Surely everyone, irrespective of their particular faith, must have asked themselves this question at some point in their lives?

How would the world today differ if it was one based upon scientific reasoning, free from religion and/or the supernatural? A society that was based upon the values of secular humanism...

For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to use a definition of religion which I have taken from the online version of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (I hope thats acceptable to everyone):

religion

 

• noun

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2 a particular system of faith and worship.

3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

ORIGIN: originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

BTW, I think it is possible to be religious and still enter into an open-minded debate on this issue. At least I hope it is!

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

uh oh - not again.....

Ray - did you miss this thread? http://www.2000revue.com/community/topic.cfm?topicid=869 

Jordan .

Sorry if you think I am covering old ground, Jordan, although I think this thread poses a specific question whereas the other was a discussion based upon a survey. Hopefully we'll get more specific answers..!

This is one definition of secular humanism:

 

An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values

and here is another:

 

the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

The questions presupposes that it is even possible to have a world without religion. But okay. I'll try to just set aside that improbability and consider the question.

I'm trying.

Still trying.

Nope. Sorry. I just can't do it. I can't set it aside.

I believe that there is within every human a requirement for a dose of the supernatural -- or that dreaded word 'spirituality" -- or the sublime. I believe that every human has this quotient in one degree or another. Take it all the way back to any and every civilization known to mankind and there was "religion" as defined above.

This other notion, that science is removed from any leaps of supernatural faith within the scientific method seems to ring false as well. Just the facts, ma'am. Even while developing theories and proving scientific facts, there are lapses in absolute knowledge. There's frequently a "divine unknown" that factors into the scientific process. For example, this is the formula for the make-up of any element. But where that element came from in the first place is scientifically unprovable. Chicken and the egg concepts. The purely analytical scientist can remain agnostic while assuming that one day the answer will be revealed scientifically.  Or he can cleave to a religious notion that there are imponderables beyond man's ability to know.

One story I recall (I do love the anecdotal!) was about a young non-believer in medical school who, when studying the make up of various human cells under the microscope, came to believe more and more in the force of a God and less in the random accidental convergence of the development of each separate cell. How did that single specific cell from the cornea know to be different from that other single cell from a bone of the same human?

Being a man of science doesn't necessarily, or even probably, preclude you from believing in God and/or being religious.

Then there's that old axiom about the person who doesn't believe in religion doesn't necessarily believe in nothing, but rather is more inclined to believe in everything. If the societal structure of religion is broken down -- not that I've done any historical study of this -- it seems to me that what remains is a mish-mash of a few deep thinking intellectual hobnobbing secularists on top of the pyramid ever cogigating their deep thoughts between one another, while their underlings are asea hatching an array of conspiracy theories, obscure pseudo-sciences from palmistry to astrology and phrenology, but with no central unifying cohesion. Roman empire example -- many divergent sects versus the oppressed but burgeoning Christian faith -- well, the proof is in the pudding. What works and what didn't.

Take any of the Communist regimes who tried to ban religion and what did that do? Drive it underground while giving a stronger sense of unity to the oppressed than they would have had without the crackdown.

So, my answer woud be, uh... no.

Susan

PS How funny is it that a religious thread should be so chock full of non-religious and anti-religious themes?

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I would say no.

Religions that can adjust to changing times if needed, provide a cohesive, positive organizing function. Providing guidance and hope. So, as long as church and state are seperate, the world would be better off with religion. Secular humanism is fine with me, I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe but I suspect no religion worldwide could be a problem.  Einstein, I don't think was religious, but he believed in a Creator. It's a big scary universe and if benevolent religion can address that with something beyond mechanistics and humanism it is a plus. 

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Primitive man created the first pre-axial religions to make sense out a mysterious world.

Without religion, there wouldn't have been all those pesky wars, but think of how culturally enriching it's been: it inspires art, it provokes thought (ALL manner of thought, from philosophical to scientific, as Susan mentioned,) and can give life meaning.

Not to mention, the fear of judgement/punishment in some kind of afterlife keep some people living a moral life. Religion helps enforce societal moral codes.

I can't imagine it either. It would have utterly rewritten civilization. The modern world needs religion to exist for the same reasons, if only as an essential debate point to speculate on the way of the world. All possibilites must be explored, and unfortunately a little bit of disagreement is a side of effect to truth seeking.

"Religion helps enforce societal moral codes."

rainbow - that right there is the point I've been trying to make since we started this discussion previouisly. Even if you take out afterlife, it still does. But then that begs the question, would people practice religion if there was no afterlife? Now there's an interesting question.

Ray - no problem about going over old groud, but that that thread was more than just about a survey.

And I'll agree with smeds - even without religion it would be roughly the same. Instead of fighting wars due to religion, you'll be fighting wars due to something else entirely.  

Jordan .

Setting all moral and ethical questions aside for the moment I'd just like to say that, as a musician (albeit not a religious one) the Christian faith (in particular Catholics and Lutherans but not discounting other denominations) has contributed more to the music of the world than any other one source. 
From the Medieval right through to the modern day but in particular Renaissance, Baroque and Classical period music would be reduced to madrigals and some symphonic work (and probably not even that considering that the majority of successful composers were either working within the church or directly patronized by the church).

 Sorry, don't want to turn this into an argumentative essay, just thought it was an interesting aside.

I am likely to miss the main event

If I stop to cry or complain again.

So I'll just keep a deliberate pace,

Let the damn breeze dry my face.

I agree with Raymond, as long as church and state are seperate I think the world is a better place. I personally think that religion, like science, is a form of human evolution that leads to self awareness and has helped people in general overcome their animalistic nature over time, not that everyone needs religion to do this mind you. I do think without religion people in this world would be even more self obsessed, violent, and cold hearted than they are now.

On the flip side I hate to see religion abused by politicians and goverments, which has caused so many problems throughout history and still today. I'm glad religion is a personal freedom for most, it is the people who allow their religion to be abused by their leaders and goverments that concern me.

R_Flagg

Oh, pish posh!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

You know, all of a sudden, I looked at this thread and some others, and wonder of wonders, I just didn't feel like arguing!

As for pish posh, for me it is more like a Scarlett O'Hara "War-war-war! Fiddle-dee-dee." Just lightly dismissive and not so rude.

Maybe later.

But this has been an argumentative week around my zone. It wears me down sometimes.

Tomorrow is Motha's Day and I am a MOTHA. I need relaxation.

Everybody who wants more or less religion and more or less science and more or less pish-posh is on their own. I'm taking a widdle break. I need haircut too, now that I think about it. It's hot and hair is heavy.

My sister just sent me a photo she took on her cell phone down in some wildlife preserve in San Diego.  It's springtime!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Here is a link to a series of articles by Einstein a believer in God, formulator of a little something called the Theory of Relativity, on the subject of God, religion and science.

    Interesting.

 And Oppenheimer another believer and the father of the atomic bomb !

Max Planck the  guy who came up with quantum theory,and a religious man!

 Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Interesting to note these guys were not neophyte grad students, "professors" or second class sophomoric scientists- these are the big dogs.

OK Candy, perhaps " big dogs" is not the most respectful term for me to use for those great scientists, but I was trying to seperate them from the run of the mill types. How about "... they were among the greatest scientists of all time." Better ?.

I remember with a smile your namecalling on Italians ( I am half Italian) and defended your name calling as good fun. That is because I think it is important not to be thin skinned or take things personaly. I know you agree and have a sense of humor and therefor  enjoy things both ways. Dishing out and accepting. At least I think so?. Anyway, sorry if you were offended by " big dogs".  

And, who said anything about intelligent design? Not me. My links predate intelligent design. ??

OK, Candy Man, for ( hmm, I was gonna say for God's sake)goodness sakes don't show a picture of animal fornification and say " I enjoy it both ways" with Silencio in the area !  Things can be taken seriously Candy.

And, I think their testimony does indeed buttress the case. 

At any rate good talking again!

CCC - I think you meant 'name dropping'.

 Anyway, I vote yes to the question, provided that there is in place an alternative way of enforcing and passing on societal values.

And of course it can happen.  Maybe not within our lifetimes, but religion isn't forever.

"watch out for my cousin.."