mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I am not relgious in the standard sense, but I have no crisis.
-
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
Well, I am not relgious in the standard sense, but I have no crisis.
Madsaac
Active Member
Yes, why?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Because you are rare in effect admitting an objective method of good and bad, that is not religious.
You are not the first one I have met, but for refernce on this forum, I have to ask you if I can use your post in effect.
Madsaac
Active Member
Yes you are right, It's just my opinion. States making decisions through objective studies is better then states making decisions through subjective beliefs. Don't you agree?
Making evidence based judgements is better then non evidence based judgements? Do you agree?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, it is not possible to make decisions about good and bad, which are not in part subjective beliefs, because good and bad are subjective beliefs.
We can walkthrough it, if you like, but the short one is that good and bad are not empirical as per the 5 senses.
Madsaac
Active Member
Really, come on. You're a smart person, it's fair to make the assumption that decisions made with evidence is better then decisions made without evidence?
If it if thought is a subjective thought in itself, it is true because its true most of the time?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Please explain how you see fair? What instruments are used in science to meassure fair and what are the objective numbers for fair?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
No. Things that are necessary: legal system, economic stability... can be provided by a secular state.
Yes, loosing your religion causes existential crisis but also materialism leeds to the same crisis. Affluence can also create stressful conditions - fast-paced lifestyles... In societies where people have comfort, safety, financial security and material wealth there is a higher degree of happiness and well-being. But after a while there is something still missing if other needs are not met. Some people fulfill psychological needs with the help of religion some without it.
Ryff proposed six basic psychological needs - self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and positive relations with others - that define psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989).
There are a few people in society that long for something even more. Only a few are inclined to spiritual enlightenment...
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is not how it works, because you can do first person enlightment without being spiritual.
Madsaac
Active Member
'Its fair......' is just a language technique. Like 'Most people would say....'.
And it is fair to say 'that decisions made with evidence is better then decisions made without evidence' so 'it's fair' is just fine because there would not be too many people who disagree with that assumption, would there?
There are different levels of 'modality' with language, such as would, is, must, have to, will not, will always, never, absolutely, clearly, definitely, undoubtedly, certainly, obviously, positively, may, might not, might, ought, maybe, sometimes, rarely, chance, slight possibility, occasionally, not sure, certainty, definite.
Also, I'm not writing an essay where I have to give evidence with references all the time, especially when its fair to say 'that decisions made with evidence is better then decisions made without evidence' is logical
. Especially in a thread on a forum.Its doesn't need to be measured because its obvious to most people.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
What do you mean with "first person enlightenment"? Can you expand on that?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
'Its fair......' is just a language technique. Like 'Most people would say....'.
And it is fair to say 'that decisions made with evidence is better then decisions made without evidence' so 'it's fair' is just fine because there would not be too many people who disagree with that assumption, would there?
Then are different levels of 'modality' with language, such as would, is, must, have to, will not, will always, never, absolutely, clearly, definitely, undoubtedly, certainly, obviously, positively, may, might not, might, ought, maybe, sometimes, rarely, chance, slight possibility, occasionally, not sure, certainty, definite.
Also, I'm not writing an essay where I have to give evidence with references all the time, especially when its fair to say 'that decisions made with evidence is better then decisions made without evidence' is logical
Yeah and to agree is objective as this definition of objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Definition of OBJECTIVE
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition
You are doing a different subjective understanding of good and bad than me. The evidence that it is subjective is that we can get away with doing it differently.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I mean I have learn to use philosophy and cognitive techniques to have a good enough life. And I am not religious or spirtual.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that seems right.Yeah, I will still go with this science site when it comes to better and all that:
Just because science shows us how things works, doesn't mean that we have to accept it or blindly follow it. Nonetheless, it helps us make more informed decisions. The whole medical industry is essentially based on that. People get sick and die, yet with the knowledge gained from science, we can prevent it, because we won't accept it.
But if we had no knowledge of how these disease etc. works then we would have no option of even choosing how to deal with them.
You have to remember that religions throughout history have tried to do similar things, rather than looking at these things as diseases you called on the priest to expel the demon etc.
If you have no foundation based on knowledge, then things will purely be based upon what most people or those in power believe is correct, science combats that, if you can demonstrate that something is not true, then it doesn't matter what people think is correct.
Where I live, religion is very much in the background.
Yet it's quite safe & orderly. No religion needed.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Good for you. Do you believe in philosophy that reality is actually something more than physical reality?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't believe in physical reality and I don't believe in spiritual reality.
I don't fall in to the standard you assume.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I understand spiritual In broad sense as non-physical or meta-physical. Spiritual doesn't necessarily mean related to god(s) and life after death. It can be everything that transcends physical world, body and ego self...
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The problem with religiously centered discipline, is that it is imposed, and is composed of a mix of both logical and illogical requirements..
This admixture leads to cognitive dissonance, and selective obedience.
It is mostly true that nobody iis born with a working ethical standard of right and wrong. And that such values need to be learned and adsorbed into our personal working model of society. Right and wrong are not absolutes, and the boundaries vary between various human societies.
In practice right and wrong is codified in the laws and social noms of every society.
Sometimes thes laws and norms are tied closely to particular religion, and sometimes they are more secular and pragmatic in origin,
For such laws and norms to become effective they must be seen to be beneficial to both the individual and to society as a whole.
The acceptance of such values always involves the relinquishing of some freedoms.
This admixture leads to cognitive dissonance, and selective obedience.
It is mostly true that nobody iis born with a working ethical standard of right and wrong. And that such values need to be learned and adsorbed into our personal working model of society. Right and wrong are not absolutes, and the boundaries vary between various human societies.
In practice right and wrong is codified in the laws and social noms of every society.
Sometimes thes laws and norms are tied closely to particular religion, and sometimes they are more secular and pragmatic in origin,
For such laws and norms to become effective they must be seen to be beneficial to both the individual and to society as a whole.
The acceptance of such values always involves the relinquishing of some freedoms.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I don't believe in transcends and meta-physical. It has nothing to do with gods, souls or that. I am a general skeptic and I figure out the following:
For there 3 positions or even more pay attention to the 3rd one.o
#1: I know/understand reality as physical.
#2: I know/understand reality as more than physical.
#3: Only one of those 2 know in so far as the claims are contradictiory if accepted as relevant. Thus there are humans who don't know what reality is, yet they are in the everyday world it seems. So as a skeptic, I learn that there are things, I don't need to know or believe in to be in what seems to be the everyday world.