For the philosophers (read every word, trust me)

[fisherofmen]

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.

[realthinker]

If a community's ethical position changes through time, as it obviously does, than it's not something inherent to religion, but to something outside it, an evolutionary imperative (the same basic rules followed by other social animals), that will manifest regardless of religion existing or not. If anything, religion impairs the evolution of the moral zeitgeist, as we can see today with how religion insists on rules, highly detrimental to humanity's overall growth.

I can't imagine a time when religion helped any community from external competition, aside from problems itself created. For example, a community defending their land from invasion, who just happen to be religious, is not an example of how religion helps anything. If they were atheists they wouldn't just sit and die.

I'd like to hear some examples on how a religious community (at anytime in history) protects itself better than an atheist community would (not just war but anything that threatens that community's existence).

It's not the religion that makes the difference. It's the social behavior promoted by religion that makes the difference. And it's not religion in particular, but anything that promotes the same beneficial symbiotic behavior. I believe, though, that there are attributes that religion has that make it more effective and more long-lived than other similar social phenomenon. I happen to think that those are the same attributes that make God and religion unprovable.

[Beto]

It's not the religion that makes the difference. It's the social behavior promoted by religion that makes the difference.

But that's what I don't get. What specific social behavior, which at any given time wouldn't take place without religion (if any exists), that's beneficial to the community's survival and prosperity?

[Jester]

[realthinker]

It's not the religion that makes the difference. It's the social behavior promoted by religion that makes the difference.

But that's what I don't get. What specific social behavior, which at any given time wouldn't take place without religion (if any exists), that's beneficial to the community's survival and prosperity?

It's not necessarily that it wouldn't ever happen at all, but that it happens with greater frequency or perhaps with greater effect. It could be sharing of food or other resources, caring for the sick or elderly, helping a new family to join the community, educating the young. The church often helps with all of that, and to a greater effect most of the time than the government because it fosters reciprocity. The community also links families through generations. The children marry within the church and raise the family in the church. You get an entire network of families that share and support one another. And it plays to the evolutionary instincts that drive us all. It's about promoting the success of our offspring. People contribute to it willingly because it offers opportunty for the children. At the same time it also plays to the individual spirituality.

How much does that happen outside of the church? What is the force behind it if it does?

I honestly believe religion is, generally, a good thing for a community. What's tough for me is that I think it's all false and I don't take part in it. I'd love to find an alternative that does as much and would stand the test of time the same way, but I don't think there is anything else like it. And I think much of its resilience is because of the very significant (to believers) consequences that religion brings but which can never be proved nor disproved because those consequences are revealed after death.

[Beto]

It's not the religion that makes the difference. It's the social behavior promoted by religion that makes the difference.

But that's what I don't get. What specific social behavior, which at any given time wouldn't take place without religion (if any exists), that's beneficial to the community's survival and prosperity?

It's not necessarily that it wouldn't ever happen at all, but that it happens with greater frequency or perhaps with greater effect. It could be sharing of food or other resources, caring for the sick or elderly, helping a new family to join the community, educating the young. The church often helps with all of that, and to a greater effect most of the time than the government because it fosters reciprocity. The community also links families through generations. The children marry within the church and raise the family in the church. You get an entire network of families that share and support one another. And it plays to the evolutionary instincts that drive us all. It's about promoting the success of our offspring. People contribute to it willingly because it offers opportunity for the children. At the same time it also plays to the individual spirituality.

How much does that happen outside of the church? What is the force behind it if it does?

I honestly believe religion is, generally, a good thing for a community. What's tough for me is that I think it's all false and I don't take part in it. I'd love to find an alternative that does as much and would stand the test of time the same way, but I don't think there is anything else like it. And I think much of its resilience is because of the very significant (to believers) consequences that religion brings but which can never be proved nor disproved because those consequences are revealed after death.

The short-comings of governmental policies don't validate religion. The things which religious organizations help with are already recognized as essential, and if there was no religion they would have to be dealt with anyway. It's not like people would think "there's something wrong with our education policy, like not enough funding... oh well, nothing we can do about it" and then comes religion with all its available funds (which come from people's pockets anyway) and saves the day. Basically what I'm saying is, religion doing the government's job doesn't validate its existence, unless you can argue that a government will not compensate for it. After all, any money allocated by the church would be somewhere else if it didn't exist. And when I say money, I mean any resource. As for the "family" issue, I fail to see how religion is in any way helpful. Money is what generates networks of families that share and support one another. Two families are more powerful than one, and that's it as far as I can see. Maybe you can elaborate on how church marriages are better than civil marriages. I can only see church marriage as beneficial in a system already accustomed (or addicted) to it, and that's not what I'm arguing here.

[realthinker]

It's not the religion that makes the difference. It's the social behavior promoted by religion that makes the difference.

But that's what I don't get. What specific social behavior, which at any given time wouldn't take place without religion (if any exists), that's beneficial to the community's survival and prosperity?

It's not necessarily that it wouldn't ever happen at all, but that it happens with greater frequency or perhaps with greater effect. It could be sharing of food or other resources, caring for the sick or elderly, helping a new family to join the community, educating the young. The church often helps with all of that, and to a greater effect most of the time than the government because it fosters reciprocity. The community also links families through generations. The children marry within the church and raise the family in the church. You get an entire network of families that share and support one another. And it plays to the evolutionary instincts that drive us all. It's about promoting the success of our offspring. People contribute to it willingly because it offers opportunity for the children. At the same time it also plays to the individual spirituality.

How much does that happen outside of the church? What is the force behind it if it does?

I honestly believe religion is, generally, a good thing for a community. What's tough for me is that I think it's all false and I don't take part in it. I'd love to find an alternative that does as much and would stand the test of time the same way, but I don't think there is anything else like it. And I think much of its resilience is because of the very significant (to believers) consequences that religion brings but which can never be proved nor disproved because those consequences are revealed after death.

The short-comings of governmental policies don't validate religion. The things which religious organizations help with are already recognized as essential, and if there was no religion they would have to be dealt with anyway. It's not like people would think "there's something wrong with our education policy, like not enough funding... oh well, nothing we can do about it" and then comes religion with all its available funds (which come from people's pockets anyway) and saves the day. Basically what I'm saying is, religion doing the government's job doesn't validate its existence, unless you can argue that a government will not compensate for it. After all, any money allocated by the church would be somewhere else if it didn't exist. And when I say money, I mean any resource. As for the "family" issue, I fail to see how religion is in any way helpful. Money is what generates networks of families that share and support one another. Two families are more powerful than one, and that's it as far as I can see. Maybe you can elaborate on how church marriages are better than civil marriages. I can only see church marriage as beneficial in a system already accustomed (or addicted) to it, and that's not what I'm arguing here.

You're not from a small town, are you? Religion is at its best in a small, relatively homogeneous community. In such communities it involves practically everyone. It's part of the identity. People not in the church are not involved because the communication doesn't reach them as efficiently. They're not part of the clique, as it were.

I think religion has been fundamental in the success of small communities. I don't think it's so much a factor in larger communities, and it can even be a liability as religions compete for people and power and resources. In a more mixed environment government is probably the most effective at promoting success. It's a different level of commonality among the people. It's not as efficient as what religion can do for a smaller community, perhaps, but religion becomes a contentious issue for larger groups that don't think alike.

[Beto]

You're not from a small town, are you?

Does it show?

Religion is at its best in a small, relatively homogeneous community. In such communities it involves practically everyone. It's part of the identity. People not in the church are not involved because the communication doesn't reach them as efficiently. They're not part of the clique, as it were.

I think religion has been fundamental in the success of small communities. I don't think it's so much a factor in larger communities, and it can even be a liability as religions compete for people and power and resources. In a more mixed environment government is probably the most effective at promoting success. It's a different level of commonality among the people. It's not as efficient as what religion can do for a smaller community, perhaps, but religion becomes a contentious issue for larger groups that don't think alike.

I'm not arguing against what could happen if you removed religion from where it's already implemented. The damage is already done there, as people are already addicted to religious thought, and IMO, the comfort this self-delusion brings. What I'm trying to ascertain is if, hypothetically, religion disappeared, and people had no recollection of it ever having existed, it would matter at all. I think the things that make a community prosper would be done regardless, but with the non-existence of the problems religion brings about. Of course, when I write "government" I mean any ruling body, regardless of the community's size.

[realthinker]

You're not from a small town, are you?

Does it show?

Religion is at its best in a small, relatively homogeneous community. In such communities it involves practically everyone. It's part of the identity. People not in the church are not involved because the communication doesn't reach them as efficiently. They're not part of the clique, as it were.

I think religion has been fundamental in the success of small communities. I don't think it's so much a factor in larger communities, and it can even be a liability as religions compete for people and power and resources. In a more mixed environment government is probably the most effective at promoting success. It's a different level of commonality among the people. It's not as efficient as what religion can do for a smaller community, perhaps, but religion becomes a contentious issue for larger groups that don't think alike.

I'm not arguing against what could happen if you removed religion from where it's already implemented. The damage is already done there, as people are already addicted to religious thought, and IMO, the comfort this self-delusion brings. What I'm trying to ascertain is if, hypothetically, religion disappeared, and people had no recollection of it ever having existed, it would matter at all. I think the things that make a community prosper would be done regardless, but with the non-existence of the problems religion brings about. Of course, when I write "government" I mean any ruling body, regardless of the community's size.

I think history would show that religion of some fashion or another has arisen naturally pretty much everywhere. Spirituality is universal. Man needs some idea of what put us here and what happens when we die. We have the capacity for abstract conceptualization, so the common concept of a God that manages those unmeasurable aspects of our existence arises. For it not to would mean that spirituality is not universal, that some population has found some way around it. I think that is likely not possible for humans. The questions of creation and the consequences of death always arise.

I can imagine that such a population is possible, but I don't see it as human. I can't imagine how humans with their capacity for reason and their distinct identity and ability to manipulate their environment could not question those aspects of their world. Something that is definitely part of the human condition would have to fall away.

[Beto]

I think history would show that religion of some fashion or another has arisen naturally pretty much everywhere.

Sure, and I can't blame people for coming up with supernatural explanations for "strange" events, when they lack the science to verify their validity. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume the community I'm referring to is a modern one, that continues with deity worship and religious dogma. Although I still think that if the supernatural explanations aren't upgraded to "religion", no harm would come of it. Much the opposite.

Spirituality is universal. Man needs some idea of what put us here and what happens when we die. We have the capacity for abstract conceptualization, so the common concept of a God that manages those unmeasurable aspects of our existence arises.

Personally, I think humanity (or part of it) outgrew this limitation. I think "spirituality" is, quite frankly, what science, as of yet, fails to explain about the human mind and brain, and is not inherent to the human condition.

For it not to would mean that spirituality is not universal, that some population has found some way around it. I think that is likely not possible for humans. The questions of creation and the consequences of death always arise.

But it doesn't need to be a "spiritual" thing. I'm quite content with waiting for science to explain every existential question I might have. Am I not human? I'll probably die before this happens, but it doesn't really matter, does it? Why should it?

I can imagine that such a population is possible, but I don't see it as human.

A lot of folks like me would be boring, but human nonetheless, hey?

I can't imagine how humans with their capacity for reason and their distinct identity and ability to manipulate their environment could not question those aspects of their world. Something that is definitely part of the human condition would have to fall away.

Science will always try to explain those aspects of our world. If we're intellectually honest about it, we won't feel the need to invent supernatural explanations, just because some people need immediate answers.

[Beto]

So I guess the question becomes:

In a modern society in which every individual still has the same old existential questions, but has decided to rely on science to explain all that is unknown, and fully rejects "spirituality" (to generalize), what possible harm can come of it?