Have we moved past the need for religion in modern society?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Religion has often been used by societies as a moral standard and a way to impose rules that people are inclined to follow, often under threat of punishment by god(s). The question posed today is whether or not we as a society have moved past the need for religion. Polls show that religion is on the decrease in both attendance and practice so it appears that many people are starting to agree with this premise. Are they on the right path or are they misguided?
- Introduction1.1 Resolution1.2 Key Terms
- Rebuttals2.1 Section-by-Section2.1.1 The Function of Religion2.1.2 Morality With and Without Religion2.1.3 The Need For an Atheist Future2.2 Summary
- Constructive Arguments/Analyses3.1 Answers To Big Questions3.2 Purpose And Community3.3 The ‘Need’ Hasn’t Changed
- Conclusion
- Citations
I’d like to thank my opponent for opening up the debate and any voters for taking the time to read through this. To begin, I want to take note of 5 key problems in pro’s speech.
- They fail to define any key terms, most notably ‘need’.
- Their argument looks only at the use of religion in moral instruction and the stability/formation of past nation-states and ignores any further potential benefits
- Their argument portrays religion as a boogeyman from which all intolerance stems and insists that an atheist society (not a secular society as will be defined shortly) would not have this problem.
- They don’t give a single citation
- The fundamentally misunderstand the resolution (as explained by 1.1)
- Religion as a moral standard used to create and uphold society
- Religion's role in injustice
- The benefits of an atheist society
- The ability for religion to answer big questions that science can’t (Clashes with pro arguments #1 and #3),
- The utility of religion in giving a sense of purpose and or community in one’s life (Clashes with all arguments from pro), and
- The fact that any ‘need’ for religion that once existed at all continues to exist today (Builds on con arguments #1 and #2 and clashes with all pro arguments).
- Need (noun): A physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism[1].
- Religion: Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
- Society: A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.
- Atheist society: A society that acts in accordance to what would be logical if atheism was an undeniable fact and if all members of the society were/should be atheist. Does not necessarily mandate or enforce being an atheist.
- Secular society: A society that does not act as though any religion is true nor acts as though atheism or agnosticism is true. It's a society that respects and builds itself around the right of every individual to practice their own religion so long as it doesn’t harm anyone.
- Morality/morals: A doctrine or system of moral conduct/of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour.
2. Rebuttals
- Religion as a Moral Standard/Part in Creating and Upholding Society
“We can all agree that religion is often used in society as a moral standard by which people are expected to live their lives. It is a convenient and easy way to quickly teach people the rules of your society without needing any justification. ... However, this leads to lots of issues in regards to logic and moral standards. For instance, if someone bases their entire moral system off of what a god(s) tells them what to do, then what happens if they lose faith in them?” -Paragraph 2
"They now have no basis for their entire morality and could feel no moral obligation to follow any of the rules that our society runs on. If the only reason I had to not steal something was because god(s) told me not to, and I stop believing in god(s), then why shouldn't I steal? We are seeing more and more people everyday turning away from religion so this issue, while very extreme and rather rare, could become a common occurrence." -Paragraph 2
- Their claim that religion is a bad way to teach morality and discourage certain actions because the loss of faith may cause those bad actions is a blanket statement that misunderstands the nature of morality and has given no evidence for their claim that the loss of faith would cause lawlessness. This means this argument has no ability to undermine the function of religion by proving the negative effects its continued existence has and does not prove pro's position.
- Even if #1 in this list is completely untrue in every way, their argument is contradictory, because it would show the loss of religion has significant consequence and, even if in no other way than avoiding those consequences (and believe me, there are many other ways), religion still serves a considerable function for 84.4% of the population and thus we have not progressed past the need for it. This then supports con's position
- Religion’s Role in Injustice
"Another issue that has arisen ...is what if god(s) command something that is morally reprehensible? ... Homophobia, slavery, transphobia, sexism, racism, all things justified by the Bible that without it people would have a much more difficult time trying to rationally justify and thus make into law. Religion has been used to permit things that might have been acceptable to a society hundreds of years ago, because it allowed uneducated people to act and function within society, but now it is doing the opposite. Permitting uneducated people to act outside of what we consider acceptable in society by advocating for homophobia, slavery, transphobia, sexism, racism, etc." -Paragraph 3
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted." -Paragraph 4
- Claiming that religious texts support intolerance disputed whether the texts are in the Quran or the Bible, and citing the use of those texts to justify exploitation as evidence that they wouldn't have exploited or would have had a more challenging time doing so is a claim we are given no evidence to believe and it ignores the fact bigotry will always exist and bigots will use any excuse they can get their hands on to be intolerant. Biblical texts have been mistranslated to support the prejudicial agendas of the translator[3][4].
- Even if everything in #1 in this list is completely untrue, this argument gives no substantial reason to believe the function/desire that religion once fulfilled is no longer present or fulfilled by something other than religion. It's an argument for different resolution in it's entirety.
- The Benefit of an Atheist Society
"The best proposed alternative is a secular society that bases its foundational morality off of logic rather than religion. Teaching people to blindly follow authority, while enticing to most governments, is not how we should run a nation. That is how we get to the current point we are at today, divided. By teaching people that they should live life thinking about other people and give them reasons as to why we don't permit certain actions we will reach not only a more educated society but a more morally acceptable one." -Paragraph 4
- This argument doesn't prove we've moved past the need for religion. It talks about how we shouldn't blindly follow authority and use logic as opposed to bible passages to support the things we tell others not to do, and both of these things are true, but neither are contradictory to con's position. You can tell your kid that incestual relationships are bad because they result in several problems, especially when having children, due to the biological nature of incest, but once you're done that, you can still say it's also condemned in the bible. They aren't going to suddenly have sex with their sibling if they stop being Christian.
- The claim that religion results in 'blindly following authority' relies on assuming religion is 100% false. If religion is true, it is not 'blindly following authority' to think that the opinion of an omniscient and omnibenevolent deity should take precedence in terms of your behaviour when they literally can't be wrong.
- The argument assumes that the removal of religion would inherently result in a more educated/moral society. They give no reason to believe this and, the mechanism they give when they say it would 'lead to a more educated society' is fully consistent with the existence of religion (see problem #3 and #4) by just giving anyone who would like to know the scientific answer along with the religious answer. It isn't hard (see #1 in this list).
Throughout 2.1, I gave compelling arguments showing all the claims by pro are untrue and good reasons that the arguments by pro fundamentally misunderstand the resolution, the mechanisms behind problems in society (e.g. prejudice), and even their own arguments. All arguments from pro were irrelevant to the resolution in part or in full and choose to ignore other possible functions of religion(i.e. pro argument #1 assumes the only function of religion is in moral teaching and upholding society).
- Answers to big questions
Almost everyone in the western world in a position that allows them to reach the higher tiers of Mazlow's heirarchy of needs has questioned if there is a deity, if there is an afterlife, if there is any purpose to life, if morality is objective, etc... While these aren't questions that con aims to answer, these are questions that cause significant distress for those who don't have those answers yet[12]. Science can't answer them either. There is no way to prove the existence or nonexistence of the afterlife, of a deity, of ultimate purpose. Famous great scientists like Einstein or Darwin were both agnostics who admitted that they did not have answers to these questions[13][14].
Religion is, without a doubt, the only thing that answers these questions for many people. Religion serves as a force for good in the world by providing people with comfort, with purpose, with the belief that their life has ultimate value, with the belief that being a good person fundamentally matters, and the list goes on. This is a critical function of religion that, as said before, can not be replaced by science. Trying to prove atheism is quite literally attempting to prove nothingness, and arguments for atheism will always leave you at agnosticism. It may then be reasonable to presume that there is no deity equally as much as it is to presume that it is unknowable, but nonetheless, the lack of religion would leave the vast majority of Earth in a limbo from whence existential crises have no resolutions. To the question of "Does anything matter at all?" without religion, while not for everyone, for MANY the answer would be "Who's to say? Who knows?"
Religion then serves a critical function in providing comfort in the face of existential questions and providing answers to those questions based on one's beliefs. - Purpose and communityStatistics show that religion increases quality of life[9][10], and citation 9, referencing multiple other sources itself, explicitly points to the sense of purpose and meaning as one of the main factors. It also points to social support in and regular attendance to houses of worship/companionship with other members of the religious group are a considerable factor in determining one's quality of life. It's easy for pro to say that "Even if you are secular you can still get together as a community and help people through hard times," but it's very clear to con that, based on this evidence, secular people aren't doing this.
Rarely in our lives do we go somewhere regularly for a positive purpose. While school and work prove to be consistent social environments and we can make friends that we take from those environments and regularly interact within them, these are not environments that foster a sense of community nor a positive purpose. You aren't at school or work to have fun or to help one another, you're there to learn or to work, and that is the critical distinction. Religion then acts as a necessary piece of the puzzle in keeping people connected, and, if the sheer amount of charity work done by churches is anything to go off of, a piece of the puzzle in ensuring that everyone is helped when they need it. When your employer says "We're a family", you cringe and feel anxious about your future satisfaction when working at your job. When your priest says "We're a family", you believe him, and you are taught to love other believers as though they are your own brothers and sisters.
This then shows clearly that religion has a purpose in bringing people together and providing them with the need for community.
Religion also self-evidently provides purpose to one's life. Citation 11 shows that atheists suffer from a similar longing for purpose as theists and yet aren't given an answer. Nihilism and absurdism, both believing that truly nothing has meaning or significance (absurdism taking a more positive spin on it) are both schools of thought that are fundamentally incompatible with theism, because almost every religion has, as a core tenant of their system of beliefs, the belief that human life has value and that there is ultimate purpose to the existence of us all. This then shows that religion fulfills the need for purpose. - The 'need' hasn't changed
Everything outlined by con arguments #1 and #2 are things that have always existed throughout history. The need for purpose, meaning, answers to existential questions, and community was needed by the peasants of medieval England or by the merchants of renaissance Italy just as much as it is needed today. As was stated in 1.1, this resolution can only logically be, by the arguments that pro has presented, that religion served a function/desire and it doesn't anymore. However, for the arguments given above, it seems VERY clear to con that religion does serve a definitive function/desire, and that said function/desire has always been present.
To disagree with the ability of religion to answer existential questions or provide a sense of community is equally as absurd as trying to say that the need for said things it can provide has not been present since the very dawn of religion. The use of religion might have changed, religion may have been used to justify discrimination, religion may have some cons to it, but at the end of the day, it is almost certain that these needs are being served by religion and have always been served by religion, meaning we have absolutely not moved past the need for faith.
4. Conclusion
5. Citations
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need
- https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/2020/percent/all/
- https://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm
- https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm
- https://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-poised-ban-trans-kids-180107255.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAEyTZWmZO0g84-FVhFeeXXYunwcTeW4IWyNvY_Xb93884obHgm4a69M5p4wgWIWucy-SLWqGavLPedhbcfviv-gDIKxc6TC1t_odZu8gOmVL9mChH1ww50LW8l7xv8L2Q0A9Lyh6QRox1GyR3jEP_wmMQEMLhICRcxd6d92gHc-
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-military-ban-trump-administration-ban-on-transgender-troops-goes-into-effect/
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/transgender-healthcare-laws-minors-trnd/index.html
- https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_the_United_States
- https://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/2/2/6622240/paper_5.pdf
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020684404438
- https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/8/242/htm
- https://www.scienceofpeople.com/existential-crisis/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Political_views
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views
“I have enough self respect for my audience that I don’t need to incorrectly define words for my argument to make sense.”
“The crux of your book length response is essentially, religion should be kept because several people use it to enforce things they don’t want to explain or have good reasoning for. That is a reason to get rid of religion.”
“And you denying that religion can be used to justify awful things like homophobia is just plain absurd. Go into the heart of West Texas wearing a pride flag and tell me how the Christians treat you. Religion isn’t necessary for rationally explaining laws but it is necessary for attempting to justify hatred. So, why keep it?”
“My opponent says that it’s because getting rid of religion might lead to people committing crimes since their entire logical reasoning for not [committing] those crimes is now missing. However, we should never worry about the possible blood being shed over hatred being stomped out.”
"They now have no basis for their entire morality and could feel no moral obligation to follow any of the rules that our society runs on. If the only reason I had to not steal something was because god(s) told me not to, and I stop believing in god(s), then why shouldn't I steal? We are seeing more and more people everyday turning away from religion so this issue, while very extreme and rather rare, could become a common occurrence." -Paragraph 2
“If you lived in America in the midst of the Civil War, would you not attempt to free slaves even if it came at the cost of the confederacy attempting to kill you? Freedom and equality for all must be prioritized over comfort for some.”
Forfeiture, and foregone conclusion.
Arguments: Pro has one point about book length replies, and due to his choice to forfeit the majority of the debate, I am not reading things in depth... So leaving this tied (especially in light of the other point allocations). Due to repeated forfeitures, the need to consider arguments is waived if not assigning the argument points.
Sources:
No contest. 20 to 0, and their impacts not challenged by pro.
Legibility:
Con's efforts into organization alone would not take this, but one of pro's rounds was a single wall of text (seriously dude, just separate the separate ideas into separate paragraphs)
Conduct:
Forfeiting the majority of the debate.
A shame that my opponent forfeit. I was looking forward to this debate.
Hoo boy, I managed to submit a solid two minutes before the deadline.
I wouldn’t say that it is inherently against the truth to believe in Buddhism because it just makes you a better person. Our goal in life is to seek happiness and if religious people can accept others while being happy and positive members of society, Why not?
What exactly is reality anyways?
Religion basically form traditions. Are you, as well, telling people across the world to give up their traditions to suit “your way of life”? No?
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory
Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.
Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance
A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.
I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.
Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.
If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?
Religion is a lot more than a bunch of peaceful monks praying themselves. Religion discriminates against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy and apostasy and is a major wall between people and the pursuit of truth. Just consider the incontrovertible scientific fact of evolution. It is of absolutely no dispute to anyone with 2nd-grade biology knowledge, yet we have fully grown people unironically arguing against it because their old book says so.
"If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines"
Excellent point. However, if Jesus really were real, why would he not have foreseen the stupidity of the future generation and given people eternal truth, instead of facts which are subjectively true to only a certain time period? Why give us stupid advice, such as "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'" Matthew 5:27-28
Religion has outlived it's usefulness. As Seneca once said "“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
That is different in essence. That opinion is falsifiable and is harmful to the general society. Those people who "need it" have no need to even hold on to that belief anymore.
However, religion itself doesn't harm greater society. You pray 30 minutes a day? No problem. It only becomes a problem when religious extremists become hate groups, in which their religious twists wanders far beyond what the original prophet would say, hence making their crimes of their own, not the religions'.
Although, an opinion I hold is that the religious figures would react differently, if they are present in the 20th or 21th centuries. Upholding things that are once good things to do but are frowned upon at the moment is not the problem of the religions. They just can't wrap their head around that things change and their hate is not justified by religion. If Jesus, etc. walked past them, chances are that Jesus would educate about them what is better to be done, rather than patting them on the head for shouting racial slurs at random people and oppose vaccines.
"Some people need it, to say the 'least."
Some people also believe that childhood vaccines cause autism.
Some people need it, to say the 'least.
Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1
I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.
Yes I was just pointing out an irony that he argued religion distinguished us from animals as moral people, but now we can abandon the very thing that apparently made us moral in the first place. I do believe that any moral system that does not include God is, at it's core, a system of "might makes right." But that is a debate topic all by itself.
You stated:
"Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness."
I completely agree with you here. And this is where worldview becomes so important. The way that one answers the question of WHY people do bad things determines what solution one arrives at to solve this "sin" problem, so to speak.
With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.
He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.
There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.
People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.
Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.
Rambling. . .
Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.
Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.
Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."
Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
I don't know, this part was actually pretty convincing.
My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.
Ah screw it I'm just gonna accept the debate anyways. Don't want someone to snipe it while I wait for a response lol
I would argue that religion holds the same function that it has always held, that being providing spiritual enlightenment, guidance on how to live a just life, and answers to existential questions. Even if what is considered 'just' by any given religion is enforced upon a society at large, that does not relate to the function of religion as much as it does relate to people enforcing their beliefs onto others. Would you say this argument is consistent with the resolution?
Also I'd recommend changing the title to something more like "Society No Longer Needs Religion" so it more accurately reflects the debate.