4 ms·

> Secular folk disagree that religion is an optimal, or even necessary, way to do that good. This is tricky. As an atheist, sometimes quite a militant one, I

> Secular folk disagree that religion is an optimal, or even necessary, way to do that good. This is tricky. As an atheist, sometimes quite a militant one, I think that religion is not necessary in principle. But, oh boy, there is a very long road from "not necessary in principle" to "we have a fully functional replacement, without bad side effects". And if you think you can simply throw away something that has evolved for millennia, replace it with a product of armchair reasoning, and get anything other than a complete disaster... well, seems like evidence is on the opposing side. Fully replacing religion is a task that needs to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are not a real atheist, but a mere believer in a No-God Fairy that will somehow make things magically right after religion is removed. To appreciate the complexity of the problem, just think about all the existing social classes: religion applies to most of them. Does your solution? Or are you proposing a morality which will e.g. work pretty okay for middle-class educated people with IQ over 130, but will result in a social disaster when average or below-average people will try to copy it? (Because, trust me, they will. People love to copy the manners of those above them on the social ladder; especially the bad ones.) > You can walk the straight and narrow path without the carrot of eternal salvation or the stick of eternal damnation. Oh, you definitely can, but will you? And what about the others? How much of current non-religious morality is built on inertia from previous religion? How long will the inertia stay after the original religion is gone. In general, do atheists in traditionally Christian countries invent the same morality as atheists in traditionally Muslim countries? (Heck, do even atheists from the same culture agree with each other?) And if there is the "secular Way", who will be the one to teach it to the next generations? Who will pay the expenses of the teaching, solve the logistics, etc. With religion, we do have an answer: it is in the selfish interest of the religion (its institutions of power) to replicate its values. What is the answer for atheism? How many atheists will sacrifice their careers to make sure the next generation remains culturally compatible? Why would they? Will the whole atheist society just fall apart after a generation or two, when their kids decide that superstitions or cults are more cool. Don't get me wrong... I believe that this problem can be solved. But also... I believe that this problem is difficult.

gaius 8y ago
As an atheist, sometimes quite a militant one, I think that religion is not necessary in principle There is no-one more religious than the militant atheist. It's funny how they never look in the mirror. Consider that broadly-similar religions tend to emerge spontaneously among cultures that have no contact with each other. Any historian can tell you that. So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that a belief system is an inherent psychological need in humans. Take it away and a human will latch onto something else. Could be a political leader (who knows this and does it deliberately), or a philosopher, at diet or exercise programme, or a pound-shop demagogue like Richard Dawkins.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Then the challenge, as the grandparent stated, is to engineer a belief-target such that religious-like belief in it produces optimal consequences for society, and where the previous clause includes not impairing technical personnel with an antiscientific worldview. Of course, "optimal consequences for society" is a debate attractor. e.g. I for one will do my damnedest to remain agnostic, if for no other reason than the principle that convincing me to act against-my-own-purposes should have a higher pricetag than "the feelies".
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  > There is no-one more religious than the militant atheist. It's funny how they never look in the mirror. Could you be more specific? Of course a serious atheist and a serious believer are going to have something in common; for example the ability to be serious about stuff. What else? > Consider that broadly-similar religions tend to emerge spontaneously among cultures that have no contact with each other. Yes, "broadly". Some things seem to be common among humans, for example propensity for magical thinking. Some things seem to be necessary for a functioning society, for example a rule that an average person is not allowed to kill random people on a random day. Taken together, many cultures will have rules like "if you kill random people, you will be magically punished". But still a lot of freedom remains. There are religions that forbid you from killing anyone ever, even in self-defense. There are religions that say killing is okay only when your boss says so (e.g. war, death penalty). And there are religions that require regular human sacrifice. There are also other differences, such as whether you have to cut away body parts of your children, etc. Or more subtle theological topics, such as whether it is okay to explore the laws of nature, because the laws of nature were created by god(s), and understanding the work of god(s) better is desirable; or whether the idea of a "law of nature" is itself a blasphemy, because it limits the sovereignty of god(s). > a belief system is an inherent psychological need in humans. People have a need for certainty; some of them greater, some of them smaller. I agree that those with the strong need can easily switch from traditional religions to... almost anything. I don't know. Maybe this need can be overcome by upbringing and education; maybe some fraction of population (maybe even majority) will necessarily always be "believers" in some sense. But in a sufficiently civilized society, perhaps there could be some kind of "secular organized stuff" that would fulfill this desire. This just suggests that religion cannot be removed blindly, without leaving a proper substitute for people who psychologically need one. I mean, what exactly is the content of that psychological need? A certainty of opinion; a message of hope; a goal that transcends an individual life? For certainty of opinion, provide a simplified explanation of all known science (high-quality popular science with good rhetoric available freely for everyone); for message of hope, provide existing good news (reduction of poverty during the last century, technological progress) and detailed information of people and groups who try doing good things (kinda like TED Talks); for a transcending goal, eradication of poverty or diseases etc. The idea is that you can fulfill this need without having to resort to lies or supernatural explanations. Someone just has to actually do it; otherwise it will not exist.

gaius 8y ago

As an atheist, sometimes quite a militant one, I think that religion is not necessary in principle There is no-one more religious than the militant atheist. It's funny how they never look in the mirror. Consider that broadly-similar religions tend to emerge spontaneously among cultures that have no contact with each other. Any historian can tell you that. So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that a belief system is an inherent psychological need in humans. Take it away and a human will latch onto something else. Could be a political leader (who knows this and does it deliberately), or a philosopher, at diet or exercise programme, or a pound-shop demagogue like Richard Dawkins.

mmirate 8y ago
Then the challenge, as the grandparent stated, is to engineer a belief-target such that religious-like belief in it produces optimal consequences for society, and where the previous clause includes not impairing technical personnel with an antiscientific worldview. Of course, "optimal consequences for society" is a debate attractor. e.g. I for one will do my damnedest to remain agnostic, if for no other reason than the principle that convincing me to act against-my-own-purposes should have a higher pricetag than "the feelies".
Viliam1234 8y ago
> There is no-one more religious than the militant atheist. It's funny how they never look in the mirror. Could you be more specific? Of course a serious atheist and a serious believer are going to have something in common; for example the ability to be serious about stuff. What else? > Consider that broadly-similar religions tend to emerge spontaneously among cultures that have no contact with each other. Yes, "broadly". Some things seem to be common among humans, for example propensity for magical thinking. Some things seem to be necessary for a functioning society, for example a rule that an average person is not allowed to kill random people on a random day. Taken together, many cultures will have rules like "if you kill random people, you will be magically punished". But still a lot of freedom remains. There are religions that forbid you from killing anyone ever, even in self-defense. There are religions that say killing is okay only when your boss says so (e.g. war, death penalty). And there are religions that require regular human sacrifice. There are also other differences, such as whether you have to cut away body parts of your children, etc. Or more subtle theological topics, such as whether it is okay to explore the laws of nature, because the laws of nature were created by god(s), and understanding the work of god(s) better is desirable; or whether the idea of a "law of nature" is itself a blasphemy, because it limits the sovereignty of god(s). > a belief system is an inherent psychological need in humans. People have a need for certainty; some of them greater, some of them smaller. I agree that those with the strong need can easily switch from traditional religions to... almost anything. I don't know. Maybe this need can be overcome by upbringing and education; maybe some fraction of population (maybe even majority) will necessarily always be "believers" in some sense. But in a sufficiently civilized society, perhaps there could be some kind of "secular organized stuff" that would fulfill this desire. This just suggests that religion cannot be removed blindly, without leaving a proper substitute for people who psychologically need one. I mean, what exactly is the content of that psychological need? A certainty of opinion; a message of hope; a goal that transcends an individual life? For certainty of opinion, provide a simplified explanation of all known science (high-quality popular science with good rhetoric available freely for everyone); for message of hope, provide existing good news (reduction of poverty during the last century, technological progress) and detailed information of people and groups who try doing good things (kinda like TED Talks); for a transcending goal, eradication of poverty or diseases etc. The idea is that you can fulfill this need without having to resort to lies or supernatural explanations. Someone just has to actually do it; otherwise it will not exist.