The two big things I think religion provides that secularism does not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I think that there are two big things that religion provides to its followers that secularism does not.

The first of those things is an answer to "why is it in my self-interest to act ethically?", and the second is a focus for community.

There is an obvious answer to "why should I act ethically?" that does not require resort to the supernatural. "Should" is an ambiguous word; "you should do X" means either "it would be ethical for you to do X" or "it would be to your advantage to do X". So one sense of "why should I act ethically" is a tautology - "why is it ethical for me to act ethically?". There are lots of sensible secular derivations of ethics and psychological or philosophical answers to that.

What there *aren't*, and can't be, are any non-religious answers to the question "why is it in my interest to act ethically?". As an atheist, I have to accept that sometimes doing the right thing is not going to be rewarded. I've heard Richard Dawkins argue that this means that only atheists are genuinely capable of ethical behaviour - for the religious it's just a form of deferred self-interested. I'm not sure I buy that, but it's an interesting line of argument. But, either way, if I'm trying to persuade someone to do the right thing, most religions will provide a very compelling and simple answer as to why it's in their interest to do so, whereas as an atheist I can't say more than "because it's the right thing to do".

Whether that translates into a measurable difference in behaviour is hotly controversial, of course - I've seen evidence presented both ways, and I would recommend essentially dismissing out of hand anyone who claims confidence either way, especially if they're doing so on the basis of a single study rather than a literature review. But if I had to lay a pound at even odds, I'd guess that it would, albeit probably only a small one. But even if it doesn't, providing a simple answer to an otherwise unanswerable philosophical conundrum is not a small thing.


The second thing is a focus for communities.

This is only a weak absence, not a strong one like the other - atheism doesn't in any way preclude other things gluing communities together and providing a focus for the social life of a village, but it doesn't do so itself, and again religion does.

I think it probably is true that in many places the sense of local community has been declining massively over the past century or so, and that that probably has negative consequences. The main culprit, in my view, is not social change but technological. In the past I had two choices: socialise with the people around me, or be a hermit. Nowadays, thanks to cars, phones and the internet, I can maintain close friendships with people who live many hours drive away.

That's a good thing - it means I can choose my friends based on shared interests and mutual affection, rather than geographical enforcement - but I think there probably has been a price to be paid, albeit one well worth paying, in the decline of local community as a part of people's lives. I barely know any of my neighbours, and I don't think I'm unusual. Possibly more seriously, because I've made all my friends through my interests (which is great, don't get me wrong) I don't have any close friends who aren't middle-class intellectuals interested in at least one of folk-dancing, roleplaying or mathematics, and I'm acutely conscious that that narrows my horizons.

Religious ceremonies go some way to mitigating that - people from all walks of life gather together once a week and at least attempt to simulate goodwill towards one another. There are some humanist societies who attempt to do the same, but they'll never be able to attract enough people from any one area. A secular society is like a club for people who don't play snooker - the only possible reason you might attend one is if almost everyone else does play snooker and you feel pressured by that, and if that's the case it clearly can't be the basis for a local community.

There are plenty of good non-religious (as opposed to overtly irreligious) bases for community gathering - local fetes, town halls and the like. I hope that if religion continues to decline here in the UK we'll see a rise in them, filling the gap left by things like Sunday church. But so far, it doesn't seem to be happening.

[trotsky]

1. It is interesting you only consider the "positive" things that you believe religion brings,

and not the negative.

Unless you don't believe religion brings anything negative to the table?

Any honest discussion of this topic should consider both sides of the equation, I think.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I believe religion brings many negative things, which are more than adequately discussed elsewhere.

In particular, talking to a predominantly non- and anti-religious audience like DU, I think it's far more valuable to discuss the positive aspects of religion than it is to preach to the choir. If I were talking to a mostly religious audience, I wouldn't bother mentioning this.

Unless you're running for office, there is very little point in telling people something they already agree with.

[cbayer]

7. What leads you to the conclusion that the DU membership is

predominantly non or anti-religious?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Discussion in this subforum. N.T.

[cbayer]

14. JMHO, but I think most of the religious people who post on DU avoid this group like the plague.

I suspect that the numbers are similar to those reflecting the overall demographic of members here and that there is a much larger number of religious people than you may be aware of. They just don't discuss it here.

[Phillip McCleod]

43. admittedly i haven't been around *that* long, but you're flat wrong.

*flat* wrong that the majority of users of this site are nones or atheists.. let alone 'non- or anti-religious' whatever that means.

frankly, your degrading terminology and obvious slant make the OP less worth considering than i had originally suspected.. i wasn't very suspicious to begin with.

[trotsky]

50. It has been my observation that there is a group of atheists...

who take an incredibly patronizing attitude toward the religious and their beliefs. They don't think most people can function without religion, so it bothers them to see other atheists expose the bad features of it, worrying that it might leave these individuals rudderless and hopeless. They will frequently jump in to condemn and criticize vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, making sure to attack straw men that strongly resemble the ones believers are attacking.

Other atheists, like myself, hold a more optimistic opinion - I think most people could function just fine without religion, and be moral, productive members of society without it. (Witness the progressively civilized societes of increasingly secular Europe, for instance.). I want open, no-holds-barred discussion about religion because I think with exposure to critical analysis, religion will lose the power and influence that it currently holds but most decidedly does not deserve.

The atheists in the former camp, I feel, are far more insulting toward the religious with their condescending, patronizing attitude and display a far greater air of superiority.

The atheists in the latter group want to treat believers like adults.

[trotsky]

44. As I said, I think an honest discussion must include all the data.

If you only want to talk about the good things that *you* think only religion can bring to the table, I don't think you are interested in honest discussion, which would certainly fit with your behavior in other threads.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. I believe the relevant saying here is "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye". N.T.

[trotsky]

74. You first. n/t

[Warpy]

2. How utterly insulting

to think that no atheist has ever considered what kind of world he or she wants to live in and has developed the same sort of ethics that religious people have gotten from on high.

That part of your post is disgraceful. You need to get out more and meet a few atheists who are courageous enough to come out of that "I'm not religious" closet most of us hide in to avoid being pilloried by religious types who think we have no ethics.

The second is partially true in that many of us are not "joiners." So are many religious people. The community we prefer is the community we live in every day, not an artificial one centered around a building where people sit and hope for god to show up.

And now here's some reading for you to do: http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-questions-atheists-might-find-insulting-and-answers?page=0%2C1&paging=off

[cbayer]

4. Did you get to the part where the OP identifies him/herself as an atheist?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. How utterly insulting to condemn my post without bothering to read it.

You need to read (not "reread&quot the OP, and realise that it doesn't actually say anything like what you claim it says.

[Bay Boy]

5. Who is more ethical?

An atheist who does the right thing because it is the right thing to do?

Or a religious person who does the right thing because he doesn't want to go to Hell?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I suspect both motivations are actually rare.

I guess that most people, religious or not, actually more often do the right thing for rather obscure psychological reasons to do with self-image than because of either ethics or religion.

But that's a completely different discussion.

[Promethean]

21. Maybe

but if you ask the religious person why they chose to do the right thing how do you think they will answer? I'd put money on the most common answer being something along the lines of god said so or to avoid sin (same thing basically). This brings us right back to a previous poster's mention of the religious doing it only to avoid hell. You do what god says and avoid sin because otherwise you are going to go to hell.

Personally I would much rather be around someone who in that situation did some self reflection and decided to be good for goodness sake than be around someone who completely skipped the self reflection and went right to avoiding punishment.

[goldent]

63. "but if you ask the religious person why they chose to do the right thing"...

...how do you think they will answer? I'd put money on the most common answer being something along the lines of god said so or to avoid sin (same thing basically).

I hang out with a lot of religious people and I don't think anyone would say that (I think it would be unlikely they would mention God at all). This idea that God is giving us orders that we must obey is not where it's at, at least in my experience.

[Iggo]

77. You think it's rare for an atheist to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do?

Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Really?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Plato: the immoral person with a moral reputation or

the moral person with an immoral reputation.

[Moonwalk]

9. In regards to acting ethically (Point 1), you state:

As an atheist, I have to accept that sometimes doing the right thing is not going to be rewarded. I've heard Richard Dawkins argue that this means that only atheists are genuinely capable of ethical behaviour - for the religious it's just a form of deferred self-interested. I'm not sure I buy that...

Certainly religious folk can act ethically not because they fear hell, but because they want to emulate their god(s) and act as those god(s) did (Jesus taking care of the poor, for example).

But then, then the non-religious can do the same. How many of us have said, "I take my example from Ghandi" or Martin Luther King, jr. Atheism doesn't mean that we cut ourselves off from having heroes or role models. We simply don't believe such are magical or supernatural. We may even admire and emulate fictional characters. I know an atheist who loves Superman and often tries to do brave, heroic acts because of that. Does he believe Superman is real? No. He's well aware Superman is fictional. Does that make a difference whether he uses that character as a role model? Not at all.

You are wrong that atheists haven't any reason to act ethically. They have, on the point of role models, the same reason as the religious. They just don't cast the role model in the same "magical" light as the religious. That's point 1 on secularists being ethical (or not ethical) as the religious.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. If I had said that, rather than saying exactly the reverse, I would have been wrong.

Atheists do have a reason to act ethically - it's the right thing to do.

What we *don't* have is any way to argue that acting ethically is invariably in our own or someone else's self-interest, which isn't the same thing at all.

[Phillip McCleod]

45. sure we do. it's called 'empathy'.

it's in my own selfish self-centered ayn randian self-interest to attempt to help when i share the sting of someone, or something, else's suffering.

it's also rational, and when i take god out of the equation and consider the gaps left behind.. things like whether women should be subservient, whether homosexuals should have equal rights, whether or not murder is wrong.. reason and observation, cold and empirical, easily and blithely lead to progressive.. ie, 21st century.. secular humanism.

for some of us, atheism does indeed have a moral and ethical dimension.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. religions demand adherence to moral codes.

yes I agree that their authoritarian irrational ethics, full of "thou shalt's" under dire penalty for disobedience provides a simplistic "why", a Guide To Living A Good Life For Dummies, but certainly that is not unique to religion. Totalitarian societies do the same thing.

See e.g. Socrates for other less mindless ways to live a good life.

[unblock]

16. i don't know that "demand" is the right word. most modern religions HAVE moral codes

but as for "demanding" adherence, i think that varies considerably.

some consider their code and their "thou shalts" as mere guidelines; others say it's ok to violate them as long as you atone properly and/or ask forgiveness; and i suppose, yes, there are some that would kick you out of damn you to hell or, in the old days, stone you or whip you or whatever for violating the code.

but then, moral codes aren't unique to religion, any community organization can have them. governments can, in effect, have them as well, even if the enforcement may be more formal and institutional.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. You are condemned for eternity for failure to obey.

I think that is rather demanding.

[unblock]

26. many modern religions don't have language that strong, certainly not in practice.

we don't stone people to death anymore. jews can atone annually (but are supposed also to ask forgiveness and make whole the people they wronged) and christianity is all about forgiveness (provided you truly let jesus into your heart).

outside of a few extremists, few jews believe in any eternal detriment to an occasional lapse in kosher diet, e.g., and christianity is famous for saying the jesus can even forgive murderers (provided they're sincere).

i know less about other religions, but i don't think that hinduism has such strong condemnations.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. are we discussing eating pork or killing your neighbor?

And yes the term "mortal sin" has a specific meaning in christianity.

[unblock]

67. you're making a distinction?

because my understanding of judaism is that there are 613 mosaic laws and jews are supposed to adhere to all of them. i don't think a particular distinction is made between "don't kill" and "do strap tefillin to your arm" and "no bacon-wrapped shrimp au gratin".

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Yes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. I don't know of many religions that preach that.

Nearly all versions of Christianity and Judaism preach that moral behaviour is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation - we're all sinners, and our only hope is unearned forgiveness.

My knowledge of Hindu and Buddhist teaching is limited, but I think the idea of Karma and reincarnation is that no matter how far you have to go, you can always get there in the end.

It's possible Islam approximates what you say - again, I don't know it well - but I think it's probably closer to Christianity and Judaism.

Between them, that lot cover most of the world's population.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. It is obviously not "moral behavior" that gets one damned for eternity.

it is the other side of the stick I was referring to: the one that gets you punished for eternity, and the vast majority of christian religions incorporate heaven and hell as part of their methodology for making their adherents behave. Be good, go to heaven, be bad go to hell.

It is odd that whenever this comes up, suddenly hell is not au courant among our christian believers. The cherry picking that goes on is amazing.

Your thesis that religion motivates good behavior by offering a positive motivation is rather incomplete. How do you know that the positive motivation is the actual motivator, rather than the hellfire and brimstone dire consequences for doing bad?

Anyway I reject the whole thing. We do good because we have evolved as social animals to be empathic and altruistic. We can do better than that, we can live an examined life and consciously act, but most of us never do, religion or no religion.

[Phillip McCleod]

47. + 2.73 Gazillion!!!

esp. for this..

We do good because we have evolved as social animals to be empathic and altruistic. We can do better than that, we can live an examined life and consciously act, but most of us never do, religion or no religion.

[Iggo]

79. No, "demand" is the right word.

Just because people choose not to obey doesn't change that into "suggest".

[cbayer]

13. As to your first point, I think both religious and non-religious people might

ask themselves the "WWJD" question when faced with an ethical delimma. The "J" part could be replaced by anyone one admires or looks to for guidance. In the end, I think most people, religious or not, are primarily driven by self-interest closely followed by a desire to do the "right" thing. I have not found the ethics of most religious people to differ substantially from the ethics of most non-religious people.

As to the second, I think the emergence of more organizations that are interfaith based, include both believers and non-believers, and identify themselves as clearly non-religious is interesting and an indication of the desire for community. While churches and other religious institutions have traditionally provided much of this, the growing number of people who identity as atheist, agnostic or simply not affiliated appear to be seeking ways to replace what those groups have provided in the past.

Good post. I wish for you some fruitful and enlightening conversation.

[longship]

15. Atheists rarely do not hear this one.

That somehow a person without religious beliefs has no ethical basis. It is not only insulting (as others have pointed out), but it is entirely without any evidence in practice, let alone professed policy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Do you think that was what I said? If so, reread. N.T.

[longship]

23. Let me clarify, please.

What there *aren't*, and can't be, are any non-religious answers to the question "why is it in my interest to act ethically?"

Pretty much sums up what I've heard so many times. With all due sincere respect, it was this statement to which I must heartily disagree.

[atreides1]

19. If you need religion to to help you be ethical

Then maybe the problem is deeper then you know!

[Walk away]

35. ^^^^^+1,000,000^^^^^^^

[Moonwalk]

20. In regards to acting ethically (point 2) you state:

As an atheist, I have to accept that sometimes doing the right thing is not going to be rewarded. I've heard Richard Dawkins argue that this means that only atheists are genuinely capable of ethical behaviour - for the religious it's just a form of deferred self-interested. I'm not sure I buy that...

There are two mistakes you make. First, you presume that the religion--whether it uses such elements or not, is pushing ethics. Yet religion has been used to justify slavery, abusing and murdering children, women, gays, for excusing genocide come to that, etc. So, that's your first mistake. Religion is NEVER telling people why they should act "ethically"--religion is always telling people why they should do as the religion says. Which may or may not be "ethical."

Second, whether you buy what Dawkins says or not, you can't deny that heaven & hell are a big part of many religions and create a paranoia that isn't always a good thing for believers however "ethically" it makes them act. There are those who are ethical and good, yet live in fear that they are sinners and going to hell all the same. Psychologically and emotionally, it can be very damaging to be continually obsessed about whether god loves one, forgives one, is going to reward or punish one. Yet many religions offer these as their primary, weekly messages: be what god (the religion) wants you to be...or else. And as the religion promotes superstition, anything that happens--and illness, an accident--is "for a reason--like you haven't been "good enough." Nothing happens just because shit happens.

How can this be "ethical" even if it offers a reason for the believer to act "ethically"?

Just something to consider. And that is my second and final point on this.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Oh, and your assumption is that without religion people would eat their babies.

Which is an exaggeration of course, but the point is that ethical behavior is most likely more instinctual than conscious. Very few people, religious or otherwise, actually examine and consider their actions before they act.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Is that satire or not? N.T.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. No it is your assumption.

You assume that without imbecilic just so stories we cannot do good. Otherwise your point is pointless.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Perhaps you would let *me* tell *you* what my assumptions are?

They're outlined perfectly clearly in the OP, and are the exact opposite of what you claim; I specifically contradict what you say I assume.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. No, when you post stuff I get to decipher it.

And I get to comment on my interpretation of your stuff. You can have an upset when I do so, fine by me, but you don't just get to pontificate unchallenged.

Your issue re religion providing the only (imbecilicly simplistic) answer to the question "why is it in my self interest to do good", assumes that answering that question is important to people doing good, otherwise your point is pointless.

You haven't even begun to prove your assertion that only religion answers that question, and your assumption that an answer matters is faulty.

[unblock]

24. i disagree that religion "provides" a moral code. it claims a moral code as its own.

as you allude to elsewhere, people behave morally, or at least have moral instincts, for various deep-seated reasons, i would say a combination of psychology, sociological upbringing, community and family structure, and biology/neurology. we are social creatures and are hard-wired for social behaviors, which inherently includes a social code of some sort.

religion usually claims this code as its own creation and further claims that this code would not and could not exist without religion, but this is a basic illusion, the kind with which any magician or charlatan is familiar.

all religion does to moral codes is provide more specifics (many of which are mere markers of membership, e.g., wear a yarmulke or go around saying "i believe in jesus&quot and a community/institution to enforce that code (and as with all human institutions, enforcement is usually erratic, inconsistent, unjust, and fallible).

and of course, in refining that "moral code", religion can be all kinds of nasty, in terms of treatment of its own members or, especially, in terms of treatment of non-members. this is a way its community motivations can turn its control over the moral code as a vehicle for something other than what most of us would consider moral....

[Democracyinkind]

27. 3'000 years of non-religious ethics disprove your first premise...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Which premise would that be?

Would it be something I actually said, or something I didn't say, and indeed actively contradicted, but you thought I said because you didn't bother reading carefully?

Would it be, by any chance "non-religious people have no reason to act ethically"? Because if so, that's the latter.

[Democracyinkind]

31. The premise that philosophy can't provide the why

to acting ethically. I know from personal experience that - f.e. - Utilitarians or Followers of the Categorical Imperative have just as good an answer to the why as followers of religions have. Just ask them.

Please don't make me spell out Mill's or Kant's particular answer to the why. Or Rawls', who even explicitly integrates the (in my eyes ridiculous and misplaced notion) of self-interest into his version of the answer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Yup, that would be the "didn't bother to read" case, then.

As I explicitly said, philosophy can answer the question "why should I act ethically?"

The question it can't answer is "why is it in my interest to act ethically?"

[Democracyinkind]

33. not really.

Rawls, Mill and Kant - as I just stated above - say why it is in your self interest. Rawls does so explicitly (again, exactly as stated in my previous reply).

[Bluenorthwest]

34. The answer to 'why behave ethically' might turn out to be 'because it benefits you directly'.

Recent studies of the brain and altruism suggest that altruism isn't altruistic at all, there are actual physical and social rewards for 'giving' that seem to actually reward in excess of the 'expense'.
So that whole question, which you frame as 'only addressable by religion' is well on it's way to being addressed by science as well.
Your description of religious gathering as inclusive of 'all walks of life' veers toward the obtuse, considering religions often exclude those of other religions, LGBT people, and in the US churches are extremely self segregated by race, extremely. We share everything but church. So religious groups are exactly like a club for snooker lovers. Exactly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Exactly. And a club for snooker lovers is a very sensible thing.

They can get together and enjoy playing and talking about snooker.

The problem is that it only provides a basis for a community if nearly everyone enjoys snooker. A few hundred years ago they did, now they don't.

[Lordquinton]

41. You just defeated your own point

Not everyone enjoys religion.

Plus it's not that secularism doesn't provide a reason "In your own best interest to act ethically" but it doesn't provide an easy answer, big difference.

[ZombieHorde]

36. If an atheist desires living in an ethical world, then that atheist has a really good, secular

reason for acting ethically.

[Jim__]

40. There may be an additional "big thing" that religion provides.

Namely, the willingness to die for another. That can be put under either of the other 2 things you mentioned, but I think it actually serves to join those things together. Man is a warlike creature. Group survival depends on the group being successful at war. A willingness of group members to die for the cause can contribute greatly to success at war. Atheists can be willing to die for the cause; but, I believe it is much easier if you believe life continues after death.

[Phillip McCleod]

48. pretty hard to see how that's a 'good' thing. \n

[Jim__]

54. Really? It's hard to see how group survival is a good thing?

From The God Delusion (Houghton-Mifflin 2006 p 166):

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

So, according to Dawkins, either all human cultures have been religious, or, the non-religious ones did not survive.

[Phillip McCleod]

57. yes, it is *hard* for me to see how group survival in and of itself..

..is a *good* thing.

i'm sorry we don't see eye-to-eye or tooth-to-tooth on this.

[trotsky]

51. Yup, that's a big thing alright.

[Goblinmonger]

78. I would die to save my children.

No questions. And, as a teacher, I completely understand the teachers that have died protecting their students. I believe I would do the same. And I think when I'm dead, it's game over. I know many would like to think that atheists would use others as a human shield to prolong our lives but, actually, we aren't that bad.

[Phillip McCleod]

42. wrong on both counts, imho.

and btw i don't think 'secularism' is the word you're looking for. secularists can be die-hard true-believers as easily as 'strident' atheists.. it's just the idea that church and state should forever remain separated by an inviolate wall. and that benefits *everyone*.

first point.. it is in my self-interest to act morally/ethically in that resolves cognitive dissonance. if i'm feeling uncomfortable because that homeless vet in a wheelchair is staring at me at the crosswalk, and i know i've got $2.78 in loose change that i do not need, it's in the best interest of my own mental health to resolve the moment of dissonance by helping out. or, i could go to some elaborate lengths to justify *not* giving him the money.. quite easy for a practitioner of the 'prosperity gospel'.. almost impossible for me.

my brain.. my *conscience* isn't wired that way. i do the right thing because not because it feels good, but because i've done the wrong thing before.. i've burned myself on that stove and that feels bad. i know better, because i know myself.

second point..

communities..
..are..
..OVER-RATED.

Q.E.D.

[Dawson Leery]

52. Rituals tend to be illogical.

[LiberalAndProud]

46. I wonder if you have overlooked the allure of ritual.

It seems that people are very attracted to the rituals that are bound up in faithful worship. The early Christian church was evidently acutely aware of this, integrating local rituals into their own services as an enticement to conversion. The familiarity and the rhythm of ritual may serve to comfort, to entice and to convert. It's an interesting question, at any rate.

[Phillip McCleod]

49. not everyone is allured by ritual. some of us are put off by it.

case in point.. puritans.

[LiberalAndProud]

53. I guess it depends on how we define ritual.

Isn't reciting the Lord's Prayer ritualistic?

Some of us are put off by it ... yes, much of it is off-putting to me, but having been reared in it, sometimes I find a nostalgic comfort in the familiarity of it.

[Phillip McCleod]

56. ok but the point of the OP was that community offers something..

..and you added 'ritual' to the list..

i contest the assertion that the sense that community, ritual, tradition, etc. are inherently 'good'. clearly they are not good for some people, which if logic applied we could call a counter-example and plop the Q.E.D. down here.

as it is, people aren't logical. we rationalize. if we can be honest about that then the OPs idea that religion 'offers' something that non-religion can't is inherently flawed.

what if part of the attraction to atheism was the very *lack* of a sense of community or a pre-defined ethos to which one may resort in moments of cognitive distress?

[LiberalAndProud]

58. I'm intrigued by questions of what sociological and psychological roles religion plays

Clearly, many are attracted to religion, in spite of really shady and really bloody histories. I would like to understand the underlying causes of the phenomenon, rather than to dismiss it out of hand. From the viewpoint of unbelief, it makes no rational sense, but still, there it is.
Still.

I would like to understand why.

[Phillip McCleod]

61. softening my tone because you hit a soft spot..

..i've been there. written about it here in this forum.. recently.

unfortunately, i've been in and out of there so many times that i have no nostalgia left, and i sure as hell won't drop a buck in the plate for some empty platitudes that do nothing but feed the cesspool of self-delusion that america is fast becoming.

[LiberalAndProud]

64. To avoid any misunderstanding and as a point of reference,

my own nostalgic experience came in the form of a funeral. Saying goodbye to a loved one in a familiar way was very comforting, without needing to believe in life after.

This experience directly contradicts others I have had when ritual and dogma have had the same effect as fingernails on a chalkboard. My teeth have been put on edge by the futility, backwardness and anti-progressive tradition I perceive.

[Trajan]

55. Same tired canard for the first point ...

I mean ... really ... atheists do NOT have an interest in ethical behavior ? ... Why ? .. Because someone from ancient Judah did not clue them in ? .... How bout this ? ... "We belong to one, large human community, of which we are all equal, and of which we might look to each other as peers and equals, and therefore SEE OURSELVES IN OUR NEIGHBORS .... Do unto others as you would have other do unto you ? ... Golden rule ? ... WAY before any Hebrew ever existed ...

What absolute nonsense ....

I'll buy the second point - It is a matter of fact that religion (or mystical belief systems) aided early human communities in unifying around a set of cultural rules that promoted community actions; like building walls around the village to protect the entire community from marauders ... like building earthworks and agricultural systems that could preserve water and promote an agrarian farming lifestyle ...

Your first point ? ..... Completely and utterly WRONG

[Notafraidtoo]

59. Community is in everyones self interest.

Acting ethical is naturally in everyones best interest,it keeps one from becoming a threat to others, I would like to theorize about how prison is a worse place for a atheist cause we have so little time compared to those with a forever forgiving safety net,if most of your life doesn't matter because all you have to do is ask jesus for forgiveness on your own terms then that seems like a ticket to run wild to me.

In the end being a atheist is a life of logic, it is illogical to destroy ones legacy or make enemy's. It is in your best interest to have friends and be seen as helpful and good,but even with out the logic there is the interest of simply feeling good cause you did the right thing which i personally feel with out a god or ever having a god. Someone else said is it really good if you do it to only avoid punishment i don't think so. I think true good is doing things for others even if you will lose something in the process with no return other then a better world and feeling good which i guess are not that bad of rewards hehe.

also Norway hehe.

[notadmblnd]

60. A truely ethical person wouldn't need to be persuaded to do the right thing

and no- there are other arguments besides "because it's the right thing to do" that you as an atheist can say. You could say, because I want to be known to my friends, family and community as an honest and trustworthy person. I want to be known as a person of my word and to be known as being compassionate to my fellow humans in their time of need whatever that may be. Because I want to be known as a productive, contributing member of society and to set an example for others because people being trustworthy and honest benefits everyone not only myself.

Just my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. No. Without imbecilic just so stories we eat our babies.

[Rob H.]

80. I like this quote by Marcus Aurelius

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid."

Of course, I also like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take so much that it's my sig line.

[notadmblnd]

81. good words to live by

[dem in texas]

62. Oh Please

You are saying that if you are not religious, you are lacking a code of ethics. That is simply untrue. I am not a religious person but I always try to do the right thing and live the kind of life that sets an example for my children and grandchildren. I have always had a clear idea of what is right and what is wrong. It is simple - follow the golden rule and always follow your heart when you need to decide if you are doing the right thing.

And as far as community, you are also way off base. i have worked with non-profits for many years and was involved in many projects that created good for the city or areas where I lived.

I think both things you cite go to the basic core of the individual and their religious beliefs have nothing to do with how they behave. There are many dishonest and selfish religious people who only want to do what will help them or their families. My grandfather, who was a minister, always said if you meet a person and the first thing he says is that he is a Christian, hold on to your wallet.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. As to your first point, that's an argument that demonstrates the ethical superiority...

of secular/nonreligious people.

Your second, however, is wrong by 180 degrees. Or I should say that it is only accurate in homogeneous groups, those that share the same faith, mostly the same color, and same general beliefs. Here in the U.S., none of this is accurate, Churches, Temples, Synagogues, Mosques, etc. are prolific, and divided, even among their various religions. Especially with minority religions, you have people gather for once a week at the "local" Mosque, but it would be every Muslim within a 2 hour drive, by highway, that's at least a 120 mile diameter circle, more or less. That isn't a community so much as a demographic.

If they wanted to start a food drive to benefit the larger community, outside their Mosque, where would they start? Which city? Which Neighborhood?

Other times you have smaller homogeneous communities confined in smaller areas, neighborhoods and cities, though still, its not 100% uniform, so again, a gathering at a local Church will exclude members of that local community.

A couple of things to recognize is that the whole idea that communities gathered at churches and enjoyed their community that way is largely a myth. It was a place of drama, exclusion, gossip, etc. still is, in many places. This isn't going to change, and secular alternatives fail to mass fail because mass was never needed. Community is needed, and it comes in many forms.

For example, join a local reading group with your public library, go to Comic-Con, or to a Ren Faire. Go to St. Patrick's Day parade, or Oktoberfest, Pride or Mardi Gras(or all of them). Join a club that interests you, and go ahead and lament the loss of Sunday gatherings, they are no big loss, and were much more exclusive than anything I mentioned above.

And if activism is your thing, go volunteer for a book fair, I did, very rewarding(an end in itself!) or something else that catches your eye, or fits with your interests or skills.

The problem is that your vision is too narrow and your focus too broad. Community isn't found in church, churches are cliques, at best.

[trotsky]

75. Very well put. n/t

[LostOne4Ever]

73. Let me get what you are saying right...

First time I read through this I jumped to some conclusions. I thought you were saying we don't have morals. Now rereading this I think I get what you are trying to say.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Donald Ian Rankin[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]What there *aren't*, and can't be, are any non-religious answers to the question "why is it in my interest to act ethically?". As an atheist, I have to accept that sometimes doing the right thing is not going to be rewarded.

Okay, so that I make sure Im getting what you are saying right let me just restate what I think you are trying say. You feel there is no SELFISH reason to act ethically as an atheist. While some theists have belief systems that include rewards in the after life for ethical behavior atheism does not. It is entirely possible for us to encounter situations where if we were to act ethically it would not benefit us in any way, and quite possibly acting in that way would be to our detriment.

Or in other words justice is not always served in end. The wicked are not always punished, and the just are not always rewarded.

You are not saying we cant be moral, so much as we might act ethically in vain. Is this right?
If so, the way you put it in your OP made it very hard to understand.

Even in these situations, I feel we do in fact have rewards in these situations...but they are not as concrete as the divine rewards our theist friends believe they will get and might not be very satisfying to some. The first is that we feel good for doing these things. The good deed is a reward in and of itself. It shows that we empathize with others and relieves the altruistic tension millions of years of evolution has drilled into us. We can also take pride in ourselves for doing something that others probably would not do. I guess this fits into your Dawkins example.

The second reward I believe we get from doing this is that we set an example. By doing selfless actions we leave examples for other. These examples can benefit us by either convincing others atheists to follow down our paths (thereby making the world a slightly better place) or by proving to theists that we can be just as moral if not more so as they can. The latter could lead to the end of many of the unfounded stereotypes and stigma associated atheism and help us find more acceptance in society.

Finally, I believe that if there is no true justice in this world, then the impetus is on us to bring what justice we can to this world, even if it is to our own detriment. It might not directly help me, but it might make things better for those who come after me.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Donald Ian Rankin[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]This is only a weak absence, not a strong one like the other - atheism doesn't in any way preclude other things gluing communities together and providing a focus for the social life of a village, but it doesn't do so itself, and again religion does.

All I can say here is that I LOATHED going to church on sundays when I was a kid and was glad to not have to do that anymore. This makes sense in that I'm very socially phobic/schizoid. The type of community I got from church was very stressful and caused me nothing but anxiety. Conversely, on the internet I found a type of community with other agnostics/atheists that suits me better. People who see things more similarly to the way i do. So for me, at least, it brought me more community rather than less. Without this I probably would have been a hermit like you said

Regardless, this loss of community can easily be replaced by something else. Something that does not cause me the moral outrage that religion does when it attacks homosexuality, birth control, minorities, etc. If that loss of community is the price to get rid of all the awkward moments, boredom, constantly having to switch from standing to sitting to kneeling, and listening to morals I dont agree then that is the best trade i ever made

[Purplehazed]

76. Acting ethically.....

benefits society in general.

What there *aren't*, and can't be, are any non-religious answers to the question "why is it in my interest to act ethically?". As an atheist, I have to accept that sometimes doing the right thing is not going to be rewarded.

The obvious benefit is realized by the people directly involved with your ethical behavior. Less obvious perhaps is that a lifetime of ethical behavior is a benefit to an overgrowing segment of one's community. The ethical person might also be seen as one to emulate. You make the supposition that doing the right thing is not always rewarded. On the micro level that maybe true. In the bigger picture, the person behaving ethically, helping to create a more ethical community is likely to be treated ethically by others. That is the benefit and a non-religious answer.

Perhaps it is clearer when considering the unethical person; the liar, cheater and thief. That person may gain immediate reward through their unethical behavior. In the long run they will be treated with disdain and suspision.

Unfortunately, not every good deed is rewarded and not every thief is caught.

[YankeyMCC]

82. it might be less offensive if you

Asked with a little compassion and humility non religious people how they form their ethics and build and support community

Both I know have been discussed here many times