What is the use of religion?

[darthbob88]

Personally, I believe the purpose of religion is to provide a grounding for ethics and morality. You can go hogwild and do as you like, or you can behave yourself and God will reward you in the Happy Hunting Grounds. Naturally, it is possible to be ethical without being religious; Mr Wong and others can attest to this. However, the Wrath of the Sky-Pixie is a powerful proscription for primitive peoples, much more so than any Godless morality.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I believe the purpose of religion is to provide a grounding for ethics and morality. You can go hogwild and do as you like, or you can behave yourself and God will reward you in the Happy Hunting Grounds. Naturally, it is possible to be ethical without being religious; Mr Wong and others can attest to this. However, the Wrath of the Sky-Pixie is a powerful proscription for primitive peoples, much more so than any Godless morality.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that religion is a "much more" effective means of ensuring ethical behaviour than any "godless morality"? Or do you think it's sufficient to simply state your claims a priori?

[Lord of the Abyss]

You can go hogwild and do as you like, or you can behave yourself and God will reward you in the Happy Hunting Grounds. Naturally, it is possible to be ethical without being religious; Mr Wong and others can attest to this. However, the Wrath of the Sky-Pixie is a powerful proscription for primitive peoples, much more so than any Godless morality.

One of the flaws in that reasoning is that because God/the gods are either nonexistent or silent, a believer can make up any divine commands he pleases. On the other hand, "Godless morality" tends to be defined and enforced by actual flesh and blood people. People whose laws can't just be wished out of existence by the lawbreaker - unlike "divine" laws.

[darthbob88]

Personally, I believe the purpose of religion is to provide a grounding for ethics and morality. You can go hogwild and do as you like, or you can behave yourself and God will reward you in the Happy Hunting Grounds. Naturally, it is possible to be ethical without being religious; Mr Wong and others can attest to this. However, the Wrath of the Sky-Pixie is a powerful proscription for primitive peoples, much more so than any Godless morality.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that religion is a "much more" effective means of ensuring ethical behaviour than any "godless morality"? Or do you think it's sufficient to simply state your claims a priori?

No evidence beyond some reasoning; I was under the impression that irrational beliefs require no evidence. I reasoned that any primitive priest who wields the Power of the Gods would not be especially powerful, physically, but would be comparatively intelligent. So, he cannot enforce moral behaviour by himself, but he can invoke the authority of an omnipresent deity with supreme authority, and keep the peace that way. However, you could be correct; the Wrath of an inaccurate Sky-Pixie is less intimidating than the wrath of a chief who'll break your face if you cross him. Either way, ethical behaviour could be enforced and spread.

[Vyraeth]

However, you could be correct; the Wrath of an inaccurate Sky-Pixie is less intimidating than the wrath of a chief who'll break your face if you cross him. Either way, ethical behaviour could be enforced and spread.

So are you dropping your claim that god-inspired ethics and morality are more effective for primitive people then godless morality?

[darthbob88]

However, you could be correct; the Wrath of an inaccurate Sky-Pixie is less intimidating than the wrath of a chief who'll break your face if you cross him. Either way, ethical behaviour could be enforced and spread.

So are you dropping your claim that god-inspired ethics and morality are more effective for primitive people then godless morality?

I said that fear of God's Wrath was a better deterrent than fear of the Chief's Wrath, then I said that that might not always be the case. However, yes, I am dropping all claim to having evidence behind that idea. I will still claim it, but without any evidence. This is religion after all, and logic does not apply.

[Darth Wong]

So are you dropping your claim that god-inspired ethics and morality are more effective for primitive people then godless morality?

I said that fear of God's Wrath was a better deterrent than fear of the Chief's Wrath, then I said that that might not always be the case. However, yes, I am dropping all claim to having evidence behind that idea. I will still claim it, but without any evidence. This is religion after all, and logic does not apply.

This is a debate forum where logic DOES apply. If you want to make the claim, then you'd better either produce evidence or shut the fuck up.

[Surlethe]

I said that fear of God's Wrath was a better deterrent than fear of the Chief's Wrath, then I said that that might not always be the case. However, yes, I am dropping all claim to having evidence behind that idea. I will still claim it, but without any evidence. This is religion after all, and logic does not apply.

Buddy, there's a reason Christians here don't walk around claiming that our religion is true: we have no reason to believe, since logic doesn't apply, and so there's no way we can defend the truth of our beliefs. If you're going to hold beliefs that are indefensible, like Christianity, then don't claim those beliefs are true.

[darthbob88]

So are you dropping your claim that god-inspired ethics and morality are more effective for primitive people then godless morality?

I said that fear of God's Wrath was a better deterrent than fear of the Chief's Wrath, then I said that that might not always be the case. However, yes, I am dropping all claim to having evidence behind that idea. I will still claim it, but without any evidence. This is religion after all, and logic does not apply.

This is a debate forum where logic DOES apply. If you want to make the claim, then you'd better either produce evidence or shut the fuck up.

Very well then. My IRRATIONAL BELIEF is that religion provides a grounding and a higher power to enforce ethics, one which cannot easily be provided by humans in a primitive society. I have no evidence, no reasonable rationale behind it, and I am STFU'ing right now. Good day and good luck.

[General Zod]

Very well then. My IRRATIONAL BELIEF is that religion provides a grounding and a higher power to enforce ethics, one which cannot easily be provided by humans in a primitive society. I have no evidence, no reasonable rationale behind it, and I am STFU'ing right now. Good day and good luck.

As there are religions out there where said higher powers don't enforce ethics whatsoever, your claims are rather groundless.

[RedImperator]

The human brain is wired to detect patterns. It's pretty well understood that the brain will detect patterns, regardless of whether they're actually there. So it's not hard to imagine someone seeing a pattern in what is actually just statistical clustering and assuming some kind of conscious intent behind it. Say, your husband dies of malaria one week, and then a week later your daughter drowns in the river, and the week after that your son is killed by a boar (or, perhaps, your husband dies of a heart attack, and your daughter drowns in a pool, and your son is killed in a car wreck). Is there a pattern? No--just really bad luck. Those are the hazards with which you've lived your whole life, and you never would have thought about them if they hadn't happened to you. But it sure looks like a pattern, and patterns are created by conscious intent, and since no person could have created that pattern, something more powerful than a person must have done it. Give that meme a few thousand years to cook and you have holy books and high priests and witch burnings and all the rest. It actually makes a certain amount of sense: if you're convinced there is a conscious force that can destroy you on a whim, you'd better bend over backwards to keep it happy.

Of course this is all speculation, but it makes sense to me as a cause of religion. I like it especially because it doesn't rely solely on primitive philosophies surviving thousands of years on cultural inertia: Christianity may be more or less a 4000 year old death cult for desert shepherds, but unfortunate shit still happens to people often enough to convince them someone or something is doing it on purpose.

[Darth Wong]

It's not hard to determine causes of religion. What's much harder is finding constructive benefits of it. Most of the so-called benefits of religion are only assumed to be caused by religion.

[Magus]

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that religion is a "much more" effective means of ensuring ethical behaviour than any "godless morality"? Or do you think it's sufficient to simply state your claims a priori?

Judeo-Christian religion is more effective in ensuring any kind of behavior over secular means, simply because fear of getting your face smashed in is generally less intense than fear of an eternity of torment in hell. In other words, if you can convince the people that you have God on your side, and he'll deal out horrific punishment to those who don't comply, you certainly have an advantage over the secular leader who can only kill or torture for a finite amount of time, since those he tortures die eventually.

[Darth Wong]

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that religion is a "much more" effective means of ensuring ethical behaviour than any "godless morality"? Or do you think it's sufficient to simply state your claims a priori?

Judeo-Christian religion is more effective in ensuring any kind of behavior over secular means, simply because fear of getting your face smashed in is generally less intense than fear of an eternity of torment in hell. In other words, if you can convince the people that you have God on your side, and he'll deal out horrific punishment to those who don't comply, you certainly have an advantage over the secular leader who can only kill or torture for a finite amount of time, since those he tortures die eventually.

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "a priori". Perhaps you could use a dictionary. Or an education.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Judeo-Christian religion is more effective in ensuring any kind of behavior over secular means, simply because fear of getting your face smashed in is generally less intense than fear of an eternity of torment in hell. In other words, if you can convince the people that you have God on your side, and he'll deal out horrific punishment to those who don't comply, you certainly have an advantage over the secular leader who can only kill or torture for a finite amount of time, since those he tortures die eventually.

Nonsense; there's a reason that tyrannical religious groups have always used torture and violence and murder ( when they can get away with it ), instead of just preaching hellfire at people. People can and do ignore threats of eternal punishment all the time, and have as long as the idea's been around. They can't ignore a bullet to the head or broken bones or being raped or being stuck in a cell. The real world always beats the imagination.

[Medic]

Religion's use is a solution to a problem which religion itself introduces: original sin, reincarnation seeking nirvanna, etc.

So long as you walk into that revolving door of reason, it's comforting, and the built-in social network is an added benefit.

[SWPIGWANG]

It's not hard to determine causes of religion. What's much harder is finding constructive benefits of it. Most of the so-called benefits of religion are only assumed to be caused by religion.

For the purpose of this thread, "benefit" is ill-defined. To define benefit, one requires a value system. The value systems of some religious people automatically validates religiosity as an benefit. (benefit in the sense that we value intellect)

If is perfectly possible that under some value systems, religion is worthless. One can not say the same for all value systems however....

[Darth Wong]

It's not hard to determine causes of religion. What's much harder is finding constructive benefits of it. Most of the so-called benefits of religion are only assumed to be caused by religion.

For the purpose of this thread, "benefit" is ill-defined. To define benefit, one requires a value system. The value systems of some religious people automatically validates religiosity as an benefit. (benefit in the sense that we value intellect)

If is perfectly possible that under some value systems, religion is worthless. One can not say the same for all value systems however....

Bullshit. It's not about values; it's about imagination. You don't have to necessarily value money in order to recognize that it exists, so no matter what your value system is, you cannot deny that it is possible to quantify something like "financial benefit". However, religions largely give you imaginary benefits. The question of whether these benefits are real is not a question of "values"; it's a question of fantasy.

As for the real benefits that are chalked up to religion, such as social morality, once again I must point out that there is no evidence that religion actually causes these benefits.

[Patrick Degan]

There may have been a time when religion once served a beneficial purpose, as astrology once did (and by that I mean the methodology whereby ancient man essentially planned his calendar for planting and harvesting by observing which stars were in the sky in a given season as well as the lunar cycle and not the bullshit pseudoscience it became long ago). But it's become manifestly clear that as a system it is hopelessly outdated if not outright corrupted and really serves no purpose other than the fulfillment of tradition at best.