Is Religion a Necessity?

[Jeremiahcp]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

 

[bobhikes]

Yes, because its a psychological aid that works off of faith. To replace it you would have to provide psychological assistance to the world in some other way. Many people are poor and won't be able to afford help, people have different levels of education and may not understand they need help, people have different tolerances to psychological problems so may need it more frequently or immediately. The only thing that provides assistance to everyone when they need it is religion.

Think of Religion as the Guru of psychological problems. Not exactly trained but helpful in many ways. Without religion many people would have a much rougher time. I could even believe society couldn't function without it. Yes certain groups would do well without religion but the vast majority would not and those groups still have to deal with the vast majority.

 

[Rival]

What you mean by "religion"?

 

[Kemosloby]

No because like it says and is obvious, God lets it rain on both the believer and unbelievers, and we can extrapolate to mean likewise on everything else. Yes because similar to Jesus searching the fig tree for fruit, if he does not find any good fruit the tree is no good and is destroyed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No.
It doesn't provide any better morals. It even inspires some to commit evil.
It doesn't illuminate the material or supernatural world.
To not study religion would free up time for more productive work.
Real estate devoted to religions could be used to process bacon.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

Nope!

Millions of species on this earth do just fine without religion?

In 3 million years of evolution humans did just fine without religion. It is a relatively recent phenomena?

Since the advent of religion millions and millions have been slaughtered, either for their own beliefs, or for the beliefs of those committing the slaughter.

Today millions of people live in fear because of their own beliefs, or because of the beliefs of those around them.

Religion as a whole is made up of a myriad of conflicting views. By conflicting I don't mean only contradicting, I mean CONFLICTING.

And the no. 1 reason...I haven't seen a single example of religion doing good that could not be done without religion. Religion may at times be helpful, but there is nothing good that comes uniquely from religion. It seems to cause more harm than good, and the good it produces could be done without it.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure it is useful to frame this in terms of "absolute need." The basic fact is that humans are social animals, and as social animals we develop cultures. The parts of culture that we choose to label "religions" are a necessary and inseparable component of human cultures. Arguably, there is no significant distinction between "religion" and "culture" - wanting to identify a separate domain of "religion" is a particular proclivity of Western cultures. One could say that culture/religion is not an "absolute need" per se, but it is an inevitable component of the human species.

 

[HonestJoe]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

I don’t see why it would be. Lots of species, including our own predecessors, seem to survive and procreate without any form of religion (or in many cases, the capability of forming one at all).

I suspect the kind of things that led to the development of religion are fundamental to our intelligence but I could conceive those things developing in such a different direction as to lead to something distinct from religion as we commonly understand it. It might even happen in the future, especially if any group of humans somehow become isolated from our religion-engrained societies.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What you mean by "religion"?

I like to leave that up to you.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm not sure it is useful to frame this in terms of "absolute need." The basic fact is that humans are social animals, and as social animals we develop cultures. The parts of culture that we choose to label "religions" are a necessary and inseparable component of human cultures. Arguably, there is no significant distinction between "religion" and "culture" - wanting to identify a separate domain of "religion" is a particular proclivity of Western cultures. One could say that culture/religion is not an "absolute need" per se, but it is an inevitable component of the human species.

I am sure many things are an "inevitable component of the human species", but that is not the question I am asking.

 

[George-ananda]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

I am going to interpret 'religion' as spiritual beliefs and not as organized institutions.

I think we can survive as atheist-materialists but I think many, including myself, would feel a greater sense of pointlessness that would be a degrading factor on society.

 

[Rival]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

On a purely factual basis, the answer might be: probably. Religious people, of any theistic religion, tend to have more children on average. Or just plain have children, where many atheists choose not to. So yes, religion is good for reproduction.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

On a purely factual basis, the answer might be: probably. Religious people, of any theistic religion, tend to have more children on average. Or just plain have children, where many atheists choose not to. So yes, religion is good for reproduction.

Isn't our population growth out of control? Procreation is needed yes, but too much of it can be a bad thing.

 

[Rival]

Isn't our population growth out of control? Procreation is needed yes, but too much of it can be a bad thing.

Too few is also a bad thing. 2 children is the replacement rate, so if you are having less than 2 the species is reproducing less. I wouldn't call having 2 or 3 kids overpopulation.

 

[RESOLUTION]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity? Why or why not?

Jeremiahcp,

I am not sure how you propose to make them mutually acceptable when comparing.

Food, water and procreation are all physical attributes to the sustainment of life.
Without food and water no one survives. Without procreation human beings end.
But the purpose of life is not found in food, water and procreation.

So without religion would people feel a purpose to life, would they feel it worth living and would many end their lives
when sick, mentally ill or without hope?

We need to be very careful not to lump the physical needs for life with the Spiritual life.

Life is not just a matter of food, water and procreation.
What part do you think food, water and procreation played in the actions of Christ?

Humans are much more than their existence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Too few is also a bad thing. 2 children is the replacement rate, so if you are having less than 2 the species is reproducing less. I wouldn't call having 2 or 3 kids overpopulation.

I don't really think procreation is in such dire it needs religion, and even if it came to something like that I don't see why we would need religion to tell people to have more kids.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the purpose of this discussion, if we consider a necessity as an absolute need for the continued survival of humankind, such as food, water and procreation: Would you consider religion a necessity?

No more so than human rights.

 

[Rival]

I don't really think procreation is in such dire it needs religion, and even if it came to something like that I don't see why we would need religion to tell people to have more kids.

It does give people an incentive though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too few is also a bad thing. 2 children is the replacement rate, so if you are having less than 2 the species is reproducing less. I wouldn't call having 2 or 3 kids overpopulation.

Given time, it will be (if it isn't already).
It all boils down to deciding at what point our quality of life becomes worse.
How much extinction & loss of natural environment is acceptable?
How much environmental degradation due to energy usage, manufacturing, waste, mining, & infrastructure should we tolerate?
I say the ideal world population is 1,567,248,007.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Jeremiahcp,

I am not sure how you propose to make them mutually acceptable when comparing.

Food, water and procreation are all physical attributes to the sustainment of life.
Without food and water no one survives. Without procreation human beings end.
But the purpose of life is not found in food, water and procreation.

So without religion would people feel a purpose to life, would they feel it worth living and would many end their lives
when sick, mentally ill or without hope?

We need to be very careful not to lump the physical needs for life with the Spiritual life.

Life is not just a matter of food, water and procreation.
What part do you think food, water and procreation played in the actions of Christ?

Humans are much more than their existence.

"So without religion would people feel a purpose to life, would they feel it worth living and would many end their lives
when sick, mentally ill or without hope?"

So then how do atheists live full rich lives filled with purpose?