|
QQ
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Religions didn't come out at random, and I'd say that in its origin (i.e. fundamentally) it's one of the most important things to society as a whole.
Unlike you said, it doesn't indictade the failure to use decision-making skills, but rather passing on the knowledge from previous generations, which was essential for their survival. Take the 10 laws (?) from Catholicism: they're basically a moral guidance that looks after the maintance of order and society. |
I'd say religion passes along more ignorance from one generation to another than it does knowledge. Consider the continued existence of creationism - in that case, it isn't knowledge which is being passed down, it's incorrect facts. While myths and fables may have one day been useful in society, I think that time has passed.
| quote: | 1) Don't love other gods, just one
2) Don't say God's name in vain
3) Remember to Santify the 7th day
- This is Machiavel's (sp?) thoughts applied to Christianism (means justify ends). The existence of a God, in which all followers believe, would be a common characteristic between them, and the fear of being punished by this god would only strengthen this bond (reason why he's "almighty"). Notice that, unlike other labels like ethnicity or nationality, foreigners can follow that same religion you do and, by doing this, they're assimilated by that society as he's bound to accept their rules and behave according to them. Obviously, people do have the mental capacity of making choices, but since we all see the world differently, chances are that there'll be too many different opinions, which may lead to internal conflicts that may weaken that society. |
Although this might appear to be a benefit, I don't agree. From a theological standpoint - everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, and people who behave differently should be punished into conformity. Contrastingly, from a secular point of view, while you may disagree with someone's beliefs or actions, you ought to tolerate them unless they bring harm to others.
In other words, instead of trying to batter society's deviants into submission with threats and punishments in an ultimately futile attempt to make everyone the same, we could put forth only loose guidelines of conduct - increasing the chance that someone who is different can find a harmless or even useful niche in society instead of wasting our efforts trying to change them.
| quote: | 4) Honour your parents
- Once again, something used to value society. |
There's nothing wrong with honoring your parents, but there are plenty of sound, logical reasons to do it as opposed to basing your decision on contrived rules handed out without justification or evidence of their supposed divine origins.
| quote: | 5) Don't kill
6) Don't steal
7) Don't wish other people's things
8) Don't lie
- Some more other laws created on behalf of order. Self-explanatory. |
Again, equivalent or greater order can be created simply by following a few utilitarian principles. Religion is a superfluous institution in this endeavor.
| quote: | 9) Don't commit adultery
10) Don't wish someone else's wife
- Monogamy is an important foundation of our society, as it's been interesting to our survival as well. Obviously, poligamic societies exist, but when they do, they usually accept it because of a specific reasons (e.g. societies in which wars are common, are bound to accept the fact that a man can have more than one wife, as there are fewer men). In fact, even in some societies where poligamy is accepted, it's often not recommended (such as Islamic societies). |
While there is no doubt about the prevalence of monogomy, I'm not sure it is either important to our society or our survival. In fact, from an evolutionist's standpoint, it certainly doesn't help our survival. If one is to believe evolution, then the best way to ensure the continuation of the species is to maximize the genetic diversity of your species. As a result, it's usually better to have children with different parents instead of several children with the same parent - as more combinations of genetic characteristics are created.
While I've said before I don't believe that evolution any longer applies to humanity, it did until fairly recently, and still may in parts of the world. In any case, I fail to see any objective benefits from polygamy or monogamy, so I don't see that as an important societal goal. It should be the concern of the individuals involved, and no one else.
| quote: | | Keeping in mind that, as occrider said, "if you take away religion people will find new ways to be stupid", corruption of relgion, which leads to its failure, is to blame. Distortions and fallacies can be used by sly leaders in order to have their commands/dictatorship easily accepted. All those actions you've mentioned are based in the basic instict of self-defense, but done in a desperate way. Instinct themselves are not rational in most occasions. |
I don't necessarily disagree that people will find new ways to be stupid, but I think they could be less harmful than religion. Given that the origin of religion was to ensure the authority and power of a few, and to maintain order in society so as to preserve that authority, it is not only likely, but certain that religion always will be distorted by its leaders to manipulate the followers into doing what the leaders want. That's just the nature of the beast: if you don't like that, then you don't like religion.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's no such thing as an instict of self-defense which tells you to blow yourself up. Blowing yourself is the ultimate failure of self-defense because you die. The reason that people choose to blow themselves up is because they've learned from their religion that trivial matters like logic and reason shouldn't interfere with blind belief in silly ideas like martyrdom.
| quote: | | Hypothesis #1 doesn't indicate a "dangerous level of intellectual incopetence" but simple herd instict, which is not necessarily linked to ignorance. In fact, herd instinct does have its advantages, such as unity and community strength. Besides, every cultures tends to have an ethnocentric/egocentric behaviour (e.g. a Nepalese may claim Nepal is the best country in the world even if he's never been abroad), so it doesn't disappear. |
Herd instinct is a prime example of intellectual incompetence. If you aren't capable of deciding for yourself, then why not just follow what a bunch of other people think? If you were intellectually competent, and you had access to just a little of the modern knowledge about the world, you wouldn't decide to follow blindly, you would decide to examine the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusions. Unless, of course, you were just lazy...
| quote: | | As for the second hypothesis, even if one accepts the belief in God as an irrational decision, it doesn't necessarily means it's fruit of intellectual laziness. My own father is a very logical person, yet he believes in God according to many things that do make sense - although I don't agree with him, I can't say he's lazy. As a matter of fact, superstitions are better examples of "intellectual laziness" then religion. |
I suppose there are a few other explanations. It's possible that he's insane, or that he doesn't realize that his basis for belief is irrational. I'm interested in what you think distinguishes superstitions from religion, however. To me, religion is just a complicated set of superstitions.
| quote: | | Yes, it could. Not only there are religions that support research and doubts (such as Buddhism), these debates would, at most, correct any flaws, but since they're not made only of disadvantages, they would have their foundations re-formulated, but not extinguished. A complete de-construction of religious beliefs would lead to an incomplete nihilism (as we all belong to a culture) that would bring different issues and that would probably soon fall. Neither a completely emotional behaviour, nor a strictly intellectual view would lead to a better society, as they're both extreme attitudes. |
I don't agree because I think you give emotions credit for being more than they really are. Emotions are a tool for measuring whether or not some thing threatens, is neutral to, or reinforces our already existing prejudices. If something threatens our prejudices, we feel "bad" emotions in response to it, whereas if something reinforces our prejudices we feel "good" emotions in response to it. The intellect can examine emotions and decide whether or not they are worthy of consideration - but emotions cannot examine intellectual information, other than to tell you whether or not it is in tune with what you already believe. These beleifs, however, weren't established by emotion to begin with, but rather were the products of intellectual development (either rational or irrational). So whether we like it or not, we are always strictly intellectual - that is the only place beliefs can come from.
|
