Is religion necessary for social order?

[Valjean]

Nor respect for even the land itself.
In USA, tis believers leading the charge
to ignore environmental degradation
in pursuit of expanding the population
& the economy.

But God will set everything right, in the end, so no worries.

 

[LeftyLen]

Ok



World wide is as broad as it gets



Free markets don't fly planes into buildings




Hmm, communism left, nazism right.




Eh?



Religion in general is in decline. The American religious right are interfering in politics to the expense of the nation



Follow their religion and keep their noses out of other people's business



How's about democracy?



Eh?



Are you using a rather narrow brush?

At least in my lifetime, it is the secular left that has embraced far more irrationality than the religious right. It was people on the secular left, not anyone on the religious right, who found Marxism, one of the most irrational doctrines in history, rational. It was only on the secular left that people morally equated the United States and the Soviet Union. It was secular leftists, not religious Jews or Christians, who believed the irrational nonsense that men and women were basically the same.

It is overwhelmingly among the secular left that people have bought into the myriad irrational hysterias of my lifetime — huge mortality rates in America from heterosexual AIDS, and now destruction of the planet by man-induced global warming. It is extremely revealing that with regard to global warming scenarios of man-induced doom,. TODAY ad the last 150 years who is more rational, considering Europe's history since Marx on issues — the secular left or the religious right. I bet everything on the religious.

There is no question but that many religious people have irrational religious views, specifically fundamentalists, however, theology and values are not the same. I am convinced that the human being is programmed to believe in the non-rational. The healthy religious confine their irrationality to their theologies and are quite rational on social issues. On the other hand, vast numbers of secular people in the West have done the very opposite — rejected irrational religiosity and affirmed irrational social beliefs testified to over, as said the last 150 years

 

[LeftyLen]

The answer is yes. The reason is religion, by belief in a higher power, causes the ego to moderate behavior, since it accepts that the ego is not in control and thereby become humble enough to sacrifice the its urge for power, so it can get along.

For example, fake news which divides the US, does not come from religion. Fake religion and politics creates a divide as a path to power. The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not bear false witness. The gossip busy bodies that divide the country, such as those connected to the DNC and Swamp, do that all the time. If they were more humble and self contained by religious values, the media would more be boring but truthful, and the country would not be divided. In this forum, those without religion are the most blind to this common sense.

How many people how hate religion will accept and carry the water about the current lies about Harris, and then blame religion with another lie? Deception like that cause division. Act like a scientist and look around and see who is willing to lie and follow the propaganda of man, while lacking proof that what you believe is real. If you believe in God, you are taught that is not the path to salvation, and you will try to bring peace through reason and the truth and not propaganda and emotional thinking.

Then again religions of Satan, may have the option to lie since, he is the spirit of deception. Lack of faith and the religions of Satan are the problem, since it encourages the ego to inflate by creating deception that leads to division. Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Delusion. The religious actually figured out the truth before the godless. When you deflate the ego you can become more rational.

i am conservative and religious, and have no idea what your talking about

 

[LeftyLen]

Your lack of recollection isn't convincing evidence.

Note also that fighting against black equality were
"good" Christians...the ones who originally justified
slavery & its continuation. And after the Civil War,
started the KKK & implemented Jim Crow laws.
And Jews owned slaves too.

Ya canna consider religion's effects by citing only
what ya believe to be good. Look at every effect
of a religion, warts'n all.

At least in my lifetime, it is the secular left that has embraced far more irrationality than the religious right. It was people on the secular left, not anyone on the religious right, who found Marxism, one of the most irrational doctrines in history, rational. It was only on the secular left that people morally equated the United States and the Soviet Union. It was secular leftists, not religious Jews or Christians, who believed the irrational nonsense that men and women were basically the same.

It is overwhelmingly among the secular left that people have bought into the myriad irrational hysterias of my lifetime — huge mortality rates in America from heterosexual AIDS, and now destruction of the planet by man-induced global warming. It is extremely revealing that with regard to global warming scenarios of man-induced doom,. TODAY ad the last 150 years who is more rational, considering Europe's history since Marx on issues — the secular left or the religious right. I bet everything on the religious.

There is no question but that many religious people have irrational religious views, specifically fundamentalists, however, theology and values are not the same. I am convinced that the human being is programmed to believe in the non-rational. The healthy religious confine their irrationality to their theologies and are quite rational on social issues. On the other hand, vast numbers of secular people in the West have done the very opposite — rejected irrational religiosity and affirmed irrational social beliefs testified to over, as said the last 150 years

 

[an anarchist]

Secularism is good for two things, government and science, all else it destroys.

Nah.

Religion and government go hand in hand first off. The first rulers of civilization were High Priests.

Science is good. Good of you to agree to that. We got so much quality of life because of science. Thanks secularism!

 

[ChristineM]

At least in my lifetime, it is the secular left that has embraced far more irrationality than the religious right.

I see just the opposite.

who believed the irrational nonsense that men and women were basically the same.

In my view they are, we are all human beings. Unless of course you want women chained to the kitchen sink while giving birth to your offspring.

AIDS

Many new diseases cause huge mortality rates until science and medicine can create medication to help combat them.

now destruction of the planet by man-induced global warming.

The industrial revolution was driven by the moneyed right and the right are still pushing the idea that climate change is not a thing

the secular left or the religious right. I bet everything on the religious

And i bet on the secular.

The healthy religious confine their irrationality to their theologies and are quite rational on social issues.

I don't see any religion as healthy or rational when it interferes with politics.

rejected irrational religiosity

Not really, religion is declining, people have easeier access to information, its not a point of rejection but education.

affirmed irrational social beliefs testified to over, as said the last 150 years

Examples please.

 

[an anarchist]

I invite everyone of all faiths (or lack of faith) to participate in this thread. I do ask that we go with the hypothetical assumption that there is no God(s) or anything of metaphysical nature

Then again religions of Satan, may have the option to lie since, he is the spirit of deception. Lack of faith and the religions of Satan are the problem

Can you take my OP into consideration when answering the title question?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One problem is that religion tends to be a house built on sand. It lacks enough objective evidence for adherents to feel entirely comfortable in their beliefs and unthreatened in multi-religious societies.
Coercive and repressive legislation tends to be a frequent result, if not outright hostility.

So can you have objective evidence for morality or do you mean objective evidence for what the world as usch is?

 

[Betho_br]

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.

The observation about the absence of religious morality and the risk of political manipulations, such as "German nihilism," is quite relevant. By questioning or abandoning absolute values provided by religion, a vacuum can emerge that is susceptible to various interpretations and manipulations.

Nietzsche, who is often associated with nihilism, argued that the death of God — a metaphor for the loss of faith in absolute and transcendental values — leads to a crisis of meaning. However, he did not see nihilism as an end but as a transitional stage. Nietzsche proposed the concept of the Übermensch, or "overman," as a response to this crisis. The Übermensch is a figure who creates their own values and lives with a self-defined purpose, transcending the limitations of traditional values and establishing a new sense of meaning and fulfillment.

"German nihilism" illustrates how nihilism can be distorted to justify extreme ideologies and self-destructive politics, exacerbating despair and meaninglessness without offering constructive alternatives. This shows how a negative and distorted interpretation of nihilism, which ignores Nietzsche's proposal to create new values through the Übermensch, can be used for destructive purposes.

Therefore, while critiquing the dependence on religious morality, it is crucial to also consider the need to build new values and meanings in a positive and constructive manner. Avoiding nihilism from becoming a platform for harmful manipulations and promoting a more enriching and ethical approach to life and morality is essential, and this does not exclude the idea of a new "religion" in the sense of providing a system of values and purpose to guide life.

 

[Betho_br]

There is much friction between different religions. Just take a look at the riots currently in the UK, terror attacks and religious wars throughout history.

It also seems that religious people have less respect for the laws of the land.

So, my view is no.

Religion should not be used as a tool for practicing violence.

 

[ChristineM]

Religion should not be used as a tool for practicing violence.

But it is, often

 

[bobhikes]

I'm an individual, but I feel no need for religion. I'm comfortable not knowing, and I can conduct myself ethically without it.
Judging by other responses I've read from other posters, I'm hardly the only one here.

I disagree. I'd say religion is restrictive to the individual, whilst secularism is the remedy.

Yes you are an individual but do you and your beliefs represent all individuals.

Yes religion is restrictive but some individuals want and need the restrictions. It offers them escapism whereas there is something that they can push there problems on and something that can solve their problems for them.

Is it good for society as a whole, I personally would love it if everyone could be a skeptic but that's never happening. Trump rise has proven that to me.

 

[wellwisher]

From a science POV, using the Theory of Evolution, since religions has been an important part of the human condition, since at least the start of civilization, and have played a dominant role for most of that time, grooming culture and people, religion has sort of acted like a version of natural selection; man made selection, for at least 6000 years. So many of the predominate ancient artifacts; building and art, have religious connections. Stonehenge still stand the testament of time.
.
The question is, is that enough selection time to shift human genetics toward what could be loosely called a religious instinct, since those with the program, would have been more selected; more selective advantages, and therefore their genes would accumulate and concentrate over time. No matter how one worships, there is similar fundamental structuring. Progressives have this faith in novelty and untested ideas. They come from the imagination and are worshiped and defended in an emotional way; transgender is the latest.

It is very possible that although you can take people out of religion; atheism, you may not be able to take religion out of the people, since human brain and DNA is quite conservative of its past. The result is things like Marxism, that may be sold as atheist on the surface, were driven by that inner religious nature, to become a morphed religion; blind obedience to an ideal; religious archetype.

If true, this all comes down to whether the classic religions or the modern morphed religions are more damaging to cultures and people? In modern times, the atheist morphed religions like Marxism and NAZIsm; social darwinism, were the worst.

This observation and application of Evolution, also brings the theory of Evolution in the spot light as to whether 6000-10,000 years is enough time for selective changes on human DNA that underlay human behavioral firmware. If not maybe the theory may need to be updated. If we see a new bird and call that evolution maybe it is too soon for fundamental change but only shallow change.

Liberalism has all the earmarks of a morph religion. The divided nature of that morphed religion; deny classic religion, could explain why they work so hard to separate from what they are unconscious of and cannot admit. The moth flying to the flame each day shows an attraction to what appears like a contradiction, to it own religious preservation; religious war. I like psycho-analyzing people who need help becoming whole.

 

[Tomef]

The observation about the absence of religious morality and the risk of political manipulations, such as "German nihilism," is quite relevant. By questioning or abandoning absolute values provided by religion, a vacuum can emerge that is susceptible to various interpretations and manipulations.

Nietzsche, who is often associated with nihilism, argued that the death of God — a metaphor for the loss of faith in absolute and transcendental values — leads to a crisis of meaning. However, he did not see nihilism as an end but as a transitional stage. Nietzsche proposed the concept of the Übermensch, or "overman," as a response to this crisis. The Übermensch is a figure who creates their own values and lives with a self-defined purpose, transcending the limitations of traditional values and establishing a new sense of meaning and fulfillment.

"German nihilism" illustrates how nihilism can be distorted to justify extreme ideologies and self-destructive politics, exacerbating despair and meaninglessness without offering constructive alternatives. This shows how a negative and distorted interpretation of nihilism, which ignores Nietzsche's proposal to create new values through the Übermensch, can be used for destructive purposes.

Therefore, while critiquing the dependence on religious morality, it is crucial to also consider the need to build new values and meanings in a positive and constructive manner. Avoiding nihilism from becoming a platform for harmful manipulations and promoting a more enriching and ethical approach to life and morality is essential, and this does not exclude the idea of a new "religion" in the sense of providing a system of values and purpose to guide life.

Values don’t need to be new, religious values are just one expression of the same general principles humans have come up wherever they lived. We just needed some time to get used to the idea that you don’t need that particular narrative, religion, to live by them. Being culturally Christian is not a bad thing, provided it isn’t taken too seriously. A lot of time has passed since Nietzsche, enough to know nobody needs to be an ůbermensch to live a purposeful life. The loss of faith might have been raw in his day, but it’s old hat now and we’ve had plenty of time to fill out the sense of what is ok in Christianity with a more enlightened understanding of what it means to be human. Other than external threats, for the most part people are able to live their lives, do the things that are meaningful for them and welcome the differences among us. No need for the drama of 19th century despair over the disappearance of a fictional sky god.

 

[Jimmy]

People like me, eh.
**** ***.
What is "fighting for peace", if what you
call "bickering" shouldn't be addressed?

Leave fighting for peace for the people living over there. The hundred years of bickering around the world isn’t helping them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religion and social order; let's see:

• Protestant and Catholic troubles in Northern Ireland.
• 16th-century France, a series of wars between Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots primarily), known as the French Wars of Religion.
• Protestants burning Catholics -- then vice-versa -- then vice-versa-again -- during Tudor England.
• Sunnis versus Shia's.
• Remember the Muslims and Hindus in 1948, as India and Pakistan were splitting from British Empire control?
• Oh, yes, the Puritans in Salem, Massachussetts -- all very "hello, Goody whats-yer-name" until they started killing each other as witches.
• Let's not forget Israel/Palestine, or the Muslim world against Israel, for that matter.
• Riots against (Christian) Igbo in 1953 and in the 1960s in the north of Nigeria, sparked by religious conflict. The riots against Igbo in the north in 1966 were said to have been inspired by radio reports of mistreatment of Muslims in the south.
• The Lebanon civil war of 1975-1990 played out along three religious lines: Sunni Muslim, Christian Lebanese and Shiite Muslim.
• Yugoslav wars, Croatia and Bosnia pitting Catholic versus Orthodox versus Islam.
• Fundamentalist American Christians against just about everybody who isn't one of them.

One could go on and on and on, so no, I don't see religion as being particularly beneficial to social order, except very locally (sometimes) and very temporarily (mostly).

 

[Eddi]

Religion and social order; let's see:

• Protestant and Catholic troubles in Northern Ireland.
• 16th-century France, a series of wars between Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots primarily), known as the French Wars of Religion.
• Protestants burning Catholics -- then vice-versa -- then vice-versa-again -- during Tudor England.
• Sunnis versus Shia's.
• Remember the Muslims and Hindus in 1948, as India and Pakistan were splitting from British Empire control?
• Oh, yes, the Puritans in Salem, Massachussetts -- all very "hello, Goody whats-yer-name" until they started killing each other as witches.
• Let's not forget Israel/Palestine, or the Muslim world against Israel, for that matter.
• Riots against (Christian) Igbo in 1953 and in the 1960s in the north of Nigeria, sparked by religious conflict. The riots against Igbo in the north in 1966 were said to have been inspired by radio reports of mistreatment of Muslims in the south.
• The Lebanon civil war of 1975-1990 played out along three religious lines: Sunni Muslim, Christian Lebanese and Shiite Muslim.
• Yugoslav wars, Croatia and Bosnia pitting Catholic versus Orthodox versus Islam.
• Fundamentalist American Christians against just about everybody who isn't one of them.

One could go on and on and on, so no, I don't see religion as being particularly beneficial to social order, except very locally (sometimes) and very temporarily (mostly).

The thing is though, is that religions form people into groups, so they have a unifying influence by doing that

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The thing is though, is that religions form people into groups, so they have a unifying influence by doing that

But only, as I said in my post, very locally and temporarily. Go to any town in Canada, the United States, England, France and the rest of Europe: they'll all have mosques, synagogues, Catholic churches, various denominations of Protestant churches -- and likely a few other religious houses as well. And it's a pretty rare thing for those venues to invite the others over for a shared service, or perhaps a strawberry festival or rummage sale.

 

[an anarchist]

The thing is though, is that religions form people into groups, so they have a unifying influence by doing that

Is it possible for a group of people to form due to another reason besides religion?

If so, then perhaps religion is a redundant in this respect. If it is redundant, is it necessary for social order?

 

[Eddi]

But only, as I said in my post, very locally and temporarily. Go to any town in Canada, the United States, England, France and the rest of Europe: they'll all have mosques, synagogues, Catholic churches, various denominations of Protestant churches -- and likely a few other religious houses as well. And it's a pretty rare thing for those venues to invite the others over for a shared service, or perhaps a strawberry festival or rummage sale.

Yet certain churches/religions have multiple millions of members and an ingroup/outgroup mentality

Looks like a force for social cohesion to me