What should replace religion?

Somewhere_

Somewhere_

i don't know where
    • 4,493
    Posts
    9
    Years
    Eventually as science replaces religion as an explanation for "why," and religion grows increasingly irrelevant, a void will be left. Science may be able to explain the "why," but it does not provide for a moral code.

    Do we need to develop a new moral code? What would this moral code be? I would rather not get bogged down in objective vs. subjective morality, so this final question will allow us to circumvent that for this discussion: What morals should society agree to (doesnt matter if morality is subjective or not)? How will these morals be enforced (if at all)?
     
    Nothing should replace religion. In fact, I am not one to believe that science should even serve as a basis of spiritual belief at all.
     
    The problem is that science does not explain the "why" of things any more than religion does - it's filled with gaping holes. Until we can satisfactorily provide a complete explanation of the "why" to society in general, religion will never be "irrelevant" as an explanation...and even then, the subjectivity of the whole thing will make people question and doubt it anyway. Science is AN answer, not THE answer.

    But regarding moral codes and principles, whilst many things are based upon religious beliefs and practices I would say they're the province of law, which is a completely separate beast entirely. A shared moral code - or at least, enforcing and punishing behaviours - is key to society functioning, and that's something that can be enforced and refined as necessary through courts of law. Morality will always be defined by the vocal majority, so whether or not things need to change and develop will, in all probability, happen naturally and (mostly) independently of scientific advancements or religious beliefs.

    I see the connection between morality and spirituality, but we live in a multi-cultural society now where religious beliefs are no longer isolated from one another by continents or borders, so I'd argue that whilst religion may have helped define the shared moral code, it will not be the sole factor in defining it moving forward. But science is not a substitute for spirituality - at least not yet, and maybe not ever - and even if it were, it wouldn't erase human history or the shared moral code of society. It might not even impact it at all.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Tek
    Literally nothing. Just because religion is irrelevant to one person, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to another person, so why should science replace religion? Let people believe in what they want.
     
    personally, i believe nothing should replace religion. i don't mind religion existing as long as those religious people don't shove it down others throats or are judgmental for the sake of their religion. i think we should let people believe in what they want. i'm more spiritual than religious, but i also have a slight belief in religion as well, if that makes sense. i don't see a problem with people believing in religion as long as that person believing in it doesn't hurt anyone else.

    people should be able to believe in what they want, in what they're comfortable with and what makes them happy and feel loved, even it's from someone up in the clouds.

    edit: sorry if my post comes off as uneducated or rude in any way, that is not my intention.
     
    Tsutarja said:
    Nothing should replace religion. In fact, I am not one to believe that science should even serve as a basis of spiritual belief at all.
    Click to expand...

    I dont think this is what you are trying to get at, but taken to the logical extreme, if there is nothing to replace religion, how do we as a society decide between right to wrong? What justifies imposing punishments on criminals? Perhaps one could make an economic argument, but I dont think economics is the same as morals.

    I agree- I dont think science provides these answers, either.
     
    Last edited:
    A want to ensure the happiness and survival of the species. People can use their free time to do something actually beneficiary to the world! Heck, just go pick up litter on the road side! Its ten times more productive to bending a knee to a damned book written by someone who was probably stoned as fuck.

    Like I say, if your "gods" exist I'm sure they'll much more appreciate you doing something productive for the planet instead of sitting in a musty old building listening to someone shove religious brainwashing down your throat.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    I agree with most everyone in this thread in that I don't think anything should replace religion. Most people when engaged in this type of debate will immediately resort to pulling receipts out of their asses like terrorism, the KKK, the crusades... etc. I find this funny - in a more ironic than joking way, because this is no joking matter - because blaming religion for those atrocities is baseless; humanity, by nature, has a propensity for cruelty.

    Don't believe me? I'll get ahead of where I know this discussion is inevitably going (because there's already been hints of it on here). Let's take a quick peek into the past:
    • World War I, a war that started after extended periods of political tensions across Europe & Russia, triggered by the assassination of the Archduke by a group affiliated with the Black Hand, and the July Crisis. Both those events, mind you, were territorial and political in nature.
    • World War II, yet again a political war primarily motivated by nationalism, the perceived oppression of Germany, and the fear of communism.
    • Vietnam, imperialism and anti-communism.
    • Iraq, oil.
    • etc etc etc

    Sorry that this is getting unnecessarily long, but I feel like I'm still on-topic in terms of whatever sentiment originated the desire to replace religion or whatever. People murder, people harm others, people do bad things. Never delude yourselves into thinking that the world wouldn't have dealt with all the animosity and war that its seen if religion didn't exist. My point is that I don't see a reason to hate religion, and given the sheer number of religious people still left on the globe, I'd hardly say religion has become irrelevant.
    Arsenic said:
    A want to ensure the happiness and survival of the species. People can use their free time to do something actually beneficiary to the world! Heck, just go pick up litter on the road side! Its ten times more productive to bending a knee to a damned book written by someone who was probably stoned as fuck.

    Like I say, if your "gods" exist I'm sure they'll much more appreciate you doing something productive for the planet instead of sitting in a musty old building listening to someone shove religious brainwashing down your throat.
    Click to expand...
    I'm confused... what is it that you think you're benefiting the world with by spending time on a pokemon website? Let people do what they want with their time.
     
    Echidna said:
    I agree with most everyone in this thread in that I don't think anything should replace religion. Most people when engaged in this type of debate will immediately resort to pulling receipts out of their asses like terrorism, the KKK, the crusades... etc. I find this funny - in a more ironic than joking way, because this is no joking matter - because blaming religion for those atrocities is baseless; humanity, by nature, has a propensity for cruelty.

    Don't believe me? I'll get ahead of where I know this discussion is inevitably going (because there's already been hints of it on here). Let's take a quick peek into the past:
    • World War I, a war that started after extended periods of political tensions across Europe & Russia, triggered by the assassination of the Archduke by a group affiliated with the Black Hand, and the July Crisis. Both those events, mind you, were territorial and political in nature.
    • World War II, yet again a political war primarily motivated by nationalism, the perceived oppression of Germany, and the fear of communism.
    • Vietnam, imperialism and anti-communism.
    • Iraq, oil.
    • etc etc etc

    Sorry that this is getting unnecessarily long, but I feel like I'm still on-topic in terms of whatever sentiment originated the desire to replace religion or whatever. People murder, people harm others, people do bad things. Never delude yourselves into thinking that the world wouldn't have dealt with all the animosity and war that its seen if religion didn't exist. My point is that I don't see a reason to hate religion, and given the sheer number of religious people still left on the globe, I'd hardly say religion has become irrelevant.
    Click to expand...

    And now religion is being blamed for our overpopulation problem due to some religions supporting pro-creation and being anti-abortion. It's to the point where it's being suggested that the only way to control our population in order to save the environment is to abandon our religious beliefs and convert to atheism because it's preventing us from progressing to better technology to help our environment.
     
    donavannj said:
    The underlying ideology is to do right by both humans and by nature. Can't really expand too much on it as I'm not quite secular humanist, though my own ideology I arrived at on my own is very close to it.
    Click to expand...

    You dont have to answer for secular humanism, but what do you think is right and wrong? And why do you think these things are right and wrong?
     
    BadSheep said:
    You dont have to answer for secular humanism, but what do you think is right and wrong? And why do you think these things are right and wrong?
    Click to expand...

    My views tend to have nuanced positions that aren't quite easy to summarize, and some views are on a case-by-case basis. Also recalling them all forward from my memory will take substantial time. I don't just have these at the ready; they're practically subconscious at this point.

    One of my personal philosophies is that your right to do stuff stops when it starts infringing on the rights of others, unless those others specifically consent to it. A simplified example is that I can throw punches where I want, until I hit somebody, or I hit something that belongs to somebody else. Then it becomes unethical, unless both parties consent (like in a boxing match). Another example: I am in favor of smoking bans in public places because that infringes on the rights of others to not deal with the health-hazards of secondhand smoke, especially since they never explicitly consented to it. This is actually the foundation for quite a few of my views, actually.

    I also think we should take care of the least fortunate of us. This is my foundation for being in favor of universal healthcare, universal basic income, and free post-secondary education for those who want it.

    I think deception is generally unethical.

    A lot of my beliefs were lifted from growing up in a community that is predominantly Lutheran Christian, though my family never practiced any religion or religious routines.
     
    This entire thread is built on two assumptions: our morals are built upon religion, and our current moral system relies on religion to work. The first one is sort of debatable, the second I don't understand at all.

    I don't see why there is anything to replace. Humans in 2017 don't need to derive morality from the Bible. The most irreligious countries in the world are just as moral as everybody else. There is no void to fill.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Nah
    Caaethil said:
    This entire thread is built on two assumptions: our morals are built upon religion, and our current moral system relies on religion to work. The first one is sort of debatable, the second I don't understand at all.

    I don't see why there is anything to replace. Humans in 2017 don't need to derive morality from the Bible. The most irreligious countries in the world are just as moral as everybody else. There is no void to fill.
    Click to expand...

    I did not intend for my questions to assume morals must come from religion. That is why I asked what should replace religion, which implies that it could be possible, or at the very least, that there are arguments that it is possible. I also made it clear that discussions on subjective or objective morality should be avoided, and religion remains in the realm of objective morality, which again, implies that I did not assume that morals are based on religion. If you also read my questions for donavannj, I entertained the notion of secular humanism.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top