Imagine that all religion suddenly ceases. No one can believe in a religion, or even comprehend the idea of having a complex, abstract system of faith in something that cannot be proved.
What would be the effect on the world? Cool atheist types might think, “there’ll be no more war, man!” and religious zealots might say that the world will collapse into a self-destructive nihilist angst. So the real effect is likely to be somewhere between the two.
What do you think?[/i]
I can’t imagine it, I am not religious but if there are no beliefs I think life would be a mess.
everything -would- be a horrific mess if everyone suddenly had to actually question things instead of tramping blindly on.
however, with 6 billion people all on the case i would imagine it wouldnt take too long before either a. someone came up with some -real- reasons for carrying on and we all lived in an enlightened utopia or b. everyone conceded defeat
I think your proposition is an interesting one. Many who despise religion suggest that religion and more inportantly, God is a figment of our imagination and he was just created to comfort ourselves from our own problems (I do not agree with this) . If this were true, then if religion ceased to exist, humans would just make up another one and have another God !
Religion, it can be argued, brings most of the morals to the world. many say this moral code is in built in humans but I beleive this proves God exists as he is showing us the diffference between right and wrong. Anyhow I digress. With the destruction of religion, most of the morals of the world would disappear or not be followed and thus an apparent apathetic society without any positive influences could be created. i think you mentioned this jawaad but haven’t we already got an apathetic society? It seems that Erikkson having an affair has sparked more interest than Pim being assasinated. Scary?
ok, i am now going to leave this discussion. yes, i really do find people who believe in crap like that that offensive. sorry if ive offended you aswell by this post, but hey, there you go.
sarfaraz, i’m afraid you’ve become just a touch simplistic there. I am atheistic. Many of my friends are atheists. Non of them are amoral. Some of them are pretty much the nicest guys you will ever meet. They wouldn’t hurt a fly. Morals do not come from religion, in fact a strong case could be made for the other way around. And kjeevah, stick around man, you might like what happens next.
Heres one: without religion, man would have to look to himself more and more for his wrongs and rights and neutrals.
Heres two: without religion, man’s morals may change for the better or for the worst.
Heres three: without religion, man just may decide that it is this life that he should work towards instead of an afterlife.
Heres four: without religion, man would likely turn to something else extirior of himself to worship.
Just some thoughts.
Firstly I have to say that the idea that without religion we collapse to apathy is laughable! No offense, but do you understand human nature at all? A large amount of people want a life where they can support themselves and their family and reproduce. That’s about all, even if they don’t realise it. Religion was just a way of expressing some morals in order to try and cement this way of life and to act as a guide to what is moral. We’ve got laws now that also do the same thing. When you look at religions you often see it’s roots in it’s beliefs and artefacts, Christianity was a religion for the slaves which promised an afterlife gained through suffering.
Look at Marx’s theories of historical materialism as a bench mark for why morality develops, basically in his view all religion is is an expression of the relations of forces ( such as who owns what, who employs who, etc. etc.) Law and religion arise to cement these labour relations. They are merely a part of a superstructure. However, Marx’s views do suffer from some faults, but I just use him as an example of showing that religion is merely a way of keeping the poor happy.
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! 
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?