To think it’s unwise to lose the idea of God(s) in society?

[Digita]

To think it’s unwise to lose the idea of God(s) in society?

Whenever I hear people arguing why faith in any sort of higher being is 'stupid' or 'delusional' I wonder if they've thought through the wider implications of a godless society. It might not be all that it's cracked up to be... the idea of higher beings might be invented but invented for a reason too. Is there a need for a philosophical concept of something more for accountability, law and order?

“Society needs reasons for people to tell the truth even when it is to their disadvantage.” Why swear on a Bible? The Courts have kept swearing an oath on religious texts because there’s still a psychological, moral force behind it.

"Co-operation is a key component in human interaction and also, according to new research from the University of British Columbia, the spread of civilisation. Not because for any altruistic reason, though; instead it might be directly down to a fear of a vengeful god." Fear of punitive gods linked to rise of human civilisation’

‘A new study published in the journal, Nature, tests the theory that communities are fair and cooperate with outsiders because of the fear of divine retribution.’ ‘Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality’

No, and I don't need one to give my life 'ultimate meaning' either.

@picklemewalnuts

I say "your god" to allow for any god. I'm not judging which particular flavour of god anyone believes in.

If I was to say just God, I'd be accused of referring to a particular god, ie a Christian one.

Go watch the Netflix documentary “Keep Sweet” and see how the fear of god kept women handing over girls to paedophiles for decades.

@Thesefeetaremadeforwalking there are no secular flying monkeys on this thread, just real human beings pointing out that you don't need gods to have a functioning society. You're free to disagree with that but please don't accuse us of having been sent by any organisation.

You know, whenever you talk about "Your God...", you are almost inevitably going to be wrong.

You simply can't know how the other person conceives God. All you are ever doing is refuting your own idea of who the other person belives in.

Well, yes... Because it (he, she, they) really are 'your god'.

For me personally, life is what one makes of it. I'm not materialistic - my pleasures are relatively simple ones and I'm not religious. As far as I'm concerned, there was no particular reason for being here - that's not a big deal. In fact, I feel like not being overly concerned about some big meaning or purpose makes me less materialistic. That being said, if people find that religion helps them find a purpose in life and they need that then there's no harm.

Right, I get that @AhNowTed . And you've been really measured in your comments.
It's when people tell me what my god did, what s/he's like, etc that it's frustrating- I can't have a sensible conversation with someone who's telling me incorrectly what I believe, and disproving or condemning what they think I believe in, when it's nothing of the kind.

Like, for example, 'your god would rather force a teenager to give birth to a rapists child than allow her an abortion'. 'Your god hates gays'.
Ok, some people may believe variations of that but it's not the norm among people in English churches.

When you ask a question about religion to invite debate, it’s not particularly unusual for secularists to respond. Nor is it unusual for the religious to respond, and, apparently, the North Korean Tourism board.

It seems strange that so many posters are keen to berate both religion(s) and anyone who chooses to follow one.
If we choose to believe in "an imaginary sky fairy", "an invisible friend" why not leave us to our "delusions" instead of having 13 pages of posts about it ??

If people were starting threads just to harangue religious people about sky fairies you might have a point. As it is, people are responding to what the OP asked about.

This is an AIBU thread, posing the question '(am I being unreasonable) To think it’s unwise to lose the idea of God(s) in society? '. It's an open invitation to debate.

What a very odd (and rude) take on the responses.

Do you think science offers a moral compass of what's right or wrong?

Are you aware that the early scientists had faith? Faith there was a law-giver (a god or whatever) drove the scientists to believe they would find laws in nature. (here's a Wikipedia page all about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism)

So, maybe you have "ancient hearsay" to thank for scientific progression?

Also, beware of scientism.

That's a silly argument, @Digita.

The philosophical discussion (does losing God in society create problems) is based entirely around a supposition that has already conflated God and religion. The God we're discussing as a vengeful, judgmental entity used to keep people on the straight and narrow is an invention of religion.

I don’t trust people who need an external moral compass. The instinct to not cause pain or harm to another is innate.

Do you think science offers a moral compass of what's right or wrong?

No. That's not its purpose. Not sure that religion does either, however.

Do you think science offers a moral compass of what's right or wrong?

No, that's not what science is about. You want the ethics department for that.
Of course, in western universities and many other institutions, the two work together.

Are you aware that the early scientists had faith?

Sure, some did - and some didn't.

I'm not convinced that 'not causing pain or harm' is as innate as you think. The instinct of self-preservation is innate and can cause pain or harm because it's about selfishness and the survival of oneself over others.

Science is different to religion in that it isn't based on an opinion or a want or desire that something should be the way that we want it, it's an observation on what is actually happening and as such is obviously fluid and subject to change based on further evidence as it comes in. In theory, science doesn't reject the idea of a creator but there is nothing in the way of data to give credence to it as a tangible hypothesis. I don't choose not to believe in a higher power because I don't wish to - there is just nothing there to give any genuine basis to it. Now, I'm not here to persuade anyone that they're wrong. I can't do anything about my lack of belief and if people find that religion gives them a purpose in life - why not?

No, I'm aware that's not what science is about. The poster suggested that a belief in science replaces anything faith-based, which is why I asked the question.

Ethics department: again, the question about enforcement that's troubling. If ethics are not enforceable, then they will be ignored.

Ben Goldacre had a lot to say about how unethical big pharma is and the challenges of enforcement when there's big money involved.

"Throughout Bad Pharma, we learn how those in positions of power have failed us. Universities, ethics committees, regulators, journal editors and government bodies alike have all recognised and promised to rectify the deceitful nature of the pharmaceutical industry, yet prospective follow-up procedures have often revealed non-compliance. So who are doctors and patients supposed to trust, if these once-trusted gatekeepers are found to be corrupt? If previous solutions have involved empty assurances and continued unaccountability, what else is there to do?" - warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/archive/volume6issue2/lisinger/

That's where a godless society gets worrying IMO.

@Digita - which flavour of god is your moral beacon of choice?

What's the alternative, we enslave our minds to mythical beings, ?

That's where a godless society gets worrying IMO.

But the issues you've mentioned exist whether the society has god(s) or not.

It would be very nice to think there's a benevolent sky-man/pixie whatever
Organised religion is, was and continues to be a tool for (mostly) men to control and manage others and especially women and their bodies.
It is the foundation stone of slavery and racism and as far as I'm concerned, it's a blight on humanity.

Human beings are social animals, and a cohesive society requires the development of shared values, and order. We’re far from the only species of animal that demonstrates these behaviours. They can be observed throughout the animal kingdom, no external and supernatural force necessary.

Varies depending on the situation.

You've asked about a god for a 'moral beacon'. To me, that means it would need to be a god who has the means to judge morality fairly and able to enforce it if needs be to. So, Lady Justice still represented in courts of law with balancing scales in one hand, and a sword in the other would be my flavour in this instance.

Lady Justice is based on the Goddess Themis. "Themis, (Greek: “Order”) in Greek religion, personification of justice, goddess of wisdom and good counsel, and the interpreter of the gods’ will." www.britannica.com/topic/Themis-Greek-goddess

Bit of a bold assumption that corruption is the preserve of a godless society, when ‘god’ has been used to justify the existence of, and preserve, various elitist and tyrannical orders.

the human will to power exists with or without religion. Religion and secularism alike can be used as tools to better assert it, dependent upon whom it is being wielded against. Religion especially has been utilised in this way, which is hardly surprising when you consider it installs within it’s followers the virtues of blind faith.