What if there was no religion?

Matt, I see where you are coming from and agree that some of the posts above which suggest that religion is all that holds the world together are ill-considered.

However, I do not understand the progression of your argument. You begin to say that religion/laws are the natural product of human nature. Then you leap to a Marxist view of religion - without explaining the interdependence between what I see as two different views. Surely the implication is that religion/democracy/capitalism are the product of human nature…?

As you yourself observe, Marx was occasionally prone to lapses when he would interpret anything and everything in the way best suited to his communist masterplan - even if there is little credence to his argument as result. So I would be interested to know you would reconcile the two views of religion which appear in your post.

What does religion have to do with morals, i was raised secular, so apparently i have no morals… but anyways most people act in a moral way only because of the punishment they evade by following the rules. I believe that Religion gives comfort to people, while not neccisarily existing, why tear down a wall that protects? I do however believe that religion currupts some people, only because of there own ignorance to the fact that in most cases there own religion condems there actions. I alos believe that it also is abused for the intents of 'evil" persons. I think that a world with out the concept of god would be no better or no worse that our current one… that sucks;)

It’s cause I’d been reading Marx the day before so was a bit engrossed in his theory, so didn’t bother explaining my reasoning, lazy, and I’ll try not to do it in future!

I’d thrown Marx in as an example of different theories saying that rather than Religion telling us what our morals should be, it is that religion is merely a reflection of how the society believes (in a semi-concious mob sense) these morals should be.

Though his theory is weak and depends on some Hegelisations (Hegel is a dreadful reasoner to those that don’t know), it doesn’t follow that it’s wrong, and in my opinion is approaching morals from the same direction that I was trying to, namely religion does not define morals, morals define religion. I was using him as an example of a different theory to how morals are defined. Marx uses the material world as the ultimate determiner of what he calls the superstructure (law, religion, art, etc.) and so is effecivly saying that religion does not define morality, morlity defines religion.

The difference is is that Marx is arguing that the material world (what he calls forces of production, that is our labour, the raw materials (e.g. fish), and the toiols we use (e.g. Fishing rod)) defines the labour relations (who employs who, who owns what, who owns who (in case of slaves)). He contends the labour relations organise themselves in the most efficient way to maximise output from the forces of production (“The handmill creates feudalism, the steammill capitalism” or something like that). The superstructure is then created to cement these pwer relations (e.g. the law gives credence to the landowners claim, the religion of the time allows for slaves) History can be seen as changes in those relations which result in changes in the superstructure in a dialectical way. Now as the morality of the time must include the labour relations (allowing slavery, not allowing women to work, etc.) in effect, the present forces of production define morality.

So I think I was just showing that there are arguments saying that there are alternative explanations of morality and religion to saying that religion defines morality because it is the word of God. I was using Marx to demonstrate how this morality could arise without divine intervention. I don’t actually buy Marx’s theory, I would prefer to believe that there is some kind of human reasoning in morality.

On a side note there are plenty of philosophers around today that are still arguing about whether Marx was right with historical materialism. Many of his works were only recently published, showing whole new sides to Marx hitherto unknown, and just because his attempts to show that there would be a natural progression towards communism after capitalism (one that he believed philosophers could help speed up) failed it doesn’t mean that all his arguments were wrong. For example his concept of alienation is still widley believed today by many philosophers. It is also important to distinguish what Marx said from what people said he said (he is quoted to have said “I’m not a Marxist”). He certaily would not have been a communist in the Chinese/Russian sense, made all the more painfully (for the unfortunates who had to live under communism) by the unpublished works.

I’m sorry if this is all a little heavy and specific, but I’m in the middle of exams at the minute which means I’m cramming too much into one small brain and it needs somewhere to vent itself. You guys are the unfortunate recipients! :slight_smile:

Nice … Matt

I am not an educated guy. I’ve never read Marx. I’m shaky on any history - however!!

You both make good points - but religion and morals are the same - we evolved many years past as grunting underdeveloped thugs. As we became more sentient (who’s never watched Star Trek), and become smarter we began to realise that we are better as a co-operative society. So developed society, but there was and always will be minds of opposition to social structure, this results in uprises in anarchy (a de-evolution of structured and agreed idealism _ but that’s my interpretation) The illusion that religion achieved was magnificent. What sentience brought was the ‘why?’ factor. It was a question with no answer. So to quell the masses a why was created -GOD- the creator! This then enabled the society of the time to quell anarchy with the fear of an afterlife or rather the lack of for it those who DISOBEYED - hence the emergence of fascism. (The mad thing is I’ve NO education - I’m typing as think - and working shit out as I type) I mean think about it - Moses led his people for years with no sign of salvation and when things were at there worst he fucked off for a few days and came up with the 10 commandments - he was probably a good physiologist and fucked with their heads - so as to convince them that this was the word of GOD -

Any way the morals within us are the result of evolution! We have evolved to think a certain way - PROOF - I read a study of Siberian wolves - even if a wolf taken from a wild mother at birth, and raised tamed. It still retained some wild characteristics. However these could be bred out over a period of generations.

Nowadays - look at the scenario in so called ‘BAD AREAS’ gang rule etc. this is a result of anarchy breeding anarchy over generations - its getting worse - Morals are being bred out.

Slippery slope???

Way Back??

Thoughts please!!!

i cant answer such a complex question. First, people are currently trying extremely hard to figure out what religion exactly is. That is, how it fits in or what is the fucntion of religion. Sociobiologist might claim religion to be a by product of evolution. Sociologist like Dukheim claim religion to be a consecration of social authority. (Actually this is quite fascniating; relgion = society, in other words an abstarct collective conscience or authority made concrete or objectfied.) Psychologist like Freud calimed religion to be a neurosis. A development from our fear of losing a father and his protection in our adult lives, thereby creating an illlusion or a compensatory reaction, which creates religion. Philosophers like Ludwig Feurbach believe religion to be a result of objectifying our own conscience. the broad picture that I am trying to paint is that religion could be a creation of bio-social or bio-pscyhological interactions. We havent currently mapped out these interactions. So I dont think we can honestly undersatnd the ramifications of removing or eliminating religion.

I have written this post in the Rant House, although it doesn’t contain any vulgar language or anything, I want to warn people that this is my opinion on research I have done. I don’t know how to create a link to my post in the other forum, so I will just paste it here. But could someone explain to me how to do it, so that I don’t have to repaste posts - I also have a thirst for knowledge. Thanx.

On Religion,
I have studied theology along with philosophy since I was a kid. Religion has many good and bad sides. Take Catholism for example, in the medieval ages priests would come out on the battle field in a war against another town (who was also Catholic) from both sides and yell statements summing up to “Kill for your God and the doors of heaven will open for you”. Funny thing is that both sides were doing this. Yet one of the ten commandments is that thou shall not kill, and you got a preist who is suppose to represent God yelling to kill for him.
Religions in general were created from fear and confusion. Fire was first seen to represent God. Fire was something we did not understand. We didn’t know why it flickered so and kept moving and created such light. Many people feel incredibly alone and the thought of a God watch over all of us is soothing. Moreover, religions were created according to social class. Christianity came from a lower class (surfs maybe), this is explained by Nietzsche to be because the religion contains equality, no stealing, no cheating, no killing - this is because those who were rich, powerful, and in control would do as they please with these people (ie. steal, mate with their wives, and kill them. These surfs knew they could do this and couldn’t bear the thought of going on living in such circumstances. So they created a religion with a God that punished those who did as those rich, powerful, and controlling people did. Just as Judaism came from the upper classes since it promotes self, promotes the furthering of a families assets no matter what the cost.
I of the things I hate most about religions is their attachement to it’s members wallets. Churches are one of the richest organizations in the world. I know of one church that has a hierarchial basis going on, and the higher you get, or the more you devote yourself, the more the church demands you donate to it’s cause. One guy I know of was getting 10% of his pay cheque taken away and given to the church. I believe this is wrong. He was okay with it because he is devoted to the church and believes in good, which is all good, but I don’t think the church should do things like this. IT’S WRONG.
The one good thing I always say that churches do is that they save people that are in desperate situations. I have talked to people that had lost hope in life and found themselves again because they went to church. But the really difficult question is, if all churches were to be closed down tomorrow and all the money in the churches was to be distributed equally to the people of the world, would people still be as much a desperate situation? I think they would be better off without churches, the money could be used for much better things.

What’s your take?

This brings us to my Post “Did we create a God(a religion) or did God create us?”

But in response to your original question, well i was told never to answer a hypothetical question… ha ha It will never happen in a civilization or a society. Religion is a part of civilization. It wouldnt be one without it.

So WHAT IF? WHAT if we dont need religion to be SAVED/redeemed?

The original question is a really good question to ponder.

I am religious, so I wonder what would happen without religion.

I think society, as a whole, would at first react to the loss of religion with a lossening of morals. I say morals meaning people’s inhibitions;people would no longer be afraid of God punishing them for their actions, so they don’t feel as guilty. But eventually, if the theory that man created God is true, a new “religion”, though not by name would arise, giving answers to the questions that we used religion and God to explain. So, if holding to the theory, the human race would simply do a loop, and begin to follow something that isn’t God, but something else.

If there was no religions the world would be a better place, and people would be alot wealthier.

Why? If it’s not the priests doing the war-mongering and the oppression, it would be, and in today’s society is, someone else.

Again, If it’s not the priests taking our money, it’s the politicians and the media-men, they are the new priest class.

HVD,
there isn’t a direct correlation between priests being out of business and another coming to take our money. I understand your view, for I know many that hold it, but I will attempt to use an example to better explain my point…

If you have ten people taking money from you and every now and then there is a new type of person that joins in for a while to also take money from you, while others die out whether from legal policy change or from crack downs, there are always people joining, quitting, and dying out of the circle that is ripping you off. Now, all I’m saying is, if religion seized to exist, so would churches, and this would be one of the biggest takers that would be gotten rid of. Ofcourse, there will be new one’s sooner or later, but who how do you know that they will have as a brainwashing plan? If we get rid of the big guys we could handle the few new ones that come and try to take our money.

What’s your view?

A capitalist in some disguise or another, will tap into the market left by the absence of religion. Its community and spiritual function will be removed, and will be replaced by somebody else. Both functions, for some even the supply of a religious object, are more than capable of generating income.

… there are one million takers, and one hundred opportunities … now there are 99 opportunities, what happens next???

Pangloss stated:

Yes, they will tap into the market, as I said in my previous post, but the important question is “to what extent”? Churches are funded by the government as well as the people of the community in which the church is located. All the churches together from around the world, would accumulate into dozens of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Now if they all were destroyed, who or how do you suppose someone is going to tap into that? To what extent? Do you propose that someone will tap into the billions of dollars? Is such a huge sum of money so easily ‘tapped’ into?

Pangloss stated:

I’m not sure what you mean, it appears as though you are mixing concepts with takers and opportunities. Can you elaborate, I wish not to assume?

What’s your take?

Heres my take on a religionless world…

Why i think a world without religion would be a better place

  1. religion is a weapon of mass murder
  2. religion destroys people’s searching/thinking

The fact is, there would be a huge amount less of killing in a world without religion. Lets face it, religion can’t be inherently evil (only people can be evil), just like a gun. But it can only be used for evil purposes (all the petty charity work (yeah even the charity work sucks; 300$ mill to build a church, when you could save a million lives in Africa with that money, so hypocritical; I’m one too, but it would take me 200 lifetimes to accumulate the degree of hypocrisy there) and the hope it gives people is cancelled by the huge amount of evil religion has been used for). Religion is biggest and worst weapon ever created on this earth; not guns, or nuclear weapons or whatever. And people love to use it. It’s a brainwashing mechanism to create soldiers, the source of violence is people, guns don’t kill people, people do. So here is the source, you take away people you can’t kill as many people. Hasn’t anyone played Syndicate? Just fucking persudatron (AKA religion) everyone to get about a few hundred followers, and your firepower and potential to create mass murder goes up that many times. Yeah, the few million of fundamentalist extremist violent religious people do ruin it for everyone, too bad. But lots of people are too easily brainwashed. And these few (maybe its not a few?) extremists have been enough to cause the crusades, inquisition, mass genocide, suicide bombings, persecution, KKK, wtc, etc etc. massive killing of millions and millions and violence throughout history. I’m calling for a massive disarmament, take away your little persudatron Bin Laden. Who is he going to fly in a plane? We call them lunatics, but they are just brainwashed by religion. If they didn’t have religion, who is he going to find? Religion means these people go to heaven and so they don’t worry about dying, and their morality is all messed up thanks to the perversion of Osama and his religion. “uhhh you wanna train, study, work hard, for a year or 2 and fly into the world trade center? The truth is though, after that though, you just cease to exist… I donno though, can you do this for me? I just don’t like America…can you spend your one life, your 70 years of existence to kill yourself for me?” “fuck that I’m going home to my family.” Instead of “you are the chosen ones to kill the infidels, you will attain bliss by god’s side after your sacrifice, you will be martyrs… your death will bring honor and glory… blah blah blah” “gimme a plane”. Of course most of these main demented people have been brainwashed also, and a few use religion just to further their own means. The point is it doesn’t matter whether its not religion’s fault, it’s a weapon, and ideally it should be wiped off this earth, just like nukes. Of course we all know the mass non religious killings that go on (extreme communism, greed), but the bottom line is if we take away more and more reasons and ways to kill, then you have less killing. These religious killings will not all be replaced by something else and so some say somehow the killing amount will remain the same, that is a total misnomer. If there were no guns, nukes, any type of weaponry except knives, would the death count go up or down? Stay the same my ass.
Without religion, there would not be more killing. We all know assholes atheists and theists; good atheists, good theists. Morality is independent of religion, until a person lets religion pervert it. So just because everyone is not going to be punished in the end, doesn’t mean people are going to be “yay, free for all” and start killing people. The fact is, theists are not hindered (that much) by their religion in their ability to kill, atheists are not apt to do more killing just because they aren’t religious. Christianity says everyone is a sinner, and so they know it, they are going to sin, become do what they will. It doesn’t even matter to the degree they sin, all will be saved, so in the back of their minds they are going I know I shouldn’t, I know I shouldn’t; but I am a sinner, so may god forgive me; just before the bullet hits the brain.
Its my theory people don’t search as much when they are religious. Not searching in a religious type of searching, they probably do that more than me. I’m talking searching like, if there is no god…. Why shouldn’t I just do all self serving things… What is meaningful to me… Why should I save the environment… Questions about morality and meaning. I don’t think most religious people search in these realms as much as atheists (some don’t, some do, but I’m talking about majority, statistically more here). Religion provides those answers, that’s why. “religious thinking” takes first and foremost of their followers thinking. Meaning is in god, morality is in god, for all your questions of morality and meaning, read the bible, Koran, Torah, or whatever. The fact is, I think the world would be a much better place if people searched for their own answers by themselves and discussed and shared knowledge with other people. Its analogous to the old fishing lesson story, teach a person to catch a fish, or just givem a fish every day. So these people are given commandments, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not whatever…… No one says why, (well I guess the answer to that is because god says so), but not why in terms of reasoning and philosophy. Why shouldn’t I kill, because god said so… Most of these commandments are good and all, but I don’t think morality should just be given out and imposed, it just restricts the thinking. Morality and meaning should be discovered through thinking and reasoning, discussion, etc. It gives a person the ability to adapt to more situations. Religious thinking turns into a closed thinking form (in terms of morality and meaning), this type of form creates a thinking where people are more apt to do what others tell them to do, and not to think for themselves. Creating potential easily brainwashed peoples, so what happens when the texts and words of god get perverted; these people are the first to jump in line without question to do the mass killings. Uh somewhere in the bible it says to kill infidels, so everyone do that. No one questions why, it’s the word of god. What the fuck is going on, these people should be questioning why, why, why (not in terms of god); and this is what religion does, takes out that aspect. Their main question for them, is my religion right or wrong. Not why or how or anything based on reason…

" Yeah well, that’s just, ya know, like, your opinion, man” – The Dude

A very good point, Harry Haller. Most of the wars in the world have been religious ones or sparked because of religious views. The two world wars, although not sparked by religion, have their roots in religion. World Wars aside, I think many of the problems between people are religious ones, which brings the question to the surface…why do we have religions if they cause so much confusion, argumentation, fighting, etc?

We don’t need to get of religion, we need to get rid of spiritualism.

huh?

Well, except for accidently omitting the word ‘rid’ in the first clause, I think it’s fairly clear. There are many who argue that religion is the problem and God is the solution, “I believe in God but I don’t believe in religion.” I like religion, I have no use for God.

jawaad

An extremely difficult question.

In my opinion, without faith in an unknown God, we would wind up as obssesive/compulsive neurotics, worshipping a known god (fundamentalism), ourselves (narcissism), the state (Nazism, fascism), an economic system (communism, capitalism), a cult, evil, science or anything else that has the power to symbolize our immortality.

Some of us would become enamored of intoxicants.

Man needs to identify with something that is bigger than he is, that is outside of himself, that precedes him and proceeds him, to transcend the fears of his mortal ego.

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra encounters a band of atheists on the mountainside. He doubts their depth, but he invites them to his cave for supper. Sure enough, by nightfall, they are on their hands and knees praying to a jackass (“…What magnificent ears you have…”).

Ayn Rand abolished God – then immediately worshipped capitalism (“…What magnificent ears you have…”).

Communists think they have abolished the unknown God (our faith in Whom neutralizes our primal fear). In reality, they have made the fatal mistake of giving Him a face.

I think that if there was no religion, then people would no longer be ‘confined’ to it, and then things like murder would happen and the world would no longer be a safe place. Not that it is, at the moment, anyways. :smiley: :slight_smile: :wink: =D>