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’

I love Bill Hicks' sketch on religion and how the numerous rewrites of the Bible can be justified:
"What God meant to say was…"

That's why I don't believe any texts about god or religion, because humans have written them.

Agreed. But on a hunch, it seems probable that the pharmaceutical industry employs 'scientists who (by extension) are also more likely to be atheists'. It seems unlikely someone at Big Pharma etc is going to envision Lady Justice, Themis (or any other god) hovering over them and bearing witness.

If they think there's no god, then there's no fear of divine retribution either. So, anything goes. It suggests respect for science (or appearing to be scientific) but disrespect for the rule of law.

“It is clear from the evidence presented in this book that the pharmaceutical industry does a biased job of disseminating evidence - to be surprised by this would be absurd - whether it is through advertising, drug reps, ghostwriting, hiding data, bribing people, or running educational programmes for doctors.” - Ben Goldacre, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients

But for a long time, people were illiterate. Most experienced god in different ways. Art, nature, patterns, life events etc.

But on a hunch, it seems probable that the pharmaceutical industry employs 'scientists who (by extension) are also more likely to be atheists'.

Yes, but (unfortunately)they're generally not the ones making the decisions on what products to push, or devising tactics to do so. It employs marketing types, financial bods etc etc, who are likely to be more representative of the general population. A lot of the miscreant big pharmas are American, where there's a lot of religiosity.

Which is understandable, but that leads to the conclusion that God is basically what ever humans want it to be, so how can people say it's God's words and e.g. Quote the bible as if it's fact, when basically it could be argued that the book is what humans make it to be

But for a long time, people were illiterate.
They had oral traditions - ideas passed down, mutating along the way no doubt as memories faded and the societies evolved, which might then at some point be captured in writing. I suppose some of the 'holy' books are a snapshot of a particular point in time. There are ideas in the Old Testament which are disregarded by many followers of the New ... and ideas within that which nowadays many modern Christians don't subscribe to or downplay, as secular society evolves and they have to play catch-up on matters such as sex equality, gay rights etc. It occurs to me that perhaps religions worked more naturally in pre- literate societies, where they weren't chained to a book?

But I wonder if that suggests faith in the divine is a more intuitive natural state and that intuition gets lost in scripture and analysis?

Intuition could also explain how faith in god survives against the 'concrete evidence' some people want. God's an intuitive experience, and the experience is empirical evidence for some people. Maybe it's made the more precious that it can't be captured in a test tube and replicated for profit. The cynic in me feels that god knows people would just commercialise evidence of god (and religious organisations already do enough damage there), so god(s) might ensure the evidence of their existence is largely through personal lived experience that cannot be sold/bought in a jar in a shop. God(s) just protecting their USP.

Intuition also explains why people might be drawn to religions trying to explain and understand the depth of their intuitive experiences.

A bit like children starting out as creative and intuitive, only to have it schooled out of them and to regard creativity and imagination as inferior in some way.

Deities in antiquity seemed to be archetypal, containing all human potential for both creative and destructive behaviours. They had superpowers as well, but were very human in their flaws and virtues. Some of their stories seem to mirror human emotions and aspirations and to offer guidance, The Abrahamic religions seem different in that God is very different to humans although Jesus could be seen as a bridge across that divide, perhaps. All religions seem to offer moral guidance such as 'the love of money is the root of all evil' etc. (although religious institutions don't seem to have taken that fully on board.) At any rate, in a truly secular society I suppose we create archetypes from other sources such as celebrities, science, billionaires, maybe.

"It occurs to me that perhaps religions worked more naturally in pre- literate societies, where they weren't chained to a book?"

Yes. I'd agree with that. Makes sense that intuition and intuitive intelligence played a bigger role in pre-literate societies and was a more natural state too.

The being "chained to a book" could be the symbol of patriarchy.

Have you heard of the Oracle of Delphi? It was always a woman through whom uncannily accurate prophecies would be delivered from a god. At the time, the woman (usually a regular blameless woman) was the most powerful person in society. But apparently, male scribes would stand by writing down the divine frenzy that the oracle was going through to interpret her message (possibly because the divine frenzy was a lot for the oracle, but also maybe for some power over her experience and message to be written down 'by them').

The oracle was not chained to a book. But the scribes were, in their writing (and others in their reading of the writing).

YABU.

All the "good" bits of religion can and do exist perfectly well without having to base it on having faith in a fictional being.

Certainty good points to consider, much appreciated for your analysis and perspectives.

Yet we have had a weird few years (that don't feel they're over).

I never thought I'd see the day when mainstream media would consider the possibility that god(s) is behind anything in the modern day. But it happened. People (with or without faith) were sincerely asking, "is this god?" like we were experiencing something that would one day be written in a religious text or something. Like god(s) making a comeback. So strange.

The deities in antiquity make a lot of sense, much like polytheism in Hinduism. I also think those deities were relatable and help understand what it means to be human too. The capriciousness of some deities reflects the human capacity for capriciousness too. Like a mirror pulled up in front for reflection.

The being "chained to a book" could be the symbol of patriarchy.

That's not really what I meant - more tying down the religion down to the attitudes of an ancient culture. (Though I do quite like the direction that phrase has taken you.). So you get E.g. the Anglican Church tying itself in knots between fundamentalists and traditionalists who don't want to accept women as full equals of men, or who can't accept gay marriage because of what the Bible pretty unambiguously says, versus liberal elements who are more in tune with modern societal values of equality and toleration but who have to either 'cherry pick' or fudge with 'continuing revelation'

@Digita I am fascinated by what you say about the Oracle. I feel this must have taken the raw and individualised experience and narrowed it in the act of writing it down, into just one 'correct' version. I suppose it was mainly men who could read and write also. Yes, I do think ancient deities were our mirrors and a possibly a representation of duality.

The original OP was about research that found the "bad" bits (so a monstrous being like a vengeful god) to be useful for human societies being co-operative due to fear of punishment for wrongdoing.

The research suggests the "good" bits of religion might not do as well without the "bad" bits. e.g. God provides both the poison and the antidote in one package, yin and yang.

So what do you think keeps them chained to a book rather than going with the flow?

Maybe it's the promise of a 2nd coming and not wanting to be without the 'clues'. I suppose the bible has a promise of a sequel with 'End Times', and the church has got people waiting for the next release. Even though it has taken about 2,000 years...

Quite.

Also, they don't insist that anyone who is religious swear on their religion's text. You just say whether you want to swear or affirm. In theory a Rabbi could choose to affirm.

So what do you think keeps them chained to a book rather than going with the flow?

I don't know. I've come across fundamentalists who believe in the Bible as the Word of God .... because the Bible says it's the Word of God (I've forgotten the chapter and verse which 'proves' this) and who can't see the circularity of the argument. But if you undermine the Book ... what's the basis for any of their beliefs?

I haven't seen any evidence of mass strikes by scientists at big pharma on ethical grounds or anything else. They do have a choice and are not blameless. So, it suggests they're complicit and don't care as long as they get a paycheck.

Suggests respect for science (and appearing scientific) but disrespect for the rule of law (possibly because they don't think it's possible a god like Lady Justice, Themis, could conceivably hold any wrongdoing to account).

"But if you undermine the Book ... what's the basis for any of their beliefs?"

Everything else?

I wonder if God is insulted that people think he/she/it is only capable of producing one book? Like, it's God, probably inspired ALL the books including Richard Dawkin's 'God Delusion' as a double bluff just for fun.

Also, they don't insist that anyone who is religious swear on their religion's text. You just say whether you want to swear or affirm. In theory a Rabbi could choose to affirm.

Affirmation in courts originally came in because the Quakers believed it was wrong to swear an oath, rather than it being from secular pressure.

Don't even fundamentalists pick and mix bits of the bible to suit.

Anti-gay is absolute, but Noah's ark is a metaphor.. that type of thing. Seems to me the more fantastical stories have been downgraded to metaphors or they'd undermine the whole story.

Everything else?

Every what thing else though? (I'm thinking of a subset of fundamentalist types here)

Don't even fundamentalists pick and mix bits of the bible to suit.

Anti-gay is absolute, but Noah's ark is a metaphor.. that type of thing. Seems to me the more fantastical stories have been downgraded to metaphors or they'd undermine the whole story.

Some of them seem not to... they cite evidence of The Flood (of course that may be derived from an orally transmitted memory of a real though not global event as flood myths are present in other cultures in that area). I came across someone - on an MN discussion years ago - who when challenged to explain how humanity got going from Cain and Seth , the sons of Adam and Eve, cheerfully said the Bible didn't bother to mention A&Es daughters (well, they were only girls) ... yeah, incest was a preferable explanation to genesis being a myth.