Philosophy Discussion Forums

Engineer0RQ1 wrote:Hi Lambert

Descartes may have been a victim of bigotry and intellectual rigidity but societies and religious viewpoints do evolve over the long term and in my opinion the ideas Descartes was expounding have eventually triumphed.

To illustrate this I would put forward the Church of England and my experiences as a member of it's congregation. My vicar is a lovely lady by the name of Vivian whose whole approach is based upon the group and helping her congregation to see how prayer and Christian theology benefits people. This very tolerant aproach has far more to do with modern commercial management practices than religious dogma.

The scienfific method that devoloped from the ideas of Descartes and other intellectuals at around the same time has proved itself. This can be seen in my church's practical adaptation of it's intellectual landscape and the recognition of it's responsibilities in a multicultural nation.

This was not the case for Descartes and leads me to ask: Is there a natural hierarchy that exists to provide physical and intellectual context?

In fact I think I will create my first ever post to explore this issue.

Yes, religious viewpoints do evolve but that does not benefit the civilization except as a social club, and that is exactly what religion is not about. And true enough, "I think therefore I am" means that the thinker is real while the thinker is not real in Being, and as thinker is just an add-on to man much like the ego is known to be.

And also true is that intelligence instead of dogma is better for commercial management practices. That has always been true, but all you will ever have is mediocre people with no upper level management insights to reach for the top.

Leaving this aside, the mythology/religion is needed for the survival and also the prosperity of the tribe, and so now, your multicultural nation is already a sell-out of the purpose for which it was designed, and I wonder why this would be so. Not enough babies maybe? Or do we not have time for the family anymore because we are both working these days.

Even if someone were to believe in a god, it wouldn't align with most other gods that have existed throughout history, there are thousands. So you could look at it historically. Has this or that previous society benefited from their belief in this or that mythology? You could ask this in more contemporary settings as well, and it would attract more attention, mostly anger. The substance that is lacking in your question concerns definition and context. You would have to define what good is, and then we would have to evaluate it in a context, which we can now do historically with the reformatted question I posed earlier.

Jam2289 wrote:Even if someone were to believe in a god, it wouldn't align with most other gods that have existed throughout history, there are thousands. So you could look at it historically. Has this or that previous society benefited from their belief in this or that mythology? You could ask this in more contemporary settings as well, and it would attract more attention, mostly anger. The substance that is lacking in your question concerns definition and context. You would have to define what good is, and then we would have to evaluate it in a context, which we can now do historically with the reformatted question I posed earlier.

Very good angle!

Again, I want to extend Jam2289's argument and apply it to contemporary dilemmas. For instance Angela Merkel's mercy and human kindness, those qualities of Jesus, have rebounded upon her and all decent Germans from the fear, anger, greed, stupidity, and inhumanity of those men reportedly of Arab or North African appearance who terrorised women in German cities on New Year's Eve. Merkel and Germany is now are forced to abandon their simple Christian mercy and human kindness and impose strict immigration regulation upon refugees. True to say that a few rotten apples infect the whole barrel. However social scientists must be enrolled by politicians in the search for a solution to the crisis in the Middle East which is complicated by trade links, old internal quarrels, and in the case of refugees by nasty ethnic notions about the status of women that are bound to clash with decent Western sensibilities.

If we re-examine Jam's sentence

Has this or that previous society benefited from their belief in this or that mythology?

and apply it to cultural difference we see that it's not Islam that is the rogue mythology but certain ethnic attitudes which may or may not be hopelessly intertwined with that religious myth.

Islam mythology, it seems to me, is most definitely roguish. It has to be looked at as a whole. Not just bits from it. On the whole it is roguish.

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 6:29 pm to add the following --

Lambert wrote:

Yes, religious viewpoints do evolve but that does not benefit the civilization except as a social club, and that is exactly what religion is not about.

A healthier politics would be to see religions as various social clubs. For example, there should not be bishops in The House of Lords in positions for political decision making and the media should not, as they do, seek Papal opinion on world events. Our currently unhealthy state of politics, and a media that seek religious views on worldly and scientific subjects that are not to do with, say, the Pope's particular social club that he is club president of (Catholicism), is ADOLESCENT, and we should know by now how an adolescent brain works in terms of it's limitations.

If a religion is "false" then it's by definition "not true", then the answer is very simple in a world that values truth. It's not the same question as asking whether certain religions have ever done good works. What you asked is "Is religion good even if it's false?" and therefore the answer must be no, it is not good, any such good it inadvertently produces could be obtained by "other" social structures that were not based on a false idea.

Religion is, in many ways, a killer. Consider the departed artist Prince? He apparently required hip surgery or replacement. However his religion instructed that he must not receive blood via transfusion. Consequently, it appears, he became addicted to prescription pain killers to address an otherwise surgically fixable condition. His beliefs killed him.

Religion is far too large a phenomena to be labeled with simplistic terms like good and bad. Some aspects of religion are good, some are bad, and most of it is somewhere in between in the complex middle, as is usually the case.

Discussion of fatally flawed questions tends to be mostly pointless. Which is bigger, the color blue or the sound of an oboe? How much time should we invest in that question?

If we assume there is a god(s). Considering that there are thousands of religions in the world. That would mean that at best, only one is correct. Maybe not even one, if none of them have actually nailed down the true message that this God has intended. So by default, all religions could be considered false.

So now the question becomes, is religion good or bad?

Well, that is based on what the individual uses the said religion for... If that belief system is strictly used to apply morals and striving for a better version of oneself, then I would say that religion is good for that individual. But if that individual uses religion to inflict harm in the name of God or con the vulnerable out of money, then for that individual the existence of religion is bad.

Simplyhuman wrote:If we assume there is a god(s). Considering that there are thousands of religions in the world. That would mean that at best, only one is correct. Maybe not even one, if none of them have actually nailed down the true message that this God has intended. So by default, all religions could be considered false.

So now the question becomes, is religion good or bad?

Well, that is based on what the individual uses the said religion for... If that belief system is strictly used to apply morals and striving for a better version of oneself, then I would say that religion is good for that individual. But if that individual uses religion to inflict harm in the name of God or con the vulnerable out of money, then for that individual the existence of religion is bad.

If religions are false then they are bad. If we are good because of the false religion then we are good for bad reasons. The 'good' due a bad reason makes such a 'good' a fragile 'good'. By fragile I mean that for the 'good' to be maintained would require all the conditions, all circumstances, to remain stable and utterly predictable. But life and humans are just not like that. Life does not arrange itself to accommodate one view utterly. For such a reason, such a religion, such a good, to actually work would require the extermination of all other spontaneously arising conditions and other arising concepts or philosophies.

A 'good' for a bad reason (the bad reason being a false religion with its, therefore, assumed and imaginary god) is a 'good' achieved through no lesson and through no dialog with, or consideration of, any other view. Such a religion, then, would be pure. We should all realize by now how assumptions of purity lead to totalitarian ideals.

Because there is no ultimate ideals for the entire world of peoples, it is reasonable for nations to have very strict borders and border controls so that if one wants to change countries one should also be prepared to change their culture. This idea would still allow for tourism and trade, but alas it is rather too late for my idea. In hindsight though, it would work.....in my not necessarily humble opinion.

Grunth wrote:If religions are false then they are bad. If we are good because of the false religion then we are good for bad reasons.

False does not necessarily equal bad. Ignorant, but not bad if they truly believe what they have been fed. If someone is too closed minded to ask questions and realize that they are devoting their life to being lied to... Well that's their problem. But if that person is just going about their day and not causing any harm, then I don't really care what they do to worship their God.

My personal opinion is that all religions are false, therefore I don't take part it them. But that's my opinion. I got to this point because I asked questions. The "teachers" of any religion that I questioned never had a valid thought to back up their stories. It all came down to "well, it's written right here in this man made text". If others chose not to ask the question, live within a 'security' that they've been taught; I don't see the harm as long as they are no worse on society than their neighbors.

In short, I don't think that false always translates to bad. If an individual truly believes something, then to that person, it is true. Whether a "God" agrees or not, the true/false is subjective to the would be believer.

Simplyhuman wrote:

Grunth wrote:If religions are false then they are bad. If we are good because of the false religion then we are good for bad reasons.

False does not necessarily equal bad. Ignorant, but not bad if they truly believe what they have been fed. If someone is too closed minded to ask questions and realize that they are devoting their life to being lied to... Well that's their problem. But if that person is just going about their day and not causing any harm, then I don't really care what they do to worship their God.

My personal opinion is that all religions are false, therefore I don't take part it them. But that's my opinion. I got to this point because I asked questions. The "teachers" of any religion that I questioned never had a valid thought to back up their stories. It all came down to "well, it's written right here in this man made text". If others chose not to ask the question, live within a 'security' that they've been taught; I don't see the harm as long as they are no worse on society than their neighbors.

In short, I don't think that false always translates to bad. If an individual truly believes something, then to that person, it is true. Whether a "God" agrees or not, the true/false is subjective to the would be believer.

Those whom commit atrocities are those who believe in absurdities.

-- Updated May 27th, 2016, 7:51 pm to add the following --

If you see Buddha, kill him.

philoreaderguy wrote:I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

What you are effectively talking about is Santa Clause. Religious morals and the fear of death or damnation might not work on children as well, given their underdeveloped understanding of the topic, so the more simplified reward based Santa Clause version is used as a way to encourage certain behaviors. In the same vein, a religion could be seen as a way to push morals, laws, and behaviors on a group of people who would be seen as incapable of understanding the benefit of for exp. social behaviors for it's own merit. It is easy to see how religion worked as a predecessor to our common law, and why in ancient times law and religion were often linked.

One might say "Thou shall not kill" and the villager might answer "Why not, he called my wife a goat". Clearly pointing to the wrath of god could be seen as a better strategy than trying to explain to him how unfettered killings among a group would be harmful to the group, even if one might think another deserves to be murdered for disrespecting him, and why even in cases where a killing seemed in order it should not be performed by whoever feels like it. Similarly we don't explain the reasons for every single state law to every citizen, we just point to the book and basically say "Follow, or else..".

As today we have a secular law, we certainly aren't in need of a religious law to accompany it, nor do we need the wrath of god or the kingdom of heaven as incentives, the county jail and the general rewards of a life in freedom will do just fine. That doesn't mean that religion can't offer us anything, laws don't equal morals, they do not help to cope with the fear of death and they don't provide answers to unanswerable questions. In other words we are still in need of philosophy, but I would argue we are in no need for false history, rules based on bygone social structures and a long disproven ancient understanding of nature/science.

In in that I would conclude that even a deist philosophy can be of use to people who would not find comfort in an atheist or agnostic philosophy, but since this would not even require to take the form of a dogmatic religion, as it mostly didn't in ancient philosophy, todays religions are really the bastardized versions of something that would 'be good'.

Platonymous described how theistic religions (punishment and reward)are good for social control in the absence of adequate secular controls(punishment and reward).

However despite my own unbelief I do think that secular social controls of bare punishment and reward don't nourish the human need for belonging which is addressed by a set of beliefs and stories, or community rituals, or both. Those are what religions do supply.

True, there is Americanism with its rituals, its stories, and its ethics and that seems to work well without any recourse to any God who can intervene in history. Hpwever Americanism is a religion minus the supernatural belief. Unfortunately Americanism lacks the specified universalist ethic, which the more liberal supernatural religions are particularly good at.

North Korea has a Godlike figurehead which is a poor substitute for the theists' God and ineffective to promote prosperity without curtailing of liberties.

I'd promote religion but only if it it promoted universal inclusion, and the religionists frequently , intelligently, and democratically reviewed the smaller details of the moral code that it promoted.

The idea of religion is truth
False is a contraction
But to answe th question Religion does bring people together in the same religion.
Within the more enlightened minds this may be acceptable also.
But it is impossible to ignore the divisions within religions have created misery.
Can one be bold enough to say this is because it is false.

This is my first impute, please bear with me
Kernaghan

Kernaghan wrote:The idea of religion is truth
False is a contraction
But to answe th question Religion does bring people together in the same religion.
Within the more enlightened minds this may be acceptable also.
But it is impossible to ignore the divisions within religions have created misery.
Can one be bold enough to say this is because it is false.

This is my first impute, please bear with me
Kernaghan

I would say that the idea of religion being truth is a contraction.

Alcohol also brings people together for the worship of intoxication.