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’

But isn't that what we have the rule of law, and the justice system for?

You do, we all do. There is no moral guide apart from religion. No morality at all. Not on the natural world. This is a cornerstone of people’s belief in God and the need for religion.

@AhNowTed
"But isn't that what we have the rule of law, and the justice system for?"

'Yes' and 'no'.

Man-made laws only go so far. We cannot have laws passed that govern all aspects of human behaviour (good or bad) - that is unless you advocate a 'Little Red Book' given out by the government for all to follow?

You only have to look at some threads on this site to see posters quote multiple examples of bad behaviour, either as an instigator or a recipient. What could improve this situation?

Maybe you are the wrong person to ask as you yourself have given an example of disrespecting someone's assertive rights?

@IRememberXanadu "Unfortunately, I think you are right, OP. Too many people would start lying, become unkind, and generally behave in a detrimental way to society, did they not feel pressure from a higher being. And I'm saying this as an atheist. Yes, lots of people can 'police' themselves, but many cannot."
@Huntswomanonthemove "I think you're wrong, what's more it's pretty insulting to those of us who don't believe."

But is it about individuals? I thought it's about society in its larger numbers.

@Brefugee It's fine if you don't like what I say or how I say it, but do you think labelling something "patronising bollocks" magically makes it so?

@ErrolTheDragon "You can't just separate out the bit you want."

Do you mean god and religion? But they are separate. One is a philosophical concept, and the other is an organised manmade religion that manipulates the philosophical concept.

I wonder if it's more convenient to argue against religion. That it's tactical to conflate god and religion. Much easier to be disapproving of manmade religion than disprove god.

It's harder to stand up to a philosophical concept of 'something more' god idea because god is unknowable. However, faith comes about because some people intuit something more and have the imaginative intelligence to entertain what that could be. Like 'god' exists in radio silence or something.

I’m not sure how that contradicts statements as to the religious aspects of the holocaust.

The persecution of Jews has been a common feature of European Christianity, with them being denigrated as ‘Christ killers’. One of the reasons Jews have dominated the financial industries is because it’s one of the only industries they were allowed access to. Usury you see, was forbidden to Christians. Of course when the good Christians found themselves in too much debt, they launched pogroms.

see also blood libel:
brewminate.com/a-history-of-the-anti-semitic-blood-libel-hoax-since-the-middle-ages/

same tropes every time. The wicked Jew praying on the innocent Christian child.

look at the persecution of Jews as part of the Spanish Inquisition, all in the name of Catholicism.

www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2430792/jewish/The-Spanish-Inquisition.htm

the Holocaust didn’t happen in a vacuum. Context matters.

The “idea” of God gave a rabid believer the apparent right to tell me my late Partners cancer was Gods punishment for his alternative lifestyle, and that I should hold my loved ones close as their days would be numbered too, plus that I would end my days sick, alone, jobless and homeless.

so frankly, I really don’t see how the idea of God improves peoples morals or behaviour…..

@Thesefeetaremadeforwalking

I don't believe I was rude to you at all.

Sure, I couldn't mask my incredulity that you asked me to back up my assertion that women got a raw deal from organised religion.

I was totally honest when I said I can't believe you're serious. But not rude.

@AhNowTed I think @Thesefeetaremadeforwalking was talking about me. Apparently expressing amazement that someone isn't aware of the malign patriarchal aspects of organised religion is now rude.

'Disrespecting' someone's words is now a crime - this is the sort of thing my abusive alcoholic late husband used to say to keep us in line, so I'm a bit immune to that kind of PA BS.

@MistressoftheDarkSide my sympathy goes out to you. My youngest DC experienced similar a few weeks ago when we were approached by an evangelising asshole Christian who asked if they knew Jesus and then plainly said that if only they accepted Jesus, they might not need their wheelchair.

This person was left alive, unharmed and not even offended, which probably goes to show that miracles do happen.

@pointythings Thats terrible and I’m so sorry 😞

I have to admit I was less than polite, but if someone is going Biblical on me I feel it only fair to refer to the “eye for an eye” quote….

I have “forgiven” them now, but Jesus had nothing to do with that…. 😈

@Brefugee ”here comes the patronising bollocks again.”

I was contributing to discussion; there’s no need to be rude (yet again). Ironic given I was posting on the subject of toleration.

Also, it’s not ‘bollocks’ that particular historical figure is not well known (but his jewels are in the Tower that attracts huge crowds). At the time he was announced as the winner of the poll, it was a surprise because he‘s not a familiar name in the mainstream (like Churchill or Lincoln, who were also nominated and polled but lost out to the lesser known historical figure).

Was actually nice to see someone win a history poll on ‘greatest leader of all times’ on merit rather than popularity and familiarity. Even nicer to see the merit was that he oversaw a modern empire of toleration. Sounded like he was ahead of his time.

@AhNowTed ”But isn't that what we have the rule of law, and the justice system for?"

In theory. But the challenge is enforcement of the rule of law and justice system.

Also, how do you prevent the corruption of the rule of law and justice system by those who are supposed to police and enforce?

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Goes back to humans, at base level, are animals. So, the rule of law and justice might need the idea of something way above base animals level to help with a little pressure to behave. Quite tragic really.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Amen to that.

Sorry, couldn't help myself 😀

Probably the must tragic truism of all time.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But aren't "Gods" supposed to have absolute power? If so, doesn't it follow that they are then corrupt?

I’m not seeing how supernatural pressure can be considered a net positive in terms of motivating good behaviour, when said belief is also used to justify terrible behaviour. You can’t say ‘religion is a good thing because of X’ without balancing it against Y (pick your problem).

Common belief certainly can bond people within a group, but simultaneously creates suspicion against those within a community that don’t share those beliefs. That can quickly turn from distrust, to using religious teaching to justify persecution (thou shalt not suffer a witch to live for example, with ‘a witch’ meaning ‘someone that I don’t like’).

The worship of a deity is a fundamental part of human existence. Has been since man arrived on earth.
God and religion exist in tandem.
So your post is wholly incorrect.

Even taking away religion, there isn’t actually an intrinsic need for spirituality within everyone. That doesn’t mean that those who don’t ponder it lack imagination, however. As an atheist I have imagination, but I also have the ability to separate imagination from reality. There’s a difference between imagining a god, and believing there is one. Quite a big difference, in fact.

There are plenty of things I can’t explain about existence (either because they haven’t been explained yet or because while they have been explained, I’m not a scientist that’s done a deep dive on the topic in order to learn more of it), but I can accept that I can’t explain it. I don’t feel the need to cover up my lack of understanding with ‘because god’.

“The worship of a deity is a fundamental part of human existence.”

But why?

“God and religion exist in tandem. So your post is wholly incorrect.”

“In tandem” means alongside each other.

I said “One is a philosophical concept, and the other is an organised manmade religion that manipulates the philosophical concept.”

That is indeed in tandem, as in alongside each other. But I’d still argue god and religion are separate just as philosophy and religion are in tandem but separate disciplines.

So, my post is not “wholly incorrect”. In fact, I found the phrase “wholly incorrect” funny because it sounds I was being marked in an objective discipline like maths.

@whumpthereitis ”As an atheist I have imagination, but I also have the ability to separate imagination from reality. There’s a difference between imagining a god, and believing there is one.”

I found that interesting. Maybe it’s that ability to separate imagination from reality that makes you atheist.

Whilst what makes a believer is that they experience imagination and reality in a mesh.

“There are plenty of things I can’t explain about existence (either because they haven’t been explained yet or because while they have been explained, I’m not a scientist that’s done a deep dive on the topic in order to learn more of it), but I can accept that I can’t explain it. I don’t feel the need to cover up my lack of understanding with ‘because god’.”

Like ‘god of the gaps’?

Being questioning of a lack of understanding can also entertain the question ‘but is it god?’ If so how/why?’.

So, if someone commits a wrongdoing and the. gets their karma one day. It might useful that they consider ‘did god find out and now punishing me?’. If they make a connection between a wrongdoing and a perceived punishment (like a cause and effect), then that is what I think the research is claiming is effective in moderating human behaviours. If they don’t make any connections between their wrongdoing and any perceived punishment (which would suggest a retributive god), then where’s the potential for learning from the wrongdoing?

I’m saying it’s an effective psychological tool for moderating behaviour in human society. Not, that I actually think that’s how it works.

Chances of shit happening are so high that the potential for that there’s capacity of kind of connection making. Still, I think karma and just works theories are problematic too.

To be fair, @Kashmirsilver is onto something. When you look at human mythology (and I include religion in that for convenience) what you see is a range of deities who exhibit all the traits we humans possess. Helpful gods, kind gods, jealous gods, petty gods, selfish gods - it's all there. We make gods in our own image, perhaps as a way of justifying our own existence. The majority of human beings believe in some kind of deity. Not all, but atheists are in the minority.

None of that means that humanity needs gods in order to have a functioning society, however.

But if you agree with @Kashmirsilver ”The worship of a deity is a fundamental part of human existence.”

Then why are you also saying: “None of that means that humanity needs gods in order to have a functioning society, however.”

That’s ignoring a fundamental part of human existence that can act as a useful glue to hold together a functioning society.

I’ve gone back to the OP link.

“'Belief in rewards from the god could not account for the results – supernatural punishment seemed responsible,' said Dominic Johnson of Oxford University, who was not involved in the research, writing in an accompanying article in Nature. 'It is worth emphasising that the subjects in this experiment were not cooperative with random strangers, only with strangers that shared the same god,' Dr Johnson said.”

Maybe it’s that ‘same god’ idea that explains religion.

When really, faith is different for each individual because it’s subjective.

Not sure why I got a special lecture on one example of someone promoting religious tolerance, given that upthread I'd alluded to the Romans generally rubbing along together ok with many religions. The fact that some people manage religious tolerance doesn't cancel out out the many horrible cases of religious intolerance.

As to separating god and religion .... I doubt believers see the former as merely a 'philosophical concept'. It may be what you'd like this thread to stick to, but in practice, in real societies, "the idea of God(s) " nearly always seems to result in religious organisations. So no, in the context you set in your AIBU question, you really can't separate them.

If you make an incorrect statement about a fundamental part of human existence then I'm quite within my rights to nudge you.
Your posts are full of incorrect assertions when talking about fundamental concepts. Interesting you mention math. Professor Lennox argued a case for God using math.
Morality has oft been used as an argument for supporting the existence of a God.
Kant also concluded the ultimate good/perfection is represented by a God.

@Digita just because we need something doesn't mean it is good for us. And where the things we need are not good for us, we can work to overcome that need and find other coping mechanisms. And if you are wondering whether I am seeing the need for a deity as a form of addiction - yes, I probably am.

'It is worth emphasising that the subjects in this experiment were not cooperative with random strangers, only with strangers that shared the same god,'

Hmm... not necessarily conducive to toleration then? A justice system which privileges 'us' over 'them' is not one with having. Yet another reason for rejecting your proposition.

Is that not though also the distinction between sanity and psychosis? What is the differentiation? Is it scale? What is the difference between a religious experience, and someone believing that aliens are communicating with them through the television? Would the latter cease to a symptom of mental illness if millions subscribed to that view?

I absolutely agree that it’s an effective psychological tool, and has been (and is) wielded as such. Whether that’s a force for good however is in the eye of the beholder. What is ‘good’, anyway? People are tricky creatures, we can justify anything and call it good, yet if we were on the receiving end of some of those things we would call them evil. It’s not like concepts of good and evil are built on solid foundations. For every positive outcome you can point to, you can also point to a negative, and call either one it’s opposite depending upon where you’re standing as you consider them.

@Brefugee “In fact, utilitarianism is about the closest thing to religion that i could get behind.”

That’s quite interesting given the OP is about law, order and justice too.

So, upthread the issue of perjury was raised. Utilitarianism could risk somehow justifying lying under oath/affirmation because they think they’re protecting the greater good - but it’s extremely shortsighted and risks destabilising the legal system. Lying under oath/affirmation for reasons of utilitarianism would still be perjury (a crime). The legal system simply couldn’t run if people could lie under oath if they thought they’re “serving a greater good in society in doing so”. That’s why society needs something to get people to tell the truth even if it’s at their disadvantage (and that includes the disadvantage to their community or group).

To back myself up:

”Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust. During the apartheid regime in South Africa in the last century, South African whites, for example, sometimes claimed that all South Africans—including blacks—were better off under white rule. These whites claimed that in those African nations that have traded a whites-only government for a black or mixed one, social conditions have rapidly deteriorated. Civil wars, economic decline, famine, and unrest, they predicted, will be the result of allowing the black majority of South Africa to run the government. If such a prediction were true—and the end of apartheid has shown that the prediction was false—then the white government of South Africa would have been morally justified by utilitarianism, in spite of its injustice.

“If our moral decisions are to take into account considerations of justice, then apparently utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our decisions.”

www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/