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’

"The Roman Empire, as in the Roman Empire that worshipped gods and carried out the wishes of their gods… which were very cruel"

People's attitudes to those gods were more 'god-fearing'. The moral of the story was: don't piss off the gods (and that's subtly different to 'worship them').

It was a reminder that there was a power more powerful than the most powerful human in society, such as the Emperor, to maintain some order. A similar structure is echoed in UK Law, too: the Queen is technically above the Law, and the Crown represents that God is above her. Another reason why so many thought Corona was god-related (it means Crown, and called so because the virus looks like a crown under the microscope).

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 ??

We can't leave you to your delusions, unfortunately, much as most of us would love to. When your delusions are having undue influence over the healthcare of millions of women, for example.
Take all your religious stuff out of the government, no charitable status for organised religions, no public funding for church* schools etc etc and I'm all "have at it".

Poster after poster has put their finger on it: it is the picking and choosing about which bits of their holy writings to follow that sticks so much in the craw.

*other types of religious school/institution are available

Poster after poster has put their finger on it: it is the picking and choosing about which bits of their holy writings to follow that sticks so much in the craw.

But why does it stick on your craw - why do you care??

"The Roman Empire, as in the Roman Empire that worshipped gods and carried out the wishes of their gods… which were very cruel"

Were they? I'm not sure I can think of examples of Roman gods making cruel demands. Of course, they were a very religiously tolerant society, accommodating the gods of the cultures assimilated into their empire. Until the idea of monotheism put a spanner in the works.

But why does it stick on your craw - why do you care??

because as i also mentioned previously, religion (in particular where we are) Christianity has an unduly massive influence on our day to day lives. As we see in politicians, they will preach, say, spousal fidelity while getting their bit on the side pregnant and then access abortion.

So they can take religion out of my life, and get on with it. Until then: i will continue to criticise their hipocrycy roundly and soundly.

In the context of this particular thread, it's relevant. Why should gods/a religion be seen as necessary for 'accountability, law and order' if that religion is inconstant across time and between people/denominations? Why should swearing an oath on a religious text carry any 'moral force' when the people who say they believe in it pick and choose which bits they actually believe, and how they interpret them?

But those "delusions" were there first-ish and helped form the fabric, foundation and structure of society. That suggests the 'delusions' have their uses.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My concern for a godless state is that it could quickly become lawless too. Ethics are difficult to enforce. As seen in the pharmaceutical industry, where there is respect paid to science (and appearing scientific), but there seems to be a disrespect for the rule of law and ethics (a concern highlighted by Ben Goldacre). A "delusional" vision of Lady Justice, Themis, hovering over big pharma with her balancing scales (symbolising tools for measuring fairness) and a sword (symbol of enforcement and authority) may help.

Also, it requires some distillation, but I still think that belief in something more (god or whatever) is distinct from organised religion trying to interpret the experience of god, which is likely intuitive, creative and a natural state.

It was suggested upthread that "being chained to one book" written a long time ago is probably the root of the problem, not necessarily faith in something more itself.

As an aside-
The Greek and Roman gods were rapists, if I remember correctly. And set impossible tasks to earn their favour. They set mortals against each other for sport.

We have capitalism as a god at the moment. Market forces used to determine the shape of society, and the acceptance that people will fall by the wayside during this economic 'reset'.

Companies are not driven by ethics, or the right thing to do- they generally can't be. They are legally obliged to do whatever it takes (within the law) to increase the success of the company, the shareholder's dividends. Where they appear to be being philanthropic, it's about improving their image and making their company more successful as a result.

I find that interesting.

It was suggested upthread that "being chained to one book" written a long time ago is probably the root of the problem, not necessarily faith in something more itself.

That's not what I suggested. 'Chaining to a book' compounds the problem of relying on an irrational made up external force. It makes it harder for people who follow that religion, and societies influenced by it, to evolve.

Think of gay rights. The persecution, criminalisation, guilt laid on homosexuals. Our society grew more compassionate, but many of the churches are still stuck because of things written down in the Bronze Age and the Roman era. The amount of misery inflicted.... for what?
Think of women's rights....

Lawlessness is bad, but secular societies don't collapse. Bad laws created and then persisting because of religion are bad too.

Because it's the idea that these mysterious gods (or whatever) have divine resources that we don't fully understand or know about. So, it encourages cautiousness and prudence, which is healthy for the judiciary that depends on people telling the truth. It's that threat of being caught out that might be effective.

I think entertaining the possibility alone helps keep an open mind and acts as a deterrent for wrongdoing.

Still, it also requires the capacity for an open mind and imaginative intelligence too. Any dumb person can tell you what is there. Say the wooden Trojan Horse is there, but it takes a bit more to consider if something is hiding inside the wooden horse. Maybe the gods depend a bit on people not questioning the wooden horse (I say that mindful that a god was said to have inspired the Trojan Horse idea in the first place).

As we see in politicians, they will preach, say, spousal fidelity while getting their bit on the side pregnant and then access abortion.

Well, not so much in the UK. We are not the USA.
So it wouldn't be wrong if the politican was not a believer.
Surely - It would be wrong regardless of what the politican believed.

Take your pick - they all had tha5 tendency!

"Also, it requires some distillation, but I still think that belief in something more (god or whatever) is distinct from organised religion trying to interpret the experience of god, which is likely intuitive, creative and a natural state."

OP aren't you being rather disingenuous.

A common theme from you is the separation of god and religion. That god is good and it's religion that's mucked it up.

That others can't have really found god in a meaningful way, only religion.

But without religion, the idea of god is just a supernatural being that created the universe. That's it. Everything else has come from religious writings. That gos is good and the story of creation ALL comes from religion.

So the idea that we need god in society without all the religion would never work. You'd just have a world believing god put us here and that's it.

A harmless notion that non-believers would happily live alongside.

of course we can go on and on about arguments. My chief argument for believing in God is that he exists and that I have a relationship with him through Jesus Christ for many years. Might seem a bit arrogant but the old adage is true that the person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument. There are firm intellectual foundations for my faith and they are found to be true on practice.

@ErrolTheDragon "That's not what I suggested."

Maybe that's a case in point of how anything in the language is subject to interpretation. What you intended is different to the various interpretations and ways it can be taken because that's how language works. A problem that also seems perpetual in being 'chained to one book' that's open to interpretation. Writers of the bible (or other text) may well not have intended it to be read the way it has been ever since it was committed to paper, just as when you came up with 'chained to one book' (I loved it, took it and ran with it in various directions!)

I agree though, that 'being chained to one book' makes it difficult to evolve. Makes sense; the text is static whilst life goes on and is fluid.

Karen Arnstrong writes about how faith is different to ancient times. A reviewer (Ginny) summed up her tome of a book 'The Case for God' quite concisely: "The premise is this: God, whatever that is, is an unknowable transcendence, and religion throughout the ages has been a practice or craft based on ritual and contemplation of myth designed to bring practitioners in touch with the transcendent, a project that was all mucked up in the Enlightenment when religious folks got the idea that their God, just like the universe, was reducible to a knowable notion - a fact - leading to their initial reliance on and eventual antipathy toward science and ending up with the current vogue of religion qua science, an aberrant perversion of both.

"There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, she argues, as they are separate magisteria concerned with separate questions. There is more than one kind of truth - science arrives at one while art, literature, and religion arrive at another. Religious people should get back making a commitment to religious practice instead of contorting their brains to accept absurd beliefs."

I find it the complete opposite. Someone swearing on a religious text means that they answer to a higher authority (I.e. not the courts), I could say gives them a valid cause in their mind to lie if they feel they are 'serving god' for some other greater good.
An atheistic person, is just presenting you with themselves and swearing they will tell the truth.
Both times, it doesn't mean much, you have to consider the possibility that they are lying. But it's always harder to spot a liar when they truly 'believe' they are doing the right thing

(I was a juror on a trial once where later evidence showed that a number of religious witnesses- including a community religious figure- were all lying through their teeth. But they were so convincing and I believe it was the moral superiority that they felt they were doing the right thing protecting someone that made them so convincing)

My point is, liars come in all forms. Religiosity or a lack of do not have any bearing or impact

@AhNowTed "A common theme from you is the separation of god and religion. That god is good and it's religion that's mucked it up."

If you read the OP I'm not being as simplistic as "god is good". The OP refers to research finding that ideas of a 'vengeful god' are useful for developing cooperation in human society through fear of retribution. Many wouldn't view a 'vengeful god' as 'good' per see, but the usefulness of the deterrent for wrongdoing might be 'good' for society in terms of 'accountability, law and order'.

Do you not think it's possible to believe in god and not religion?

Religion tries to interpret God - and I often view it as someone else's experience of God that isn't the same as my own. But I think it's possible to interpret God for oneself without religion and other interpretations (although hearing them out can be useful for contemplation). In the end, it's a private faith; everyone experiences it differently and is on different paths/journeys anyway.

But Religion comes with other add-ons, such as community that appeals to humans as social animals. And because the experience of God can feel lonely and experienced in solitude, it can be reassuring that one isn't alone - and that others also experience the spiritual 'something more' too, albeit in different ways.

My chief argument for believing in God is that he exists

Classic circular argument.

I think we have but to look across the pond at what is happening in the US to see the malign influence of religion on society. Yes, that's religion and not god, but as pointed out upthread, you can't really have one without the other.

We have the destruction of safe legal abortion - which will kill women
We have an increase in book bans
We have increased oppression of LGBT people

None of it is good. We need less of this sort of thing, not more.

@Digita

"Do you not think it's possible to believe in god and not religion?

Religion tries to interpret God - and I often view it as someone else's experience of God that isn't the same as my own. But I think it's possible to interpret God for oneself without religion and other interpretations (although hearing them out can be useful for contemplation). In the end, it's a private faith; everyone experiences it differently and is on different paths/journeys anyway.

But Religion comes with other add-ons, such as community that appeals to humans as social animals. And because the experience of God can feel lonely and experienced in solitude, it can be reassuring that one isn't alone - and that others also experience the spiritual 'something more' too, albeit in different ways."

Yes I'm sure it's not only possible, but preferable.

Even a vengeful god, and a simplistic message that god is watching.

Non-believers would happily stay silent and allow believers to get on with it.

It's the less savoury multitude of man-made add-ons that one takes issue with.

Given the current state of the world with large chunks of the population believing in a God of some sort, I'm more than happy to see what a world is like without any believers.

Organised religions charity and outreach programs are about controlling the masses and expanding their span of control.

And as for the missionary work - well that is just as bad as their abuses. And provdes an handiy avenue to ship out problem priests to African countries.

And of course good people are involved in this charity work with good intentions. Nobody is saying that all religious people are evil or anything. I'm sure there are just as many good religious people as they are atheist people. The argument seems to be that the religious people wouldn't continue their good works if they didn't have a God or church telling them to.

"There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, she argues, as they are separate magisteria concerned with separate questions. There is more than one kind of truth - science arrives at one while art, literature, and religion arrive at another.

There are certainly different domains of knowledge and experience. However, the 'truths', and the means of finding them, are different. Objective, verifiable (or falsifiable) versus subjective. The 'truth' of one religion (or small branch thereof) is the heresy of another. That's not the sort of understanding of 'truth' that has any place in the criminal justice system, except perhaps for considerations of intent.

@Sandinmyknickers
"Someone swearing on a religious text means that they answer to a higher authority (I.e. not the courts), I could say gives them a valid cause in their mind to lie if they feel they are 'serving god' for some other greater good."

Lying under oath is not "serving god". For example, God, according to the Old Testament is clear that perjury is wrong and makes it one of the Ten Commandments. I am yet to find where a religious text says that lying under oath is somehow 'serving god'; to the contrary, it's more likely a crime against God.

"(I was a juror on a trial once where later evidence showed that a number of religious witnesses- including a community religious figure- were all lying through their teeth. But they were so convincing and I believe it was the moral superiority that they felt they were doing the right thing protecting someone that made them so convincing)"

They got caught out. Sounds like God wasn't having any of their dishonesty, no matter how morally superior they felt. The rules in Court are clear 'do not lie' (that includes cover-ups and good intentions).

As in the OP. "Society needs reasons for people to tell the truth even when it is to their disadvantage." Sounds like those community religious figures conveniently forgot the 'vengeful god' bit, which the research claims is the useful bit to society.

Mary Beard says something about how a legal system can't run if people can come fib their pants off, so perjury has to be punished very hard. The Romans believed perjury was also a divine matter. So, where the state couldn't prosecute due to lack of evidence (possibly a common reason people took their chances on lying to get themselves off the hook), they believed a god would step in to finish off the job by punishing the perjury more severely. Roman gods were presented as badass and nothing got past them.

YABU.

Sounds like God wasn't having any of their dishonesty, no matter how morally superior they felt.

That anecdote sounds more like the proposition of a god as ultimate policeman doesn't really work that well. What actually worked in that case was evidence and the law. Maybe people who don't have a firm grip on the difference between objective and subjective truth are more likely to come adrift? Maybe they thought their god would protect them... and I dare say having been caught they think their god (rather than whoever they wronged by their lies) would forgive them.