In Defense of Religion's Place in Society

[Michael]

In Defence of Religion's Place in Society

When I was a little boy, my parents, my family, my teachers and my local church sought to instil in me a faith in God. As I grew unto an adult, and gained an education of the world, I began to question the validity and veracity of that belief. That I choose to reject that belief is my own private choice based on subjective consideration of various esoteric ideas (and good old William of Ockham). But that's nobody's business but my own.

However, the place of religion in society does not stand or fall according to my own subjective caprice (or rationalist logic-chopping). That I choose to reject belief in God (any and all Gods) does not impinge upon the fact that many other people, faced with the same or similar data, come to a different subjective conclusion. That is their prerogative and who am I to objectively judge the subjective opinions of my fellows according to my own subjective standard?

But that is all about 'faith' and that is always personal and subjective. The subject of this essay, on the other hand, is religion. Religion is all about that beautiful old building down the street and the people who gather there on Sunday mornings, and the fact that the Church pays no taxes to Caesar, and that Presidents and Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens (and the coinage), all give nominal praise to a belief in God almighty, creator of heaven and earth, whenever they cut the ribbon on the opening of some new bridge or any such occasion for a public speech.

There are many like me who do not believe in God, but for some reason, believe it is their business to go about disabusing others of that illustrious and ancient notion as if their life depends upon it. They and their fellow travellers seek to not just to disbelieve in God, but to insist that all others must share that viewpoint. Indeed, some of them even go one step further - they often seek to banish religion itself from the realm in the name of public safety and/or for some arbitrary and subjective rule of rationalism. It is to these people that this essay is addressed.

* * *

It is our thesis here that religion, as a social institution, is an integral and important component of human social structure. That religion, as a social institution, is one of the fundamental building blocks of human civil society - and is as necessary for our common liberty and prosperity as is government, family and the private marketplace. Religion, family, government and private enterprise (or the private market) are all similar institutional building blocks that are necessary for our civil society to function in such a way as to permit liberty to generally prevail.

In order to support this thesis, I will attempt to show that religion, as an institution, uniquely serves many critically important social functions in society - namely that it seeks to foster moral behavior, it seeks to mitigate against immoral and/or individually selfish behavior, it encourages individual sacrifice and working towards collective goals and values (God, family & nation), it values tradition and custom for the sake of tradition and custom, it encourages the aggregation of social groups, and it seeks to assert a higher or more spiritual purpose for humanity than mere mundane material consumption and propagation. And most importantly, that without religion as an institution, there is danger to liberty and civil society.

Now it is to be noted that each of these social institutions (religion, government, family and the private market) can act in an anti-liberty or anti-individual way. Indeed, they each conspire to place limits upon liberty and individuals and as such, seem to be in a competition with each other to limit liberty and individual choice. This is essentially true - individually, these institutions are competing to limit individual liberty as one of their goals. And therein lies the safety and security of liberty. Each of these institutions will rationally act to prevent any one of the other institutions from gaining the upper hand. Each has their place, and while each institution may seek to enlarge their own spatial claim, they will always mitigate against the claims of the others. The balance between the claims of these competing institutions is where civil society stands and individual liberty resides.

Religion as an institution has a long history of involvement in civic affairs. Certainly as a 'bricks & mortar' establishment, churches, shrines, temples, synagogues and mosques have had a central place in the architecture of our social fabric for thousands of years. They can be found in every city, every town, every village and every country on the globe for all of known history. Even our pre-recorded history shows many evidences of religion involved in every aspect of all known human societies. The antiquity and origin of religion as a social institution is as mysterious and as ancient as the institutions of the family, clan or tribe. Indeed, religion's origins are as ancient and as mysterious as that of civil society itself. Without either of these social institutions, we would be merely savages. Having religion and civil society are part of that which defines us as human.

The institution of religion is also built around the practice of continuous ritual that serves the function of bringing people (individuals) together on an on-going (never-ending) basis. Religion, like family or government, is not something that one just uses once or for one thing only. The process or engagement is continuous and on-going. The repetition of ritual teaches and reaffirms this. Even if one individually chooses to reject the content or ideas of religion, religious institutions still serve this general function of aggregating individuals into larger social groups, on a repetitive basis, essentially providing training in the art of tempering one's own individual passions in the name of social group dynamics - that is necessary for civil society to function.

Religion, as an institution, serves the social (or civic) function of aggregating individuals into groups sharing a common purpose. Individuals, qua individuals, have a multitude of subjective interests that are naturally anti-social by definition. Religion, as an institution, acts to create and reinforce a psychological environment of collective responsibility as a way to curb or curtail anti-social individualism. This is generally called 'morality' (a subject of one's conscience), but often is manifested in the form of social group peer pressure among one's neighborhood.

With respect to morality, the claims of religion to serve it may be rationally questioned and certainly the historical record there is 'mixed', but at the very least, it must be admitted that religious institutions are unique in actually making a sustained attempt to assert and maintain the value of morality itself. Quibble as one might about the details of any given moral system (or any given religion), the bottom line is that just about any moral system is better than not having one at all. Civil competition between different religious or moral systems is not a bad thing. I should think a lack of such competition to be rather frightening.

The individualism that we all celebrate and cherish (as our very own), if left to its own devices, often is a rather nasty business. Liberty is all very well and fine if one lives in a vacuum. But as human beings, we are social animals and as such, one man's liberty can be another man's oppression. Pure liberty of the one must often be curbed for the general liberty of all to prevail. Civil society requires that the individual confront their own competing loyalties that naturally stand between one's duties and responsibilities to one's religion, one's family, one's government and one's private associations. For human beings, this is always a lifetime challenge. Dealing with the competing (and passionately held) claims of religion, family, government and private interests on an on-going basis is what life is all about. One may rationally choose to prefer the claims of one institution over another, but to attack the validity of any of these other institutions is to attack the very structure of civil society itself.

Religion, like the idea of family, or the ideals of good government, or the principle of free association, may be subjected to rational critique in specific practice, but as institutions qua institutions, necessary to human civil society, their validity and value as institutions ought to be considered beyond reproach to all rational thinking people.

By the principles of liberalism and humanism, here I stand, I can do no other.

[Michael]

Only one recovered reply to this thread so far...

Excellent essay, Michael. Of which I agree with far the most.

It is an amazing notion, though, that the brilliant construct the human body and mind is should apparantly need superstition as a necessary component in order to thrive as a social creature.

It could for the sake of argument be said that each and every social structure on the face of the earth except, apparantly, those of the human species arises and exists without the apparant need of religious superstitions. Although I personally find it persuasive enough to question the necessity of religions per se, I also know that the counter arguments are easy to come by: Humans are not comparable to other animals, we do not know whether or not other species have developed a sense of superstition and so on.

However, since human social structures indeed exist that, either entirely or in part, house individuals with different superstitional inclinations (thereby questioning the idea of religion as a social rectifier) and even without superstitions (thereby vanguishing the idea of religion as a social rectifier), I question the necessity of superstition as such and am instead inclined to think that it is the role that superstitions happen to play that is important. A role, the purpose of which just happens to be able to but does not rely on being fulfilled by a religious superstition.

[Michael]

*bumped* in honor of a small influx of new members with an apparent interest in discussing religion. :)

I suppose I'm just trolling for any militant atheists out there who might want to have a go. :D

[Zarquon]

Its a long piece of apologia without any compelling evidence and an argument from tradition for tradition's sake.
Murder and rape have been fairly consequential in human history, that doesn't mean they're good. Nor did humankind ever enjoy as much mass freedom as it does today before the materialism of the previous three centuries arose.
Community is important, and morality is certainly enforced by peers, but that does not mean that without religion we would fall into an amoral abyss, your judgments are based upon extant and extinct societies where no institution other than religion was allowed/expected to study the issue and make pronouncements; academia is fairly nascent and has thrown up far more insight into humanity and what our morality should be like in a few centuries, than religion could in millennias. So of course you can't find any evidence of a non-religious moralizing institution, because its long held a state-sanctioned monopoly on the issue and still enjoys an unjustifiably high position in society. In a secular world, people would make their own morality, and probably settle around a vague secular humanism, as the urge to moralize is a universally human one, this is already happening amongst most of the nonreligious persons around the world(who number around a billion).
And what do you mean their validity should be 'beyond reproach'?
To logically follow that premise, shouldn't government's validity be beyond reproach as well?(only by questioning the validity of a govt, do you realize its utility, and it will work better when people know its justifications and limitations )
Institutions work better when they are transparent, accountable, and have to justify themselves/be humble, rather then when they are given unquestioning deference as religion has been and still is.
Do you have any experience of what a truly religious society is like?
I do, and its stiflingly anti-liberty/inquiry/individual.

[dilettante]

...
Community is important, and morality is certainly enforced by peers, but that does not mean that without religion we would fall into an amoral abyss, your judgments are based upon extant and extinct societies where no institution other than religion was allowed/expected to study the issue and make pronouncements; academia is fairly nascent and has thrown up far more insight into humanity and what our morality should be like in a few centuries, than religion could in millennias. So of course you can't find any evidence of a non-religious moralizing institution, because its long held a state-sanctioned monopoly on the issue and still enjoys an unjustifiably high position in society. In a secular world, people would make their own morality, and probably settle around a vague secular humanism, as the urge to moralize is a universally human one, this is already happening amongst most of the nonreligious persons around the world(who number around a billion).
...


I question the bolded section.

Religion is a remarkably widespread thing with considerable inertia (I suppose one might say 'pernicious'). Practically every human civilization has developed and embraced some sort of religion (broadly defined) and even today the world's most irreligious countries, for the most part, required some sort of intentional, focused assault on religion in order to make them so.

As such, it seems likely that the only way to achieve "a secular world" would be via some sort of active attempt combat religious influence. Not necessarily through violence or discrimination, of course. I think the preferred method would probably be to stress and elevate rationality and argue that religion is irrational and therefore should be voluntarily dropped. Indeed, that seems to be the general argument of most atheists who bother to try and 'convert' others.

The problem, as I see it, is that if one successfully elevates rationality to the point that religion is generally abandoned because it relies on irrationality, morality may quickly follow it into the dustbin of history for the same reason. After all, morality means doing the right thing because its the right thing, not because its the rational thing to do. Or put another way, morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

E.G. The man who is generous and kind just because he believes generosity and kindness are good is a moral man and can probably be relied on to be good and kind in all but extreme situations. The man who is generous and kind just in order to get a promotion at work or score with his date is just self-serving (though also behaving rationally).
Or, to offer a negative example, the man who refrains from robbing the poor because he believes stealing is wrong is a moral man; the man who refrains from robbing the poor simply because they don't have anything he wants is not (though he is rational).
However, as soon as it ceases to be in his best interest to be kind and generous (or becomes in his best interest to rob the poor) the amoral, rational man has no reason not to change his behavior.
Put another way, if, all things considered, I'll really be better off if I kill and rob you, is there any rational reason why I shouldn't?

In short, it is never rational to behave morally if it is to one's advantage to do otherwise. And if the exaltation of rationality succeeds in elimination religion (which, barring military force, seems the only likely way to get rid of it), there's nothing to keep it from doing away with morality too.

That isn't so much a defense of religion's place in society as it is an observation that religion (for good or ill) is deeply rooted in society and one never knows what else might come loose if one tries to rip it out.

[Michael]

Its a long piece of apologia without any compelling evidence and an argument from tradition for tradition's sake.
The argument given is essentially a precis of the argument made by Alex de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.

You also appear to be overlooking the essential argument that religion aggregates social groupings as a necessary component of civil society and democracy.

[Zarquon]

I question the bolded section.

Religion is a remarkably widespread thing with considerable inertia (I suppose one might say 'pernicious'). Practically every human civilization has developed and embraced some sort of religion (broadly defined) and even today the world's most irreligious countries, for the most part, required some sort of intentional, focused assault on religion in order to make them so.

As such, it seems likely that the only way to achieve "a secular world" would be via some sort of active attempt combat religious influence. Not necessarily through violence or discrimination, of course. I think the preferred method would probably be to stress and elevate rationality and argue that religion is irrational and therefore should be voluntarily dropped. Indeed, that seems to be the general argument of most atheists who bother to try and 'convert' others.

The problem, as I see it, is that if one successfully elevates rationality to the point that religion is generally abandoned because it relies on irrationality, morality may quickly follow it into the dustbin of history for the same reason. After all, morality means doing the right thing because its the right thing, not because its the rational thing to do. Or put another way, morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

E.G. The man who is generous and kind just because he believes generosity and kindness are good is a moral man and can probably be relied on to be good and kind in all but extreme situations. The man who is generous and kind just in order to get a promotion at work or score with his date is just self-serving (though also behaving rationally).
Or, to offer a negative example, the man who refrains from robbing the poor because he believes stealing is wrong is a moral man; the man who refrains from robbing the poor simply because they don't have anything he wants is not (though he is rational).
However, as soon as it ceases to be in his best interest to be kind and generous (or becomes in his best interest to rob the poor) the amoral, rational man has no reason not to change his behavior.
Put another way, if, all things considered, I'll really be better off if I kill and rob you, is there any rational reason why I shouldn't?

In short, it is never rational to behave morally if it is to one's advantage to do otherwise. And if the exaltation of rationality succeeds in elimination religion (which, barring military force, seems the only likely way to get rid of it), there's nothing to keep it from doing away with morality too.

That isn't so much a defense of religion's place in society as it is an observation that religion (for good or ill) is deeply rooted in society and one never knows what else might come loose if one tries to rip it out.
That's complete bollocks; you could make the same argument to justify the oppression of women and gays, and xenophobia; and your argument would have the same validity: none. Just as the extension of liberty has only strengthened it- emancipation of women, non-whites and LGBT people in your society- the extension of knowledge (via better education and propagation of metaphysical naturalism) will only lead to better behavior and not worser(I cite the Enlightenment and our Modern freedoms and relatively egalitarian world as resulting from a better knowledge, literacy rates, and greater prosperity). Essentially, my argument is that humankind can be more mature through better education and govt and would be so, if it were not so for a particular institution that still demands that we accept authority without question, inhibit ourselves to appease arbitrary leaders/creators and adhere to tradition simply because it is tradition, regardless of their validity, applicability, and utility.

[dilettante]

That's complete bollocks; you could make the same argument to justify the oppression of women and gays, and xenophobia; and your argument would have the same validity: none. Just as the extension of liberty has only strengthened it- emancipation of women, non-whites and LGBT people in your society- the extension of knowledge (via better education and propagation of metaphysical naturalism) will only lead to better behavior and not worser(I cite the Enlightenment and our Modern freedoms and relatively egalitarian world as resulting from a better knowledge, literacy rates, and greater prosperity).

First, I think your confusing my statements about the elevation rationality with knowledge and education. It's one thing to increase people's knowledge of the world through education; it's another to make them believe that anything that cannot be rationally defended (as neither religion nor morality can be) should be abandoned. Religion and education are not mutually exclusive. At least in the west, it's only relatively recently that religion has ceased to be the primary promoter of education.

Second, with regard to the freedoms derived from the enlightenment, I'd point out that many of those grew out of beliefs in "natural rights" and the belief that "all men are created equal", etc, none of which has a rational foundation.

Essentially, my argument is that humankind can be more mature through better education and govt and would be so, if it were not so for a particular institution that still demands that we accept authority without question, inhibit ourselves to appease arbitrary leaders/creators and adhere to tradition simply because it is tradition, regardless of their validity, applicability, and utility.

Finally, and primarily, I agree that humankind could be better off (I'm not sure what "more mature" means in this context) through better education and government. However, I'd suggest that, by precisely the same token, it would be better off with better religion.

After all, governments can (and have) also demanded "that we accept authority without question, inhibit ourselves to appease arbitrary leaders/creators and adhere to tradition simply because it is tradition, regardless of their validity, applicability, and utility." The solution isn't to try and eliminate government, because that has all sorts of unfortunate side-effects, but to make government better. I suggest that the case is precisely the same with religion (broadly defined).

[SMadsen]

I question the bolded section.
I question it, too, but for the entirely different reason that humans don't "make their own morality" but simply - as they always have, religions or no religion - conform to the rules of social interaction. These are the rules that religions borrow in the first place but typically claim to be bestowed upon humans from "above" (and for quite different reasons, I fear, than to uphold a certain level of morality).
Religion is a remarkably widespread thing with considerable inertia (I suppose one might say 'pernicious'). Practically every human civilization has developed and embraced some sort of religion (broadly defined) and even today the world's most irreligious countries, for the most part, required some sort of intentional, focused assault on religion in order to make them so.
As such, it seems likely that the only way to achieve "a secular world" would be via some sort of active attempt combat religious influence. Not necessarily through violence or discrimination, of course. I think the preferred method would probably be to stress and elevate rationality and argue that religion is irrational and therefore should be voluntarily dropped. Indeed, that seems to be the general argument of most atheists who bother to try and 'convert' others.
Not at all. Religions phase in and out all the time without any particular need of being intentionally assaulted. Heck, if a single individual one day finds that it makes more sense to make sacrifice to a different god than one that's been traditionally used for millenia, or change ceremonial worship of much the same god for that matter, then such an idea may spread and give rise to an entirely new religion without any need of intentionally assaulting the former. It's merely a natural development.

Likewise, if a religion is eagerly used to maintain a god of the gaps and such gaps no longer exist for all practical purposes then such a god is likely to be abandoned (although the religion itself may persist in terms of tradition and ritual). Revising god of the gaps religions or replacing them with religions that are less likely to install gods of the gaps (e.g., more spiritual religions) in order to make things like science and technology flow more freely is not an intentional, focused assault of a religion. It's a natural development.
The problem, as I see it, is that if one successfully elevates rationality to the point that religion is generally abandoned because it relies on irrationality, morality may quickly follow it into the dustbin of history for the same reason. After all, morality means doing the right thing because its the right thing, not because its the rational thing to do. Or put another way, morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking.
The ONLY justification for the claim that morality is linked to religion is that someone is always watching!! In fact, claiming that morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking is the same as saying that religion has no business trying to deal with morality ;)

[Zarquon]

The ONLY justification for the claim that morality is linked to religion is that someone is always watching!! In fact, claiming that morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking is the same as saying that religion has no business trying to deal with morality ;)

I concur

[dilettante]

The ONLY justification for the claim that morality is linked to religion is that someone is always watching!! In fact, claiming that morality means doing the right thing even when no one is looking is the same as saying that religion has no business trying to deal with morality ;)


I'd say that they're related in that both rely on irrational foundations. Most arguments against religion (qua religion) these days seem to focus on its irrational bases; I'm merely pointing out that such arguments could easily be leveled against morality as well. A society might well be able to be moral without being religious, but the process of uprooting religion could easily (though perhaps not necessarily) uproot the basis for any morality along with it, leaving only rational self-interest to govern people's behavior.

And if rational self-interest is to be trusted to keep people moral, then what could possibly be more effective than belief in an omniscient watcher?

[SMadsen]

I'd say that they're related in that both rely on irrational foundations. Most arguments against religion (qua religion) these days seem to focus on its irrational bases; I'm merely pointing out that such arguments could easily be leveled against morality as well. A society might well be able to be moral without being religious, but the process of uprooting religion could easily (though perhaps not necessarily) uproot the basis for any morality along with it, leaving only rational self-interest to govern people's behavior.

And if rational self-interest is to be trusted to keep people moral, then what could possibly be more effective than belief in an omniscient watcher?
That morality needs to be taken a priori and therefore can be said to have an irrational basis and that religions rely on a irrational basis does not make them any more related than the sun is to a match.

Religions use morality is all. If religion disappears then morality is still there. Since religions hog morality there will, however, always be clashes between established religions and people of other religions or of no religion. This is not a property of morality but merely because religions cannot make claims to morality outside of their own applications of morality.


By the way, I am firmly convinced that nothing on the face of this earth is more selfish than religion so, at least at this time, I'll decline the temptation to reply specifically to your assertion that uprooting of religion leaves only self-interest :D

[Zarquon]

I don't criticize religion because its 'irrational', I criticize it as I it is an unjustifiably privileged and vile institution that makes dubious claims to special knowledge and opposes freethought.

[SMadsen]

Indeed, irrationality has brought us this far. It in fact often seems to be our overly developed ability to be rational that is trying to get the better of us. So not a single demeaning word about irrationality. It's the ability to make the distinction that, especially within certain areas that deal with behaviors of a ritual nature, is off base.

[SMadsen]

That was of course supposed to say "gets off base in particular cases", rather than being off base per se, which it certainly isn't.

[Michael]

I don't criticize religion because its 'irrational', I criticize it as I it is an unjustifiably privileged and vile institution that makes dubious claims to special knowledge and opposes freethought.

Same can be said of the family. Or politics in general. :shrug:

I think religious institutions have a justifiably privileged position that deserves some modest protections.

[Michael]

I'd say that they're related in that both rely on irrational foundations. Most arguments against religion (qua religion) these days seem to focus on its irrational bases; I'm merely pointing out that such arguments could easily be leveled against morality as well. A society might well be able to be moral without being religious, but the process of uprooting religion could easily (though perhaps not necessarily) uproot the basis for any morality along with it, leaving only rational self-interest to govern people's behavior.

Yes, this is similar to my view. Who knows what is hiding under that rock! I see no reason to rock the boat on that account. The existence of religion doesn't cause me any harm as an atheist so why should I care what other's think. Indeed, freedom of conscience is as important as any other freedom.

And if rational self-interest is to be trusted to keep people moral, then what could possibly be more effective than belief in an omniscient watcher?
If rational self-interest was sufficient, there'd be no need for threats of an omniscient watcher.

[SMadsen]

Same can be said of the family. Or politics in general. :shrug:

I think religious institutions have a justifiably privileged position that deserves some modest protections.
I'd say there are quite a few differences, - mainly to be drawn from politics having an outwards application and religion a purely inwards application. This is of course best seen by attacking opinion, where political opinion is always fair game while religious opinion is always revered as a very personal matter. In other words, arguing politics is called debate while arguing religion is called personal vendetta.

Then again, I remember having been through this before, in terms of the difference between ethics and morality :)

[Daktoria]

Religion as an institution has a long history of involvement in civic affairs. Certainly as a 'bricks & mortar' establishment, churches, shrines, temples, synagogues and mosques have had a central place in the architecture of our social fabric for thousands of years. They can be found in every city, every town, every village and every country on the globe for all of known history. Even our pre-recorded history shows many evidences of religion involved in every aspect of all known human societies. The antiquity and origin of religion as a social institution is as mysterious and as ancient as the institutions of the family, clan or tribe. Indeed, religion's origins are as ancient and as mysterious as that of civil society itself. Without either of these social institutions, we would be merely savages. Having religion and civil society are part of that which defines us as human.

The institution of religion is also built around the practice of continuous ritual that serves the function of bringing people (individuals) together on an on-going (never-ending) basis. Religion, like family or government, is not something that one just uses once or for one thing only. The process or engagement is continuous and on-going. The repetition of ritual teaches and reaffirms this. Even if one individually chooses to reject the content or ideas of religion, religious institutions still serve this general function of aggregating individuals into larger social groups, on a repetitive basis, essentially providing training in the art of tempering one's own individual passions in the name of social group dynamics - that is necessary for civil society to function.

Religion, as an institution, serves the social (or civic) function of aggregating individuals into groups sharing a common purpose. Individuals, qua individuals, have a multitude of subjective interests that are naturally anti-social by definition. Religion, as an institution, acts to create and reinforce a psychological environment of collective responsibility as a way to curb or curtail anti-social individualism. This is generally called 'morality' (a subject of one's conscience), but often is manifested in the form of social group peer pressure among one's neighborhood.

With respect to morality, the claims of religion to serve it may be rationally questioned and certainly the historical record there is 'mixed', but at the very least, it must be admitted that religious institutions are unique in actually making a sustained attempt to assert and maintain the value of morality itself. Quibble as one might about the details of any given moral system (or any given religion), the bottom line is that just about any moral system is better than not having one at all. Civil competition between different religious or moral systems is not a bad thing. I should think a lack of such competition to be rather frightening.

The purpose for religion is actually very simple, so while this is all very close, it's still no cigar.

The human brain is only so big, the human lifetime is only so long, and the human body can only do so much. Over time, we discover morals and the logical proofs required to defend them, but over time, we also realize that it becomes, at first, a hassle and, later on, impossible to record and instill all of these proofs efficiently.

The result is religion, and it is from that result that everything you wrote above applies.

...here I stand...

Hahaha, nonsequitur loves you now.

[SMadsen]

The purpose for religion is actually very simple, so while this is all very close, it's still no cigar.

The human brain is only so big, the human lifetime is only so long, and the human body can only do so much. Over time, we discover morals and the logical proofs required to defend them, but over time, we also realize that it becomes, at first, a hassle and, later on, impossible to record and instill all of these proofs efficiently.

The result is religion, and it is from that result that everything you wrote above applies.
So according to you, religion is supposed to be a sort of a superhuman educator?

If so then I seriously beg to differ.

[Daktoria]

Religion is an abridged moral compass for both those trying to preserve morals and those trying to appreciate morals.

I don't know why you would consider superhuman education as part of what I'm saying.

[Michael]

The purpose for religion is actually very simple, so while this is all very close, it's still no cigar.
I have not written the above essay as an explanation of the origin of religion. Nor is it an account of what the function or purpose of religion might be. The answer to both of those questions is outside the realm of knowledge.

What I wrote is nothing more than a secular assessment of what role religion actually fills in civil society.

The human brain is only so big, the human lifetime is only so long, and the human body can only do so much. Over time, we discover morals and the logical proofs required to defend them, but over time, we also realize that it becomes, at first, a hassle and, later on, impossible to record and instill all of these proofs efficiently.
"Over time we discover morals..."

Can you explain this please. Sounds like you are asserting that morals are discovered like unknown continents or mysterious new molecules, fully formed and just waiting for human 'discovery'.

Secondly, are you not asserting that religion is nothing more than a function of the moronic stupidity of humans?

The result is religion, and it is from that result that everything you wrote above applies.
I think it is pretty easy to show that religion (in various forms) long pre-dated the advent of any morality that you care to name. So how does religion that predates your particular set of morals come to be the result of those particular morals?

Hahaha, nonsequitur loves you now.
I should consider that an honor! ;)

Besides, I don't think Non Sequitur has a monopoly on admiration for Martin Luther. I've long been a great fan of the fellow - if for no other reason than his claim, "here I stand, I can do no other". That is the statement of a man who is comfortable in his own skin. That's a rarity and worthy of my admiration.

[SMadsen]

Religion is an abridged moral compass for both those trying to preserve morals and those trying to appreciate morals.

I don't know why you would consider superhuman education as part of what I'm saying.
As I read it, you basically said that humans can only do so much in a lifetime that we have to have some sort of container of "[discovered] morals and logical proofs to defend them" (whatever the latter means) from which we can draw from.
If something reaches beyond what humans can do, I call it superhuman. Pouring from a container of knowledge I call education. Ergo, a 'superhuman educator'.

While we do indeed have something along those lines both as far as practical knowledge of the world around us and of social interaction (i.e., the world with us in it) is concerned, it does not equal religion. We simply have all of that without religion and, in some cases, in spite of religion.

[Daktoria]

I have not written the above essay as an explanation of the origin of religion. Nor is it an account of what the function or purpose of religion might be. The answer to both of those questions is outside the realm of knowledge.

What I wrote is nothing more than a secular assessment of what role religion actually fills in civil society.


Eh...? Function =/= role?

"Over time we discover morals..."

Can you explain this please. Sounds like you are asserting that morals are discovered like unknown continents or mysterious new molecules, fully formed and just waiting for human 'discovery'.

Secondly, are you not asserting that religion is nothing more than a function of the moronic stupidity of humans?

Well first, I don't think I can explain this because no matter how hard I try on pen and paper with anyone, I keep getting the same empirical deconstructions. I don't believe it's possible to explain, but I know for certain it takes place because it's part of life, recognizing patterns and developing values. If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Mind that we still have to recognize that these patterns and values are appreciated subjectively, but they definitely get discovered.

Secondly, you have it backwards. What I'm saying is that religion is an institution used to cater to the function of human stupidity that results from specialization. People can only do so much, so we water down the explanation of values to aesthetics and virtues so those values require less effort to appreciate when communicated between people. That watering down in turn makes organic society more affordable.

I think it is pretty easy to show that religion (in various forms) long pre-dated the advent of any morality that you care to name. So how does religion that predates your particular set of morals come to be the result of those particular morals?

No, I don't buy this because religion, in its most basic form, is any faith belief system that doesn't rely on either intuitive reason or empirical proof, and the establishment of these systems is part of the human experience. I mean it's valid to say that environmentalist ethics are effectively a religion because there's nothing intrinsically "good" about preserving natural resources, life, the earth, our ecosystem, etc. Rather we do it because it makes us feel comfortable and we make the excuse that environmental care is required for any activity here to be possible even though the maintenance of possible activity is similarly not innately good. From that, it's valid to say that man's obsessions with "Mother Earth", "Father Sky", and other natural forces from our caveman days was a religious following.

I should consider that an honor! ;)

Besides, I don't think Non Sequitur has a monopoly on admiration for Martin Luther. I've long been a great fan of the fellow - if for no other reason than his claim, "here I stand, I can do no other". That is the statement of a man who is comfortable in his own skin. That's a rarity and worthy of my admiration.

Heh.

Actually, the only reason I'm familiar with that phrase and title of his speech is because of the copy of the board game I own called Here I Stand. (http://www.gmtgames.com/nnhis/main.html)

[Daktoria]

As I read it, you basically said that humans can only do so much in a lifetime that we have to have some sort of container of "[discovered] morals and logical proofs to defend them" (whatever the latter means) from which we can draw from.
If something reaches beyond what humans can do, I call it superhuman. Pouring from a container of knowledge I call education. Ergo, a 'superhuman educator'.

While we do indeed have something along those lines both as far as practical knowledge of the world around us and of social interaction (i.e., the world with us in it) is concerned, it does not equal religion. We simply have all of that without religion and, in some cases, in spite of religion.


I still don't get how you're calling morals superhumanly discovered when they have to be discovered by humans in the first place. Granted some people are more talented than others, but the title of "superhuman" is excessive.

The difference between religion and other forms of knowledge is that religion doesn't depend upon intuitive logic or empirical evidence. I think Nietzsche explains how people overcome the dependence upon religion via his "God is Dead" concept, but I think he gets religion backwards because religion should grow at an accelerated pace endlessly such that technology continues to have humane goals to strive for in the organization of knowledge. Otherwise, Fukuyama's expectations for The End of History and the Last Man will be spot on since people will get lazy from too much technological entertainment.

[Michael]

Eh...? Function =/= role?
I'm trying to draw a distinction between the "function" that is the directed or chosen purpose of an act or process, and the "role" that is ultimately or actually performed in reality by that act or process - regardless of the chosen function/purpose.

That is to say, I'm granting credence to the 'law of unintended consequences' - one's chosen acts don't always function in the intended manner or produce the desired results. And it follows that some acts intended to serve one purpose, ultimately may end up serving some other alternative purpose.

Well first, I don't think I can explain this because no matter how hard I try on pen and paper with anyone, I keep getting the same empirical deconstructions. I don't believe it's possible to explain, but I know for certain it takes place because it's part of life, recognizing patterns and developing values. If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Mind that we still have to recognize that these patterns and values are appreciated subjectively, but they definitely get discovered.

I think I can explain this phenomena more accurately. ;)

You are essentially invoking pure subjective faith but you apparently are not fully comfortable with admitting that and thus seek a rationale to account for this, but that rationale doesn't actually exist. Thus, you have your faith and not much else here to go on. Thus, the inability to explain it in rational terms. And where humans are concerned, faith usually trumps rationalism. :D

Btw, this is a surprisingly common position that I've encountered on this topic many times. I've just gone through a very similar argument on this point with Dilettante in the "Yet Another Morality Thread".

Regardless of your motives, the bottom line is that you are asserting something that cannot be rationally explained, let alone rationally justified. That's called faith no matter how you try to spin it.

Secondly, you have it backwards. What I'm saying is that religion is an institution used to cater to the function of human stupidity that results from specialization. People can only do so much, so we water down the explanation of values to aesthetics and virtues so those values require less effort to appreciate when communicated between people. That watering down in turn makes organic society more affordable.

If that is your assertion, then I have no objection. I don't particularly agree with it, but I don't object to it in these terms.

I would like to draw particular attention to your assertion that "religion is an institution". That's a very important point to keep in mind for the passage that follows.

No, I don't buy this because religion, in its most basic form, is any faith belief system that doesn't rely on either intuitive reason or empirical proof, and the establishment of these systems is part of the human experience. I mean it's valid to say that environmentalist ethics are effectively a religion because there's nothing intrinsically "good" about preserving natural resources, life, the earth, our ecosystem, etc. Rather we do it because it makes us feel comfortable and we make the excuse that environmental care is required for any activity here to be possible even though the maintenance of possible activity is similarly not innately good. From that, it's valid to say that man's obsessions with "Mother Earth", "Father Sky", and other natural forces from our caveman days was a religious following.
Please see above. Religion is NOT just "any faith belief system...". Religion is an institution. Religion is not a belief system, per se. Confusion or 'blurring' between the terms of religion, faith and spiritualism can really turn this discussion into a muddled mess. In consider all three terms to be categorically distinct, though all three do have much in common.

Asserting that "environmentalist ethics are effectively a religion" is nonsense.

There is nothing religious about environmentalist ethics at all. Lots of spiritualism and faith certainly, but there is no religion there. I will admit that many pagan religions may be very environmentally conscious and/or aspire to environmental ethics, but these are few and mostly obscure. ;)

Heh.

Actually, the only reason I'm familiar with that phrase and title of his speech is because of the copy of the board game I own called Here I Stand. (http://www.gmtgames.com/nnhis/main.html)
Well, I know the phrase from its initial context, spoken by Luther. I've studied the Reformation quite intently - it was a remarkably significant political phenomenum that still carries significance to this day in modern politics.

Btw, I have developed a rather radical theory about the Reformation in the process - that one can predict the religious outcome of the Reformation in every country in Europe strictly by looking at the political relationship between the noblity and the relevant sovereign prior to Luther's action. If the relationship was close or allied, then it went Catholic. If the relationship was one of animosity, then it went Protestant. France was the only one on the edge here and they correspondingly tettered back and forth - but it was the alliance of the nobility with the crown in France that secured the Catholic victory there.

As for the game-link, I was particularly amused by the inclusion of the "d10". :D

[Daktoria]

I think I can explain this phenomena more accurately. ;)

You are essentially invoking pure subjective faith but you apparently are not fully comfortable with admitting that and thus seek a rationale to account for this, but that rationale doesn't actually exist. Thus, you have your faith and not much else here to go on. Thus, the inability to explain it in rational terms. And where humans are concerned, faith usually trumps rationalism. :D

Btw, this is a surprisingly common position that I've encountered on this topic many times. I've just gone through a very similar argument on this point with Dilettante in the "Yet Another Morality Thread".

Regardless of your motives, the bottom line is that you are asserting something that cannot be rationally explained, let alone rationally justified. That's called faith no matter how you try to spin it.

I'm not talking about God or a soul or an afterlife here, just the discovery of morals.

From that, I don't know how faith is incorporated. We realize things that have to be sound for the world to make sense. It's called normative ethics. If they aren't sound, then the world doesn't cohere or function. It's just a chaotic mess that doesn't matter for anything.

Please see above. Religion is NOT just "any faith belief system...". Religion is an institution. Religion is not a belief system, per se. Confusion or 'blurring' between the terms of religion, faith and spiritualism can really turn this discussion into a muddled mess. In consider all three terms to be categorically distinct, though all three do have much in common.

Asserting that "environmentalist ethics are effectively a religion" is nonsense.

There is nothing religious about environmentalist ethics at all. Lots of spiritualism and faith certainly, but there is no religion there. I will admit that many pagan religions may be very environmentally conscious and/or aspire to environmental ethics, but these are few and mostly obscure. ;)

I really don't get what you're saying here. People have internal institutions that are used to organize the mind, and a belief system is one such example.

Heck, I don't know how a system can't be an institution.

I also don't see why my proposed description of environmentalist ethics is nonsense.

Btw, I have developed a rather radical theory about the Reformation in the process - that one can predict the religious outcome of the Reformation in every country in Europe strictly by looking at the political relationship between the noblity and the relevant sovereign prior to Luther's action. If the relationship was close or allied, then it went Catholic. If the relationship was one of animosity, then it went Protestant. France was the only one on the edge here and they correspondingly tettered back and forth - but it was the alliance of the nobility with the crown in France that secured the Catholic victory there.

Why is this radical? It seems like common sense. With animosity comes resistance against tradition, and Catholicism is the traditional religion.

[Michael]

I'm not talking about God or a soul or an afterlife here, just the discovery of morals.
Same difference.

They are all one and the same when it comes to origin. Either morals are entirely invented by human artifice or they were created by some supernatural entity/force. Please pick one.

From that, I don't know how faith is incorporated. We realize things that have to be sound for the world to make sense. It's called normative ethics. If they aren't sound, then the world doesn't cohere or function. It's just a chaotic mess that doesn't matter for anything.
It is all well and fine to realize that "things have to be sound for the world to make sense".

However, that does not justify 'inventing things to make me feel better'. Or rather, that's all well and fine for any one given individual - but such statements are null or moot when offered in a discussion of philosophy or politics since they are limited to the interest of the individual who made them.

I really don't get what you're saying here. People have internal institutions that are used to organize the mind, and a belief system is one such example.

Heck, I don't know how a system can't be an institution.

I also don't see why my proposed description of environmentalist ethics is nonsense.
Religion is an institution qua institution. That's the whole point. The ethics of environmentalists do not constitute an institution (nothing even remotely similar).

When one speaks of "religion" one is addressing the operation of an existing and specific institution - one that has millions of defined members, a hierarchy of offices, official legal status, a written holy book, mountains of doctrine and an avowed mission that transcends time.

Going for a walk every day, or believing any given environmental principle is not religion and to speak of it so makes meaningful discussion of the term absolutely impossible.

Spiritualism (or faith) is a term with a much wider application to the issues you appear to be addressing. Spiritualism and/or faith has nothing in common with religion. Many people are into spiritualism and are religious, while many people into spiritualism claim to be anti-religion. There are even some people who are neither spiritual nor religious. There are lots of people who are religious and not spiritual. All combinations are possible.

In my personal perspective, spiritualism bores the crap out of me, but religion is very interesting and important because it is a long established political institution. And 'faith' is always interesting to me because of the issue of epistemology and claims of knowledge.

As for your point about environmental ethics, it was the assertion of casual faith as the definition of religion that I objected to as nonsense. Religion requires no spiritualism or faith at all. Just a willingness to go along with social decorum and/or 'peer pressure' is sufficient.

(That is not to say that is the definition of religion, it is merely one manifestation of it)

Why is this radical? It seems like common sense. With animosity comes resistance against tradition, and Catholicism is the traditional religion.
It is radical because it purports to explain a historical outcome of a major theological/doctrinal dispute entirely in pragmatic political terms of secular motives - applied to actors outside the actual dispute.