From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?

Author: Critical-Tim
Society
Morality
Religion
Atheism
Materialism

Posts

Total: 103
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well.

Notwithstanding that most popular religions are the antithesis of materialism. (Materialism as described)


A materialist would say that religion, as in a ritual devotion to a super-natural deity is unnecessary.

Therefore human society would function without such religions, just as human society functions with such religions.


So, would society be less factional without religion?

Probably not.

I would suggest that the main driving force of factionalism and conflict is still Nationalism.

Though it must be said that nationalism is still compounded by religion in certain societies.


I would further suggest that previously, religion was the foundation of intellectual development, and so in that context religion was necessary.

Whereas today and in the future, intellectual and technological development will be more dependant upon science.


As I see things, technology and global technological communication is the new global materialistic religion and social re-educator.

Nonetheless, species evolution is much slower than material and technological evolution, so whilst old religious data still remains, it will no doubt continue to be transferred.

Though there is also A.I. to consider when discussing the future.

Will A.I. rely upon logic or emotion?




#32
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that a society's religion is dominantly responsible for its success?
It's not my belief, it's what many intelectualls point to, like Niall Ferguson in his book Civilization. It's not the only variable for success, but it's indeed important because it forges values and a certain attitude in people which can be decisive for any society's progress.

Do you think it is or isn't important for the religion to be based in truth, and why?
It's not about truth but interpretations. Maybe the creators of religions didnt intend to lie but to explain the world from their point of view which can look idiotic today. Christianity for example is based on how the followers of Jesus interpreted his words. It doesn't matter the stories and interpretations but how these stories have inspired people to live and thrive.

Do you then believe that Judaism is better than Christianity, which is better than Islam? By what metric did you evaluate?
Correlation between religion (differetiating between sects) and social/economic indicators. The advanced societies are western Europe and the US (protestantism), Israel (judaism) and eastern asia (buddhism). Things are changing for bad, of course, with all this woke culture (marxism which is atheist) but that's another story.

Everyone should understand, by the way, that the collective mindset in a country comes basically from the religion these people profess.

Do you then believe that Christianity provides something Atheism lacks, and what exactly?
As I said, Christianity has inspired people, it's what motivates them to thrive. However, I think Christianity is getting more unbearable today as a belief because people are more educated and the new generations are more critical.

As to atheism, it's just the expression of what I was saying, that Christianity is unbearable as a belief. Atheism doesn't provide anything in change.

Can you describe the new age movement and whether you believe it captures what religion has that you believe science lacks?
You said that religions are being slowly replaced by more secular beliefs, would you elaborate?
I would love to elaborate but I don't have time. There is a thread that I opened about it in the religion forum, you can check it out.

Do you think science could become a religion if people choose to believe in science?
Science is not a religion and will never be so. It's true that people nowadays believe blindly in what scientists say, but it's not a religion because it doesn't have the sociocultural component religions have.
Topic's author
#33
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think then that religion is just a further dividing point of society past nationalism?
Do you think for a society to be unified it must be united against or towards a common idea?
Do you then think it is possible that if society were united toward something and against something else that it would further compound society's unity?
Do you think if those points of unity would be what religion, politics, and nationalism have always provided in the past?
Do you think that without religion or nationalism to divide us, and having provided a common good and evil to unify us, that humanity to unify as a species around the world?

Topic's author
#34
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
Do you then believe that a society's religion is dominantly responsible for its success?
It's not my belief, it's what many intelectualls point to, like Niall Ferguson in his book Civilization. It's not the only variable for success, but it's indeed important because it forges values and a certain attitude in people which can be decisive for any society's progress.
If you believe it then you believe it, I was asking if you believed it and why. Though, I'm glad you provided some further context. Do you think perhaps religion cultivates a common good and evil for society to unify and progress?

Do you think it is or isn't important for the religion to be based in truth, and why?
It's not about truth but interpretations. Maybe the creators of religions didnt intend to lie but to explain the world from their point of view which can look idiotic today. Christianity for example is based on how the followers of Jesus interpreted his words. It doesn't matter the stories and interpretations but how these stories have inspired people to live and thrive.
Do you believe that whether religion is based on truth does not matter, but what matters is how it inspires people?

Do you then believe that Judaism is better than Christianity, which is better than Islam? By what metric did you evaluate?
Correlation between religion (differetiating between sects) and social/economic indicators. The advanced societies are western Europe and the US (protestantism), Israel (judaism) and eastern asia (buddhism). Things are changing for bad, of course, with all this woke culture (marxism which is atheist) but that's another story.

Everyone should understand, by the way, that the collective mindset in a country comes basically from the religion these people profess.
Specifically what social and economic indicators do you believe suggest certain religions are better than others?

Do you then believe that Christianity provides something Atheism lacks, and what exactly?
As I said, Christianity has inspired people, it's what motivates them to thrive. However, I think Christianity is getting more unbearable today as a belief because people are more educated and the new generations are more critical.

As to atheism, it's just the expression of what I was saying, that Christianity is unbearable as a belief. Atheism doesn't provide anything in change.
Are you saying education is driving people from their religious beliefs toward atheism, implicating that atheism is more intelligent, but also indicating that Atheism lacks the unity that Christianity provided, which will cause society to weaken?

Can you describe the new age movement and whether you believe it captures what religion has that you believe science lacks?
You said that religions are being slowly replaced by more secular beliefs, would you elaborate?
I would love to elaborate but I don't have time. There is a thread that I opened about it in the religion forum, you can check it out.
I just might do that. I haven't been active in the religious section because I believed there would be a lack of decency and logical reasoning in the forums, but I see how there is importance in understanding religion from a pragmatic view of societal progress.

Do you think science could become a religion if people choose to believe in science?
Science is not a religion and will never be so. It's true that people nowadays believe blindly in what scientists say, but it's not a religion because it doesn't have the sociocultural component religions have.
I believe I understand, science lacks the unification power that traditional religions have, including the fear and power of an afterlife.
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you think it possible that there would be more scientists who are more evidentially basing their research and less people claiming that knowledge is ineffable 
Yes
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
There would be more abortions, more sinning, more adultery. Religion exists because religion prevents sin. Remove religion, you also remove the purpose it played.
You’re putting the cart before the horse. Sin is a concept born out of religion, so the purpose of religion cannot be to remove sin.

Also, I think you have it backwards on adultery. Religion isn’t what stops people from cheating, it just takes the credit for it. Truth is it’s basic human nature to want what you are told you can’t have, so it’s likely that religion is actually feeding into people’s propensity to cheat. Without religion it would be up to us as individuals to restrain ourselves so we would respect it more, and those of us who can’t stay true to one person would have no reason to avoid seeking out open relationships now that we don’t have the imaginary arbiter of our actions in the sky to worry about.
#37
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't think that materialism automatically means no religion.

I've a pretty wide and vague definition of religion, so I imagine many religions will still be around,
Still, even the religions 'you might be meaning,
I expect will still be around.
. .
I don't know about 'size,
But I don't see the 'religion as too much at fault there,
Certain ideas just get popular, or not.
. .
Not 'so many worshippers of Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, I think,
'Still there are some.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I'm unsure what constitutes a better society and civilization,
I'm a bit torn between various ideas,
Still, I think it would be good if citizenship was a voluntary decision made later in life,
So some focus on freedom, I suppose.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some religions have been crappy, some anti religions have been crappy.
Still, . . . How to view this practically. . .
Could assume we are given the choice of a new civilization,
Or hope of what a civilization might have turned into,
But if we go with the second scenario, atheist or religious, I find it easy to think of a good outcome 'somewhere,
. .
My concern with the 'new civilization, is people will adopt 'something,
Some laws, creed, values, religious or not,
And as my definition of religion is wide and vague. . . Mm. . Anyway I don't know.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't know if society would be better, if everyone was the same Religion,
It would probably be healthy to at least have an overlap of Values, Violent conflict otherwise,
. .
It is good to have many ideas in a society,
But some key Features 'must be assumed, Religious or not.

If all Atheist, well even Atheists disagree with one another,
It's more important to have the overlap of values/features,
Than the tag of Religious or Atheist I think,
. .
Religious Person 1 says help each other, Religious Person 2 says harm other,
Atheist Person 1 says harm each other, Atheist Person 2 says harm other,
I think many would see the value of help or harming, more important than the Religious or Atheist tag,
Though not 'all, some might see the other Religious/Atheist Person's Help/Harm as something to suffer through until there are no more Religious/Atheists, 'Then to go after the people who disagree on Help/Harm.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some religions have been crappy, some atheists have been crappy,
Whether they burn people for supposedly being a witch, (Though it's more nuanced than that)
Or they guillotine people for being religious.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Plenty of religious people were into science,
Plenty of Science made great headway thanks to religious individuals and organizations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Religious person values Z,
Religious person see's that many people are Y, suggests that by doing X, less people might be Y.
Analyzes how many people might be Y by action of doing X,
Does X if he thinks less people will be Y if he does X,
See's results, encourages or discourages X action.

'Thoughtful, I'd call a key feature.
Plenty of philosophy and religion say we value X for this or that reason,
How might we promote X?
Then test and think on various ways.
I don't think science and religion 'must be at odds.
Topic's author
#38
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
I don't think that materialism automatically means no religion.
I never suggested materialism excluded religion. If a religion was rooted in metaphysical concepts of the world I believe a person could be both materialist and considered religious.

I don't know if society would be better, if everyone was the same Religion,
It would probably be healthy to at least have an overlap of Values, Violent conflict otherwise,
. .
It is good to have many ideas in a society,
But some key Features 'must be assumed, Religious or not.
Do you then believe that having a unified belief in science or religion would cultivate a more peaceful society?


Religious Person 1 says help each other, Religious Person 2 says harm other,
Atheist Person 1 says harm each other, Atheist Person 2 says harm other,
I think many would see the value of help or harming, more important than the Religious or Atheist tag,
Though not 'all, some might see the other Religious/Atheist Person's Help/Harm as something to suffer through until there are no more Religious/Atheists, 'Then to go after the people who disagree on Help/Harm
Do you then believe religion has little to do with the conflict among individuals?

I don't think science and religion 'must be at odds.
Why do you believe this? Is not religion a belief of faith in something not seen and science a belief in what is evident? Would this not then lead to a natural conflict of inerests?
#39
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I'm unsure if unified beliefs in science or religion would have a unified effect,

I want to say that different ideas, keep each other in check a bit,
Can 'grow societies as ideas improve,
Having 'nothing to push against, strive against, perhaps one becomes slack, lax, lazy, weak in muscle, mind, and meaning.
Maybe.
. . . . . . . .

There's also societies I think we would consider unified in ideas, yet 'still they have conflict,
Let's say there is a city,
Let's assume the people in the city are much the same,
Yet 'still people compete,
Gangs, even when of same background, often fight.
. .
One might say gangs aren't 'normal society,
But even nations of similar beliefs will fight,
Though unite, against an outsider often.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I think religion 'can have much to do with conflict,
But the causes of conflict isn't something I've studied much.
. .
Resources, Tribalism,
I might rate more highly than religion, as causes of war.

Religion is just 'one label,
People have many labels,
Many items to find in common or uncommon.
Even the uncommon, if it is not 'vital value, not always important to people.
. .
One doesn't always like outsiders encroaching on living space,
But people could be of same religion, religion might not matter if people value something else too, such as tribe, or genetics.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I believe that I have read of 'many religious individual, systems, groups,
Who have added to science over the years,
Who have examined and promoted their own faiths from logical arguments.

When Jesus speaks the Parable of the Fields,
Or Mencius of Ox Mountain,
. .
Is this not 'observation of what we can see? Of evidence, logic, experience?

There 'can be a conflict of interests,
Doesn't mean there 'has to be.

"Bacon was a devout Anglican. He believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Information about God's attributes (such as nature, action, and purposes) can only come from special revelation. Bacon also held that knowledge was cumulative, that study encompassed more than a simple preservation of the past. "Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate," he wrote. In his Essays, he affirms that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."[50]


#40
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why do you believe this? Is not religion a belief of faith in something not seen and science a belief in what is evident? Would this not then lead to a natural conflict of inerests?
Yes, one of the smartest humans, Albert Einstein said: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
#41
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
#42
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Lemming
Yes, it says: When asked for more precise responses in 1954, Einstein replied: "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. [...] As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws." William Miller of Life Magazine who was present at this meeting described Einstein as looking like a "living saint" and speaking with "angelic indifference."
This was one year before Einstein died, which is also the year of the Einstein quote I listed.
#43
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Lemming
Stephen Hawking said before he died in 2018: "It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. But there’s a sense in which we live on, in our influence, and in our genes that we pass on to our children. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful."
#44
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Eh, Albert Einstein said a lot of things.

"I am not an atheist"

"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 

Einstein said people can call him an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."


Admittedly I am cherry picking here,
But I do this only to disagree with the post, that to 'me reads,
This smart guy said something against religion,
You should be against religion too.

I think there's more nuance to it,
I use Bacon as an example of how science and religion can coincide within an individual respected for their intellectual achievements,
#40 sounds more an appeal to authority.

Though it is very possible, I am mistaken in my view of #40.
#45
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Lemming
You have to look at the timeline of Einstein's statements.  “I am not an Atheist,” he said in an interview published in 1930.
He said: The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, in 1954
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Even for the not being an atheist remark,
Which I sarcastically truncated,
There's more nuance to it.

'Throughout his life, he made negative and positive comments towards religion,
The quote you use in #45 is not some 'new revelation of his views,
But one in the vein of many others he made throughout life.

Yet he also included positive statements towards religion on life,
If he has said something positive in his last words, then 10 seconds later followed it with something negative,
I can imagine you saying, "Oh! his last words were somewhat negative towards religion. Einstein Hates religion!"

Ignoring how 'many of his comments in history 'specifically disagreeing with the 'personal god aspect of religion.
#47
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
God has a message for you.


Maybe hearing God's words will change your mind about God.
#48
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea


When AI takes over I don't think they are going to like your post.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
In America, the government is the religion with 2 sects of cult followers.
Topic's author
#50
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
Eh, Albert Einstein said a lot of things.
"I am not an atheist"
"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 
Do you believe it's reasonable that Einstein meant what he said at the time that he said it and that his beliefs changed throughout the course of his life as all humans learn and develop? This would bring significance towards when Einstein said it being before his death, thereby indicating it was his most developed and evolved thought. Perhaps his thoughts were in vain and perhaps not. Ultimately, we should take it upon our own responsibility to understand what we believe rather than relying on someone who we believe to be more logical than ourselves.
#51
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe it doesn't really matter 'much, except as a point of style, to quote Einstein, in the particular way that FLRW did it.

I don't believe that appeal to authority is a 'fallacy,
I view it as a practical 'small weight added to the scale an individual uses to gauge questions.
. . .

Jah, Einstein might have changed his mind throughout life,
People do,
But 'Throughout his life, he made negative and positive comments towards religion,
The quote used in #45 is not some 'new revelation of his views,
But one in the vein of many others he made throughout life.
. . .

I like quotes,
They are 'stylish, speak well thoughts we have.

I used a lot in one of my dueling debates,
Many of the quotes were by fictional villains,
But since I used their words, well, I needed to say whom I was quoting, lest I seem to be claiming the words original works of my own.

If one looked close to the people 'quoted, might cause some voters to vote against me,
But bah, I like those quotes I used.
Stylish.
Topic's author
#52
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
I too enjoy quotes, they're typically short and to the point, and a primary source of an author's words. Thank you for further explaining your thoughts.
#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
A lot to think about.

I would suggest that we are united as a species, but factionalised by past events and inherited data. So in the event of a hypothetical global catastrophe we would unite in a common aim but nonetheless from multiple standpoints.

This I think, is the status quo that cannot be improved upon, unless there is a total global agreement to re-engineer and/or re-programme the human species.
And I can't see this happening, even post-catastrophe.

Quite simply, if you put two people in a room they will disagree about something. And similarly if you put two people in a room, one will inevitably dominate the other.

That is why I always suggest that the only way forwards in respect of material evolution is A.I. This is assuming that material evolution is the universal objective, wherein species unity is not a necessary objective.

Which is not to say that technological development to a greater extent does not rely upon species cooperation. But nonetheless, cooperation rather than unity.


#54
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
True.
#55
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
If you believe it then you believe it, I was asking if you believed it and why. Though, I'm glad you provided some further context. Do you think perhaps religion cultivates a common good and evil for society to unify and progress?
Religion is a complex subject like any cultural expression of mankind, like arts, literature, music, etc. I'd say religion sets the way humanity sees the world and depending on that society can progress or get stuck.

It's not a theory of mine, by the way. Max Webber stated that capitalism has its roots in protestantism, which means not all Christianity churches are the same. That would explain why latinamerica (where I come from) is fucking stuck, specially for the Franciscan order whose mindset is very marxist.

Do you believe that whether religion is based on truth does not matter, but what matters is how it inspires people?
I wouldnt say truth but facts. Religions are not based on facts but faith.

Specifically what social and economic indicators do you believe suggest certain religions are better than others?
There are many indicators everybody knows that tell us that, like the GDP per capita, gini.coefficient, happiness index, etc.

Are you saying education is driving people from their religious beliefs toward atheism, implicating that atheism is more intelligent, but also indicating that Atheism lacks the unity that Christianity provided, which will cause society to weaken?
Education means well informed, not more intelligent.

But yes, atheism lacks this human spirit that societies need to endure.


#56
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
IMO, this is the crux of the matter— there is a void that needs to be filled. We humans are emotional beings, and the world has limited resources. It’s not just “could there be” or “if” so much as other things will fill the void, and it will not be something so lofty as “pure reason and logic” or “pure love, compassion, and selflessness.” We can see this in history. One of the most straightforward examples, the Soviet Union, showed that other systems or “isms” will inevitably fill the void if religion is eradicated. In that case, statism was the replacement with the state serving as the deity demanding worship, if you will.

Various “isms” can fill the void I believe, and it can be various overlapping ones of various categories:  humanism, socialism, capitalism, hedonism, nationalism, scientism, objectivism, imperialism, environmentalism, postmodernism, etc. etc. I believe that which one a person or society aligns with most coincides with where a person or society is on the human hierarchy of needs. The more one’s basic needs are met, the more one will tend toward humanism, environmentalism, or hedonism, for examples. The less their needs are met, the more they will tend toward socialism, Marxism or communism.

Some of these philosophies can also accompany existing religious thought. The US is largely religious but still abides by capitalism and classical liberalism. And, some might argue, colonialism and imperialism. Communism is just about the only one which seems to require a lack of belief in a deity.

So, I figure the trick is to pick the most favorable combination of “isms” to “worship.”
Topic's author
#57
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
I suppose the most complicated part of this hypothesis would be deciding which would be the most favorable. Would you say that they should be determined based on a majority vote?

#58
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
By asking cristo71 to make a value judgement about which belief system is most favorable, he must utilize that very system in order to determine that it is best, hence very circular reasoning. Your proposal of majority rule is a product of that same process.

This is just an observation, not a criticism.
#59
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Are you talking about the US? Not really. I wasn’t limiting this to the US, but voting isn’t usually how working philosophies gain traction, with the exception of electing politicians who espouse a certain philosophy upfront.

Again, look at history for clues. Sometimes it happens via revolution, sometimes via social evolution, and sometimes via democratic political processes. Perhaps there are other avenues I haven’t thought of.

My central point is that humans need something to believe in, whether that something is a deity or not.
#60
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
A very relevant observation