Maybe religion is needed.

General discussions
Post Reply

Do some people need religion?

Yes
3
16%
No
16
84%
 
Total votes: 19
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Maybe religion is needed.

Post by brianmmulligan » Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:39 pm

The 20th century was a time when many abandoned religion because they did not like being told what they could and could not do and wished to act in whatever way they pleased even if it caused suffering to others or harm to themselves. They may have used reason to justify this but this was not their motivation for abandoning religion. Although this may have started with the privileged classes, it was copied by the less educated who were not necessarily able to rationalise why they were ignoring the rules of their church. Indeed many would have considered themselves believers but did not consider their behaviour sinful as it was going on all around them.

In the educated community this may have resulted in very little harm to themselves (although they may have harmed others), but in the uneducated, without any guidance, it may have resulted in much misery.

So my question is: For those who are unable to work out an ethical code that will help them to make their own lives happy, would it be better for them to have a religion to guide them?

I know that this observation is not PC, but how much truth is there in it?
Brian
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Re: Maybe religion is needed.

Post by Martha » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:23 pm

brianmmulligan wrote:The 20th century was a time when many abandoned religion because they did not like being told what they could and could not do and wished to act in whatever way they pleased even if it caused suffering to others or harm to themselves. They may have used reason to justify this but this was not their motivation for abandoning religion. Although this may have started with the privileged classes, it was copied by the less educated who were not necessarily able to rationalise why they were ignoring the rules of their church. Indeed many would have considered themselves believers but did not consider their behaviour sinful as it was going on all around them.

In the educated community this may have resulted in very little harm to themselves (although they may have harmed others), but in the uneducated, without any guidance, it may have resulted in much misery.
:roll: :? :roll:
brianmulligan wrote:So my question is: For those who are unable to work out an ethical code that will help them to make their own lives happy, would it be better for them to have a religion to guide them?
No.
brianmulligan wrote:I know that this observation is not PC, but how much truth is there in it?
What observation?
zhollie
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:34 pm

Re: Maybe religion is needed.

Post by zhollie » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:29 pm

brianmmulligan wrote:The 20th century was a time when many abandoned religion because they did not like being told what they could and could not do and wished to act in whatever way they pleased even if it caused suffering to others or harm to themselves. They may have used reason to justify this but this was not their motivation for abandoning religion. Although this may have started with the privileged classes, it was copied by the less educated who were not necessarily able to rationalise why they were ignoring the rules of their church. Indeed many would have considered themselves believers but did not consider their behaviour sinful as it was going on all around them.

In the educated community this may have resulted in very little harm to themselves (although they may have harmed others), but in the uneducated, without any guidance, it may have resulted in much misery.

So my question is: For those who are unable to work out an ethical code that will help them to make their own lives happy, would it be better for them to have a religion to guide them?

I know that this observation is not PC, but how much truth is there in it?

No. A big flat and blunt no. Who gets to decide the boundaries of the moral code? The state? Are we to leave it open ended, subject to and susceptible to the whimisical thought processes and vagaries of the moral guardians? Religion by any other name?
Most people already have a religion which they practise or observe, to varying degrees, yet they regularly fail to heed or ignore the moral guidelines laid down by their church. They always invoke the 'get out of jail clause', which is confession, after which all transgressions are absolved. They also seem to rely greatly on the 'good faith and charity' of their God, all will be forgiven so in the meantime they can be as reckless as they plaase.
eamonnm79
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:20 pm

Post by eamonnm79 » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:18 pm

Intresting but I think a more intresting question is how could we insure as a society that all people will be able to develop their own moral personalised moral code without needing a dogma to fall back on.
Perhaps having ethics as part of the school ciriculum would help
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Maybe religion is needed.

Post by FXR » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:11 pm

brianmmulligan wrote:The 20th century was a time when many abandoned religion because they did not like being told what they could and could not do and wished to act in whatever way they pleased even if it caused suffering to others or harm to themselves. They may have used reason to justify this but this was not their motivation for abandoning religion. Although this may have started with the privileged classes, it was copied by the less educated who were not necessarily able to rationalise why they were ignoring the rules of their church. Indeed many would have considered themselves believers but did not consider their behaviour sinful as it was going on all around them.

In the educated community this may have resulted in very little harm to themselves (although they may have harmed others), but in the uneducated, without any guidance, it may have resulted in much misery.

So my question is: For those who are unable to work out an ethical code that will help them to make their own lives happy, would it be better for them to have a religion to guide them?

I know that this observation is not PC, but how much truth is there in it?
I understand you're limited by space and time here but the above makes too many sweeping statements.
It only seems like some people need religion because we'v lived in a religiously dominated age for so long.

I firmly believe an education system that taught the value of being pro human would do much to improve the world.

Ultimaltely

(and from where we are this is a big leap)

harming another human is a form of self harm. Sadly the education system that would bring about this realisation in the majority may never see the light of day.
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
alfonso
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dublin
Contact:

Post by alfonso » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:27 pm

Two major flaws here and a definite no.

I feel (watch the word, I have no proof, just a hunch) that those who need a religious imposition in order to become 'moral' are not actually moral, and never will be. They'll act unethically as soon as they believe they can get away with it.

Second issue... Do you really think religion provides good ethics? Even assuming the whole concept of conditioning through fear was removed, religious people all over the planet come up with the most outrageous unethical decisions, totally based on their faith.

We can do better than that, and we don't even need to be smart about it.
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Post by brianmmulligan » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:37 pm

Does anybody believe that religion (mostly fear of hell fire) modified the behaviour of people who were unable to figure out how to behave ethically? (ie. hellfire was the only thing that would stop them "getting away with it")
Brian
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Be fi fo fum....

Post by FXR » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:52 pm

brianmmulligan wrote:Does anybody believe that religion (mostly fear of hell fire) modified the behaviour of people who were unable to figure out how to behave ethically? (ie. hellfire was the only thing that would stop them "getting away with it")
You're starting with a false premise: your statement assumes there are/would be vast numbers of people who sit around trying to figure how to behave ethically. People generally are more occupied with earning a living and all the other miniature of life.

Why not ask: does anyone believe there are some children who modified their behaviour when told they would not get a present from Santa if they were bad.

I'm really starting to think you’re actually a priest trying some amateurish reverse psychology.

BE FO FI FUM...(no that's not latin)
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: Be fi fo fum....

Post by brianmmulligan » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:59 pm

FXR wrote: You're starting with a false premise: your statement assumes there are/would be vast numbers of people who sit around trying to figure how to behave ethically. People generally are more occupied with earning a living and all the other miniature of life.
Fair enough. Your comment begs the same question another way. Were there a large number of people who would never act ethically (for whatever reason) unless the had the fear of hellfire?
Brian
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: Be fi fo fum....

Post by brianmmulligan » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:01 am

FXR wrote: I'm really starting to think you’re actually a priest trying some amateurish reverse psychology.

BE FO FI FUM...(no that's not latin)
I've been rumbled! You've been carefully reading all my back postings.
Brian
Post Reply