A world without Religion
Moderator: Moderators
A world without Religion
Post #1Imagine the banishment of all religions in humanity, what and where would humanity go from there? Would Corporatism become our new God, could Science truly give us hope and morals? Just a thought, what could happen if tomorrow no religions, no spiritual guidance, no form whatsoever of preaching would be allowed about any subject possible? What would the world be like? (I am completely neutral about this.)
- ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
Post #11
Can you objectively prove that your life has worth or meaning? Without accepting a premise that leads to the conclusion life has objective worth, I have no reason to care about people's subjective perceptions of their worth if my own subjective perception is that they do not have any.Crazy Ivan wrote:Do you acknowledge a biological wiring in the perception of "worth"? Consider animals that protect their young. Why are you quicker to assume religious beliefs are the origin of that feeling in you, as opposed to that inclination (seeing "worth") having been previously repressed by whatever reason, and religious beliefs simply work as a catalyst in bringing out what is natural?Chaosborders wrote:Such as myself. My beliefs give me a reason to view humans as having objective worth, even if I do not particularly like said human (or would otherwise outright hate said person). Believing they have objective worth allows me to be much more forgiving of their flaws and tolerant of a person doing things I think are stupid or annoying.Lucia wrote: On the other hand, I realize there are people that stop themselves from doing things that could be prejudicial to themselves or those around them because, and only because, of their belief in god. I believe these people are a small minority, but they are still there.
Probably we are indeed a minority, but I bet it would only take a few sociopathic geniuses who despise the rest of humanity to really screw things up for the rest of you.
And whether the inclination towards 'seeing worth' originated with my beliefs or the result of biological wiring is irrelevant to the fact that without religion acting as a catalyst to restore any inclination I might have previously had, it is quite clear that inclination was so deeply repressed in me that I generally considered it irrelevant when deciding on what course of action to take.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #12
Not my contention at all. What CAN be objectively demonstrated is that the PERCEPTION of "worth" is biologically wired, and this is accomplished by simple observation of animal behavior.Chaosborders wrote:Can you objectively prove that your life has worth or meaning?
An elephant doesn't rationalize its instincts... but it still behaves as if its young have "worth", as humans rationalize the behavior, without "religious beliefs" being a factor. And they also "have no reason to care". But seeing as though humans are their own worst enemy, it would seem empathy is tempered with healthy cynicism, which is probably also biologically wired. Not every species is equally relaxed around its own members.Chaosborders wrote:Without accepting a premise that leads to the conclusion life has objective worth, I have no reason to care about people's subjective perceptions of their worth if my own subjective perception is that they do not have any.
If people's natural empathy is repressed, than the sensible course of action is isolating the reason and finding a solution, as opposed to just treating the "symptoms" with "religion".Chaosborders wrote:And whether the inclination towards 'seeing worth' originated with my beliefs or the result of biological wiring is irrelevant to the fact that without religion acting as a catalyst to restore any inclination I might have previously had, it is quite clear that inclination was so deeply repressed in me that I generally considered it irrelevant when deciding on what course of action to take.
- ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
Post #13
Not all people have the same amount of natural empathy. I'd have to try and find the stat in my Social Psych book at home if you wanted specifics, but there is a decent percentage of the population that just doesn't have a lot of empathy. So the reason can often be as simple as "I'm just not wired that way". Further, it is only sensible to find a solution to whatever may be causing empathy to be repressed if empathy is actually viewed as a good thing. For those with more Machiavellian personality types, that would usually be a no.Crazy Ivan wrote:If people's natural empathy is repressed, than the sensible course of action is isolating the reason and finding a solution, as opposed to just treating the "symptoms" with "religion".Chaosborders wrote:And whether the inclination towards 'seeing worth' originated with my beliefs or the result of biological wiring is irrelevant to the fact that without religion acting as a catalyst to restore any inclination I might have previously had, it is quite clear that inclination was so deeply repressed in me that I generally considered it irrelevant when deciding on what course of action to take.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #14
One could argue a "Machiavellian personality type" is one lacking in empathy... but suppose the biochemical pathway of "empathy" is figured out. We know oxytocin has a "bonding" role in many species, and it seems humans as well, given studies associating generosity with that hormone. Are you familiar with this? Does it have any impact in your perspective?Chaosborders wrote:Not all people have the same amount of natural empathy. I'd have to try and find the stat in my Social Psych book at home if you wanted specifics, but there is a decent percentage of the population that just doesn't have a lot of empathy. So the reason can often be as simple as "I'm just not wired that way". Further, it is only sensible to find a solution to whatever may be causing empathy to be repressed if empathy is actually viewed as a good thing. For those with more Machiavellian personality types, that would usually be a no.
- ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
Post #15
I am familiar with oxytocin and it's role in bonding. But even if the neurological basis for empathy can be established and reproduced, there is still the issue that some people have no reason to view it as a good thing and no reason to want it.Crazy Ivan wrote:One could argue a "Machiavellian personality type" is one lacking in empathy... but suppose the biochemical pathway of "empathy" is figured out. We know oxytocin has a "bonding" role in many species, and it seems humans as well, given studies associating generosity with that hormone. Are you familiar with this? Does it have any impact in your perspective?Chaosborders wrote:Not all people have the same amount of natural empathy. I'd have to try and find the stat in my Social Psych book at home if you wanted specifics, but there is a decent percentage of the population that just doesn't have a lot of empathy. So the reason can often be as simple as "I'm just not wired that way". Further, it is only sensible to find a solution to whatever may be causing empathy to be repressed if empathy is actually viewed as a good thing. For those with more Machiavellian personality types, that would usually be a no.
Perhaps you could elaborate on the point you are trying to make?
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #16
If there's a biochemical pathway, the rationalization one makes around "empathy" (reasons to want it or otherwise) is irrelevant to the point of its origin.Chaosborders wrote:I am familiar with oxytocin and it's role in bonding. But even if the neurological basis for empathy can be established and reproduced, there is still the issue that some people have no reason to view it as a good thing and no reason to want it.
I'm challenging the rationality of the belief that "empathy" can originate strictly from "faith", which is inherently indemonstrable, as opposed to belief in a biochemical pathway, for which there is a body of objective evidence.Chaosborders wrote:Perhaps you could elaborate on the point you are trying to make?
Post #17
I don't know if this is the case for Chaosborders, but some people do attribute the worth of humans almost entirely to the fact that an omniscient creature created them. Therefore, if they didn't believe in said god, they'd see no problem in "disposing" of people that bother them, since other's emotions of even lives would have little value in their eyes.Crazy Ivan wrote:I'm challenging the rationality of the belief that "empathy" can originate strictly from "faith", which is inherently indemonstrable, as opposed to belief in a biochemical pathway, for which there is a body of objective evidence.
[center]
© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.
© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #18
And it seems to me such belief can only be held if one is ignorant of the role of hormones in human behavior, or if one rejects the body of evidence correlating human behavior with hormonal pathways.Lucia wrote:I don't know if this is the case for Chaosborders, but some people do attribute the worth of humans almost entirely to the fact that an omniscient creature created them. Therefore, if they didn't believe in said god, they'd see no problem in "disposing" of people that bother them, since other's emotions of even lives would have little value in their eyes.Crazy Ivan wrote:I'm challenging the rationality of the belief that "empathy" can originate strictly from "faith", which is inherently indemonstrable, as opposed to belief in a biochemical pathway, for which there is a body of objective evidence.
- thatoneguy
- Scholar
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:34 am
- Location: USA
Re: A world without Religion
Post #19Banishment by law: anarchy.BOgg wrote:Imagine the banishment of all religions in humanity, what and where would humanity go from there? Would Corporatism become our new God, could Science truly give us hope and morals? Just a thought, what could happen if tomorrow no religions, no spiritual guidance, no form whatsoever of preaching would be allowed about any subject possible? What would the world be like? (I am completely neutral about this.)
Banishment because people stop believing: at that point human nature would change to a point where I think speculation is just pointless. Are people better educated? How so? Are we taught religion is false or have we all been well-learned in the ways of high-logic? Would enough people care for such teachings to take root? It's just too arbitrary for a good answer.
People instinctively cling to what they believe to be right. Moderation can be taught to an extent, but I honestly believe that for some people that wouldn't matter. How may people take a stance that one has reached rationally and believe it without question? Most, I'd wager. Humanity will always lend itself to fanaticism. It's integral to the way many people function. I don't see how you can separate it and keep humanity the same.
- ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
Post #20
No, it can also be held by one who simply does not care about the role of hormones in human behavior in regard to assigning a philosophical value of worth to someone. I have long accepted that human behavior largely correlates with their hormones. But so what? In what manner does that give me any motivation to value someone else's life?Crazy Ivan wrote:And it seems to me such belief can only be held if one is ignorant of the role of hormones in human behavior, or if one rejects the body of evidence correlating human behavior with hormonal pathways.Lucia wrote:I don't know if this is the case for Chaosborders, but some people do attribute the worth of humans almost entirely to the fact that an omniscient creature created them. Therefore, if they didn't believe in said god, they'd see no problem in "disposing" of people that bother them, since other's emotions of even lives would have little value in their eyes.Crazy Ivan wrote:I'm challenging the rationality of the belief that "empathy" can originate strictly from "faith", which is inherently indemonstrable, as opposed to belief in a biochemical pathway, for which there is a body of objective evidence.
Lucia would be more or less dead on. And I would be a very good example.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis