Should We Ditch Religion?

"For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop
looking to religion to guide their moral compasses"

~Philosopher Sam
Harris to CNN.



Showing my age, I am a fan of TED talks. I'd like to discuss the TED talk given by Sam Harris, found here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Truly I wanted to post this on a 'multi-faith religious debate board' but there isn't one. So I put it here

Can science answer the most important questions of life?
Should science be the final 'authority' on moral issues?

Please check out his full 'talk' (it's worth the time, I feel) and share your thoughts. Should we ditch religion? What do you think?

Peace!

Science is a tool. It is a very good tool. It can be used to solve so many problems, and promises such power to affect change that we are tempted to think it can do anything, but we thought the same thing about the hammer ever since we tied a rock to a stick.

I point and laugh at people who pick up their holy book and tell me it has all the knowledge man needs to know. Such ignorance and hubris. I look at those who tap their data banks and tell me it contains all the knowledge man needs to know, and laugh twice as hard, for in their ignorance and hubris they are even funnier than the religious zelots they make mock of.

My ecology professor told me something in our population ecology course that I had expected more from a genetics professor:

Science can tell you your purpose in life, but the answer won't help you much. Your only reason to exist is to pass on copies of your DNA. Philosophy and morality aside, you grasped everything science had to teach you about life in the back seat on your first date. For any answer more meaningful than that, look elsewhere.

Personally, I am up for any suggestion for exactly how we would dump religion. I am actually open for a clear suggestion of what constitutes a religion.

Communism?

sacrificialgoddess wrote:Personally, I am up for any suggestion for exactly how we would dump religion. I am actually open for a clear suggestion of what constitutes a religion.

I haven't yet listened to Harris's talk although I plan to as I think he's one of the smarter philosophers currently writing.

Anyway, from having read his two books, The End of Faith (which I liked much better than Dawkins' and Hitchens' ones, btw) and Letter To a Christian Nation, I think it safe to say that Harris is primarily interested in removal of the malign influence that religious teachings have upon the more gullible and suggestible.

Interesting question as to whether or not science can guide our formation of moral and ethical values. I'll definitely get back to this.

Hmm... I'm going to go with the idea that science cannot truly guide our formation of moral and ethical values; I think that love is the great foundation of that, and you can't put love or compassion under a microscope. Those emotions are cultivated and generally taunted and preached within religion (obviously to various effectiveness).

Scientifically and evolutionarily speaking, it would best behoove me to kill those who would benefit me by their deaths... people who stand in my way of a job promotion, people who may carry a lot of cash that would help me financially by taking it, etc.

I don't think there's anything purely scientific that could denounce it; moral values cultivated within or without of religion are the only answer.

There was an awesome Nobel winner book about this but I can't for the life of me think of the name.

The Giver.

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0395645662

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:
Scientifically and evolutionarily speaking, it would best behoove me to kill those who would benefit me by their deaths... people who stand in my way of a job promotion, people who may carry a lot of cash that would help me financially by taking it, etc.

I disagree that this is true. So-called "social evolution" is often confused with evolution itself.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about which behaviors are beneficial other than reproducing as much as possible in order to spread your genes around so that your characteristics have a better chance of influencing evolution. You'd have to weigh very carefully your chances of surviving retaliation for these people's deaths. If you were incarcerated for life or killed by their friends, you'd not have done yourself any good evolutionarily speaking anyway since your ability to reproduce would be somewhat curtailed as a result.

In short, guys like Tiger Woods who are intent upon spreading their genes around are far more likely to impact the course of human evolution than childless me. Not such a bad thing in this instance since he's a helluva lot better golfer than I am.

Yes-- Evolutionary psychology is a different animal. But how does raw science breed ethics and morals alone? I love science and am not trying to undermine it's value or worth, but I don't find it to be ethically constructive. I do see scientists imply their own understandings to generate those feelings, but that's more interpretive than empirical.

I am of the opinion that if you ditched religion, whatever that means, whether we are talking codified or personal, then science would likely replace that, with all the implications therein. We would have science church, though they would likely call it something else, and there would readings, ritual, the whole lot. You can't escape it, it's human nature.

sacrificialgoddess wrote:Personally, I am up for any suggestion for exactly how we would dump religion. I am actually open for a clear suggestion of what constitutes a religion.

If it supplies a moral code and worships something (that is, actually prays to and exalts, merely thinking a lot about it doesn't count), it's a religion. If it supplies the moral code but doesn't worship something, it's a philosophy.

Therefore, all the Abrahamics and their offshoots count as religions; Taoism is a philosophy and Buddhism can be either, depending on the specific sect.

I appreciate reading all the posts; and, DOT, I look forward to you posting after watching the talk.

TED... 'communism'??? !!! Ugly things come out of that philosophy (Ukraine's genocide, known as Holodomor, comes to mind) so I'm glad you were jesting. And I very much agree with the idea that *love* cannot be analyzed in a scientific way.

I've bopped around from denomination to denomination, even from religion to religion, and have recently come back to the path of my upbringing because I wanted to find something to stick with and (hopefully) grow gosh darn it. Though it is not perfect, it is something my kids and I could agree upon. This is my personal decision and is not something I would impose upon others (which is why I'm not a fundamentalist)

But society needs some sort of moral baseline... and I think that science could be the answer if it's not taken to an extreme. For example, while it is legal in certain countries for a 40 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl because of their religion, science would point out that an 8 year old girl is too young for intercourse and childbirth; therefore the act should be abolished.

Perhaps it is not so much 'science' inasmuch as it's good ol common sense.

Ebon, excellent definition of philosophy and religion.

The concept of religion is only borrowed knowledge. A belief system is something that is taught...you never discovered religion.

Sak, however, science sees the "logic" in a person aborting a fetus because it is "damaged". Science sees no sense in carrying a spina bifida, or Down's child to term. Religion sees the value of any life.
Science has no emotion. Humans are emotional animals. Science does not see in shades of gray, it's strictly black or white.

I'll keep my religion and benefit from it just as I benefit from science.

sacrificialgoddess wrote:I am of the opinion that if you ditched religion, whatever that means, whether we are talking codified or personal, then science would likely replace that, with all the implications therein. We would have science church, though they would likely call it something else, and there would readings, ritual, the whole lot. You can't escape it, it's human nature.

Probably so, SG, at least some sense of "church."

Yeah, Abraham Maslow identified the need to belong to a group as fairly prominent in human psychological makeup. It's third on his list, just beyond the survival needs of air, food, water and safety.

We have in St. Louis, and I'm sure there are chapters elsewhere in the U.S., a chapter of the Ethical Culture Society which meets on Sundays. Atheist-agnostic "church" essentially.

It is as you indicate a human tendency to gather with the likeminded.

Sakhaiva wrote:"For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop
looking to religion to guide their moral compasses"

~Philosopher Sam
Harris to CNN.

I'll return to this quote after I've answered your questions below:

"Can science answer the most important questions of life?
Should science be the final 'authority' on moral issues?"

For one thing, I believe it's important to step outside the implication that science is answering these questions. Harris says that we depend upon science and scientific investigation in order to determine facts about what conditions cause humans to flourish. It's a tool, that's all. Thus, no, science cannot and should not become a "final authority" on moral issues, or else we have essentially made a religion of it.

Can a woman's health be topnotch if she's forced by her religion and her culture to wear a black burkha in 100-degree heat? Probably not. Indeed, for some women, such a practice might be downright damaging to their health.

Can a man's mental health be very good if he feels guilty because he wants to have sex but is constrained by the restrictions of his profession, Catholic priest, from doing so? Possibly not.

In short, we know certain things about what causes humans to be well or ill, whether physically or psychologically.

There is something to be said, IMO, for Harris's contention that religion does not cause people to behave in ways that benefit humankind in general. Now, that's not to say that this is entirely a black-white observation. We can all cite ways in which religious social services have aided people in need, or religious belief has caused someone to lead a healthier life.

However, generally speaking, I agree with him that religion on the whole has caused more conflict, distress and outright harm than it has done good. For one thing, we believe some really bizarre ideas within the contexts of various religions, some of which are clearly harmful. "Abortion is murder, no matter what," for instance.

Those of us who grew up being taught a specific faith can identify ways in which that belief system helped and harmed us, perhaps both physically and psychologically. If we are still adherents, the balance between benefit and harm probably weighs more toward the former than the latter but still may tip back and forth. If we have left that faith, then quite likely we did so because it no longer seemed more beneficial than harmful to us on various levels.

I think it possible that humankind would be greatly benefited if we were at the very least to realize that most religious beliefs are simply wishful thinking of the kind that gets us through the dark and stormy nights.

We may ultimately be better able to answer the questions Sakhaiva poses once we understand more about how the human brain functions, particularly what stimulates the portion that has been called the "God part."

Now, to return to the quote..."For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop
looking to religion to guide their moral compasses"

~Philosopher Sam
Harris to CNN.

I agree with Harris that we would do better to use such established facts as Harris's example that introducing cholera to the water supply is probably a bad idea as the basis for morality. We KNOW this to have a factual basis. Thus, we can reasonably believe that it would be morally wrong to dump cholera-causing agents into Iran's water supply, for example.

By contrast, even though a good many Catholics worldwide fervently believe it, we have no actual evidence that the Virgin Mary intercedes with her Son Jesus Christ to bring about the so-called miraculous cures at Lourdes. Even the medical board sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church officially labels the few incredible cures as "inexplicable."

Let's quit filling the "We don't know why" blanks with fantasy. And religion is largely that, IMO.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Here's a link to a really well-reasoned site.

One of the more stunning sections is the one on prayer, mentioned at the first of this "executive summary."

The whole site is quite detailed and complex; hence, I link only to the summary but encourage you to examine other segments as you have the time and inclination.

Really thoughtful reply DOT; thanks. I'm going to look at the link and come back to your post. In the meantime... one thought comes to mind in reading the larger post; problems arise whenever we chose to value ideology over people, pure and simple.

Religion is only borrowed knowledge which forms a belief system. A belief is not necessarily the truth..but only a belief.

I'd take it a step further, Moa, and argue that religious beliefs in the sense in which we typically understand the word "beliefs" are largely reflective of wishful thinking. Look at how many religious beliefs and dogmas are certainties and absolutes when human existence is so fraught with insecurity and variability.

Because we so often feel overwhelmed and threatened by natural or human-generated events, we develop security blankets that we call religions.

The human brain appears to be wired in such a way even in adulthood that repetition and rhythm are soothing and comforting. Just as children find solace and enjoyment in very structured nursery rhymes and song lyrics, so too do adults in the cyclical nature of religious observances and the expectation that a church service will contain certain things in a largely unvarying order.

I've talked to various ministers who said that more people come to services when a definite order of proceeding has been established and remains the same from one Sunday to the next with only an occasional divergence. Those attracted to churchgoing apparently seek something unchanging, even if it's only ritual structure.

Sakhaiva wrote:Really thoughtful reply DOT; thanks.

Glad you think so.

In the meantime... one thought comes to mind in reading the larger post; problems arise whenever we chose to value ideology over people, pure and simple.

I dunno, because I'm obviously not familiar enough with every religion's core beliefs to pronounce authoritatively, but I rather think that the problem lies more in the fact that these are ideologies that have their basis in UNreality. Basing our morality, as Harris proposes, upon what we know of human existence would probably lead to more humane interactions among the various peoples of the world than our current mishmash of "I'm doing this to you because my deity says I'm right and you're wrong."

I toy around every so often with whether the peculiar "paranormal" experiences I've had were actual unexplained events or simply delusions. The most honest answer is, "I don't know."

Thus, I've come to think that religion is probably entirely our attempt to make certainty where we have little or none.

Thus, I've come to think that religion is probably entirely our attempt to make certainty where we have little or none.

True DOT. As the old saying goes *there are no atheists in a fox hole*

The link was very involved; I was impressed at how well thought out the concept was re: why won't God heal amputees. While the article/book looks upon things -- such as prayer -- from an analytical pov, it's important to remember that such things are solely a matter of faith ...

...and faith is solely a matter of choice....

...which is why I think complete separation of church and state is fundamental for creating a healthy society. Let religion, truly, be a choice (but never law)

Basing our morality, as Harris proposes, upon what we know of human
existence would probably lead to more humane interactions among the
various peoples of the world than our current mishmash of "I'm doing
this to you because my deity says I'm right and you're wrong."

I totally agree with this.

Ah, yes..."a matter of faith," you say.

One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes in this regard goes as follows:

"There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

http://www.twainquotes.com/Faith.html

OK let me address the lie right now:

There are no atheists in a foxhole

I have been under fire with atheists, as in bullets and artillery slamming in around us, and they were in no respect less professional, less effective, or more scared than anyone of faith.

Men and women each are driven by their own reasons to stand for what they believe in, to prove themselves by placing their body and their skills between their folk and their foes. This is one of the defining characteristics of our race, and one of the few truths to cross all artificially created distinctions of nationality, belief, philosophy, or ethnicity.

There are few cowards before their fathers grave or their mother's hearths. There are some men and women of all nations who would rather die or suffer terrifying injury rather than breaking faith with their brethren. There have been heroes falling in the causes of tyrants and madmen, even as there have been atrocities and cowardice by those in the service of the highest causes.

Each faces their death alone, strengthened by whatever they have found in this life that is worth living for. Some simply stand because they cannot conceive of any reason they should ever bow, and hold their honour higher than their life. Until you have died rather than leave another to fall in your place, you cannot know if your faith would allow you to meet this test. If you are reading these words, you do not yet know yourself the equal of thousands of atheists who have already answered this for themselves.

I have been under fire, and I don't know how I would face death yet either, for I have lived. I know the gods I took with me to the battlefield, I can not know if I would have held them still as I bled out upon that field. Those who cannot answer the roll are the only ones who can answer that question.

Atheists in Foxholes