What would the world be like without religion?

[meowington]

That's true, and it was a work of fiction, but I once read this fantastic story about a modern day man who is on a tourist guide of China and is time warped back to ancient China, he almost starves before a Taoist travelling monk takes him under is wing and some how can speak to him and understand him. The thing is he discovers that ALL the stories are true, and then some, like witnesses dragons fighting and magical cures etc.

The whole time he's going through all this he's just like WTF is going on here? The narrative, if I remember it right, goes on about the physics, the human mind, some ideas that sound a little like Bishop Berkley's metaphysical idealism.

I am inclined not to believe too many wild claims but there are plenty of good accounts of completely weird crypto-zoology or just totally damnable phenomenon, maybe the cave men did see fire sprites or something and we should just all be thankful those things are a thing of the past

Hah! that's an interesting take on it! I truly love tales, secretely wishing they are true.
Have you seen "Big Fish" by Tim Burton ? one of my favorite movies : there's this grandfather who comes up with all these ludicrous stories...if you haven't : check it out.

Another quote that comes to mind :
“Maybe nothing is completely true, and not even that.” ~ Multatuli
I always keep a door open.

edit : checking out Bishop Berkley. Thx

 

[Coriolis]

It's likely that religion partly is what we invent or invented to explain the unknown.
I recall a hypothetical story by Carl Sagan where he suggested that when cavemen first saw forest fires (caused by lightning for example) they said that the fire itself was an angry fire god. I've always considered that as a very plausible example of how religion comes to be.

That seems plausible to me as well. As we develop the ability to understand the actual causes for what we observe in nature, those spiritual explanations get replaced with scientific ones. I have read that magic is simply what science has not yet been able to explain.

 

[Lark]

Hah! that's an interesting take on it! I truly love tales, secretely wishing they are true.
Have you seen "Big Fish" by Tim Burton ? one of my favorite movies : there's this grandfather who comes up with all these ludicrous stories...if you haven't : check it out.

Another quote that comes to mind :
“Maybe nothing is completely true, and not even that.” ~ Multatuli
I always keep a door open.

edit : checking out Bishop Berkley. Thx

I like Big Fish, I didnt like it at the time but I've come to appreciate it a couple of times I've seen it since.

Berkley's ideas are a bit like the philosophers who talk about the "brains in a tank" idea, like the whole of the world could be a hallucination or hologram and we're all really just "brains in a tank" because Berkley, what I know of him, considers everything to a product of the human mind. Its radically subjective. In some senses absolutely true because who doesnt mediate reality via their brain and mind? On the other hand I dont doubt the existence of an objective ordered reality, cosmos etc. whether humans are here to perceive it or not?

Its all diverting reading.

 

[Lark]

That seems plausible to me as well. As we develop the ability to understand the actual causes for what we observe in nature, those spiritual explanations get replaced with scientific ones. I have read that magic is simply what science has not yet been able to explain.

Any sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic? I think it was Asimov said that, he may have been paraphrasing Tolkein some how.

I dont see as hard and fast a dichotomy between religion and science as all that, although they do deal with different things.

Like I heard Dawkins wrote a book contrasting myths or fantastical explanations for things with the actual scientific explanations to demonstrate what he thought about the scientific explanations being just as much full of wonder and awe as the myths, therefore lets dispense with the myths sort of thing. I read about it in a book of essays by Philip Pullman, who, despite being an atheist himself, is obviously a big fan of fantasy as its how he makes a living. I'm with Pullman, I dont see why such a stark choice exists and is mandated like that.

A lot of the time it seems like a terrible sort of monkey see, monkey do mirroring, this is how the evangelists roll, ergo and therefore, this is how we roll too.

 

[Coriolis]

Any sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic? I think it was Asimov said that, he may have been paraphrasing Tolkein some how.

I dont see as hard and fast a dichotomy between religion and science as all that, although they do deal with different things.

Like I heard Dawkins wrote a book contrasting myths or fantastical explanations for things with the actual scientific explanations to demonstrate what he thought about the scientific explanations being just as much full of wonder and awe as the myths, therefore lets dispense with the myths sort of thing. I read about it in a book of essays by Philip Pullman, who, despite being an atheist himself, is obviously a big fan of fantasy as its how he makes a living. I'm with Pullman, I dont see why such a stark choice exists and is mandated like that.

A lot of the time it seems like a terrible sort of monkey see, monkey do mirroring, this is how the evangelists roll, ergo and therefore, this is how we roll too.

Well, there is a stark dichotomy in the sense that science can explain only the physical world, and religion/spirituality only what is beyond the physical. The human sense of wonder can arise through either pathway of exploration. The highlighted is my perspective as well.

 

[meowington]

Berkley's ideas are a bit like the philosophers who talk about the "brains in a tank" idea, like the whole of the world could be a hallucination or hologram and we're all really just "brains in a tank" because Berkley, what I know of him, considers everything to a product of the human mind. Its radically subjective. In some senses absolutely true because who doesnt mediate reality via their brain and mind? On the other hand I dont doubt the existence of an objective ordered reality, cosmos etc. whether humans are here to perceive it or not?

Very nicely put. Wholeheartedly agree.

I'm with Pullman, I dont see why such a stark choice exists and is mandated like that.

I constantly go back and forth between Dawkins' realism and this kind of romanticism, if that's the right term.

You are a talented poet or rhetorician by the way.

 

[Red Memories]

I feel like a better question could be what would the world be like if...

- All religions respected each other, realizing in reality their roots are often interconnected and related and a different translation of a similar belief?
- All people stopped using religious text taken out of context or mistranslated as an excuse to hate or divide?

As with many things, anything can be turned into something bad if you choose to misuse or abuse it. I do not commend those who abuse religious text, however I've never found science to be a plausible explanation for the world as it is. The system is too complex, unique, and carefully crafted to have just been some bizarre random chance, or a series of evolutions that anywhere between every species on earth would have died. I don't follow. Science can explain many things very well, like how electricity can be used and such, but science cannot explain how the earth and systems somehow came to exist.

 

[cacaia]

I think it should also be stated here that, at one point in time, religion served to explain un-explainable things.
That's how you get these myths about Gods/ Godesses, (For example: Thor, the Norse god of thunder was thought up to explain why thunderstorms happen during a time there was no explanation for it. No human can make it happen, so it must be some sort of divine human, right?).
Myths usually start as explanations of the unknown.
I think it always starts as an inquiry into what it could be. then it evolves into rituals, which eventually, generations later, lose meaning. And by then, people are just doing the rituals "just because". This is when religion takes hold, and can become a twisted, manipulative tool to control others.

 

[Coriolis]

I feel like a better question could be what would the world be like if...

- All religions respected each other, realizing in reality their roots are often interconnected and related and a different translation of a similar belief?
- All people stopped using religious text taken out of context or mistranslated as an excuse to hate or divide?

As with many things, anything can be turned into something bad if you choose to misuse or abuse it. I do not commend those who abuse religious text, however I've never found science to be a plausible explanation for the world as it is. The system is too complex, unique, and carefully crafted to have just been some bizarre random chance, or a series of evolutions that anywhere between every species on earth would have died. I don't follow. Science can explain many things very well, like how electricity can be used and such, but science cannot explain how the earth and systems somehow came to exist.

I can find no plausible explanations in religion for the physical world. We should realize by now that, just because science cannot explain something today does not mean that its origins are non-physical and thus amenable to religious explanation. The beauty of science is that the answers are independent of the observer: each one of us will find the same thing.

I think it should also be stated here that, at one point in time, religion served to explain un-explainable things.
That's how you get these myths about Gods/ Godesses, (For example: Thor, the Norse god of thunder was thought up to explain why thunderstorms happen during a time there was no explanation for it. No human can make it happen, so it must be some sort of divine human, right?).
Myths usually start as explanations of the unknown.
I think it always starts as an inquiry into what it could be. then it evolves into rituals, which eventually, generations later, lose meaning. And by then, people are just doing the rituals "just because". This is when religion takes hold, and can become a twisted, manipulative tool to control others.

Rituals "just because" are meaningless. The best ritual has personal meaning to the practitioner, weaving together layers of symbols that can work instantly to create sacred space in which he/she can explore the higher self, and whatever non-physical entities he/she believes in.

 

[cacaia]

I can find no plausible explanations in religion for the physical world. We should realize by now that, just because science cannot explain something today does not mean that its origins are non-physical and thus amenable to religious explanation. The beauty of science is that the answers are independent of the observer: each one of us will find the same thing.


Rituals "just because" are meaningless. The best ritual has personal meaning to the practitioner, weaving together layers of symbols that can work instantly to create sacred space in which he/she can explore the higher self, and whatever non-physical entities he/she believes in.

Yes. your description of the best ritual is indeed what a ritual should be- it should have MEANING behind it and do psychological good to the person conducting the ritual.
People tend be absent-minded in their celebrations (easter, etc) . They seek no meaning for it all, they just follow along without questioning because their parents do it and their parents' parents, etc. If there is no meaning behind it, why do it? And then it just becomes meaningless and all about selling and corporations making money. Shudder.

 

[Yuurei]

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

 

[Lark]

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

See that's the rub, I think, asking what the world would be like without religion is a mute point as it will always be there and persist so long as humankind is there, it will be consciously or unconsciously reinvented by the people who need it.

Victor Frankl talked about a need or a drive from which religion is produced and said that repressing or suppressing the religious drive or need would only make it come back ten fold and very possibly in a distorted fashion.

Erich Fromm suggested that everyone had a religion, a private religion, it was the discovery of what it was including object(s) of devotion, frame of orientation etc. that could permit the beginnings of a therapeutic relationship.

 

[Yuurei]

See that's the rub, I think, asking what the world would be like without religion is a mute point as it will always be there and persist so long as humankind is there, it will be consciously or unconsciously reinvented by the people who need it.

Victor Frankl talked about a need or a drive from which religion is produced and said that repressing or suppressing the religious drive or need would only make it come back ten fold and very possibly in a distorted fashion.

Erich Fromm suggested that everyone had a religion, a private religion, it was the discovery of what it was including object(s) of devotion, frame of orientation etc. that could permit the beginnings of a therapeutic relationship.

Yeah, I think that’s anoter way you could put it.

 

[Mayflower]

It's already been said but, same crap, different brand.

 

[Virtual ghost]

As with many things, anything can be turned into something bad if you choose to misuse or abuse it. I do not commend those who abuse religious text, however I've never found science to be a plausible explanation for the world as it is. The system is too complex, unique, and carefully crafted to have just been some bizarre random chance, or a series of evolutions that anywhere between every species on earth would have died. I don't follow. Science can explain many things very well, like how electricity can be used and such, but science cannot explain how the earth and systems somehow came to exist.

The origin of universe is still an open issue but creation of chemical elements, planet formation and evolution are pretty well explained in detail. However most people don't have the knowledge or will or opportunity to read texts on such issues.


On the other hand if holy texts are completely true this reality looks really strange for something that is created by almighty loving God. Why this reality fundamentally supports nuclear processes ? Or to push maters further why the Sun as our main source of energy is based on a nuclear energy? Why so many defect and weaknesses in human biology ? Why Neutron stars that can wipe us out in a blink ? What was the logic behind viruses (or asteroids for that matter)? Why is the 99.999999 % of space in this reality at a temperature that is hundreds of degrees below freezing point ? Etc.

 

[Lark]

It's already been said but, same crap, different brand.

Perhaps, I think it is a uniquely modern and western thing to think of religion exclusively in terms of religion at its worst as oppose to religion at its best or even a much more mixed and balanced perspective which is closer to the reality.

When cultures develop that sort of fissure with their past or ambivalence towards it then the results are not good, consider what happened to the Japanese when they choose to liquidate the Samurai during their modernisation crusade in the mistaken belief that all foreign technology etc. were superior to their home grown examples of the same. Bushido and other arts which had civilised and gentrified some seriously violent warlords and unified the country after the period of their history known as the warring states was suppressed only to burst back onto the scene as Japanese fascism when they joined the Axis.

The same thing is happening in the west, its not for nothing that Orwell wrote about whoever controlled the past controlling the future and whoever controlled the present controlled the past.

 

[Oberon]

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.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

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.

Maybe not dead, but not existing in a familiar form.

 

[Population: 1]

We’d have less holidays?

People will always have a religious passion about something. They will worship an item, or an occupation, or even another human being. We live in a vast and mostly incomprehensible universe and that vexes us. If you don’t see purpose in existence then nothing has any real meaning. If nothing has any real meaning you become a ship adrift in a sea of nihilism. People are dangerous enough without having them run about in masses believing existence has no purpose or value.

Organized religion is simply a way to capitalize on people’s need for a semblance of order and meaning and then make them your obedient slaves through this inherent fear of oblivion. It’s a candle to cling to in the darkness.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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.

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.