Importance of religions

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Religions are today  unpopular for various reasons. But religions could be seen as the source of our civilized values of today.

Please check out the article below.I am sure I have discussed it before but worth discussing again.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/

*********

Religions have never had it so bad!

Many people of science lead by people like the illustrious Professor Richard Dawkins, are very vocal about the ills of religions and the need to rid society of this scourge as soon as possible.

Atheism is the new trend! Religious values are being replaced by secular values such as…humanism, rationality, integration, non judgement, globalization, non-violence, universal brotherhood,  animal rights and so on.

These values and ideals are seen as more ‘civilized’  and desirable the world over compared to traditional values.

No doubt, the current trends are very positive and are to be welcomed!

But how did we today arrive at a situation where such universal and secular values are becoming the norm around the world?! How did society, world over, move from  tribal and feudal communities to societies of today with such universally acceptable values of humanism, tolerance and globalization?

I would give the credit almost entirely to religions!

Religions are the ladder that have enabled human societies to reach such high levels of progress in human integration, self discipline and universality. Once a certain objective is achieved, the ladder that we use to get there may seem irrelevant and unnecessary….but its usefulness in reaching our goals cannot be denied, rather, it should be acknowledged.

**********

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[ProfessorDavey]

Religious values are being replaced by secular values such as…humanism, rationality, integration, non judgement, globalization, non-violence, universal brotherhood,  animal rights and so on.

And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.

And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.

[Gonnagle]

And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.

And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.

Dear Prof,
But are we seeing those values, we will now go over to our roving reporter Nearlysane who brings us all the daily news from around the world just for our little forum, Sane just for us guys in the studio, the hot topic is values and lets talk America are we seeing those values in the good old US of A.

Sorry Sane, just being silly it is one of those rhetorical questions.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religions are the ladder that have enabled human societies to reach such high levels of progress in human integration, self discipline and universality. Once a certain objective is achieved, the ladder that we use to get there may seem irrelevant and unnecessary….but its usefulness in reaching our goals cannot be denied, rather, it should be acknowledged.

I don't think that is necessarily true Sriram, given that there is no evidence that religions even existed for most of the time since humans first evolved perhaps 300,000 years ago.

I think what you are referring to is the need for complex societal structures for the development and progress of humans as a species. Certainly religion can fulfil than need for complex societal structures, but so can and have other societal structures both in the past and the present.

So realistically the development of humans over the past 300,000 years seems to have a relatively recent phase, perhaps the last 10,000 years where religions have played a substantial role, but there is little evidence religion existed before then. So if, as you appear to be suggesting, religion gets pushed out of human development in the next phase (not convinced that this is true) then religion would represent a rather brief transient societal construct within a much longer humans developmental process.

[Sriram]

And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.

And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.

I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You have misunderstood.

I fully agree with the modern secular value of humanism, freedom, globalization, liberation, equality and so on.   I am only saying that religions have been largely responsibly for the development of such values in society over the centuries, even though many proponents of such values may not today be religious.

These values could be  basic to humans, but have required religious means to be communicated and enforced.

[Sriram]

I don't think that is necessarily true Sriram, given that there is no evidence that religions even existed for most of the time since humans first evolved perhaps 300,000 years ago.

I think what you are referring to is the need for complex societal structures for the development and progress of humans as a species. Certainly religion can fulfil than need for complex societal structures, but so can and have other societal structures both in the past and the present.

So realistically the development of humans over the past 300,000 years seems to have a relatively recent phase, perhaps the last 10,000 years where religions have played a substantial role, but there is little evidence religion existed before then. So if, as you appear to be suggesting, religion gets pushed out of human development in the next phase (not convinced that this is true) then religion would represent a rather brief transient societal construct within a much longer humans developmental process.

Last 10000 years is good enough. That is when settled communities started forming. 

My point is very simple. Developing a sense of kinship is impossible for groups divided by geography, racial differences,  language differences and other social and cultural differences. Our animal instincts and mutual suspicions will make it near impossible.

Religion has managed to do just that. It has integrated people across geography, language, race and other differences. 

About the future, I am assuming and hoping that certain religions will get merged together to form just a couple of religious groups which will also eventually disappear and people around the world will have just one philosophical basis for their goals and to explain the purpose and meaning of life and death.

[ProfessorDavey]

Last 10000 years is good enough. That is when settled communities started forming. 

My point is very simple. Developing a sense of kinship is impossible for groups divided by geography, racial differences,  language differences and other social and cultural differences. Our animal instincts and mutual suspicions will make it near impossible.

Religion has managed to do just that. It has integrated people across geography, language, race and other differences. 

About the future, I am assuming and hoping that certain religions will get merged together to form just a couple of religious groups which will also eventually disappear and people around the world will have just one philosophical basis for their goals and to explain the purpose and meaning of life and death.

It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.

However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.

So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#

[Sriram]

It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.

However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.

So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#

I am not arguing for theism or atheism. I am merely saying that religions have been successful in uniting large groups of people across all differences and have also been responsible for the civilized values that we today believe in.

I don't think atheism by itself has produced any sense of kinship among divergent groups across the world or produced any shared set of values.

[Gonnagle]

It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.

However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.

So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#

Dear Prof,

Thank you ( that's a genuine thank you ) for the link, I will read it again at my leisure ( during my middleweek, its the new thing, ask JP he invented it  ) one thing I will agree with your link, Atheism the word Atheism is a very old word, it certainly predates Christianity.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

For me your link does not go far enough, religion has been a huge driving force throughout mankind's history, and I would argue since we stepped out of the cave, it is the way we are hot wired, we are homo religious,

Although it does mention Islam as brutal and violent, is that right, not a expert but that does not sit right.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sriram,

For me your link does not go far enough, religion has been a huge driving force throughout mankind's history, and I would argue since we stepped out of the cave, it is the way we are hot wired, we are homo religious,

Although it does mention Islam as brutal and violent, is that right, not a expert but that does not sit right.

Gonnagle.

Religion isn't a driving force. It doesn't exist outside of humanity. This is just the mirror of the atheists on here who think that religion is a bad force.