Religion is a political tool if control.

[Guest Mathias the ok]

Albeit my jaw dropped when I came across this site, I immediately knew I had to post.

 

The topic of my post is what I believe to be ultimate motive for the widespread violence throughout our past millennia. What better way to wage war than in the name of a "good" god? Why did the crusades require cannons? Religion IS the most perfectly derived tool of control ever devised. Not only does a governing body, or person (usually the latter) gain immediate control over its people, but also the wonderful ability to clandestinely move armies about the world under the guise of "good" gods.

 

We knew how to be good well before anything the bible or otherwise describes. We did not need the ten commandments to develop Democracy....it was around for thousands of years prior. We had libraries full of knowledge for around the globe many many years before the scriptures.

 

My friends, the pyramids, an engineering achievement of astounding proportions even by today’s standards was erected by humans way before Christianity. These massive tombs were built over a lifetime under a litany of magical spirits and gods.

 

Every society NEEDS to have religion, but in fact all we get is serendipity (Serendipity is finding something unexpected and useful while searching for something else entirely.)

 

What I mean is we need religion to balance out science. This balance keeps society going. While nothing has done more to harm society than religion, nothing has done more to help society than religion. Religion is the only moral backbone our society has to stand on. Science merely ensures that backbone stays strong and healthy. Most of what we know and learn about right and wrong weather we realize it or not comes from religion.

 

Once you weed out all the magical crap, and of course the fear of hell and it s hell mongers, you have a fairly good set of principals by which to live ones life. ALL religion for that matter is the same way...once you get rid of the ghosts and ghouls, you have a good set of principals.

 

SO WHAY CANT WE HAVE A RELIGION WITHOUT A GOD?

 

I think the answer might be that we want to know that were getting something out of all of this worship stuff by waking up early on Sunday morning to go to church to give our selfless devotion to a god out of selfishness for ourselves and the supposed god we are worshiping?? Confused? Me too.

 

The deal is remove yourself from the magical beliefs structure, and look for those good rules and morals that come with the religion package and throw the rest out.

[Vigile]

nothing has done more to help society than religion. Religion is the only moral backbone our society has to stand on

106805[/snapback]

 

Welcome to the site Mathias.

 

This sounds suspiciously close to Objectivism.

 

I would argue that religion is wholly unnecessary and that society creates its own morality in spite of religion, not because of it. Humans are rational enough at their core that they understand that without some rules life inside of society would be intolerable. Rules don't need to be handed down by god in order for the masses to obey them. On the "state of nature" issue, I guess I would side closer to Locke than I would with Hobbes.

[Guest Mathias the ok]

nothing has done more to help society than religion. Religion is the only moral backbone our society has to stand on

106805[/snapback]

 

Welcome to the site Mathias.

 

This sounds suspiciously close to Objectivism.

 

I would argue that religion is wholly unnecessary and that society creates its own morality in spite of religion, not because of it. Humans are rational enough at their core that they understand that without some rules life inside of society would be intolerable. Rules don't need to be handed down by god in order for the masses to obey them. On the "state of nature" issue, I guess I would side closer to Locke than I would with Hobbes.

107255[/snapback]

 

 

Thank you for your kind response. I guess I am just too used to having people respond with impugning comments in other forums, it is nice to actually have someone read and respond intelligently...thank you.

 

Now onto the business..

 

I agree with you in whole, but some of the parts I see a difference..

 

You say " society creates its own morality in spite of religion, not because of it. " I think that society has allowed itself to become trapped by religion, and that religion is the EASIEST and most AVAILABLE set of moral principals....packaged nicely in bibles , scriptures etc..with a ready made support structure. You are ABSOLUTLY RIGHT, society does NOT need religion..it needs religion the least..but it does need morals, and all that I am arguing is that religion is all we have right now for a moral base. There is not one major "organization" of moral codes with no ghosts, or apparitions etc....so all society has to look to is religion. It would take a massive effort to install an "accepted" doctrine of morals superceding the current doctrine of religion.

 

The whole key is can we govern ourselves without religion? Yes and no...some people want it, and some need it...while others like many on this site I am sure live like model citizens with a strong belief AGAINST religion. Some people just don’t want to come to grips that there exists the possibility that they might cease to exist after they die, that there might be nothing else…. this scares them so you would give this person religion...as a pacifier.

 

 

Your also EXACTLY right rules don’t need to be handed down by God to be obeyed, but I guarantee you that it is much easier to control people with a God backing you up VS a government/ military/ laws....people will fight an Army to die for their GOD...never the other way around.

 

I have no rebuttal for your comment about Locke and Hobbes; I must embarrassingly admit that I have no knowledge of them or their writings or philosophy. I should and will now look into it.

 

Thank you kindly.

[Mythra]

Hello Matthias the ok -

 

Welcome to the forums. Your arguments have a couple of (minor) flaws. IMNSHO.

 

1. We have plenty of religion. We also have plenty of "immorality". How is the presence of religion making us moral? (although the term "moral" is subject to anybody's interpretation)

 

2. People draw their own lines. Even when "religion" managed to outlaw liquor, people thumbed their noses and managed to get around the laws. Religion draws artificial lines that people don't normally follow, anyway. You're just as likely to see a pastor or deacon visiting a hooker as you are an atheist.

 

3. Most people (and I said most) have an internal code, that is instilled at an early age and reinforced by societal mores. I know people who have a strong personal code of ethics and have a disdain for religion.

[Vigile]

I guess I am just too used to having people respond with impugning comments in other forums, it is nice to actually have someone read and respond intelligently...thank you.

107267[/snapback]

 

Hey Mathias,

 

Just kidding

 

 

You say " society creates its own morality in spite of religion, not because of it. " I think that society has allowed itself to become trapped by religion, and that religion is the EASIEST and most AVAILABLE set of moral principals....packaged nicely in bibles , scriptures etc..with a ready made support structure. You are ABSOLUTLY RIGHT, society does NOT need religion..it needs religion the least..but it does need morals, and all that I am arguing is that religion is all we have right now for a moral base. There is not one major "organization" of moral codes with no ghosts, or apparitions etc....so all society has to look to is religion. It would take a massive effort to install an "accepted" doctrine of morals superceding the current doctrine of religion.

107267[/snapback]

 

What about written law? Regardless of what religionists might claim, the theory behind modern law was adopted from philosophy, not religion.

 

Your also EXACTLY right rules don’t need to be handed down by God to be obeyed, but I guarantee you that it is much easier to control people with a God backing you up VS a government/ military/ laws....people will fight an Army to die for their GOD...never the other way around.

107267[/snapback]

 

If you are talking about how to lead the masses to support your policies, then yes, I would agree with you, religion is a great way to inspire cohesion. Patriotism is also a tool, one which may or may not involve the use or religion. Fascist patriotism certainly uses religion. US-type patriotism uses religion in generalities, i.e., "God and Country" type stuff.

 

 

I have no rebuttal for your comment about Locke and Hobbes; I must embarrassingly admit that I have no knowledge of them or their writings or philosophy. I should and will now look into it.

 

Thank you kindly.

107267[/snapback]

 

Simply put, Hobbes witnessed the king, god's representative on earth, getting his head lopped off by the angry crowds. Thus, god forbid! "Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutal, and short." Whereas Locke believed that life in the state of nature is uncomfortable at worst. [state of nature is a state without law or other restraint] Locke felt that humanity would develop their own rules of behavior natural, eg, I won't steal your chickens or rape your daughters because I don't want you to steal my chickens or rape my daughters.

 

The US Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by Locke's "Natural Law" theory.

[Amethyst]

Welcome.

 

I don't think we need religion to balance out science. On the contrary, I think that's the job of art and literature. Creativity is a healthy way to balance out logic, not superstition. Religion exists because people thousands of years ago decided to start worshipping nature because they didn't understand it. It exists today because it was passed down from one generation to the next. Until we stop the intergenerational brainwashing, it's never going to end unless we blow ourselves up or something.

 

I think the answer might be that we want to know that were getting something out of all of this worship stuff by waking up early on Sunday morning to go to church to give our selfless devotion to a god out of selfishness for ourselves and the supposed god we are worshiping?? Confused? Me too.

 

I'm not confused. What I got out of it was parental and social acceptance. I went because I had to go, and in turn, my parents accepted me. If my mother were still alive, I'm certain that she would not accept me for who I am because I'm agnostic. My dad does, but he's always been much more moderate. My stepmom, too. But when I was a kid, I was forced to go. The only reason it took me over 20 years to stop going all together was because I was afraid that my immediate family members and friends would hate me. I took a leap of courage and haven't looked back since.