Role of Religions

[Nearly Sane]

Religions put forward as true facts totally unevidenced - i.e. the objective, verifiable, etc sort -  falsehoods, and nowadays, with the vast range of actual facts we have available, I see no valid excuse for this.

Religions don't do anything. People do. This idea of religions as good or bad seems bizarre to me. They are just what we do. Removing them would mean removing what it is of humanity that generates them. I am unsure exactly what that is but I would be worried about the idea that it can be done without cost.

[Rhiannon]

Religions don't do anything. People do. This idea of religions as good or bad seems bizarre to me. They are just what we do. Removing them would mean removing what it is of humanity that generates them. I am unsure exactly what that is but I would be worried about the idea that it can be done without cost.

We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.

[ekim]

One of the latest religions, the Bahá'í Faith, has outlined its principles as follows:

 "The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed]."
With the current state of the human condition, I'm not optimistic that those principles will be realised, but who knows.

[Nearly Sane]

We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.

And that is because it's what we do. The idea of some better world without religion is an idea of humans not being human.

[Enki]

One of the latest religions, the Bahá'í Faith, has outlined its principles as follows:

 "The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed]."
With the current state of the human condition, I'm not optimistic that those principles will be realised, but who knows.

We might well make more progress towards some of these high sounding principles as time goes on, but I don't hold out much confidence in the Bahá'í Faith being of any particular use in this direction, not least because of its own internal inconsistencies.

[SusanDoris]

We’d just replace ‘religion’ with something else. Well, we do that anyway, we just call it nationalism or football or fandoms or politics.

No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.

P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.

[Nearly Sane]

No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.

P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.

So if people invent religions, then religions are not in themselves an issue .

[Samuel]

No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.

P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.

And that is precisely why it has been so successful. Free from any provable, evidence-based foundation, it provides a flexible, adaptable basis for a shared set of beliefs around which strangers can co-operate with one another.

I can't comment on whether religion has been a moral or ethical 'success', only that it seems obvious that it does 'work' as a binding social force. Money is the same. It exists entirely in our imagination... yet look at its impact. Huge benefits as well as utter deprivation.

The difference now, as I see it, is that religion is floundering when set against science and globalisation. Its too 'them and us' to remain particularly relevant in an age when people are so very mobile, physically and in the ways ideas and thoughts are communicated.

Perhaps it could change, find a new role.

[Rhiannon]

No, there's a huge difference. The things you mention involve reality, religions do not; there is an abasence of an actual focus when it comes to religions.

P.S. for NS: I know it is people who invent, follow and act in the name of their religious beliefs.

There's really no difference. Nation states only exist because of lines drawn on a map and people deciding that this is what they are. Nationalism comes from a subjective belief around a nation state, the story that is told about it. Fandoms involve devotion to stories, groups, famous people, games, all constructed on a story. Football is a game but devotion to it involves a story about club and identity. Football stadium or church - what is the difference? Politics relies on stories about them, us, even saviours who will take us to the promised land.

This is what we do and when we stop it will be because something within us has died. Whether that is for good or bad, who knows, but as NS has said, religion is just people being people. Have you ever stopped to question your devotion to the belief that we would be better off without it?

[SusanDoris]

There's really no difference. Nation states only exist because of lines drawn on a map and people deciding that this is what they are. Nationalism comes from a subjective belief around a nation state, the story that is told about it. Fandoms involve devotion to stories, groups, famous people, games, all constructed on a story. Football is a game but devotion to it involves a story about club and identity. Football stadium or church - what is the difference? Politics relies on stories about them, us, even saviours who will take us to the promised land.

This is what we do and when we stop it will be because something within us has died. Whether that is for good or bad, who knows, but as NS has said, religion is just people being people. Have you ever stopped to question your devotion to the belief that we would be better off without it?

But none of them relies on any God/god/spirit/soul/etc existing and totally undetectable and of course, imagined in the first place.

[trippymonkey]

The Bahais are an offshoot of Islam. I know as I've known people who are/were Bahais.
I've read their main books & attitudes.

Nick

[Dicky Underpants]

The Bahais are an offshoot of Islam. I know as I've known people who are/were Bahais.
I've read their main books & attitudes.

Nick

And, alas, are often persecuted by those of the Islamic faith, in those countries where a more fundamentalist version of the latter is dominant.

[ekim]

And, alas, are often persecuted by those of the Islamic faith, in those countries where a more fundamentalist version of the latter is dominant.

Yes, apostasy and heresy are often seen as threats to those who control organised religions.  If the apostates and heretics survive persecution then a breakaway sect starts to form, which in turn creates its own organisation which is also often threatened by apostasy and so it goes on.  Much the same happens in politics.

[Rhiannon]

But none of them relies on any God/god/spirit/soul/etc existing and totally undetectable and of course, imagined in the first place.

So? There’s no more reason to be devoted to West Ham or Star Wars or One Direction than there is god. They are things people fall in love with, or admire with devotion, or become slaves to, because they serve a purpose and meet a need. People fall in love with/devote to/ serve god for the same reason. It makes no difference whether god is detectable or not.

[SusanDoris]

So? There’s no more reason to be devoted to West Ham or Star Wars or One Direction than there is god. They are things people fall in love with, or admire with devotion, or become slaves to, because they serve a purpose and meet a need. People fall in love with/devote to/ serve god for the same reason. It makes no difference whether god is detectable or not.

I strongly disagree; the analogy simply doesn't work.

[Sriram]

People seem to have gone into a discussion about the Truth behind religions.  That is something connected to spirituality that I have discussed many times.

My point in this thread is about how religions succeeded in unifying groups of people far beyond their territorial limits.   They also enforced self discipline, truthfulness and so on.

It is true that there have been others who have also had a role in unifying people, mainly by geography.   I must mention the British Empire in particular that has had a role in unifying the world through its language and common culture. In India specifically, the British, while attempting to divide and rule, succeeded in unifying the country that had so many different kingdoms and languages.

However, no kingdom or empire has had the influence and emotional bonding that religions have generated.  They are the single most important unifying and disciplining force the world has seen....and far beyond geographical limits too.   

[Rhiannon]

I think that you are reflecting this idea that religion is a part of being human, Sriram. Devotion to Luke Skywalker also crosses international boundaries in the same way. We seek our tribe. It's a part of who we are and the stories that we tell ourselves.

[Sriram]

Yes...its certainly a part of being human. Religions are human constructs obviously. They however have a spiritual base and a major social purpose. That is all I am talking about.

If religions had not existed, the world would not be what it is today. It would have been far more fragmented, violent, selfish and animal like.  Not that these  qualities do not exist today. Its about the degree.

[Rhiannon]

Yes...its certainly a part of being human. Religions are human constructs obviously. They however have a spiritual base and a major social purpose. That is all I am talking about.

If religions had not existed, the world would not be what it is today. It would have been far more fragmented, violent, selfish and animal like.  Not that these  qualities do not exist today. Its about the degree.

That's where we disagree. Religion has caused so much slaughter just in the tiny islands here. But it can also unify. It has caused some of the finest buildings to be constructed and some of the most moving music to be composed. It brings joy as well as pain, and a reaching out as well as a looking inward. Religion is a manifestation of humanity in all its guises, good, evil and just plain daft.

If religion didn't exist we'd have something else, because we already do, and as far as I can see we will just continue to replace one set of stories with another and then another.

[trippymonkey]

So religions perfectly reflect HUMANS but not any god ??

[torridon]

People seem to have gone into a discussion about the Truth behind religions.  That is something connected to spirituality that I have discussed many times.

My point in this thread is about how religions succeeded in unifying groups of people far beyond their territorial limits.   They also enforced self discipline, truthfulness and so on.

It is true that there have been others who have also had a role in unifying people, mainly by geography.   I must mention the British Empire in particular that has had a role in unifying the world through its language and common culture. In India specifically, the British, while attempting to divide and rule, succeeded in unifying the country that had so many different kingdoms and languages.

However, no kingdom or empire has had the influence and emotional bonding that religions have generated.  They are the single most important unifying and disciplining force the world has seen....and far beyond geographical limits too.   

You seem to be contradicting yourself with the example of India. On the one hand you claim that religion has a unifying effect beyond that which can be achieved by any kingdom or empire, but then claim that the British did do just that, in effect unifying India through the exercise of colonial power. 

Whilst religions have a unifying effect within groups that is countered by a divisive effect of comparable magnitude between groups .  Therefore we cannot say religions are a good thing on account of their ability to create bonds, on balance it is a zero sum game.

The Partition of India is a prime example of the divisive effect of religion.  Rather than uniting the nation, the country was torn apart along the fault lines of religion with immense suffering to all affected.

[Sriram]

What is the contradiction?  Empire building also unifies people. But it is a very limited way of doing it. It is limited by geography.

Religions unify by faith. This has no geographical boundaries.  Can people in Africa, America, India, Japan, Russia be unified through empire building? No. They can however be unified through religion.  And religion has a much stronger emotive bond than empire.

People were violent, suspicious and selfish from the beginning, as part of our animal nature. This will get reflected some time or the other while interacting with other groups. So, it is not religions that are violent. It is human (animal) nature. 

Would it have been any different without religions? No.   It would have been worse.  Religions at least taught love, cooperation, self control and brotherhood within their group. This is no small achievement.

[ippy]

What is the contradiction?  Empire building also unifies people. But it is a very limited way of doing it. It is limited by geography.

Religions unify by faith. This has no geographical boundaries.  Can people in Africa, America, India, Japan, Russia be unified through empire building? No. They can however be unified through religion.  And religion has a much stronger emotive bond than empire.

People were violent, suspicious and selfish from the beginning, as part of our animal nature. This will get reflected some time or the other while interacting with other groups. So, it is not religions that are violent. It is human (animal) nature. 

Would it have been any different without religions? No.   It would have been worse.  Religions at least taught love, cooperation, self control and brotherhood within their group. This is no small achievement.

Rhiannon's post 68 spells out where you're going wrong Sriram, looking at your various posts gives me the impression you don't know where you're going on this one.

We all make a pigs ear of things from time to time, I wish I didn't, but this time it's you, best you just drop it.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

So if people invent religions, then religions are not in themselves an issue .

For football, there are teams, venues, spectators and a ball. No-one really thinks there is a football after-life or something.
Nationalism involves a country and its people, a physical place on the planet. No-one thinks that the planet will answer prayers or that it has instructions and wants.
For politics, there are, again, people, the effects of government. Most of this gets criticised most of the time too!
Religions have gods to which they can attach any random quality, characteristic or supposed instructions. So far, not one shread of objective evidence exists for any god. Yes, there are people involved and what they have in common is a belief that some god/spirit/soul/book-labelled-holy/etc  exists. The books exist, yes, but to think they were written by anything other than human beings is a daft idea. The cop-out qualifier they come up with is that the god'inspired' the words.

[Nearly Sane]

For football, there are teams, venues, spectators and a ball. No-one really thinks there is a football after-life or something.
Nationalism involves a country and its people, a physical place on the planet. No-one thinks that the planet will answer prayers or that it has instructions and wants.
For politics, there are, again, people, the effects of government. Most of this gets criticised most of the time too!
Religions have gods to which they can attach any random quality, characteristic or supposed instructions. So far, not one shread of objective evidence exists for any god. Yes, there are people involved and what they have in common is a belief that some god/spirit/soul/book-labelled-holy/etc  exists. The books exist, yes, but to think they were written by anything other than human beings is a daft idea. The cop-out qualifier they come up with is that the god'inspired' the words.

This seems like one long non sequitur. If you are an atheist, then religion is surely just part of humanity? And we are neither better nor worse for getting rid of it.