No.
It lacked specifics about responsibility.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion necessary for social order?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
It lacked specifics about responsibility.
Rarely do people consider the causes behind major retaliations like Sept. 11 or Oct. 7. Unless the overwhelming grievances that drive militants to such desperate acts are addressed, the hostility will continue to fester.
People don't go to such extremes on a whim. They have real grievances.
Last edited:
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Like I said, it doesn’t matter. All that matters now is fighting for peace not fighting each other. But if you want to keep bickering about who is responsible, then I won’t hold you back.. people like you have been bickering for 100 years and where has that gotten us?
We Never Know
No Slack
I follow science. How ever I don't follow anything about religion or gods.
That's why I only post maybe once or twice in a religious thread every month or two.
I suppose it depends on the characteristics in question. Which characteristics were you interested in?
It's my impression that religion flourishes among insecure peoples.
"Third world" countries are, by definition, impoverished, and few can afford universal education, social services, &c. The reasons these countries are impoverished vary. I imagine the average Maslovian levels are often depressed as citizens compete for basic needs.
Religion, as religion alone, brings dignity and evolution to many excluded individuals.
Yes, as has been said, it's the opiate of the people, but it doesn't usually address their problems or improve things materially.
Have you ever heard of the 'pyramid scheme'?Yes, as has been said, it's the opiate of the people, but it doesn't usually address their problems or improve things materially.
Looking at the Gaza situation, it seems a pity that God didn't promise the Levant to the atheists.
I know what a pyramid scheme is, but I don't know what you mean by the pyramid scheme.
Explain, please.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It seems it has been necessary in the past, as no societies have survived that didn't have religion as a stabilizing element. The real question is, is religion still necessary. That answer seems to be "no" for at least some nations, but I'm not sure whether that holds true globally.
Madsaac
Active Member
Well, what do you mean by social order? People behaving themselves & a stable society or a fair go for all people, including women, homosexuals, single parents, migrants and so on?
On both counts the answer is No, I would say law and order determined by good government is the best way for social order.
Religion has it's benefits but it's not necessary, there are quite a few very 'prosperous' countries that place low importance on religion.
I would say, commonly accepted rules are usually necessary for social order. Religion can be one way to have such rules. And in a way religion may be more efficient than secular rules, because they are usually believed to come from higher authority. If the rules are just from people, they can be more arbitrary, everyone can make their own and they are as valid as the next persons, because they are subjective opinions.
Necessary?
No.
Can/does it help? Sure.
Can/does it hinder? Yup.
Humans are paradoxical
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, religion is not just about God.
So in effect you could have a religion without God for at least one defintion of religion.
So you really have to ask yourself if your understanding of religion is the only one around or if it is your culture speaking.
So my answer is this.
Yes, there is always religion in a society, but sometimes it is not about God. In effect religion in the broad sense is the narative about what the world is and how that and human life matter.
fatemahmanahil
New Member
without God, there will be no social order. and without social order, there will be no peace. as we are already witnessing chaos in this world.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How do you explain that it is not the same God and not the same rules that are used all over the world.
"God," as in the deity of the majority of monotheists, the god of Abraham? Most such people are Christian or Muslim.
What are we imagining that these religions do that is beneficial? In my opinion, the more one lets one of these religions control his thinking, the worse for him and his neighbors, especially if their neighbors who are women, LGBTQ+, or atheist.
Look at the Christians on these threads. You've got a contingent that essentially shares atheistic humanist values - that is, they've avoided all of those bigotries and gotten themselves an education.
On the other end are the zealous believers who appear to be adversely affected by these religions. These are the ones like the VP candidate who thinks that how many children a woman has defines her worth to society. Is this person cohesive or divisive? Contrast with the current president, an Abrahamic theist whose religion doesn't define his values or how he functions as president.
One Abrahamic monotheist just posted that atheism, "is the most irrational POV, so everything else that follows is necessarily nonsense." Is that what we mean by cohesion and social order? His disrespect for reason and those who make decisions based in it is palpable. Such a person is no friend of mine. Do you think his religious beliefs bring us together or drive a wedge between us?
These Abrahamic religions make bank in that fear and perpetuate it. They emphasize death and what a threat it and this god's hell are to the soul.
The atheist matures away from such beliefs and learns to become comfortable with his mortality and the likelihood that consciousness is extinguished with death, but the believer is constantly reminded of the horrors of death that religion invents and hangs over its adherents' heads.
Only for those for whom compelling evidence had any impact, which wouldn't be many of the faithful, and why they're called that.
No society that went extinct was without religion. No society that wasn't a scourge on its neighbors didn't have religion.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Good question. I think the progression towards not needing religion has been pretty slow, I mean if you take Nietzsche’s ‘god is dead’ as a not totally arbitrary starting point, his übermensch idea played out in distorted fashion but I think you could say that has ultimately led to a more chilled approach to life after god. There’s a lot written about us as people needing narratives of some sort, national or religious fabulation that provides a sense of identity, and I think it’s probably true that some of the ’new atheists’ felt a need to react against that, and ended up presenting a kind of clinical notion of what it means to be human. With someone like Richard Dawkins saying recently that he is a ‘cultural Christian’ though I think there’s a more relaxed attitude that seems quite fresh, acknowledging that this or that religion is part of our heritage and social norms, in a general sense, while also recognising there’s no need to actively engage with it. I think there’s an optimistic but realistic view that we can let the future develop organically on that foundation. The Dionysian pastiche in the opening ceremony of the games in France there was such a hoo-hah about is a good indicator of where things are headed I think, that loose amalgam of Christian and pagan beliefs and celebration that form part of European culture, historically, is a good way to acknowledge those things as being there in the background while also recognising it’s past time to move on from rigid adherence to this or that faith.
There's also the question of what constitutes a religion. Practically any belief, social, or ethical system could function as one, god or no god.