Phaseolus

What you say is interesting though some what flawed in my opinion. You believe that the majority of people at some point in their lives question their beliefs, but your very statement implies that that this is a temporary phase...May be the reason it is transient is because the need for a belief is so powerful that it ultimately defeats any form of doubt. You may argue that societal/cultural pressure/expectations has a role in this, but what about the more liberal parts of the world?

The very fact that an overwhelming majority of the world has always subscribed/had to a/a religion/belief system through out mankind's history, through the past 200,000 years of cultural and societal evolution is testament to fact that it can't.

Phaseolus

Could you please also give me some examples of the secular cultures you mentioned..thanks

Phaseolus

"I believe that a simple faith in a higher power is something that everyone believes in, they just define it differently. For atheists, perhaps science, knowledge and the universe are a higher power"

Thats a good point you make but I think you generalize the term higher power. Science in its state of progress today, to use the popular American quote "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell" compared to the concept of god in all his invincibility and limitless power when it comes to providing personal answers for most people. God can do any thing, even the most bewildering mysteries and toughest trials can be explained. Science's ability pales in comparison...You see what I mean..belief in God as the higher power is far more convenient for most people which makes the choice a no brainer..^_^

Phaseolus

This would be ideal ofcourse, I would appreciate some examples.


I agree 100%

GX

"Higher power" is a highly personal, unique, subjective concept for every individual. It is nevertheless quite ubiquitious. That was my original point. You seem to be saying that you prefer that "science" wins out over "God" in the pantheon of ideas. Why is that? I personally do not feel that they are mutually exclusive

pseudonous

I don't disagree. In fact, I only meant this to show that it is temporarily possible.

Here I do disagree. Just because the overwhelming majority have subscribed to a belief in a higher power through out mankind's history does not necessitate that condition. Consider that the majority also subscribed to many beliefs that are not widely held today i.e. crazy people are possessed by spirits, the world is flat, droughts are caused by gods etc...

As for examples of secular cultures here is a link to a list I found on the internet: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html In addition to this list I am also under the impression that France during the revolution became for a time predominately atheist. To my knowledge the French coined the term atheism at this time. Also, I recall hearing there was a time in ancient Greece when people stopped believing their gods were real and took the stories as works of the poets. Admittedly, I would have to do a bit of searching to try and substantiate this claim. Maybe someone else has the information handy and can comment on it. If not and you are interested I will see what I can dig up on it. I'll stop here for now as it seems sufficient to establish the possibility.

__________________
"One is most dishonest to one's god: he is not allowed to sin." - Nietzsche

PsiCop

I don't think the answer to that question would necessarily be simple. First, we don't know all the many forms "religion" might take; we only know those specific forms which have happened historically. Not every possible religion has presented itself. It IS possible that some as-yet-uninvented religion MIGHT be extremely beneficial to us, IF it were to come along.

Since we have never experienced all the possible forms of religion, it is literally impossible to answer this question.

Having said that, it's possible to answer a slightly different question: Would the world be a better place, without the religions that currently exist?

There are some complications here too, because ... let's be honest about this ... religion has brought about some good, which should not be quickly dispensed with. For instance, historically the notion of a hospital as we know it, is largely a product of medieval Christianity. Many were staffed by religious folk (monks, nuns, various other oblates of varying degrees of consecration), and some medieval orders were solely devoted to operating them.

That is just one example. Can you really say that we'd be better off without hospitals? (No, you can't really say that atheists would have built them too, we just don't know if they would have or not.) We all know the horrors inflicted on humanity by religion, but the benefits are just as real, if not as prominent.

What we can say about the benefits vs. the atrocities, though, is that the beneficial aspects of religion tend to present themselves either in individuals or in small groups, whose religious affairs are limited to themselves. The atrocities are caused by large groups working in concert, or by the desire of religious groups, of any size, to impose their religion on outsiders.

Now ... this brings us back to my initial observation, which is that since we don't know all the forms religion can take, we can't say if we'd be better off without it. We can now see that a beneficial religion -- if there is one -- would operate on an individual or small-group level. It would be one which is either not communalized, or is targeted to a small community. It would also be one which is NOT missionary in nature (that is, it has no desire to spread).

Is such a religion possible? There are non-missionary religions in the world. Among them is Judaism. The same might be said of many religions in history, including many forms of Hellenic mysticism, especially of the Orphic variety (e.g. Pythagoreanism). I'm not aware of any historical violence caused by Pythagoreanism; they were a peaceful bunch that kept to themselves. There have also been other religious groups that never affected others at all.

This rambling response to your question is not really much of an answer (because I don't think it's answerable). But it should give some food for thought for anyone who's interested.

Phaseolus

Oh no Im am definitely not taking sides. I think you misunderstood, My intention is to comprehend this very human phenomenon... The need to believe in a higher power, rather than complete mental self reliance of the individual.

By the way your last statement is very subjective.. could you please specify which concept of god you are referring to, yours or that which is predominates at present?

Phaseolus

You make a valid argument, but let me present you with an imaginary situation which I would like you to asses with a little empathy. 500 years ago, there lived a farmer who had a large family and toiled his little patch all day in the hope of providing the basic nessecities for his loved ones. The only consolation he had in his tough and dreary life which infused him with the strength to wake up every morning was an unwavering conviction that GOD was looking after his lot and a promise of paradise in the afterlife. Now which realization do you think would affect him worse.. that the world is not flat but round or that GOD was and is a figment of his imagination. You see... As i was telling GX.. The concept of god is too convenient and will be forfeited very reluctantly if ever. I hope you see my point.

Another question... I am convinced that world in its current state of affairs could never give up GOD/religion but this distinguished pattern of rising materialism/atheism in proportion with wealth..like in Europe and in America to some extent (I know it is not universally applicable, the middle east being a prime example) is perhaps an indication that at some future point the possibility could be feasible? To put it simply.. do you think an easier life style eliminates the need for GOD?

Phaseolus

I agree with the possibility of new religions arising in the future, we are after all still a fairly young species with vast potential. But I question your claim stating the possibility of this beneficial (Non missionary, non communal etc) religion ever being realized. Do you really believe it to be within our nature (long term) to conform to such a concept? You give Judaism as an example..but dint they kill Jesus Christ?

You also mentioned small groups that keep to them selves, perhaps many of the major religions we know today initiated similarly but as numbers grew they transformed into the officious entities they are today. A pertinent example (in my opinion) of this phenomenon is the Hindu caste system which was implemented with the intention of segregating individuals into alloted working classes to streamline the economy. With the passage of time you know of the abomination it has metamorphosed into.

Do you believe that this pattern could eventually be eschewed? Do you think it is in our consciences, in our primal natures?