Should religion be eliminated

[Karl Rand]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

For me the question is the vulnerable nature of our species, more specifically human psychology. Talk about eliminating religion and/or statism is beside the point. It’s aspects of psychology ( especially mass psychology) that make our species vulnerable to the control/ brainwashing of both organised religious and state authority that are the central problem. Instance, the yogi meditating in a mountain cave is a threat to nobody, popes and dictators are. Take for instance an extreme example, the teaching of Islam on the rewards to be gained in heaven for martyrs and the power this gives organised militant Islam.

 

[well named]

Speak for yourself.

Mostly I was trying to speak from my understanding of the anthropological evidence. But I also think you may be interpreting my use of the word "religion" in that post more narrowly than I intend. I was thinking about Geertz' definition:

"As we are to deal with meaning, let us begin with a paradigm: viz., that sacred symbols function to synthesize a people's ethos—the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood —and their world view—the picture they have of the way things in sheer actuality are, their most comprehensive ideas of order. In religious belief and practice a group's ethos is rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world view describes, while the world view is rendered emotionally convincing by being presented as an image of an actual state of affairs peculiarly well-arranged to accommodate such a way of life....

Let us, therefore, reduce our paradigm to a definition.... a religion is:

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
​

The strength of that definition is that it's very general, i.e. it's not connected to any concept of the supernatural (but then, some versions of Buddhism are atheistic...). The weakness is also that it's very general, so much so that it would even allow for secular religion. But when I said that I think religion is fundamental I mean that I think the social need to connect an ethos with a worldview as described by Geertz is fundamental, particularly to the legitimation of social institutions (on which see also the work of Peter Berger).

​

 

[anynameyouwish]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

 

[Karl Rand]

Speak for yourself.

Mostly I was trying to speak from my understanding of the anthropological evidence. But I also think you may be interpreting my use of the word "religion" in that post more narrowly than I intend. I was thinking about Geertz' definition:

"As we are to deal with meaning, let us begin with a paradigm: viz., that sacred symbols function to synthesize a people's ethos—the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood —and their world view—the picture they have of the way things in sheer actuality are, their most comprehensive ideas of order. In religious belief and practice a group's ethos is rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world view describes, while the world view is rendered emotionally convincing by being presented as an image of an actual state of affairs peculiarly well-arranged to accommodate such a way of life....

Let us, therefore, reduce our paradigm to a definition.... a religion is:

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
​

The strength of that definition is that it's very general, i.e. it's not connected to any concept of the supernatural (but then, some versions of Buddhism are atheistic...). The weakness is also that it's very general, so much so that it would even allow for secular religion. But when I said that I think religion is fundamental I mean that I think the social need to connect an ethos with a worldview as described by Geertz is fundamental, particularly to the legitimation of social institutions (on which see also the work of Peter Berger).

​

Then we are talking about entirely different things it appears.

 

[OnePercenter]

Even if all religion could somehow be banned we’d still be faced with the reality of human psychology and the peculiar evolutionary detritus left over from the survival value of group think and mass psychology. So, the central problem isn’t any of the human invented myths of idiology, fairies up in the sky, Shakti, Shiva or any other absurdities, it’s what we are that’s the problem.
Dictatorial ideology knew this and still does. Even President Toadstool understands the power of mass rallies over his Trumpanzees. Not much different from sunday mass really.

You can't ban a $1.2 trillion industry.

 

[ding]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

For me the question is the vulnerable nature of our species, more specifically human psychology. Talk about eliminating religion and/or statism is beside the point. It’s aspects of psychology ( especially mass psychology) that make our species vulnerable to the control/ brainwashing of both organised religious and state authority that are the central problem. Instance, the yogi meditating in a mountain cave is a threat to nobody, popes and dictators are. Take for instance an extreme example, the teaching of Islam on the rewards to be gained in heaven for martyrs and the power this gives organised militant Islam.

The popes mostly softened the rule of monarchs but I am almost certain you won’t agree with that.

I’m pretty sure I have already said this before but you have an idealistic view of a path not taken.

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

 

[ding]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

 

[well named]

There was an interesting study published recently, which I haven't really managed to get around to digesting fully, on the origins of what the authors call WEIRD psychology (that being the psychology of people living in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries), and the ways in which Christian institutions (particularly the Catholic church) played a role in its formation. From the abstract:

"We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to
differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related
domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the
Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional
kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal
institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and
Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries,
among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds."
​

I seem to recall someone mentioned Weber and the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic earlier in this thread. The above provides maybe an interesting and updated complement to that idea.

 

[ding]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[ding]

There was an interesting study published recently, which I haven't really managed to get around to digesting fully, on the origins of what the authors call WEIRD psychology (that being the psychology of people living in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries), and the ways in which Christian institutions (particularly the Catholic church) played a role in its formation. From the abstract:

"We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to
differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related
domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the
Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional
kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal
institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and
Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries,
among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds."
​

I seem to recall someone mentioned Weber and the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic earlier in this thread. The above provides maybe an interesting and updated complement to that idea.

I have a different take on Weber. We are happiest when we use our talents to create. Things like forgiveness, confessing our sins, prayer, giving thanks and random acts of kindness all have practical benefits which increases our happiness. It has been said that success leads to happiness but it is happiness which leads to success. When we are happy we perform all things better than when we are negative, neutral or stressed. Being happy does two things. It releases dopamine and turns on all the learning centers of the brain. So I am not surprised that people who practice the things that make us happy experience success in all things.

 

[Karl Rand]

Even if all religion could somehow be banned we’d still be faced with the reality of human psychology and the peculiar evolutionary detritus left over from the survival value of group think and mass psychology. So, the central problem isn’t any of the human invented myths of idiology, fairies up in the sky, Shakti, Shiva or any other absurdities, it’s what we are that’s the problem.
Dictatorial ideology knew this and still does. Even President Toadstool understands the power of mass rallies over his Trumpanzees. Not much different from sunday mass really.

You can't ban a $1.2 trillion industry.

But we should tax it.

 

[Karl Rand]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

 

[ding]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

 

[Taz]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

 

[ding]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

Apparently. But now I am strong.

 

[ding]

Winning

 

[OnePercenter]

Even if all religion could somehow be banned we’d still be faced with the reality of human psychology and the peculiar evolutionary detritus left over from the survival value of group think and mass psychology. So, the central problem isn’t any of the human invented myths of idiology, fairies up in the sky, Shakti, Shiva or any other absurdities, it’s what we are that’s the problem.
Dictatorial ideology knew this and still does. Even President Toadstool understands the power of mass rallies over his Trumpanzees. Not much different from sunday mass really.

You can't ban a $1.2 trillion industry.

But we should tax it.

Absolutely!

 

[well named]

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

Anthropologists and sociologists will tell you that the primary socialization provided by family and friends is enormously important. But, there is also nothing which prevents other social institutions or organizations from trying to teach civility. Just as an example, in my state the government mandates that general education programs at state universities try to incorporate teaching about social responsibility, including civility.

 

[ding]

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

Anthropologists and sociologists will tell you that the primary socialization provided by family and friends is enormously important. But, there is also nothing which prevents other social institutions or organizations from trying to teach civility. Just as an example, in my state the government mandates that general education programs at state universities try to incorporate teaching about social responsibility, including civility.

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

 

[Taz]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

Apparently. But now I am strong.

No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.