Does religion have a place in modern society?

Is there a place for religion in today's modern world? With science descovering more and more about the world, does religion still belong in our society? Is it still needed?

In my debating society, we're going to have a full debate on this and suprisingly, I've ended up on the side of religion. I am curious to know what your thoughts on the topic are.

 

To say that religion wouldn't be needed because of science would be to take the stance of Edward Tyler on religion, namely: Religion, or more specifically mythology, is a prototype of science. This is only one of five prominent theories. Frazier says it is an expression of the need for food; Freud, a reflection of deep psychological leanings; Jung, a portrayal of the collective unconscious; and so on. What many understand as the default mode of operations is actually just one of several frames of mind on the subject.

I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again: Religion and science are not opposites, and they are far from incompatible. Religion is a subset of philosophy, understood in the west as most often encompassing mythological and moral constructs; even by such a rigid definition, it should not overlap with scientific pursuit in a way that causes friction. And in the east, religion is quite a different thing. Many eastern religions understand that their mythology, their deities, are all in the mind; if that statement alone makes religion less significant or powerful than science to anyone in particular, he/she underestimates the power of the mind and the need to explain and characterize its workings. It is an ancient practice, and science does not replace it; it only supplements it, and vice-versa. We are far removed from a culture that will someday find religion obsolete or unnecessary, but its form and function is so often misunderstood that it's no wonder people want to cast it off. This ignorance must be righted.

To summarize, yes, religion always has a place in society, as long as it is understood for what it really is and continues to evolve with the population, which it most certainly is. Ever heard somebody say, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual?" Did you know that there are people in America who practice both Judaism and Buddhism? People are tinkering with religion, as they truly always have. I believe the next step is personal religion. People are learning to form their own sacred tenets and deities. They are defining themselves based on personal, custom guidelines with which they agree and identify. Everything changes with time; some terms we know of have had half a dozen definitions over time. A curse in one language is a blessing in another. Religion is too often misconstrued as a rigid, isolated construct when in fact it is evolving as well. The "new" religion is actually quite similar to science, in that both are plumbing the depths of the world around them to discover and define new items and concepts every day, and sculpt and adjust those definitions as new understanding surfaces the next day.

 

As long as their is mystery, there will be belief about what's really out there, in time, space, life, death and all the unexplained. Maybe whn we reach the peak of understanding will religion not be needed as it is seen today, but until then, in todays world where we still don't know nearly anything, religion will have to be our guiding light.

 

For my answer, I'm going to speak from a Christian point-of view. It's what I beleive, so this is the best answer that I can give.

To me, science and religion exist one in the same. God works in a very scientific manner. In the early days of civilization, no one really knew how to explain how God did certain things. Now, because of modern science, we are learning exactly how God is doing things. We are growing much more intelligent as human beings, but because of that intelligence, I believe is causing the troulbes in the United States. It seems like the world has taken another bite out of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Science can never dispute God, mostly because those who try to don't understand Him. But even the most hardcore atheist must admit that religion has brought about great things and people into existance (Issac Newton for example).

Now, as a Christian, there is no place for religion in today's society. I don't see my beliefs in God as a religion, because I see the term religion as "mindlessly following rules and you don't really understand it". The other day, we had a person at our college, talking to people about God, but he did it in the wrong manner. Instead of trying to help people, he proclaimed that the sinners who don't accept Christ await Hell. That kind of thing draws people away, but I confronted him about it, telling him that he needed to read a little more into it. I couldn't dispute him because I knew what he said was true, but I could also tell that he only understood the Bible in his mind but didn't feel it in his heart.

Like I said, I'm not religious. To me, Christianity shouldn't be a religion, but a relationship with God. It took me a while to understand it myself, but it is also something that you must feel for yourself. If you're just following rules to avoid burning for all eternity, then you don't really love God or Jesus. You're only doing it to save your own butt, and God sees your true intentions. However, when you do have a relationship with God, you don't see "The Ten Commandments" or "Jesus's Preachings" as rules but healthy ways of living, which is what God really wants for us.

Had the question be "Does God have a place in modern society", then I would have to answer with a very heartfelt yes. God has always had a place, and I feel, as a Christian, that we need him now more than ever. The problem is that society doesn't want to be with him, and as we break even further away from God, the worse this place becomes though. However, all of this was predicted before hand. This is just what I beleive though.

 

Ah, I just lost my post. How wonderful.

Eh. Upon reading the title, I would tend to agree, but I see both science and religion in the same light here. Science is faith based on evidence, while religion is faith in what has none. Most would say that once religion becomes evidenced, it ceases to be religion and becomes science. While I do not have a problem with either of them, specifically, I see both as unfounded. I cannot prove the existence of my hand, for example. Science would try to prove that it exists by saying that I can see it, control it, feel things with it, and so on, but this is still faith-like in nature, because in order to draw on each of these pieces of evidence, you would first have to prove that they existed, too.

Like, you could say that I have a hand because when I touch this table, I feel that it is physically there. But, you would first have to prove that the table was there before that argument could be made valid. In order to prove that the table is there, you would have me touch it. So, the table proves the existence of my hand, and my hand proves the existence of the table. I fail to see the proof in that argument, as it is circular. The same argument applies across the board with all senses, and so faith, fundamentalist-like adherence to, all evidence is unfounded. As far as I can tell, the only things that you can prove beyond any doubt are mathematical concepts and logical contradictions. It is the faith that I would have a problem with, no matter what system you prefer. Whether it is a religious ideology or an evidence-based build-up, faith is something that I will not put up with. When one (or a group of ones) has faith or lacks doubt, they are almost invariably the most dangerous people in any given society. I can say with certainty that self-righteousness is always the result of some kind of faith. We would all be better off without it.

This is not to say that no one should hold beliefs, mind, but that they should take belief only in moderation in both directions. Absolute doubt and absolute faith are the same thing, and neither should be taken up unless it is matter of logic. There are some things that simply must be true; that I exist, for an example; and things that must be false; that I both exist and do not at the same time, for another. One should only believe things on a scale of zero to ten, and one should never place anything at either a zero or a ten without purely logical proof, as neither evidence nor claims are good enough to go on. For a bit more on a reason to doubt evidence, see something that I wrote up a while back below.

As for how and what is, if there is even a sliver of doubt, or if the probability is not logically evident to be zero, then any perception could be "the way things are". No matter how much evidence you have, you do not know how far off that probability of one is, so they are all just as likely in the never-ending run. It would increase infinitely, within the scope of the knowledge. Consider this:

Probability of true perception

Zero to One; One is limited within an achievable range (Zero < One; One = Fixed Number '?')

Belief 1 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) ---------B1----------------------------- One (Absolute Certainty)
Belief 2 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) -----------------------------------B2--- One (Absolute Certainty)

Zero to One2; One2 is very large (Zero < One2; One2 = One^5 (or so))

Belief 1 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) -B1------------------------------------ One2 (Absolute Certainty)
Belief 2 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) ----B2--------------------------------- One2 (Absolute Certainty)

Zero to One3; One3 is unlimited (Zero < One3; One3 = One^2 [repeat : loop])

Belief 1 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) B1------------------------------------> One3 (Absolute Certainty)
Belief 2 | Zero (Paradoxical; Logically Impossible) B2------------------------------------> One3 (Absolute Certainty)

One3 is by far the most logical choice of perspective, because there is no visible cap to knowledge, even in theory. Thus, the specifics regarding just what this perception is cannot be known. It is safest to stick with what you know must be true; that you exist, for one; and to leave everything else up for grabs, or on the table. Do not choose any idea as truth and stick to it while there are others with a Non-Zero Probability. You can pick off the ones that are logically impossible or paradoxical, but the rest of the perceptions and/or takes on those perceptions are all possible, and so almost no (one, generally) absolute truths can be found, as there is always a reasonable doubt.​

In short, I am against loyalty and attachment to ideas. Nearly any idea is fine by itself until you believe it absolutely. When you believe anything absolutely, you are already lost, and will do whatever you are told if it lines up with the belief. You will shift your own feelings to match it. That is a major problem for me, not only because it destroys individuality, but because it makes you a major threat that can be manipulated by anyone who knows the belief system well. When you are attached to an idea, as you might be a person, anyone can hold it hostage and use it against you. Do not let that happen.

That is all. My apologies if I was not coherent enough.

 

To put things simply, we need religion. I am not saying this as a believer (I'm not) but if I lived in a world where everything was left to statistics and there were no chances taken anymore I would be sad. I love that people can have faith in something so far out of there grasp. If anything religion is one of the biggest parts of evolving. To be rid of religion would be to prove that everyone has lost there capability to believe. If you lose that then you are going to be questioning everything. I myself believe in evolution but I don't want everyone to believe in it, or in any one thing. I would actually find it great if everyone believed in something, but there are those who don't. Anyway, I digress, religion is needed no doubt. The only problem is when people fight over it, other than that there isn't any problem.

 

This sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. What is religion, if it is not faith that is argued about? No one should believe anything wholly, for that it is the cause of all real conflict. Please see my above post for more on that... Belief should not be an on/off switch. That creates immediate problems and many conflicts will arise without fail, because people will disagree with absolute conviction, possibly willing to kill each other over it. Not a pretty sight at all. With nothing to gain but your liking of the fact that people believe in things and with so much lose in the inevitable event of self-righteous action, there is plenty of doubt to go around.

 

To go along with what Makaze said, you don't need religion to believe. It just depends on what you believe. I mean, comic books always have an interesting take on religion, just because religion is removed from society doesn't mean they would stop using it as a plot point (unless it's a religious comic book I guess. I'm talking more about the likes of the Spectre and the One Above All). Shows are the same (Supernatural). If people lose religion, they won't lose their imagination. At least, I would hope not. I think that, with religion, people's imaginations are more restricted than without it. An inventor could say "I believe that we can make a car that flies!" So he gets to work on it. Losing his religion won't rid him of his imagination.

 

Okay, sorry if I didn't get my point across clearly. I do agree that there have been many wars started with religion, but this doesn't make religion a bad thing. Religion does not cause wars, people who aren't tolerant cause wars. I am not going to argue with anyone on whether I am right or wrong, this is a place for debates and I am simply speaking my mind. Anyway, still say we need religion. On a massive scale, no. And just because you believe in something doesn't take the place of religion I am sorry. You can continue to tell me why I am wrong, I will not try to change your minds.

 

What is with this logic? Religion consists of intolerant people. Without them, religion would cease to exist. People would let go of all of the principals one by one until they were tolerant of everybody like everyone else. Religions are based on rules, and rules are intolerant by nature. It seems pretty standard to me...

 

You seem to forget about people who are intolerant of religion and the fact that I, belonging to a religion, am very tolerant of other beliefs as long as they don't hurt anybody. Also the fact that governments are based on rules, and because rules are intolerant, a lack of intolerance would result in a lack of rules, a lack of government, and total anarchy. For example, a law against killing is intolerant of people who like to kill. A law that allows women's suffrage is intolerant of people who don't want women to vote. Hell, I'm intolerant against racists. Humans, by nature, are intolerant against other humans. Intolerance is not a problem with religion, it's a problem with humanity and a needed one at that. Religion, when done right, should seek to eliminate unnecessary intolerance. As of yet, no religion is even close to actually trying to do that, although individuals will preach against intolerance. Pope John Paul II, for example, did everything in his power to bring as many religions as possible together. Sadly, many Catholics still hate non-Catholics and especially non-Christians. I don't, but I've known a few who do and, out of my own intolerance for people who are wrongly intolerant, disliked them very much.

 

Ha, hardly! But then, you would see tolerance differently because of where you stand. Tell me; are you tolerant of, oh, say, the LGBT community? How tolerant, would you say? Not stoning them? Not talking about about them as if they are... Sinning? Not saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin"? Or the best option, honestly not looking down on them at all? Because that last part would be tolerance. Someone who dislikes something is bound to think that they are being tolerant if they tone it down just a notch, but that is not the case. From what I have seen of you, you are very legalistic in most of your views and that in itself is intolerance. Believing that everyone who believes other than you is somehow fundamentally wrong and looking down on them is intolerance, and those that you look down on know it. You may not think that you act intolerantly towards them, but the attitude carries on. It might spread to other people through a kind of subtle understanding, particularly in a church, where such things are not often spoken of outrightly, or those that you look down on will feel uncomfortable under your gaze. This will create a mentality that puts them at a disadvantage, and someone, maybe not you, will act out of intolerance against them, even just from your one example. This is a problem that needs to be eradicated...

But if you didn't look down on people as sinners anymore, wouldn't that get rid of the religion itself? And there we have the point in question. If you honestly stop thinking of other people as unnatural or wrong, then your principles are gone anyway. And yet doing so is the only way that you can be truly tolerant of them. Feeling that they are equals...

Also, do not use the word anarchy near me in that context. Look up anarchism as a philosophy, or my posts in the normalcy thread here for an idea of why you might want to change it a bit.

 

I consider gays themselves to be good people. I consider their sexual activities to be wrong, but that's only because I was brought up that way and have been conditioned not to think otherwise. My philosophy on tolerance is that every type of person is still human and therefore should be treated equally. When I say that I am tolerant, I mean that regardless of whether or not I look down on a group, I try to treat them just as I would any other person until I know somebody from that group to be a an a-hole. And even then, I treat the person as an individual, who happens to be a bad example of that group. The only exceptions are racists and people with ethnic bias, toward whom I DO express total intolerance and WILL take any opportunity to make sure people know that they're absolute scum who deserve to be hated for their crimes against humanity. I suppose you could lump other common intolerances in there too, but I'll assume that necessary intolerances like those toward arsonists, serial killers, and jaywalkers don't count as intolerance in your view.

In short, I treat all people who I don't know in a relatively civil manner and those who I do know differently as individuals depending on how they treat me and others close to me. Yes, it is intolerant, but it's a lot less intolerant than saying religion is the source of all intolerance in the world AND promotes it, therefore having no place.

When I refer to anarchy, I refer to total lack of government. I apologize if that is not the definition you use and if you are offended by that use.

 

You do not use it for a lack of government. Think about the implications of that statement for a moment; a complete lack of government. It probably does not mean what you are thinking of in the least.

On tolerance, that is not quite good enough for me. Everyone thinks that they are acting civilly. But people are not so simple as that. Others can tell when you feel negatively about them. When negative thoughts head in their direction. It creates atmospheric tension, and I am sure that you know what that means; you have doubtless felt uncomfortable in the presence of others because of the tension there. That in itself is intolerance to me. It goes without saying that all physical manifestations of intolerance also apply. I myself hold a disdain for things like murder. That is not intolerance. I am reacting to the intolerance of the murderer... Unlike in someone with your case, where you hold disdain for someone who simply feels differently than you do without being intolerant of someone else in the least. A disdain for what you might call the sexually deviant is not a reaction to intolerance, because being sexually deviant is not being intolerant. Murdering someone is. And so on...

 

Yet you forget the possibility of people who happen to kill for fun. It's rare, but it happens. Aren't most serial killers little more than hobbyists? They aren't intolerant against anyone. They just like killing. I do not like those people and therefore I am intolerant of them, right? On the "sexually deviant" as you call them, I hold absolutely nothing against them. Sure I might feel a little bit uncomfortable when I'm talking to a person who I just found out is gay, but I get used to it and as long they treat me like a person and don't look down on me for being straight, I have no reason to look down on them.

And why is tension such a bad thing? Even if I don't like a certain type of person, I still respect him as a person. As long as that happens in both directions, whatever tension is there can be gone in a matter of minutes with a good conversation. Where do you get the idea that simply thinking badly of what a person thinks automatically means I think badly of the person? Sure it's hate the sin, not the sinner, but what's so wrong with simply treating people as people no matter what they think? It's why I'm intolerant of racists. They treat people badly without separating the person from his attributes. Human=Person and there's no reason to treat any human any differently from any other human unless you know her personally.

 

Fair enough, but then I don't really hate them, but it is again not really a question of tolerating them. They are just a threat that needs to be dealth with. Like a force of nature. It is when someone feels like they have a right to be act out of dislike for other people that I have a real problem, and that is intolerance.

Then we're good. Just so long as your tolerance extends to your views on law or anything like that.

Ah, but that makes no sense. People are their actions and their desires. If you dislike their desires, you dislike them. Even if they are separate, it will come off as hating them if you hate their choices or their desires. Always. Furthermore, being intolerant of racists is a redundant phrasing. As is hating haters, or being intolerant of intolerance itself. It kind of shorts itself out. One who seeks to eradicate intolerance is not intolerant himself. This should be self-evident because of the way of such things, to satisfy the contradiction.

 

Okay, maybe I misphrased that. What I meant was respecting the person simply for the fact that he is a person, never mind what kind of person he is. You can dislike his choices and desires, but simply recognizing that this is a person and needs to be treated with respect should be enough.

On intolerance against racists, it is not redundant at all. I hate racists to the point where I treat any "person" that is racist as inhuman. It is intolerance and it is probably wrong of me on a societal level, but I still do it because it makes sense to me. I could, for example, run out and kill a white supremacist because I overheard him putting down a black man. Regardless of my intention to rid the world of his intolerance, I have committed an act of intolerance myself, correct? The fact remains that intolerance, while fundamentally wrong, remains a necessary evil that keeps our world organized. It is only unnecessary intolerance like sexism, homophobia, and other things that needs to go.

 

See, now that is intolerance, and it is not necessary. Every racist, rapist and murderer could be you. You are just as capable of being any of those things as they are. Treating anyone of your species as if you could never have done the things that they did is a bit of a double standard. It is neither necessary nor helpful for you to hold such hatred. Get rid of a racist because he is a threat, not because you dislike the idea of racists. Someone who doesn't care at all about racism could do this without spreading even more intolerance around, while you could not. Get rid of yourself or your intolerant traits because your level of hatred for him makes you yourself a threat... And so on.

Treating everyone as a person is a required for anyone who has ever existed. They are your equals, every one. You all came into this world with the same chance of becoming whatever the worst person in the world was, or the best one was. Assuming that everyone is a person, tolerance can be discussed beyond that. People who are people are also just as good and worthy of everything that you have as you are. That is tolerance. A lack of believe in your own right to privilege, at the heart of things. If seeing other people as being people is good enough for you, then I was right when I said that toning it down a notch and rationalizing the rest of it was what you were doing. Now, tell me: do you believe that it is possible to be too tolerant? The answer should tell us everything that we need to know about how tolerant you are.

 

Precisely. No matter what I think of person, it's how I treat him that counts. Yes, I have a problem with racists that I show with cruelty toward them. But other people don't have to and ought to learn form my bad example. And yes, it is possible to be too tolerant. You said it yourself when you noted that murder hobbyists are little more than a threat that needs to be dealt with. Intolerance is a necessary evil in the world. I will not tolerate those who kill unnecessarily. I also have no tolerance for people who hold prejudice based solely on ethnicity. These sorts of intolerance are necessary in order to keep order in society. Thus, without intolerance there would be no law, no government, and we would exist in a state of nature. It might sound okay, but it would make the entire human race a giant powder keg that could be lit at any time.

 

Hm? Ah, you misunderstand. In being deliberately tolerant, you are required to hate the intolerant. It is not a necissary evil; it is simply basic preference. If I prefer tolerance to intolerance, then I prefer tolerance to intolerance. If someone is intolerant, I would prefer that they were tolerant. It only follows.

And beside the point, not judging what a serial murderer does is not a problem in itself. You will not act rashly based on that tolerance. At worst, you will do nothing at all. And that is all that I care about. What you do to others yourself. Someone who is tolerant to the point of being amoral and apathetic poses less of a threat to me than you do. Perhaps there you can see why I have a problem with such intolerance... And your answer tells us that you are not so tolerant at all. If you think that an absence of all anger in a person is a bad thing, then you are a problem in yourself.

Edit: Mostly because you will never be at peace. If you are not at peace, those around you cannot be at peace, and you spread displeasure.