Re: The usefulness of religion (believe, virtual, Christ, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I genuinely believe that the Ruling Classes throughout history, while themselves skeptical and secretly non-believers, use religion and the structure of prevailing religious organizations in whatever ways support their own underlying agendas. Power, control, economic advantage --these are facilitated by religious belief. This is revealed by analyzing behavior and also admitted in writing, on occasion.
But theoretically, is this not, in practical terms, better than the chaos that would result if there were no religiously based controls and prohibitions? Everyone will not magically become intellectually capable of rational thought if religion were abandoned.
It is observable in the thought processes of exceptionally stupid people that if they did not have some sort of religious mythology to control their behavior, their behavior might be much more destructive.
This is, no doubt, a very pessimistic view. But is it accurate?
Yes, it is accurate, although religion has been misused/abused by many individuals/groups/factions throughout history. Napoleon Bonaparte, who certainly was no Saint himself (pardon the theistic reference), summed it up quite well in the quote below....
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
I genuinely believe that the Ruling Classes throughout history, while themselves skeptical and secretly non-believers, use religion and the structure of prevailing religious organizations in whatever ways support their own underlying agendas. Power, control, economic advantage --these are facilitated by religious belief. This is revealed by analyzing behavior and also admitted in writing, on occasion.
But theoretically, is this not, in practical terms, better than the chaos that would result if there were no religiously based controls and prohibitions? Everyone will not magically become intellectually capable of rational thought if religion were abandoned.
It is observable in the thought processes of exceptionally stupid people that if they did not have some sort of religious mythology to control their behavior, their behavior might be much more destructive.
This is, no doubt, a very pessimistic view. But is it accurate?
no it is not accurate.
in a lot of ways it is not accurate.
Yes, it is accurate, although religion has been misused/abused by many individuals/groups/factions throughout history. Napoleon Bonaparte, who certainly was no Saint himself (pardon the theistic reference), summed it up quite well in the quote below....
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
Napoleon Bonaparte, who certainly was no Saint himself (pardon the theistic reference), summed it up quite well in the quote below....
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
I think that in modern western societies, welfare may have replaced, or at least assumed a co-equal partner status with religion, for the task of tranquilizing the have-nots.
What is welfare if not the bribe the successful pay to the unsuccessful, to keep the latter from robbing the former?
because it contains so many sweeping inaccurate generalizations.
"ruling classes are secretly non believers"
"exceptionally stupid people"
"religious mythology"
"chaos would result"
" not intellectually capable of rational thought"
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraZetterberg153
I genuinely believe that the Ruling Classes throughout history, while themselves skeptical and secretly non-believers, use religion and the structure of prevailing religious organizations in whatever ways support their own underlying agendas. Power, control, economic advantage --these are facilitated by religious belief. This is revealed by analyzing behavior and also admitted in writing, on occasion.
But theoretically, is this not, in practical terms, better than the chaos that would result if there were no religiously based controls and prohibitions? Everyone will not magically become intellectually capable of rational thought if religion were abandoned.
It is observable in the thought processes of exceptionally stupid people that if they did not have some sort of religious mythology to control their behavior, their behavior might be much more destructive.
This is, no doubt, a very pessimistic view. But is it accurate?
I think that in modern western societies, welfare may have replaced, or at least assumed a co-equal partner status with religion, for the task of tranquilizing the have-nots.
What is welfare if not the bribe the successful pay to the unsuccessful, to keep the latter from robbing the former?
From my own observations, and not something I'm backing up with data, I think the role of churches in American doing things like feeding and providing health care for the poor has been lackluster most of the time. Even growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, when there was more of a crusading nature to religion (hence, Billy Graham), I can't remember very many things that my grandmother's methodist church did for people who were truly struggling...except for a few limited reach-outs to members of the church. On the other hand, there were repeated campaigns to collect money and sent it on to Kenya, with the STATED PURPOSE of conversion. I saw even less of a giving to the poor attitude when I converted to catholicism...at least not in my town's catholic church. The financial campaigns were virtually always about keeping up the church and rectory.
Don't get me wrong. I've also seen churches or "informal religious groups" who did great things. Not sure about now since I no longer live in the area, but the Catholic Charities Of Richmond had some wonderful community programs for refugees that, from what I saw, had no hook. I had a group of friends in Colorado who spent one morning a week working at the local soup kitchen feeding the poor. Admittedly (literally) some of them did it as a means to socialize with their friends. But there was at least one couple who went far beyond that one morning; they delivered meals on wheels for the elderly several days a week, and if there was some sort of charitable event going on, they were likely involved...that one couple was truly dedicated.
I guess what I question is based on the generosity that christians in this country like to claim, are they following through with an appropriate level of donations. My experience has been that generally the answer to that is no. What is an appropriate level?
I think that in modern western societies, welfare may have replaced, or at least assumed a co-equal partner status with religion, for the task of tranquilizing the have-nots.
What is welfare if not the bribe the successful pay to the unsuccessful, to keep the latter from robbing the former?
I would say yes, but I think Western Society keeps and perpetuates a have-not population for purposes of a "full cycle" economy and/or may consider them more benevolently. They can be welcomed to emigrate from countries where they are victims of oppression, including religious oppression. The countries where they are under these conditions on the other hand, may be glad to see them go.
I genuinely believe that the Ruling Classes throughout history, while themselves skeptical and secretly non-believers, use religion and the structure of prevailing religious organizations in whatever ways support their own underlying agendas. Power, control, economic advantage --these are facilitated by religious belief. This is revealed by analyzing behavior and also admitted in writing, on occasion.
But theoretically, is this not, in practical terms, better than the chaos that would result if there were no religiously based controls and prohibitions? Everyone will not magically become intellectually capable of rational thought if religion were abandoned.
It is observable in the thought processes of exceptionally stupid people that if they did not have some sort of religious mythology to control their behavior, their behavior might be much more destructive.
This is, no doubt, a very pessimistic view. But is it accurate?
If nothing else, shared religion has historically been used to unify the masses; a group of rival tribes are more likely to stop fighting against one another if they have an unifying identity (in this case, a shared god)... and more malleable in being used to fight together against a common enemy (one who does not share the same god). An example of this would be Christopaganism: particularly in the middle ages, the Church was low-key fine with pagan tribes and peoples incorporating elements and traditions of their cultural religions with Christianity... so long as they adopted Christian god, too. For those who were a harder sell, like the Saxons, much harsher tactics were employed, but the end result was a unified empire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
