Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?

[dream_weaver]

 

There were couple of other points that validated the need for religion to some extent :

1. DA's arguement that children would be more rebellious if it were not for religion. -- I personally think that there is some truth to the statement but only as long as religion remains unreplaced by philosophy.
2. Repairman pointed out that religion may be the only answer to the reformation of criminal minds. --This may be true and I'm inclined to agree. Yet at the same time, it is worth noting the number of religious criminals out there : ISIS, Al qaeda, Taliban and the likes.

 

There were a couple of counterpoints in that thread that I thought undermined the rebellious aspect. My omission on this point would have to be along the lines that I don't think religion, per se, is causal to rebelliousness.

 

I could have addressed the criminal mind though. Samenow's book, Inside the Criminal Mind, revealed to me a mindset of an individual that would size a person up to see if they could get back to business as usual by playing the religion card.  He even included one story of a man who used his understanding of religion to operate from behind a false religious front.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

 

Since it appears to me that you are on the side of religion ...

 

 

It also appears to you that I argue that children would be more rebellious if it were not for religion.  Wrong on both counts.  My interest is in religious philosophy and my participation in this thread is to account for its relevance today.

 

edit:  I really have enough trouble defending my own arguments.  Can someone please point to where this one came from??

 

>> children would be more rebellious if it were not for religion  << 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[Anuj]

It also appears to you that I argue that children would be more rebellious if it were not for religion. [..]

 

Please click.

 

My interest is in religious philosophy and my participation in this thread is to account for its relevance today.

 

"having an interest to account for its relevance" + "appreciating religious philosophy" =  You being on their side.

 

Please click this. And perhaps only God will know why you said this in post # 20

 

""Do you (Objectivists) still hold any religious beliefs ? If so, why and does it help ?" ~ Anuj

LOL, there's an invitation to enter the lions' den.  I'll pass"

 

EDIT -- It bores me to do a search on you. Lets just stick to the topic in discussion.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Anuj

[StrictlyLogical]

Those contenders address why religion arose and why is hangs on.

So, on the original question -- is there any reason for it still to exist -- there has been no rational answer.

 

I suppose this is the wrong place to ask. Objectivist forums see a lot of debates, but atheism is typically uncontroversial among self-declared Objectivists. 

 

SN - Sorry for pulling this out from way back but it raises an interesting philosophical question for me.

 

I had answered the question in the OP simply as if it asked "is there any reason why any religion exists today", you rightly imply no answer has been provided for the question "is there any reason why any religion should exist today".

 

Perhaps my filter was a bit too strong... but when I see the phrase "should exist" ... part of me immediately wants to disregard the "should".  Now this does not happen with phrases such as "should act" or "should do" or "should choose".

 

This got me to thinking:

 

So now that Ayn Rand has written her philosophy down decades ago... essentially showing crime, generally, is not in anyone's actual self-interest (Aside: "rational" selfishness is not a "higher" form of selfishness... it is plain selfishness, since irrationality is not in the interests of the self).

 

 

Is the following question cognitively valid:

 

Is there any reason why post Rand any criminals "should" exist?

 

What does it mean to ask whether a kind of person, a culture, a group, a belief system "should exist"?  I can ask myself, "should I become like person X, or should I adopt a belief system Y"   We can also look each person making up the group having the beliefs, and in a real sense they should not have those beleifs because they should have thought about things... etc.  and yes criminals should have thought through everything to the point they became non-criminals. 

 

Here the "should" is coherent as it pertains to the morality of an individual.  I'm not sure asking whether something, anything "should exist" is coherent.

 

You seemed to distinguish between my answer regarding reasons why religion exists versus answers to the question "should" it exist... what do you think of the cognitive status of claiming that something "should exist" or not?

Edited February 24, 2015 by StrictlyLogical

[JASKN]

definition of reason:

1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

reason/explanation ≠ reason/logic, or to state it explicitly. not all explanations are logical.

tear away

sNerd said there were no rational reasons given. You pointlessly minced words instead of replying to his meaning -- you could have made the point that the reasons listed were rational, or that there is no rational reason but so what. He wasn't trying to conflate meanings as you did with the word "faith," he was specifying.

[Devil's Advocate]

@ Anuj -

 

Post #20 was a welcome statement that responded an interest in exploring similarities between Buddhism and Objectivism. My response there was there's not much to work with, and encouraged him to read Philosopy: Who Needs It?

 
Your conclusion that my reference to evidence indicating children of atheists rebel against their parents' non-belief too, actually asserts that children would be more rebellious if it were not for religion, is a bit of a leap from what was actually said, isn't it??

 
"having an interest to account for its relevance" + "appreciating religious philosophy" =  You being on their side."

 
False dichotomy, or bad math...

"Lets just stick to the topic in discussion"

 

Yes, let's.  Anyway, I've responded to your 3 initial questions and your question from the Buddhism thread so it's time to move on.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[softwareNerd]

I had answered the question in the OP simply as if it asked "is there any reason why any religion exists today", you rightly imply no answer has been provided for the question "is there any reason why any religion should exist today".

You were answering the question the way the OP meant it. I was not.

As for your more abstract question: I agree that if you assume something is wrong ("crime" in the example you gave), it is not coherent to ask if that thing should exist within the context of that assumption.

[StrictlyLogical]

You were answering the question the way the OP meant it. I was not.

As for your more abstract question: I agree that if you assume something is wrong ("crime" in the example you gave), it is not coherent to ask if that thing should exist within the context of that assumption.

 

I am flattered you agree but ... I was still trying to make up mind so I assume you agree with the idea that it is not being coherent to say something "should" or "should not" exist.

 

There is a sloppy way of interpreting it which I am pondering.

 

Say I spent my life's savings on some "magic beans".  One month later I see a very normal bean plant, coming to its maximum height of less than a few feet.

 

I say to myself "I should not have done what I did", "I should decide now never to do such a stupid thing, and I should be doing what I can to build up my savings again rather than sitting here looking at this plant" ...

 

...can I in the moment say "That plant should not even be there ... because I should not have planted it.. because I should not have spent my life's savings on those stupid beans"?

 

After thinking about it, only if "that plant should not be there" is sloppy way of saying i.e. what I really mean to say IS "I should not have spent my life's savings on those beans" then such a statement can be interpreted as having a valid meaning.. BUT technically speaking, taken literally, it is incoherent.

 

... now that I have made up my mind..   do you agree?

Edited February 24, 2015 by StrictlyLogical

[softwareNerd]

After thinking about it, only if "that plant should not be there" is sloppy way of saying i.e. what I really mean to say IS "I should not have spent my life's savings on those beans" then such a statement can be interpreted as having a valid meaning.. BUT technically speaking, taken literally, it is incoherent.

I guess the full form of "This should not exist" is "this should not exist any more". It may mean that past actions were a mistake. Or, the thing (whatever it is) may have had a  reason to exist in the past, but no longer. If we're speaking of something man-made, that other people think is still useful, then "this should not exist" means they have better alternatives. We can even apply it to something metaphysical: "the bump in the road should not exist... it was caused by the recent quake, and will be fixed soon". 

 

Personally, I have no problem with the phrase.

Edited February 25, 2015 by softwareNerd

[dream_weaver]

People need their lives to have meaning / purpose. For all their altruism and collectivism, religions retain an implicit individualism when they tell the believer to be concerned with his individual soul. They also retain an implicit (and often explicit) support for volition, when they tell the  believer he can do this or that to save his individual soul. People also need an abstract ethical foundation, which at least rationalizes their behavior ("I try my best to do good work, because..." "I try not to lie, because..." etc.). Religion has traditionally filled this role, offering a rationalization. Finally, religion has also filled a social role as local "meetup-group". Adults have a place they can meet others, and socialize a bit, or at least find some friends. Their kids can do the same. Even if they become more deist and secular in their thinking, they still see a social role for a church. [Also, in its social role, religion becomes a useful tool for politics.]

 

Atheism on its own is a simple denial; so it offers none of the above. Instead, an atheist has to be something more than an atheist. He has to choose from various (often contradictory) choices within secular humanism. I doubt these alternate philosophies can replace religion unless they do a decent job on individualism and volition. There's not much chance they'll succeed if they take an attitude that life is essentially meaningless. I think this explains why some westerners, moving away from Christianity, opt for the more atheistic [mostly deistic] forms of Hinduism or Buddhism. [As an aside, the power of religion and the need for meaning can be seen in the westernized Muslim kids who head to Syria to fight and to be heroic, in their minds.]

 

If the past is evidence, religion isn't going away anytime soon. With every generation, a few more people turn agnostic or atheist, but there's no huge flow. Sometimes there are even localized counter-trends where people get still more serious about religion. Selfishly, I don't think one can say it would be good for religion to disappear. Since there will always be a replacement, one has to weigh religion against the alternative that will fill the vacuum. In today's context, I'm happy to have a certain segment of the population believe in religion as a counter-balance to the typical atheist/agnostic/secular-humanist.

I see much of what you wrote as an elegant unpacking of the following:

Religious philosophy intrigues me in-so-far as it is still philosophy, i.e., a power from which no man may escape. Still, StrictlyLogical suggests that there are some here who have escaped from the clutches of religion, I would submit, though, not from the power of philosophy.

Keying in on the "selfish" desire regarding one's individual soul in a "hereafter", the contradictory notion of volition from an omnipotent source, finding purpose apart from determining "God's will" for one's life, are things most contemporary philosophy does not address and adds weight to the point of religion serving as a counter-balance.

 

So Christianity and Judaism are more principled than pragmatism. How does this differ from the lesser of two evils?

[softwareNerd]

So Christianity and Judaism are more principled than pragmatism.

In common, non-technical usage, "be pragmatic" means "abandon that principle". So, I reckon any principled code -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Objectivism -- would be more principled.

How does this differ from the lesser of two evils?

I'm not sure what you're asking, or how it is related to whether religion is principled. (Being principled wouldn't be a good thing if one has bad principles.)

Also, to clarify, I didn't mention the "hereafter". I don't think man looks for meaning in the hereafter; rather, the "hereafter" is part of the fiction to give meaning to his actual life on earth... and that latter type of meaning is what he needs.

[dream_weaver]

In common, non-technical usage, "be pragmatic" means "abandon that principle". So, I reckon any principled code -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Objectivism -- would be more principled.

Seeing Objectivism lumped in the short list here, it is difficult to imagine any other context that I wouldn't ask "Which of these do not belong."

 

I'm not sure what you're asking, or how it is related to whether religion is principled. (Being principled wouldn't be a good thing if one has bad principles.)

Also, to clarify, I didn't mention the "hereafter". I don't think man looks for meaning in the hereafter; rather, the "hereafter" is part of the fiction to give meaning to his actual life on earth... and that latter type of meaning is what he needs.

The "hereafter" comes from my understanding of how the religions of Christianity, Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses typically address being concerned with one's individual soul.

 

Per the synopsis of Dr. Ridpath's talk:

Dr. Ridpath examines religion as the most significant example of the destructiveness of false philosophic ideas.

In these two lectures he presents a detailed history of religion, including its origins in primitive myths. He uncovers the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical doctrines of the world's major religious systems: Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Dr. Ridpath demonstrates why the essence of religion stands in fundamental opposition to the requirements of human life.

 

Contrasting this with pragmatism is where the question of "the lesser of two evils" arises. While Dr. Ridpath's shortlist, minus Objectivism, represents "[a] set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.", the notion seems to be that it is better than pragmatism. Or in other words. mixed principled is better than unprincipled.

[softwareNerd]

Or in other words. mixed principled is better than unprincipled.

 

Given the types of principles people actually hold, "mixed principled" is generally better than "principled" and "unprincipled". 

 

I doubt anyone can be completely unprincipled in practice.

A view/theory that one should be mostly principled with occasional "pragmatic" action may be a better than a view/theory that says "there can be no principles, we just need to be pragmatic". But, people who say the latter practice the former. 

[Devil's Advocate]

I love a good question and will even tolerate a bad one to enjoy those moments when an unexpected answer arrives. When dream_weaver picked up on Anuj's question to start this topic I expected more of the usual dismissive responses one gets for asking something presumed to already have been asked and answered to everyone's satisfaction. When he re-couched the question in response to softwareNerd's initial post #39, I expected just another patient dismissal, and then...

 

BOOM! (post #42)

 

Thank you softwareNerd for bringing something new to the table.  I am particularly appreciative and agree with your comment about the vacuum created by removing religion from the pattern of human life.  Nature abhors a vacuum.

 

Not much else to say but, carry on.

[JASKN]

Saying that religion is good today is the same as saying that any compromise is good as long as the alternative is worse. I think that's true. But, I'm not convinced that religion in place of the current secular non-values is good, or that this alternative is even legitimate, or that religion should be promoted as anything more than (arguably) eking humanity along, spiritually.

Any human need that religion partly/momentarily/superficially fills, such as social interaction and sense of purpose, would also need to be filled absent religion. Non-value promotor types, who sNerd said are the present alternative to religion, are miserable people who can't sustain their own mindsets for long. Accepting the premise that this type would step into religion's role of fooling people into thinking their lives are fulfilling, I think is a mistake. "Pointless existence" is not appealing to people, and I doubt many would choose this path. Instead, maybe they'd begin to identify the legitimate needs for what they really are: actual purpose and productiveness, real social interaction between individuals, etc. In essence, Rand's philosophy.

I find it very bizarre to praise religion for supposedly fulfilling these voids, when I think religion is fooling people into complacency about these human needs. Without the legitimate human elements of religion, it is a total farce -- no one would choose religion without its ancient reputation as clout, coupled with these quasi-values. People wild be forced to find real alternatives. They wouldn't have to waste time on all the vague and endless bullshit that religion drags along with its quasi-values.

In short, with today's available knowledge, I think religion is a worse alternative for everyone.

[DonAthos]

I'm sure no Objectivist would say that some religion is a better choice for anyone than that same person adopting Objectivism as a philosophy.

But are there times and places in the world where an individual adopts some religious belief, and benefits, given his alternatives? I expect so. Consider the context of a youth living in some war torn and impoverished area of the world, where life is cheap, and painful, and probably short. Perhaps there are ways of conveying to such a person the benefits of Objectivist philosophy, but I would also understand if they were drawn to "comforting" beliefs of a creator, a purpose, and an afterlife where the wicked are judged and the virtuous get their reward, as a means of imperfectly salvaging their psyche.

Sometimes it's making the best choice out of bad alternatives.

[JASKN]

But, with sNerd's example, it sounded like he had educated, modern Westerners in mind. I was imagining our current crop of pretentious college grads.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

In short, with today's available knowledge, I think religion is a worse alternative for everyone.

 

Today's available knowledge remains incomplete;  that's the vacuum religion fills, and the reason we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.  Atheism isn't a viable alternative because that would attempt to fill the vacuum with nothing.

 

...

Sometimes it's making the best choice out of bad alternatives.

 

Or, sometimes it's about having...

 

"... the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

 

Religion is a human game with its own set of rules, and really not all that different that any other game of chance.  Here's an idea...

 

Stop playing at intellectual prohibition and use the rules to beat those pesky players at their own game, or as Ender put it...

 

"I don't care if I pass your test, I don't care if I follow your rules. If you can cheat, so can I. I won't let you beat me unfairly - I'll beat you unfairly first."

[JASKN]

Today's available knowledge remains incomplete; that's the vacuum religion fills, and the reason we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. Atheism isn't a viable alternative because that would attempt to fill the vacuum with nothing.

I direct you toward Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In her system, she identifies the needs of men succinctly. She talks about individualism, productivity, a flourishing life, an exchange of physical and emotional values between men. Importantly, she provides reasoning to substantiate her claims.

[Spiral Architect]

Religion qua religion really is a relic of a past before people developed the scientific method.    Faith is basically turning a lack of evidence into a virtue.  

 

Please note that I'm using faith in it's traditional sense, note to be confused with what amounts to educated guesses people also associate at it.

 

Religion as a vehicle for small community cooperation and voluntary meeting however would continue but simply be replaced by a less mystic reason to associate.  I will also add I like the idea of spiritualism being converted to a reason based artistic approach.  We'd be there in Western Countries, or at least close, if religion would have stayed on it's trend from the enlightenment period.

 

That being said I do think it serves a valuable purpose today by default in that it is  keeping the concept of Certainty and Principles alive in an age of skepticism in much the same way it kept reading and writing alive in the Dark Ages.  

[Devil's Advocate]

I direct you toward Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In her system, she identifies the needs of men succinctly. She talks about individualism, productivity, a flourishing life, an exchange of physical and emotional values between men. Importantly, she provides reasoning to substantiate her claims.

 

Good stuff.

 

Throw in some rituals, sermons, a goto meetin' hall with regular servings of wine and crackers, special holidays (rational-daze?), and swap A=A with A=AMEN, and you might begin to fill the vacuum.  Of course you'll need to answer a few questions like:

 

What happens to Objectivist souls after death?

 

If my parents aren't rational, does that mean they'll go to Hell?

 

Does my dog get to be an Objectivist if he's really-really good?

 

What happens to bad Objectivists?

--

"Is there any question that religion can answer that Objectivism can not ?"

 

There are  a few that religion will consider that Objectivism won't.  Do you really want to compete with a church??

[JASKN]

That being said I do think it serves a valuable purpose today by default in that it is  keeping the concept of Certainty and Principles alive in an age of skepticism in much the same way it kept reading and writing alive in the Dark Ages.  

What would you be willing to speculate would happen if religion was not here serving that purpose?

[dream_weaver]

Another quick recap:

1. God or religion arises whenever there are questions that seem to be unanswerable.
2. Religion still exists because it is adapting itself to the changes taking place around it.
3. Methods of acquiring beliefs by faith can be taught as readily as methods of acquiring knowledge by reason.
4. The biggest damage religion inflicts is on how a person thinks. The notion that someone is watching over you at all times has vast implications on inner thought -- problem solving, value choices, assigned importance on different life events, perceived self-efficacy, etc. etc. etc.
5. Perceived as providing meaning/purpose, maintaining support for volition, providing a rationalistic abstract ethical foundation, social and political gathering places.
6. Having a certain segment of the population believe in religion serves as a counter-balance to the typical atheist/agnostic/secular-humanist.
7. Helps keep the concepts of Certainty and Principles alive in an age of skepticism.

These are shaky, but had been put forth and their earlier omission was questioned.

1. Children would be more rebellious if not for religion.
2. Religion as an answer to reformation of criminal minds.

sNerd states: So, on the original question -- is there any reason for it still to exist -- there has been no rational answer.

 

If these are not rational answers, then they are rationalizations for why it still persists.

 

[JASKN]

Throw in some rituals, sermons...

Not a necessary human need

 

Of course you'll need to answer a few questions like:

 

What happens to Objectivist souls after death?

Nothing, a "soul" is matter that shuts down when a person dies. Are you trying to say that people have a need to not understand that this has been proven? Ditto for the other questions.

 

There are  a few that religion will consider that Objectivism won't.  Do you really want to compete with a church??

Name them? As for competing with a church, I refer you to the endless internet sites which gleefully tear down the endless contradictions and silliness found inside churches.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JASKN

[dream_weaver]

Do you really want to compete with a church??

Objectivism is competing with a church? To put it in business model terms, Objectivism simply provides a superior product. What people are shopping for can be observed by what they buy into.