Do human need religion?

[Ashton221]

If this were true, we could abolish all governments and, according to you, nothing would change. This is obviously false.

But religion--or the Christian religion anyway--is not about rules at all. The Bible is primarily about what God has done to establish a relationship with people. From that flow "rules" concerning how to have a right relationship with God. But this is no different than there being "rules" to how to, for instance, properly relate to your wife or your kids or whathaveyou. Every relationship has boundaries or rules of behavior in order for it to exist and flourish. You cannot have a flourishing relationship with your wife if you live in a different house than her, sleep with different women than her, and do not talk to her. These are some "rules" of that relationship.

This is certainly true to an extent. Even without a government, there will still be those who know right and wrong and will not doing anything illegal/harmful. Then there will always and still be those who will break the "rules"; better known as bad men.

Of course, it's not about rules. So that's it, do we really need religion? Does this "religion" effect our actions? During a relationship or anything else?

Is it really rules that keep a humans in line? or is it self morals?

[Boomerang]

This is certainly true to an extent. Even without a government, there will still be those who know right and wrong and will not doing anything illegal/harmful. Then there will always and still be those who will break the "rules"; better known as bad men.

Of course, it's not about rules. So that's it, do we really need religion? Does this "religion" effect our actions? During a relationship or anything else?

Is it really rules that keep a humans in line? or is it self morals?

Back to the age-old question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[ZPanea]

Even without a government, there will still be those who know right and wrong and will not doing anything illegal/harmful. Then there will always and still be those who will break the "rules"; better known as bad men.

There are a lot of issues this raises.

First off, one question immediately comes to mind: do you have any evidence for this or are you just assuming that if you take away all governments and all rules (and all religion) that things will substantially remain the same? Your observation that there will always be rule breakers amidst a ruled society and there will always be "good" persons amidst a lawless society doesn't itself entail that not having rules will leave things substantially the same. It is possible that the number of people who will still be good in a lawless society is very small.

Secondly, this goes against the grain not only of the number 1 explanation of how governments and societies arose in the first place but also how religion arose. Evolution attempts to explain why we have governments and why we have religion as social control mechanisms that needed to arise in order to keep us from annihilating each other. But if your assertion is correct and these things make no real difference then governments and religion become largely inexplicable. And all those evolutionary psychologists (and Darwinists of different stripes like biologist PZ Myers and philosopher of science, atheist Alex Rosenberg) have gotten it wrong.

Third, this means no one could use the "religion is a control mechanism" excuse (a favorite that has been used in this thread several times). If you are correct, religion doesn't really control people because these people would act substantially the same even without it.

Fourth, this assumes the existence of objective morality. But I contend (along with many atheists, e.g., Joel Marks, Jesse Prinz, Michael Ruse, Alex Rosenberg, etc) that in an atheistic universe there can be no such thing. Morality or what is moral (and thus making a person good or bad) is simply defined by the society's rules or government. If you take those away, you no longer have good or bad and thus good men or bad men.

Of course, it's not about rules. So that's it, do we really need religion? Does this "religion" effect our actions? During a relationship or anything else?

Obviously it does. A Jainist will not kill insects. If a Jainist wasn't a part of the religion of Jainism, he would not act in such a manner. A Hindu will not eat a cow because of their religious beliefs. A Muslim (and some Christians) will not drink alcohol because of their religious beliefs. A Mormon will not drink caffeine because of their religious beliefs. etc. etc.

You may be thinking "But none of that determines what makes a good person or bad person." But this actually makes the point that your statement is question begging (assuming a point in dispute). For the Hindu, not eating a cow IS part of what makes a good person and eating a cow IS part of what makes a bad person.

Your assertion that person's religion doesn't effect anything is obviously absurd, aside from question begging.

Is it really rules that keep a humans in line? or is it self morals?

First, a person's religious beliefs make up part of their "self-morals." So this looks like a false dichotomy.

Second, the answer to your question appears to be, clearly, rules keep humans in line.

[pinksky]

Second, the answer to your question appears to be, clearly, rules keep humans in line.

no they dont! morals do.. people dont like rules they like to be in control of their own lives and not controlled, so they go by their own morals and learn from others morals as they inspire them, i dont think to be honest that there is that many that use rules i mean look at the amount that do go to prison and how the goverment talk about how they are struggling for space because the prisons are jam packed full already and thats because if people have it in them to steal, kill or do something illegal then they will at some point or another wether there is conseqences or not unless they really want to get help to change but not very many do this because this means facing their own faults and reasons behind their criminal offence and its emotionally heart breaking process for them talking about their past etc, maybe not for the killers though most of them are too mentally messed up to even understand what they did wrong

[ZPanea]

no they dont!

Yes they do!

Honestly, just asserting you're right isn't going to get us very far. Here are a few arguments, from experience, reason, and actually studies that have been done.

First, an argument from experience. Children. Anyone who has raised a child will know that you can't just trust a child to have an innate sense of morality. Children aren't just good or bad, such that if a child is good he doesn't need rules and if a child is bad rules will not matter. Most parents will tell you that if they had to pick whether children are instinctively good or bad they would say bad. Children are naturally selfish. No one teaches a child to hit his sister, steal her toys and claim them as his own, or throw a fit when he doesn't get his way. You have to teach a child to be good through rules. You have to teach a child how to get along with other people (i.e., how to be good).

Second, an argument from reason. If what you are saying is true, then no one can really acquire a different moral disposition. A good person can't become bad and, worst of all, a bad person can't become good. Why? Because otherwise you would have to admit that moral reform can occur through the teaching of rules. Everyone in prison (or any kid in detention) is now a hopeless lost cause, according to you. Instead of seeing punishment as rehabilitative and prohibitive, you have to see punishment in a purely retributive light. Otherwise, your claim is obviously false. But I say this is an absurd conclusion that you wouldn't defend had you not already committed yourself to the nice sounding slogan that it's not rules but personal morals. Hence, reductio ad absurdum.

Third, an argument from actual studies that have been done on this issue. Adler and Summers (of Pepperdine University) report in "Capital Punishment Works" in the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2 2007 that when the number of executions go down the murder rate also goes up, such that there is an inverse relationship between crime and punishment. In other words, punishment deters crime. Even H. Naci Mocan, an opponent of capital punishment, did his own study on the issue and concluded that his research demonstrated that laws have a deterrent effect (see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us...pagewanted=all).

morals do..

People get their "morals" from the rules laid out to them by parents and society.

people dont like rules they like to be in control of their own lives and not controlled, so they go by their own morals and learn from others morals as they inspire them

People like rules they think are just and dislike rules they think are unjust. Everyone likes the rules against stealing when it comes to their personal property. And no one dislikes that rule because it "controls" their life. If a person doesn't like rules simply because it restricts their "freedom" this person is probably asocial with behavior issues. Only a thief will not like the rule against stealing when he wants to steal another person's property. He is the one who doesn't like rules and wants to be in control of his own life, forging his own morality. But such a person is psychopathic, not the norm.

i dont think to be honest that there is that many that use rules

Everyone uses rules since everyone was at some time a child who was given rules by his or her parents. They consciously and subconsciously adopted those rules as standards for good behavior. As they grew up, they learned more rules from society (and the government).

For instance, consider laws against pedophilia. In the United States, the legal age to have consensual *** is 18. In other countries it is lower, sometimes much lower (as young as 12), and in other countries it is higher (21). Notice two things. (1) What is considered pedophilia is conventional. (2) Hardly anyone in those countries views their rules as conventional! Ask the average United States citizen whether they think it is bad for an 18 year old male to have *** with a 14 year old girl. I'm willing to bet that about 95% of them would say it is morally wrong. But ask someone in Bosnia or Albania the same question and they will say there is nothing morally wrong with that.

The point is, the vast majority of people are adopting the rules of their society for their own morality. This isn't a conscious process, as you seem to think, of a person choosing someone to emulate who inspires them. This also isn't usually something they learn as children from their parents. No one goes through the list of "Worldwide Age Consent" laws and decides which one inspires them the most or which one has the best arguments in its favor. Most people are not even aware that there are differences in what is considered pedophilia across societies. They just assume that everyone else must agree with their own ideas, because that is what they have subconsciously adopted from their social rules.

i mean look at the amount that do go to prison and how the goverment talk about how they are struggling for space because the prisons are jam packed full already and thats because if people have it in them to steal, kill or do something illegal then they will at some point or another wether there is conseqences or not unless they really want to get help to change but not very many do this because this means facing their own faults and reasons behind their criminal offence and its emotionally heart breaking process for them talking about their past etc, maybe not for the killers though most of them are too mentally messed up to even understand what they did wrong

The reasons why prisons are full are many and complex. One reason is that the system doesn't work as either a deterrent or a rehabilitative program. This isn't to say *punishment* doesn't work as a deterrent or rehabilitative, but that prison and jail are not proper means of punishment or rehabilitation. But if what you are saying is correct, then the only solution is to give life imprisonment sentences to virtually anyone who commits any crime worthy of jail or prison. People are either good or bad. If you are bad, rules can't help you. If you are good, rules are pointless. So the bad people cannot be helped and they will continue to be bad if left to themselves in society. The only solution for a peaceful society then is to put them all to death or lock them all up forever. Sound good?

The whole "we don't need rules" bull crap is a feel good slogan adopted by most young people at some point in their adolescence. It's partly due to their natural optimism, partly due to new-age teaching that everyone is a good person anyway, partly due to naivety, and partly due to their not wanting to put up with the rules of their parents anymore. But eventually most of them will have kids and learn the hard way that people need to learn rules and by this rule learning become a good person, a good citizen.

[~Tyson~]

Back to the age-old question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Considering that the egg always comes first...

[Boomerang]

Considering that the egg always comes first...

....pause for thought!

[~Tyson~]

....pause for thought!

Well there is no other way for the chicken to be without it coming from an egg.

The egg however, can result from two particular birds cross-breeding to create the present day chicken.

I guess there is no real definitive answer to this topic 'do we need religion?'. Upon further reflection, I believe the answer seems to be both yes and no.

[Boomerang]

Well there is no other way for the chicken to be without it coming from an egg.

The egg however, can result from two particular birds cross-breeding to create the present day chicken.

I guess there is no real definitive answer to this topic 'do we need religion?'. Upon further reflection, I believe the answer seems to be both yes and no.

Yes and No to me = A Good Supposition! Some individuals actually become better people; citizens; etc; because of, in their own words, religion. Others are stymied; hindered; even held-back because of, in their own words, religion!

[figa]

Even H. Naci Mocan, an opponent of capital punishment

Adler and Summers (of Pepperdine University) report in "Capital Punishment Works" in the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2 2007

And all those evolutionary psychologists (and Darwinists of different stripes like biologist PZ Myers and philosopher of science, atheist Alex Rosenberg)

Thus, as David Klinghoffer points out, "government plays the role of zookeeper. We need our modes of transportation and industrial production tightly constrained, our diets controlled, our claim of possessing marks of divine intention or favor firmly denied, our offspring available immediately from conception to be consumed for medical research" etc.

(like Godfrey-Smith or Rosenberg or Piggliucci or Okasha).

As the philosopher of science Samir Okasha points out in his book on the subject

According to Dinesh D'Souza "fewer than twenty-five [people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials].

Paul Davies (physicist) - "science has its own faith-based beliefsystem... its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

Massimo Piggliucci (geneticist/botanist)

As the physicist Paul Davies put it a few years ago in an article from the New York Times: "science has its own faith-based beliefsystem... its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

So, for instance, atheists like Joel Marks and Michael Ruse freely throw morality out the window (Ruse labeling it “flim flam”). But I think the atheist philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg sums it up best in this little quote

lmfao at quoting and referring to barely known academics whose ouevres haven't received any formal recognition/haven't had the slightest impact on the philosophical/scientific discourse.

just shut up you fucking troll.