Is religion absolutely necessary any more?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

I've been mulling this question over for some time. Is religion necessary for the survival of the human species? From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd say that humans are programmed for religious belief for a reason. But, has belief become obsolete? Do we REALLY need to believe in a higher power to help us explain the as-for-now unexplained? Is belief a pre-requisite for survival? I think not, but I'm not sure.

I know this is a fairly mundane topic, but it's something I think about quite a bit. What would humanity be like in a 1000 years if organized religion and mystical belief systems died out? Would it be better off? Or Worse?

Also, if you think that humanity would be better off without religion, should those of us who are without belief be pushing that viewpoint? Should we proselytize?

[Skink]

1. Since W attained office I've been reading up on Satanism.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. LOL - I guess Shrub's idea of christianity

would lead a lot of people down other paths.

[Prophet 451]

4. You called?

I actually AM a Satanist (Luciferian variety) and while we have more than a few reactionaries around, it's not a good reason for picking your faith.

[Skink]

12. Dude you're a Satanist?

that is so cool. I'm actually a Socialist but same difference I guess.

[Prophet 451]

13. LOL

Not quite the same thing, even if both of us end up loathed by the very best people.

[jgraz]

76. I'm thinking about converting to Seitanism

Fake meat for everyone!!

[eagler]

3. We are all entitled to our opinions

for some of us religion is necessary

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. I'm not asking on an individual level

Although for religion to die out, it would have to start on the individual or group level.

My question is: is religion absolutely necessary for humanity to survive?

[Lint Head]

5. Bushco's Religion

Bushco's religion worships death, greed, war, narcissism.:dem:

[Prophet 451]

8. BushCo's religion is not Christianity

It is that very peculiar and very extreme sect that developed as a hybrid of extreme-right politics and fanatical religion. You can't remove the political side from it because that is at least half the reason for it's existance. As a student of both religion and history, the development of this new sect is fascinating to watch.

[Prophet 451]

7. No and never was

However, you need to make a distinction between organised religion and people of faith. I am a believer, as it happens but belief was never a necessary trait for survival or to explain the unexplained. "God made it happen" when confronted with the unexplained is really no more convincing an answer than "damned if I know".

Some individuals do find faith necessary. For whatever reason, they may find belief in a higher power the only way to better themselves. I'm not going to judge that too harshly, I'm something of a believer in "whatever gets you through the night" but I do find the idea that humans are incapable of bettering themselves without divine intervention to be somewhat depressing. In some people, religion inspires them to do great things (MLK, Dr. Barnado). In others, it inspires them to great evil (Fred Phelps, most of the Inquisitions) but I suspect those who follow the darker side of their natures only become dangerous because of the organisation of religion, because that organisation allows them to gather followers. If they were just one man ranting at the world, they could be ignored or institutionalised but when they gather followers, they become dangerous.

I'm not sure humanity would be any different in future if organised religion dies off. The fanatical religion that stands opposed to progress is primarily an American disease. While the rest of the world has plenty of people of faith, most of them (with the possible exception of parts of Africa) are less extreme about things. Hell, even the Catholic church now admits that evolution is probably about right.

And proselyitsing is a bad idea. It pisses people off far more than it gets them interested.

[jody]

9. Morality is essential for a society to survive. Religion is one source of morality and it will be

interesting to see what if any current religions evolve and survive in the 22nd century.

Don't count out the Roman Catholic Church, it has survived for two millenniums and doesn't want to make another mistake like Copernicanism.

[poverlay]

10. Great question. My answer is yes. I don't believe that the vast majority of

people are intelligent or educated enough to withstand the loss of the mental support which religion supplies. I also think that they are not capable of sustaining a moral framework without it.

I personally am not ready to give up the friday night all-you-can-eat fish fry, or my dollar store plastic Allah night light.

[Prophet 451]

16. That's an interesting point

The Allah nightlight, I mean. Ever notice that it's almost entirely fundementalism which creates this kind of cottage industry around itself?

[poverlay]

20. Well, once you're immersed in the fundy bubblebath, it's awfully chilly when you first get out.

Much easier to stay in and make the whole world bubbly.

[stillcool]

11. Bernays, Edward Propaganda 1928

Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort
to create or shape events to influence the relations
of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.
This practice of creating circumstances and of
creating pictures in the minds of millions of persons
is very common. Virtually no important undertaking
is now carried on without it, whether that enterprise
be building a cathedral, endowing a university, marketing
a moving picture, floating a large bond issue,
or electing a president. Sometimes the effect on the
public is created by a professional propagandist,
sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The
important thing is that it is universal and continuous;
and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind
every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of
its soldiers.
So vast are the numbers of minds which can be
regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented,
that a group at times offers an irresistible
pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers
are helpless. The group will cling to its stereotype,
as Walter Lippmann calls it, making of those
supposedly powerful beings, the leaders of public
opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When
an Imperial Wizard, sensing what is perhaps hunger
for an ideal, offers a picture of a nation all Nordic
and nationalistic, the common man of the older
American stock, feeling himself elbowed out of his
rightful position and prosperity by the newer immi-
grant stocks, grasps the picture which fits in so neatly
with his prejudices, and makes it his own. He buys
the sheet and pillow-case costume, and bands with
his fellows by the thousand into a huge group
powerful enough to swing state elections and to
throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national
convention.
In our present social organization approval of the
public is essential to any large undertaking. Hence
a laudable movement may be lost unless it impresses
itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business,
and politics and literature, for that matter, have
had to adopt propaganda, for the public must be
regimented into giving money just as it must be regimented
into tuberculosis prophylaxis. The Near
East Relief, the Association for the Improvement of
the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all
the rest, have to work on public opinion just as
though they had tubes of tooth paste to sell. We
are proud of our diminishing infant death rate—and
that too is the work of propaganda.
Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it
does change our mental pictures of the world. Even
if this be unduly pessimistic—and that remains to
be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is
undoubtedly real. In fact, its use is growing as
its efficiency in gaining public support is recognized.
This then, evidently indicates the fact that any
one with sufficient influence can lead sections of the
public at least for a time and for a given purpose.
Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid
out the course of history, by the simple process of
doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the
successors of the rulers, those whose position or
ability gives them power, can no longer do what
they want without the approval of the masses,
they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly
powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda
is here to stay.
It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda
during the war that opened the eyes of
the intelligent few in all departments of life to
the possibilities of regimenting the public mind.
The American government and numerous patriotic
agencies developed a technique which, to most persons
accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was
new. They not only appealed to the individual by
means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—
to support the national endeavor, but they also
secured the cooperation of the key men in every group
—persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds
or thousands or hundreds of thousands of
followers. They thus automatically gained the support
of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic,
social and local groups whose members took their
opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen,
or from the periodical publications which they
were accustomed to read and believe. At the same
time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use
of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the
public to produce mass reactions against the alleged
atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy.
It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent
persons should ask themselves whether it was
not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems
of peace.
As a matter of fact, the practice of propaganda
since the war has assumed very different forms from
those prevalent twenty years ago. This new technique
may fairly be called the new propaganda.
It takes account not merely of the individual, nor
even of the mass mind alone, but also and especially
of the anatomy of society, with its interlocking group
formations and loyalties. It sees the individual
not only as a cell in the social organism but as a cell
organized into the social unit. Touch a nerve at a
sensitive spot and you get an automatic response
from certain specific members of the organism.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html

[longship]

14. A long-time atheist responds.

Up until the late 1970's I would have argued that religion is a zero-sum game for mankind and that it really doesn't matter. But when the loonies, the fundementalists decided that they needed to sieze political power at the exclusion to all other points of view, I've since changed my thinking.

Organized religion is inherently evil. It is not only unnecessary, it is essential that mankind rise above supernatural belief systems in order to survive. If we do survive the 21st century--by all means, no foregone conclusion--history will look back at this time as the moment when mankind struggled mightily and finally triumphed over religious just-so stories. If that does not happen, I fervently believe that it's very likely mankind will extinguish themselves by the end of the millenium through design or through incompetence, and likely because of religious fundementalism.

[Prophet 451]

17. But

Are you speaking of organised religion, the church as a corporate (for lack of a better term) entity or of personal religion which quietly does it's work in the heart and mind?

[longship]

19. Personal religion...

If you ask any number of religious wackos on this planet, especially fundementalist Christians, they will say that theirs was a personal conversion brought about by personal revelation. Some of the most fervently lunatic fundementalists I've ever known will deny to the ends of the world that they are part of an "organized religion".

Plus, where would religion be without organized religion? I would say, no where. I challenge anybody to make a cogent, coherent argument that religion could continue to exist in any way, shape, or form separate from organized religion.

Religion is nothing more than organized ignorance. It's not only totally unnecessary, it is inherently damaging to mankind's future.

[Prophet 451]

21. Hmmm

I take your point about definitions.

"I challenge anybody to make a cogent, coherent argument that religion could continue to exist in any way, shape, or form separate from organized religion."

*waves* Granted, anecdotal evidence isn't wonderful but I came to my beliefs long before I knew there was even a proper name for them, let alone fellow believers. Granted, that may be something to do with following a minority faith though.

I find it curious that you describe religion as "organised ignorance". Ignorance of what, exactly? Not all religions reject science and reason. If science were to prove that the object of my worship did not exist (seeing as it's impossible to prove a negative, I can't see how that would happen but still) then the teachings become a philosophy but the teachings remain the same.

[longship]

25. To believe in the supernatural *is* to reject reason.

I see that you're gonna make me work hard for this...
:evilgrin:
All the more fun. As the Monty Python troup aptly said, "Argument is an intellectual process. It's not mere gain-saying." (or something like that) With that, I must say that I *love* an argument. Just as long as this isn't one of those, "getting hit on the head lesson" threads. ;-)

With all due respect to you and your personal beliefs, I see no future in adherence to a system which requires the suspension of acceptance of another system which has been finely honed through several centuries of rational and logical argument and most importantly, of centuries of practice, test, and retest.

All the arguments for the existance of a superior being boil down to either a tangled web of logic, or of a Gawd of the Gaps. Science does not claim to answer all the questions. It only claims to be a methodology by which questions may be answered. It has many attributes which religion lacks. For instance, it is self-checking. It suspends absolutes, other than adherence to an arguably evolving methodology. But it *is* a methodology which has proved to have the fecundity which religion seems to lack.

Meanwhile, religion seems to remain in the backroads of human thought. (Just my judgement here.) It's stuck with invisible, omnipontent beings, and afterlifes, yada-yada-yada, and a mysticism which everything I've learned for the past fifty years of my life rejects.

Profit 451, you and I probably will never come to agreement on these matters. However you are one who I'd love to meet face-to-face to discuss such matters. I know I'd come away from the encounter with more understanding. Thanks for that.

[Prophet 451]

27. You're welcome

My bone of contention is that religion, in and of itself, doesn't require suspending acceptance of another system. Certain religions or types of religion do, granted, but we're speaking there of a particular approach to faith, an application rather than an operating system (I'm a techie). The OS simply requires a belief in something beyond the visible world, where you go from there is another matter.

It may be that, say, evolution is accurate. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. I'll be the first to admit that I don't entirely understand the science underpinning it but I can go to my local mueseum (or could if the {expletive} council hadn't closed it) and see the evidence. Perhaps that came about entirely independant of any God(s), perhaps it did not. That is probably unprovable but more to the point, it also doesn't matter. We live in a society which is throughly indoctrinated to Xianity so we're used to thinking of a god in Xian terms but religion per se doesn't require that. Proof of one thing (to use the same example, evolution) does not preclude the possibility that a god(s) exist. Even demonstrating that life arose here by happy accident doesn't preclude the possibility. Perhaps that is a God of the gaps arguement, I'm not sure. What I am saying is that belief in the supernatural doesn't, in and of itself, preclude the acceptance of the rational. Example: My other half reads the Fortean Times (a sort of "weird stuff" journal). Every month, there are reports of a dozen or so UFO sightings. Now, UFOs exist, no rational person can dispute that but what they are is another matter entirely. Rationally, I know that 90% of those reports are going to be misinterpreted natural phonomena. 90% of what's left are going to be experimental aircraft or something similar. The remaining 1% are what interests me. Same principle. Rationally, I know that there is no reason to conclude that god(s) exist but likewise, there is no reason to preclude the possibility that they might exist.

For myself, I am a Luciferian Satanist. That means I believe in the existance of a god and I believe him to be an evil monster so I worship Satan/Lucifer. The teachings of the faith include things like compassion (preferably anonymous) and the need to fight tyranny, no matter what the cost. It is partly mystical, I make no apologies for that but it is also personal. I could describe my experiances to you in minute detail but because such experiances are, by definition, subjective, it would be pointless. If it were ever proved that Lucifer and/or God didn't exist, I would probably meditate rather than pray but the teachings remain. I'm not someone who will argue that humanity would devolve into goat-raping without the Big Beard's threats. In fact, I've always been a believer in the perfectability of man (even if it seems like a lost cause these days) but a belief system exists not to tell you that you should be kind but to tell you why it is important that you remember that. In effect, a good belief system (and I'll fully agree that there are many bad ones) exists not to say "thou shalt not" but to show you why you should say "I will not".

[Meshuga]

77. I mostly agree with you

"...a belief system exists not to tell you that you should be kind but to tell you why it is important that you remember that. In effect, a good belief system (and I'll fully agree that there are many bad ones) exists not to say "thou shalt not" but to show you why you should say "I will not"."

Good post and I mostly agree with you especially when you say that if the mystical stuff is proven to not exist, teachings remain and the teachings are what sells my religion to me, not faith.

My religion focus on behavior rather than knowing a deity exists. It is concerned with how we should act with other human beings and it functions to keep me on track towards being a better person. I'm looking to improving myself here in this world rather than preparing for an afterlife.

Most of the time when people say the word religion they seem to have Christianity in mind. Religion is too broad of a term. Some religions want to impose their beliefs and values but other can care less what others believe or don't believe and go about their business without bothering anybody.

[jody]

22. Prove "Organized religion is inherently evil" and I'll prove irreligious groups are inherently evil.

[longship]

26. Read a history book... Any history book.

Read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Gotta love Exodus, Leviticus (neither of which has any support in history). But look at the history of war for the past two thousand years.

I'm sick of people claiming that some sky fairy said this to me, so I have to kill you. Mankind's history is rife with this bellicose bullshit.

It all has to end, or it will be the end of us all.

[jody]

50. Prove "Organized religion is inherently evil". n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

35. I don't think organized religion is necessarily evil

It can be used to further evil, but religion itself is an abstract concept that doesn't hold traits like good or evil.

I do agree that if we don't do something, religious fundamentalism will have grave consequences in the future.

[NMMNG]

15. Necessary for survival?

I really don't think so. But there are plenty of things that aren't necessary for our survival that we keep around for other reasons (emotional security, personal enrichment, sense of community, etc.).




Also, if you think that humanity would be better off without religion, should those of us who are without belief be pushing that viewpoint? Should we proselytize?

If that's what you wish to do and are comfortable with then by all means do so. I myself despise evangelism/proselytizing when it is foisted upon me and would never be inclined to do it myself. Typically only if somebody asked my opinions (or in an environment like this where the sharing of opinions is anticipated) would I give them.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. I abhor proselytizing

If someone asks, I generally won't even tell them about my atheism. But, it's hard for any movement to gain traction without some sort of marketing. The Blasphemy Challenge is a good example of what I'm talking about. Although it doesn't specifically ask religionists to give up their belief, it does show that it's okay to "come out of the closet" with one's atheism or agnosticism.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. No proselytization

I think spirituality is part of our nature, and believe that we are in the midst right now of evolving into a higher consciousness. I don't know that organized, formal religions will be needed in this higher realm of consciousness, as I feel a lot of our perceptions will change--in fact, they are changing right now.

But each person has their own path, their own perspective. If someone truly and sincerely believes there is no need for a God concept, much less religion, far be it for me to argue in its favor. I believe the power of thought is such that a non-God reality will appear for these people.

All I ask is that non-believers leave me alone to my beliefs, and I'll leave them alone to their particular concepts.

[jody]

23. What ayeshahaqqiqa said!

:thumbsup:

[cosmik debris]

24. I asked a similar question a while back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=83678

I got a variety of responses. You might find it interesting.

[jgraz]

28. There's not much evidence that religion is an adaptive trait

...though it may well be a perversion of other traits that did lead to better survivability, such as a desire to explain our surroundings or a tendency to trust parents and other elders. True religion (as opposed to mere tribalism or superstition) has only been around for 5 or 10 thousand years -- a fraction of our existence as a species. There's no reason to assume that this particular trait will still be around in another 5000 years.

We've already seen the decline of religious beliefs in most modern, information-based societies. My guess is that continued progress in science and communications technology will speed this decline. I woudn't be surprised to see salvationist religions go extinct within a few generations.

[varkam]

29. I think Dawkins argues that...

religion is a by-product of a child's tendency to believe whatever their parents tell them - as you mentioned - which is an adaptive trait.

[jgraz]

30. That's probably where I got the idea

Falling asleep while listening to audiobooks can leave you with a lot of fuzzily-sourced random knowledge.

It is possible that religion itself was adaptive in the days of continual tribal warfare. Something that would impose strong hatred of enemies and reduce the fear of death could be helpful to any group seeking to expand their power and territory. But it seems that there would be so many better ways of achieving the same result without the horrific waste of time and resources that usually accompanies organized religion.

Edit: i before e except after c

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. Interesting

I made the assumption that belief was something evolutionary. I've seen several studies that show (at least partially) that superstitious belief is hard-wired into our brains.

An interesting read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html

I'm not sure how much credence to put in Boyer's arguments, but the idea that we are hard-wired for superstitions is not a new one.

[cyborg_jim]

31. Religion has never been necessary

Otherwise there would be a necessary religion.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

33. But humans seem to have developed a need for belief

The evolutionary process almost had to have played a part in that. What about religious belief and superstitions makes humanity stronger. Why did the "superstition gene" (for lack of a better term) survive this long?

[trotsky]

36. One of the best lines of reasoning I've heard...

Imagine two primitive people looking up at the stars. Caveman A thinks "My dead ancestors are looking down on me" and goes about his business of gathering food and surviving. Caveman B is fascinated by the stars, looks at them every night, spends hours upon hours thinking about them (and wondering why he can't see them during the day), etc. The resources he expends doing this take away from survival time tasks. Caveman A has a selective advantage. Thankfully Caveman B's genes didn't completely die out, and once humans developed agriculture, they freed up time for the Caveman (and Cavewoman) Bs of the tribe to develop technology.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

37. So will modern Type A humans

eventually disappear? How many generations will it take for this trait to disappear?

[trotsky]

38. There's nothing to select them out.

And those with the most fervent religious belief seem to be out-breeding the rest of us.

On edit: there might be a few selective pressures, I guess. Opposition to vaccination would leave their children more susceptible to fatal or debilitating diseases.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

40. So like other unneccesary relics

religious belief is probably here to stay? We don't need our appendix, but it's still around, and there's no way to right now to remove the relic from our genes.

That raises an important ethical issue. If we gain the ability to genetically engineer our DNA to remove whatever causes us to be superstitious, should we use that capability?

[jgraz]

52. Sure there is

Religious people spend an enormous amount of time and resources on things which give them no selective advantage. This should lead to the decline of religion, as we've seen in most European countries. The problem in the US is that the crazies have taken control of the asylum, so being a fanatic grants you many rewards that wouldn't be there in most modern societies.

As the information-based society matures, success will come to those who follow reason and can process complex bits of knowledge. Religion conditions people against this, so they should be less likely over time to be in positions of authority. Sadly, this may signal a sharp decline in the US's influence and standard of living unless we can kick these nutjobs out of our government.

[cyborg_jim]

39. Developed a need?

Hardly. It's always been there.

Praytell, what else is there for the brain to do other than formulate beliefs about the world?

That the process is not infallible is hardly surprising.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. The brain searches for answers

And is satisfied, even with an incorrect assumption. Science can't answer all questions, but it's dangerous to let fundies answer those questions.

[cyborg_jim]

42. Who would you have answer those questions - whatever those questions you are referring to are?

Whenever I hear 'science can't answer all questions' I just find myself thinking, "well, what makes you think they even have answers then?"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

44. Science is our best source for answers

But when someones asks: "What causes gravity?" we don't know, and science can't do anything more than guess (at least right now). In the future, science will have more answers, and we should definitely stay away from superstitious nonsense for our answers.

[cain_7777]

43. No, religion is the bane of humanity and we will be much better off without that nonsense

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. We seem to have done okay with religion so far

As an atheist, I would prefer that religion go away, but it hasn't been our downfall yet. As for the future, I don't know.

[cyborg_jim]

46. Evolution produces 'okay'

That doesn't mean that objectively religion has any benefit. It just means it is has been not sufficiently harmful to prevent our existence.

[kwassa]

47. There will always be need for religion

At any time in human history, there are questions that are currently unanswerable. Religion fills that void, as a form of speculation about the unknowable.

Science may ultimately be able to answer all questions, theoretically, but those questions that remain unanswerable now and in our lifetimes call for something else. This will always be the case, too, that there are questions larger than our ability to answer them, so there will always be a need for religion.

[cyborg_jim]

48. That's a need for answers, not religion

You aren't arguing for the same thing.

[kwassa]

49. Religion is an answer

[cyborg_jim]

51. No, it's a reply

Not all replies are answers.

[kwassa]

53. No, its an answer. Should we go around this loop a few more times?

[cyborg_jim]

58. REWUHGUISHD

Does that answer your question?

[jgraz]

64. No, but it's what I'm naming my next garage band

[jgraz]

61. Gotta agree, religion is definitely an answer

For example:

What's the most damaging concept invented by humanity?
Why didn't we have the internet by the year 1200?
What do some people use as a crutch to convince themselves that life is worth living?

What happened to the World Trade Center?



See? You just have to ask the right questions.

[jgraz]

54. Here comes the god of the gaps

Whatever can't be sufficiently explained by science must be explained by some all-powerful supernatural being. God must be feeling pretty cramped these days, trying to squeeze himself into the few gaps still left open by science.

[kwassa]

57. Why does God have to be a supernatural being?

Seems like a pretty limited notion of God, to me.

And science has monster gaps in areas of the unknown, and always will, because there is no finite limit to knowledge.

[cyborg_jim]

59. Actually the implication is that there is a finite limit to knowledge.

[kwassa]

66. Really? Did God tell you that? Or just imply that?

You really can be funny, cyborg_jim.

[cyborg_jim]

68. As ever you really have no idea what you are talking about

It's a shame you are stuck thinking within the small confines of what you are already confortable with.

Let's see if you can grasp this:

There are true statements for which the truth is unknown and unknowable.

Since I don't expect you to be able to accept that - and indeed I expect you to invoke god(s) - and since god(s) don't seem forthcoming with their divine knowledge I fully expect you to post another lame comment fully demonstrating the smallness of your thinking.

Go on. Prove me wrong.

[kwassa]

70. Oh, I know exactly what I am talking about.

What's got yours all in a twist?

"There are true statements for which the truth is unknown and unknowable."

I have no idea what you mean by this statement, however, so I can hardly contest it. Care to elaborate? More than a little cryptic and lacking in context.

[cyborg_jim]

72. That is yet to be demonstrated

More than a little cryptic and lacking in context.

Cryptic? Haha. Very funny.

X is a statement in logical system L.

X is true or false.

There exist X such that determining the truth of X is impossible using logical system L.

For all logical systems L such X can be constructed.

This implies there is a limit to what can be known.

Unless one assumes it is possible to know things without logic - which I assume is what you contend. Last time you tried to demostrate that you failed. Care to try again?

[kwassa]

74. I didn't fail, you just didn't understand.

Such is life.

I don't expect to ever convince you of anything, and I would consider it a futile exercise to even try.

[cyborg_jim]

75. It is indeed a futile exercise when the only tool you have is to assert, assert, assert

What was it I wasn't supposed to have understood? What profoundness should I have been convinced of?

[jgraz]

63. Are we redefining supernatural now?

Either god can be explained through the natural sciences or he can't. No gaps there. If he can, people of faith should be able to provide evidence. If they can't, their claims must be assumed to be false. If God exists but cannot be explained through natural science, then he is by definition supernatural.

Do you have third option?

[kwassa]

65. Option #3

I'm talking about the "being" part, not the "supernatural" part.

Of course God is supernatural. I don't see him as a being. Or a him. Or her. I think you preusme a limited notion of God, judging by your remarks.

[jgraz]

67. I do have a limited notion of God

I presume that God is limited to a definition that actually qualifies as "existence". If you define God as something sufficiently nebulous that it doesn't actually exist by any normal definition of the word, then you really have faith in nothing.

[kwassa]

69. Fine with me.

[BushOut06]

85. I wonder if two-dimensional creatures beings the existense of three-dimensional beings

I think of God as a part of some higher dimension, one that we simply can't grasp from our point of view. From such a dimension, one could view our entire universe, and our entire timeline, from a unique perspective. A resident of this dimension would appear to us to be both omnipotent and omnipresent. Star Trek explored this with their concept of the "Q Continuum".

I don't really consider it supernatural at all - merely a force of nature that we can't possibly understand from our perspective. It would be about as futile as a two-dimensional being trying to understand our universe.

[eagler]

55. Religion willalways have a place in every society,however

religion itself can always be poisoned by the mind of man.

[Evoman]

56. The mind of man does not poison religion. Religion poisons the mind of man.

[cyborg_jim]

60. Religion is a reflection of man. Poison or not.

[Evoman]

71. Damn it man....I know that. I was just trying to come up with a witty quote.

Mine was better than yours. Back the heck off ;)

[cosmik debris]

73. You have symmetry on your side

(pun intended)

[Meshuga]

62. Imposing views

"Also, if you think that humanity would be better off without religion, should those of us who are without belief be pushing that viewpoint? Should we proselytize?"

I think that the major cause of problems from religious groups is their need for proselytizing and their attempt to impose their views on others because they think humanity would be better off accepting their views. Religion would be pretty harmless without them trying to force their views and values on others.

We don't need another group doing the same. Unless you are in a debate and you have to express your opinion on the subject or if some missionary attempts to save you.

That's my two cents.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. Either it always will be, or it never was, and all but at most one religion never were.

Any religion which is untrue is unecessary. It may be that one of the religions currently practiced is true, and if it's one of the many that states that practicing it is desirable or necessary then that religion is necessary. If, as appears to be the case, none of them are, then no religion was ever necessary.

But it's more or less certainly not the case that religion used to be necessary and now isn't.

[kiahzero]

79. Yes

Humanity needs stories as well as heterogeneity of value.

If you're actually asking if humanity absolutely needs belief in the supernatural, that depends in large part on what you belief to be "supernatural." Some things that one might consider to be "supernatural" might seem to be perfectly natural to another.

[jgraz]

80. Does humanity really need this type of fuzzy thinking?

"Some things that one might consider to be 'supernatural' might seem to be perfectly natural to another."

Once again, if we can't agree on basic English words, we really can't have a serious discussion. "Supernatural" has one basic meaning: that which cannot be explained by natural law. "Natural", on the other hand, has many connotations, including the relatively minor one you're using: ordinary or unexceptional. You're not making an argument, you're playing word games.

[cyborg_jim]

81. Where else can god hide nowadays but in words?

[kiahzero]

83. I don't see it as fuzzy thinking at all.

I see it as clearly expressing the fact that what seems strange or unusual, and thus inexplicable, to one, may not be to another.

To assume that words have singular meaning is to completely miss most of what people are saying. Then again, I might just be bitter because I've been reading legal decisions that have used two opposing definitions for the same phrase without the judges even noticing they're doing it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

82. Religion, no, in my opinion.

Spirituality does not need organized religion, although contrary to popular belief here, there is some good now and then done by churches. My parish has a food pantry and clothes "closet" that serves over 10K people a year.

But in my opinion, even if we did away with religion we'd figure out other ways to bind ourselves to one another. I think we need tribes and today's society is just too big.

[Dervill Crow]

84. I think you nailed it.

I've been reading these posts, most of which would be over my head even on my best of days, and trying to formulate an idea of why I personally need religion. It is simply to feel less alone.

My religion isn't particularly organized, though.