What should replace religion?

[Desert Stream~]

Science and laws do pretty much everything religion does, but arguably better.

 

[Caaethil]

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.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to say you assumed morals must come from religion. What you did assume was that our current moral code does come from religion, to the point where we will need something to replace it later. You assumed that there would be some kind of moral void that would need to be filled by a secular philosophy of some kind.

This just isn't true. Atheists have more or less the same basic moral principles as anyone else. Religious people attribute their morality to God, and you seem to assume that when religion is gone we will all need something else to attribute our morality to. Atheists don't need a source for their morality, they don't need a replacement for religion, that's kind of the whole point. And they're minding their own business doing that pretty damn well, just as moral as everyone else.

 

[Somewhere_]

You misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to say you assumed morals must come from religion. What you did assume was that our current moral code does come from religion, to the point where we will need something to replace it later. You assumed that there would be some kind of moral void that would need to be filled by a secular philosophy of some kind.

I do think there will be avoid because religious people and secular people derive morality in totally separate ways. The religious look to a god or gods and the atheist tends to have more egalitarian underlinings- hierarchy is the opposite of egalitarianism.

Perhaps because the transition from a religion-dominated society to a more secular one has been so slow we haven't had the problem of a moral void? In which case, there wont be a problem of a moral void because atheist philosophy will have hashed out those issues by the time it dominates culture. Now that I'm thinking about it more, this seems more likely.

This just isn't true. Atheists have more or less the same basic moral principles as anyone else. Religious people attribute their morality to God, and you seem to assume that when religion is gone we will all need something else to attribute our morality to. Atheists don't need a source for their morality, they don't need a replacement for religion, that's kind of the whole point. And they're minding their own business doing that pretty damn well, just as moral as everyone else.

Both christians and atheists say murder is wrong, so to an extent both sides people that harming others is wrong. However, the two totally diverge when it comes to punishment and enforcement. Both sides are totally opposite in terms of social regulation... the christian believes he or she is being watched by god, so premarital sex is a no-no, but the atheist has a "leave-them-alone" attitude.

@Hands They could- and currently do.

 

[Caaethil]

I do think there will be avoid because religious people and secular people derive morality in totally separate ways. The religious look to a god or gods and the atheist tends to have more egalitarian underlinings- hierarchy is the opposite of egalitarianism.

Perhaps because the transition from a religion-dominated society to a more secular one has been so slow we haven't had the problem of a moral void? In which case, there wont be a problem of a moral void because atheist philosophy will have hashed out those issues by the time it dominates culture. Now that I'm thinking about it more, this seems more likely.

I think we've got a bit of a disconnected here. I don't live in a religion-dominated society. I'm British, and I'm aware the US is different. I still don't see how your argument follows, though.

You seem to accept that atheists don't need a code to replace religion. So... who does? The religious can still follow their religions, but in this hypothetical society there aren't much more of those left. It seems like you're not talking about a void at all anymore, you're talking about a divide. You're asking how we should deal with a divide in a hypothetical society where one side has already won?

Both christians and atheists say murder is wrong, so to an extent both sides people that harming others is wrong. However, the two totally diverge when it comes to punishment and enforcement. Both sides are totally opposite in terms of social regulation... the christian believes he or she is being watched by god, so premarital sex is a no-no, but the atheist has a "leave-them-alone" attitude.

You misunderstand. Atheists have no collective stances on anything except lacking belief in a God. There is nothing political about atheism, though there are plenty of more progressive movements within it.

And then, none of these things matter because religion does not (or should not) have any say in any legal system. That and you're still talking about the divide of today and somehow projecting it onto a society where most people are atheists.

 

[Somewhere_]

I think we've got a bit of a disconnected here. I don't live in a religion-dominated society. I'm British, and I'm aware the US is different. I still don't see how your argument follows, though.

You seem to accept that atheists don't need a code to replace religion. So... who does? The religious can still follow their religions, but in this hypothetical society there aren't much more of those left. It seems like you're not talking about a void at all anymore, you're talking about a divide. You're asking how we should deal with a divide in a hypothetical society where one side has already won?

I was stating in the previous post that the issue of a potential void my be avoided because atheists would have found some sort of moral code, or at least different groups of atheists would have.

You misunderstand. Atheists have no collective stances on anything except lacking belief in a God. There is nothing political about atheism, though there are plenty of more progressive movements within it.

And then, none of these things matter because religion does not (or should not) have any say in any legal system. That and you're still talking about the divide of today and somehow projecting it onto a society where most people are atheists.

I wasnt necessarily hinting at atheism being inherently political, but as you mentioned, there is a correlation between leftism and atheism. Communism, for example, is inherently atheistic. However, that is extreme far-left (and a tiny minority at that) and not representative of leftism as a whole.

When I mentioned social regulation, my statement had a duel meaning. Sure, there are politically applications, but not all Christians believe in enforcing their beliefs using the government. I meant more socially and culturally.

 

[Masterge77]

I remember a few months back, I ran into a Christian on another site who said in their signature that they believe God created science as a means of further understanding his creation. Personally I believe in the separation of church and state, but that it's important to have a moral understanding of what is right and wrong.

 

[Caaethil]

I was stating in the previous post that the issue of a potential void my be avoided because atheists would have found some sort of moral code, or at least different groups of atheists would have.

Totally. Everyone has a moral code regardless of religiousness. Obviously excluding the complete sociopaths among us, but you get the picture. I just don't see how there can be a void, because atheists already have moral codes like everyone else, and always will.

I wasnt necessarily hinting at atheism being inherently political, but as you mentioned, there is a correlation between leftism and atheism. Communism, for example, is inherently atheistic. However, that is extreme far-left (and a tiny minority at that) and not representative of leftism as a whole.

Agreed.

When I mentioned social regulation, my statement had a duel meaning. Sure, there are politically applications, but not all Christians believe in enforcing their beliefs using the government. I meant more socially and culturally.

Does it matter though? In this case, we're going from a society where lots of different people have lots of different opinions based on their beliefs to a society where most people agree on some previously controversial topics such as premarital sex. That sounds like a great thing. There is still no void, all it does is kill the divide. If anything, an entirely atheist society creates a more concrete moral code than what we have now. That said, so does an entirely Christian society.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to say that there is any inherent value in a concrete moral code, I'm just trying to demonstrate that a less religious society doesn't have the effect you seem to think it has of leaving a 'void'. You've already said that atheists generally have more left wing, progressive values, compared to the religious right's traditionalism. So there is no void, just a replacement of ideas. All I could really agree with you on is that if everyone in the US became an atheist tomorrow, there would be a massive shift in terms of people's moral views. But no void.

 

[Trev]

I don't think we should replace religion, but I do think that some factions of religions/entire religions, in general, need to update their moral codes for modern day, hopefully to actually match scientific information. Science isn't necessarily pushing religion out, but it is answer a lot more questions with actual evidence, as opposed to religious explanations that are based on faith, not observable evidence (some people ignore scientific evidence anyway...). To say that science will push out religion is... kind of naive, to be honest. Religion has always had a huge presence, and the idea that science will be able to push it out just because it can explain things is preposterous, to be blunt. People will ultimately believe what they want to believe.

Now, as far as moral codes go, I do think religions can get around to updating themselves a bit socially. The faster we can get away from the LGBT+/women discrimination that's still present in some factions of religions, the better.

 

[Caaethil]

Religion has always had a huge presence, and the idea that science will be able to push it out just because it can explain things is preposterous,

'Huge' is ambiguous. The fact is that it's getting less huge the further science progresses. Regardless of your opinion on religion, it's been falling - something is pushing it out. If not science, what?

You seem to massively underestimate what a dominant force religion has been historically. Any person from those times learning what it's like today would absolutely tell you religion has been pushed out. I'm not coming up with any weird, new, preposterous ideas here, I'm stating what has been happening for a very long time and then extrapolating a little.

 

[Trev]

'Huge' is ambiguous. The fact is that it's getting less huge the further science progresses. Regardless of your opinion on religion, it's been falling - something is pushing it out. If not science, what?

You seem to massively underestimate what a dominant force religion has been historically. Any person from those times learning what it's like today would absolutely tell you religion has been pushed out. I'm not coming up with any weird, new, preposterous ideas here, I'm stating what has been happening for a very long time and then extrapolating a little.

I'm fully aware of how dominant religion has been throughout history, yes :v And while it has gone down considerably (at least colonialism is mostly stopped!), it's still extremely present, regardless of science's impact, and especially in the U.S. As someone who has to encounter religion in his life frequently, I can tell you that it hasn't gone away, it's just moved from everywhere to nearly everywhere. Cities tend to be less religious, but there are still plenty of religious factions. Less urban/more rural areas tend to be even more religious.

What you might be focusing on isn't the actual existence of religion, but its power. Religion's power has been reduced as a result of science, yes, but to say that religion's hold is going to be obliterated because of science is honestly overestimating peoples' ability to shake off their core values, which religion tends to be. For religion to lose significant power as a result of science, it would require many hardcore religious people to give up their perspective of the world as explained through religion and to admit that their religion might be wrong about the world. You can probably guess how hard that's gonna be :v

 

[SunsetGreen]

what about common sense? Ppl don't have to stick to some bible rules, they should know what is right and what is wrong, science and technology should help in this matter

 

[Trev]

But the thing is, some religious people think that their religious explanations are common sense. They think that peopke who turn to science for answers are making an issue more complicated than it needs to be, when religion offers its own explanation.

 

[Banz]

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.

You don't need religion (at all) to know what is right or wrong. Are you implying that irreligious people/athiests don't know what is right or wrong?
I don't need a religion (or even economics or science) to tell me that stealing from someone is wrong, or that killing a human is wrong (and the latter is higher on the "wrongness scale"). If someone is too stupid to know for themselves, they can always have a look at the laws, most of the times they reflect what society thinks of as right or wrong.

 

[Somewhere_]

You don't need religion (at all) to know what is right or wrong. Are you implying that irreligious people/athiests don't know what is right or wrong?
I don't need a religion (or even economics or science) to tell me that stealing from someone is wrong, or that killing a human is wrong (and the latter is higher on the "wrongness scale"). If someone is too stupid to know for themselves, they can always have a look at the laws, most of the times they reflect what society thinks of as right or wrong.

read my above posts. i clearly indicated that I do not think religion is necessary to know right or wrong

Saying that stealing is wrong because others say stealing is wrong is an ad populum fallacy. Just to play devil's advocate, how is stealing wrong?

 

[Banz]

read my above posts. i clearly indicated that I do not think religion is necessary to know right or wrong

Saying that stealing is wrong because others say stealing is wrong is an ad populum fallacy. Just to play devil's advocate, how is stealing wrong?

You wrote "if there is nothing to replace religion, how do we as a society decide between right to wrong?" which is what I replied to. Now you contradict yourself. Society does not need religion to determine what is right or wrong.

That stealing is wrong is my personal belief. That also happens to be something that society says. There are no ad populum fallacies when it comes to ethics and morals. The ones that are popular matter. If you think that something society says is wrong or right, but you disagree, then you can try to change society's stance on it. That is what great men in history have done, either through books or revolts or whatever. If there is something that only you believe in and no one else does, then your beliefs don't have any value. Also religion has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[Nah]

There are no ad populum fallacies when it comes to ethics and morals. The ones that are popular matter.

There kind of is though. Argumentum ad populum is always a fallacy. Obviously something doesn't really become part of society's moral/ethical code if a majority of the people don't agree on, but it's the why that's the important part. Murder, for example, isn't considered by society to be immoral simply because a lot of people say it is--they consider it immoral because there's certain reasons to consider it so. Same goes with stealing.

Conversely, the majority of the population in the US pre-1970's thought it wasn't immoral/unethical to be racist towards blacks and for the law to treat them as second-class citizens. Does this mean that said behavior and law(s) are/were actually moral/ethical?

 

[Banz]

There kind of is though. Argumentum ad populum is always a fallacy. Obviously something doesn't really become part of society's moral/ethical code if a majority of the people don't agree on, but it's the why that's the important part. Murder, for example, isn't considered by society to be immoral simply because a lot of people say it is--they consider it immoral because there's certain reasons to consider it so. Same goes with stealing.

Conversely, the majority of the population in the US pre-1970's thought it wasn't immoral/unethical to be racist towards blacks and for the law to treat them as second-class citizens. Does this mean that said behavior and law(s) are/were actually moral/ethical?

Whatever is popular becomes part of the society's ethical code (and law). These keep changing with times and only in hindsight can we say that it was wrong. Argumentum ad populum can't always be wrong considering all of the rules were set in place because everyone agreed on them. Of course society isn't always right. There are many things that I disagree on, but unless I get other people to agree with me, they won't become part of society's ethical code.

Also humans have had such rules in place ever since they started living together. Religion only came in much later. Many of religion's rules are thousands of years old and outdated. They have no place in this fast changing society. Religion might help you attain peace of mind, but it should not be deciding society's rules.

 

[Trev]

If there is something that only you believe in and no one else does, then your beliefs don't have any value.

That is absolutely not true at all. That's like saying (hypothetically) that a single Buddhist in a country where every single person is Christian has less valid beliefs than everyone else. Why are their beliefs more valid than his/her beliefs?

 

[pkmn.master]

Nothing should ever replace religion, and I feel that all of my morals are guided by my own religion, am I'm sure there are others who agree. As for those without a religion, I feel that they might have more scattered morals (as in, not guided by any particular religion, so their beliefs vary in different areas). But everyone, even atheists, have and can develop and change their basic views of right and wrong. I consider myself a Christian, and I admit that I take these beliefs into account when analyzing a politician or government ideal. This is human nature. For as long as we can remember, religion has existed. As one person posted earlier, I feel religion is necessary to fill the gaps that science cannot fill, and serves as a template for guiding our own moral codes and thus shouldn't -and won't - ever be replaced.

 

[Caaethil]

I'm fully aware of how dominant religion has been throughout history, yes :v And while it has gone down considerably (at least colonialism is mostly stopped!), it's still extremely present, regardless of science's impact, and especially in the U.S. As someone who has to encounter religion in his life frequently, I can tell you that it hasn't gone away, it's just moved from everywhere to nearly everywhere. Cities tend to be less religious, but there are still plenty of religious factions. Less urban/more rural areas tend to be even more religious.

"Everywhere" to "nearly everywhere"? That seems beyond hyperbolic and I feel like you're projecting your own experience onto the entire world when plenty of countries are incredibly irreligious. Take Sweden for example. And the point I was making wasn't that religion has already been rendered almost unheard of - I appreciate the fact that it's still a big deal - the point is it's falling even if your personal experience says that there are still just as many religious people as before.

What you might be focusing on isn't the actual existence of religion, but its power. Religion's power has been reduced as a result of science, yes, but to say that religion's hold is going to be obliterated because of science is honestly overestimating peoples' ability to shake off their core values, which religion tends to be. For religion to lose significant power as a result of science, it would require many hardcore religious people to give up their perspective of the world as explained through religion and to admit that their religion might be wrong about the world. You can probably guess how hard that's gonna be :v

It wouldn't require that at all. Nobody lives forever. We've been watching the world grow less religious for hundreds of years, this is very much possible and happening.