Is religion necessary for social order?

[IndigoChild5559]

Any discriminating laws are a good example, whether they are against race, gender or sexuality.

While this statement works very good in general, we have to make room for the exceptions. The text of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says, "The ADA's very purpose is to ensure that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else. If we treat everyone the same, then we are in fact discriminating against those who have different needs." This is why we have things like women's sports.

 

[Godobeyer]

When safety is achieved by authoritarian
means, it ceases being a positive.

My opinion about safety in Society in Algeria,and most of Muslim countries, we here more dangerous,if no Islam.
Because no inner rules limitations control.
top main factor, which is poor/rich.

Rich people are more safe than poor area.

I live in Algeria i know places where low religious,poor, they more violence robbing,here feel unsafe.

There are other regions religious and poor, they very low violence rate feel safe.

 

[Madsaac]

Okay, there is no single overall type of good life. And because of in effect diffrent kinds of understanding of what a good life is, there is no overall we for the good life.
We can go deeper into that, if you like.

Yes and part of that is knowing that we all come from different places, and need to show an understanding that people approach 'things' differently, including ways of expressing ourselves and getting a point across.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and part of that is knowing that we all come from different places, and need to show an understanding that people approach 'things' differently, including ways of expressing ourselves and getting a point across.

Yeah, and being honest about the limitations of science, religion and philosophy. And how nobody uses only one of those.

 

[LeftyLen]

What the heck is "woke?" To me it means culturally and politically aware, sophisticated, or knowledgeable.
How are these bad things?

woke is cultural marxism

 

[LeftyLen]

Do you really think Karl Marx would have approved of any of the Bolsheviks' shenanigans?

We do not know what Marx would have thought. the implementations o Marx dogma economic or otherwise has been a total failure where ever it has been attempted, yet it survives with the idea, notion that if the 'right people' try it, it will work, the next time.

 

[ChristineM]

How many were caused by "religion"

Estimated around 800,000,000

 

[Nimos]

While this statement works very good in general, we have to make room for the exceptions. The text of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says, "The ADA's very purpose is to ensure that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else. If we treat everyone the same, then we are in fact discriminating against those who have different needs." This is why we have things like women's sports.

I don't understand that.

Yes, and that is good, but I was asked to give an example based on science. And for that discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality has no foundation. But in your example, there would be a scientific reason why you would have to treat certain groups of people with disabilities differently to ensure they have a high standard of living. In many cases, the advantages of science are what allow us to even learn about these conditions.

So I don't think the ADA statement is saying anything other than what I stated, since its purpose is to avoid discrimination against certain groups of people.

Treating people differently is not the same as discriminating against them, as that implies unjust/harmful behaviour towards a certain group. So I would say that having scientific knowledge of the conditions that people can suffer from, will help ensure that such a thing doesn't happen, because of the improved understanding we have.

We have lots of examples throughout history of how people with certain conditions have been extremely poorly treated because of a lack of knowledge, they were just possessed, difficult or crazy etc.

My overall point is that with more knowledge we can make better and more qualified decisions. And if that is the goal we should eventually as we learn more, reach the best possible solutions.

But a religious foundation is more or less static, if God says something is a certain way, then that doesn't just change, even if it is clearly wrong, which to me will lead to discrimination.

 

[Revoltingest]

My opinion about safety in Society in Algeria,and most of Muslim countries, we here more dangerous,if no Islam.
Because no inner rules limitations control.
top main factor, which is poor/rich.

Rich people are more safe than poor area.

I live in Algeria i know places where low religious,poor, they more violence robbing,here feel unsafe.

There are other regions religious and poor, they very low violence rate feel safe.

To summarize...
Religion isn't necessary for social order.
Religion doesn't guarantee social order.

 

[Godobeyer]

To summarize...
Religion isn't necessary for social order.
Religion doesn't guarantee social order.

Depend on society how deal with religion.
And depends on religion teaching.
I do believe if my society, would decrease on religious way,tge violence and killing and stealing and robbery will be very wide and way of life.

So grace to our mosques for calling every time, Especially friday prayer, to do good deed and avoid bad deeds

It's not schools or universities teaching to be good with others, that it's only mosques.
I hope you get my idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depend on society how deal with religion.
And depends on religion teaching.
I do believe if my society, would decrease on religious way,tge violence and killing and stealing and robbery will be very wide and way of life.

So grace to our mosques for calling every time, Especially friday prayer, to do good deed and avoid bad deeds

It's not schools or universities teaching to be good with others, that it's only mosques.
I hope you get my idea.

Some mosques would be as you say.
But others foment hostility.
So it can't be generalized that mosques serve good.
Same for churches, temples, & other holy places.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Treating people differently is not the same as discriminating against them,

When you treat someone as different, it almost always results in treating them worse. Consider how the segregationists mantra of "separate but equal" resulted in incredible inequality, with blacks and Jews being excluded from restaurants, better schools, social groups where business contacts are formed, etc. Consider how the complementarian teaching that women should be treated differently has resulted in the oppression of women, depriving us of our autonomy and self development, and treating us like children.

But as I said, there are some occasions where needs are different, and in those cases, discrimination would be treating them the same when they are not.

 

[Godobeyer]

Some mosques would be as you say.
But others foment hostility.
So it can't be generalized that mosques serve good.
Same for churches, temples, & other holy places.

There no other islam teaching inside mosque to the society.

All teaching about doing bad deeds intentionly is haram,fix by serious repent,and back the right to whom get oppressed.

Teaching doing good deeds to the people is what God wants, even by smile or remove a rock from road.

In general here big cities low religious displine, especially where poor cities,they much violence

Here same in mild of Sahara touristic area poor religious people.
I can say 0 violence.
Because they religious displine is their way of life.

 

[Revoltingest]

There no other islam teaching inside mosque to the society.

All teaching about doing bad deeds intentionly is haram,fix by serious repent,and back the right to whom get oppressed.

Teaching doing good deeds to the people is what God wants, even by smile or remove a rock from road.

In general here big cities low religious displine, especially where poor cities,they much violence

Here same in mild of Sahara touristic area poor religious people.
I can say 0 violence.
Because they religious displine is their way of life.

Every religion is what adherents do.
Each has a spectrum from good to bad.
The issue is the net effect.
Nonetheless, religion isn't necessary for social order.

 

[Godobeyer]

Every religion is what adherents do.
Each has a spectrum from good to bad.
The issue is the net effect.
Nonetheless, religion isn't necessary for social order.

I live effect order of society, due my islam teaching, not government teaching, not school teaching,
here society act behavior due level of religion displine.

here in low religious displine find disorders society,
If good religious displine will find safety and low violence.

So I imagine if there were no religious displine here, it's will be like Mexico, or latina countries, no safety at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

woke is cultural marxism

Yes, and that is good, but I was asked to give an example based on science. And for that discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality has no foundation. But in your example, there would be a scientific reason why you would have to treat certain groups of people with disabilities differently to ensure they have a high standard of living. In many cases, the advantages of science are what allow us to even learn about these conditions.

So I don't think the ADA statement is saying anything other than what I stated, since its purpose is to avoid discrimination against certain groups of people.

Treating people differently is not the same as discriminating against them, as that implies unjust/harmful behaviour towards a certain group. So I would say that having scientific knowledge of the conditions that people can suffer from, will help ensure that such a thing doesn't happen, because of the improved understanding we have.

We have lots of examples throughout history of how people with certain conditions have been extremely poorly treated because of a lack of knowledge, they were just possessed, difficult or crazy etc.

My overall point is that with more knowledge we can make better and more qualified decisions. And if that is the goal we should eventually as we learn more, reach the best possible solutions.

But a religious foundation is more or less static, if God says something is a certain way, then that doesn't just change, even if it is clearly wrong, which to me will lead to discrimination.

Yeah, I will still go with this science site when it comes to better and all that:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Madsaac]

Yeah, I will still go with this science site when it comes to better and all that:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I think I've seen this before.

Science can help immensely for social order.

To start with, what about the countless studies done to determine the best areas for government to allocate their funds.

Science might not make any direct judgements but it certainly helps people to make the correct judgements.

For social order, I would prefer my Government to make decisions through pragmatic objective approaches rather than subjective, personal and emotional approaches. For example, the 'right' wing media and politics talking rubbish to persuade to think a certain way and in turn making questionable decisions.

Lets take religion and other subjective beliefs out of decisions and lets the facts and numbers decide.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I've seen this before.

Science can help immensely for social order.

To start with, what about the countless studies done to determine the best areas for government to allocate their funds.

Science might not make any direct judgements but it certainly helps people to make the correct judgements.

For social order, I would prefer my Government to make decisions through pragmatic objective approaches rather than subjective, personal and emotional approaches. For example, the 'right' wing media and politics talking rubbish to persuade to think a certain way and in turn making questionable decisions.

Lets take religion and other subjective beliefs out of decisions and lets the facts and numbers decide.

That bold one is not a fact. It is a subjective belief phrased as a norm/ought/rule for behaviour.

There is no objective evidence for correct judgements. Correct as a word has no objective referent in the empirical sense. It is based on how a given human subjectively thinks/feels.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I've seen this before.

Science can help immensely for social order.

To start with, what about the countless studies done to determine the best areas for government to allocate their funds.

Science might not make any direct judgements but it certainly helps people to make the correct judgements.

For social order, I would prefer my Government to make decisions through pragmatic objective approaches rather than subjective, personal and emotional approaches. For example, the 'right' wing media and politics talking rubbish to persuade to think a certain way and in turn making questionable decisions.

Lets take religion and other subjective beliefs out of decisions and lets the facts and numbers decide.

Something different. Can I get your permission to show your post to another member?

 

[PearlSeeker]

The question I ask today is Is religion necessary for social order?.

No. Things that are necessary: legal system, economic stability... can be provided by a secular state.

Perhaps if scientist were to somehow prove that the unfalsifiable concept of God was false, I believe a mass existential crisis across society could occur.

In societies where people have comfort, safety, financial security and material wealth there is higher degree of happiness and well-being. But after a while there is something still missing if other needs are not met. Yes, when you loose your religion you fall into existential crisis but also materialism leeds to the same crisis.