Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Religion->Survival

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

So my Christian roommate challenged me to find articles, information, scientific articles, anything that is comprehensive, although I particularly mentioned philosophical works to him (and thats what I would prefer if possible) that basically states that religion is not the best survival tool mankind has ever known, at which point I stated that the comment was extremely debatable. He challenged me to find something that encompassed ALL religion as he stated "not just Christianity, even the non-altruistic ones". My first thought was Nietzsche as he suggested it was a tool no longer needed via "god is dead" and that now it is largely detrimental and a new morality must be found. However he focuses primarily on Christianity and Buddhism. Mind you we had a short, light discussion on this and in essence he is a strong believer that his position is the case because when he was younger he states Christianity essentially stopped him from committing suicide.

Now he is fairly logical as far as believers go, he understands the bible is fallible etc, he is a non-institutionalized (i.e. anti-papacy) catholic farm kid that goes to the local Thomas Aquinas church and essentially says that his conscience is the final arbiter and will help him make the right decisions along with what he knows (or believes he can logically know, yes makes no sense but again, he's a believer) of what god would want him to do.

We get along well and this is purely an intellectual thing, but I would really like to destroy him on this challenge. If anyone could help me out with this I would appreciate it. Besides, I am interested myself in this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my Christian roommate challenged me to find articles, information, scientific articles, anything that is comprehensive, although I particularly mentioned philosophical works to him (and thats what I would prefer if possible) that basically states that religion is not the best survival tool mankind has ever known...

In order to prove this point, all you need do is find another tool that supports survival better than religion. That tool is reason. Surely you can demonstrate the superiority of reason as opposed to mysticism for survival on this earth without arguing from authority. The only arguments religion has that make it even remotely coherent are those referring to existence after or somehow 'outside' of life on earth. If he will accept nothing other than authoritative works, then you have already lost the challenge, as he can simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the authors you present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he states Christianity essentially stopped him from committing suicide.

I've heard other people who gain or reaffirm their faith with situations like this. I would ask him what in Christianity made him stop it and why this is a good thing. Most people look back upon something like that and think: "Holy crap, I almost..." They have gained a greater understanding of the value of life since that event. Most likely, they will look at the thing that pushed them towards the right direction and think it to be the embodiment of life, but it isn't necessarily so.

In an emergency situation, you don't need a completely integrated rational philosophy, anything that will keep you from committing the horrific error is enough. Religion is fundamentally crap, but it has some good out of context commandments (I'm sure one of these is what stopped him).

As for your debate, you should boil it down to the what religion essentially is, i.e. faith, and contrast that with its antipode, i.e. reason. Reason is your only means of survival. Faith is just accepting crap for no damn reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my Christian roommate challenged me to find . . . that religion is not the best survival tool mankind has ever known . . . and in essence he is a strong believer that his position is the case because when he was younger he states Christianity essentially stopped him from committing suicide.

He needs to prove religion IS the best tool for human survival if that's what he's putting forward as true, not shift the burden of proof on to you to just prove it isn't. If so far his only argument in favor of religion being the best tool for the survival of humanity is that, well, because of religion he didn't commit suicide, then I'd just point out how many people HAVE committed suicide BECAUSE of religion. That's not even counting suicides where religion indirectly influenced it, or murders done where there was a religious motivation, or other kinds of armed conflicts with religious motivation where people died. There are even numerous religions where there are people considered saints or something similar, people to aspire to be like, because the person died for some religious reason somehow, either being crucified for other people's sins supposedly (Christianity, though they also say other people shouldn't have to do what he did and that he's supposed to have not stayed dead), or refusing self defense when somebody tries to kill them (a Russian variant of Christianity I believe it was has this one), or just getting so detached and uncaring about anything you just quit bothering to eat until you starve to death (I think that was one of the early high up holy people for Janism). And those are just a couple I know off the top of my head without really researching the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He challenged me to find something that encompassed ALL religion as he stated "not just Christianity, even the non-altruistic ones".

There's such a thing as a non-altruistic religion?

Your friend has asked the impossible because he's basically asking you to produce a shortcut that reduces complex abstract knowledge to the perceptual--he is being concrete-bound in an extremely obnoxious way AND demanding that YOU be as well when you should know by now that the concrete-bound approach does not work and is no way for a human being to exercise their rational faculty. Statistical representations ARE used in first forming principles and then illustrating the operations of those principles, but the principle-forming process consists of ANALYZING that statistical data and figuring out WHY it came about.

You are and should be interested in causal relationships, while your friend is just looking for correlations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is a strong believer that his position is the case because when he was younger he states Christianity essentially stopped him from committing suicide.

Just because A->B does not preclude C->B. Religion may well have stopped him, but that does not mean that reason wouldn't have been an equally or more powerful deterrent, his own rational self-interest would equally have stopped him from committing suicide.

Also, by offering such a utilitarian defence of religion, your friend is essentially conceding the argument. he is admitting that Christianity is a sham, but simply asserting that it is a helpful falsehood. All you have to do is prove that "ignorance is bliss" is not conducive to long-term survival and denying the reality will never help you deal with it.

Religion and tribalism may have contributed to survival of the species in the past, when times were tougher, but we do not need this anymore. Reason gave us everything we use for our day to day survival. Religion did not generate the industrial revolution, it did not give us more productive agriculture etc. We did not develop airplanes on the basis of a belief that they would fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's such a thing as a non-altruistic religion?

In theory, Judaism is such a religion. Its main non-theological commandment is that one should love his neighbor in the same way he loves himself. That is to say, the moral code is equal for all. One does not put his neighbor ahead of himself, nor does one put himself ahead of his neighbor. Right is right for all.

R. Hillel put the matter succinctly: He said:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?

R. Hillel, Perke Avot I-15

In the Babylonian Talmud, self defense is not only justified, it is commanded:

San Hedrin 72a - If he comes to murder you, rise up early and a slay him first.

In a dispute between R. Akiva and R. Ben Petura the famous problem of two men who have only enough water (they are in the desert) for one to survive. What to do? Ben Petura says both will perish. Akiva differed. He said let them decide by lot or by combat, but two should not perish when only one must. Akiva won that debate.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion and tribalism may have contributed to survival of the species in the past, when times were tougher, but we do not need this anymore.

You might want to rethink this statement; religion may well have helped perpetuate the existence of certain societies, but it has never been something that humans needed for survival. Has there ever been a religious society that could have survived without the guilty contributions of their more practical, productive, and sinful neighbors? In the beginning, religion may well have been a more or less legitimate attempt to understand the world, but they would have done themselves, and us, a favor by avoiding the mystical, authoritative aspects which took it out of the realm of science and reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, Judaism is such a religion. Its main non-theological commandment is that one should love his neighbor in the same way he loves himself. That is to say, the moral code is equal for all. One does not put his neighbor ahead of himself, nor does one put himself ahead of his neighbor. Right is right for all.

R. Hillel put the matter succinctly: He said:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?

R. Hillel, Perke Avot I-15

In the Babylonian Talmud, self defense is not only justified, it is commanded:

San Hedrin 72a - If he comes to murder you, rise up early and a slay him first.

In a dispute between R. Akiva and R. Ben Petura the famous problem of two men who have only enough water (they are in the desert) for one to survive. What to do? Ben Petura says both will perish. Akiva differed. He said let them decide by lot or by combat, but two should not perish when only one must. Akiva won that debate.

Bob Kolker

I believe this is what I was hinting at as well. While I haven't read it in awhile I believe The Antichrist made lightly similar suggestion that Judaism was more commendable than the majority of religions and he contrasted it a decent bit with Christianity in his own odd Nietzchean way. I also feel like I remember him stating that he also preferred buddhism in contrast to Christianity, while it had its own issues I believe he said it wasn't nearly as tainted by the "slave morality". I believe this is what my roommate is referring to as he is lightly familiar with Objectivism and this comment of his was after I had sent him The Antichrist for some food for thought randomly as I was busy that day and so on.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it non-altruistic to value strangers equally with yourself?

Rectitude for me and Rectitude for him is the same Rectitude.

I respect his property, he respects mine. I respect his property because I respect my property

I respect his life, he respects mine. I respect his life because I respect my own.

The standards of right and wrong are the same for all.

Which means none sacrifices himself for other, nor does any one sacrifice others for himself.

See if this echoes with: I swear by my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of another man nor will I ask any man to live for mine. Sound familiar? I took that oath long before I read a single word written by Ayn Rand.

There is a story told by the Rabbis. A gentile strange comes to Jerusalem and asks to learn what the Torah is. He meets up with Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Hillel tells the strange to stand on one leg. During the time the stranger is able to balance on one leg, the Rabbi tells him what you consider evil when done to you, don't do to another. That is what the Torah is about. And there is the very same principle told in anectdotal form.

Now take the Torah and shake out any theological nonsense belonging to the Bronze Age and what you have left is a non-altruistic moral code.

L'chayim!

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...