Religion: Never has so much been said about so little
I've often found it a source of both great amusement and sad irony that the subject which the vast majority of people on earth consider most important, both presently and historically, rests upon next to nothing in reality.
I speak of course about religion, and most specifically god. A concept which is so nebulous to some people that it has no meaning, but to others is so strictly defined that it cannot logically exist. It's become so much like the emperor's new clothes that in modern society most people outright admit that they have no good reason to believe in god, but do so anyway. This can be spotted when someone says they believe because of faith, or because it feels good.
Edit: I neglected to clarify, in this debate I'm looking for whether you agree that religion is a vacuous obsession or disagree and find some meaning in it nonetheless.
I agree
Side Score: 23
|
 |
I disagree
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
Example argument: Religion and its obsession with god has squandered resources that could have been used to better feed and shelter humanity. It is lamentable that today we still have people starving to death while men of god live in million dollar mansions selling promises that they know cannot be kept. Side: I Agree
But not of religion itself. An argument derived from the abuse of a thing, does not hold hood against it's use/ It's not intended to be an argument against religion's veracity or auxiliary uses, but an argument for why religion is wasteful. A prosaic example is how autocracies must not necessarily be malevolent to the subjects under them, but in most cases the subjects will suffer anyway and this is why we tend not to approve single parties holding so much power. Likewise, a belief system that is absolutely authoritarian with men who speak in the god's absence will most likely fall into abuse repeatedly even if there are other possible uses to this system. Rationally speaking it isn't worth the benefits of religion when most often you see abuses in authority tied to it. Side: I Agree
If people are truly looking for an inspiration for great art, or a motivation to help others, they will find one. The same is true if they are looking for a tool to control and oppress others, or a reason to close their minds to reality. If religion stopped existing, or if it had hypothetically never existed, I believe good people would still be good, bad people would still be bad, and dumb people would still be dumb. It is still a colossal waste of time, but without it, people would find something else to waste their time on. Side: I Agree
If people are truly looking for an inspiration for great art, or a motivation to help others, they will find one. The same is true if they are looking for a tool to control and oppress others, or a reason to close their minds to reality. I've thought about this point a lot over the years. It seems like mankind is very good at finding ways to oppress itself, we see this in North Korea and China, as prominent examples. I don't know about the artwork however, because postmodern art is still so very new that I think it will be a couple more centuries before we can appreciate the wealth of secular and irreligious artwork, and determine if it ever holds the depth of its religious counterparts. If religion stopped existing, or if it had hypothetically never existed, I believe good people would still be good, bad people would still be bad, and dumb people would still be dumb. It is still a colossal waste of time, but without it, people would find something else to waste their time on. Like politics and sports I suppose. Side: I Agree
I don't know about the artwork however, because postmodern art is still so very new that I think it will be a couple more centuries before we can appreciate the wealth of secular and irreligious artwork, and determine if it ever holds the depth of its religious counterparts. I think art is more a product of culture than the subject. During the Renaissance, for example, fine art of certain mediums and styles were immensely popular (oils and sculpture, portraits and explorations of the human figure) and artists were well-cared for through the patronage system. The greatest names from that period had talent, a desire to create, and the ability to be inspired. If God was absent, maybe Michelangelo would have created a mural dedicated to the complexity of the natural world. The culture of art is very different today. It is a less prestigious career than it used to be, and the fashion is to focus on expression and freedom rather than technical skill and a strong foundation in realism. I think these things, combined with globalization and a desire for instant gratification, are far more responsible than a secular influence for the state of the art scene. (edit: i know it doesn't really make a difference but I meant to click 'support' instead of 'dispute' for this one.) Side: I Agree
1
point
I had a long winded post written out before I realized I was succumbing to the very point of the debate. Religion as I see it is a relic of the past, an answer in the absence of one, the fact that it looms over us now is somewhat sad. The argument you make on the i agree side of this post is a typical one, one that is on the lips of MOST atheistic people. Religion is important today though as a gateway to understanding the workings of the minds of its people, and the history of society. If tomorrow there was irrefutable proof of the non existence of God there would still be religions. This is apparent in the inability of some religious people to see the paradoxes presented to them. The money and resources spent by religions on art and architecture would undoubtedly be spent on some other capricious undertakings, possibly of a similar nature. Daniel Dennet claims there is a God shaped hole in the human psyche, one that needs to be filled, I think until humans de-evolve this need that something will always fill that gap. Side: I Agree
The argument you make on the i agree side of this post is a typical one, one that is on the lips of MOST atheistic people. Religion is important today though as a gateway to understanding the workings of the minds of its people, and the history of society. If tomorrow there was irrefutable proof of the non existence of God there would still be religions. This is apparent in the inability of some religious people to see the paradoxes presented to them. I agree, without religion much of our culture is a mystery to the casual observer. Though I find this sort of sad in itself, that one needs a deep understanding of a book written by a lunatic to appreciate our culture... Maybe millennia from now our period will be known as "the Crazy ages?" The money and resources spent by religions on art and architecture would undoubtedly be spent on some other capricious undertakings, possibly of a similar nature. Daniel Dennet claims there is a God shaped hole in the human psyche, one that needs to be filled, I think until humans de-evolve this need that something will always fill that gap. This is a respectable counter to my "I agree" example argument, I believe. Side: I Agree
1
point
I agree, without religion much of our culture is a mystery to the casual observer. Though I find this sort of sad in itself, that one needs a deep understanding of a book written by a lunatic to appreciate our culture... Maybe millennia from now our period will be known as "the Crazy ages?" It is sad, but as it does exist it should be used as a means to educate. The writings of ancient desert goat herders is going to be completely bias, unsound and filled with contradictions in this modern age. but it does contain some sound wisdom. This is evident to most of us, and I find it perplexing that it is not seen this way by all. Surely if God did exist, considering the writings, it is still in mans nature to be imperfect, especially considering the nature of the texts written, and their overinflated Chinese whisper stories. It is the adherence to these archaic rules that I feel will most warrant a tag such as "The Crazy Ages" if one should arise. To be honest I wasn't sure whether to agree or disagree on this subject as it is as you have stated, a lot of talk over very little. Side: I Agree
You obviously don't need religion to be a good person if you are already a good person. And a bad person will more than likely be a bad person with or without religion. So I don't see how it is necessary. Deism is the only religion that makes a little sense, maybe Unitarian Universalism too. Side: I Agree
It is something that a lot of people need. It is in human nature to have something to obsess with, for most its religion. However what most fail to see is the fact that the other half of the world doesn't believe in the same thing that they do, they merely "know" that their religion is correct. But isn't that paradoxical? When Bill knows he is right and Habib knows he is right, which makes them both wrong in some aspect while there being no absolute proof to disprove either of them. Religion: Never has so much been said about so little I concur. Side: I Agree
|
the subject which the vast majority of people on earth consider most important, both presently and historically, rests upon next to nothing in reality. [Religion] Ones religion is one's value and belief system. So that's why it's so important. Religion rests within our real habits and customs. [Do I]find some meaning in it [Religion]nonetheless. Aside from my personal value system (religion) which consists of the specific philosophical principles that I choose to support and try to live up to, there is a social component to religion that I think is inescapable. People with mutually beneficial value systems will always favor one another's company I think of religion as being a uniquely human practice at least as far as in our record keeping traditions. I think it evolves along with us. I think being anti-religion is being anti-realistic. "Truth in matters of religion is merely the opinion that has survived." ~ Oscar Wilde Side: I Disagree
1
point
Sure. My religion is my belief/value system. I think it's unrealistic thinking to think that people "see no value" in something that profoundly effects human behavior the way religion does. I think a healthy approach to religion finds both admirable and objectionable aspects. The approach of condemning religion entirely is actually an unrealistic nonsensical cop out. That's just what I think, I could be wrong. Side: I Disagree
|
