Does Religon Show Weakness in Society

  • Thread starter Tom McCurdy
  • Start date
In summary, this poll is mainly for athiests, although I am sure I will get a bunch of theist responses. This is another way of asking do you believe humans will evolve beyond religon. I voted yes. And yes, already today, a lot of civilized individuals have no need for the mental crutch of religion in their lives. Love&peace, olde drunk.

Does Religon Show Weakness in Society

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 59.2%
  • No (atheist)

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • No (theist)

    Votes: 12 24.5%

  • Total voters
    49
  • #1
Tom McCurdy
1,020
1
Is religon a sign of weakness in society. A sign that we are not advance as we should be, that we still must explain our unknowns by superficial means. It seems stupid to us that the ancienct Greeks had many gods like Zeus and Posideon, will that be the case in the future. Will people from the future wonder why we didn't realize that God didn't exist. This poll is mainly for athiests, although I am sure I will get a bunch of theist responses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is another way of asking do you believe humans will evolve beyond religon.
 
  • #3
I voted yes.
And yes, already today, a lot of civilized individuals have no need for the mental crutch of religion in their lives
(I'm talking here of prescriptive, institutionalized religion).
 
  • #4
Yes, most religions have nothing to offer ... philosophy will fare better.
 
  • #5
i voted yes with the assumption that your use of the term 'religion' meant the traditional organizations.

let's be mindful that we all have a personal religion which is needed to steer a course through life.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #6
OK,
I voted for NO, if it is just "Yes or No" with one word..
In more specific: Yes! In some places in the world, religion either by itself or by the systems who controls it encourage to destroy Earth! An Example is the Christianity Churches who support Imperialism, Colonaliasm and Slave trading... [No offend for christians..ok?] and supporting Land-Lords, which make the society "evolve" through secularism..and thus weakened the religion auithority...

Yes Europre benefit from that in some aspects...but they lost the fact that if a religon system is "not good" and was substituted with another, never means that "every" religion should organization should be treated the same e.d ending the society to be "secular" to reduce that rel. organization authoiry...
 
  • #7
Tom McCurdy said:
It seems stupid to us that the ancienct Greeks had many gods like Zeus and Posideon, will that be the case in the future. Will people from the future wonder why we didn't realize that God didn't exist. responses.

a simple thing: Old Greeks are not all the world...even in the old times...did you know how many Monothiests nations where at that time? Generalization of all the world situation about religion depending on just europre "religion evolving" is not valid..i think. :smile:

Polythiesm is "broken" in the face of monothiesm, and studies now show that even "Athiesm" [Which you may wonder how i see it polythiesm] is decreasing in "Muslim world" and increase largely in "Christian World", and monothiest religion in general is increasing in China...No generalization, please
 
Last edited:
  • #8
i voted no, and I'm athiest - well, agnostic, but close enough...
religion may be the stated cause of too many wars and unnessary conflicts, but it certaintally does not show a weakness in society; many of the greatest countries in history were driven by religion - there were not weak.
 
  • #9
I agree that many countries have been driven by religion. That fact does not mean that religion is still not a weakness. Many country leaders have been forced to use religion because of the general moral weakness of the average individual; futhermore, the country leaders usually aren't forced to use religion but have to be religious to become a leader.

I think the problem with countries that don't have strong religious beliefs and aren't successful is that the people are too weak to get along without the religion. They need to be taught and strengthened to not depend on religion.
 
  • #10
control of the masses, right?
But the best leaders in history didn't need religion.
 
  • #11
At their best, religions have been able to inspire talented painters, sculptors and composers. At their worst, as mentioned above, religions have preached intolerance even to the point of advocating killing people who don't believe in the same way. To give atheism its due, Stalin also was a big (atheist) advocate of killing people who didn't see things his way.

I think religions will be with us for thousands more years. I will predict that in another couple of hundred years the percentage of Believers who deny evolution will be as low as the percentage who currently maintain that the Earth is flat.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Mmmm, sounds we use one word while speaking about two or more than one thingys..

So: What is Religion guys? I am not out tracking the thread but it is crucial to continue to agree in one usage of the word "religion"

For me i see as: "Religion" is a system for life from God to humans.
i.e for me :A nice guy [girl] saying nice thingys and order peple to follow, is not establishing a religion, even he is claimed to be "send from God..prophet..messenger..whatever"

This is expanded to contain that the tradition mix with what God [yeah, we assume here that He exists, and sees and hears us now!] IS NOT A RELIGION.
EVEN it is calimed to be called religon be people.

Thus, religion still is not a weakness by definition, but the religon organizations [Which leads to society crruption in many nations, and to the highness in others] and who use the "proper religion" as "drugs" to make the societ "high to the max" IS weakened the society by religion.

Janitor, Evolution theory in its base is NOT VALID, but some branches of it is. it is collapsing widely... [ I will see if i can show some links via the web for that]
 
  • #13
Padford said:
control of the masses, right?
But the best leaders in history didn't need religion.

Well, Genghis Khan was not having a religion [was he good] , others great ones such as Moses , Muhammad , Jesus are
 
  • #14
There is no way there is a substancial number of people who still dont' believe in evolution is there?

Anyone have the percentage?
 
  • #15
Moses said:
Janitor, Evolution theory in its base is NOT VALID, but some branches of it is. it is collapsing widely... [ I will see if i can show some links via the web for that]


please provide links to trusted names in science... not something like timecube
 
  • #16
Tom McCurdy said:
There is no way there is a substancial number of people who still dont' believe in evolution is there?

Anyone have the percentage?

Ok, at least I lived in the middle east for many years, among Muslims there, they do not believe that humans are sons of monkeys or bacteria..they believe that the are sons of Adam [Yeah, i am son of dad Adam as well, and mama Eve :approve: ] They logically argure that if God says a thingy, and it is proven that God said that thingy, any human condicts it , is wrong..[in their words i am saying]

the bunch of links will come, try to "Very Proper" in english [could you read hebrew? or turkish?]
 
  • #17
The arrogance is beyond me. If you little fools and old fools alike only understood. Your responses are out of weakness. Out of unconscious unused mind. Young stupid fools. My answer is YES. For the it is out of weakness that even science is formed. You must create a method for the thing you do not understand. If you understand it, experience it what is there to create? Once the one who unerstood is gone there is a need to fill a void because why? Because you are not experiening what they did.

Understanding creates what is perceived as strength. It is not strength, it is that in pure understanding there can be no fear only understanding because the experiencer is in a pure state of witness which leaves nothing left for fear.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
TENYEARS said:
The arrogance is beyond me. If you little fools and old fools alike only understood. Your responses are out of weakness. Out of unconscious unused mind. Young stupid fools. My answer is YES. For the it is out of weakness that even science is formed. You must create a method for the thing you do not understand. If you understand it, experience it what is there to create? Once the one who unerstood is gone there is a need to fill a void because why? Because you are not experiening what they did.

Understanding creates what is perceived as strength. It is not strength, it is that in pure understanding there can be no fear only understanding because the experiencer is in a pure state of witness which leaves nothing left for fear.

Mmm...ok cool:
Simply, If you PROVED a religion is from Lord God, then people followed that religion. It is a STRONG thingy for society, since their God who knows every things and knows the humans [who without arguing are LIMITED ABILITIES BIENGS, and thus should not be ARROGANT...

The only thingy is investigate: Is that "religion" who leads the society is from "God" and people follow rationally, or is it "A LIE" or/and people follow it just in ingorance and "too much zealotry" such as the Crusaders...or al-Qaeda nowadays...or even George Bush...

I will not be the fool to branch the thread to "which religion is correct" but i say: If "The True Religion" from GOD exists, then people follow that X true religion, it is GREAT to be extremist in that religion, since follow the good rules to the max will make the society STRONGET...and more developed in SCIENCE and KNOWLDGE :approve: [Should i put long white beard next to my words to look wise...or they are ok like that :rofl: ]
 
  • #19
God has never instructed in the history of eternity any race or beings on any other planet to form any religion. This is reality. Out of the universe, out of god comes all things. So if a religion is born out of god which is all things, then ultimately the relgion came from god but not god the subjective as something separate. I said in the past I would never get logical like this but now I am weak. Much of many relgions is true, it is just interpereted incorrectly by those who do not want to understand or those who don't understand. It is not that they cannot understand.
 
  • #20
in this months national geographic, the front cover states "was darwin wrong" haven't read the article yet, but it may back you up, Moses.
 
  • #21
I.
Padford said:
in this months national geographic, the front cover states "was darwin wrong" haven't read the article yet, but it may back you up, Moses.

Yeah, aprreciate it, but i might open i new thread for discussing this issue, to keep this thread on its main track.

Thx for metioning the source, i will added it to my "collection" against Uncle Darwin..

II. At least in my faith...God is mentioning that "for every nation He sent a messenger from Him"...and "people change the origianl message for their own interests and [Cheap] price for this life" ,and they are another "rational creatures" in this planet that we cannot see "simply invisible" they most follow the religion which God oredered them...If they is another "rational being" on other planets...by Logic the "Universe Lord" should "give them the brochure for help". If it is important to mention to us who live on Earth how God deals with other "smart sapiens" He will say it... :smile:
 
  • #22
Moses said:
Thx for metioning the source, i will added it to my "collection" against Uncle Darwin..
Don't waste your time. That article deals with new and very recent discoveries that may alter the understanding of the details of human evolution. In no way does it claim that evolution is wrong or that humans did not evolve just like every other species. Unfortunately, the National Geographic, being a somewhat public-oriented publication, decided to go with a sensationalist but potentially misleading title.

Now that you know, I hope you will not claim otherwise, as many who reject evolution are won't to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
To return back to the core point where the "evolution" thingy pop up here:

Simply: In any X society, if they use "rational" i.e. NOT fake legends and nice stories and un logical methologies to compehened the things around them that goes on. It is good [Yeah i know every body knows that!]

HOWEVER, If that X society Religion contradicts with Logic results.. they have to figure out which one is wrong, IT HAS TO BE ONE in this case. Logically speaking not emotionally...

"True Religion" should not contradic with science in its statements, the REAL currect statements which considered "facts"..If they contradic, since religion comes from "Perfect" resource i.e "The-God", and science not from "perfect" resource , it is abvoius who the society will favor...the resource which Never Will make the society Weak..the Ture Religion...

If that religion is not Ture...they all the argument above is screwed.. and science wins in this case against that "False Religion"... :biggrin:

Does it sounds good?
 
  • #24
Great! All you need now is an objective test of whether that religion is True or not.
 
  • #25
anti_crank said:
Great! All you need now is an objective test of whether that religion is True or not.

Yep! and at the end some body shows me that I make "kinda sense"! :approve:

Anti_crank, we can discuess the objective test in another thread since in this way we can have "more proper" space for it.

Mentioning quickly an objective test before getting back to the main track: The-God should "sign" on it in His own way..call it miracles..proofs wahtever!

If X claimed to be a religion, but it is Not a relgion so X: religion want to be will show a weakness in society, if not in economics or politics for a while, it will show weakness inthe society rationality and its own critical thinking , and this is the worst weakness in my eyes! Remeber that X here is not a religion in this case, evev it is really "well-mixed" with some "true religion staff" :biggrin:

If X is true religion , so all positive thingys about religion remains, and thus it is now a weakness for society! I.E RELIGION DOES NOT SHOW WEAKNESS IN SOCIETY. :smile:

Lol, I love the mentor who deleted the couple of posts before this one, and one of them was mine :cry:, no actually :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #26
Religion has other purposes than to answer questions that cannot be answered through scientific means. To many people, it is a source of inner peace and hope, a guide and gauge to self improvement and inspiration, a social institution for persons of similar interests, an outlet for indirect and direct local-level social intervention and assistance (food banks, homeless shelters, etc.)

Many religions ask us to turn our focus outward instead of inward, to consider the needs of others. This aspect can be addressed by society, but at this point in time I can think of few other institutions that help persons strive to achieve this level of morality (as indicated by the higher levels of Kolhberg's morality scale for instance).

I think that fanatical adherance to fringe ideas in religious dogma can be antisocial and indicates a lacking in society and a weakness in religion.

I really think that if the finer points of religion and society could be melded, many "scientific types" would have less problems with religion and see it as serving a useful purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Your second link is "for what it's worth". The -89% correlation is striking, but I am sure you are going to get the usual protests against using Lynn's reported national IQ averages, and quite correctly. The guys at gnxp often throw out ideas that won't bear the weight of serious investigation. It's a blog, after all, not the arxiv.
 
  • #29
I think that only to the extent in which society is dependent on religious metaphysics is the point when the society is truly, "weak". I myself, am a theist, and i think that religion and science is just simply an offshot of the same supreme being, and I don't think neither is closer to this "God".

But anyway, religion answers different questions and can be said to be a valid branch of philosophy. I hold a belief of an "onion" universe. Its as if science peels of one layer, and there's still many layers to peel to see what really lies at the core of this onion. One answer leads to many other questions, some of which lies beyond the bounds of our own intuition.

And yes, religion and science serves different purposes. But are ultimately the same thing, as something originally intended to benefit society as a whole. Since they share similar objectives, each should realize its own place, and work together.
 
  • #30
Moses said:
To return back to the core point where the "evolution" thingy pop up here:

Simply: In any X society, if they use "rational" i.e. NOT fake legends and nice stories and un logical methologies to compehened the things around them that goes on. It is good [Yeah i know every body knows that!]

HOWEVER, If that X society Religion contradicts with Logic results.. they have to figure out which one is wrong, IT HAS TO BE ONE in this case. Logically speaking not emotionally...

"True Religion" should not contradic with science in its statements, the REAL currect statements which considered "facts"..If they contradic, since religion comes from "Perfect" resource i.e "The-God", and science not from "perfect" resource , it is abvoius who the society will favor...the resource which Never Will make the society Weak..the Ture Religion...

If that religion is not Ture...they all the argument above is screwed.. and science wins in this case against that "False Religion"... :biggrin:

Does it sounds good?

Not really, I don't think that, as a theist, religion and science is like EM and the weak interaction. Religion is by no means from the "perfect" source, unless they meet God for breakfast every morning. Religious scriptures are passed down from generation to generation, and often its meaning is tainted by social construction as well as a more carnal interpretation of something divine.

therefore, religion is not as close to the divine as it seems, and neither is science that far away or entirely humanistic. Unless religion recognize that God works in other areas of society such as science and art, then it will be able to form a "true" religion as you have described.

: )
 
  • #31
Weakness is in all societies, it is everywhere, from physical to social structures, and indeed it is omnipresent in humans. BUT I think religion is vital in binding people with different ideals, together; people who would not usually come together do because of their similar belief in a god or figure or divinity.
Yes, religion may be a means to define what we don’t know, what science cannot tell us - but is not much of science undefined and unproven itself? We cannot be so quick to say religion shows weakness in society – religion gives peace of mind to those who believe it, and to those who don’t it gives them a wondering sensation, makes them think: is it true? And if a persuasive leader, someone of authority comes along and says “God exists,” they’re going to turn a few heads, and make people wonder if they are correct in saying ‘there is no god’.
If we look back into history, for example, we can see how leaders manipulated religion, or lead the masses or the church structure to protect their divine sovereignty. Take the great Napoleon I, for example; he remodelled the Catholic church in the early 1800's so he could strengthen his society, every Sunday he had his priests, ex-monks and cardinals preaching his word, perverting the bible (like MANY, many people have done) to suit his ideals, propaganda infiltrated those people every week, they hear ‘Napoleon is a divine leader, follow him, for he is the second coming,’ once, and they dismiss it – after a year or two of hearing it, they believe it…what I’m saying is that religion brings people together, it is a means to define life and death, and it is a way of getting political support; this masterpiece of either completely false gospel or celestial truth does certainally not show weakness in society.
 
  • #32
Actually, this is the point that i was almost near to come thu before the thread curved a bit away from it,

Faith makes people stronget...and we have "defense mechanism" in the inner self that makes us stronger. Beleiving in a religion could be rational "you have a valid proof for it" and supporting you, which it is a strong tool here to use in life. On the other hand, religion can be like "gambling" which could boost you up or put you down [and the scoiety on a larger scale] if it is build on the blind faith and not on mind-base [Yeah i admit it: alomst almost all religions in the world has this waekness; blind faith].

In the last type i mentioned up, realigion will be a weakness, since the soctiey is not build in a solid dase in faith. Through history we can see some asocietites rock down other socoetites who the second were much materialistics stronget than the first, but the first has its religion is a strong base and role in society, which lead it to overcoming the second society.
 
  • #33
Religion is a remnant of primitivity, not a sign of weakness.
 
  • #34
Does religion make society weak? Well I guess you have to define weak. I really don't know. But maybe I can remind some of the physicists here. We are a collection of quarks, leptons, and messenger particles. That's all we are, and it's futile for people to look for anything more than personal meaning in things like sunsets, marriage, music or anything mundane. Religion may bring up some people's lives a trifle. So if it makes the society weak, it really doesn't matter does it? In the end it won't make a bit of a difference.
 
  • #35
tiger_striped_cat said:
Does religion make society weak? Well I guess you have to define weak. I really don't know. But maybe I can remind some of the physicists here. We are a collection of quarks, leptons, and messenger particles. That's all we are, and it's futile for people to look for anything more than personal meaning in things like sunsets, marriage, music or anything mundane. Religion may bring up some people's lives a trifle. So if it makes the society weak, it really doesn't matter does it? In the end it won't make a bit of a difference.

Now, THAT'S reductionism!

Some of our higher order derived functions may "care" what happens.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top