Would the world be better off without any religion?

[Augustus]

I don't think so.

I have to disagree with you here.

I'd say the following are as well grounded in fact and reason as any humanistic worldview (not saying they are desirable of course)

- Humans are just animals and human life is no more valuable than animal life. Because 1 human life requires the death of many animals, killing 70% of the world population would be a net good and should be considered highly ethical.

- Human overpopulation threatens the survival of the species. A handful of global powers should thus team up and eradicate 70% of the human population. This means they can keep on consuming and polluting without threatening the planet. Human life has no intrinsic value, so it would be foolish to risk disaster out of some childish sentiment.

Whether we want to do the above is a value judgement, not a statement of pure reason deriving from fact.

What are your thoughts on why fact and reason can't lead to oppressive or brutal worldviews? (The Enlightenment gave birth to both liberal and a profoundly illiberal philosophies after all).

But you make a good point here. I would call it empathy and the desire to pursue a 'good' life.
As a human being I think we have more or less the same basic desires (avoid pain and suffering and pursue health and happiness). But from that common starting point I would definitely want that people use reason and evidence instead of faith and dogma.

The problem is that pursuing health and happiness for one group often comes at the expense of another group. One fundamental human trait is favouring the in-group and empathy only extends to those we view as being sufficiently like us, and who do not threaten our way of life.

For me, reason and evidence tell us that we are a violent irrational species who cannot escape our inbuilt biases and prejudices and, as animals, there is no way we can transcend our fundamental nature.

I see no reason why a society purportedly based on 'fact and reason' need be tolerant and secular humanistic. Of course if we add in the sentiment an mythos we can use fact and reason to choose desirable course of action, but the sentiment and mythos is essential.

What do you think a society based on fact and reason should resemble and why?

 

[Augustus]

How can you move from "is" to "ought" when your imagination of "is" isn't based in reality? You could land on every ought you wish.

You are correct.

We could make up things like human rights or crimes against humanity and act like they have some actual basis in reality rather than being stuff we just made up because we wanted to.

Made up stuff can be quite useful at times.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I think it myopic to use evidence as a religious or irreligious crutch. There is evidence for and against everything. The irreligious tend to think that faith is without evidence and that evidence is without faith which is nonsense. So why do they think that? It creates the illusion of certainty which is very comforting. Like religion.

I do not believe in certainty. There is evidence for a God no doubt. There is evidence for and against everything I agree. The issue is how do you know what evidence is good and what is not. For example personal experience is not a good reason to believe because other people have personal experiences as well but believe in a different god because of that same kind of experience.

If you have good evidence for something you don't need faith. If you say faith includes good evidence then just provide the good evidence and get rid of the word faith.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It depends in the end if you can use truth for all things?

What does this mean?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That there is more than one version of true. So I believe in true, because it apparently works. That is the pragmatic version. In practice it works differently for different accepts of the everyday world.

It depends on what you are talking about. Subjective truths are true but not true for everyone. Like a favorite color. I define truth as what lines up or describes reality.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You misunderstand. I was asking where is the evidence for your assertion that, were it not for religion, people would not hold beliefs which are unsupported by evidence?

I did not make that claim or at least was not trying to. My point is that it is better to believe things that can be supported to be true rather than things that cannot be supported to be true. Do you agree?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

"Blind belief in religion" as a methodological approach to ask a question.

How do you propose it is bad for the world?

What are you asking? Why believing things without good evidence is bad?

 

[Wildswanderer]

no hope ? when did you give up?

I didn't. I have God to give me hope.

 

[Orbit]

IMO



Can one not develop a coping mechanism that does not rely on an artificial construct of reality? In other words, do all coping mechanisms require religion (more specifically: gods, entities not bound by natural laws, metaphysical or transcendental planes separate and distinct from physical reality) to be effective?

...

As I see it from my perspective.

One can, but those who use religion has that coping mechanism will lose it if religion disappears, which is the scenario in the OP. I didn't say there was no replacement possible.

 

[AppieB]

I have to disagree with you here.

I'd say the following are as well grounded in fact and reason as any humanistic worldview (not saying they are desirable of course)

- Humans are just animals and human life is no more valuable than animal life. Because 1 human life requires the death of many animals, killing 70% of the world population would be a net good and should be considered highly ethical.

- Human overpopulation threatens the survival of the species. A handful of global powers should thus team up and eradicate 70% of the human population. This means they can keep on consuming and polluting without threatening the planet. Human life has no intrinsic value, so it would be foolish to risk disaster out of some childish sentiment.

Whether we want to do the above is a value judgement, not a statement of pure reason deriving from fact.

Ok, I get your point. I agree that if you start from scratch, you need the "value judgement" which is dependent on our desires and goals.
My point about using reasoning and evidence over faith and dogma is that we (as humans) have the basic desires that I mentioned.
The topic question is: Would the world be better off without religion? There is already a "value judgement" in place. And even if you don't agree about the value and desires; the best way to achieve the goal (whatever that is) is by reasoning and evidence. Not by faith and dogma.

What are your thoughts on why fact and reason can't lead to oppressive or brutal worldviews? (The Enlightenment gave birth to both liberal and a profoundly illiberal philosophies after all).

I'm not saying it can't. But it's way better than faith and dogma. Anything can be accepted by faith or stated as a dogma. Let's instead have social discourse about what we want and desire and how to cooperate to achieve our goals.

The problem is that pursuing health and happiness for one group often comes at the expense of another group. One fundamental human trait is favouring the in-group and empathy only extends to those we view as being sufficiently like us, and who do not threaten our way of life.

For me, reason and evidence tell us that we are a violent irrational species who cannot escape our inbuilt biases and prejudices and, as animals, there is no way we can transcend our fundamental nature.

I see no reason why a society purportedly based on 'fact and reason' need be tolerant and secular humanistic. Of course if we add in the sentiment an mythos we can use fact and reason to choose desirable course of action, but the sentiment and mythos is essential.

What do you think a society based on fact and reason should resemble and why?

See the above. I think we agree about "the sentiment and mythos" as you put it.

 

[Heyo]

You are correct.

We could make up things like human rights or crimes against humanity and act like they have some actual basis in reality rather than being stuff we just made up because we wanted to.

Made up stuff can be quite useful at times.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with your first comment about "reason and facts" not being useful. All the "made up" things have to be based in the facts from where out we reason to the "made up stuff".

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well, your actual example is about objective reality. But I have never been able to reduce the everyday world down to objective reality.
So you use the standard non-religious trick. Claim something about objective reality and then hope nobody ask about if objective reality is all of the everyday world.

Objective reality is all we have good evidence for. I never said the supernatural does not exist.

 

[MikeF]

One can, but those who use religion has that coping mechanism will lose it if religion disappears, which is the scenario in the OP. I didn't say there was no replacement possible.

My point simply would be that if we are better off without religion except for the loss of a coping mechanism for those who currently use it as such, do we suffer religion to avoid a loss in coping that is replaceable, or to we actively try and transition to other coping mechanisms that do not have the negative baggage associated with religion. I would recommend transition, and in fact, in this transition does occur, slowly, generationally, over time. That religious based indoctrination instills reliance on religious coping mechanisms is a primary factor limiting the rate of such transition.

 

[Truth in love]

Still trying to walk away from the phony claim
theres no religion in China.

As for forvreligiin providing right and wrong
to keep evil in check? Ha.
That I and other atheists dont understand right and wrong?

Moldy insulting nonsense.

If people want to do evil they ignore religion
or use it to justify their evil. Must i start listing
examples?

And since you want to compare, the USA
concocted a war with Mexico to steal
Texas, NM, Az, Ca and more.
Lookee! More evil in check!
Foreign interventions by the United States - Wikipedia

Tibet? You know nothing of the history.

Communism is very atheist. The Chinese Government in very communist. They impose a great deal on the people.

I did not say atheist can't know right from wrong. Many do live very moral lives. However many also do not.

"I know nothing of history"? Yeah that's pretty funny there.

 

[Augustus]

I agree. But that has nothing to do with your first comment about "reason and facts" not being useful. All the "made up" things have to be based in the facts from where out we reason to the "made up stuff".

I didn't say reason and fact weren't useful, I said they can basically lead us anywhere: good or bad.

As for stuff being based on facts, I'd say human rights and crimes against humanity are based on a post-monotheist concept of "Humanity" (actually the evolution of HR was significantly driven by Christian theology).

I don't think they were based on fact, I'd say they they are based on completely made up stuff.

What fact do you think they rely on?

 

[Trailblazer]

In your theological point of view, do you believe the Qur'an has been corrupted by man over time?

No, I don't think so.
It is not always the scriptures that have been corrupted, it is the way they are interpreted by man, thus what the followers of those religions have come to believe. Imo, this applies to all the older religions, although less so with Islam since the Qur'an is more authentic than any of the older scriptures such as the Bible or the Vedas.

Regarding authenticity of the Qur'an, below is the official Baha'i view from Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian Shoghi Effendi:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I do not believe in certainty. There is evidence for a God no doubt. There is evidence for and against everything I agree. The issue is how do you know what evidence is good and what is not. For example personal experience is not a good reason to believe because other people have personal experiences as well but believe in a different god because of that same kind of experience.

Right, so their evidence through personal experience, or their intepretation of that evidence draws them to their own conclusion.

If you have good evidence for something you don't need faith.

True, but if you have good faith you need good evidence.

If you say faith includes good evidence then just provide the good evidence and get rid of the word faith.

Either or, huh? But you said you didn't believe in certainty. It sounds to me like you are simply saying your evidence is good and any other conclusion would be faith. If you don't have certainty then you have faith.

 

[We Never Know]

It would be better because people would stop fighting about abortion, or which church is the "real" church. It would be worse because people will have lost a coping mechanism.

A person doesn't have to be religious to be against abortion. I don't support abortion and I'm not religious.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It depends on what you are talking about. Subjective truths are true but not true for everyone. Like a favorite color. I define truth as what lines up or describes reality.

Okay, well good luck getting a handle on or describing reality. It’s quite a big subject and no one has cracked it yet, certainly not using reason and logic alone.

 

[Orbit]

A person doesn't have to be religious to be against abortion. I don't support abortion and I'm not religious.

That may be true for you, but religious entities are a major force in abortion activism.