Is religion relevant to the world of 2020 except as a cause for conflict?

[Sriram]

Looking at the posts on this Forum, taken as a whole and including my own, I have  to say, with deep regret, that, taken as a whole, I think that religion has outlived its uefulness.

If, that is, it was ever actually useful at all! Ever!

The two main 'old' religions, Judaism and Catholicism, both have histories of armed and bloody conflict, the Jews mainly to survive attacks by Islam, a Johnny-come-lately compared to Judaism and Catholicism as a body and its hierarchy are about as corrupt as any big business or major criminal gang anywhere in the world.

To individuals there seem to be positives to be gleaned from the religions and their beliefs, but taken as a whole, they seem to be causing more harm than good, in a lot of cases because of their involvement in politics.

Your understanding of religions seems to be limited to the Abrahamic religions.   Indian religions (and related philosophies) are older and younger people are discovering their relevance today more than ever. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We cannot be looking at everything from the perspective of evolutionary advantage. Some nebulous 'survival strategy' conjured up by random variations and a metaphoric natural selection.....!   

We should in fact be looking at evolution from the perspective of spiritual advantage and development.

I agree. UltraDarwinism is so woven into the fabric of western thinking it isn't noticed any more but sadly it's been lurking in eastern philosophy for centuries too i'm afraid so no one can get too smug over this.

We find it in social Darwinism, the class system, casteism, racism, Thatcherism, memetics, and even physics with Dawkins advocacy of Smolin's baby universe and Dennett's championing of Darwinian ideas across the sciences.

[Owlswing]

I agree. UltraDarwinism is so woven into the fabric of western thinking it isn't noticed any more but sadly it's been lurking in eastern philosophy for centuries too i'm afraid so no one can get too smug over this.

We find it in social Darwinism, the class system, casteism, racism, Thatcherism, memetics, and even physics with Dawkins advocacy of Smolin's baby universe and Dennett's championing of Darwinian ideas across the sciences.

Please supply a translation of the above post in English. Basic English, not English gobbledeegook!

[SusanDoris]

Is it not possible that the reason that atheists are not a worthwhile force against religion is the fact that there are more atheist factions than there are religious ones? Almost one for each atheist?

No, ;I don't think so. I think it is because atheism and science need to be a more secure and widely-based background of society, instead of the CofE being the sort of background. It is changing but the change will have to be slow so as not to leave a vacuum for others to fill with a different 100% faith belief, rather than with a realunderstanding of who we humans are - an evolved ape species.
The CofE and other Christianity-based groups have formats, structures both physical and mental* with a wealth of music and traditions to go with that.

*mental - I was going to say 'spiritual', but that lands me in a whole definition problem!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, ;I don't think so. I think it is because atheism and science

What has atheism got to do with science?

[Outrider]

What has atheism got to do with science?

Aren't they, along with "UltraDarwinism"^TM the three pillars of "Antitheism"^TM?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aren't they, along with "UltraDarwinism"^TM the three pillars of "Antitheism"^TM?

O.

You are confusing atheism with antitheism here.

[Outrider]

You are confusing atheism with antitheism here.

How could atheism be a pillar of atheism?  Or are you instead suggesting that antitheism should be a pillar of antitheism?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How could atheism be a pillar of atheism?  Or are you instead suggesting that antitheism should be a pillar of antitheism?

O.

I'm now confused about pillars of atheism.

That could be down to a pillock of atheism.

[Outrider]

I'm now confused about pillars of atheism.

That could be down to a pillock of atheism.

We're in danger of derailing this thread, let's let this one lie here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We're in danger of derailing this thread, let's let this one lie here.

O.

Agreed mon capitan.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, ;I don't think so. I think it is because atheism and science need to be a more secure and widely-based background of society, instead of the CofE being the sort of background. It is changing but the change will have to be slow so as not to leave a vacuum for others to fill with a different 100% faith belief, rather than with a realunderstanding of who we humans are - an evolved ape species.
The CofE and other Christianity-based groups have formats, structures both physical and mental* with a wealth of music and traditions to go with that.

*mental - I was going to say 'spiritual', but that lands me in a whole definition problem!

I think science and religion serve 2 different purposes for humans so I can't see science replacing what religion offers people any more than religion can replace science offers people. Science gives explanations for how things happen. Whereas a lot of humans have a need to ask and seek some sort of understanding of abstract constructs of why and what does it mean. The why and what does it mean questions require abstract ideas, which science has limited answers for. Sure many people answer these questions for themselves without reference to gods.

The abstract concept of the supernatural is just a different spin on these abstract answers. We cannot know anything about the supernatural, including whether it exists. What we perceive with our brains is limited by the laws of the natural world they inhabit, but because we can conceptualise the supernatural as being something not bound by the laws of the natural world, we cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural - which then leads to our brains fleshing that out with supernatural concepts of gods as they serve a purpose.

I find religion a very useful way to combat consumerism. I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something. Religion also pushes that message but keeps me occupied in trying to bridge that deficiency or whatever is lacking by doing something that does not involve spending money. For example I spent hours over lockdown reciting the Quran in Arabic - cost me nothing, improved my brain functioning, gave me a sense of achievement as I became more fluent, I could participate in the extended family ritual of reciting without feeling embarrassed by my lack of proficiency. I was supposedly earning blessings by doing it - it's useful concept in religion because you focus on "earning" something other than money.

[Owlswing]

Your understanding of religions seems to be limited to the Abrahamic religions.   Indian religions (and related philosophies) are older and younger people are discovering their relevance today more than ever.

Yet there are still. if the media are to be believed, incidents of religious violence in India and Pakistan. It does not seem that the age of the religion has anything to do with it! 

[Owlswing]

I think science and religion serve 2 different purposes for humans so I can't see science replacing what religion offers people any more than religion can replace science offers people. Science gives explanations for how things happen. Whereas a lot of humans have a need to ask and seek some sort of understanding of abstract constructs of why and what does it mean. The why and what does it mean questions require abstract ideas, which science has limited answers for. Sure many people answer these questions for themselves without reference to gods.

The abstract concept of the supernatural is just a different spin on these abstract answers. We cannot know anything about the supernatural, including whether it exists. What we perceive with our brains is limited by the laws of the natural world they inhabit, but because we can conceptualise the supernatural as being something not bound by the laws of the natural world, we cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural - which then leads to our brains fleshing that out with supernatural concepts of gods as they serve a purpose.

I find religion a very useful way to combat consumerism. I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something. Religion also pushes that message but keeps me occupied in trying to bridge that deficiency or whatever is lacking by doing something that does not involve spending money. For example I spent hours over lockdown reciting the Quran in Arabic - cost me nothing, improved my brain functioning, gave me a sense of achievement as I became more fluent, I could participate in the extended family ritual of reciting without feeling embarrassed by my lack of proficiency. I was supposedly earning blessings by doing it - it's useful concept in religion because you focus on "earning" something other than money.

I would think that virtually any study of any written work on any subject would suit just as well as any religious text and mnight well produce a more positve effect on the world.

Especially I would have a more sympathetic view of what you say if it were not the case that so many have died in this country at the hands of militant Muslims!

Similary with the Catolic Church with regard to the activities, throughout out my life of the I R A - this being more personal as I have lost friends to that organisation.

[SusanDoris]

I think science and religion serve 2 different purposes for humans so I can't see science replacing what religion offers people any more than religion can replace science offers people. Science gives explanations for how things happen. Whereas a lot of humans have a need to ask and seek some sort of understanding of abstract constructs of why and what does it mean. The why and what does it mean questions require abstract ideas, which science has limited answers for.

If there are ‘limited answers’, or if there is a total lack of evidence for the objectivity of the idea, then that idea and all abstract ideas are produced by the brain and are a product of the imagination. There is no need for a supernatural something to fill the imagined gap

I certainy do not think that science will take the place of religion, but the need for a totally faith belief should lessen and lessen as it is more and better understood that so much which used to have a god-did-it answer has now been rationally explained. I will give an example.
The book I am now reading is called ‘Bird Senses’ and the author has been talking about, how in the past – and up to not so long ago either – people were still saying that the eye could not possibly have evolved, but that is of course incorrect; the evolutionary process is well understood and the process has varied according to species.
Society requires a background, which can be called a cultural background. If the one that has been in place for so long were to be removed, a vacuum and chaos would result.

The abstract concept of the supernatural is just a different spin on these abstract answers. We cannot know anything about the supernatural, including whether it exists. What we perceive with our brains is limited by the laws of the natural world they inhabit, but because we can conceptualise the supernatural as being something not bound by the laws of the natural world, we cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural - which then leads to our brains fleshing that out with supernatural concepts of gods as they serve a purpose.

Well put – I nod in agreement.

I find religion a very useful way to combat consumerism. I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something. Religion also pushes that message but keeps me occupied in trying to bridge that deficiency or whatever is lacking by doing something that does not involve spending money. For example I spent hours over lockdown reciting the Quran in Arabic - cost me nothing, improved my brain functioning, gave me a sense of achievement as I became more fluent, I could participate in the extended family ritual of reciting without feeling embarrassed by my lack of proficiency. I was supposedly earning blessings by doing it - it's useful concept in religion because you focus on "earning" something other than money.

For me, I've spent more time on the forums I belong to, crosswords and walking up and down outside here in this lovely weather. Not that I'm a spender anyway!

[Bramble]

I think science and religion serve 2 different purposes for humans so I can't see science replacing what religion offers people any more than religion can replace science offers people. Science gives explanations for how things happen. Whereas a lot of humans have a need to ask and seek some sort of understanding of abstract constructs of why and what does it mean. The why and what does it mean questions require abstract ideas, which science has limited answers for. Sure many people answer these questions for themselves without reference to gods.

The abstract concept of the supernatural is just a different spin on these abstract answers. We cannot know anything about the supernatural, including whether it exists. What we perceive with our brains is limited by the laws of the natural world they inhabit, but because we can conceptualise the supernatural as being something not bound by the laws of the natural world, we cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural - which then leads to our brains fleshing that out with supernatural concepts of gods as they serve a purpose.

I find religion a very useful way to combat consumerism. I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something. Religion also pushes that message but keeps me occupied in trying to bridge that deficiency or whatever is lacking by doing something that does not involve spending money. For example I spent hours over lockdown reciting the Quran in Arabic - cost me nothing, improved my brain functioning, gave me a sense of achievement as I became more fluent, I could participate in the extended family ritual of reciting without feeling embarrassed by my lack of proficiency. I was supposedly earning blessings by doing it - it's useful concept in religion because you focus on "earning" something other than money.

For some folk I think science does take the place of religion, through offering hope and a sense of control. Maybe scientists are the new high priests.

It's an interesting question why people seek refuge in abstractions and ideas and whether this might be connected with the search for meaning. It does often seem that ideas have become almost more real to many people than direct experience of the world. Ideas and abstractions can easily become a salvation from 'real life' because we can use them to create an alternative (preferred) reality - one where we don't really die, for example. I think of the lines by Wallace Stevens: "In my room, the world is beyond my understanding; but when I walk I see that it consists of three or four hills and a cloud." Perhaps if folk connected with the world in a more direct and visceral way - the way people presumably did for most of human history, moving through a landscape of hills and clouds - they wouldn't find it meaningless or alienating and look for abstractions to replace it. "The greatest poverty,' wrote Stevens elsewhere, "is not to live in a physical world." Maybe language itself, especially the written word, is part of the problem. Through it we map the world conceptually and become able to exchange the territory for our representation of it. The written word we can control, unlike the shifting sands of experience, and our books grant the illusion of permanence. Maybe that's why many religions rely so heavily on a chosen text.

How sad that religion should push the message that you are deficient in some way and that your life is lacking something. Maybe a little less abstraction and a bit more acquaintance with hills and clouds would help to remedy that. “We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.” Li Po

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I would think that virtually any study of any written work on any subject would suit just as well as any religious text and mnight well produce a more positve effect on the world.

Especially I would have a more sympathetic view of what you say if it were not the case that so many have died in this country at the hands of militant Muslims!

Similary with the Catolic Church with regard to the activities, throughout out my life of the I R A - this being more personal as I have lost friends to that organisation.

I was in the OTC (Officer Training Corp) at university - it was part of the British Territorial Army. We were just playing at soldiering compared to the regulars but it was a way for the British army to try to recruit. I was an atheist at the time. It was during the 1991 Gulf War and we were told that although as university students it was unlikely that we would be deployed to Iraq as we would be more of a hindrance than a help with our limited training, that we should be under no illusion that we were required to obey if we were given orders to go to Iraq and that we were signing up to the possibility that we would be required to shoot people (we received training at the rifle range) which meant that there was also the possibility that people would be shooting at us. We learnt some basic first aid life-saving techniques.

So my point is - humans have a tendency to go to war over politics, territory, resources, national pride, race - the 1994 Rwandan genocide for example was nothing to do with religion - both tribes were mainly Christian and the massacre was not about doctrinal conflict. Humans go to war over abstract concepts. Religion is just another manifestation of human abstract thought so why single out religion as the cause of conflict? You could just as easily say we should do away with nation states and instead share resources more equitably - that did not work out so well for the UK in terms of the concept of the EU. Or we should do away with humans if you want to avoid conflicts.

Regarding militant Muslims - the UK economy is heavily reliant on arms sales to repressive regimes in the Middle East. Our biggest client is Saudi Arabia, who gets about 44% of our arms sales. BAE Systems is the fourth largest defence contractor in the world.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/02/21/20-companies-profiting-the-most-from-war-4/?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn&utm_content=20-companies-profiting-the-most-from-war-4

Campaigners in the UK had to bring a court case to try to compel the UK government to follow its own rules against selling arms. Three judges said that a decision made in secret in 2016 had led them to decide that Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt and Liam Fox and other key ministers had illegally signed off on arms exports without properly assessing the risk to civilians.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/20/uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-for-use-in-yemen-declared-unlawful

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/selling-arms-to-the-saudis-was-always-immoral-now-it-is-unlawful-too

For quite some time we were competing with Russia to be the 2nd biggest arms dealers in the world behind the USA.

There is always going to be a cost to the way countries acquire resources, choose to grow GDP/ provide employment to their citizens. As many other countries have discovered, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Why were the English in Ireland anyway, for example - just asking?

It would be nice for us Brits if we could be the exception to the rule and make money without it costing us anything but it seems that it is wishful thinking that we could sell arms to regimes that will only result in foreign people getting blown up and shot in foreign countries. I get how perturbing it can be when people start getting blown up in the UK rather than abroad. What I don't understand is where this British expectation of exceptionalism came from?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

For some folk I think science does take the place of religion, through offering hope and a sense of control. Maybe scientists are the new high priests.

It's an interesting question why people seek refuge in abstractions and ideas and whether this might be connected with the search for meaning. It does often seem that ideas have become almost more real to many people than direct experience of the world. Ideas and abstractions can easily become a salvation from 'real life' because we can use them to create an alternative (preferred) reality - one where we don't really die, for example. I think of the lines by Wallace Stevens: "In my room, the world is beyond my understanding; but when I walk I see that it consists of three or four hills and a cloud." Perhaps if folk connected with the world in a more direct and visceral way - the way people presumably did for most of human history, moving through a landscape of hills and clouds - they wouldn't find it meaningless or alienating and look for abstractions to replace it. "The greatest poverty,' wrote Stevens elsewhere, "is not to live in a physical world." Maybe language itself, especially the written word, is part of the problem. Through it we map the world conceptually and become able to exchange the territory for our representation of it. The written word we can control, unlike the shifting sands of experience, and our books grant the illusion of permanence. Maybe that's why many religions rely so heavily on a chosen text.

I am not sure that religion prevents people from connecting with the real world - often religious texts point out the wonders of nature and the world around us. I am not sure if anyone has done a study on whether religious people feel less connected with nature. But human history shows religion has always been an aspect of human social evolution and that humans have a capacity for the spiritual and abstract.

How sad that religion should push the message that you are deficient in some way and that your life is lacking something. Maybe a little less abstraction and a bit more acquaintance with hills and clouds would help to remedy that. “We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.” Li Po

I think feeling sad about deficiencies is an abstract concept - why is it necessarily "sad" to be aware of your deficiencies?. I don't feel sad about my deficiencies - I am human so I expect to have deficiencies and I find it a source of motivation in trying to overcome my deficiencies - whether it is becoming physically fitter, stronger, faster, more knowledgeable, more patient, more tolerant etc etc 

[Bramble]

I think feeling sad about deficiencies is an abstract concept - why is it necessarily "sad" to be aware of your deficiencies?. I don't feel sad about my deficiencies - I am human so I expect to have deficiencies and I find it a source of motivation in trying to overcome my deficiencies - whether it is becoming physically fitter, stronger, faster, more knowledgeable, more patient, more tolerant etc etc

You'd said earlier: "I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something." Perhaps I misunderstood in thinking that you found this irksome. It's interesting that you actually relish feeling that your life is lacking. It sounds like a celebration of dissatisfaction - I don't want to be complete because then I wouldn't have anything to strive for. Would that be fair?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You'd said earlier: "I am constantly been told by people trying to sell me something that I am deficient in some way or that my life is lacking something." Perhaps I misunderstood in thinking that you found this irksome.

I find it irksome that people are destroying the environment by manipulating people in this way so they (businesses) can make money.

It's interesting that you actually relish feeling that your life is lacking. It sounds like a celebration of dissatisfaction - I don't want to be complete because then I wouldn't have anything to strive for. Would that be fair?

Yes - that's a good way of putting it. My interpretation of religion helps me face my deficiencies and gives me tools to try and address them through the use of abstract ideas - you dig deep within yourself rather than try to disguise your deficiencies or pretend they aren't there. To me that's more honest.