Current Events > Do you think religion is needed to instill morality into society?

(+) Yeah! (+)

This is one argument often used by religious people (if disregarding the existence of a higher being as true or not). They say regardless of that, religion is still important in maintaining law and order in society. Matters like lust/sex, greed, crime, lying, slandering etc...

In fact, that's also one of the theories going around on how religions like Christianity was even adopted by the Roman Empire in the first place.

Religion was not just a belief, it was also a way of connecting people into a shared set of moralistic values and governing them by it, even if that meant by way of fear (if you do this, you go to hell eg.)

What do you guys think?

EDIT: I'm looking to discuss just the idea of religion as a means to govern society. NOT about whether God is real or not yadayada. That one is another topic by itself

It's a nonsense argument. This would imply irreligious people don't have morals, which is plainly untrue. I'll side with the people who care about people.

---

Guide posted...

It's a nonsense argument. This would imply irreligious people don't have morals, which is plainly untrue.

This. Its basically an argument religious people use when they run out of reasons to justify their backwards beliefs.

---

Absolutely not. Religion probably does more harm than good tbh
---

life feels pointless separated from God

---

Guide posted...

It's a nonsense argument. This would imply irreligious people don't have morals, which is plainly untrue. I'll side with the people who care about people.

I don't know but in my country Christians make up about 2/3rds of the non-profit social services sector.

Bananana posted...

This. Its basically an argument religious people use when they run out of reasons to justify their backwards beliefs.

tell me what's stopping you from committing crime without a system of law imposed on you??

TheOrgyPorgy posted...

life feels pointless separated from God

No
---

Machete posted...

Absolutely not. Religion probably does more harm than good tbh

This is my response to post #8
---

Machete posted...

No

Yes.

ask a Christian what's the meaning of life and he'd gladly tell you.
ask an athiest the meaning of life and he'll scratch his head, ponder, and then fall into depression.

Wutobliteration posted...

tell me what's stopping you from committing crime without a system of law imposed on you??

I believe that harming others in any way is wrong.

---

Yes

---

I don't think it's needed, but I do think it's useful and even healthy for people to derive meaning from something they consider to be larger than themselves. The only real problem I have with religion is using it for untoward reasons, like personal gain or to amplify bigotry.

Morality is based on empathy and law. Of course, people can lack empathy and laws can be abused to harm/benefit certain people. But a greater societal focus on "treat people with respect and kindness and you'll be paid in kind", with a just punishment system to dissuade crimes like murder and fraud, is entirely possible without religion. That "higher power" that drives people to act morally can easily be respect for one's fellow man.

Not that life is that simple, of course - but there are reasons that appeal to basic human instinct which can instill morality in a society. Religion is one way to communicate a broader set of ethics and morality to a receptive audience if utilised in a positive way, but it isn't a requirement.

---

No. Morality is not exclusive to religion.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

I don't know but in my country Christians make up about 2/3rds of the non-profit social services sector.

What percentage of your country's population is Christian, and what percentage is atheist?

---

Doesnt really matter what you think, religion is man made and people will create or follow religions even if explicitly outlawed.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

lol really? Ok let's leave certain religinos like Islam and terrorism out of the picture and focus on Christianity per se. Discuss again

Wow uhhh...wow.

---

TendoDRM posted...

Wow uhhh...wow.

I missed that.
Yeah, by tc.

---

No. It was likely a good communal binding agent for ancient civilizations, but it's merely taking our already existing morals and trying to filter them through the perspective of having been implanted by a higher being.

MrMallard posted...

I don't think it's needed, but I do think it's useful and even healthy for people to derive meaning from something they consider to be larger than themselves. The only real problem I have with religion is using it for untoward reasons, like personal gain or to amplify bigotry.

Morality is based on empathy and law. Of course, people can lack empathy and laws can be abused to harm/benefit certain people. But a greater societal focus on "treat people with respect and kindness and you'll be paid in kind", with a just punishment system to dissuade crimes like murder and fraud, is entirely possible without religion. That "higher power" that drives people to act morally can easily be respect for one's fellow man.

Not that life is that simple, of course - but there are reasons that appeal to basic human instinct which can instill morality in a society. Religion is one way to communicate a broader set of ethics and morality to a receptive audience if utilised in a positive way, but it isn't a requirement.

A legal system can only go so far to only prevent the worst of crimes and wrong acts, but it does not reward volunteerism and selfless acts for others. Not everyone believes in this non-religious idea of karma and those that do often just find themselves eventually getting taken advantage of.

I don't think it's needed, but I do think it's useful and even healthy for people to derive meaning from something they consider to be larger than themselves.

A lot of non-religious people eventually deduce their idea of meaning of life to mean 'just maximise happiness/satisfaction'. Except as we all know, humans have an endless need for satisfaction. This could mean partying, drinking, hookups and living a reckless but satisfying life that in the end, still gets us nowhere.
If you read up on King Solomon, it clearly illustrates this aspect of human nature, where a person can have everything in the world and yet not be happy. Because we keep wanting MORE.

Various philosophies throughout history has sprung up because of this to justify a way of living that people can be content with

I think religion gives people justification to act immorally and ultimately that's detrimental to the progression of society.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I think religion gives people justification to act immorally and ultimately that's detrimental to the progression of society.

ok I keep hearing this excuse yet no illustrative example at all. If you want me to be specific, I mean the major religions in the world today. Not fringe religions like radical Islam or some minor cult out there

I'm not talking about fringe religions, either. There are plenty of religious leaders who exploit their followers for personal enrichment. People use religious doctrine to suppress the rights of other people.

And at the very least the fact that you've got such high rates of infidelity and divorce can serve as evidence that the morality systems taught by mainstream religions aren't effective.

---

nemu posted...

No. It was likely a good communal binding agent for ancient civilizations, but it's merely taking our already existing morals and trying to filter them through the perspective of having been implanted by a higher being.

tell me since when did human beings have morals???

If you study through evolutionary history, it's always just rising to the top. Being the apex. Humans helping one another during say, cavemen times, was out of a need of survival. Being in a group ensures higher rates of survival than being a lone wolf. That's how the illusion of altruism comes about.

In truth, altruism is NOT inherent to humans nor real. It does not exist because at our very core, we're all selfish beings

no.

morality stems from empathy, and/or a desire to avoid negative consequences, that's why you can observe some kinda morality in animals, especially other apes.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I'm not talking about fringe religions, either. There are plenty of religious leaders who exploit their followers for personal enrichment. People use religious doctrine to suppress the rights of other people.

And at the very least the fact that you've got such high rates of infidelity and divorce can serve as evidence that the morality systems taught by mainstream religions aren't effective.

And out of every one corrupted religious person, there are millions that aren't. Again, it's s*** like this that I hate. You're looking at religion through what's called selective attention and bias. Then generalising it across an entire segment of a population.

And at the very least the fact that you've got such high rates of infidelity and divorce can serve as evidence that the morality systems taught by mainstream religions aren't effective.

Lol. Look up the statistics please. The rate of divorce is much much more higher for non-religious couples compared to the religious couples.

Wutobliteration posted...

tell me what's stopping you from committing crime without a system of law imposed on you??

Empathy for other people and the understanding of the importance of justice and integrity in a healthy society.

Wutobliteration posted...

lol really? Ok let's leave certain religinos like Islam and terrorism out of the picture and focus on Christianity per se. Discuss again

Historically there's nothing inherently different about christian and islamic extremism. Both have been used to excuse atrocities and widescale oppression of people.

---

g0ldie posted...

no.

morality stems from empathy, and/or a desire to avoid negative consequences, that's why you can observe some kinda morality in animals, especially other apes.

Altruism does NOT exist. Almost all psychologists and philosophers and even most athiestic scientists like Richard Dawkins can attest to this. The best argument to this was made by the genetist George Price who clearly proved how evolution serves as testament to our inherent selfish nature.

Unless, you don't believe in evolution now? Hmmm....

IMNOTRAGED posted...

Empathy for other people and the understanding of the importance of justice and integrity in a healthy society.

Historically there's nothing inherently different about christian and islamic extremism. Both have been used to excuse atrocities and widescale oppression of people.

One is used solely and excusively for committing atrocities, the other isn't. And to even say that...I don't think you ever studied history before.

I'm pretty sure you know something called the 'generalisation fallacy' because you're committing it so damn heavily right now I don't know how you're not realizing it.

you have any sources for that?

edit: at post 30

---

Of course religion is needed, but when people think of religion, they think of christianity or a system that believes in a supernatural higher power.

They don't think of secular value systems like the rising intersectionality or feminism which functions with cultish enthusiasm. Because when you don't have faith beyond man to base your values in, you put that faith into man and society.

If this is true why are there plenty of religious people with bad morals and plenty of non religious people with good morals?

---

The topic creator is now warned
---

Hexenherz posted...

I think religion gives people justification to act immorally and ultimately that's detrimental to the progression of society.

On who's authority are we basing what is good and bad morally objectively speaking?

Machete posted...

The topic creator is now warned

y i k e s

---

Hexenherz posted...

y i k e s

Yeah. He made a blatantly anti-Islam comment that pretty much negated every argument he has attempted to make here.
---

Wutobliteration posted...

A lot of non-religious people eventually deduce their idea of meaning of life to mean 'just maximise happiness/satisfaction'. Except as we all know, humans have an endless need for satisfaction.

I understand your point of not rewarding volunteerism and selfless acts, and those aspects of religion can be beneficial. But I'm not talking about karma, and I think your point about people who do believe in karma is a bit pointed. The benefit isn't "if I do a good thing, the universe will ensure that good things will happen to me" - it's "if I treat this person well, they're incentivised to treat me well in return, so we help each other out and we're both happy at the end of the day". If you act like a raging shithead, then people around you won't be incentivised to do anything for you. Boil it down to karma if you want, but I think that incentivising positive behavior with social norms that favor positive behavior in return is closer to the idea that "one good deed deserves another" than it is to karma.

I also think you default to hedonism as the default human experience kind of quickly, as if the only logical end to a faithless world is self-destruction. What I'm trying to say is that it's important for people to have standards - they want to get into Heaven, so they lead a pious life and devote themselves to their figure of worship. They want to make the world around them better, so they respond positively to the world around them and work to create positive change. They want to run a marathon every year until they're 80, so they stay in shape and lead a positive, healthy lifestyle for decades. I agree that people without a guiding force will aim to maximise their own comfort and enjoyment, but satisfaction comes from meeting your own standards at the end of the day, and religion is not the only standard that inspires positive behavior and morality in people.

---

Guide posted...

It's a nonsense argument. This would imply irreligious people don't have morals, which is plainly untrue. I'll side with the people who care about people.

No it doesn't. You can be atheist and still abide by the morality of God, without believing He is the source of morality.
---

I don't think religion is specifically, but people are tribal by nature. They want to be part of an identity and to feel included. Religion used to be one way to keep a group cohesive. Nationalism is another. Skin color is a third, and of course baby more exist. If people don't believe in God, and they don't believe in the state, then where they choose to put their faith is going to be some other ideal, movement, or collective.

It would be foolish of us to assume that the negative behaviors brought about by organized religion would suddenly vanish if you got rid of religion. Those are human behaviors and will continue to exist, those people will just find different reasons for doing it.

---

oh i see, tc doesnt want a discussion, he just wants shitty gotcha attempts

its funny how despite being religious, he is himself a shitbag itt

---

It's needed to control those who wouldn't feel fear and comply with orders from a real world authority.

Wutobliteration posted...

This is one argument often used by religious people (if disregarding the existence of a higher being as true or not). They say regardless of that, religion is still important in maintaining law and order in society. Matters like lust/sex, greed, crime, lying, slandering etc...

In fact, that's also one of the theories going around on how religions like Christianity was even adopted by the Roman Empire in the first place.

Religion was not just a belief, it was also a way of connecting people into a shared set of moralistic values and governing them by it, even if that meant by way of fear (if you do this, you go to hell eg.)

What do you guys think?

EDIT: I'm looking to discuss just the idea of religion as a means to govern society. NOT about whether God is real or not yadayada. That one is another topic by itself

No, we have TV to teach us morals now

---

I wouldnt say its needed, but regardless of what you think the reason this country works is because we opted to follow the model of something like faith

No. But it helps some people who use it as a positive and would be more scatterbrained without it. I feel like those people aren't any lesser than a non religious person.

Some depressed religious people shit on atheists or non believers just cause they can find happiness without God

And some atheists are depressed as fuck and act like happy religious people are the idiots for finding something that actually works for them.

There's dumbasses and immoral people on both sides. I could find more examples, but eh. No one cares

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

No. But it helps some people who use it as a positive and would be more scatterbrained without it. I feel like those people aren't any lesser than a non religious person.

Some depressed religious people shit on atheists or non believers just cause they can find happiness without God

And some atheists are depressed as fuck and act like happy religious people are the idiots for finding something that actually works for them.

There's dumbasses and immoral people on both sides. I could find more examples, but eh. No one cares

Eh, I can always respect someone who recognizes that on both sides of the fence exist morons of all shapes and sizes

https://youtu.be/Zt5gLf455Q8

---

RedJackson posted...

Eh, I can always respect someone who recognizes that on both sides of the fence exist morons of all shapes and sizes

Just gotta give everyone a chance. The cousin I respect the most is religious and I have/had plenty of atheists friends. As long as you respect me and the rest the people you're around, it's all the same endgame. Which is, creating a better environment for those around you.

---

No. Religion is hardly a guarantee of good morality, and often its a cloak or an excuse for people to do shitty things.

---

this topic is so stupid and TC has to be like 10 years old

---