Why religion should not vanish

[Vox]

And 10% or more of their money, plus the lack of tax revenue by the state, which could be used to pay for the very "education" that the church metes out.

Not always, in Ireland for instance the Catholic Church, more or less being the government unofficial education department even now the Church puts in far more cash than it receives from grants and revenue. I couldn't comment on other countries but there most of the cash originated from the Holy See's banking investments or Peter's Pence; the states input while not negligible (there are secular schools after all, just not that many) was far outmatched by what the Church was willing to offer.

It won't be secular "organizations" that would fill the void left by religion. It would be society.

Then in the wake of the sex scandals where all of these children are thought to be at risk why does no-one else offer to take up the mantle?

The only reason the Catholic Church hasn't been booted out of the Irish education system is simply because it couldn't function without them.

But the point is that the church or religion does not change the number or percentage of people who are going to do bad things. Those people are always going to exist, church or not. There is no evidence that religion is the thing that stops these "foul creatures" from perpetrating evil. In any case, with all the evil that religious organizations perpetrate on a global level, the trade off would be a net positive. And by the way... they already are preying on the naive.

They are always going to exist, but what we can do is either reduce their numbers or frighten them into submission which religion is often quite excellent at doing.

Again, some of them are, but then others often testify to the peace of mind faith and religion brings them; you may scoff at the notion of a comfort blanky but to some people it's the only thing that gets them through the day. That's a whole other point to explore.

Let's stick to the major religions, where their absence would be noticeable. They all say great things that don't require religion. Don't lie, steal, murder. Fantastic. We don't need religion for that, these are basic laws of a successful society. What they all have in common are laws demeaning women, promoting slavery, vilifying homosexuality, advocating genocide, and excusing rape. Ethical? I could do without.

Indeed, I daresay this was considered ethical at the time. Give it another three hundred years and I'm sure we'll all be painted as immoral barbaric whores or something.

What would you say to the notion of a religion like Confucianism or Taoism where there is room for constant adaptation to make way for changes in ethics? As we learn new concepts, they can be easily taken up to upgrade the core belief. It's why the system has remained nigh on indestructible in China since it was first formulated.

But that is an idealistic view. They all won't be compelled (scary choice of word, especially with religion involved) to do any one thing.

It is, but I couldn't think of a better one really. All political or ethical philosophies are ideals, the world is not black and white and will not fit in with our pretty pre-prepared expectations. What we can do however is discourage as many as feasibly possible from doing things which are destructive to society and encourage them to do what is beneficial instead.

This is what makes me laugh. People go on like religion is such a blessing for people in poor countries. Like, what would they do without religion? Religion gives people in the third world hope!

It does. Some of the most devout believers I have met have been the ones with the least. It's what gives them the strength to keep going and do what they believe is right. For someone with literally nothing, Gods love is everything.

Bullshit to the highest degree. Religion effectively does what it always has done, it keeps the populace for the large part dumb and suppressed. How many times do we hear of religious clashes in third world countries, terrorist groups sprouting up all the time founded on religious doctrines.

I don't think it makes the population dumb, I think the population is pretty stupid already (just take a peek at facebook or twitter anytime soon), the only difference is organized religion is very efficient at capitalizing upon it and putting it to use.

I'm advocating the same. Some people do need to be led along like sheep, they are not capable of doing it on their own. I think a religion of some form is the simplest way of getting people together to work towards something useful. You can use patriotism or a shared interest but religion is what gets the most absolute and unfailing devotion.

Oh but they do charity work? Yeah, they fucking should do. Most of the mess they're cleaning up is caused by religion in the first place.

Not always, in Northern Ireland for instance while it's constantly framed as Protestants Vs Catholics it's really a nationalistic battle; Scottish planters vs Native Irish.

Isn't it also true Hamas does a lot of charity work? Does that make them a valuable asset to the world?

It does to the islamic community, although of course to us they're using a totally alien code of ethics.

The single largest charitable organization in the world is the Gates Foundation. No gawds required.

Uh...You do realize Bill Gates family are Catholics (he seems to be more of a deist or theistic inclined agnostic) , and he's even confessed it's Catholic morality which inspires his charitable works? http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-g...od-116166/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/bi...-work.html

Religion's got a pretty big hand in that it would seem.

Our prison system, where atheists are severely under-represented, would seem to indicate that we can manage our "killer urges" quite well without gawd.

Not really, professed Athiests are such a tiny proportion of the population it's hard to really compare a few hundred Athiests to the millions of Hispanic Catholics. Sheer size of samples kinda screws that unless you can condense it to some sort of equal ratio.

Ethics and morality are not an invention of religion, no matter how many times your local shaman tells you that his special voo-doo sky-fairy handed them down.

Indeed they aren't, but why is religion still the vehicle of choice for instilling ethics rather than philosophers? Aristotle's had a lot more airtime compared to the Guru Granth Sahib and yet far more people turn to that than they do any of his treaties.

It's simpler to digest (especially with a clergy to ritualize and make it more glamerous) for average joe.

Bullshit. The "outside aggressor" is the greatest unifying force in history. Religion has historically divided, not unified. Put a giant space rock on a collision course for earth in 1980 and watch the US and the USSR dismiss all of their petty bickering to cooperate to deflect it while the churches bicker about which is the true faith and how all the others caused the fucking rock in the first place.

Thats true for some occasions but not always. Take the fall of Constantinople for instance, Europe knew once Byzantium fell they would be next on the Ottoman hit list and yet they still didn't raise a finger to help. Why? Because they didn't trust the "effeminate" Greeks.

There are no logical reasons for keeping religion around. Of course, it's not like it's going to die off overnight next Thursday, but it does seem to be dying. I just hope I live long enough to spit on it's grave.

If there's anything my studies have shown me, it's that religion is as strong as ever. Certainly, belief in Christianity, Islam and the like may be dropping but that's being swiftly replaced by Wicca, Hare Krishna, Santa Muerte, "Spirituality" and a myriad of other things of that ilk . All of which are encouraging a whole new area of commercialism and mercantile interest.