Happy Atheist Forum

Why is there religion? I'd think that eventually people would say, "Well shit, this thing has really screwed us over. We sacrificed all our children, burned our crops and now its freezing...We should have listened to (insert sacrificed man's name here) about how we need to take care of ourselves."

Religion has a failsafe. It's called, "Quick, make something up!"

I am hoping the world is moving towards a secular society.

If anyone has research that conforms/contradicts this - please share.

Quote from: "Dretlin"I am hoping the world is moving towards a secular society.

If anyone has research that conforms/contradicts this - please share.

I agree completely, I believe it is the next logical step what with all of the advances in science and new discoveries. Religion just won't be able to keep up and be cast aside.

Considering only first world countries, I think the end of religion is soon, the US being the last stronghold.

Quote from: "elliebean"Religion has a failsafe. It's called, "Quick, make something up!"

Why can't there not be a god? I mean truly it would be better...
(Priest to man) Quick make something up!
(Man) Uhh...because if we don't that would be bad! So there is a god...la la la la la I'm not listening to a logical reason why not!

Quote from: "skwurll"

Quote from: "Dretlin"I am hoping the world is moving towards a secular society.

If anyone has research that conforms/contradicts this - please share.

I agree completely, I believe it is the next logical step what with all of the advances in science and new discoveries. Religion just won't be able to keep up and be cast aside.

I do feel the answer is slow change. From what I have seen of history rapid sociel change is abrasive and does not create the environment for a safe society.

I am not falling into the trap of scaremongering about Islamic immigration to Europe - as it is nonsense.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Considering only first world countries, I think the end of religion is soon, the US being the last stronghold.

I agree.

Quote from: "Killa_Kron"

Quote from: "elliebean"Religion has a failsafe. It's called, "Quick, make something up!"

Why can't there not be a god? I mean truly it would be better...
(Priest to man) Quick make something up!
(Man) Uhh...because if we don't that would be bad! So there is a god...la la la la la I'm not listening to a logical reason why not!

I find that many, if not most people would rather watch someone else be beaten and tortured to death than endure the pain of evaluating and changing their own beloved opinion.

Sorry if that sounds pessimistic, but I wouldn't say it if I didn't see evidence of it every day. Yet I find hope in each new generation. People can get worse, but humanity is getting better.

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "skwurll"

Quote from: "Dretlin"I am hoping the world is moving towards a secular society.

If anyone has research that conforms/contradicts this - please share.

I agree completely, I believe it is the next logical step what with all of the advances in science and new discoveries. Religion just won't be able to keep up and be cast aside.

I do feel the answer is slow change. From what I have seen of history rapid sociel change is abrasive and does not create the environment for a safe society.

I am not falling into the trap of scaremongering about Islamic immigration to Europe - as it is nonsense.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Considering only first world countries, I think the end of religion is soon, the US being the last stronghold.

I agree.

Unfortunately for the secularist, I don't think it's going to be quite as simple as you would like.  Western culture follows the trends and movements within academia, in particular philosophy departments in universities.  Quentin Smith (well known atheistic philosopher) in 2001 wrote an article (http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy_of_naturalism.htm) about how the number of theistic philosophers has been rapidly increasing since the 1960s, as has the number of theistic philosophy of religion journals.  I think atheism needs to win the battle of philosophy before it wins the war (and if you have read much into the recent philosophy of religion literature, you will no that that is not a battle easily won).

I disagree, from my own observations, each generation is becoming more secular than the last, congregations in churches drop every year over here, in England at least, Christianity is receding at quite a rate.

Do you have any evidence about the society following philosophy departments?

Quote from: "Logikos"Unfortunately for the secularist, I don't think it's going to be quite as simple as you would like.  Western culture follows the trends and movements within academia, in particular philosophy departments in universities.  Quentin Smith (well known atheistic philosopher) in 2001 wrote an article (http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy_of_naturalism.htm) about how the number of theistic philosophers has been rapidly increasing since the 1960s, as has the number of theistic philosophy of religion journals.  I think atheism needs to win the battle of philosophy before it wins the war (and if you have read much into the recent philosophy of religion literature, you will no that that is not a battle easily won).

I would have to disagree. Their is no battle of philosophy. Region is declining in Europe, and America could quite possibly follow in the future.

I have heard the same of "creation scientists" - that oxymoron make me cringe.

I propose the increase you are suggesting - even if its true - is a negative. You are getting (hopefully) highly education theists, That is a recipe for atheism and secularism.

Quote from: "SSY"I disagree, from my own observations, each generation is becoming more secular than the last, congregations in churches drop every year over here, in England at least, Christianity is receding at quite a rate.

Do you have any evidence about the society following philosophy departments?

Yes it's certainly becoming more secular at the moment, I agree, and that will continue for a considerable time yet.  I think the existentialist, logical positivist and postmodernist movements had a significant "trickle-down" effect on academia and so on society as a whole, and are still present in the way people think.  Of course there are all kinds of other factors too, but I think trends in academia and philosophy in general do have a big impact on the culture.

Quote from: "Dretlin"I would have to disagree. Their is no battle of philosophy. Region is declining in Europe, and America could quite possibly follow in the future.

I have heard the same of "creation scientists" - that oxymoron make me cringe.

I propose the increase you are suggesting - even if its true - is a negative. You are getting (hopefully) highly education theists, That is a recipe for atheism and secularism.

The difference between creation "science" (and intelligent design   ) and theistic philosophy is that the former doesn't get published in reputable scientific journals, whereas the latter does in the most influential philosophical journals.

Quote from: "Logikos"The difference between creation "science" (and intelligent design   ) and theistic philosophy is that the former doesn't get published in reputable scientific journals, whereas the latter does in the most influential philosophical journals.

And quite rightly so.

Please provide an example of such publishings. I would like to explore them.

I have great doubts that theistic philosophy is of any use to anyone.

Quote from: "Dretlin"And quite rightly so.

Please provide an example of such publishings. I would like to explore them.

I have great doubts that theistic philosophy is of any use to anyone.

What reading have you done in philosophy?

Two good places to start might be Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.  Plantinga is predominantly an epistemologist (he has a three-volume series on warrant); Swinburne a philosopher of religion taking a natural theology approach.  They are fairly accessible, so long as you've done a bit of reading in philosophy before.

Worth noting here is that religions themselves, especially christianity, are becoming more secular; with the exception of those sects on the radical fringes, who generally have little to no interest in philosophy or academia.

Quote from: "elliebean"Worth noting here is that religions themselves, especially christianity, are becoming more secular; with the exception of those sects on the radical fringes, who generally have little to no interest in philosophy or academia.

Just so I understand you, what do you mean by "secular" in this case?

I can see why you asked; poor choice of words . Interestingly, depending upon which definition one uses, different religions could be seen as becoming more secular, less secular, or unchanged.

Let's say 'humanistic' instead, and see how that goes.

Quote from: "elliebean"I can see why you asked; poor choice of words . Interestingly, depending upon which definition one uses, different religions could be seen as becoming more secular, less secular, or unchanged.

Let's say 'humanistic' instead, and see how that goes.

Did you mean that religion is becoming less about God/supernatural?

Not so much less about god or the supernatural, but more about human interests and dignity, things that pertain to daily life, wordly concerns, philanthropy, relationships, self-fulfillment, etc. It seems, again with the exception of the extremes, there's a shift of focus away from dogmatism and the expectation of reward/punishment in a life beyond this one, toward having a happy and rewarding experience in life in the here and now. It's less 'here's what you must do to be acceptable to god' and more 'here's how being a godly person can be of use to you'. And then, being a "godly person" seems to mean something quite different that it used to; less 'submission to authority', more 'mindful of myself and others'.

In short, I see religions becoming:
[li]more humanistic
[li]more tolerant
[li]more diverse
[li]more rational
[li]less authoritative
[li]less dogmatic
[li]less intrusive
[li]less obligating
[li]less relevant

It seems to me religions are conforming to society as a whole - philosophy is influencing religion - and not quite so much the other way around. Also, keep in mind the time frame for this extends at least as far back as the renaissance, in western cultures.

Quote from: "Killa_Kron"Why is there religion? I'd think that eventually people would say, "Well shit, this thing has really screwed us over. We sacrificed all our children, burned our crops and now its freezing...We should have listened to (insert sacrificed man's name here) about how we need to take care of ourselves."

I think there's something to be said for the argument that religion has been utilized by unscrupulous people as a tool, and that honestly if we were to look at a lot of the terrible things that are often attributed to religion, it becomes clear that religion is less the cause and more an effective means to an end.  I would say that really, the thing which has screwed people over more than anything else is good old human greed and the desire for conquest.  I think religion is rightfully regarded as dangerous by some because of how effective a tool it is for getting otherwise rational people to do and support stupid, horrible actions and positions.  It seems like a fair chunk of humans feel that deity sanctioned actions are unquestioningly justified, which makes religion an attractive angle for anyone looking to marginalize, conquer and control.

I think that people are getting smarter about this though, and I think that's being reflected with each new generation.  I could be short sighted in thinking this, but it seems to me that people are less interested in religion in the form of religious institutions and more interested in the concept of having a personal relationship with their deity.  I think that if church wasn't such an effective social outlet, a lot of people would drop the practice of going to church completely.  As religion becomes less of an attractive means to control people, those looking for conquest or who are greedy for adoration, power, reverence, or whatever will start looking for some other tool and religion will become what I personally think it should be - a personal belief with as much political and social influence as the belief in bigfoot or Nessie.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think there's something to be said for the argument that religion has been utilized by unscrupulous people as a tool, and that honestly if we were to look at a lot of the terrible things that are often attributed to religion, it becomes clear that religion is less the cause and more an effective means to an end.  I would say that really, the thing which has screwed people over more than anything else is good old human greed and the desire for conquest.  I think religion is rightfully regarded as dangerous by some because of how effective a tool it is for getting otherwise rational people to do and support stupid, horrible actions and positions.  It seems like a fair chunk of humans feel that deity sanctioned actions are unquestioningly justified, which makes religion an attractive angle for anyone looking to marginalize, conquer and control.

I agree, however I do think that religion itself played a role not just because unscrupulous people took advantage of it, but it set the followers up to be taken advantage of. When the religion is teaching beliefs with arguments that can't stand up to logical scrutiny it requires that the followers refrain from scrutinizing those beliefs, because the followers get used to not scrutinizing they are easy to take advantage of using weak arguments. So while I agree that religion in itself does not go around doing bad stuff, I think it's still dangerous.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think that people are getting smarter about this though, and I think that's being reflected with each new generation.  I could be short sighted in thinking this, but it seems to me that people are less interested in religion in the form of religious institutions and more interested in the concept of having a personal relationship with their deity.  I think that if church wasn't such an effective social outlet, a lot of people would drop the practice of going to church completely.  As religion becomes less of an attractive means to control people, those looking for conquest or who are greedy for adoration, power, reverence, or whatever will start looking for some other tool and religion will become what I personally think it should be - a personal belief with as much political and social influence as the belief in bigfoot or Nessie.

This is like the South Park episode where Cartman froze himself and woke up in the future and the three groups of atheists were at war with each other... even if we got rid of religion right now, it would not bring about peace, understanding and good, happy, fuzzy, fun times because we have to remove the need for religion. If we remove the need for people to latch onto feely good imaginary concepts, then we might be able to all move forward from religion (at least to get most people dependent on reality).

Tell me if i make sense here...If "god" were real, why would he even consider meaking us capable of being a different religion, much less ATHEIST?! It makes no sense! Even in religious terms it's crazy, and that's sad...

Quote from: "Killa_Kron"Tell me if i make sense here...If "god" were real, why would he even consider meaking us capable of being a different religion, much less ATHEIST?! It makes no sense! Even in religious terms it's crazy, and that's sad...

Perhaps something to do with the value of choice?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Killa_Kron"Tell me if i make sense here...If "god" were real, why would he even consider meaking us capable of being a different religion, much less ATHEIST?! It makes no sense! Even in religious terms it's crazy, and that's sad...

Perhaps something to do with the value of choice?

Of what value is an uninformed choice? and what would be the point of an informed one?

In the 'free will' paradigm, we're expected to make a choice about something we can't know, or that's hidden from us, even in spite of the evidence presented to us, lest it point us in the 'wrong' direction, while seeking out tiny 'clues' that are very thoroughly diguised as illusions. Yet we're to expect to be rewarded somehow for this folly. Or punished for eschewing it.

In that case, why would we be given the ability to reason? That's just twisted and cruel. A god that demands our belief in it, nevermind our obedience and reverance, must be an evil, sadistic one. What satisfaction can come from this? And what's in it for us? It doesn't matter, because you'd only have it on the word of the very people who endorse such a passive-aggressive monster. Whereas, if you dismiss it as nonsense, you're no more at risk of punishment for it than you were had you believed and wasted your life (as far as you know, your one and only) on empty promises. Thank you, but I'm not a gambler and if I were I wouldn't be so careless as that.

In the case that there is neither reward or punishment, what difference could it make? One only has what one has to lose - oneself - more specifically one's mental integrity and rationality. Nothing is gained by believing and nothing is lost by disbelieving.

In the case that belief is somehow its own reward.... how? Given the above statement? At most it's a trade-off; a measure of rational thinking in echange for...... some kind of assurance? What? You tell me; what do you gain by believing the unbelievable?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Killa_Kron"Tell me if i make sense here...If "god" were real, why would he even consider meaking us capable of being a different religion, much less ATHEIST?! It makes no sense! Even in religious terms it's crazy, and that's sad...

Perhaps something to do with the value of choice?

Of what value is an uninformed choice? and what would be the point of an informed one?

In the 'free will' paradigm, we're expected to make a choice about something we can't know, or that's hidden from us, even in spite of the evidence presented to us, lest it point us in the 'wrong' direction, while seeking out tiny 'clues' that are very thoroughly diguised as illusions. Yet we're to expect to be rewarded somehow for this folly. Or punished for eschewing it.

In that case, why would we be given the ability to reason? That's just twisted and cruel. A god that demands our belief in it, nevermind our obedience and reverance, must be an evil, sadistic one. What satisfaction can come from this? And what's in it for us? It doesn't matter, because you'd only have it on the word of the very people who endorse such a passive-aggressive monster. Whereas, if you dismiss it as nonsense, you're no more at risk of punishment for it than you were had you believed and wasted your life (as far as you know, your one and only) on empty promises. Thank you, but I'm not a gambler and if I were I wouldn't be so careless as that.

In the case that there is neither reward or punishment, what difference could it make? One only has what one has to lose - oneself - more specifically one's mental integrity and rationality. Nothing is gained by believing and nothing is lost by disbelieving.

In the case that belief is somehow its own reward.... how? Given the above statement? At most it's a trade-off; a measure of rational thinking in echange for...... some kind of assurance? What? You tell me; what do you gain by believing the unbelievable?

This is exactly what i think! Its like saying, "You have free will...but do what i 'want' you to do or suffer."

Quote from: "elliebean"In the 'free will' paradigm, we're expected to make a choice about something we can't know, or that's hidden from us, even in spite of the evidence presented to us, lest it point us in the 'wrong' direction, while seeking out tiny 'clues' that are very thoroughly diguised as illusions.

I don't think we can make a choice about what we believe or disbelieve - it just doesn't seem to me that belief works like that.  Our minds almost automatically "create" beliefs due to personal experiences.  I see a tree-like object in front of me, I believe that I am seeing a tree;  I am convinced by an argument, I accept its conclusion.  We can't choose whether we believe in God or not - what we believe is simply not in our control.

I think that God is pretty indifferent about whether we belive that he exists or not.  "Even the devil believes, and shudders" as the old book says.  What he desires is that we come to know who he is.  And that process of coming to know is of immense value, involving a real, significant choice to actively seek, question, doubt and challenge (the principle of "seek and you will find").  Of course, one necessary step is the "believing that" - but "that" is only the beginning.  

The vast, vast majority of people I have met, whether they are atheist, agnostic or theist now, from all kinds of backgrounds, have at some point believed in God (loosely defined as a transcendent, intentional cause of the universe).  People have evolved to find belief in God incredibly natural and intuitive (Justin Barrett (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anyone-Believe-Cognitive-Science-Religion/dp/0759106673/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272669638&sr=8-1)'s work in cognitive science of religion is well worth looking into).

Part of my seeking to know God has found that God is not a coercer, forcing people to believe and say and do things.  Part of love is to allow others to make their own choices.  In a world where theistic belief is natural and intuitive, God doesn't need to plant evidence in every nook and cranny that inescapably directs people to believe that he exists.  Instead he can create a world that aids to people to learn more about who he is.  To thrust evidence in our faces, I suggest, would lead us to know God as an arrogant show-off rather than a God of love.

Of course that does not mean that I think that there is no "evidence" in the world of God's existence - in fact I think there are many things that should point us towards God as an explanation.  One such is that the world is "meaning-drenched."  Almost everyone has experienced things that make them stop in awe at the world - sunsets, waterfalls, snow-topped mountain ranges, ... and these things give us a sense that there is something deep, something meaningful that is "beyond" mere physicality.  Something transcendent, intentional and causal.  And almost everyone has experienced things that are truly shocking - disease, famine, decay... and these things scream to us that the world is messed up, broken, not the way it is meant to be.  Humankind struggles to deny meaning, and only rarely "succeeds".

Now, the above is not an "argument" of some kind designed to convince anyone - but it is a description of a whole range of experiences that can be considered evidence.  We would expect a universe intended for a purpose by a creator to appear meaningful; we would not generally expect an unintended universe to appear meaningful.  And I think there are a whole host of other things that I think fit better on theism than on atheism - common experiences, the kind of experiences we would expect God to use to guide us towards him without coercion.

That's only a start to responding to some of the many points you made, but I'll stop there for now as I've tried to address the main initial assumptions that you seem to bring towards the subject.  Maybe we could discuss what I've said so far, and then go on to have a look at your other questions from our different perspectives.

Logikos