NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading an article about a preacher-turned-christian-popstar the other day and noticed something. The singer was recalling her childhood when she told her parents that she wasn't into religion.

Then one day she encountered a personal crisis. Her Christian friends gathered around her and helped a lot. From then, she attended church, and met her husband, who was a preacher. One thing led to another and she is now the star the she is.

I think many non-religious folks underestimate the human need for personal support and empowerment. I emphasize personal because I believe this is one reason why this social phenomena has such longevity and expansion potential. A highlight of the supermeme.

Do I think people convert into organized religion because of their first-principle doctrines, or holy books or whatever? To an outsider, this must appear absurd - many of those religious ideas are not merely obscure, they are so blatantly wrong and nonsensical that it boggles the mind. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that most of these folks never actually read or understood any of that stuff.

Yet people are willing part with their money, their time, their lives or take other people's lives for their religious principles? Why? WHY? WHY?

Is it because the belief system provides actual support for believers through extensive social networks optimized over a few thousand years of cultural evolution?

Is it because the belief system organizes people into large factions of real accumulated wealth and military power that can further expand their interests in a "us vs them" game of false diametric opposites?

Is it because the belief system discourages critical thought and incessant doubt, encouraging a false "good-evil" dicotomy, thus removing obstacles that restricts its growth and propagation? Even if you don't understand what makes you good (and you can't since everything is mystical, mind you) how can you not rally to fight evil together (who is conveniently always your opponent)?

Perhaps religion and society is inextricable. When organized religion was displaced during state-enforced atheism in the Soviet Union and China, people turned to personality cult worship instead, elevating Stalin and Mao into Gods. Many of the old guard still worship these dictators to this day.

I find this a discouraging thought. What do you think?

Behold, the power of copy and paste!

People need something to find comfort in, a security blanket, in other words. It is a flaw in the human mental state. Even those of us who are athiests, such as myself, often end up worshipping, or at least coming decently close--tucking the blanket around our bodies, to use the metaphor--to having the same kind of reverence for science that religious people have for their beliefs. It takes a self-realized person to completely avoid all of that. I am not such a person...yet. Thing is, most people never bother trying to rid themselves of this flaw. I wish more people did. We might have a lot more reasonable people in society.

Isn't this poll exactly the same as the last one?

You can not remove the basic instinct of a human to seek a God, without being an opressive government.

You can not remove the basic instinct of a human to seek a God, without being an opressive government.

No amount of oppresion can remove a basic instinct.
You can inhibit the expression of that instinct, but the instinct remains.

Isn't this poll exactly the same as the last one?

No. There is the difference of one rather vital word.

The perfect mix.
Divinely ordained.
Those who try to stop it, are merely barking at the moon.
The need for organised religion is hard-coded into our DNA.
( DNA is, after all, one of those tools that the Creator employed. )

No. There is the difference of one rather vital word.
*Goes and looks*

Ah! Of course.

Behold, the power of copy and paste!

People need something to find comfort in, a security blanket, in other words. It is a flaw in the human mental state. Even those of us who are athiests, such as myself, often end up worshipping, or at least coming decently close--tucking the blanket around our bodies, to use the metaphor--to having the same kind of reverence for science that religious people have for their beliefs. It takes a self-realized person to completely avoid all of that. I am not such a person...yet. Thing is, most people never bother trying to rid themselves of this flaw. I wish more people did. We might have a lot more reasonable people in society.

Behold, the staying power of copy and paste!

Religion actually fulfills two basic human needs. It provides them with a large stable belief set that has the effect of generating and helping to maintain psychological stability and a sense of security in a chaotic environment that can be too stressful to cope with sans a solid belief system, and it also provides them with a social support network that fulfills their need for affection and validation.

By the way, frivolous polls rock my socks.

last option
because, in fact, at that particular moment, i was seriously contemplating having to throw out the piece of gum i have been chewing for the last three hours. its tasting less and less like mint every minute

on a more serious note, religion is not necessary in society. there is no need to beleive in a god in order for the world to have happiness, love, support, morality and ethics. having no religion would quite probably eliminate at least some problems in the world

Behold, the staying power of copy and paste!

Religion actually fulfills two basic human needs. It provides them with a large stable belief set that has the effect of generating and helping to maintain psychological stability and a sense of security in a chaotic environment that can be too stressful to cope with sans a solid belief system, and it also provides them with a social support network that fulfills their need for affection and validation.

By the way, frivolous polls rock my socks.
Religion worked all well and good back in the heyday of the ancient world, the medival era, and all that. Nowadays? I don't think it serves a purpose anymore. And let us not forget that religion is all too easily perverted by those who seek power. One only needs observe the Crusades, or the early Christian attempts at converting pagans, or just about any Muslim jihad in existance, etc, etc.

People in this day and age can cope with the chaotic environment without resorting to an invisible pal. The key is knowledge. The more one knows, the more stable a person is, typically enough. As for the support network, I've got a number of friends and family members I can always turn to, yet none of them was made through religion. Religion once served a purpose. But honestly? I don't think it is needed anymore. Of course, that's just my opinion.

(I'm headed to bed now, so if you argue against my points, don't expect a response for at least ten hours.

Religion worked all well and good back in the heyday of the ancient world, the medival era, and all that. Nowadays? I don't think it serves a purpose anymore. And let us not forget that religion is all too easily perverted by those who seek power. One only needs observe the Crusades, or the early Christian attempts at converting pagans, or just about any Muslim jihad in existance, etc, etc.

People in this day and age can cope with the chaotic environment without resorting to an invisible pal. The key is knowledge. The more one knows, the more stable a person is, typically enough. As for the support network, I've got a number of friends and family members I can always turn to, yet none of them was made through religion. Religion once served a purpose. But honestly? I don't think it is needed anymore. Of course, that's just my opinion.

(I'm headed to bed now, so if you argue against my points, don't expect a response for at least ten hours.

Actually, religion worked terribly before hand, especially in the middle ages.

(another copy-paste)

In my opinion science is indeed getting dangerously close to becoming a new religion for many. People (masses) indeed need a thing to fall back on. But my hope is that -it may take veryvery long :( - once societies, or one bright example, will transcend this state of mind and live freely out of their own honest well-thought-trough convinctions (is it spelled that way :rolleyes: ?).
So, still praying:p

add: I think on a large scale humanity is actually doomed to fail to live up to any positive expections.

Religion isn't a requirement for anything but religion. The main thing is, societies can't function properly if people aren't allowed to be religious. Some people can't stand the thought of a universe without absolutes. Some can't stand the thought of death. Some need the care religion can provide.

All legitimate needs that lots of people have, for whatever reason. Such needs can be approached in many different ways, but for a society to be successful - catering to its constituent parts - it must allow the individuals themselves to decide how to deal with them.

I don't need religion & I don't want religion. I live in a thoroughly Christian society with a state church, yet it's a non-issue for me, since I'm free to avoid religion without prejudice or other ill-effects.

Education & a marginally stable circle of friends, can provide all the same things religion offer. With that in mind, it's unlikely organised religion will retain it's death-grip on society in the future, but I don't doubt religion will remain in some form or other.

The perfect mix.
Divinely ordained.
Those who try to stop it, are merely barking at the moon.
The need for organised religion is hard-coded into our DNA.
( DNA is, after all, one of those tools that the Creator employed. )

If you think this is the case, should we -

1. Make a nicer God for people to believe in (since current Patriarchal Gods are all so scary).

2. All "believe" in the most popular God anyway, since though God won't necessary kill people, people certainly would. Better to pretend than to be brutally tortured or killed.

3. Play the game. Make a strong "non-religious" social group, with sufficient money and power, to discourage religionists from killing each other, and most importantly, us.

Oh shit, I just realized what if the most popular God is always the most cruel one! :eek:

Oh shit, I just realized what if the most popular God is always the most cruel one! :eek:

I think humans invented Hell way before they thought of heaven. It is more satisfying to see those you hate punished than to see yourself in paradise.

If you think this is the case, should we -

1. Make a nicer God for people to believe in (since current Patriarchal Gods are all so scary).

2. All "believe" in the most popular God anyway, since though God won't necessary kill people, people certainly would. Better to pretend than to be brutally tortured or killed.

3. Play the game. Make a strong "non-religious" social group, with sufficient money and power, to discourage religionists from killing each other, and most importantly, us.

Oh shit, I just realized what if the most popular God is always the most cruel one! :eek:


*shakes head*
I consider the whole thing divinely ordained.
Therefore, I consider looking into alternative options as sacrilege.
( not being frivolous ).


PS: if there is a nicer god than that chap that died on the cross, I haven't heard about it yet.

And now returning from yet another aside:

We have gone into the facts. Why now progress ( or perhaps digress? ) into the normative?
Which is to say: why all the 'should's?

Religion worked all well and good back in the heyday of the ancient world, the medival era, and all that. Nowadays? I don't think it serves a purpose anymore. And let us not forget that religion is all too easily perverted by those who seek power. One only needs observe the Crusades, or the early Christian attempts at converting pagans, or just about any Muslim jihad in existance, etc, etc.

Blah blah blah blah. Can you pull out any more hackneyed and ill-conceived attacks on religion, or are you done yet?

People in this day and age can cope with the chaotic environment without resorting to an invisible pal.

Very true. As I implied in the post you were responding to, the important thing is having the two essential needs fulfilled. And those can be fulfilled outside a religious tradition that posits a deity, certainly. Many people have found non-religious ways to fulfill those needs.

The key is knowledge. The more one knows, the more stable a person is, typically enough.

Well, the more one thinks one knows, the more stable that person tends to be. Whether what they know is actually coherent with reality tends to be irrelvant to fulfilling their psychological needs.

As for the support network, I've got a number of friends and family members I can always turn to, yet none of them was made through religion.

Good for you. I also have friends and family members I can turn to, and I really don't see that it matters whether I gained them by participation in religious or non-religious social institutions.

Religion once served a purpose. But honestly? I don't think it is needed anymore. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I would agree that religion is unnecessary. I also think that rationalism and materialism are unnecessary. They're all just constructs that when applied effectively have the basic attributes necessary to fulfill our psychological needs.

(I'm headed to bed now, so if you argue against my points, don't expect a response for at least ten hours.

No worries. I'll be going to bed fairly soon myself. :)

And now returning from yet another aside:

We have gone into the facts. Why now progress ( or perhaps digress? ) into the normative?
Which is to say: why all the 'should's?

Facts? Religion to my opinion, is all about the normative. And though DNA is a fact, unless you're totally empirist about it, the "divine blalblaahsab" about how it ended up in our bodies is not factual. It's a believe, and it is constituted in the way you are told to think by the culture you grow up in. There are no facts here, it's all ethics.

I would agree that religion is unnecessary. I also think that rationalism and materialism are unnecessary. They're all just constructs that when applied effectively have the basic attributes necessary to fulfill our psychological needs.



Okay, how can one be religious and at the same time agree to such a statement?:confused: Religion beyond the ethical has an absolute claim of necessety in it, or am I wrong?

Facts? Religion to my opinion, is all about the normative. And though DNA is a fact, unless you're totally empirist about it, the "divine blalblaahsab" about how it ended up in our bodies is not factual. It's a believe, and it is constituted in the way you are told to think by the culture you grow up in. There are no facts here, it's all ethics.

True enough. But you can't leap from the factual to the normative, since there is no logical connection. ( Unless you wish to postulate Divine Command. )

Okay, how can one be religious and at the same time agree to such a statement?:confused: Religion beyond the ethical has an absolute claim of necessety in it, or am I wrong?

I don't see that religion necessarily must have a claim of necessity. It tends to function that way because its a common human behavior to assert the absolute and necessary truth of one's beliefs. This assertion of absolute necessity works to increase the psychologically stabilizing effect. For example, folks who assert that The Eightfold Path is the only way, or that logic is the only method of finding truth. The strength of their belief, held in such a absolute and dogmatic manner, is amazing. It makes them almost immune to psychological deconstruction and the resultant stress that can so heavily impair one's ability to survive effectively and function properly in one's environment.

I don't see that religion necessarily must have a claim of necessity. It tends to function that way because its a common human behavior to assert the absolute and necessary truth of one's beliefs. This assertion of absolute necessity works to increase the psychologically stabilizing effect. For example, folks who assert that The Eightfold Path is the only way, or that logic is the only method of finding truth. The strength of their belief, held in such a absolute and dogmatic manner, is amazing. It makes them almost immune to psychological deconstruction and the resultant stress that can so heavily impair one's ability to survive effectively and function properly in one's environment.

I agree than any strong belief would have a psychologically stabilizing effect. However do you think that the rationale underlying the belief system has no effect on their ability to function properly in their environment?

In addition I noticed that a religious movement when large enough, can construct their own social environment. It can be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The perfect mix.
Divinely ordained.
Those who try to stop it, are merely barking at the moon.
The need for organised religion is hard-coded into our DNA.
( DNA is, after all, one of those tools that the Creator employed. )
I would like to see that claim proved

While I think it is a basic survival trait I am not sure it is "hardcoded"

I would like to see that claim proved

While I think it is a basic survival trait I am not sure it is "hardcoded"

I belief it to be.
Why should I care if you do or not?
Your disbelief is not my problem. ( My basic philosophy. )

I'm not sure that God allowed it to be proved. ( I'm sure He didn't. )
If it is provable, it idn't Faith, and therefore, devoid of virtue.

My personal feelings are that religion, irrespective of its deitic connotations, constitutes a moral code. Given that the moral code of the respective religion is a central tenet of both the behavioural imperatives, and legislation, of western, Islamic and subcontinental society, I fail to see how the two can be extricated.

My personal feelings are that religion, irrespective of its deitic connotations, constitutes a moral code. Given that the moral code of the respective religion is a central tenet of both the behavioural imperatives, and legislation, of western, Islamic and subcontinental society, I fail to see how the two can be extricated.

Are you saying that the Church and State cannot be separate?

Are you saying that the Church and State cannot be separate?

Not as such. I am more saying that the moral code of the church cannot be seperated from either the state, or the populace.

Not as such. I am more saying that the moral code of the church cannot be seperated from either the state, or the populace.
*agrees*

True enough. But you can't leap from the factual to the normative, since there is no logical connection. ( Unless you wish to postulate Divine Command. )

Actually I CAN leap from the factual to the normative, and back again. Without using so-called Divine Command as an existing concept. I think we all SHOULD leap from the factual to the normative, to not get stuck in the past. If you catch my drift.

I don't see that religion necessarily must have a claim of necessity. It tends to function that way because its a common human behavior to assert the absolute and necessary truth of one's beliefs. This assertion of absolute necessity works to increase the psychologically stabilizing effect. For example, folks who assert that The Eightfold Path is the only way, or that logic is the only method of finding truth. The strength of their belief, held in such a absolute and dogmatic manner, is amazing. It makes them almost immune to psychological deconstruction and the resultant stress that can so heavily impair one's ability to survive effectively and function properly in one's environment.

Okay, I misunderstood, I thought you were religious in some (strong) way. But stating that, I see now you can not be religious without being hypo-critic towards yourself. Or you have the ability to fool yourself ofcourse (which is mostly stated to be some sort of psychological disease, f.e. schizophrenia).

Okay, I misunderstood, I thought you were religious in some (strong) way. But stating that, I see now you can not be religious without being hypo-critic towards yourself. Or you have the ability to fool yourself ofcourse (which is mostly stated to be some sort of psychological disease, f.e. schizophrenia).

I'm not religious in the strong sense of the word, no. I'm an agnostic theist, which means that like Kant I recognize that I may or may not be correct about the existence of God (and a lot of other things in this world too), but I do have faith in God (and a lot of other things in this world too). Essentially, I recognize my own limitations and that I can do little to overcome the more basic limitations I have. I'm also a pragmatist, and as far as I can tell there's no greater benefit in being non-religious than there is in remaining where I'm at with the beliefs I have.

And I can actually fool myself, like most people. In my experience, many people lie to themselves to protect their psyche, often doing it subconsciously. On a rare occasion, I've done it consciously as a temporary protective measure. Constructing memories is actually pretty easy for me.

I belief it to be.
Why should I care if you do or not?
Your disbelief is not my problem. ( My basic philosophy. )

I'm not sure that God allowed it to be proved. ( I'm sure He didn't. )
If it is provable, it idn't Faith, and therefore, devoid of virtue.
Hence the whole reason that god is an unfalsafiable proposition

Great example of why god has no place in science or the science classroom

I agree than any strong belief would have a psychologically stabilizing effect. However do you think that the rationale underlying the belief system has no effect on their ability to function properly in their environment?

It may or may not. It would depend on the sort of mental structures they use.

In addition I noticed that a religious movement when large enough, can construct their own social environment. It can be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

How so? Most religions don't start with the express intent of fulfilling those basic psychological needs, so it seems unlikely that they are knowingly (or even subconsciously) acting so as to create that sort of environment.

I don't if this has been mentioned or not, but there was an article in Scientific America (or maybe it was TIME) a couple years ago about how they found proof that spirituality / the need for a higher being is genetic. And that really explains a lot, if you think about it.

they can try and try to stop peoplke from practicing a religion. but all this will do is make some even more faithfull and create martyrs.

no matter what athiest try to do, religion will always exist. churches can be banned and books can be burnt. but religion will always find a way through.

Can society exist without religion? Yes. Can it exist without a culture in general? Yes, but it would turn to nihilism.

Do I think people convert into organized religion because of their first-principle doctrines, or holy books or whatever? To an outsider, this must appear absurd - many of those religious ideas are not merely obscure, they are so blatantly wrong and nonsensical that it boggles the mind. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that most of these folks never actually read or understood any of that stuff.
...

Is it because the belief system organizes people into large factions of real accumulated wealth and military power that can further expand their interests in a "us vs them" game of false diametric opposites?

Is it because the belief system discourages critical thought and incessant doubt, encouraging a false "good-evil" dicotomy, thus removing obstacles that restricts its growth and propagation? Even if you don't understand what makes you good (and you can't since everything is mystical, mind you) how can you not rally to fight evil together (who is conveniently always your opponent)?

Perhaps religion and society is inextricable. When organized religion was displaced during state-enforced atheism in the Soviet Union and China, people turned to personality cult worship instead, elevating Stalin and Mao into Gods. Many of the old guard still worship these dictators to this day.

I find this a discouraging thought. What do you think?I think you have a pretty good post here. I also think that people seem to be pretty absorbed with having an extroverted expression of the traits they want to be identified with most, and quite often, for a deity or a politician to garner enough support, they have to be in all those places at once (excellent PR).
Also - it says quite a bit about someone getting what they pay for.

*bows*

Yes, discouraging, but there are exceptions, RAmen to that.
Excelsior.

Religion exists for one reason: to develop faith. So what is faith? Rather than looking upon faith as an irrational belief, I would look upon it as confidence. For every goal, there is not a clear path that one understands from the beginning, but with confidence that there is a way to get there, one will keep trying until one finds it. The only way to be defeated in anything is to stop trying, and if your desire to keep trying comes from knowing that you have a supernatural being rooting for you to succeed, then so be it.

For those that refuse to believe until they understand, you will never understand until you believe.

Religion exists for one reason: to develop faith. So what is faith? Rather than looking upon faith as an irrational belief, I would look upon it as confidence. For every goal, there is not a clear path that one understands from the beginning, but with confidence that there is a way to get there, one will keep trying until one finds it. The only way to be defeated in anything is to stop trying, and if your desire to keep trying comes from knowing that you have a supernatural being rooting for you to succeed, then so be it.

For those that refuse to believe until they understand, you will never understand until you believe.
So basically you believe because you wanted to really really bad.

So basically you believe because you wanted to really really bad.

Well, when I suppose when you get down to it, yes. And now it makes sense.

Well, when I suppose when you get down to it, yes. And now it makes sense.
and this is what you base your life on/around yes?

and this is what you base your life on/around yes?
Yes. Because I believe things are possible, I can persue them, even if it is not obvious how to get there. It's not like Columbus knew for a fact before setting out on the Atlantic ocean that the Earth was round. He just happened to be convinced that it was and was willing to take action. If he waited around for definitive proof, the United States might be a bit younger than it is now.

The main thing to keep in mind with religion is it's the action taken that is ultimately more valuable than the goal. Most of the goals put forth in religions are merely expedients designed to encourage people to take action.

Yes. Because I believe things are possible, I can persue them, even if it is not obvious how to get there. It's not like Columbus knew for a fact before setting out on the Atlantic ocean that the Earth was round. He just happened to be convinced that it was and was willing to take action. If he waited around for definitive proof, the United States might be a bit younger than it is now.

The main thing to keep in mind with religion is it's the action taken that is ultimately more valuable than the goal. Most of the goals put forth in religions are merely expedients designed to encourage people to take action.
Your comparsion is odd. But if it works for you and you really believe, then have fun with your faith. You will probably live longer than me, at least thats what the stats say. Us atheists die out sooner since we have nothing to believe in other than this planet. so meh.

Your comparsion is odd. But if it works for you and you really believe, then have fun with your faith. You will probably live longer than me, at least thats what the stats say. Us atheists die out sooner since we have nothing to believe in other than this planet. so meh.
That, and I think actions such as meditation/prayer etc. are beneficial to your brain according to some studies.

Well, when I suppose when you get down to it, yes. And now it makes sense.
I'm pretty much on the same line of thinking as you.

Your comparsion is odd. But if it works for you and you really believe, then have fun with your faith. You will probably live longer than me, at least thats what the stats say. Us atheists die out sooner since we have nothing to believe in other than this planet. so meh.

Who said anything about not being an atheist? Buddhists are about as atheist as you can get.

Who said anything about not being an atheist? Buddhists are about as atheist as you can get.
oh, sorry. I just assumed you followed one of the monotheistic religions

oh, sorry. I just assumed you followed one of the monotheistic religions

No apologies necessary. It's actually very helpful for these kinds of discussions because one can see the atheist and the religious side simultaneously without any conflicts.

Religion exists for one reason: to develop faith.
You're missing a few other reasons here.

You're missing a few other reasons here.
Well, there are several other reasons that could be mentioned, and you are welcome to do so, but considering that they could be related to developing faith, it didn't seem necessary. For that matter, one could take any reason and show how all other ones are related to it. That's just the nature of life: the interconnectedness of all things.

Actually I CAN leap from the factual to the normative, and back again. Without using so-called Divine Command as an existing concept. I think we all SHOULD leap from the factual to the normative, to not get stuck in the past. If you catch my drift.

*shrug*
All I can offer you, then, is a push.

Hence the whole reason that god is an unfalsafiable proposition

Great example of why god has no place in science or the science classroom


I agree that God has little or no place in the science classroom.
( sein )

But he has or should have, pride of place in Courtrooms.
( sollen )

I don't think that there would be chaos without religion, but it does fulfil a human social need, and binds societies together.

I don't think that there would be chaos without religion, but it does fulfil a human social need, and binds societies together.

More often than not it tears them apart too.
Religeon is just there to tell people there is a life after death. Then the human race stops panicing and get on with its job before being inebitaly swallowed by oblivion.

I'm not sure what to say.I suppose society needs a greater goal,of sorts.For example,while the former USSR was explicitly athiest,it still had a greater almost divinified goal of implementing Communism with a zeal that is parallel to many religous fanatics.

I suppose society has to have a generally all-powering and overriding goal,and usually that is religion.However,multi-religional(Is that a word?sorry for that.) societies ,like the U.S. and the UK,tend to have the idea of spreading 'democracy' and maintaining it within their own country as their overlying goal.

Not that I beleive the U.S. is a true democracy or anything,but...

Everyone loves a good cult... I mean "faith".

The only way to cut religion out is to replace it with something better.

A wise man thought this, and on April 30, 1966 he founded a possible solution.

*snipped for length*
I believe it is quite possible to remove theism from society, and it would certainly be possible to remove institutionalized superstitions. However, religion (in my opinion) is really not so much about superstitions as it is about using superstitions to fulfill a very specific role. Superstitions, and the religions organized around them, are used to satisfy certain psychological needs for the people who participate in them. I think it is possible to satisfy those needs through non-religious means, and that would eliminate the desire for religion. Superstitions might still float around, like how some of us firmly believe in the horrible power of the Jinx, but they wouldn't be integrated so firmly into people's world-views and their views of self.

More often than not it tears them apart too.
Religion binds a group of people into a coherent society, but it also pits different societies against each other.

Religion binds a group of people into a coherent society, but it also pits different societies against each other.
I guess it depends on where you're drawing the borders of "society." For example, religion is most certainly a devisive force in "American society," because American society includes individuals from many different religions. Within each religions community, I'm sure their shared faith helps create unity, but the society as a whole suffers as a result of this kind of tribalism.

I guess it depends on where you're drawing the borders of "society." For example, religion is most certainly a devisive force in "American society," because American society includes individuals from many different religions. Within each religions community, I'm sure their shared faith helps create unity, but the society as a whole suffers as a result of this kind of tribalism.

*snorts*
That has a lot more to do with too many different groups within the USA - so much for multiculturalism, wot?

*snorts*
That has a lot more to do with too many different groups within the USA - so much for multiculturalism, wot?
I suppose, again, it depends on how you define the groups. For instance, two Catholics who come from very different parts of the world may find they feel united by their faith, while a Catholic and an atheist who've lived next door to each other for their entire lives may feel that they belong to very different "cultures."

Personally, I've found that I have more "shared culture" with my lab coworkers than with just about any of the other people I've met in my lifetime. My lab coworkers are from Bulgaria, China, Trinidad, and France, while I've never spent more than 2 weeks outside of America at any given time. We're about as "multicultural" a lab as you can get, yet I find myself far more at home than in the last lab I worked in, in which everybody was American-born.

I suppose, again, it depends on how you define the groups. For instance, two Catholics who come from very different parts of the world may find they feel united by their faith, while a Catholic and an atheist who've lived next door to each other for their entire lives may feel that they belong to very different "cultures."

Personally, I've found that I have more "shared culture" with my lab coworkers than with just about any of the other people I've met in my lifetime. My lab coworkers are from Bulgaria, China, Trinidad, and France, while I've never spent more than 2 weeks outside of America at any given time. We're about as "multicultural" a lab as you can get, yet I find myself far more at home than in the last lab I worked in, in which everybody was American-born.

I'm rather provincial, and prefer it that way.
I see what you are getting at - but I must say that events prove you wrong.

One Size Fits All makes for better results.

I suppose, again, it depends on how you define the groups. For instance, two Catholics who come from very different parts of the world may find they feel united by their faith, while a Catholic and an atheist who've lived next door to each other for their entire lives may feel that they belong to very different "cultures."

Personally, I've found that I have more "shared culture" with my lab coworkers than with just about any of the other people I've met in my lifetime. My lab coworkers are from Bulgaria, China, Trinidad, and France, while I've never spent more than 2 weeks outside of America at any given time. We're about as "multicultural" a lab as you can get, yet I find myself far more at home than in the last lab I worked in, in which everybody was American-born.
Agreed same with me at work or when in my masters program as well… we come from all over the world but there is some sort of shared identity that happens after 6 years of schooling at the same school lol

I'm rather provincial, and prefer it that way.
I see what you are getting at - but I must say that events prove you wrong.

I'm not sure I understand how "events" can "prove me wrong." Which events, and what am I wrong about?


One Size Fits All makes for better results.
I'd say that forcing very different people to conform to one uniform standard "culture" is pretty much the best way to ensure explosively disastrous results.

I'm not sure I understand how "events" can "prove me wrong." Which events, and what am I wrong about?


I'd say that forcing very different people to conform to one uniform standard "culture" is pretty much the best way to ensure explosively disastrous results.

People as a whole dont get on too well together unless they have the same culture ( of which religion is a part too). See: Iraq. Or Bosnia. The list is long.


I don't believe in forcing our size on others.
But I do believe in making it plain to new others that unless they fit in with us, they'd better be ready to have a nice day somewhere else.
( I suppose that is what the Pilgrim Fathers chose to do: having a nice day, somewhere else. )

People as a whole dont get on too well together unless they have the same culture ( of which religion is a part too). See: Iraq. Or Bosnia. The list is long.

I don't think those examples necessarily support your hypothesis, because there are too many additional variables. You're leaving out all kinds of territorial and economic factors, and you're also neglecting my entire point in the process. My point was not that multicultural situations automatically increase unity, but rather than "multiculturalism" doesn't inherently carry conflict with it. The fact that cultures clash in some situations doesn't "prove me wrong."


I don't believe in forcing our size on others.
But I do believe in making it plain to new others that unless they fit in with us, they'd better be ready to have a nice day somewhere else.
( I suppose that is what the Pilgrim Fathers chose to do: having a nice day, somewhere else. )
I believe that kind of posturing is just plain silly. If I came into a new school or workplace or culture, and somebody told me that I'd better fit in or prepare to leave, I would assume that the dude in question was insecure about his penis size or his hairline and would pretty much write him off as a random spaz. If we want to be taken seriously, I don't think we should embarass ourselves by acting like territorial toddlers.

The fact that cultures clash tells me that the meeting of cultures is to be loathed in general.

The New Kid On The Block better fit in. Plain and simple.

The fact that cultures clash tells me that the meeting of cultures is to be loathed in general.

The New Kid On The Block better fit in. Plain and simple.
But the ability to keep one large single culture is in question as well …

*snorts*
That has a lot more to do with too many different groups within the USA - so much for multiculturalism, wot?
The greatest division and largest amount of sectarianism in the US right now is among white Christians, and that hardly breaks down along ethnic lines.

The greatest division and largest amount of sectarianism in the US right now is among white Christians, and that hardly breaks down along ethnic lines.
As highlighted by emo philips

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

Well, there are several other reasons that could be mentioned, and you are welcome to do so, but considering that they could be related to developing faith, it didn't seem necessary. For that matter, one could take any reason and show how all other ones are related to it. That's just the nature of life: the interconnectedness of all things.
No, not really - neither is the point, even though the point youre attempting to turn it to is somewhat interesting.
I'm talking about the point of religion. Other reasons i don't need to dote on much are really not much in the way of developing "faith".

No, not really - neither is the point, even though the point youre attempting to turn it to is somewhat interesting.
I'm talking about the point of religion. Other reasons i don't need to dote on much are really not much in the way of developing "faith".

Ok, you lost me. Maybe it's the term "point" that is throwing me off. Could you provide a substitute or elaborate a bit?

Ok, you lost me. Maybe it's the term "point" that is throwing me off. Could you provide a substitute or elaborate a bit?
Your quote that "the point of religion is to develop faith" (or how you worded it) is a bit misleading. The point of spirituality might be to develop faith, but the main point of religion is actually more about politics and keeping an order that reinforces bigotry and intolerance on part of people who think they have some kind of special angle on the nature of "god".
Hope that clarifies somewhat.
-

You will never be able to remove christianity from the US. I can't speak for any other country or religion, but Christianity is in the US to stay.

Your quote that "the point of religion is to develop faith" (or how you worded it) is a bit misleading. The point of spirituality might be to develop faith, but the main point of religion is actually more about politics and keeping an order that reinforces bigotry and intolerance on part of people who think they have some kind of special angle on the nature of "god".
Hope that clarifies somewhat.
-

Yes that does help. I suppose in that sense you could equate religion to beaureaucracy. Initially, beaureaucracies are established as a means to coordinate the efforts of individuals towards reaching a common goal. This requires effort in addition to the common goal. Somewhere along the line, more effort gets absorbed by the beaureaucracy and the goal is completely forgotten. Parkinson was the expert on beaureaucracies though, not me.

The question at this point would seem to be how does one keep beaureaucracies in the position of a tool of the people rather than being a manipulator of the people?

I hope we're still on the same page here.

You will never be able to remove christianity from the US. I can't speak for any other country or religion, but Christianity is in the US to stay.Ah maybe, but only in the populace. It doesn't belong in the government. As clarified in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
As well, it's qualified by PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE AND CONGRESSIONAL RATIFICATION back in 1796 that the US is not, in any sense, a country founded on christian doctrine.
The sweet thing about NOT LIVING IN A THEOCRACY is that you don't have SOME OTHER GROUP OF DELUDED ASSH*LES TELLING YOU WHAT TO BELIEVE AS A FORM OF LAW.
Good thing, too. If you want that bullsh*t, move to Iran.

Another cool thing ... atheism is ALSO here to stay, in the U.S.
And, modwilling, SO IS AGNOSTICISM.
As well, SATANISM.
As well, BUDDHISM.
As well, HINDUISM.
As well, SHINTOISM.
As well, PANTHEISM.
As well, SUFISM.
As well, DEISM.
As well, ANIMISM.
As well, ANY FAITH DEEMED "PAGAN" by "CHRISTIANS".
And verily, it is good.

Yes that does help. I suppose in that sense you could equate religion to beaureaucracy. Initially, beaureaucracies are established as a means to coordinate the efforts of individuals towards reaching a common goal. This requires effort in addition to the common goal. Somewhere along the line, more effort gets absorbed by the beaureaucracy and the goal is completely forgotten. Parkinson was the expert on beaureaucracies though, not me.

The question at this point would seem to be how does one keep beaureaucracies in the position of a tool of the people rather than being a manipulator of the people?

I hope we're still on the same page here.
Well put.
I believe we're on the same page ... it could be argued that a faith is required to promote the ends sought in manner of diocese as well as bureaucracy, although the manner of manipulation/goal is a bit different. Unless the happy line of theocracy is crossed, then it's pretty well done for.

I think there is a solution in this case: eliminate the need for professional beaureaucrats/theocrats. When promoting the welfare of an organization becomes one's raison d'etre, one loses touch with the reality of daily life. Granted, having part time beaucrats will make an organization less efficent, but it's not like beaureaucracies are known for their efficency anyway.

Bottom line: get rid of clergy and replace them with laity. They may not be as effective, but are more likely to remain grounded in the reality of daily life.

I think there is a solution in this case: eliminate the need for professional beaureaucrats/theocrats. When promoting the welfare of an organization becomes one's raison d'etre, one loses touch with the reality of daily life. Granted, having part time beaucrats will make an organization less efficent, but it's not like beaureaucracies are known for their efficency anyway.

Bottom line: get rid of clergy and replace them with laity. They may not be as effective, but are more likely to remain grounded in the reality of daily life.
That would be a most excellent step. *bows*

Bottom line: get rid of clergy and replace them with laity. They may not be as effective, but are more likely to remain grounded in the reality of daily life.
What is laity exactly, out of curiosity?

Behold, the power of copy and paste!

People need something to find comfort in, a security blanket, in other words. It is a flaw in the human mental state. Even those of us who are athiests, such as myself, often end up worshipping, or at least coming decently close--tucking the blanket around our bodies, to use the metaphor--to having the same kind of reverence for science that religious people have for their beliefs. It takes a self-realized person to completely avoid all of that. I am not such a person...yet. Thing is, most people never bother trying to rid themselves of this flaw. I wish more people did. We might have a lot more reasonable people in society.

Kyronea you are advanced in your thinking. What courses have you taken in science? I wish more could emulate your example, and put their efforts into scientific research instead of going to church.

What is laity exactly, out of curiosity?
lai - lay
layperson, -people
commons, not "anointed"
http://www.answers.com/topic/laity

Kyronea you are advanced in your thinking. What courses have you taken in science? I wish more could emulate your example, and put their efforts into scientific research instead of going to church.
Kyronea's pretty cool.

I am still struggling with religion and being forced into a certain type of religion for my grandparents; a religion that I don't completely agree with, but one that if I did not participate in, would crush my grandparents (I am their only descendent). I don't agree in any type of organized religion, and I used to think that this made me an athiest, and that all organized religions were bad. However, recently, with the death of several family members (not immediate family), I have decided that for my own mental state, I do believe in a certain kind of after life.

I think that, although many modern organized religions are mockeries and shams, the idea of spirituality and something above us is an idea that will continue to exist in society because people sometimes need to be comforted when something tragic happens. I can't picture life if my loved ones, including my grandparents, die. Therefore, I need to beleive in something to ensure that I don't drive my self crazy with grief. That is why I believe that society will always have some sort of religion, although I do think that the definition of religion will slowly change over time as science becomes more accepted.

Kudos, Xisla. It is so refreshing to see a poll that actually lists enough options to get both sides of the issue, and thereby, an accurate sampling of opinion. Thanks for being reasonably objective.

Kudos, Xisla. It is so refreshing to see a poll that actually lists enough options to get both sides of the issue, and thereby, an accurate sampling of opinion. Thanks for being reasonably objective.

Any poll should have a Xisla option.

Any poll should have a Xisla option.
Preferably with more mannequin action.