Would humanity be better off without religion. What if religion was never invented would we be more advanced and how many lives would be saved (no killing in name of).
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Would we be better off without religion
- Thread starter We are Borg
- Start date
I think our evolutionary heritage inclined us towards systems of belief that echo aspects of our egos, identity, existential angst etc. so even if no human projection had ever been imposed divinely onto the Cosmos, we'd still have come up with complex narratives justifying our hatred of some other group of humans and specifying what exactly we could do with our wangers. Maybe some of those narratives would have caused less harm, but then maybe some would have been far worse.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
No. Humans are still tribal.
Well lets say as argument that religion never was invented, we would have no wars about it or killings in the name of religion. So we know what happened in the past take the twin towers they would still be there, the crusades etc never happened either. Knowing what we know now would we be better off.
The problem with engaging in alternative histories is you can't say what would have happened instead. Without religious conflict, we'd have found some even more banal reason to murder, crusade, pogrom and generally be dicks to one another. Religion is man-made, so if it's dark, barbaric, and hostile to others... it's because humans made it that way to best reflect themselves and their motives.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I think the question as posed slightly misses the mark. As my good friend the well-known member (I know a lot of people who know him, and they all say he's a right member) pointed out, religion is merely a subset of a much broader problem. In fact, in some respects, I'd argue that religion has mitigated at least some of the harm caused by the rest of the set.
The real issue is the entire class of notion I'd refer to as 'doctrinal imperatives'. More particularly, the danger is the blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives. Religion is certainly the largest and noisiest subset of this, but it isn't the only only one. Patriotism, for example, is a clear example of such a doctrinal imperative, and drives many of the same behaviours. In some respects, religion has mitigated this, not least because it's led to tentative ententes cordiale between nations with shared faiths, at least in some conflicts. Of course, that's not always the case, as some internal strifes arise even from different subsets of nominally the same religion, but they're more exception than rule, contrary to some assessments.
So no, I don't think the world would be radically different than it is now. It would be different, maybe, and we'd have fewer things to fight about, but humans are parochial and stupid, and not having had religion wouldn't impact that massively.
That said, I do think that religion is the biggest barrier to ending conflict we currently face, for all the usual reasons, and for the additional reason that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the religious tend to think their religion is the way to a better world. The most formidable challenge faced in finding a way to a better world is, like liberty, like knowledge, like very many things, the certainty that you already possess it.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
I'm with Sparhafoc, and Hackenslash on this.
I understand where Hitchens is coming from in his book, Religion Poisons Everything but I think he missed the bigger picture.
As has been pointed out by both above, religion is but one form - though undoubtedly the most common - of a set: ideologies.
I think of it in terms of the real poison being dogmatic interpretations of ideologies - "doctrinal imperatives", as Hackenslash put it - whether religious, political, social, etc.
If it wasn't religion, then it would be something else, as Sparhafoc pointed out - undoubtedly another ideology would be the most common.
In fact, thinking about it, it could be argued that religions are themselves a form of social ideology - whatever took its place would be another social ideology.
As a means of "social glue", religions have proven successful at transcending bloodline-related (kin), and ethnic, tribalism but have simply created larger tribes that are just as prone to in-fighting as out-fighting.
Perhaps humans may not outgrow this "us and them" mind-set until we see all humans as just "us" - as Darwin muses in the last paragraph of his magnum opus.
Kindest regards,
James
I'm with Sparhafoc, and Hackenslash on this.
I understand where Hitchens is coming from in his book, Religion Poisons Everything but I think he missed the bigger picture.
As has been pointed out by both above, religion is but one form - though undoubtedly the most common - of a set: ideologies.
I think of it in terms of the real poison being dogmatic interpretations of ideologies - "doctrinal imperatives", as Hackenslash put it - whether religious, political, social, etc.
If it wasn't religion, then it would be something else, as Sparhafoc pointed out - undoubtedly another ideology would be the most common.
In fact, thinking about it, it could be argued that religions are themselves a form of social ideology - whatever took its place would be another social ideology.
As a means of "social glue", religions have proven successful at transcending bloodline-related (kin), and ethnic, tribalism but have simply created larger tribes that are just as prone to in-fighting as out-fighting.
Perhaps humans may not outgrow this "us and them" mind-set until we see all humans as just "us" - as Darwin muses in the last paragraph of his magnum opus.
Kindest regards,
James
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Actually, I disagree that human nature is the problem or religion itself.
Humans are actually pretty docile in small groups and can work and live together in communities up to around 150 people(Dunbar's Number) without any bigger conflicts. Of course there always will be the odd exception.
I think the problem is not religion, ideology or whatnot, but that we basically are not wired to form big communities and that we get stressed when we have to deal with that on a daily basis. And well .. grumpy, stressed humans can turn even the most benign ideas into something vile. Would also make sense from an evolutionary point of view, after reaching a certain community size, there is no longer a need to preserve our numbers.
Humans are actually pretty docile in small groups and can work and live together in communities up to around 150 people(Dunbar's Number) without any bigger conflicts. Of course there always will be the odd exception.
I think the problem is not religion, ideology or whatnot, but that we basically are not wired to form big communities and that we get stressed when we have to deal with that on a daily basis. And well .. grumpy, stressed humans can turn even the most benign ideas into something vile. Would also make sense from an evolutionary point of view, after reaching a certain community size, there is no longer a need to preserve our numbers.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
While I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, there's a 'meta' perspective; is it really that we're hard-wired to form big communities, or is it that the demagogues always manage to find an enemy?
My feeling - and it is only a feeling, but one based on a lot of thought about this very thing - is that those in particular positions have always managed to otherise out-groups, and it's in their interest to do so, because having an enemy is a sure-fire, tried and tested method for keeping the in-group loyal.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Its just an educated guess of mine, at least till we can read our genetic memory.
You see, back in the day, humans were pretty weak and not very smart(Still aint), so we had no choice but to form groups and communties to survive. That got especially important during the period of time, when we were competing with the Neanderthal, those buggers were bigger, faster, stronger and smarter than us. The big difference was, that they were not forced to group up, while we were, so they were easy pickings for a mob of our early ancestors. Our fight for supremacy with them, also could explain why we are so vicious to people outside of our perceived group, since they were pretty similiar to us in looks, but a really dangerous threat.
My guess is, that that behaviour made it into our genetic memory and is, at least part of the reason, that we naturally group up whereever we go and are .. lets say... suspicious of everyone looking a little different than us. Also explains Dunbar's number to an extend, since a community of around 100 people seems perfect to survive and offers more than enough genetic variance to ensure the propagation of the species.
That also backs you up though hackenslash, since that explains why we are easily whipped into a frenzy against an outside "enemy". Just gotta convince our primate brain, that the other guys are not part of your species. Religion really likes to do that, but its also a basic war tactic. You start by dehumanizing and demonizing whoever you want to attack.
Btw. a great example for our behaviour in groups of different sizes is the internet, reddit especially. Just compare a small reddit to a big reddit. Small chatroom to a big chatroom ... somewhere after 100 active members, any message board or chatroom turns into war.
You see, back in the day, humans were pretty weak and not very smart(Still aint), so we had no choice but to form groups and communties to survive. That got especially important during the period of time, when we were competing with the Neanderthal, those buggers were bigger, faster, stronger and smarter than us. The big difference was, that they were not forced to group up, while we were, so they were easy pickings for a mob of our early ancestors. Our fight for supremacy with them, also could explain why we are so vicious to people outside of our perceived group, since they were pretty similiar to us in looks, but a really dangerous threat.
My guess is, that that behaviour made it into our genetic memory and is, at least part of the reason, that we naturally group up whereever we go and are .. lets say... suspicious of everyone looking a little different than us. Also explains Dunbar's number to an extend, since a community of around 100 people seems perfect to survive and offers more than enough genetic variance to ensure the propagation of the species.
That also backs you up though hackenslash, since that explains why we are easily whipped into a frenzy against an outside "enemy". Just gotta convince our primate brain, that the other guys are not part of your species. Religion really likes to do that, but its also a basic war tactic. You start by dehumanizing and demonizing whoever you want to attack.
Btw. a great example for our behaviour in groups of different sizes is the internet, reddit especially. Just compare a small reddit to a big reddit. Small chatroom to a big chatroom ... somewhere after 100 active members, any message board or chatroom turns into war.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
It's important to note that Dunbar's Number only refers to quality relationships, not acquaintances, etc.
I disagree with the idea that it's due to too many virtual "friends" causing stress per se - it's keeping tabs on how many virtual "friends" you have that's unhealthy, because it causes stress leading to depression. and even suicide. (And did you know that depression can cause kidney damage - even in people with healthy kidneys?)
Kindest regards,
James
It's important to note that Dunbar's Number only refers to quality relationships, not acquaintances, etc.
I disagree with the idea that it's due to too many virtual "friends" causing stress per se - it's keeping tabs on how many virtual "friends" you have that's unhealthy, because it causes stress leading to depression. and even suicide. (And did you know that depression can cause kidney damage - even in people with healthy kidneys?)
Kindest regards,
James
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
I would count anyone that you are talking to and seeing on a regular basis as a quality relationship. But yeah, he is not applying that to the online space, but to family, neighbors, friends and whatnot. Still, at least I see parallels between the online and offline space.
Also gotta add, that the number he came up with is being disputed, because people are different obviously, some can only handle a small number of contacts, while others are social butterflies, so the current consensus seems to be somwhere around 25-500 depending on the individual, anyone above or below that, is handled as an exception.
Btw. the fairly recent discovery of "Facebook depression" backs up your train of though, people obsessing about their friend numbers and actually even being driven to suicide thanks to having less than 500 facebook friends. No clue if that also happens if you got too many friends, but I guess that also gets stressful, since thats a loooooot to handle.
Also gotta add, that the number he came up with is being disputed, because people are different obviously, some can only handle a small number of contacts, while others are social butterflies, so the current consensus seems to be somwhere around 25-500 depending on the individual, anyone above or below that, is handled as an exception.
Btw. the fairly recent discovery of "Facebook depression" backs up your train of though, people obsessing about their friend numbers and actually even being driven to suicide thanks to having less than 500 facebook friends. No clue if that also happens if you got too many friends, but I guess that also gets stressful, since thats a loooooot to handle.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
The link to Dunbar's Number I cited deals with the "debunking" claims - they still haven't managed to debunk it, the evidence continues to show that his finding is sound. He's recently written a book on it, to which he links in the article.
Kindest regards,
James
The link to Dunbar's Number I cited deals with the "debunking" claims - they still haven't managed to debunk it, the evidence continues to show that his finding is sound. He's recently written a book on it, to which he links in the article.
Kindest regards,
James