What is the need of Religion?

[Nadir Shah]

Nonetheless, it still leaves tremendous gaps and holes in your logic. Rene Descartes contributed to rational thought, yet he was still a believer. Might want to reconsider or give proofs to back up your conclusions.

I don't know what proofs you want, but I shall try in due course.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

It's simple. You are claiming that we don't need religion. You have your reasoning for why you believe so. Now, what you have to do is to back up your claim.

My friend, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, not all opinions are correct. So, you would have to show why you believe your opinion is correct.

Since you have not spared any religion, meaning that you have understood them all and categorically reject them all, I would like to discuss your claim by you proving your case using the Holy Quran and Islam.

[IamDZJ]

in the long run, religion in itself (whichever form) provides a sense of determination and congregation.

[inqilab]

Morality is defined by our creator. We cannot base morality on social pressures. That would mean morality is subjective. Whatever society says is right. Becomes right. And whatever society says is wrong. Becomes wrong. This shows human flaw.

Morality should never be subjective. This would mean it is ok to kill and do whatever to others. Based upon what is accepted in our time. And society changes so that would mean values also change.

This is why i said morality is defined by our creator. And islam tells us how to live. Islam is not subjective. But objective.

[tor_khan]

Humans cannot live in a vacuum. Something - whether it's a philosophy or a poltical/social system - will end up occupying the vacuum.

William Golding's Lord of the Flies is a look at British public school boys stranded on a desert island and starting from scratch they create their own symbolic society, with rules, roles, the fear of a "beast" and a protector in the form of demi-godhead (a pig's head in fact that is "worshipped" by flies). The school boys also witness social ills, murder, theft and deceit and the duty to protect the more vulnerable children.

It basically shows that people will try to organise themselves pretty much along the lines of regular society and that they will find external enemies or enemies within and this is essential for the functioning of that society. Critics of religion, often overlook the parallels between the role of religion in society and potential "replacements". Religion thus, fulfills an essential need.

Interesting how despite the US being secular, it still has always needed a bogeyman be they Russians, Cubans, Iranians, Koreans, Taliban etc.

[pir_Rokhan]

Whether there is a need for religion or not, you are not compelled to follow religion. Is this enough, have I answered your question?

No. Having the choice not to be followed does not justify the need for having a religion.

You are answering the question whether there should be a choice to follow a religion or not? . I ,on the contrary, am asking if there is a social, economic, political, emotional, psychological need to follow a religion in the first place.

[pir_Rokhan]

It's simple. You are claiming that we don't need religion. You have your reasoning for why you believe so. Now, what you have to do is to back up your claim.

My friend, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, not all opinions are correct. So, you would have to show why you believe your opinion is correct.

Since you have not spared any religion, meaning that you have understood them all and categorically reject them all, I would like to discuss your claim by you proving your case using the Holy Quran and Islam.

Momin

There is no need to prove, for example, whether there is a need for water or oxygen or food. Hence there is no question of asking this question. If you say that in addtition to these we need religion too then the burden of proof lies on you to prove that relgion is essential for living too.Why are asking us to prove what you beleive to be essential?

If you deem it essential give us rational and convincing arguments.Tomorrow you may claim that you are an angel and then ask us to prove that why we dont believe in it instead of you proving that you got elevated to the angelic status due to ,for example,your spirituality.

[pir_Rokhan]

The need of religion is for us to make have a set of guidance and like another member said Morals.

What is the need of law? What is the need of a Govt?

Scientific knowledge based on rational thinking is the only way for guiding humanity.The religion,itself, is also interpreated in terms of contemporary concepts by the advocates of religion as they fear it obsoleteness otherwise.Hence you see so many interpretations. Ultimately all the religions have to surrender to the discoveries of science and the evolution of rational thought based on it.

Modern state has multiple institutions.State and govt give an organised form to society. Legislature enacts laws for the betterment of society and this is a process - a continuos process. Laws are enacted due to the requirement of a society.

Similarly Judiciary,executive,media all play their pivotal role in the functioning of an organised society.

So if you say that religion is necessary then you have to prove that there are individual and collective requirements in a society which are addressed by religion and cannot be addressed if we dont have one.

Till when will we defend something which has no rational roots? The notion of "true religion" is just a psychological consolation that we give to ourselves.

[pir_Rokhan]

in the long run, religion in itself (whichever form) provides a sense of determination and congregation.

Nothing other than scinetific knowledge can give us true determination.
The real basis of congregation and satisfaction of the gregarious instinct is the concept of human welfare and progress which cannot be guaranteed by any metaphysical concept prone to misinterpretation but by the verifiable and falsifiable facts of science.

[pir_Rokhan]

Nonetheless, it still leaves tremendous gaps and holes in your logic. Rene Descartes contributed to rational thought, yet he was still a believer. Might want to reconsider or give proofs to back up your conclusions.

Many theists console themselves by saying that this and that philosopher were believers and religeous people without knowing that one might believe in a lot of irrational things personally however they cannot dare to present those ideas to the academic world.The collective wisdom of humanity always rejects any claims based on personal likes or dislikes unless the arguments are rational ,logical and convincing.

[pir_Rokhan]

Morality is defined by our creator. We cannot base morality on social pressures. That would mean morality is subjective. Whatever society says is right. Becomes right. And whatever society says is wrong. Becomes wrong. This shows human flaw.

Morality should never be subjective. This would mean it is ok to kill and do whatever to others. Based upon what is accepted in our time. And society changes so that would mean values also change.

This is why i said morality is defined by our creator. And islam tells us how to live. Islam is not subjective. But objective.

Morality is neither defined by creator nor by anyone else.The level of science and technology defines values,virtues,morals and ethics.Stone age,agrarian,industrial,information and space age all have different ethics.

[pir_Rokhan]

Humans cannot live in a vacuum. Something - whether it's a philosophy or a poltical/social system - will end up occupying the vacuum.

William Golding's Lord of the Flies is a look at British public school boys stranded on a desert island and starting from scratch they create their own symbolic society, with rules, roles, the fear of a "beast" and a protector in the form of demi-godhead (a pig's head in fact that is "worshipped" by flies). The school boys also witness social ills, murder, theft and deceit and the duty to protect the more vulnerable children.

It basically shows that people will try to organise themselves pretty much along the lines of regular society and that they will find external enemies or enemies within and this is essential for the functioning of that society.

Critics of religion, often overlook the parallels between the role of religion in society and potential "replacements". Religion thus, fulfills an essential need.

Interesting how despite the US being secular, it still has always needed a bogeyman be they Russians, Cubans, Iranians, Koreans, Taliban etc.

If one argues that it is due to the existence of internal and external enemies that we need religion,then it implies the following:

1) The existence of internal enemy or external enemy is due to the existence of vested interest- which is a politico-economic factor.You cannot get rid of these enemies by embracing or adopting a religion.You can get rid of them by addressing the root cause of their enmity.Which mad person will be against you if you believe in something which you dont really know and which is alleged to be against something which your enemy doesnt know. Ofcourse no sane person will justify religion by saying that the enemies should believe in something which none of them know to stop the enmity.

2) The justification of religion or any other superstitious concept for one's own politico-economic survival or gains is exploitation which should be condemned instead of being justified.

[imb706]

Some have said before that not having faith and religion and such is a privilege, and I certainly agree with that. If you´re homeless or in prison or such, and all you have is Jesus, I totally understand that. Thankfully, I´m in no such situation so I don´t need religion.

[Nadir Shah]

Morality is neither defined by creator nor by anyone else.The level of science and technology defines values,virtues,morals and ethics.Stone age,agrarian,industrial,information and space age all have different ethics.

I would disagree slightly. Morality, ethics and social mores are defined by the elite class and they are designed specifically to achieve the following:

1 Protect their priviliged positions.
2 To stifle any progressive movement or organization of the masses.
3 To mire the masses in illusions and non-existent riches while asking them to be content with what they have got. Religion plays the vital role in this regard.
4 Any notion, however scientific, that challenges the status quo and privilged position of the elite is unethical and immoral.

An example is the behaviour of the Church towards the early pioneers of scientific/rational enlightenment (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo).

[Nadir Shah]

Humans cannot live in a vacuum. Something - whether it's a philosophy or a poltical/social system - will end up occupying the vacuum.

William Golding's Lord of the Flies is a look at British public school boys stranded on a desert island and starting from scratch they create their own symbolic society, with rules, roles, the fear of a "beast" and a protector in the form of demi-godhead (a pig's head in fact that is "worshipped" by flies). The school boys also witness social ills, murder, theft and deceit and the duty to protect the more vulnerable children.

It basically shows that people will try to organise themselves pretty much along the lines of regular society and that they will find external enemies or enemies within and this is essential for the functioning of that society. Critics of religion, often overlook the parallels between the role of religion in society and potential "replacements". Religion thus, fulfills an essential need.

Interesting how despite the US being secular, it still has always needed a bogeyman be they Russians, Cubans, Iranians, Koreans, Taliban etc.

About the notion of vaccum. This implies that there is a side to human existence that needs religion or supernatural beliefs and irrational illusions to satisfy. Nothing can be far from truth.

Another downside of religion is that it holds the human in a contradictory light. One one hand it considers it unworthy of rational thought and hence the need for divine guidance and condones the creation of the clergy, an exploitative institution. On the other hand it considers human to be 'superhuman' to be satisfied by only promises, fear and vague theological myths.