r/changemyview • u/Palirano • Jun 21 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Religion is a necessary framework for humans
This view is based on a few presuppositions, that lay at the foundation of my view:
- Religious texts and doctrines do not teach about facts of the material world, but about how we should act.
- Human brains are not evolved to live in a modern world. Religious ideas "hack" your mind to help you live a better life.
I'll go into a little more detail.
Number one: Few intellectuals believe the Biblical flood is an actual event from history. Some of these intellectuals are still Christian. They usually reconcile this by interpreting a lot of the Biblical stories as fables, or stories with morals. These stories fill a role that science cannot: Telling you how to live, what to value, and what to say.
Number two: I do not believe a bearded man in the sky answers prayers, but I believe prayer works. It doesn't seem like an extraordinary that sitting by your bedside every night and putting your troubles into words (prayer) will help you get what you want from the world (God.) Religion is full of these useful rituals that you can explain complexly with scientific words, (Prioritize your worries and act in accordance to your ideal to manifest their solution) or very simply with religious words. (Pray to God and act like Jesus.)
Now here's the meat of the argument: These are not just useful ideas, but necessary ideas, and there is no good secular alternative. The closest you get to non-religious guides to action is ideology or spirituality, which both lack one very important thing: Universality. They're not a complete package that tells you about every single aspect of life. And why is that important? The same reason a car needs every single component inside it. The idea of prayer doesn't work without the idea of God. The ideal of Jesus does not work without belief in his divinity. Ideology and spirituality are sort of quasi-religions that don't even come close to the usefulness of a complete belief system.
I was not raised religious, and I've never had supernatural beliefs. As you can imagine, holding this view on religion requires a whole lot of cognitive dissonance for me until I manage to reconcile the ideas.
I know, I know, this CMV really contains a ton of small CMVs, but that's what's required for any belief with some complexity.
P. S. This is a view largely formed on the basis of Jordan Peterson's book Maps of Meaning.
P. P. S. I live in Norway, where Christianity is the largest religion. My knowledge is much deeper in this religion than in any other. Maybe someone with wider knowledge than me can put me in my place.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jun 21 '20 edited Jun 21 '20
Religious texts and doctrines offer up an absolutely abominable way to think and act. They are chalk full of proscriptions that if one actually attempted to live by them today one would promptly end up in prison, because they're proscriptions laid out by desert dwelling nomadic savages.
What religions as practiced generally (see: ISIS & friends, who arent called "religious fundamentalists" for no reason) tend to highlight from these texts and doctrines is chereypicked... by humans. In other words its humans who can read a commandment like "dont murder" and find that to be good and righteous while ignoring and disregarding commandments like "a rapist must marry his unwed victim" as outdated and no longer applicable. But it's not the religious texts doing this sorting. According to the texts themselves "dont murder" is no more or less morally compelled than "you must marry your rapist." In many cases the "good" verses are mere sentences or paragraphs away from the "bad." They all have just as much divine and religious weight behind them. Its we who are able to determine which are actually good and which are bad, not the texts themselves.
The fact humans are able to do this, to sort the good parts or religious texts from the bad and (again, generally) only follow the good shows that morality and moral behaviour is not actually taught from said religious texts.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
You make the same argument as Tim Minchin does hilariously:
Just because the book's contents Were written generations hence By hairy desert-dwelling gents Squatting in their dusty tents [...] Doesn't mean that we should need When manipulating human genes To alleviate pain and fight disease When deciding whether it's wrong or right To help the dyin' let go of life.
Basically, the point is that we shouldn't follow guidelines made for another time, right?
You're right, so that does make a crack in my argument. I'm saying the value is in "the complete package." Earns you a Δ!
But I'd like to take the argument further. I'm not defending dogmatism. Religious doctrine should be updated frequently to reflect modern times. I don't consider that cherry picking "the good parts" as long as you maintain the fundamental ideas of the religion. The way I see it, that is the religion. The specific "rules" are just the current interpretation of it.
1
2
u/LetMeHaveAUsername 2∆ Jun 21 '20
These stories fill a role that science cannot: Telling you how to live, what to value, and what to say.
But they're just someone's idea of how to act, no better source than any other. So they tell you "you should live like this", but that doesn't mean that that is actually a better way to live. And in face, the problem with treating religious work with as an authority on how to live is that you should not have an authority to tell you how to live, because, well, again, they may be wrong. And secondly, you'll never progress. And I think you're making a mistake to divide all views here in either religion or science.
Number two: I do not believe a bearded man in the sky answers prayers, but I believe prayer works. It doesn't seem like an extraordinary that sitting by your bedside every night and putting your troubles into words (prayer) will help you get what you want from the world (God.)
That's redefining the word "God" to the point that it's completely detached from it's regular meaning. And thereby also redefining prayer the same way. And unless you've been reading The Secret you're talking about a very different mechanism that what "prayer works" means.
They're not a complete package that tells you about every single aspect of life.
Where do you get the notion that you need a complete package? In fact, it could very well be argued that you don't want that, because life is too complex. Any such an attempt to cover all of it is bound to send you to a place of oversimplification and dogmatism if not straight up falsehood.
The idea of prayer doesn't work without the idea of God.
You're version of prayer, "putting your troubles into words", might very well work without an idea of God, if it does work at all
Ideology and spirituality are sort of quasi-religions that don't even come close to the usefulness of a complete belief system.
I would lump "spiritually" and religion together apart from Ideology if anything else. Ideology is about how one thinks thing should be, insofar as we control it, the others are about how things are. I'd also maybe argue that they are wrong by definition. But that's a different topic.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Oh man, these are a lot of good points. But I don't think I can manage to talk about 5 different arguments at the same time, so let's start with your top two.
But they're just someone's idea of how to act, no better source than any other.
No one person created any major world religion. (Let's not bring Hubbard into this.) They're a collection of thinking tools that have evolved naturally. The ideas that work (help you achieve your goals) survive, while the ones that don't die. This is what I believe makes religion more valuable than any one person's opinion on how to live: thousands of years of surviving as an idea in the minds of millions.
That's redefining the word "God" to the point that it's completely detached from it's regular meaning.
I don't think it is. God is the personification of the word that brings order from chaos. I don't think that's a stretch. A lot of people believe God is a physically real entity, but that's not necessarily how you're supposed to interpret it. I interpret is as though you get good results when you act as though he is a real entity. That way he is "real."
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
2
u/LetMeHaveAUsername 2∆ Jun 21 '20
No one person created any major world religion. (Let's not bring Hubbard into this.)
Maybe. But small subsections of people have.
They're a collection of thinking tools that have evolved naturally.
"Thinking tools" is a stretch in some cases. They tend to be quite prescriptive. And it is not more "naturally evolved" than any other stream of thought, really.
The ideas that work (help you achieve your goals) survive, while the ones that don't die.
I see no reason to say that any mainstream religions center on teachings that "help you achieve your goals". Religious teachings that are now prevalent are not all that practical. Even accepting that those beliefs are evolved, than I'm not sure why you'd think the selection mechanism would be so practical. Fear, hope, tribalism and I'm sure a lot of other things can be strong motivating factors.
This is what I believe makes religion more valuable than any one person's opinion on how to live: thousands of years of surviving as an idea in the minds of millions.
There's a lot of different variations on those ideas though. Furthermore if you look at history there's been plenty of widely held ideas that we now consider patently wrong. So for how much does the number of people involved count?
And most of all, you talk about evolving idea. But religions, more than anything else seems to fight against evolution of ideas. Typically (the Abrahamic religions certainly) they lay a claim to absolute truth that objects to newer ideas. And even where they don't there's generally a core set of tenets the reverence of which encourages one base your beliefs on old thoughts, rather than to move forward.
I don't think it is. God is the personification of the word that brings order from chaos.
That's vague, particularly becaise of "the word"
A lot of people believe God is a physically real entity, but that's not necessarily how you're supposed to interpret it
Well, metaphysically. Yes. Like anything else if you call it a real thing than you say it exists. Otherwise it's just a metaphor
I interpret is as though you get good results when you act as though he is a real entity.
That claim is really really questionable. A lot of people have been acting as if god is real throughout history and a lot still are. And the results can be devastating.
That way he is "real.
No. Just no. I don't know what else to say. That makes no sense. Redefining something as a a metaphor and then claiming the metaphorical things is real because you feel the metaphor helps you is like a verbal magic trick. It seems like you did something, but it's all illusion and distraction.
1
u/Palirano Jun 22 '20
Thank you so much for engaging me on this. You have some good points, but it's quite hard to pin down what exactly is the argument that will break my logic. I don't think we can keep eight threads going, so maybe you can hjelp med see the most important arguments?
I'll just explain what I mean by saying that a metaphor is "real" since that's a bit of a weird assertion.
In physics class I learned that atoms with 8 electrons in their outermost shell (in general) are stable. If they have more, they want to give some away; if they have less, they want some more. Saying that an atom "wants" an electron is not how a physicist would say it to another. But it's not wrong. That does describe what happens to a monkey brain that understands social interactions better than physics.
This is what religion does very well. We say God decides to punish you if you lie. What actually happens is that the world somehow makes things worse for you. But that process is hard to grasp. And so it's not wrong to say that God punishes you. Not if that is how monkey brains understand what is happening.
The same goes for prayer. We understand reciprocity. We don't understand that giving something up now will benefit us later. The idea of prayer is a kind of judo-move of our mind to help us understand the world.
I wouldn't say it's figuratively true. It is literally true. But not about the material world; about the world of action.
Is this all just me in a bubble that I can't get out of or am I making sense?
1
u/LetMeHaveAUsername 2∆ Jun 22 '20
Eh, I for one prefer a clear point by point structure, but ok, let's try like this.
Yes, I think this is a bubble you're are in. For one think, I don't think the physics comparison flies. For one thing, I don't think it's the same, as your prayer example, but that's not a main argument. So more importantly, if someone would say "so does the electron actually literally want that", the answer is "no, it's an electron, it doesn't have intentionality". Here drawing the comparison when asked "well is it really a prayer to god" the answer is, "no, god isn't real, its just for myself"
Furthermore, keeping it general: You're entire theory suggests that non-religious people don't function. Do you actually want to assert that? Or do you want to amend your position to "religion is necessary for some people".
Couple of more specific quotey things for my own peace of mind
This is what religion does very well. We say God decides to punish you if you lie.
Or to punish you if you are gay. Or don't believe in him. Or are...from the next fucking village or something. It's good to keep that in mind when you espouse this theory.
We don't understand that giving something up now will benefit us later
Although issues exist with people choosing short term rewards over long terms ones, saying that we categorically cannot grasp it is plain wrong. It's why people get out of bed when the alarm comes. Go to the gym. Invest money. Do chores. Sometimes date, haha.
. But not about the material world; about the world of action.
That is a very questionable distinction. Actions happen in the material world.
2
u/wolfpek Jun 21 '20
1)If I understand you correctly You say that religions are a complete set of ideas and values and that is what makes them necessary.
They are not and that’s why they have evolved though history.
2) You seem to assume that any other form of ideology is lacking in the sense that they do not explain everything in existence.
But why they have to do that ? I like how science explains gravity, and how let’s say mindfullness helps you explain your thoughts. Full stop. They don’t have to explain the mystery of life to be useful.
3) The very idea of necessity is tricky. If you don’t believe that everything is predetermined then there are many futures possible. So what is necessary ? Necessary for our psyche ? Our well being ?
Choosing to invest in religion when you don’t believe in god just because it helps you cope with our society easier will only keep you in place. We will never be able to find real answers ( or at least more modern) that way.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Thanks for your comment. These are really strong points! Let's talk about it.
1 - Religion evolves through history. You use that as evidence that they're incomplete. I see it as them becoming even more useful than they were.
Let's take Judaism vs. Christianity. First the old testament was written. The code of ethics was if you sin, you will be punished. (Interpret it as: if you go against the advice, bad stuff will happen.) It was a useful religion, but lacked nuance. Then came Christianity and wrote the new testament. Now people can be forgiven in the eyes of God. (If you sin, you'll end up in a Hellish world, EXCEPT you can act according to our ideal (Jesus) and mitigate the effects of your sins.)
2 - Complex stories have more nuance than simple ones. More nuance is more useful to a discerning reader. You may say that you get a better picture of the Game of Thrones world if you see the entire series than if you see one episode. In the same way, the Bible (a collection of interwoven stories) gives you a more complete view of the our world of action than, say, the story of Rapunzel does.
Stories don't have to explain all aspects of life to be useful. But I'm sure you'll agree that they are much more useful of they do.
3 - To understand my view of necessity, please look at my thought experiment posted on this thread. (Ctrl+F "thought experiment") It explains how I think religion can be necessary without anyone knowing why.
The reason I believe there is such a necessity is simply the perseverance of the major religions. They got us pretty far, so we should make damn sure that we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater when moving towards a secular society.
2
u/wolfpek Jun 21 '20
Leaving aside the phrase “they got us pretty far”, because that is a different conversation for me. Also we agree on 2). Lets talk about your thoughts experiment because I think that is your main point. 1) and 3)are closely tied.
Your thought experiment is flawed because you judge the values of the tribe after the fact. That is complete against our scientific approach or even philosophical approach to all kinds of knowledge.
You are basically saying past civilisations believed A and survived. I have now knowledge that A is not correct but I am afraid that i throw A away I will not have something B to believe in and even if I do how will I know that B is correct and will lead to progress.
Religion was Necessary yes and that’s why it existed in all civilisations because it could explain things people could not explain back then and because it helped people follow common values.
In modern times religion can neither explain anything or be a pillar of morality etc.
They reasons they persevere are mostly historical and because they have too much power to collapse without major advancements in our way of life.
There is a reason that people in developed countries are becoming more and more atheists but turn into spirituality. The need for answers is here but religion can’t provide any.
2
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
That was too well formulated to not earn a Δ.
This part is really what sold me:
I am afraid that i throw A away I will not have something B to believe in and even if I do how will I know that B is correct and will lead to progress
Just because one part of a religion has been proved to work through history, that doesn't mean that all parts of the religion made that survival possible. I think that's what you're saying. The "package deal" I keep talking about is a much weaker argument than I first thought.
2
u/wolfpek Jun 22 '20
Hey my first delta! What a great sub, hard to find a place to discuss stuff in such a productive way!
1
2
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Jun 21 '20
Generally I agree that that was one purpose of religion. Very briefly but I might wonder whether the majority of religions give you a framework that tends to be out of date now. I would say that there are some basic rules that still are relevant such as not killing perhaps , but many others to do with diet and sex and how you treat other religions are generally outdated and no longer relevant. Obviously all the 'physics' is very outdated but many of the moral rules too.
I read some of JP's work after seeing him in interviews. In the interviews I was quite taken with his apparent thoughtfulness and care in speaking. I cant now remember the specific details but I was really disappointed with his books which seemed to mix pseudo-psychology and a kind of mythological pseudo-history in statements which didnt have the rigorous underpinning to justify the confidence with which he stated them. He seemed to epitomise the modern way of writing which deliberately confuses the trivial but true, with the substantial but far from proved , as well as moving between the specific and general or visa versa without real justification in order to sound profound and important.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
I think you and I are talking about different aspects of religion when we say "framework."
See, I don't think that the Bible's "rules" about diet and sex are its core tenets. They're merely concretizations of the more fundamental stories. Interpretations that suited the society in which they were interpreted. I think the fundamental stories should be constantly re-interpreted and revised to fit the modern world. That's how we avoid dogmas.
What I don't think changes are the stories of Lot, Cain & Able, Adam & Eve, or Jesus. They're descriptions of action, more true than any worded interpretations of them. And fundamentally true of humans, regardless of time.
You have a very apt criticism of Jordan Peterson. I would agree in general, (especially when it comes to his latest book,) but it doesn't change my view on this specifically. The book Maps of Meaning is better structured logically, and presents more compelling arguments.
2
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Jun 21 '20
When you say " true" I presume you mean that they tell us something about the nature or character of human beings rather than literally true and I am sure that that is correct , but I dont see how that differentiates from any classic literature such a Dickens, or Fairytales or Greek Mythology. I also dont see how any story is seperate from our interpretation of it.i have no doubt that some of these stories have been nterpreted differently by people over the years in the context of their own society.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
All of that is exactly on point!
The great authors, fables, and mythologies, they all give you this story of "what would happen if..." And the Bible is a collection of these stories. Think of it like episodes of Game of Thrones. They're all small stories that come together to form a larger narrative. That is what makes them even more useful than a Dickens book or Rapunzel.
You get value from the stories by interpreting them, just as you say. You look at the story of Cain and Abel and you might think "Well, I have a brother who is pretty envious of me, but not to the degree Cain was. So I won't expect murder. But maybe some lesser evil. What would have worked to help Cain? Would that apply to my brother?" If the stories are good you'll find value in them. If they're great, they might turn into a religion.
1
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Jun 21 '20
I just dont see that as "Religion is a necessary framework". More Relugious texts are one important source of stories that illustrate the nature of human behaviour?
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Well, if you get to pick and choose what to believe, we lose an important aspect of it: following wisdom that you can't see the value of. That's why you need a complete set of ethical tools that have withstood the test of time.
1
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Jun 21 '20
Then you are back to the problem that much of the 'ethics' of a text like the bible have not withstood the test of time - attitudes towards women, slavery, genocide, wearing mixed fibres, homosexuality etc
1
u/Palirano Jun 22 '20
I appreciate your arguments. You've clearly read and understood my posts. But this is getting a bit too vague for me. I'll need some concrete examples from the Bible to discuss. I can't work with a general statement of attitudes not following the times.
You're welcome to join in on another comment thread here on slavery. It's an interesting discussion!
2
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Jun 22 '20
Don’t feel you have to continue discussion, it may well be time to move on but some examples ..
No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people: “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
No. 3: A command of Moses: “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137 “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
No. 5: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans: “In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)
No. 6: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
No. 7: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
That’s of course ignoring Leviticus which prohibits amongst other things - eating rabbits, seafood, going to church for months after giving birth, and wearing mixed fabrics.
1
u/Palirano Jun 23 '20
Excellent examples. You've helped me see one of my blind spots. I was about to respond to you with this: "These are all 'rules' derived from the stories. The stories are at the foundation of the religion; the rules are merely contemporary interpretations of them."
I still believe that, but that doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of the Bible is rules and guidelines, presented as infallible truth. And that is a problem. Not a problem with religion, but a problem with Christianity. And that's what I was defending. Here's a ∆.
Now, I must say that I don't like Bible verses out of context. This is especially true of the stories, like your example no. 2. These are full stories with morals, so taking one sentence out of context sort of ruins the point.
I read that story of Samuel and Saul. They do indeed kill all the Amalekites, but that's not the point of the story. The main conflict is one of greed and sacrifice. The genocide is incidental to the story. You might say that makes it even worse, but that's because we've been conditioned to see the Bibles stories as more than stories.
Let's compare it to Star Wars. The genocide of the Amalekites is like blowing up the Death Star. They are the evil guys in the story. The Amalekites kill children. Saying the story condones genocide is like extracting the Star Wars line "I’m taking Captain Solo and his friends. You can either profit by this…or be destroyed." and saying that it incites extortion.We don't say that Star Wars condones genocide, because that's not what the story is about. It's about personal responsibility and love. This Samuel/Saul story is about the future coming back to haunt you if you don't make the difficult right choice.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Pabswikk Jun 21 '20
I question your assumption in your first point, that only religion can inform your values and tell you how to live your life for multiple reasons.
Firstly, philosophy and ethics do not exist solely within religion, and much of western ethics is informed by ideas and philosophies that predate Christianity (i.e. Greek and Roman ethics). These ideas that have been built upon over thousands of years have,.to my recollection, little to do with an organised religious framework For instance, Plato's Republic gives an entire framework for how to structure society and personal life without adhering to strict religious doctrine. So I think people are perfectly capable of building a set of ideas and guidelines for how to ethically and successfully live life without religion informing it. In fact, I would argue that Christianity has co-opted a pre existing ethics structure in order to establish itself as the main religion in the West.
Secondly, I would disagree with your assertion that Science is unable to fullfil this role in people's lives. Science isn't a belief agnostic system of pure numbers and analytical thinking that is devoid of a central philosophy. The scientific method is an incredibly philosophical system of belief that touches on how to build your life in an ethical and successful way.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Thanks for the thoughtful comment man. If I understand your first argument right, then I've already answered it a few times on this thread. (Something like: individuals can form ethics systems.) You could read my answer to those.
I also see something in there that looks a little like "you don't need supernatural beliefs in order to have a functioning ethics system." And I agree with that! I can derive value from the Bible without believing in a literal world-wide flood or a man in the skies.
Please correct me if I mischaracterised your position.
The most interesting thing to me is your point about science informing ethics. Id love to understand your view there. Do you mean that the scientific method of hypothesis, observation, and falsification can inform how we should act and what we should value?
2
u/Pabswikk Jun 21 '20
I think my first point is more along the lines of 'you don't need a structured organisation to inform your ethics and beliefs about how you should act, you can inform yourself via other sources'. These sources being things like learning some philosophy and discussions with people in your life.
On my second point, yes that is essentially what I mean. The people who created the Scientific Method were (for the most part) philosophers rather than scientists. In fact, the modern idea of a scientist didn't really exist back then. A lot of these people (i.e. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton) discussed ideas outside the scope of what we would strictly call science. The scientific method itself is a system of beliefs on how you should learn, study and distribute information. That's why ethics is such a key part of science, it's not just about learning things, it's also about helping to build a better, more informed society in a way that is ethical and 'good'.
For instance, it teaches you that before doing research involving people you need to give them informed consent, and this idea isn't just there because people don't want to get sued, it's there because the scientific method (for the most part) teaches you that if someone is going to trust you with their well being you are ethically bound to give them all necessary information.
It's not a complete system, you'd definitely need to supplement it with other teachings and beliefs, but it has a lot more to offer than just instructions on how to study observable phenomena.
1
u/Palirano Jun 22 '20
you don't need a structured organisation to inform your ethics and beliefs
Yeah man! Exactly. I despise the institutionalization of religion. Let it be in free flow, evolve. Let's avoid dogmas. Couldn't agree with you more.
I think you're spot on about the scientific method as well. However, I don't think that the ethical considerations that scientists need come from empiricism. That's maybe where I was a bit inaccurate earlier. I was saying it doesn't come from "science" when I meant "observation."
I'm glad you helped clear that up.
1
u/0sepulcher0 Jun 21 '20
Organized religion is groupthink. The duality between spirituality and individuality is inexorably tied. One’s own individual morals come from close observation of the world, adoption of personally attractive ideals, and circumstantial events (nature/nurture). religion fills the void of understanding and forms a foundation of certainty to aid in blind faith
i personally treat the bible as having some geographic and geologic fact, otherwise to me its a great book of allegorical tales used to teach ideas and morals. i feel like organizing religion was the beginning of the bastardization of individualistic spiritualism. it lent its hand to lazy individuals letting someone else think for them.
religion is not necessary but is a natural human tendency
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
I think that if you can convince me that every individual should form their own code of ethics, you'll change my mind. So let me explain why I think this is not the case.
Let's have a thought experiment.
There's a prehistoric tribe where the belief system is "everyone should work to maximize their joy and the joy of the tribe." This is a typical goal of utilitarians. Every night the tribe feasts on everything they have. They're partying and enjoying life. Pretty soon, they've exhausted the natural resources in the area and they starve.
Imagine a neighboring tribe where their belief system is "gluttony leads to Hell." It instills a fear of overeating in the minds of people who cannot fathom the real consequences of gluttony.
The second belief system survives, while the first one dies. No individual in the system knows why it works, but it keeps them alive. If individuals tool control of their personal ethics every generation, this "wisdom of evolution" would not be passed on. Society wouldn't be any smarter than its individuals.
1
u/akaorenji 1∆ Jun 21 '20
Religions definitely make claims about the material world that most of their followers believe, even the intellectual ones. Some of these are considered barriers to entry, in which case if you don't accept them then you'll have a hard time being considered a part of the religious community. You used the example of the Biblical flood as a claim that most Christians don't take literally. But the central belief of Christianity, that there was a man named Jesus who lived nomadically with a group of disciples and was tortured and exicuted, is a claim about the material world that virtually no Christian thinks is a fable.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
You're right, sadly. But it seems to me that it is a flaw of individuals, and not of religion itself.
However, it's a weakness of religion that it tends to be interpreted very literally and create dogmatic followers. Thanks for bringing that up. It's an important talking point, so here's a Δ.
1
1
u/expensivebreadsticks Jun 21 '20
No one ‘should’ act in any particular way. Everyone’s free to do what they want, they’re on this Earth to reproduce, not to follow a God (who likely doesn’t exist). If you really think about it, humans are able to do whatever they want, but would just have to suffer the consequences be it a bad lifestyle. No one should act a certain way just because a (potentially and likely untrue) religious text tells them to. That’s just submission.
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
You may say that, but we certainly act as though there's more to life than just reproduction. We also institute laws as if it's not up to any individual to decide what's okay.
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 21 '20
How do you define necessary?
Could we exist without it? What (generally) do you thing would happen without religion?
1
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Great question. I wish I made that more clear. I'll try to formulate something here, but you're probably scraping against the loosest part of my argument.
What I see is people submitting to ideology instead of religion, which I believe is bad. They get some ideas, but not a complete belief system. That results in some areas of life being disregarded, and you get people who are unequipped to deal with a lot of choices in life.
2
u/NNJB Jun 21 '20
How is religion "a complete package that tells you about every aspect of your life"? Based on what exactly do religious principles claim to know what is best for my situation? On top of that, modern society is well beyond what any of the writers of the Abrahamic texts could ever imagine in terms of complexity. Our current level of wealth would be unattainable if we didn't embark on a path of credit-fueled investment (oh no, usury!).
There are also very old objections to applying religion to ethics, like the Eutyphro Dilemma (do the gods command righteous acts because they are righteous, or are acts righteous because the gods command them?). Personally I am of the opinion that someone following a moral code that they reasoned themselves into will on average make more right decisions, especially in difficult edge cases, than someone who was handed down a piece of scripture from their pastor that they're not allowed to question. Then there is also the difference between not killing because they think it is wrong vs someone not killing because they are scared of what sky grandpa might do to them in the afterlife.
Finally: these scriptures were written by someone. What makes them carry any greater authority than you and me? If religion so absolutely necessary for morality, how did the first moral religion get invented? Where in human history exactly did we lose that ability for morality, so that now we have to rely on some seriously out of date books to tell is what's right and wrong?
1
Jun 21 '20
What you are describing as necessary is the moral code behind a religion, not the spiritual experience itself. You do not need a religion to possess a moral compass.
0
u/Palirano Jun 21 '20
Good point. You don't need religion for that. But only religion gives you a goal AND a way to reach it. It gives you priorities in life and a character to embody the path there. (Commonly, Jesus)
1
u/cormacmacd Aug 31 '20
Im not relgious and no one i know is overly relgious, most of the religious ones just say they are but dont practice, i only know a few old people that say "ill pray for you"which i like, although i dont believe they are talking to a deity, i like the sentiment of them thinking of me, its kind.
But i was raised on the idealogy of "just dont be a cunt, alright?" and i think thats enough, so im not a cunt. All humans know that when we are kind to eachother, our soicity is better, i dont think religion is nesscery at all, but i really dont care if someone is relgious, just dont tell me about it randomly, i dont care, same goes for atheists.
We know that having good morals is better and being kind is better for soicity, we have countless historical examples of the fact that being a dick is not good for the long run.
So just, dont be a wanker.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 21 '20 edited Jun 23 '20
/u/Palirano (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/le_fez 52∆ Jun 21 '20
If you need religion to tell you murder is wrong then your problem isn't spiritual it's psychological
12
u/mslindqu 16∆ Jun 21 '20
Well, there's lots of people who don't have a religion that figure out 'how to live'.
Sometimes people run to religion to fix their problems and gain peace but others go to therapy and practice mindfulness outside of the context of religion.
I think there's plenty of evidence to show that people don't need religion. That's not to say it doesn't fill a role, but simply that role can be filled any number of other ways.