´óÏó´«Ã½

Religion is like any other social institution, and can be used for peaceful or violent ends. Religion has historically been a promoter or focus of violence, in almost all cultures and nations. Modern nations have compartmentalized religions, forcing (yes, forcing) religious groups to subordinate their beliefs and practices to the nation state. Personally, I have no doubt that if the laws of Britain or the US stopped forcing religous tolerance, open violence would begin again within decades. But certainly religion has also produced many peaceful and truly saint-like individuals.

Religion is not like any other social institution for the simple reason that it claims knowledge of the wishes of an invisible supernatural being

Define religion NobleDee.

Has anyone noticed that we have two threads under the one name?

Nobledebee

Do you not accept the reality of things you cannot see?


Graham

Two threads. Yes, I too noticed that, but the other one appears to be invisible now, maybe it doesn't exist.

-----------

And well, just for the sake of it, let's say, belief in God does not necessarily imply religion!

I mean, Does belief in God lead to religion?

I guess Nobledee has never heard of the three estates, or the belief that the roles of nobility, clergy and laborers were indeed seen as ordained by god. Or the belief by the US founding fathers that they were building a society based on "self-evident truths" or natural laws, or that their creator endowed people with those rights.

Flippancy is not a replacement for dialogue.

Getting a definition for religion is notoriously tricky.

My own - "a social system of compensatory beliefs or practices based on supernatural beliefs or assumptions."

By supernatural, I just mean that the system depends on the proposition that there is some objective reality that cannot be captured by physical descriptions.

By Compensatory, I mean that the belief or practice makes up for a perceived deficiency in human nature or experience.

I think a religion needs to be social - a lone prophet does not constitute a religion.

The definition is a modification of Rodney Stark's. One advantage is that Dawkins and Kyle Paisley could both agree to it. The definition makes no assumption about the perceived deficiencies and compensations. Are they illusory or real? Are they healthy or unhealthy? This model can easily accommodate insights from Durkheim, Weber, Smart etc.

On the other hand, it assumes that human behavior can be described in terms drawn from economics (which is why I modify Stark's version slightly).

G Veale

dsanthony

"Flippancy is not a replacement for dialogue"

I'm just wondering, but whose 'flippancy' are you thinking of?

Graham (I'm referring to your comments on two threads)

This is only an opinion, but I think I would add one comment to your definition of religion, and that is that 'religion' often seems to emphasise a particular set of rituals (for want of a better phrase) by which the human practitioner or celebrant might reach or access the supernatural mentioned.

It is for this reason that I think many evangelicals argue that Christianity is not a religion, and while I don't particularly like to apply the description 'evangelical' to myself, I have a large degree of sympathy with them.

Of course to be fair, we all have (evangelicals included) our own set of non-ritual rituals!!

As someone who spoke against the motion, my argument was that religions are ancient belief systems which separate people into tribes. On the island of Ireland, those tribal identities have generated animosity and conflict for centuries. In our religiously segregated schools, one of the first things that a child learns is which tribe he or she belongs to. Our culture and our history are dominated by the sectarian struggle between Protestantism and Catholicism.

That is why I welcome the decline of religion in Ireland, as described by Malachi O'Doherty in his book, Empty Pulpits. The less influence religion has in our lives, the better chance we have of escaping from that age-old sectarian confrontation which has blighted so many lives and claimed so many victims. When religion has lost its grip on our political system, we shall move forward into an era of secular politics where sectarian rivalries will no longer distort the issues. An era when the apartheid in our schools will finally come to an end. Of course we shall still have problems (employment, pollution, clean energy, etc) but they will be sensible problems, not the pointless sectarian wrangles that drag on and get us nowhere. Roll on the day!

Les
Great speech! I can just hear "Land of Hope and Glory" playing in the background.

Peter
I think religion often leads to ritual. But so North Korean Communists have rituals and Quakers don't.
Humans seem to need ritual as part of everyday living. It gives meaning to life(PD James often draws reference to the importance of ritual in her novels).
Jesus participated in ritual - Passover for example. He did criticise the idea that ritual was of any moral or salvific value.
Personally I don't like ritual in worship. But I wouldn't want to legislate against it, unless it became an obstacle to the Gospel, or became the goal of church life, rather than a means to a specified end.

G Veale

Les
Re-reading, just realised that I should have added a smiley. I'm assuming that was part of your speech, and I really did mean that it sounded good.

GV

Hi Graham:

Responding to your comments on the other thread of this thread, you say that justice, tolerance, compromise etc. are the ends for which we aim. I would say that they are both means and ends. Indeed, in my view life is mostly about means. There are really no absolute ends, or at least they will never be achieved (that would be a perfect world!). It is the search for and imposition of 'Utopias' that create havoc and destruction.

These liberal values differ from dogma in that they are tentative, sceptically held and subject to frequent revision. A tolerant notion of live and let live implies that you are entitled to your values or lifestyle as well as me and that for you, at any rate, they may be right. A dogma implies that I am completely right and you are completely wrong and need to be 'converted'. It has a dangerous certainty that liberal values by their nature don’t possess.

I like your version of Christianity because it does not demand complete obedience but, on the contrary, implies an individual search for truth. That's a good thing. A bad version of Christianity, and there's a fair bit of it about, imposes an authoritative and intolerant doctrine on all its followers (and tries to do it with the rest of us!).

As William indicates in his summary at the top of this thread, Eamonn McCann, speaking for the Opposition, delivered a Marxist response to the motion (Belief in God is the Way to Peace). He said that the true enemy of peace is exploitation. When one country exploits another, or one class exploits another, violence is the result. In fact, although an atheist, he went so far as to say that religion was often a great peace-maker (which provoked some facial expressions of surprise and disgust from his team-mates!). He also defended Islam vigorously, saying that the accusations of human rights abuse were Western propaganda to cover their expropriation of the oil fields.

Speakers on the Proposition side, notably Stephen Williams, then expressed their agreement with what he had said. So for a time it looked as if the debate would end in premature general agreement and no clash of opinions would occur.

Fortunately, Belfast Humanist Group member, Terry Moseley, launched an assault on the writings of Moses, regaling the audience with details of all the war-mongering, fanaticism and slaughter that the alleged Master of the Universe allowed his 'chosen' people to commit. Since the Bible is a holy book in all three religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, this line of argument stirred up some controversy and the debate livened up again.

Perhaps someone should have pointed out to Eamonn McCann that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist fanatic who comes from a wealthy background. His terrorist fanaticism is not easily explained as a product of exploitation. Instead, he seems to think that he has a divine mission to destroy the infidels.

Les,

Good point.

Les:

Yes, Eamonn took a reductionist approach, explaining conflict in economic terms. However, in my view Humanists should avoid another kind of reductionsim, which is to see all conflict as religious in origin. Yes, it has been on balance a negative force. But economic, ethnic, racial, political and political factors all contribute to division and wars around the world. only when people have bread on the table can they adequately contemplate eternity.

Theism is not the path to peace, but neither is atheism. It may help by eradicating religious division, but by itself it is not nearly enough. It won't feed the starving, remove exploitation, heal ethnic division, strengthen human rights or establish democracy.

Brian

Post 16 is a thoughtful and helpful comment on the subject which has encouraged me to respond to what I otherwise find to be too broad a question i.e. "Does belief in God lead to peace?"

Faced with a question like this I find myself wanting to ask, what is belief? Which God? What do we mean by peace? (For example international disputes, or next door neighbour fall outs) and I find that you have highlighted some of what I have been thinking.

I would prefer to say that theism or atheism may not be the path to peace, but can agree that 'bread on the table' is of great importance.

Good post.

Brian,

Indeed, it would be unwise of Humanists to claim that religion is the cause of all wars and conflicts. "The root of all evil", to use the lingo of these parts. As you say, there are many reasons why people fight each other and religious difference is only one of them.

That said, however, it is still worthwhile pointing out to believers that their religious ideologies can and do have malign effects. I regard the tribal animosity between Catholics and Protestants on this island as one example of the malign influence of religion. The apartheid in our schools, which has perpetuated sectarian division for generations, has no other source than the tribal attitudes which religion fosters. There is no educational or social rationale for it.

Religious people tend to think that they are maintaining a social institution which does nothing but good. They are wrong on that score and they need to have the opposite case put to them at every opportunity. How else can we escape from this sectarian rut?

Les, i think your last paragraph is fair enough.

If religious people are of the view that religious institutions can only be a source for good and not evil, they are wrong.

I'm not sure how many religious actually do believe that, but if they do, it should certaily be challenged.

However;

"religious ideologies can and do have malign effects. I regard the tribal animosity between Catholics and Protestants on this island as one example"

Do we really think the politico-religious divisions in Ireland are "religious ideologies"...

Surely they have more to do with the politico-religious divisions of the early modern period, and little to do with the actual "ideology" underlying those religions.

I suspect that, once again, the argument is that religion dividies opinions, therefore it is malign. This is clear in your next paragraphs in which you argue that religious education is malign...

the implication is that division in itself is malgn, and not the conflict that can sometimes be a consequence of division.

Is it really malign that we all think different things, and that we may wish to gain a particulartype of education, for example, which others may not? Is this malign in and of itself

Surely it is the conflicts which may then arise, which in m view have far more to do with political and territorial divisions. Religious differences are simply a convenient peg on which to hang a conflict which arose because of complex politico-socio-religious factors.

I don't doubt that there have been religious elements of the conflict....mainly those elements whch constitute the points of division itself.

But division itself is not neccessarily a bad thing, particularly if we all believe different things.

It is when this division is embittered by political infusion that it becomes a problem.

"There is no educational or social rationale for it (religious education)

What if you want to learn about a particular religion, and according to the ethos of a particular religion? What you mean is that you don'taccept the rationale for it.

I.E., you don't accept that it can be a good thing to learn about a religion in accordance with the ethos and sentiments of that religion. But others do. Why should you wish to impose a hegemony on learning.

In Post 19 BI wrote: "What if you want to learn about a particular religion, and according to the ethos of a particular religion?"

Education should concern itself with teaching about religions, not with inculcating a set of religious beliefs. Our children should be educated about religions so that they can live in the same society and understand different outlooks. Segregating children has the opposite effect. Segregation carries the implicit message that there is some reason not to associate with those others, that they are different from our side and that we need to band together against them. Education should contribute to social harmony by being inclusive, not to social division by being segregated.

Religious doctrines beyond the items taught in a common curriculum should be a matter for the home and the parents, or Sunday school. There should be no state funding for that kind of indoctrination.

Religiously segregated schools are on the same moral footing as racially segregated schools. They have no place in an open, harmonious society.

Bernard:

It is you who wish to impose a 'hegemony on learning' by insisting that children born into a particular religion should attend a denominational school. Their religious belief, if they have it, is an accident of birth. If they were born Muslims or Jews, they would probably be Muslims or Jews.

To reinforce this accident of birth is to deny the child the right to choose its own worldview. instead, the child should be taught about ALL the major lifestances, including secular ones.
Then let him make up his or her own mind.

As Oldredeyes says, this approach should also enable the child better to understand 'the other' religion. For prejudice is fed by ignorance and defeated by knowledge. Segregated schools in NI have not taught children about 'the other religion', have they?

How can this possibly be 'imposing a hegemony on learning'?