Religion, what is it Good for, absolutely... Something?

[daedalus 2.0]

I am an Atheist. Decidely. However, I have soften my position on religion.

I once thought is dangerous, then I thought it a necessary evil. I now consider it a necessary attribute of those who would rather simply ignore larger questions. While I once considered these people lacking introspective abilities or intelligence (take note: I was once a religionist!), I now see the subtle aspects of religion in the non-religious.

(Disclaimer: I will NOT say that Sports or Art, etc are "religions". That is stupid.)

However, I do see the need for "other people" to beleive in a set of codified rules because it stabilizes society. I agree that sometimes it stabilizes society within a detrimental paradigm (for example, it took some 1700 years for people to re-think slavery in Xian nations - and notably AFTER the Humanist/Enlightenment (Some might say that Humanism/Enlightenment was in direct response to Xinanity but... why not Islam? or, in reality, it is in actual opposition to Xinanity.)

However, I also understand that for me, architecture or "style", or "design" or whatever, is a form of "religion"... or even logic or or the scientific method is a kind of religion (though not nearly dogmatic as other religions - I was a Xian once and now I am embarassed about that). I was having a conversation with a co-worker - he is kind of Spiritual Pantheist - and I realized that people really find ways of justifying unsubtantiated claims and flights of fancy.

So, is religion more than a necessary evil? How so?

[MagusYanam]

I once thought is dangerous, then I thought it a necessary evil. I now consider it a necessary attribute of those who would rather simply ignore larger questions. While I once considered these people lacking introspective abilities or intelligence (take note: I was once a religionist!), I now see the subtle aspects of religion in the non-religious.

(Disclaimer: I will NOT say that Sports or Art, etc are "religions". That is stupid.)

However, I do see the need for "other people" to beleive in a set of codified rules because it stabilizes society.

Definitely an interesting topic, daedalus. I'll try to answer as best I know how...

I think you can get a set of codified rules without necessarily being religious. Most atheists and agnostics I know (and I know a few) are highly moral, decent people, who have firm convictions about a number of things. I think a lot of them haven't gone through all the footwork necessary to being a real atheist (like Nietzsche, for example) - if you eliminate God as the source of your value system, you have to take upon yourself the full existential burden for creating and willing your own values and meaning - but they nevertheless do solid moral reasoning.

Ultimately, though, I think religion is not about conforming one's self to a set of codified rules. The existential burden of a religion is not the same as that of atheism, but there still is one - the relationship a person has to her God should be defining and meaningful, and ultimately I don't see how you can get self-realisation from blind obedience to a specific doctrine.

Is religion a necessary evil? As someone who tries to be religious myself, I don't want to say it is an evil in itself - though it certainly has the capacity to twist the wills of individuals into implements of tremendous detriment, both to themselves and to the world around them. If religion is done correctly, I think it can be a true source of meaning for someone. I think that it's harder (Kierkegaard would say it is impossible) to find an atheistic source of all meaning within oneself.

[daedalus 2.0]

I think you can get a set of codified rules without necessarily being religious. Most atheists and agnostics I know (and I know a few) are highly moral, decent people, who have firm convictions about a number of things. I think a lot of them haven't gone through all the footwork necessary to being a real atheist (like Nietzsche, for example) - if you eliminate God as the source of your value system, you have to take upon yourself the full existential burden for creating and willing your own values and meaning - but they nevertheless do solid moral reasoning.

RElgiionists have this same burden - they determine, on their own, whether they take a passage literally or not, what religion they will follow, how closely, etc.

Consider: I see no reason to presuppose a God exists and therefore, I see all religionists picking and choosing - or, as you say, taking on the existential burden of choosing their belief. In reality, a religion is a watered-down philosophy of life.

Yet, as the "great" Neo-Con Leo Strauss said, religion is useful for controlling the public.

Ultimately, though, I think religion is not about conforming one's self to a set of codified rules. The existential burden of a religion is not the same as that of atheism, but there still is one - the relationship a person has to her God should be defining and meaningful, and ultimately I don't see how you can get self-realisation from blind obedience to a specific doctrine.

Again, the adherent still has to determine which god to follow - which means they have to determine what morals that god would appreciate.

I see no difference from the atheist.

The only difference is that a government or society can use the belief you have (that Belief is somehow special and unique) to its advantage.

Is religion a necessary evil? As someone who tries to be religious myself, I don't want to say it is an evil in itself - though it certainly has the capacity to twist the wills of individuals into implements of tremendous detriment, both to themselves and to the world around them. If religion is done correctly, I think it can be a true source of meaning for someone. I think that it's harder (Kierkegaard would say it is impossible) to find an atheistic source of all meaning within oneself.

Obviously, I have a slew of philosophers at the ready to rebut Capt. Kierk.

I do find it ironic that most people I speak to, who do believe in God, are quick to say they don't believe in religion - which is to say: I follow my own conception of what I think God thinks is right.

This is subjectivism with the added kicker that it gives the person a feeling they are above reproach, since they believe they are on the right track and God agrees.

It is this kind of subjectivism that is logically corrupt and annoying but leads to better citizens (since they are more prone to be individualitic) whereas a religion can lead to extremists (more than the odd whack-job).

That is, I think the reason people in America (or any country) are basically nice people is because they DON'T toe the line of religion. That they use their subjective determination of things to act - just as atheists do. Since most of humanity is decent, we get a decent society.

However, religion MAY keep a few nuts from killing, but, I am now contradicting my OP and suggesting that religion, because it is a tool for control, may be damaging.


In the end, I don't know. I think it can be looked at both ways. I suppose if religion helps a person act benignly, it is good, if it doesn't, it is bad. Is it a wash? Does religion cause as much harm as good?

I don't know.

Compounding the problem is the nebulous definition of religion, or the problem of determining motivations of people. PLus, I often argue that extreme Nationalism is a religion-like emotion that sometimes incorporates a religious overtone or subtext (e.g., Nazism was a political/Nationalistic movement that used God and religion as an aid).

I am still at a loss as to whether society should look to eradicate religion (not in the stalin sense, but in the slavery sense), or preserve it as a useful tool. I suspect that if religion is gone tomorrow, something takes its place (as, has, to some degree, low-wage workers and predatory employment practices replaced slavery to some degree - at least in the important aspect of limiting upward mobility and creating a permanent working class and permanent class of the ultra-wealthy).

I digress.

I have no solution. I simply wonder.

[MagusYanam]

RElgiionists have this same burden - they determine, on their own, whether they take a passage literally or not, what religion they will follow, how closely, etc.

Consider: I see no reason to presuppose a God exists and therefore, I see all religionists picking and choosing - or, as you say, taking on the existential burden of choosing their belief. In reality, a religion is a watered-down philosophy of life.

Yet, as the "great" Neo-Con Leo Strauss said, religion is useful for controlling the public.

Well, my move is going to be that once you try to use religion to control people, like Leo here, you're moving out into dangerous and destructive waters. Then you get the religious attitudes that Nietzsche thought would eventually lead to nihilism.

I agree that following God does entail an existential burden - when done right. I think a lot of people (theists and non-theists) simply sleep-walk their way through life, not pausing to consider why they choose what they choose.

Again, the adherent still has to determine which god to follow - which means they have to determine what morals that god would appreciate.

I see no difference from the atheist.

The only difference is that a government or society can use the belief you have (that Belief is somehow special and unique) to its advantage.

Again - I think that's the Straussian kind of religion, the one that allows people to deny their individuality-in-community and define themselves by a specific set of rules.

Obviously, I have a slew of philosophers at the ready to rebut Capt. Kierk.

Sorry, you just reminded me of this.



Seriously, though - I'm sure you do have a slew of philosophers to rebut Kierkegaard. A lot of people disagreed with him, and I'm sure a lot of people still do (like maybe the entire Catholic Church). However, he's one of the few philosophers I have to justly say had a profound impact on the way I view religion.

I do find it ironic that most people I speak to, who do believe in God, are quick to say they don't believe in religion - which is to say: I follow my own conception of what I think God thinks is right.

This is subjectivism with the added kicker that it gives the person a feeling they are above reproach, since they believe they are on the right track and God agrees.

It is this kind of subjectivism that is logically corrupt and annoying but leads to better citizens (since they are more prone to be individualitic) whereas a religion can lead to extremists (more than the odd whack-job).

Indeed - Kierkegaard did argue that there are wrong ways of being individualistic and subjective (when a self despairingly wills itself to be itself, to use the Kierkegaardian language), and I doubt very much that Kierkegaard would approve of the kind of religion that turns God into a mirror of one's own desires and ethical proclivities.

In the end, I don't know. I think it can be looked at both ways. I suppose if religion helps a person act benignly, it is good, if it doesn't, it is bad.

I think it can be looked at both ways. If you're looking at what causes people to do good things or to do bad things, then looking at their religious beliefs can be a good place to start. But religion, if it can inspire people to greater good, can also inspire the greedy and manipulative to ever greater heights of avarice and manipulation.

I am still at a loss as to whether society should look to eradicate religion (not in the stalin sense, but in the slavery sense), or preserve it as a useful tool. I suspect that if religion is gone tomorrow, something takes its place (as, has, to some degree, low-wage workers and predatory employment practices replaced slavery to some degree - at least in the important aspect of limiting upward mobility and creating a permanent working class and permanent class of the ultra-wealthy).

I don't know. It might not be a societal problem.

I have no solution. I simply wonder.

A step in the right direction, perhaps?