Is a religious society better?

We now live in a digital age, evolution and big bang is accepted as facts, and fewer people believe in the existence of ghosts, but are those “advances” a step forwards, or two steps backwards? I think a religious society is much better than a secular society.

Most of human behaviors are done for self-preservation and self-interests.

In a very secular society, the vast majority of people can act morally only when the benefits of behaving morally outweighs the costs, and people don’t trust each other for fear that others might take advantages of them. if a person find a sinister way to make a fortune by taking advantages of the less privileged or the innocent, and if that person can make sure he or she can escape the apprehension of those human institutions, the courts and governments, that person will do it without any sense of guilt.

But in a religious society, things are totally different: in that society, people learn religious texts from an early age, as an result, in people’s mind, there is a higher authority above all human institutions, those human institutions can be corrupt and unjust, but the higher authority, the divine power will always be just and fair no matter what, and in such a society the final authority is not human authority, it is divine power. In such society, people will do good things, trust and help each other because God(s) said so in a scripture, that means if a person behave immorally, he or she is blaspheming, as a result, that person will be punished in life after death by a divine power.

Therefore, the underlying wisdom of religions is simply this:

It can turn a selfish intention into unselfish acts by invoking an ultimate reward and punish mechanism :the heaven and hell or good and bad reincarnations… In this way, the urges of self-preservation, or “the will to live” in human nature is transcending into a noble form.

But this is only pure thinking, this argument needs empirical evidences.

Do you experience a noticeable difference in morality, trust and honest between secular society and religious society and between persons with and without a religious belief?

and If so, do you think that a religious society is a better society?

Self-interest is not wrong. Denying or subverting the self-interest of others is sometimes a problem.

Really difficult : identifying our own self-interest. Where do we think it is and where is it really?

Deleted

When you say religious society are you speaking strictly of let’s say the Jesuits, Dominicans et cetera or are you speaking of a particular church full of people?

Anyway, any society is only as good as its individuals - doesn’t matter whether they believe in god and worship together. In my book, that society may be less “better” or "good’ than one which doesn’t believe. It all comes down to individuals.

By religious society, I mean: 1. society like the hutterite, which can be seen as independent society.
2. In an international scale, Vatican is a religious society, Tokyo is a secular society.

All that could be reduced to the famous line from the book “The Brothers Karamazov” by Dostoevsky:

If there’s no God … men will be allowed to do whatever they want?

(alternative translation: Without God … everything is permitted)

The said phrase appears in Part 4, Book 11, Chapter 4 (“A Hymn and a Secret”) of the novel.

It is a matter of considering shall we accept this uncritically.
{For one example Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory as per which the humans pass (or at the very least they may pass) 6 stages of moral development.
[url=http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Reading-Barger-on-Kohlberg.htm]Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation
   (How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
   (What’s in it for me?)
   (Paying for a benefit)
   Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
   (Social norms)
   (The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
   (Law and order morality)
   Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
   (Principled conscience)[/url]

Of these only level 1 stages fit the description of “If there is no God anything is permitted”.}

But even if we accept that the human’s [social] behavior is mainly driven as a result of our respects to authority figure (fear and expectations for reward) it is quite uncertain that religious based society (can we just use the term “theocracy”) would do some great wonders helping us to live in peace and understanding.

There is a principle distinction between religion and faith. Simplistically speaking and in my “book” religion is official, formal, dogmatic, governing part of it. It compels the individual to strictly follow certain believes and obey the religious authority with not so much room for musing and questioning the dogma. It is almost always a kind of inquisition and it’s often against the free will.

If we go back to “The Brothers Karamazov” by Dostoevsky and recollect one of the most famous/ best known scenes in world’s literature The legend for Grand inquisitor, we can see how any undisputed power can eventually rebut the very essence of its own fundamentals. (Inquisitor acts as atheist and cynic materialist, who does not trust necessity and any good in bestowing the free will and freedom of choice into [great majority of the] people to start with…)

Thus in a common case scenario a secular society will allow various religion to be freely confessed (or in a such extent so that it will not damage other members of the same society rights) but in a strict religious society (in the common case, possibly with some exceptions), other confessions minorities [save as from officially established religion] are quite often ill-treated and oppressed].
God needs unconditional love and [s]he is by principle quite [un]humanly jealous.

The only way i can answer this is to say not really. Those things are dependent upon individuals.
People are human, you have good and bad in all of them.
Some with religous beliefs are far worse than those without them who still have their own human code which they live by.
Some in religious societies can be trusted far less than those outside of them. Some are trustworthy and some are not.

I think one has to take in the ENTIRE picture in order to see differences and where they lie.

I believe in a Jesus society, but not a religious. Religious societies dont act like Jesus, so no dice.

How can a person be a bad person if he/she is religious at the same time?
For example, Bible said we should not steal, how can a religious person steal if he/she is truely religious?

First of all, a Jesus society is a religious society, if in your religious belief, Jesus is not a religious figure and christianity is not a religion then you can claim that a Jesus society is not a religious society.

I suspect focusing on the desire to not steal is some semblance of religion

Actually, the Society of Jesus were the Jesuits.

Because people are human first.
You might call terrorists religious, no?
Many people go to church every Sunday or Saturday but this doesn’t mean that they aren’t out breaking laws - that’s not to say that all religious people break laws.
People will sometimes do only what suits their fancy - in these cases, we have a propensity for separating our religious beliefs from our secular lives.
Just as an example, I knew a man and wife who went to my church - back when I went - every Sunday they went. They were very active in the church and “religious”. The man would have eventually spent time in prison (he did before) for selling drugs (medicinal) illegally. (He was part owner of a drug store). There was a hugh scandal about it.

A religious person does not necessarily live by an ethical code just as an atheist might. We’re INDIIVIDUALS.

Sometimes as human beings, we make silly terrible errors in judgment for whatever reason. Faith and belief go out the window at this time.

She makes arguments for ethics using a man who sold drugs for medicinal purposes. The perception of the modern mind, law=good and illegal=bad.

If a religious society actually acted like Jesus I would have no problem with that. Never saw a religious person act like Jesus. Never had a stranger wash and cleans my feet for free. Never saw a stranger gusto about rebelling against the establishment and flipping over tables. Never met a stranger who would give their life for any cause.

Are they truly religious if they commit sexual acts with children?

From what I’ve seen, they think so.

Absolutely, both for those with virtù and those without it. For the former is it necessary so the machinery of society can continue to function smoothly and undisturbed. For the latter it is necessary so that they feel undisturbed by being the machinery which must function smoothly for the former.

Why? can you elaborate ?

So Jesuits is a religious society.

Those terrorists are only hostile towards somebody or someone who stands in their way, I suspect, there are harmony among themselves.

Also, Define the word"terrorists", as a matter of fact, Nelson Mandela was in the list of terrorists of South Africa and USA government when He received the Nobel prize.

Sometimes, or very often, breaking the laws does not mean bad morality.

I believe nobody will want to be a criminal, maybe poverty made that man sell drugs, if it is really the case, the social system is evil, the man is not. we should look at the motives behind in order to judge.

From my experience, religious people who come from religious place are much nicer and honest, but I have limited experience on this matter, according to your experience, do you find the majority of religious people more ethical or honest than unreligious people?