Why Religion does not work anymore.

This is not a criticism of belief, or an atheist spouting anti-christian/muslim/jewish/etc... propaganda.
This is not a wake up call from a pretentious ego.
This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

This is pure reason.

It is fine for people to have beliefs in an afterlife, a god or gods, and spiritual rules.  It is fine for people to be strengthened by spiritual rituals or assemblies.  It is perfectly fine that you do not agree with me.

So if it is none of those, then what is this?  Simple.
This is why, in modern society, Religion -does not work-.
More specifically, it is why many standards of religion and many standards of practice are obsolete, and clash with the modern world.

It is as simple as the advance of technology.
Technology creates new ways to live, as well as the ease of living, which fosters the desire for freedom, and the desire for expression.  It opens doors, creating opportunity, and it allows for people to be more diverse, while still surviving.

But why then, did religion work before?  Was it never a human desire to live as one wished, and express oneself?

Simple answer: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
To elaborate (taken from About.com)

Psychologist Abraham Maslow first introduced his concept of a hierarchy of needs in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation"1 and his subsequent book, Motivation and Personality.2 This hierarchy suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other needs.

As you can clearly see in this diagram, the most important need for any human being is physical survival, followed by physical comfort and safety.

Back in the dark ages or (to use a term coined by someone else) the 'age of religion', these needs were dire.  In fact, they were so important because sickness was rampant, food was scarce, and the local governments typically took luxuries for themselves while forsaking the general populace.  Thus survival and basic safety were the highest priorities on the minds of those still living.  However, offering safety, offering psychological reassurance, and offering hope, was religion.  It worked.  People lived optimistically, hoping for the day that everything is made better by the return of their savior, or that their afterlife might have meaning.  

That was the one thing religion did right, and the one thing I appreciate about it.  Rather than condemning totally and wholly with laws and punishments without any form of recourse or salvation, they offered a way out, they offered hope, they offered people something more to enrich their otherwise bleak, starved, hopeless existence.  And it helped people get through.  It caused countless wars when in the wrong hands, but int he right hands it helped society move forward, and it helped the world recover from the plagues without losing writing, without losing basic education and without losing humanity.  

Without modern technology, things such as plagues or natural disasters seemed very much like the act of god (more so than they do now) and therefore created more belief, more superstition, and more emphasis on religion.

Look before the dark ages, to Rome and Greece.  They had wonderful technology, irrigation for crops, building tools, and they created wonderful art the likes of which never came before.  This art was created as expression, as 'self-actualization' because they were living comfortably and safely, and could be more frivolous because of it.  We know little about these cultures except that their architecture, mathematics, art, and society were highly enlightened and advanced for their time, likely because BASIC NEEDS WERE MET.

Flash forward to now.  Present day.  Are your basic needs met easily on a daily basis through work, or perhaps provided by your parents?  Sure they are.  Is everything in your life made easier via a computer, or modern luxuries such as Cars, Pencils, Pens, Paper, Supermarkets, Vending Machines, Spring Mattresses, Tractors, Fertilizer, and etc...?  Absolutely.

Basic Physical Needs are met more easily nowadays due to Technology, facilitating frivolous thought and ventures, and encouraging people to branch out, encouraging people to be diverse, encouraging self-expression and 'self actualization'.  Thus, moving beyond the need for safety, strict rules and regulations and in most cases strict spiritual beliefs are cast away in favor of breaking out, challenging convention, and expressing oneself to the desired level.

Society has changed along with the advance of technology.  Women, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, they all have human rights protected by the government.  Art is prominent, entertainment is more valuable than food to society (just look at the prices), and people are more willing to branch out.  New laws and freedoms are granted to society, challenging religious doctrine that has been (mostly) unchanged for centuries.

Thus, the two are destined to clash.  Technology out dates itself in months, and out dates religious doctrine by its very existence.

I will wrap this up by saying I believe in an afterlife, and I believe that I should be a good human being.  Not to suck up to a God or group of Gods, not to abide by some laws I set for myself or are set for me by an invisible hand, not to get into some heaven somewhere, but because that's what I feel I was created to do.  I believe I was created to live in a manner that makes me happy, and interact peacefully with other human beings, regardless of how they believe, think, act, feel, look, speak, walk, dress, or any other difference.

I do not condemn intolerance as this would be hypocrisy.
However, if I am condemned for my beliefs, thoughts, actions, feelings, looks, speech, walk, dress, or anything else, I will defend myself.  Being open-minded does not mean one must believe the same as someone else, just that you accept them for who they are, and are willing to move beyond it.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Uh... people are allowed to believe what they wish. Some are philosophical religions based on logic or reason, others are based on tradition. Yeah, certain religious doctrines are annoying, and I absolutely hate it when one person tries to force their view on someone else. But as long as they do not interfere with the beliefs of others, there's no reason for us to ever say they shouldn't hold their faith. Religion works to make their life fulfilling to them, and if religion is what keeps them spiritually satisfied with their life, why shouldn't they stay with it?

Uh... people are allowed to believe what they wish. Some are philosophical religions based on logic or reason, others are based on tradition. Yeah, certain religious doctrines are annoying, and I absolutely hate it when one person tries to force their view on someone else. But as long as they do not interfere with the beliefs of others, there's no reason for us to ever say they shouldn't hold their faith. Religion works to make their life fulfilling to them, and if religion is what keeps them spiritually satisfied with their life, why shouldn't they stay with it?

read the first few sentences over again.

Zeitgeist

I'm currently watching this. Interesting.

Zeitgeist is awesome! Let me know what you think of it after.

Zeitgeist is not awesome. Belief is personal, and religion is very rarely connected to true spirituality. Science is not a replacement for belief.

I knew about the first two topics, Christianity (which is why I posted the video) and 9/11 -

- but I didn't know all about the Federal Reserve and not having to ever pay the federal income tax. Is this still real? This came out in 2007. If it's still real, then fuuuuuuck, I'm not ever paying the federal income tax again.

The movie was interesting overall.


I think religion is simply faith in anything at this point.

Zeitgeist is not awesome. Belief is personal, and religion is very rarely connected to true spirituality. Science is not a replacement for belief.

I'm not talking about belief, I'm talking about religion.

Do you mean organized religion, with its hierarchies and strict rules? A blind adherence to tradition independant of thought? If so, then I would agree that religion is not beneficial. History has shown that religious organizations use several negative devices to control their faithful- which is, IMO, a gravely evil thing to do; using someone's faith to get what you can out of them, like the Catholic and Anglican churches did in european history (among others worldwide) is just plain predatory.

On the other hand, if a religion (read tradition of belief) enriches the lives of its faithful in some way, and the flock is not composed of people simply going through motions, then  I see no reason it should be discarded. It then becomes a real spiritual experience, which sadly, as Holk said, is so seldom seen in religion. I would say that I am one of those whose lives are enriched by their faith and celebrate it every day in many ways. If that means I am backwards or superstitious, okay by me because I find more joy in life in general now than I ever have. It is by my own decision that I say I am incomplete without the higher powers I revere, not because someone told me so. This is my path.

By the nature of my argument, though, I have to accept that there are as many paths as there are people and move beyond those differences, even if others are unwilling to do so for me.

I was just explaining why organized religion tends to cause spectacular clashes with modern society.

Not condemning religion in any way, people can have it if they want it, I'm just observing.

Spoiler for Really really long:

I’m inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I’m not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don’t adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow’s hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don’t think that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn’t adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I’ll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn’t replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you’re trying to explain: that religion doesn’t work in today’s society. I don’t know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. “The first will be last” etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will “work” in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn’t work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it’s simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they’re dead. You probably don’t even know what your great grandfather’s name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don’t care that he may have been punched once and thus that his “universal” human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I’m going to stop.

Spoiler for Really really long:

I’m inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I’m not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don’t adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow’s hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don’t think that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn’t adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I’ll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn’t replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you’re trying to explain: that religion doesn’t work in today’s society. I don’t know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. “The first will be last” etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will “work” in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn’t work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it’s simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they’re dead. You probably don’t even know what your great grandfather’s name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don’t care that he may have been punched once and thus that his “universal” human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I’m going to stop.

I love you, Modern. :3

Spoiler for Really really long:

I’m inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I’m not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don’t adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow’s hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don’t think that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn’t adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I’ll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn’t replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you’re trying to explain: that religion doesn’t work in today’s society. I don’t know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. “The first will be last” etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will “work” in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn’t work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it’s simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they’re dead. You probably don’t even know what your great grandfather’s name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don’t care that he may have been punched once and thus that his “universal” human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I’m going to stop.

I agree with all but the last bit: In a world with no deity, it is true that humanity has little meaning in a lonely, lonely universe. However, we can give ourselves meaning through each other, I think. More of that "your Universe is your perceptions" stuff. I find it hard to believe, personally, that every person can be given a different purpose. Then again, if that purpose is the pursuit of happiness, that can also exist as an evolutionary instinct of some sort: As beings with emotions, if we don't keep on believing that there's something better to chase, we might fall into despair.

Anyways, as I write this I realize that I have pondering to do, so I better stop this.

By the way, as you might be able to tell, I'm kind of struggling with this religion stuff myself *headdesk*

If I know (err, think) one thing, though, it's that religion in today's society is less an idea to keep people going and more a lens with which people see something greater with. So perhaps the modern, doubtful, guy may not find his happiness in any one religion. Maybe the modern, doubtful guy has to figure out things for himself. But that's not to say that people who are happy with their religions should go on that journey if they don't want to: It's not a shortcoming, at least I don't think so. Those magical "christians" C.S. Lewis writes of have already gone on this journey and somehow ended up at Christianity. Er, one thing C.S. Lewis wrote about is how Christianity always comes back when it seems to be dead, something that's happened several times throughout history. I have no idea how this goes about happening, but I'm not adverse to finding out.

And I better cut of the rambling there, because I have suspicions that I might be rambling.

Spoiler for Really really long:

I’m inclined to disagree.

Firstly, I’m not entirely sure that your disclaimer is truthful.

This is not a call for the faithful to convert to faithlessness.

So I ask everyone devout, pious, faithful, are you willing to move beyond it?

Beyond the seeming contradiction, I actually think the final sentence is quite curious in and of itself, as it asks believers to violate what they believe to be true on the basis that they are not significantly benefited by it. It is therefore an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as it asks them to ignore the truth (what they believe is true) on the basis that it is inconvenient. In that sense, your argument is a pragmatic one, which is fine, but it seems a curious approach. I will simply say that most religious people don’t adopt a religion because it will fill some need they are conscious of – they are religious because they believe it to be true, so an argument that is primarily utilitarian I think should fail to convince most religious people.

But in any case, I am not overly convinced by the hierarchy of needs argument. Firstly, I do not think religion fits very comfortably in Maslow’s hierarchy. To the extent that religion affects an individual, it must be within the top rungs – certainly it does not give physical survival or physical comfort. However, religion can give people a remarkable power to endure the deprivation of those needs. A good example of this is the death of St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was a remarkable man by any means but the part of the article I am interested in primarily is:

During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. When the remaining men had died and Kolbe was the last remaining he was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.

So these victims, through the intervention of this priest, were singing hymns as they starved to death; it suggests to me that religion can serve a purpose that transcends the basic pyramid, or at the very least that the fulfillment of psychological needs can allow an individual to endure the deprivation of needs supposedly more basic, which contravenes the structure of the pyramid itself. Either way, I don’t think that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has any straightforward application to religion, and I am reticent to accept a waving away of religion that is based on a particular theory that doesn’t adequately address religion in the first place.

However, the fact that religion can overcome lower needs in the hierarchy is kind of accepted in your argument, and so ignoring that previous analysis the second thing I find is weak about the hierarchy argument is that I fail to see how technology replaces religion at the higher levels of the pyramid. I can understand, for instance, that technology can make it easier for us to meet our physical needs; I can also see how the fulfillment of those needs can encourage the growth of industries such as art that will help fulfill some of the other needs. But, taking Christianity for example, as that is the one I know best. Christianity teaches that there is a supreme deity who loves you no matter what you do – being loved is a pretty basic need in my opinion (and I actually disagree with how Maslow hierarchizes the needs, or that there is an absolute hierarchy of needs that applies to every individual, but I’ll get off that for now). So, that is at least one thing that religion gives a person – no matter how outcast they are; no matter what society may think of them, they can at least rest assured in the knowledge that they are loved. I fail to see how technology or the products of technology can replace that. As Holk said, science doesn’t replace belief (though I disagree with him that religion is very rarely connected to spirituality – I would say it is connected to spirituality most of the time for most religious people). Another thing I find sketchy about your argument is that on a global level, most people absolutely do not have their basic needs met by technology or anything else, but assuming that your post is meant to explicate its apparent clash with first world societies I will ignore that. However, I will simply mention that there are plenty of people in North America and Europe whose basic needs are not met.

This brings me to one of my last points: I disagree with the proposition you’re trying to explain: that religion doesn’t work in today’s society. I don’t know enough about most other religions to speak about them, so I will only speak about Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally based on a total inversion of typical human power structures. It is a belief in an all-powerful deity who can do anything, and yet comes to earth as a baby; a being completely vulnerable and reliant entirely on the love and care of others. The same deity that is later tortured and crucified– sacrifices Himself for the sake of the very people who kill him. “The first will be last” etc... That is to say that Christians believe that true power is not through subjugation or through control over others or the ability to make yourself happy, but only through love. Love for one another and love for God. I would suggest that as long as there is suffering and injustice in this world, or abuse of power or whatever, then Christianity will “work” in the utilitarian sense you are using – and there is suffering in this world, not only in Africa or South America but everywhere, and not just through deprivation of basic needs but even through being unloved, etc... To say therefore that religion doesn’t work in society is to say that there is no suffering in society, and it’s simply untrue.

And finally, I do not make the same connection that you do between the growth of technology and the growth of human rights. In fact, if anything, the growth of a belief in human rights is more appropriately attributed to Christianity; I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity. It seems to me that to believe that a human life, who is one speck of dust on a planet that is itself one speck of dust in a galaxy that is a speck of dust in a universe, that that human life somehow magically matters is logically impossible. The fact is that every single human life will be forgotten almost immediately after they’re dead. You probably don’t even know what your great grandfather’s name was, let alone how he lived, what he felt – you certainly don’t care that he may have been punched once and thus that his “universal” human right to physical security was violated. Why should we be moral in that case, particularly where it does not benefit us in some material way? The fact is that this belief that human lives matter is fundamentally a religious belief, and it is one that arises primarily out of the Christian heritage of the west which prioritizes love of others, not just reciprocal treatment (golden rule); certainly human rights discourse does not exist in all other cultures. So I think it is dangerous to offer up a belief in human rights as an alternative to a belief in religion when, in my opinion, human rights discourse makes no sense whatsoever without a foundation in religion.

Anyway, I could say a lot more if you have any questions, but this post is already waaaay too long. So I’m going to stop.

I didn't say that people had to agree to get along.  I don't feel that worship is necessary and a devout christian friend of mine thinks I'm wrong, but we agree to disagree and we get along peacefully.  By 'move beyond' I'm talking about a peaceful coexistence where people don't hold "prayer vigils" with coffins and shotguns outside peoples' houses.

As far as technology 'replacing' religion, I never said that.  Nor did I say that religion didn't bring something to the table to help people get along, nor did I say it was worthless.  I said the advance of technology makes base needs easier to obtain, which means more time is spent thinking and expressing oneself.  If someone happens to believe in something and feel religion is their expression, then there you go.  If they don't, it's easier for them to express themselves, which makes it more prominent now than it was when we were digging ditches to crap in and dealing with plagues.

Lastly, I didn't connect the growth of technology with the growth of human rights, I'm just explaining that modern society has the rights now, when they didn't before, and a lot of them clash with religions.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that the topic title is a bit of a misnomer, I admit I called it what I did to get people to look, a more accurate title would be "Why Religion keeps clashing with Modern Society", because it does.  I'm not condemning either side for it, or praising either side for it, but it does truthfully clash.

tldr at the moment
I think people need to define their own meaning-or lack thereof-of life. If they want to have a prayer vigil with shotguns, and believe that god drives modern society, isn't that their right to do so?
I don't see how religion clashes with modern society and our rights, and see no connection between the two in the examples you have given. Expressing oneself has nothing to do with religion beyond the influence that religion might have upon ones beliefs, which is comparable to the way "modern society" has influenced your beliefs.

Also, I really hate the word "zeitgeist." I don't know why, but I do. It kind of has this pretentious cloud about it.

tldr at the moment
I think people need to define their own meaning-or lack thereof-of life. If they want to have a prayer vigil with shotguns, and believe that god drives modern society, isn't that their right to do so?
I don't see how religion clashes with modern society and our rights, and see no connection between the two in the examples you have given. Expressing oneself has nothing to do with religion beyond the influence that religion might have upon ones beliefs, which is comparable to the way "modern society" has influenced your beliefs.

Also, I really hate the word "zeitgeist." I don't know why, but I do. It kind of has this pretentious cloud about it.

Typically standing outside someone's house with shotguns and a coffin is considered a threat.

As far as no crashes: gay rights (most religions), freedom of speech (YOU CAN'T DRAW MOHAMMED CUZ OUR BOOK SAYS SO), etc...

Whoopsiedaisie.
I thought you had meant outside their own house...which is why I thought that part was so funny!

True, but I don't see how that equates to it not working with a modern society. Plenty of things clash yet they continue to coexist...
...The English language and Japan.
Seriously though, I believe that religion gives a much needed idea to certain people. Isn't the idea that we're a meaningless spec of dust on a rock in a larger cloud of dust rather scary? The idea that something has created us and has given us purpose is something that many cannot live without, which is why I believe that it still functions properly in society today.

I'd also like to mention that the topic title is a bit of a misnomer, I admit I called it what I did to get people to look, a more accurate title would be "Why Religion keeps clashing with Modern Society", because it does.  I'm not condemning either side for it, or praising either side for it, but it does truthfully clash.

I personally can find no justification for a belief in the dignity of human life without a deity.

Don't you think that's just sad? and it's sadder when you come to think that there are no evidence about the existance of any deity.
Anyway, religion must be needed for some reason. Atheism is not new. Philosopers have talked about there being no God at many different times of History, and many of them have already said that religion would not work or would not be needed in the close future. But obviously they were wrong. Why would religion exist nowadays, if it just doesn't work? We don't longer need it to explain how the world was created or why the stars shine. We already know the answers. And even if they are in contradiction with our religion, we still believe. If some statements of the Bible are proved wrong, there are always statements that just can't be proved wrong (neither right) so we hold on these things to keep our beliefs in God. Why? Why just accept something just because it cannot be proven wrong?

Because we need to...

The truth is that life is sometimes very hard and painful, and that we feel lost when that happens. We wish we had an almighty dad who would watch over us. And when bad things happens to us or to people we love, we find some consolation in thinking that God will be just, or that God has a masterplan and we just can't understand.
Every one of that statements sound a little childish (someone is caring for me and, if i don't understand, it doesn't matter, he's doing it right. It's like when we were children and we trusted our parent's, isn't it?) But if there's no almighty dad, then we are on our own, and all the promeses of care and justice just vanish.

You see? That's because religion actually works. It will work as long as we suffer.

yet it continues to create suffering.

People can create their own happiness through whatever means they wish, be it religion or otherwise, it is not necessary for someone to be happy.  

Personally, I'm a good person because I don't like assholes in society.  If you need incentive and rewards to be decent to your fellow man, then I believe you are not, in actuality, a good person.

Personally, I am much happier now that i don't believe in god. But I was raised in a christian family, and studied for 13 years in a christian school and institute. It was very difficult for me to "move beyond" (as you said), it's even difficult when every single person around you is a christian, parents, teachers and friends. I'm sure you're aware of "groupal pressure" (don't know the exact translation to english, as i am an spanish psichology student). My mother tells me that she always prays for me to start believing again. Some of my close friends make fun of me sometimes, i felt like a retarded cause i could'nt see the obvious truth of His Divine Existance. You can't argue with a group if they are on the same boat and you're not, it's worthless.
For me, being a christian was sometimes exhausting. I felt like i was kidding myself all the time. Because if you believe, you have to come up with all kinds to excuse His behavior (bad things happening to good people, for example.) But for me, everything is easier now, consistant, logical.
But this is not this way for everyone. Some people just need to believe. My parents, for example, have a bad relationship. They're now too old to just restart. Their lifes are now closer to the end, and looking back, they have'nt much to be proud about. Their belief on God comforts them. They will have eternal joy and peace, so they have no reason to be regretful about their lifes.
This is why religion works for them.
What I'm trying to say is that religion is not necesary for some people (like me) to be happy, but maybe for others it is like a painkiller.
Does this make sense to you?

Spoiler for Also really long, AKA I'm really bad at editing:

Personally, I'm a good person because I don't like assholes in society.  If you need incentive and rewards to be decent to your fellow man, then I believe you are not, in actuality, a good person.

I don't think most people believe in religion because they want the incentives and rewards though. I think it happens the other way around. I think it's as simple as this: the majority of human beings believe that their lives and the lives of others mean something; are worth something. They think that to kill another human being is wrong; they think that to love others is right. This can easily be an evolutionary trait - certainly it is one that promotes societal groupings and that would present an evolutionary advantage. But at the heart of those feelings of compassion and love is, I would say, an inherent belief that human lives have meaning.

That belief, absent some supernatural belief, is illogical; or at least I have never been persuaded by any reasoning to the contrary. From a purely material perspective, human lives have no inherent value whatsoever. As I mentioned in my first post, we live for maybe 80 years as an insignificant speck of dust on an insignificant planet in an infinite and probably also insignificant universe. To say that it is wrong to kill another person is to say that it is wrong to shorten an insignificant speck of dust's life. Maybe you can say that loving and being loved by others gives our lives meaning, but how can two meaningless existences give each other meaning by loving others unless love itself has some supernatural power. Let's say you are one of the rare people who have some significant impact on the whole human race. Maybe you have a chapter in a textbook 400 years after your death and your name is vaguely remembered by some people. But if simply being known about by other just-as-insignificant humans magically gives your life meaning, then you might as well be Hitler as Gandhi. In the grand scheme of things, humans may as well be ants. You could have reduced or improved the lot of every human on earth but that doesn't give your life meaning, because all you've done is improve the lives of other ants as insignificant as you are. Even if you disagree and think that somehow a whole race of insignificant beings can somehow make the members of that race individually significant, for how long? Humanity will eventually become extinct. Moreover, if we believe that social interaction gives life meaning, does that mean that a hermit's life is meaningless and it would be OK to kill one of them?

This isn't to say that being rational necessarily forces you to become a sociopath; firstly, a system of morality can as easily be built upon an idea of reciprocity, for one thing (we criminalize and enforce penalties against murder because we don't want to be murdered and life is more enjoyable than death, for instance). And secondly, whether you have some rational basis for believing in the inherent dignity of human life doesn't really matter, because most people believe it anyway and will still love others whether or not they think it's rational. (However, I do think that a belief in universal human rights would be inconsistent, as it implies an objective morality even outside of social perception - that the violation of one of those rights would be wrong even if nobody else thought it was wrong; the most you could say for human rights is that a certain society in a certain period of time chose those particular aspects of its subjects to be worthy of protection.)

Either way, most people are left with a choice; either they accept a system of supernatural belief that makes their inherent belief in the meaning of life rational (essentially by saying that something outside our perception or understanding gives us meaning), or they simply accept that human life has no meaning, contrary to their inherent belief that it does.

Either choice is logical in my opinion, but I think you're wrong to assert that religious people will only act good because their religion gives incentives to be good. Maybe they're religious because it makes their inherent desire to be good logical. I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious determination, but I do believe, wholeheartedly, that most people who are religious believe in their religion not because they're indoctrinated, not because it's easier, and not because they're scared of the alternative, but because it grants them access to a supernatural truth otherwise unascertainable through natural perception.




Also, almost everyone thinks they're a good person, and the assholes you don't like think they're good people too, and probably the serial rapists in prison think they're good people too. Without a belief in objective morality, is it right to condemn people and take away their freedom when they simply have a different perception of good and evil?


@kukusu - no, I don't really think that my inabilty to justify the idea that human life has meaning without some supernatural belief is sad. If human life has no meaning, then it just means I'm right, which is a good thing. If it does, then it means there must be some supernatural reason for it, which would also be a good thing. It's kind of like a win/win. I'm just joking of course, but my ultimate point is that even if you don't believe in God, a belief that human life has meaning is just as impossible to prove by natural perception. So you are only substituting a belief in the supernatural that cannot be proven through natural means with a belief that could only be true if there was some supernatural reason for it which again, cannot be proven through natural means.

Sorry if i misunderstood, i though you were saying that, if there were no god, then human life had not dignity. I was not talking about "a meaning" of life. Just about dignity. Now I understand what you mean.

And about the meaning of life... As long as my life is significant for me, i don't care if it has a meaning to the universe. For me, what the universe thinks about my life is irrelevant. Even if God doesn't exist and humanity becomes extinct tomorrow and nobody ever remembers the human race anymore, it wouldn't make me think that the human life has no dignity or no meaning, cause, the way i see things, the meaning of my life can be anything i want it to be.
I do not need any God to give a meaning to my life.
 Does Pluto existance have "meaning"? It just exist, the same as mankind. There is no reason to think that there is any further "meaning" in anything.
And I don't find it uncomfortable. Just more natural, and free.

I completely agree with Modern, as well. It's nice to hear someone else thinks we're all meaningless and irrational!
As an absurdist, the absurdities of life are what make it worth living.

I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious determination, but I do believe, wholeheartedly, that most people who are religious believe in their religion not because they're indoctrinated, not because it's easier, and not because they're scared of the alternative, but because it grants them access to a supernatural truth otherwise unascertainable through natural perception.

This xD

I bet you'd be deadly in a debate class.