Is Religion Bad For Society?

[Conde Lucanor]

Two questions from this:
1. If "religion is just part of the same forces that create...etc....human essence," then is the real problem "religion," which is then a symptom, not the root cause, or would we then look beyond to a more basic problem in "human nature" itself?

Man makes religion. The point in discussion is not what is the root cause of something bad in society. Everything in society will find its root cause in man, because of the obvious reason that societies are made of human beings. But of all things created by man, some are useful for developing human potential, some others don't. Religion is one of those not good for society. Even if you argued that social projects that embrace atheism have not really performed well in the ethical department, you'll still find that religion doesn't make much of a difference, it doesn't make things better. It does not stop wars, murder, etc., and in many cases, it works for justifying them.

If the world is "heartless," what does this mean? Should we expect the world to have a "heart"? Or is this just a metaphor...but if so, a metaphor for what reality?

It is, of course, a metaphor. Society (the world) is labeled "heartless" in the same way that an individual is called "heartless".

This is curiously self-contradictory, is it not? If "human essence" has not "acquired any true reality," then the speaker of the quotation must be claiming to know this somehow. But since he is also declaring that "human essence" has no "reality," he is making a claim about nothing, according to his own terms. So he claims he both knows this "nothing," and can measure when we've "acquired" or "not acquired" it, and also believes it has "no reality." Some explanation of that is required, I would say.

I think you're lost in metaphors. What the author means is that religion is false consciousness, ideology, a product of the mind that still holds some relation with truth, as expression of real needs, but satisfied with illusions. It's a false satisfaction, just in the same way heroin satisfies the needs of a drug addict. Religion is a realization of man in fantasy, and to "acquire a true reality" means to harmonize mankind with its true human material essence.

An earlier speaker suggested we look for a case of an atheist society that is doing well. This was probably an error of the same type as this reply, namely to mistake a single case for something indicative. If not, it's not entirely clear what this case is arguing.

If it were suggesting that a single case should be taken as paradigmatic, that would be an obvious fallacy: an exception wouldn't teach anything about the validity of a general rule, just as a person who survives a skydiving accident doesn't tell regarding the advisability of jumping without a parachute.

Findind a case o a godless society doing well is giving the proper response to the argument that a single, particular case of a godless society doing well, cannot be found. It could well be a single case, but that's the point to argue: that there can be a single case. It is not meant to be indicative that godless societies always do well (in terms of getting along with others), just that there's no essential link between getting along with others and religion. As Arising_uk just explained: religion didn't invent ethics and morals.

[Soren]

Everything in society will find its root cause in man,

Ah, now this is the interesting bit. It may be true, or it may not be; but let's suppose for a minute that you are 100% right. Can you venture, on that basis, an explanation of why humankind is the source of what we call "evil"? I thought you were positing a naturalistic universe, which definitionally means one devoid of objective moral categories. Were you now supposing the appearance of an objective value?

Man makes religion.

Plausibly true. Does man make ALL of them? How did you discover this? Or is it merely a rhetorical flourish for effect, not something intended to convey a fact? Well, if it's a fact, can it not be shown? If it cannot, how do you know it's a fact?

It is, of course, a metaphor. Society (the world) is labeled "heartless" in the same way that an individual is called "heartless".

Well, if it refers to nothing at all, then is it a useful metaphor? After all, according to slender atheism, we should not expect it to have any sort of compassion: "society" is a collective abstraction. But did you mean "the human beings IN the society?" If so, you come to the same problem as above: why should we expect anyone to "have (metaphorical) heart" in a naturalistic universe?

I think you're lost in metaphors.

No, not at all. I understood the intent of his rhetoric. In fact, it's my area of expertise. I merely pointed out that the author had rather ineptly contradicted himself a couple of times in the same breath. Since his quotation was offered as a testament of wisdom, I felt justified in exposing the questionableness of that "wisdom." I like to keep things rational, not merely rhetorical.

Findind a case o a godless society doing well is giving the proper response to the argument that a single, particular case of a godless society doing well, cannot be found. It could well be a single case, but that's the point to argue: that there can be a single case. It is not meant to be indicative that godless societies always do well (in terms of getting along with others), just that there's no essential link between getting along with others and religion.

I was simply pointing out that the single case wasn't at all clear, and even if it were, it would not justify slender atheism in any way. Even supposing it was a genuine atheist society (which remains to be shown), we cannot know that the fact of its atheism has anything causally to do with its "well-being." That too would need to be established. And even if we discovered such a society "had morals" derived from slender atheism (which is impossible anyway, on your account, since you insist on only the slender version of atheism, which does not contain a statement on morality), we would not have any way of justifying our own "moral" belief that these were really "moral." Slender atheism gives us nothing to work with in that regard at all.

So we would not know what we'd found, nor what conclusion its existence warranted. So my objection was simply a matter of rational procedure here.

As Arising_uk just explained: religion didn't invent ethics and morals.

Arguably so: but his proof of this was...? Oh, he didn't give any. It would seem odd to give his statement credence without any proof at all, wouldn't it? Why would we do that?

[Arising_uk]

Because the mere observation that "we feel ethical and moral interest" is not a justification of our moral and ethical status any more than "I feel I want" is a justification for theft. The feeling or even the "fact" of our concern goes not one step in proving that concern legitimate. How do we know that "morality" isn't simply a vestigial reaction? How do we know we owe it to pay it any attention? What turns our impulse to something into a moral imperative that we must be granted it?

Legitimate to whom? Granted by whom? I'd have thought being moral is about oneself not others? If they don't want to play then don't play with them. Danielson with his virtuous robots showed that the reciprocal co-operater outdoes the defector and co-operator in moral games.

Rabbits object to being eaten by foxes. But foxes must eat. ...

Rabbits raise no objections.

The fact that we can "abstract" is only a fact, and as Hume noted, does not come bundled with a value-justification. And as for the realization that it could happen to any of us, surely that's obvious; but so what? How does that factual realization issue in a moral obligation on others to prevent it?

It doesn't, my take is that it raises a moral obligation upon oneself to choose the world one wants to live in.

Nope. Funny...I was sure I was perfectly clear that "slender" atheism supports NO particular moral system at all. So let's forget utilitarianism. It's implausible anyway.

It's not implausible, just hard to calculate and makes hard choices but this stance was used much during WWII and the conundrum of the Enigma code cracking. My take is that Atheism supports any moral system one cares to choose.

What in the statement "There is no God," which is CL's slender version of atheism, suggests a prohibition on killing of any kind, for any reason?

Not what I said, I said, 'There is a 'God' and mine is the true one.' has led to a lot of killing and injury. Not having this excuse would at least remove this form of offence.

Why? Why not any of the other systems? Are their no "reasons" to prefer a liberal democracy? Can no "reason" be summoned to advocate one or another form of socialism? Why not some form of autocracy? What is uniquely "rational" about meritocracy?

You miss out the bit where I say 'equality of opportunity' and under these conditions I think a meritocracy just obviously the most rational approach if one wants to find the best to do the best job and all doing the best they can at what they can. I'd have thought a true liberal democracy would be one where equality of opportunity allows the meritorious to achieve their aims?

And if we opt for a "meritocracy," does this mean that the weak must die? If not, why must "meritocracy" stop short of that? How does "reason" counsel restraint on this point? You'll have to show me how that works.

What are the 'weak' in this case? Whatever their are why would their be any resentment towards them?

In a meritocracy, why should the survival and thriving of society as a whole be the decider, as opposed to the promotion of the individual genius? Wouldn't the triumph of the individual-of-merit be the meritocratic standard?

It was you who raised the evolutionary standard? Still, the individual-of-merit(although I'm puzzled why all aren't such things in some case?) still needs a thriving of the society they swim in to survive.

This is odd: you seem to be under the impression that turning around and saying, "Yeah, well religion is worse" provides some kind of answer here. ...

Did I say this? I thought I said that all that would be lost was one set of offences and a source of mass control.

But at the moment, we're talking only about atheism, not about any alternatives. We're taking for granted the idea that "religion" (whatever that is) is set aside (at least for the moment), and we're seeing what the implications of the alternative are. We're just asking what CL's slender atheism itself will warrant. ...

I thought the OP was about how society would be worse-off without theism not with atheism? Still, I think it clear that with atheism it'd be any system one cares to choose.

But in fact, as I have suggested, CL's slender atheism has no rational political or social implications at all. It certainly offers no warrant for meritocracy. How could it: you can see that it doesn't even contain any concept of "merit"!

You're right, and thats because it's a disbelief in what the theist claims, not a belief in anything. As such the warrant for a meritocracy rests in the reasoning of its citizens. I guess that's partly why it'd be a good thing for region to vanish as no more props or excuses for why things are as they are because they are as they are because we don't think it's a choice.

So I must ask, from which additional ideology are you adding that on, and why should we believe that that ideology is a necessary corollary of atheism?

I don't, I think it a necessary corollary of being able to choose and prefer the choice to be a rational or reasonable one based upon what kind of society one would prefer to live in.

[Soren]

I'd have thought being moral is about oneself not others?

Oh no...of course not. This is the moral solipsist fallacy.

Why would we even bother with the category "moral" if you were the only person on earth? If there were no God, no other people, and not even any other animals that one regarded as relevant to a moral decision, then one would simply have no use for moral language at all. One could not even talk sensibly about "morality" to oneself, then...for how could one "owe oneself" any explanation for a choice made or action taken? And to whom would the moral appeal be made?

The truth is that morality only comes into play when there are at least two persons or morally-relevant entities in view.

a moral obligation upon oneself

To whom does one owe this obligation? If one prefers to be a self-abuser, or if one simply chooses to be lazy rather than take any action at all, of whose rights has such a one run afoul? To whom will one explain, or justify his actions? Again, this is the solipsist fallacy.

My take is that Atheism supports any moral system one cares to choose.

If so, explain what you mean by "supports." Do you mean merely "allows for," or "actively endorses"? If you mean the latter, you're wrong. As CL notes, slender atheism does not endorse any choice at all.

I think a meritocracy just obviously the most rational approach if one wants to find the best to do the best job and all doing the best they can at what they can.

I think by "rational" you must mean "the one I prefer." Unless, that is, you can provide a syllogism to support meritocracy, and so show that it is uniquely "rational," (i.e. the one that reason itself requires.)

I'd have thought a true liberal democracy would be one where equality of opportunity allows the meritorious to achieve their aims?

No, not at all. You are, perhaps, describing libertarianism, but not democratic liberalism. Democratic liberalism struggles between equality-of-opportunity and equality-of-outcomes, which are often in conflict, and general seems to favour some version of "equality-of-outcomes" -- i.e. that the weak or disadvangaged should be given additional advantages to compensate them until they attain equality with the strong and advantaged. So democratic liberalism would accept things like taxation and social programs, whereas meritocracy would argue for free competition, with winners being granted as many privileges as they can merit.

What are the 'weak' in this case? Whatever their are why would their be any resentment towards them?

The "weak" in this case includes anyone who through any factor is at a disadvantage relative to the meritorious person. So it includes people disadvantaged by physical strength, disability, lack of intelligence, lack of opportunity, lack of money, lack of health, lack of knowledge...and so on. In short, anyone guaranteed to be at a disadvantage if we have a meritocracy.

No one would need to "resent" them; they'd fall behind naturally, and be harmed thereby automatically, since they would -- as you can see above, perhaps even for reasons they could not control -- never be able to rise to the level of the advantaged through mere merit.

the individual-of-merit(although I'm puzzled why all aren't such things in some case?) still needs a thriving of the society they swim in to survive.

No again. Depending on what "thrive" is taken to mean, a society could do very nicely with a whole lot of people on the low end of things. Southern American plantations did very well with slavery, in many cases. As Hitler showed, a fascist society could expedite the construction of public projects and achieve equally a high degree of efficiency in building cars or killing people.

So there's no reason to think that meritocracy needs a society "thriving" only on terms we find moral or congenial. If it "thrives," it's good enough to work, even if "thriving" is on evil terms.

I thought the OP was about how society would be worse-off without theism not with atheism?

It started that way: but do you really suppose it would be rational to embrace the alternative without weighing it rationally first? That's all we're doing; we're comparing the claim that atheism's a "better" alternative, in some sense.

In particular, we're looking for evidence that CL's slender version of atheism has something to offer by way of an advantage over "religion," even delusory "religions." But so far, we're realizing that slender atheism offers no particular advantage at all. It's only supposed advantage is that it negates "religion," which would be no advantage at all if, as the thread suggested at first, "religion" (again, even delusory "religions') brings social benefits.

Slender atheism has none at all, it seems. As CL says, it advocates nothing particular positively, only a negation of "religions." Why, you yourself even admit this...see....

You're right, and thats because it's a disbelief in what the theist claims, not a belief in anything.

As such the warrant for a meritocracy rests in the reasoning of its citizens. I guess that's partly why it'd be a good thing for region to vanish as no more props or excuses for why things are as they are because they are as they are because we don't think it's a choice.

Now you're onto something. Slender atheism offers nothing, so it has to be fortified by the bringing in of some ideology to provide the positive information it lacks. So it needs something like Libertarianism, Naturalism, Scientism, Humanism, or some other secular ideology or pseudoreligion to do the work it could not do itself. Atheism clears the ground for these, but does not determine which we must take...it only says that whichever it is, it cannot be one that depends on the premise that God exists.

But atheism provides equally clear groundwork for Dialectical Materialism (Marxism), Libertarianism (or meritocracy, if you prefer) or for Fascism, or for whatever ideology one wishes to plug in. The combo of slender atheism plus secular ideology I would term "thick" or "expansive atheism," and contrast it to CL's version of atheism because it is no longer mere atheism but something else as well.

I don't, I think it a necessary corollary of being able to choose and prefer the choice to be a rational or reasonable one based upon what kind of society one would prefer to live in.

So if I found it reasonable and rational for my meritocratic interests to live in a slave society, or perhaps in one that liquidated its gypsies and handicapped, would that all be fine?

[Conde Lucanor]

Ah, now this is the interesting bit. It may be true, or it may not be; but let's suppose for a minute that you are 100% right. Can you venture, on that basis, an explanation of why humankind is the source of what we call "evil"? I thought you were positing a naturalistic universe, which definitionally means one devoid of objective moral categories. Were you now supposing the appearance of an objective value?

Instead of letting you make assumptions, perhaps it will be better if you take a look at what has been my position on the subject of objective values:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11990

Plausibly true. Does man make ALL of them? How did you discover this? Or is it merely a rhetorical flourish for effect, not something intended to convey a fact? Well, if it's a fact, can it not be shown? If it cannot, how do you know it's a fact?

Can't see where you are going. If we're talking about "religion" as a general category, it is meant to imply that all particular manifestations of religion, follow the nature of the general concept. So, yes, when said that man makes religion, it is meant that man makes all religions. Now, when we look at particular religions, we can see with a good degree of certainty that those religions express the cultural conditions in which the men who profess those beliefs have been brought up. Not only it can be shown, it has been shown extensively.

according to slender atheism, we should not expect it to have any sort of compassion: "society" is a collective abstraction. But did you mean "the human beings IN the society?" If so, you come to the same problem as above: why should we expect anyone to "have (metaphorical) heart" in a naturalistic universe?

I don't see why atheism would imply that no sort of compassion should be expected. Atheism just means there is no god, and therefore explanations should be found somewhere (or in something) else. Compassion could be found within human nature, and that does not seem to be an unsolved challenge for psychologists, cognitive scientists, etc. Just looking at basic concepts of empathy as the basis of solidarity in human societies, we can see that a natural, material explanation of compassion can be posited, without any reference to a supernatural reality (either in atheism or theism):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/vs_ram ... ation.html

I was simply pointing out that the single case wasn't at all clear, and even if it were, it would not justify slender atheism in any way. Even supposing it was a genuine atheist society (which remains to be shown), we cannot know that the fact of its atheism has anything causally to do with its "well-being." That too would need to be established. And even if we discovered such a society "had morals" derived from slender atheism (which is impossible anyway, on your account, since you insist on only the slender version of atheism, which does not contain a statement on morality), we would not have any way of justifying our own "moral" belief that these were really "moral." Slender atheism gives us nothing to work with in that regard at all.

You obviously have ignored everything I said to which you gave your response to. So my best guess is that you can't help but stand on a "straw man" argument. From my part, all I can do is to state my position again, which does not propose any such thing as a direct, inherent cause-effect relationship between atheism and well-being, nor I have posited that society derive morals from atheism. I clearly stated that:

"...It is not meant to be indicative that godless societies always do well (in terms of getting along with others)..."

The context of the statement is Wyman's proposition that "left to their own devices and without a powerful counterweight, people will not behave without religion."

The Piraha case shows that this is not true, and even if animism were considered a full form of religion, it could hardly be argued that it would be a "powerful counterweight" in the sense that Christians and other monotheistic religions advocate. We would be dealing with a type of relativism that, as I have explained in another thread, is devastating for them.

The fact that atheists can find a source of moral values in natural explanations of the universe, does not mean that atheism is itself, inherently, by definition, a source of moral values. Atheists, let's remember, are just people denying the existence of gods, and as said at the beginning, there's nothing implicit or explicit in that principle of unbelief, except that you have to look for the source of morals somewhere else different than religion.

As Arising_uk just explained: religion didn't invent ethics and morals.

Arguably so: but his proof of this was...? Oh, he didn't give any. It would seem odd to give his statement credence without any proof at all, wouldn't it? Why would we do that?

There's plenty of proof. The fact that there have been thousands of religions in countless human groups, most of them having no knowledge of each other, not sharing essential doctrines, but still having some principles of good and evil, shows that the existence of human society precedes religion. Man makes religion, not the other way around.

[Arising_uk]

I'd have thought being moral is about oneself not others?

Oh no...of course not. This is the moral solipsist fallacy.

Why would we even bother with the category "moral" if you were the only person on earth? If there were no God, no other people, and not even any other animals that one regarded as relevant to a moral decision, then one would simply have no use for moral language at all. One could not even talk sensibly about "morality" to oneself, then...for how could one "owe oneself" any explanation for a choice made or action taken? And to whom would the moral appeal be made?

The truth is that morality only comes into play when there are at least two persons or morally-relevant entities in view.

Not what I meant. You talk about how others are to be constrained, my take is they constrain themselves in the same way I do. So not solipsistic at all.

To whom does one owe this obligation? If one prefers to be a self-abuser, or if one simply chooses to be lazy rather than take any action at all, of whose rights has such a one run afoul? To whom will one explain, or justify his actions? Again, this is the solipsist fallacy. ...

Why would one have to explain or justify any of those things to anyone? As long as they aren't affecting others then a person is free to do as they wish. If they are then they are accountable to the others and I presume the others will take action if they don't like it, i.e. have nothing to do with them.

If so, explain what you mean by "supports." Do you mean merely "allows for," or "actively endorses"? If you mean the latter, you're wrong. As CL notes, slender atheism does not endorse any choice at all.

Allows for is fine by me.

I think by "rational" you must mean "the one I prefer." Unless, that is, you can provide a syllogism to support meritocracy, and so show that it is uniquely "rational," (i.e. the one that reason itself requires.)

Why does it have to be uniquely rational? Unless you can give me a good reason for having the unsuited in a role not suited for them I'll stick with the simple reason that it's better to have the most able doing the job.

No, not at all. You are, perhaps, describing libertarianism, but not democratic liberalism. Democratic liberalism struggles between equality-of-opportunity and equality-of-outcomes, which are often in conflict, and general seems to favour some version of "equality-of-outcomes" ...

I am describing democratic liberalism, I just come down strongly in favour of equality of opportunity as equality of outcomes appears a pipe dream.

-- i.e. that the weak or disadvangaged should be given additional advantages to compensate them until they attain equality with the strong and advantaged. So democratic liberalism would accept things like taxation and social programs, whereas meritocracy would argue for free competition, with winners being granted as many privileges as they can merit.

A meritocracy, if it is to be one, would have to have equality of opportunity and as such would have to raise taxes to pay for the provision of such things as education and training. Not sure who will be doing this 'granting' or what privileges you talk about? But for sure people will be paid differently depending upon what the society values.

The "weak" in this case includes anyone who through any factor is at a disadvantage relative to the meritorious person. So it includes people disadvantaged by physical strength, disability, lack of intelligence, lack of opportunity, lack of money, lack of health, lack of knowledge...and so on. In short, anyone guaranteed to be at a disadvantage if we have a meritocracy.

I fail to understand why you think those who are best suited to doing a job would naturally wish to disadvantage others? How on earth are you going to equalise physical strength or a lack of intelligence? Lack of opportunity is something that a meritocracy would have to address if it is to be one and presumably a lack of money would fall into this category with respect to providing the opportunity to study or train.

No one would need to "resent" them; they'd fall behind naturally, and be harmed thereby automatically, since they would -- as you can see above, perhaps even for reasons they could not control -- never be able to rise to the level of the advantaged through mere merit. ...

Are you claiming that all can be astro-physicists? That all can be labourers and builders? I'm at a loss why you think a meritocracy would not value all who do what they do well?

No again. Depending on what "thrive" is taken to mean, a society could do very nicely with a whole lot of people on the low end of things. Southern American plantations did very well with slavery, in many cases. As Hitler showed, a fascist society could expedite the construction of public projects and achieve equally a high degree of efficiency in building cars or killing people.

But none of these are meritocracies based upon equality of opportunity?

So there's no reason to think that meritocracy needs a society "thriving" only on terms we find moral or congenial. If it "thrives," it's good enough to work, even if "thriving" is on evil terms.

Well, if a society decides that giving all the equality of opportunity to become 'evil' then I guess thats what the society wants. Personally I don't think an 'evil' society would support the idea of providing equality of opportunity in education and training but maybe.

It started that way: but do you really suppose it would be rational to embrace the alternative without weighing it rationally first? That's all we're doing; we're comparing the claim that atheism's a "better" alternative, in some sense.

The sense is simple, a source of division is removed. Was theism weighed rationally before it was embraced?

In particular, we're looking for evidence that CL's slender version of atheism has something to offer by way of an advantage over "religion," even delusory "religions." But so far, we're realizing that slender atheism offers no particular advantage at all. It's only supposed advantage is that it negates "religion," which would be no advantage at all if, as the thread suggested at first, "religion" (again, even delusory "religions') brings social benefits.

Since I think social benefits in the sense of material benefits normally entails a lessening of the need to believe that there is a better world elsewhere I see no reason why they should not continue if religion was abandoned.

Slender atheism has none at all, it seems. As CL says, it advocates nothing particular positively, only a negation of "religions." Why, you yourself even admit this...see....

It does offer a couple of things, a removal of a source of division and an acceptance that the future is ours to choose.

Now you're onto something. Slender atheism offers nothing, so it has to be fortified by the bringing in of some ideology to provide the positive information it lacks. So it needs something like Libertarianism, Naturalism, Scientism, Humanism, or some other secular ideology or pseudoreligion to do the work it could not do itself. Atheism clears the ground for these, but does not determine which we must take...it only denies us that whichever it is, none can depend on the premise that God exists.

Sounds fine by me. Although it needs no fortification as its not proposing anything other than a disbelief in the theists claims. Why we choose the others will depend upon the strength of the arguments of the ideology in question and if it works I guess.

But atheism provides equally clear groundwork for Dialectical Materialism (Marxism), Libertarianism (or meritocracy, if you prefer) or for Fascism, or for whatever ideology one wishes to plug in. The combo of slender atheism plus secular ideology I would term "thick" or "expansive atheism," and contrast it to CL's version of atheism because it is no longer mere atheism but something else as well.

They don't rely upon each other at all. Libertarians and fascists have been fervent theist believers, marxists not. Are you saying its because of their theist beliefs that the former arose?

So if I found it reasonable and rational for my meritocratic interests to live in a slave society, or perhaps in one that liquidated its gypsies and handicapped, would that all be fine?

Could you have any of these societies where equality of opportunity is a fundamental?

[Wyman]

Conde Lucanor wrote:

The Piraha case shows that this is not true, and even if animism were considered a full form of religion, it could hardly be argued that it would be a "powerful counterweight" in the sense that Christians and other monotheistic religions advocate.

I do consider animism a type of religion. At any rate, the topic is whether religion is bad for society. In all the back and forth, I can't determine what your position is and why.

Weigh two options: Society with religion and society without. Add up the pros and cons and determine which is better. Or can you think of a better way to answer the question? Here's a preliminary definition of religion (because I am a glutton for punishment): beliefs in supernatural causes or effects which guide our actions and interactions with our fellow humans (because we are here interested in effects on society, not the individual). This is somewhat of a negative definition, as I have in mind that it includes nearly everything (that I can think of) besides belief in a scientific, Darwinian, world view as to explanations and justifications for our actions towards others.

When I said we talked past one another, I think perhaps this lies in differing conceptions of what a wholly scientific world view logically entails, more than differing conceptions of what religion consists of. I don't think there is any 'intrinsic value of life' in the scientific explanation. Or at least you can't just lay it out there as an axiom, but must show how it follows from scientific (rather than extra-scientific, which I would call 'religious') principles.

If, however, this 'scientific world view' is not what you call 'atheism,' then I give up at reaching any common ground for discussion (for obviously, an atheist can be anti-scientific, but who would take him seriously or want to converse with him?)

[Conde Lucanor]

At any rate, the topic is whether religion is bad for society. In all the back and forth, I can't determine what your position is and why.

There's plenty of information in my posts on the subject that can easily help determine what's my position. If not clear yet, let me reaffirm what I have already said: religion is bad for society. At some point I also clarified that religion being bad for society is not the same as religion being the root cause for bad things in society. It can make them worst, though. And it can be also a symptom of bad things going on in society. In the end, all this means that we don't need religion for making a better society, at least not any more than we need Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Here's a preliminary definition of religion (because I am a glutton for punishment): beliefs in supernatural causes or effects which guide our actions and interactions with our fellow humans (because we are here interested in effects on society, not the individual).

If we take your definition, we can see that it starts with a cause: "beliefs", and an effect: "human action". But beliefs are human interpretations, sets of mental representations of the perceived world. Cognition is a natural process of the brain, which is an organ developed in a behavorial context, and it already implies experience, including actions and interactions with other members of the species, other fellow humans. So, out of your own definition, the starting point of guidance for people's actions is people themselves. Surely, they can believe in a supernatural reality as the source of the content of their beliefs, but still the beliefs are produced naturally as "experience", in an human, cultural environment. We have then that the terms of the definition can be inverted: beliefs are the effect, and human action the cause. The truth actually lies in the dialectical process between actions and mental representations.

When I said we talked past one another, I think perhaps this lies in differing conceptions of what a wholly scientific world view logically entails, more than differing conceptions of what religion consists of.

I see an inversely proportional relationship between scientific world views and religious world views: as one develops, the other collapses. So, one conception that you may have about one, affects the conception that you have about the other. These conceptions are about method: science rests on a fairly reliable method, which uses inductive and deductive tools. Religion doesn't. It rests on unreliable methods, dogmatic authority and a conscious rejection of inductive and deductive tools, which are replaced by blind faith.

I don't think there is any 'intrinsic value of life' in the scientific explanation. Or at least you can't just lay it out there as an axiom, but must show how it follows from scientific (rather than extra-scientific, which I would call 'religious') principles.

The scientific explanations of empathy are the scientific explanations of the intrinsic value of life. As I value my own self, my own experience as a living being, and as I can see the "other" as if looking myself in the mirror, it follows that I can attribute to the experience of other fellow humans the same value as mine. If I love being alive, I can understand that others love being alive, too. Our own individuality is explained in relation to a community of beings.

[Wyman]

I agree with almost everything you said. So here is the problem. A large percentage of the population relies on 'blind faith' for their beliefs. They rely on authority as the justification for their beliefs - whether it be the authority of priests or government or their mamas and daddies.

They do not rely on authority or 'blind faith' because their religion tells them to do so. They rely on it because they are not bright enough to think for themselves.

In the US today, we have those who, as Obama recently put it, 'cling to their guns and bibles.' If you wipe away religion from their belief systems, what will they turn to? Do you think they will let empathy and altruism guide their interactions?

Plato saw the need to create a 'noble lie' for this portion of society upon which they could rely for such authority. Religion fulfills this purpose. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exert the same power over those over the age of five.

Here is the second problem. Suppose you take care of the masses with whatever form of scientific, atheistic mollification you choose. Among the intelligent leaders, you will have even larger problems. First, there will be those who do not posses the empathy you value. They will see their fellow humans as composed of trillions of atoms, all of which originated from the same hydrogen atoms that were produced during the big bang, forged into heavier elements in stars, spewed out in super novas, etc.. They won't see the whole as more than the sum of its parts and will not have empathy for hydrogen atoms. They will do whatever they can get away with so you will have to watch them closely.

More importantly, though, are those who do value life, but place a less than absolute value on it. They will be the majority. They will value life very highly, but say that it is not absolute - such as in cases of self defense and war. Then they will notice that two lives have more value than one life and a thousand lives have a much greater value than ten lives. Sacrifices will be made for the greater good. Many good arguments will be made as to how to engineer society to serve the greater good. More sacrifices will have to be made. These will be arguments such as were presented and accepted by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many others in the twentieth century.

In sum, without religion, you will need a very powerful force to control humanity. All you have proposed is a rather vague valuation of life (and you haven't even distinguished human life from other life) based on empathetic feelings. We also have selfish feelings, patriotic feelings, sexual feelings, etc.. Why base your morality on empathy and not something else (a la Neitsche)?

[Conde Lucanor]

I agree with almost everything you said. So here is the problem. A large percentage of the population relies on 'blind faith' for their beliefs. They rely on authority as the justification for their beliefs - whether it be the authority of priests or government or their mamas and daddies.

They do not rely on authority or 'blind faith' because their religion tells them to do so. They rely on it because they are not bright enough to think for themselves.

I think it's quite more complicated than just "not being bright enough". In fact, I have known very bright people who have also baffled me with their beliefs in completely absurd myths. But you are right in that society is enhanced when people think for themselves.

In the US today, we have those who, as Obama recently put it, 'cling to their guns and bibles.' If you
wipe away religion from their belief systems, what will they turn to? Do you think they will let empathy and altruism guide their interactions?

Empathy and altruism may be mechanisms that reflect our social nature, but still they are expressed individually. There's no reason to believe that empathy and altruism will not flourish in individuals and have an impact on the society they live in. Actually, it's most likely that there are manifestations of empathy and altruism in a society as the one you describe, not because of religion, but despite religion. It just happens that they channel their empathy and altruism, as well as their selfishness and contempt, through the only means they know: the fantasies of religion, "an inverted consciousness of the world".

Plato saw the need to create a 'noble lie' for this portion of society upon which they could rely for such authority. Religion fulfills this purpose. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exert the same power over those over the age of five.

Call it a noble lie, call it the opium of the people, an illusory happiness created by political or religious elites to exert power over a submissive population, must be abolished and replaced with real happiness, real knowledge of the world and the real autonomy to give up, not only their illusions, but a condition that requires illusions, and be at last "compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

Here is the second problem. Suppose you take care of the masses with whatever form of scientific, atheistic mollification you choose.

I don't see the basis for such supposition. Mollification and "taking care" of the masses sounds in your statement as some type of manipulation, which I don't see any scientist or atheist proposing. That's different from a secularization agenda, in which the state remains neutral, but people are free to express their beliefs, as absurd as they may be.

Among the intelligent leaders, you will have even larger problems. First, there will be those who do not posses the empathy you value. They will see their fellow humans as composed of trillions of atoms, all of which originated from the same hydrogen atoms that were produced during the big bang, forged into heavier elements in stars, spewed out in super novas, etc.. They won't see the whole as more than the sum of its parts and will not have empathy for hydrogen atoms. They will do whatever they can get away with so you will have to watch them closely.

You seem to think that only this can happen when people see each other "as composed of trillions of atoms", but history gives us plenty of examples of complete antipathy towards other human beings from the believers in a divine origin of the world and the human species. Their wrath, disguised as the wrath of their gods, has found no impediment in erasing as many as they wanted of "god's children" from the face of the Earth.

[Blaggard]

Is religion bad for society yes and no, is religion good for society yes and no. Do we need religion, no not really, have we ever needed it probably, are we still in need of some religion, probably not. But still it persists, so I would imagine we're not quite grown up enough yet or evolved to be able to call our parents dicks, climb out of our windows after they sent us to out room and locked the door and get shit faced. Although I personally think we are perhaps in the 8s or 9s of grown uped.

Bear in mind it is a criminal offence to give children mind altering substances or by negligence let them indulge in such things, drugs are bad mmmkay. And I think I have milked the joke to death, but I am sure you smart guys get the analogies. If not ask your parents...


In all seriousness this is a very prodigious and profound question about human psychology and one I think very few are able to tackle at least on their own, that said though I think we are getting to grips with the anthropology if not the psychology. When we do will religion be redundant? In all honesty I doubt it we seem to need it, with the exception of the Pirahã who seem fine without it. Mind you they are pretty much isolated from humanity, don't have a number system, and are of course lucky bastards.

A people lost for words


"HOW was your world created?" asks the young anthropologist in Portuguese. He awaits the translation into Pirahã. "The world is created," replies one of the assembled men in his own language. "Tell me how your god made all this?" the anthropologist presses on. "All things are made," comes the answer. The interview lurches on for a few more minutes, until suddenly, the question-and-answer session is overtaken by a deluge of excited banter as the assembled Pirahã vie to be heard.

"I've cracked it," says the anthropologist as he hands his tape recording to Dan Everett a few weeks later. "Here is the Pirahã creation myth." Everett is dubious. In the past three decades, the linguist from the University of Manchester, UK, has spent a total of seven years living with the Pirahã in the Amazon rainforest and is one of just three outsiders, along with his ex-wife and a missionary who spent time with them in the 1960s and 1970s, who is fluent in their language. He has long maintained that they are among the few people on Earth who have not devised a story to explain their existence. Others, including this particular anthropologist, find the idea difficult to accept.

Everett listens to the tape. After the short, stilted exchange, he hears some bright spark in the crowd point out that this guy asking them odd questions doesn't know their language, so he will need to get help from Everett to translate the tapes. "Hello, Dan!" comes a chorus of Pirahã voices. "How are you?" "When will we see you?" "When you come, bring us some matches." "And bananas." "And whisky." And so on. Nice try, but no creation myth here.

The lack of mythology is just one small aspect of why the Pirahã are so fascinating to anthropologists. According to Everett, they also have virtually no notion of time, and seem to live entirely in the moment. There is no creative storytelling and no oral history beyond two generations. They have no art except the crude line drawings they use to depict figures from their spirit world.

They are among the least materialistic people in the world, with very few possessions and little desire to attain more. They also have the simplest kinship system yet recorded: the language only has specific terms for "son" and "daughter". Past that, they talk in general terms about older and younger generations.

Pirahã culture is remarkably resistant to change. These people continue to be monolingual and maintain their traditional way of life despite more than 200 years of regular contact with outsiders.

Until recently, the Pirahã were best known among linguists because of debates over whether their language has any words for colours, and the fact that it has no number terms. Now, though, they have hit the scientific big time with the publication last year of a controversial paper by Everett. In it he takes issue with some of the most influential ideas in linguistics. In particular, he argues that the Pirahã's peculiar language is shaped not by some innate language instinct, as many linguists attest, but by their extraordinary culture. What's more, he says that Pirahã language and culture hold fundamental lessons in what it means to be human (Current Anthropology, vol 46, p 621).

There are around 350 Pirahã people, living along a 300-kilometre stretch of the Maici river in the south-west of Brazil's Amazonas state. Their lifestyle has much in common with other indigenous Amazonian hunter-gatherers, but what really marks out the Pirahã is their attitude to life. They are very laid-back, accepting things as they are, not fretting about the future, and taking great pleasure in life. Above all, these are a people who live for the moment.

For the Pirahã this is not simply an "alternative" philosophy, it is deeply ingrained in their culture, and - Everett argues - in their language. "They confine their talk to subjects that fall within their own immediate experience," he says. And this here-and-now approach is reflected in their vocabulary and grammar, which largely inhibits talk of abstract concepts and generalisations (see "Sing it to me").

This immediate and literal way of seeing the world fits with the Pirahã's apparent lack of a creation myth, but it seems at odds with one of the most important aspects of their everyday life. They believe in an elaborate spirit world, which takes the form of something like parallel universes, with evil spirits inhabiting their own realms above and below the Earth. It may sound suspiciously mystical for a culture supposed to lack mythology, but Everett notes that the Pirahã's relationship with their spirit world is remarkably practical. They claim to have direct experience of some of the evil spirits - a notion made only too real to him during his early days in the Amazon when he was awoken one night and asked to ward off an evil spirit nearby. Marching manfully into the jungle, he soon heard the low growl of the "spirit": a prowling panther.

...[]Then there is the counting - or lack of it. Back in 1980, when Everett was living in the Amazon with his then wife and their three children, the Pirahã came asking for evening classes. They said they wanted to learn to count so that they would know whether they were being cheated by the outsiders who came to their villages by riverboat to trade for Brazil nuts and other forest produce. Each evening for eight months, enthusiastic men and women sat down with Everett's entire family to learn, in Portuguese, the rudiments of numeracy. Then one day they suddenly decided to abandon the classes, saying that they could never master numbers - in fact, in all that time, not one of them had learned to count to 10 or even to add 1 and 1.

Reading lessons, which took place at around the same time, ended with similar results. After much tuition the villagers succeeded in reading together, and out loud, the word bigí, which means ground or sky in Pirahã. "They immediately all laughed," Everett recalls. "I asked what was so funny. They answered that what they had just said sounded like their world for 'sky'. I said that indeed it did because it was their word. They reacted by saying that if that is what we were trying to teach them, they wanted us to stop: 'we don't write our language'." Bemused, Everett asked why they had come. "Their motivation turned out to be that it was fun to be together and I made popcorn."...[]

I found this article fascinating, I can't print it in full as it's subscription only but I can at least legally print an excerpt.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... words.html

[Wyman]

Blaggard, we're not evolving into or out of religion. I know you know this, but evolution has to do with mutations and natural selection. We are not evolving 'towards' something or making some sort of progress. This is it and we're stuck with it.

CL, we have to disagree on an empirical level, then. Perhaps it is from years of working in the criminal justice system, but I don't have the optimism that you have. I would agree with Hobbes that the state of nature is a state of war. I also think that more than the brute power of the state is necessary to hold back the natural passions and aggression of a large part of humanity. But I can't prove this any more than you could prove the opposite.

And I don't believe that 'society is enhanced when people think for themselves.' In fact, going back to the Grand Inquisitor reference, I don't think that most people even want to think for themselves - they want to be told how to act in order to absolve themselves of the consequences of their actions (they look to authority, not argument or scientific method, to ground their beliefs). They need and want to be told, and although highly imperfect, a religion that tells them not to kill, not to steal, to love their neighbor, is not the worst belief structure to turn them towards.

I am certainly not saying that only harmful people would exist without religion. I am saying that many harmful people would and do exist and society needs a means of dealing with them.

I am definitely not sold on your 'intrinsic value of life' based on mutual empathy. Sounds like Kant. But that would be a long discussion.

[Conde Lucanor]

CL, we have to disagree on an empirical level, then. Perhaps it is from years of working in the criminal justice system, but I don't have the optimism that you have. I would agree with Hobbes that the state of nature is a state of war. I also think that more than the brute power of the state is necessary to hold back the natural passions and aggression of a large part of humanity. But I can't prove this any more than you could prove the opposite.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "proof", but my view is that the goal of any debate is to enrich our views on a subject, and allow people to make better judgements. But in the end people make choices, and they can always choose to use poor judgement.

The idea that more than brute, repressive power of the state is necessary to keep society stable is certainly not new. It's key to the concept of ideology. But while you advocate religion as the only control mechanism, I prefer to acknowledge a broader dimension of ideology, going across all areas of human culture, including political hegemony. That's why some have said, starting with Feuerbach, that religion, as an alienated form of real human consciousness, had to be inverted. A new type of secular conciousness has to emerge, one that takes the false, delusional consolations made up by priests and theologians, and replaces them with the sensical analysis of mankind's real conditions of life.

And I don't believe that 'society is enhanced when people think for themselves.' In fact, going back to the Grand Inquisitor reference, I don't think that most people even want to think for themselves - they want to be told how to act in order to absolve themselves of the consequences of their actions (they look to authority, not argument or scientific method, to ground their beliefs).

I cannot agree with your pessimistic view of human nature, and much less with your advocacy of authoritarian rule and manipulation of the masses. There are historical causes for people's submissive behavior, some of them very much related to the comforting function of religion and its link with authoritarian political power, but those causes can be overthrown. That's precisely what should be the main cause of secular humanism and the main goal of every freethinker.

They need and want to be told, and although highly imperfect, a religion that tells them not to kill, not to steal, to love their neighbor, is not the worst belief structure to turn them towards.

Not true. Religion can advocate for many different things. Surely, it has told people to do good things many times, but has also many times told people to do things that I find morally reprehensible, like treating women as inferior beings and a property of men, or killing their religious enemies, and so on.

I am certainly not saying that only harmful people would exist without religion. I am saying that many harmful people would and do exist and society needs a means of dealing with them.

I'm saying that religion doesn't make much of a difference, and actually can make things worst. Society has to deal with its problems, but not with sedative opiates.

I am definitely not sold on your 'intrinsic value of life' based on mutual empathy. Sounds like Kant. But that would be a long discussion.

It's more like basic cognitive science. True that Kant's project ultimately deals with cognition, but it has also found its roots in other sciences.

[Blaggard]

Blaggard, we're not evolving into or out of religion. I know you know this, but evolution has to do with mutations and natural selection. We are not evolving 'towards' something or making some sort of progress. This is it and we're stuck with it.

I disagree I think we are evolving albeit slowly out of religion, it's probably just that a father figure is a hard thing to grow apart from. And yeah I know mutations and natural selection, we seem to be programmed by them to be somewhat religious, or at least some do, no worries mate. If instinct can form by being laid down over millions of years by successive generations, I am pretty sure religious belief can to, or conformity to an authority figure or whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yL0VowSLe0

God on the Brain: Horizon documentary:

Basically you can make almost anyone undergo some sort of religious experience just by stimulating certain brain areas, although some people seem to lack the ability to feel it, Richard Dawkins for example felt nothing at all. Although I am not sure quite how scientific testing a confirmed atheist was.

Incidentally interesting documentary you might want to give it a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMxgkSgZoJs

It seems over our ten million year history our ancestors and us have evolved to be inherently religious. Which explains why so few cultures lack a religion, in the same way of course we can out grow the need for religion, that is not to say we should, but that is just to say it may well happen, not in my life time, but I think we no longer need a stern parental figure who transcends mortal law to tell us how to behave, we are beyond the age of 10. And perhaps even have been for a century or two. Although of course the orthodox religions would beg to differ...

And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SuIu2DnI6g

[Wyman]

Blaggard, I don't know exactly what you are maintaining. It seems teleological. Dawkins wrote a book called 'The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.' Mutations are random. Inherited traits become clustered if they provide a substantial survival advantage (but not always.) I get these ideas from Dawkins, I am not a scientist.

If (huge IF that I don't agree with), religion is coded in our DNA and you say that we are evolving away from it, then I take it you are saying that people with such genes previously had a substantial survival advantage and that people without it will have an advantage in the future. This all sounds extremely speculative. Interesting, but too speculative for me, since it all depends on chance - if the Taliban or right winger Americans take over the world then not much chance of your prediction coming true. Or if all the Irish Catholics have sixteen babies each and the secular humanists like CL have 1.5 babies, which gene wins?

You may like Thomas Nagels' newest book (don't have the title in front of me). He argues for the possibility of a teleological explanation of physical laws, including evolution. I did not find the book too convincing (even he maintains that he only thinks he shows the possibility of such a view), but the first half or so sets out the issues nicely.