote on the issue I can not find

[Petrah]

The Christian God requires;
blood sacrifice, subjugation of women, annihilation of cities, slaughter of the multitudes, unquestioned obedience, murder of his own son, destruction by flood, and as a grand finale, He plans to destroy the world by fire!

And people wonder why I'm Pagan.

[haylie]

Oh freaking hell.

You people seem not to know the difference between religion in its larger meaning as a social phenomenon meant to organize society in a state where the law or moral code doesn't allow it, and the actual content of that religion.

The content is irrelevant. No one gives a flying hell what the religion is about. It doesn't matter. If it is an institutionalized religion its effects on society as a whole would be absolutely the same.

Religion, like many other things today, is nothing more than a form of crowd control. It was used in ancient time as the basis for legislation and morality when the state wasn't powerful enough to enforce them itself (The Ten Commandments are basically copy/pasted in today's most Constitutions), and even today in some countries it is still used that way.

Get out of your collective bubbles and look at religion objectively, not from the point of what you believe in.

[Dridzt]

Are you making this up as you go?

Your mix of generalizations and pre-suppositions makes for mind-boggling absurdity.

"a social phenomenon meant to organize society in a state where the law or moral code doesn't allow it"
According to who is that such an obvious truth? Care to qualify that with some historic or even contemporary examples so we have something more than hot air to talk about?

"is nothing more than a form of crowd control"
Who's the controller and who's the crowd? Which category do you place yourself in? Kinda breaks that notion of society as an atom right there.

From your final apostrophe it looks like all you got from the discussion sofar is that everyone (but you) is looking at religion (our subject) subjectively.

News flash! That's all individuals do...
"Objectivity" is also a moving target approximated through discourse where subjective views and perceptions clash, merge, cancel out until synthesis is reached.

I've seen different interesting viewpoints (including your own sofar apart from that "me vs all" complex) with just hints of convergence.

We've had self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics, skeptics and religious people pitch in, how you manage to fit them all in bubbles is quite a feat

[carebear.]

I'm not too fussed really. I'm an atheist myself and I don't believe in the all mighty. If someone else wants to go believe in religion then feel free. Just don't try and force it down my throat in the process.