Eliminating Religion?

[Anomalocaris]

Religion will always be a part of humanity

I don't claim to know if religion will always be a part of society or not in the near or unforeseeable future. You on the other hand are making a huge claim to knowledge by saying it is indefinite as long as we exist.

That appears to be less a claim of knowledge then a hypothesis, offered in not far short of good faith, for use as a foil for discussion.

[Kromoh]

One might make the analogous argument and say that there is nothing which crime provides that can't be found somewhere else. Sloganeered succinctly, crime does not really pay. But one immediately sees why the slogan must frequently be seen to be untrue from the perspective of the would be criminal. The reason is crime often affords a realistic chance of providing gratification to the perpetrator while shifting the cost either to someone else not benefitting and/or passing the cost down the line in such a way as to worsen the overall good. That is something which anything that actually better than crime can not, more or less by definition, match. So to the unscrupulous or the very confused, honest work is unimpressive, and crime definitely can pay.

The exact same reasoning applies to religion. There is something which religion can offer which rationalism, by definition, can not. That is the opportunity to enjoy both the emotional and material delights of satisfying or self-serving falsehoods while passing the cost of indulging in such delusions onto someone else, or kicking the cost down the line. So to the morally corrupt, or the very confused, intellectual rigor is unsatisfying, and religion definitely can pay, at the expense of someone else.

Every xtian attempt to hamper stem cell research is an act of theft from those who would have benefited from the research. Every xtian attempt to trumpets biblical cosmology over diligent scientific pursuit of knowledge is an act of theft from the collective power of humanity. But just as theft does often pay those who commit it, so too religion pays those who would spread ignorance to further it. Crime will never die because it pays, neither will religion for the same reason.

I don't think the analogy you used is valid, basically because it adds in another variable, that of quick gain versus effortful gain, which isn't present in religion versus rationality. Seriously, to what good serves a simpler explanation, if it is wrong? Take Santa Claus as the perfect example. Santa Claus is used by parents to educate children, but it's not something that can't be done in other ways.

Here between us, I don't think someone willfully chooses religion over rationality because they think it does them better, or makes them feel better - people are only religious because they are taught to be. But if that were the case, and people really did choose their religion instead of beign indoctrinated, then you would be right in saying that religion would be more acceptable - as acceptable as any other choice. However, most people don't choose at all - people have a religion because they were educated and indoctrinated in such ways, and still hardheadedly defend their religion to death. As much as you may dislike it, humans are the product of genes and medium, and I don't think religion is genetically determined.

Notice, though, that even if whatever reasoning did make religion acceptable, it still wouldn't make religion reasonable - it would only be like knowing you're wrong but sticking to your being wrong, aka blissful ignorance. Now, if blissful ignorance is acceptable is yet another layer of discussion...

Lastly, know that it is unwise to try to justify religion by its side-effects, however miraculous they are, you know. Just as unwise it is to try to justify crime by the gain it provides the criminal. All in all, I am yet to see anything that justifies the existence of religion. Why stick to a false explanation if a true explanation is just in front of you?

[Anomalocaris]

I don't think the analogy you used is valid, basically because it adds in another variable, that of quick gain versus effortful gain, which isn't present in religion versus rationality. Seriously, to what good serves a simpler explanation, if it is wrong?

Emotional reassurance. How many idiots cling tenaciously to the notion that a dead jewish apocalyptic preacher loves them specifically and individually, and if sufficiently adored and prostrated before, the dead preacher would exercise infinite power to make that alleged love a worthy end-all and be-all of existence? They would cling to this reassurance even if it must be bought at the cost of infantilizing themselves and denying to themselves, and more importantly to others, the practical advantage of a more fact based world view. In effect, they stole reassurance and passed most of the cost of the enforced ignorance this reassurance requires onto those who would suffer the most from the world not being properly understand.

I knew a person who became religious not because she was taught to be so during what is normally considered to be the impressionable age range. Instead during her schooling years she was highly intelligent and earned PhD in a non-trivial discipline from a prestigious public university in trying circumstances. But after several years she became lonely and probably depressed and appearently acutely needy of reassurances, both social and emotional. While thus vulnerable she was poached by opportunistic xtians and made to believe that there is truth in christianity to make her feel better. She was sufficiently greedy of "feeling better" that it effectively became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. She also found the vapid reassurances christians confers on each other satisfying at the beginning. So she became a Christian. But gradually as reassurance trickled in her need for reassurance also increased. Eventually her needs outpaced the capacity of members of her first congregation to provide. Disappointed she sought out denominations that is even more flippant with its vapid and catered reassurances. Eventually she ended up in a Pentecostal congregagtion, aspiring to the day when tongue speaking also comes to her, and taking giggling delight when other Pentecostals, in between speaking in tongues, uses their flippant "power of prophecy" to reassure her in whatever way she needs reassurance that day.

Is there some individual genetic predisposition to religion? Not any more than there is to crime. But as a species we are genetically predisposed to take what appears to be the easy way out especially when it appears we don't have to later bear a commensurate cost for such an choice. Sometimes this predisposition allows us to find better way to do things that lessens the overall cost to society. Sometimes this predisposition allows us to insist the bible to be true and ignore the possible cost of such an assertion.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think that religion will always remain so long as there will always be people who value consolation over the truth.

Yes, there are religious people who believe not for comfort and just because they think their religion is the true one.... but I think there are many believers who believe for comfort just as superstition in general and OCD and whatnot can be used to comfort anxiety (even if it may in turn end up producing more anxiety).

To look at it another way, I don't know of many religions that people believe in that offer a hell but no heaven and no comfort or consolation of any kind.

I don't know if religion will always remain. Probably it will as long as humanity lasts I guess....

I think that there are many very significant reasons why we would be better off without religion... but I guess it's also possible that there may be some folks who just can't cope and do crazy things if they don't have the comfort of religion or something like it... but I personally think those sad souls are a small price to pay after the damage religion has done (and does) overall.

But like I just said "or something like it" - surely those who need comfort and consolation ( even if it is nothing but a placebo) can find their consolation elsewhere? I would hope so, but I guess, still, there may be some people who without religion would rather not live........thank goodness I'm not one of them.

[harsanity]

But I think if you're an Atheist, you should not try to remove religion wholly, maybe religious extremist.

What do you think constitutes trying to remove religion wholly? Is sharing our opinion in the open trying to remove religion?