What would the world be like without religion?

[Virtual ghost]

Pretty much the same. We'd just replace religion without some other sort of denomination to kill each other over.

To tell you the truth I am not 100% sure about that. Probably some different system will emerge in this case but with the crash of religion you have fundamental difference in social dynamics and therefore you can't count that there will be this foundation that makes people do these kinds of things. Also it might happen that with throwing away the concept of eternal life people might start to appreciate more what they have, since afterlife is fundamentally a relativisation of violence. Especially because the permanent crash of religion would mean that everyone is atheist and therefore belongs to the same group in this regard.

 

[Coriolis]

I am sorry but as a person that was never praying in its entire life I find this post absurd. Plus I am pretty sure that a group of people similar to me wouldn't just run amok.
Human biology can support religion but it doesn't have be a part of the mix for everything to function.

There may be some merit to the notion that human nature wants to believe in something greater than itself. For many people and societies, this is God/religion. For others, it is the nation, clan, or culture. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as we understand the real nature of what we are believing in, and the impact of those beliefs on our life and society.

 

[Oberon]

I am sorry but as a person that was never praying in its entire life I find this post absurd. Plus I am pretty sure that a group of people similar to me wouldn't just run amok.
Human biology can support religion but it doesn't have be a part of the mix for everything to function.

Again, not every one consumes Cheetos, not everybody is born with two arms, not everyone has an IQ over 130. Religion is an evolutionary trait that some have and use to survive. You can survive without the tool, like you can survive without legs on human welfare or by your own grit, but that does not negate the logical premise here.

If you state that religion is not an evolutionary adaptation, then you are not adhering to the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is, religion is a tool.

Now whether the fact that it is a tool implies the existence of a higher intelligence, I cannot say. That is for each person to determine on their own.

 

[badatlife]

This is a really strange question. From a biological perspective, religion is organic. It is an extention of our biology. Everything we do, if rooted in biology, is biology. Like bee's that make the beehives. True the beehive is just some shit strung together but it's in the bee's biology to make the beehive.

So in essence this is like asking, what if people never used gloves or hammers? They would never spend money on gloves, and large companies like BOSCH and Home Depot would have slimmer profit margins, assuming their hammers and gloves were profitable, but in the end what's the point of asking this? Why not just take it to it's logical conclusion, what if humans never existed?

Essentially what your'e asking is what if we never had a tool that we needed to survive, because everything that we have utilized to survive thus far as to be taken at face-value as necessary for survival, since that is essentially what the theory of evolution implies. If have things we utilize that serve no evolutionary purpose, and they have not died out of our species up to a certain point, then essentially stating something like "Religion is not necessary for our survival" is also negating the very principles of evolution themselves, ironically, the statement is religious its self.

So to answer your question, according to the theory of evolution, without religion, we would be dead.

nononononono. no.

 

[Virtual ghost]

There may be some merit to the notion that human nature wants to believe in something greater than itself. For many people and societies, this is God/religion. For others, it is the nation, clan, or culture. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as we understand the real nature of what we are believing in, and the impact of those beliefs on our life and society.

Yes, but I am taking the term religion at face value here, especially since the OP was written in that fashion. While nations, clans and cultures are different pair of shoes. There is no dispute that many want to believe all kinds of things but what is questionable here is the concept that you can't do things efficiently and in a right way without religion. Especially since religion often openly claims that is impossible and it wants a monopoly in that domain. What is both manipulative and unfair.

Again, not every one consumes Cheetos, not everybody is born with two arms, not everyone has an IQ over 130. Religion is an evolutionary trait that some have and use to survive. You can survive without the tool, like you can survive without legs on human welfare or by your own grit, but that does not negate the logical premise here.

If you state that religion is not an evolutionary adaptation, then you are not adhering to the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is, religion is a tool.

Now whether the fact that it is a tool implies the existence of a higher intelligence, I cannot say. That is for each person to determine on their own.

Ok, because when you say "we" that sounds as if you mean everybody. (and that is why you are getting the replies you are getting)

 

[Lark]

Yes, but I am taking the term religion at face value here, especially since the OP was written in that fashion. While nations, clans and cultures are different pair of shoes. There is no dispute that many want to believe all kinds of things but what is questionable here is the concept that you can't do things efficiently and in a right way without religion. Especially since religion often openly claims that is impossible and it wants a monopoly in that domain. What is both manipulative and unfair.







Ok, because when you say "we" that sounds as if you mean everybody. (and that is why you are getting the replies you are getting)

I do think its potentially manipulative and unfair, at its worst it definitely is, there is no question that religion has provided some examples of people at their worst.

Although I dont think it necessarily follows.

The best examples of religion I think have contained the mystical, esoteric elements, said, well, we cant know about that so lets focus on what is testable and that we can know instead. Periodically this sort of religious being reasserts itself, one of the best and most recent that I can think of is actually Tolstoy.

Religion at its best, I think, should settle certain questions about the afterlife or immortality which have been the plague of humanity from its origin, in order that people can get on with their actual lives and live their best life while they can.

There are alternatives, some of the ideas derived from science I personally find to be as odd as those produced by religion but always they return to questions about afterlife or immortality. The latest of which that I read was quantum immortality. It sounds like a mix of buddhist chain of many lives, or even video game culture sometimes. I kind of think of multiverse, strings theories, all of that, so far as I can understand it in my limited capacity as a general reader, is all esoteric in their own way. So there's variety, even if people feel compelled to find a "non-religious" alternative.

I just tend to think that all that's going to happen is that people "reinvent the wheel" and all the tropes or norms or elements will be there whether they choose to call it religious or not.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I do think its potentially manipulative and unfair, at its worst it definitely is, there is no question that religion has provided some examples of people at their worst.

Although I dont think it necessarily follows.

The best examples of religion I think have contained the mystical, esoteric elements, said, well, we cant know about that so lets focus on what is testable and that we can know instead. Periodically this sort of religious being reasserts itself, one of the best and most recent that I can think of is actually Tolstoy.

Religion at its best, I think, should settle certain questions about the afterlife or immortality which have been the plague of humanity from its origin, in order that people can get on with their actual lives and live their best life while they can.


There are alternatives, some of the ideas derived from science I personally find to be as odd as those produced by religion but always they return to questions about afterlife or immortality. The latest of which that I read was quantum immortality. It sounds like a mix of buddhist chain of many lives, or even video game culture sometimes. I kind of think of multiverse, strings theories, all of that, so far as I can understand it in my limited capacity as a general reader, is all esoteric in their own way. So there's variety, even if people feel compelled to find a "non-religious" alternative.

I just tend to think that all that's going to happen is that people "reinvent the wheel" and all the tropes or norms or elements will be there whether they choose to call it religious or not.

To be honest as a person with certain scientific background I don't see the bolded as a science or any kind of "real opposition" to classic religion, since in those constructs speculation and belief play huge role. Until you have empirical proofs and/or solid math you aren't really dealing with science. Science is more like table of chemical elements, how plants absorb nutrients, particle physics, ecosystem balance, electro-magentic spectrum etc. while "quantum immortality" and similar subjects don't really belong here. This is basically something that can be called "false God". However this will certainly sell better than any of the named subjects, since it is intriguing and simplistic/relative. While those other subject are pretty hard and require years of study to properly grasp even at the more basic level. So I suppose the conclusion of this entire thread comes down to hunting down the con artists before it is too late, since they seems to be the bottom line behind pretty much all large social dynamics.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

A world without religion would indicate that it was no longer needed, due to advancements in science. Existential questions and mysteries had been answered, and everyone had their needs fulfilled in abundance.

Possibly, people had found a way to exist without their bodies. Maybe we'd uploaded our consciousness into some sort of hive mind and it all dissolved together like sugar in water, to erase individualism and conflict. This collective consciousness might become bored of itself and divide itself up and re-upload as human beings. Or maybe it creates new beings.

 

[Lark]

A world without religion would indicate that it was no longer needed, due to advancements in science. Existential questions and mysteries had been answered, and everyone had their needs fulfilled in abundance.

Possibly, people had found a way to exist without their bodies. Maybe we'd uploaded our consciousness into some sort of hive mind and it all dissolved together like sugar in water, to erase individualism and conflict. This collective consciousness might become bored of itself and divide itself up and re-upload as human beings. Or maybe it creates new beings.

That's interesting because that's a sort of religion will become extinct idea similar to Marx's own one about it being the heart of a heartless world.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, but I am taking the term religion at face value here, especially since the OP was written in that fashion. While nations, clans and cultures are different pair of shoes. There is no dispute that many want to believe all kinds of things but what is questionable here is the concept that you can't do things efficiently and in a right way without religion. Especially since religion often openly claims that is impossible and it wants a monopoly in that domain. What is both manipulative and unfair.







Ok, because when you say "we" that sounds as if you mean everybody. (and that is why you are getting the replies you are getting)

I do speak for the species collective, as a majority we require religion to survive. That doesn't mean everyone in the species does, just around 90 percent do. If this weren't true then evolution would be false and people like Nietzsche would not have ever been read for claiming the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

nononononono. no.

So you're saying that evolution isn't real?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I do speak for the species collective, as a majority we require religion to survive. That doesn't mean everyone in the species does, just around 90 percent do. If this weren't true then evolution would be false and people like Nietzsche would not have ever been read for claiming the same thing.

Yes, but the catch is that if evolution is real then religions got many things quite wrong. What then means that the holy books that are the word of God aren't fully true, and that is a serious logical issue. Today people take from religion whatever they like but cherry picking isn't really how this game should be played. (in my book) The issue here isn't about is there a need for God but are all those stories real. What is pretty big since religion spills into politics on regular basis. Therefore if the the foundation is wrong that means that politics needs to be remade as well. Things are much more complicated than believing or not believing, since the physical consequences are involved. If evolution is real theocracies around the world have to be removed pretty much without a second thought, especially violent ones. What then opens the question of who will do this ........



Also that 90% is questionable because religion has the tendency to create dependent mindset at young age. So it is questionable how things would look like without this factor.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, but the catch is that if evolution is real then religions got many things quite wrong. What then means that the holy books that are the word of God aren't fully true, and that is a serious logical issue. Today people take from religion whatever they like but cherry picking isn't really how this game should be played. (in my book) The issue here isn't about is there a need for God but are all those stories real. What is pretty big since religion spills into politics on regular basis. Therefore if the the foundation is wrong that means that politics needs to be remade as well. Things are much more complicated than believing or not believing, since the physical consequences are involved. If evolution is real theocracies around the world have to be removed pretty much without a second thought, especially violent ones. What then opens the question of who will do this ........



Also that 90% is questionable because religion has the tendency to create dependent mindset at young age. So it is questionable how things would look like without this factor.

I agree with you on some points here. For sure overly dogmatic groups of people constraint expression and kill the human spirit. For sure interpreting holy scriptures as literal, or fundamentalist extremism is evil. No doubt about that at all.

But what I see as the cause behind that is not religion itself but people.

 

[Lark]

Yes, but the catch is that if evolution is real then religions got many things quite wrong. What then means that the holy books that are the word of God aren't fully true, and that is a serious logical issue. Today people take from religion whatever they like but cherry picking isn't really how this game should be played. (in my book) The issue here isn't about is there a need for God but are all those stories real. What is pretty big since religion spills into politics on regular basis. Therefore if the the foundation is wrong that means that politics needs to be remade as well. Things are much more complicated than believing or not believing, since the physical consequences are involved. If evolution is real theocracies around the world have to be removed pretty much without a second thought, especially violent ones. What then opens the question of who will do this ........



Also that 90% is questionable because religion has the tendency to create dependent mindset at young age. So it is questionable how things would look like without this factor.

Solo scripture and scriptural literalism are heresies or really ought to be, personally I think they are very much of their era, ie printing press, first cheaply available books, I also think they are idolatrous in their own way. I can totally understand a lot of the conditions that gave rise to this, it all has to be understood in context and not ahistorically but all the same. It would be the first time in human history that a proposed cure to a disease turned out to be worse than the disease itself.

I dont think that religion should intrude on the political sphere, religion is not to do with the temporal, its to do with the spiritual and incorporeal. I wish that there was some sort of proper fire wall between those things. Seriously. I think there is no way at all that religion straying into the political and temporal does not end in corruption of the kind that's come out globally with the abuse of power by the priesthood. Theocracies is another different kind of thing, I see that happening where is a simultaneous failure in politics and corrupt/worldly religious authorities.

With the last Pope's advice on politics, which explicitly rules out any sort of so called "political catholicism" completely and finally I had hoped this was finally settled.

A lot of this is still "religion at its worst", at its best religion was the force that salvaged Germany from the wreckage of WW2 through things like the creation of the Christian Democrats.

 

[Lark]

I agree with you on some points here. For sure overly dogmatic groups of people constraint expression and kill the human spirit. For sure interpreting holy scriptures as literal, or fundamentalist extremism is evil. No doubt about that at all.

But what I see as the cause behind that is not religion itself but people.

I do agree with this, humanity has been trying to create fail safes and safety catches and counter measures against human nature at its worst since time began.

The thing is that most of the time I struggle to find any time in human history when corrupt religious authorities have been persecuting and exploiting people that they havent been doing it with the active assistance or encouragement of the "secular" authorities of the day. Seriously.

Even when there are religious authorities responsible for torture and murder, like the inquisition or Calvin's Geneva or Salem drowning and burning of women accused of witchcraft, its not solely dogmatism that's to blame and most of the violence was typical of the times, life was nasty, brutish and short.

 

[Oberon]

I do agree with this, humanity has been trying to create fail safes and safety catches and counter measures against human nature at its worst since time began.

The thing is that most of the time I struggle to find any time in human history when corrupt religious authorities have been persecuting and exploiting people that they havent been doing it with the active assistance or encouragement of the "secular" authorities of the day. Seriously.

Even when there are religious authorities responsible for torture and murder, like the inquisition or Calvin's Geneva or Salem drowning and burning of women accused of witchcraft, its not solely dogmatism that's to blame and most of the violence was typical of the times, life was nasty, brutish and short.

Not to mention the money lenders involved. The early banking cartels that played sides and put tremendous amount of power into the most evil hands. That's how the crusaders were hunted down and killed and murdered. They were competing with other money lenders and these other competitors gave huge loans to the inquisitions, think of the genesis of the insurance industry and how it's bathed in blood - wars started for no reason, the English empire carving through the middle east and splitting the people up to carve them out. Same thing is going on today without religion. When humanity stands in the way of enterprise and profit, it's mass murdered. No religion involved. Just pure modern godless greed. aka, people.

To be honest, religious leaders were kind of like WWF wrestlers. They were there to get the masses to do what the secular atheistic king wanted. He was obviously atheistic if he didn't fear hell enough not to torture and kill. Maybe the religious zealous thought they were doing something good but the king just wanted to get a rub.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I dont think that religion should intrude on the political sphere, religion is not to do with the temporal, its to do with the spiritual and incorporeal. I wish that there was some sort of proper fire wall between those things. Seriously. I think there is no way at all that religion straying into the political and temporal does not end in corruption of the kind that's come out globally with the abuse of power by the priesthood. Theocracies is another different kind of thing, I see that happening where is a simultaneous failure in politics and corrupt/worldly religious authorities.

With the last Pope's advice on politics, which explicitly rules out any sort of so called "political catholicism" completely and finally I had hoped this was finally settled.

A lot of this is still "religion at its worst", at its best religion was the force that salvaged Germany from the wreckage of WW2 through things like the creation of the Christian Democrats.

Call me skeptical on achieving this.
The problem is that religion and politics very nicely fit into each other and often they deal with identical real life problems, pretty much all religions have some kind of "to do list" of how you should live and what is good. What is pure politics and therefore spill is inevitable even if the country isn't a theocracy (what is the model where religion and politics are the same thing). Saying that a woman shouldn't be stoned because she left her house without the company of her husband is fundamentally a political statement and separating this politics from religion without winners and losers is basically impossible.


On the other hand you have my local situation, the church is fairly involved in politics a by good margin that is because it is afraid that the state will turn on them again. Since the first time that resulted in mass killings of priests and nuns without any real trial, torture and poisoning of the arch-bishop, bulldozing and demolition of churches and sending to prison and camps people who have Christmas tree at home for Christmas. Plus there are still high ranking MPs that even today say that the job isn't finished properly. Which is why I see the concept "the world without religion" as something that is much more than just pure speculation.


State and religion overlap too much in interests that they can be truly separated in their fields of impact.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, but the catch is that if evolution is real then religions got many things quite wrong. What then means that the holy books that are the word of God aren't fully true, and that is a serious logical issue. Today people take from religion whatever they like but cherry picking isn't really how this game should be played. (in my book) The issue here isn't about is there a need for God but are all those stories real. What is pretty big since religion spills into politics on regular basis. Therefore if the the foundation is wrong that means that politics needs to be remade as well. Things are much more complicated than believing or not believing, since the physical consequences are involved. If evolution is real theocracies around the world have to be removed pretty much without a second thought, especially violent ones. What then opens the question of who will do this ........

Also that 90% is questionable because religion has the tendency to create dependent mindset at young age. So it is questionable how things would look like without this factor.

This is one reason why it is especially important to teach children critical thinking, from as early an age as they are able to understand and apply it.

There is nothing wrong with all those religious stories as long as one takes them figuratively and not literally. They cannot explain the nature of the physical world, but can illustrate fundamental subjective principles involving morality, the meaning of life, etc. We see value in Aesop's Fables, for example, without worrying whether a tortoise and hare actually ran a race together. The two problems I see with religions today are thus: (1) expecting and claiming historical or scientific veracity out of their mythologies; and (2) insisting that they are the only correct or true way. The nature of subjective truths are that they are not unique, and can and will vary from person to person, or religious group to group.

 

[ceecee]

Not to mention the money lenders involved. The early banking cartels that played sides and put tremendous amount of power into the most evil hands. That's how the crusaders were hunted down and killed and murdered. They were competing with other money lenders and these other competitors gave huge loans to the inquisitions, think of the genesis of the insurance industry and how it's bathed in blood - wars started for no reason, the English empire carving through the middle east and splitting the people up to carve them out. Same thing is going on today without religion. When humanity stands in the way of enterprise and profit, it's mass murdered. No religion involved. Just pure modern godless greed. aka, people.

Of course. Very little has changed on this topic even 1000+ years on. We are no more evolved, I don't anticipate we ever will be until there is a global movement for changes. One of two countries, even this one, make little to no difference.

 

[Lark]

Call me skeptical on achieving this.
The problem is that religion and politics very nicely fit into each other and often they deal with identical real life problems, pretty much all religions have some kind of "to do list" of how you should live and what is good. What is pure politics and therefore spill is inevitable even if the country isn't a theocracy (what is the model where religion and politics are the same thing). Saying that a woman shouldn't be stoned because she left her house without the company of her husband is fundamentally a political statement and separating this politics from religion without winners and losers is basically impossible.


On the other hand you have my local situation, the church is fairly involved in politics a by good margin that is because it is afraid that the state will turn on them again. Since the first time that resulted in mass killings of priests and nuns without any real trial, torture and poisoning of the arch-bishop, bulldozing and demolition of churches and sending to prison and camps people who have Christmas tree at home for Christmas. Plus there are still high ranking MPs that even today say that the job isn't finished properly. Which is why I see the concept "the world without religion" as something that is much more than just pure speculation.


State and religion overlap too much in interests that they can be truly separated in their fields of impact.

I think people may try to create a world without religion but, as you say, its been tried before and it wasnt any better.

The kinds of religion that practice the sorts of things you are talking about and propose that the religious laws, which properly should only apply to believers, and the secular laws, should be the same and should apply to everyone, believer and non-believer alike, are absolutely and totally bad religions. They are worldly and will always be threatened by extinction, I think properly so, but if you believe that a religion contains any sort of truth, for this life or the afterlife, you're going to want to be worried, or at least concerned, about its extinction and practice accordingly.

That doesnt mean compromising your own values but does realise that those values apply to yourself primarily and to other believers who share you creed, secondly (I will be honest, its a distant, distant second), and finally they do no apply to non-believers. If their actions are offensive to God then God will deal with them and he will not appoint anyone to do so in his stead. If they are, as is more likely, simply offensive to believers, well, and I'm totally serious about this, believers are going to have to discover a way to cope or what possible learning there could be for them in this. Seriously. Confucious said that if you met a righteous and a wicked man while out walking it was important to be aware that both had something to teach you, the former as an example of how you should wish to behave, the later as an example of how you should not wish to behave. He did not say the wicked should cease to exist and violence was the best remedy on that front.

A lot of the laws within religions which persist in causing conflict between believers and non-believers I really, really do believe are cultural as opposed to actually religious, that does not make it less of a problem or an issue but I think its an important distinction to make when you are sitting in judgement of religion per se.

Fundamentally, I think religious laws and strictures apply to believers, most of the time the believers fall far short of them, and some of the time the attempts to persecute others who are falling short in some way is a total and utter deflection from their own conduct. This in itself is reason enough to believe there should be a hard and fast and permanent separation between religion and state and that the law has not a religious basis and applies to all religious and non-religious equally, so if you are committing violence against a person you will be prosecuted for breaking the law, your motivation doesnt matter.

As a believer I think this is important, if people conform to a rule simply because it is "the law of the land", they have not demonstrated faith of any sort. They have simply kept mans laws to avoid the negative consequences. However, if they have kept mans laws, then have chosen also, as a matter of private conscience, to keep God's laws, without broadcasting to anyone that is what they are doing, and succeeded, then they are exceptional as opposed to merely good. That should be the goal of believers, for themselves, and by example, other believers and possibly eventually non-believers but instituting their own rules of conduct as "the law of the land", its then impossible to tell imposter from believer.

 

[Lark]

Of course. Very little has changed on this topic even 1000+ years on. We are no more evolved, I don't anticipate we ever will be until there is a global movement for changes. One of two countries, even this one, make little to no difference.

By global movement for changes, I'm not sure what you mean, if you mean a popularisation of certain ideas, perhaps that's right.

On the other hand if you simply mean that if enough people band together and elect people to office who create prohibitive and coercive anti-religious or irreligious laws as part of a culture kampf then its just a perpetuation of what's already been going on for thousands of years. It is not something that I believe will ever be settled by superiority in numbers and that ought to be evident enough from the history that's already passed.

It is interesting, and I think a useful point, that mankind has developed in incredible days, industrialism, technology etc. but has not changed much themselves. I would agree that that is a problem. Mankind has much but still remains to be very much. Having and being modes of existence is a huge issue.

Neither religion nor its rivals have done much about that, of the individuals who are enlightened and sort of ahistorical, perennial wise sorts, there's been a handful, if even that, in human history, some of them, if the stories are true, had supernatural assistance or where born of God themselves, so, arguably, not even human. Although that's another topic altogether.