From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?

Author: Critical-Tim
Society
Morality
Religion
Atheism
Materialism

Posts

Total: 103
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I will keep it short and only describe what this forum is intended for. This way I can hear everyone's perspectives before making any statements or presumptions.

This is meant to be from a Materialist view aka non-supernatural perspective, please provide evidence that is evident and not base reasoning on beliefs. Of course, speculation is welcome if addressed as such.

As always, please address your knowledge responsibly by using phrases like "I believe," if you believe; "I saw," if you saw; "I think," if you think; or "This evidence suggests ...," if you have empirical evidence. It is never responsible to claim anything for certain or to be known but rather acknowledge everyone including ourselves, are always learning and discovering new things about the world since much of the world changes continuously. 

We will address questions like the following:
What constitutes a better society and civilization?
Would society be better if everyone was religious?
Would society be better if everyone's religion was unified, and is it possible to ethically achieve this?
Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
What are the pros and cons to society of people being religious vs Atheist?
Will society move past religion towards a more scientific understanding of the world, and would it be better or worse for society?
Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
What constitutes a better society and civilization?
Depends on your moral system.
For Christians, it is wrong to decrease life. Therefore, abortions are wrong, as well as contraception probably.
For atheists, its usually different. Therefore, society that allows abortions would be considered worse by Christians. Not so much for atheists.


Would society be better if everyone was religious?
Probably, but only if most were serious about religion. If a person doesnt take religion seriously and doesnt dedicate himself to religion, he might as well be an atheist. Same difference.

Would society be better if everyone's religion was unified, and is it possible to ethically achieve this?
It is not possible to unite society. Unity is a value of virtue ethics. One of its least achievable values, if I may add. No society on Earth has such virtue. Even Christians divide among themselves.

Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
There would be more abortions, more sinning, more adultery. Religion exists because religion prevents sin. Remove religion, you also remove the purpose it played.

What are the pros and cons to society of people being religious vs Atheist?
In the atheist society, there would be less pain. In the Christian society, there would be less sin and more population.

Will society move past religion towards a more scientific understanding of the world, and would it be better or worse for society?
While science may have answer to explaining things and reasoning, morality is something that science cannot explain. That is because morality follows a system of values. Those values must be agreed upon if morality is to be agreed upon.

Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
Science is flawed, since it is produced by flawed humans. Religion played the role it needed to play for thousands of years. Abandon religion, and you might enter a point of no return where society refuses to go back to religion while at the same time not having anything else to play the role once played by religion.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
Well there would be less people hijacking an airliner and flying it into a tall building while yelling Allahu Akbar.
But then again, if your child is dying from cancer, you wouldn't have an opiate.
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?
I think no. That is because deities are not provable as of now. We can only theoretically deduce whether there is or isn't a God, but we have no physical evidence on whether there is one and how is it.

#5
Debate_man247
Debate_man247's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
4
Debate_man247's avatar
Debate_man247
0
0
4
From a purely materialist perspective, religion may not be necessary or advantageous to the future. Religion can often promote values and beliefs that are not based on pure materialism or facts. It could also lead to unnecessary conflicts and disputes between different religions and belief systems. From a purely materialist perspective, it would be better if people could focus solely on material advancement and ignore religion altogether. However, there is no way to know for sure if the future will have religion or not, as it is a subjective and personal question that can be seen in different ways by different people.
Topic's author
#6
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Will society move past religion towards a more scientific understanding of the world, and would it be better or worse for society?
While science may have answer to explaining things and reasoning, morality is something that science cannot explain. That is because morality follows a system of values. Those values must be agreed upon if morality is to be agreed upon.
Perhaps science doesn't perceive morals the same way that religion does, but science does explain morality in quite depth. Science has explained morality through ways of consequentialism (based on outcome), deontology (based on rules), and virtue ethics (based on intentions). It's very much possible for there to be a thriving atheist society where morals are based on a contractarian policy where morals are based on agreement. Values are things that people value and that is different for everyone. However, there are certain things that are consistent among individuals such as a safe place to live and thrive in society. It is through the process of giving up one's potential desire to harm another for their own benefit because they recognize that by following an agreed upon standard that they will be protected by not harming others and forming a unity.
Topic's author
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
Science is flawed, since it is produced by flawed humans. Religion played the role it needed to play for thousands of years. Abandon religion, and you might enter a point of no return where society refuses to go back to religion while at the same time not having anything else to play the role once played by religion.
I can't argue that humans aren't flawed, but to claim that science is flawed because humans are flawed seems incorrect. Science is a concept it is not a thing knowledge is a thing that you obtain. I understand concepts as being nonphysical and form and yet existing which is what I describe as the metaphysical. Something metaphysical cannot be flawed because for it to have a flaw it means it must exist to be flawed. Though I recognize that concepts are intended to understand the world and if they do not align with the world, you may consider them flawed even though they do not have form. My point is that claiming science is flawed does not seem very insightful or probable. Although I do have a few questions, what role does religion play, what would we remove by removing religion, and is it able to be synthetically produced through alternative means.
Topic's author
#8
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
Well there would be less people hijacking an airliner and flying it into a tall building while yelling Allahu Akbar.
But then again, if your child is dying from cancer, you wouldn't have an opiate.
Do you think it possible that there would be more scientists who are more evidentially basing their research and less people claiming that knowledge is ineffable and therefore we would more quickly advance our technology and be able to cure people of cancer, rather than having an opiate that makes us feel better while the child still dies? It seems rather cruel.
Topic's author
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?
I think no. That is because deities are not provable as of now. We can only theoretically deduce whether there is or isn't a God, but we have no physical evidence on whether there is one and how is it.
I agree, it seems improbable for religion to be a part of the future. Do you think it should or shouldn't be and how so?
Topic's author
#10
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Debate_man247
From a purely materialist perspective, religion may not be necessary or advantageous to the future. Religion can often promote values and beliefs that are not based on pure materialism or facts. It could also lead to unnecessary conflicts and disputes between different religions and belief systems. From a purely materialist perspective, it would be better if people could focus solely on material advancement and ignore religion altogether. However, there is no way to know for sure if the future will have religion or not, as it is a subjective and personal question that can be seen in different ways by different people.
I appreciate you sharing, but you don't clearly address the question you're trying to address or the answer you're presenting:
I recognize that religion may not be necessary for the future, could you explain why you believe this? It seems self-evident that religion promotes values and beliefs that are not based on pure materialism. The whole idea of religion is that it is nonphysical and based on values and it is called a belief. I recognize there is no way to tell for sure if religion will be in the future, I was asking for your speculation and reasoning why. It's evidently a subjective and personal question and obviously is therefore seen differently by different people because the definition of subjective literally means varying between individuals, therefore any question that is subjective will vary among different individuals.
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Science has explained morality through ways of consequentialism (based on outcome), deontology (based on rules), and virtue ethics (based on intentions).
Those are methods of reasoning. They are not morality. Consequentialism, for example, is entirely different for those who place value on life,  or prevention of pain, or increase of happiness. Each of these values produces entirely different conclusions about what our actions should be.


It's very much possible for there to be a thriving atheist society where morals are based on a contractarian policy where morals are based on agreement.
Religion has God. Atheist society doesnt. Therefore, any increased agreement would likely not exist. At best, you would have rule of majority, with minority being in disagreement with majority. God is what makes people more likely to agree, due to God being the judge who knows all. There are individuals who dont do evil only because of the fear of God.

However, there are certain things that are consistent among individuals such as a safe place to live and thrive in society. It is through the process of giving up one's potential desire to harm another for their own benefit because they recognize that by following an agreed upon standard that they will be protected by not harming others and forming a unity.
The problem is that such things are usually not the case. Almost every individual has harmed others at some point in life. While being given protection does reduce individual's desire to do harm, it does not eliminate the desire.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I can't argue that humans aren't flawed, but to claim that science is flawed because humans are flawed seems incorrect. Science is a concept it is not a thing knowledge is a thing that you obtain. I understand concepts as being nonphysical and form and yet existing which is what I describe as the metaphysical. Something metaphysical cannot be flawed because for it to have a flaw it means it must exist to be flawed.
Science is knowledge. Knowledge can be wrong, not in agreement with reality. What scientists say today is different from what they said 100 years ago, and different from what they will say in the next 100 years. That is flaw, inconsistency, where flawed being attempts to produce something flawless, ends up producing flawed science.

Although I do have a few questions, what role does religion play, what would we remove by removing religion, and is it able to be synthetically produced through alternative means.
Religion teaches about God. It strikes fear in people. Fear that they cannot get away from punishment. An individual can escape earthly punishment in many ways. However, escaping God's punishment is impossible. That punishment acts as prevention of evil along with earthly punishment.
Topic's author
#13
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Science has explained morality through ways of consequentialism (based on outcome), deontology (based on rules), and virtue ethics (based on intentions).
Those are methods of reasoning. They are not morality. Consequentialism, for example, is entirely different for those who place value on life, or prevention of pain, or increase of happiness. Each of these values produces entirely different conclusions about what our actions should be.
Consequentialism is not entirely different from those who place value on human life, or prevention of pain, or increase of happiness. In fact, some forms of consequentialism use these values as criteria for evaluating the consequences of actions. For example, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that says an action is right if it maximizes the net balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number of people. Hedonism is another form of consequentialism that says an action is good if it produces pleasure or avoids pain for the agent.
Cited by the following:


Topic's author
#14
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
It's very much possible for there to be a thriving atheist society where morals are based on a contractarian policy where morals are based on agreement.
Religion has God. Atheist society doesn't. Therefore, any increased agreement would likely not exist. At best, you would have a rule of majority, with minority being in disagreement with majority. God is what makes people more likely to agree, due to God being the judge who knows all. There are individuals who don't do evil only because of the fear of God.
It seems like a quite tyrannical way to put it, but I think it's reasonable to assume that some people refrain from evil only out of the fear of God.
Topic's author
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
However, there are certain things that are consistent among individuals such as a safe place to live and thrive in society. It is through the process of giving up one's potential desire to harm another for their own benefit because they recognize that by following an agreed upon standard that they will be protected by not harming others and forming a unity.
The problem is that such things are usually not the case. Almost every individual has harmed others at some point in life. While being given protection does reduce individual's desire to do harm, it does not eliminate the desire.
In the previous example you explained how some people only refrain from doing evil out of the fear of God, that too does not eliminate the desire to do harm or evil. While I recognize your correlation, I do not believe you represent religion as any better.
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Consequentialism is not entirely different from those who place value on human life, or prevention of pain, or increase of happiness.
It actually is.

For example, sometimes to reduce pain, one must destroy life. 

By causing life, one causes pain. 

Also, often happiness and pain are in contradiction. Aborting a fetus destroys its future happiness, but also reduces pain.

Therefore, choosing life over preventing pain results in entirely different conclusions. Choosing to prevent pain over choosing to not reduce happiness also results in different conclusions about what the right action is.

There are many values, such as autonomy, justice...ect. Each value results in different moral conclusions.
Topic's author
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I can't argue that humans aren't flawed, but to claim that science is flawed because humans are flawed seems incorrect. Science is a concept it is not a thing knowledge is a thing that you obtain. I understand concepts as being nonphysical and form and yet existing which is what I describe as the metaphysical. Something metaphysical cannot be flawed because for it to have a flaw it means it must exist to be flawed.
Science is knowledge. Knowledge can be wrong, not in agreement with reality. What scientists say today is different from what they said 100 years ago, and different from what they will say in the next 100 years. That is flaw, inconsistency, where flawed being attempts to produce something flawless, ends up producing flawed science.
You have an interesting way of looking at science. You seem to think that science is not reliable because it has made mistakes in the past. But I want to clarify something for you. Science is not the same thing as knowledge. Science is a way of finding out things, and knowledge is what we find out. Sometimes, what we find out is wrong or incomplete. That does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete. It means that we need to use science more carefully and correctly to improve our knowledge. Do you see the difference?
Topic's author
#18
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Although I do have a few questions, what role does religion play, what would we remove by removing religion, and is it able to be synthetically produced through alternative means.
Religion teaches about God. It strikes fear in people. Fear that they cannot get away from punishment. An individual can escape earthly punishment in many ways. However, escaping God's punishment is impossible. That punishment acts as prevention of evil along with earthly punishment.
That is quite an interesting aspect of religion, no materialist view is capable of expressing something as inescapable as punishment after death.
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
In the previous example you explained how some people only refrain from doing evil out of the fear of God, that too does not eliminate the desire to do harm or evil. While I recognize your correlation, I do not believe you represent religion as any better.
I was just giving the answer as to what role religion plays. If society is better with or without religion, I would say that whats better simply depends on what person prefers. There is no denying that religion causes unpleasant things, such as children fearing God because adults have scared them. 
Topic's author
#20
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Consequentialism is not entirely different from those who place value on human life, or prevention of pain, or increase of happiness.
It actually is.
I don't think you understand what Consequentialism is. Consequentialism is a type of ethical theory that says the morality of an action depends on its outcome. There are different kinds of consequentialism that have different goals for the outcome, such as human happiness, individual pleasure, specific results like money or life, and so on. You can choose a consequentialist theory that matches your values and goals, but consequentialism itself is not a set of values or goals. It is a way of thinking about how to act morally based on the outcome of your actions.
Cited by the following:
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Science is a way of finding out things, and knowledge is what we find out. Sometimes, what we find out is wrong or incomplete. That does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete. It means that we need to use science more carefully and correctly to improve our knowledge. Do you see the difference?
Way of finding out things can also be wrong or deceptive. However, definition of science is "body of facts". Facts can be wrong, that is, incorrect things can be labeled as facts.
Topic's author
#22
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Science is a way of finding out things, and knowledge is what we find out. Sometimes, what we find out is wrong or incomplete. That does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete. It means that we need to use science more carefully and correctly to improve our knowledge. Do you see the difference?
Way of finding out things can also be wrong or deceptive. However, definition of science is "body of facts". Facts can be wrong, that is, incorrect things can be labeled as facts.
I think you may have misunderstood the definition of science. According to the Oxford Dictionaries, science is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained”. This means that science is not just a body of facts, but a method of obtaining facts through empirical and rational means. Facts can be wrong or incomplete, but that does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete. It means that science is always open to revision and improvement based on new evidence and better explanations.
Cited by the following:
#23
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
There are different kinds of consequentialism that have different goals for the outcome, such as human happiness, individual pleasure, specific results like money or life, and so on.
That was my original point. Accepting different values produces different conclusions, even if both cases use consequentialism.

#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
This means that science is not just a body of facts, but a method of obtaining facts through empirical and rational means.
Method that can be wrong. Method that made mistakes before. 

Facts can be wrong or incomplete, but that does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete.
Actually, it does. If science is "study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world...", study can be incomplete or wrong. Therefore, science, being study, can be incomplete or wrong.
Topic's author
#25
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
There are different kinds of consequentialism that have different goals for the outcome, such as human happiness, individual pleasure, specific results like money or life, and so on.
That was my original point. Accepting different values produces different conclusions, even if both cases use consequentialism.
I believe we're at an understanding, this matches up with my point as well. Consequentialism is not entirely different from the virtues that you described earlier. As I was saying, Consequentialism can be an alignment if focused on those aspects, and therefore through science we can have a moral structure similar to a religious one.
Topic's author
#26
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
This means that science is not just a body of facts, but a method of obtaining facts through empirical and rational means.
Method that can be wrong. Method that made mistakes before. 

Facts can be wrong or incomplete, but that does not mean that science is wrong or incomplete.
Actually, it does. If science is "study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world...", study can be incomplete or wrong. Therefore, science, being study, can be incomplete or wrong.
As I mentioned in the citation above, science does not claim to have the final or absolute answers, but rather to have the best available explanations based on evidence and logic. Science may sometimes produce results that do not match reality or that are inaccurate, and therefore the knowledge derived from them may be flawed. The process of science is always striving to produce the most reliable answers based on the evidence and logic that we have at the moment. A system that tries to produce the most reliable and accurate answer with the information it has is not inherently flawed, even if it sometimes makes mistakes. It is just limited by the information it has and does its best with what it knows. Science is such a system. It was not wrong, but gave its best understanding with the available information, which is all it claims to do. Science provides the most probable answer with the evidence and logic it has, which may be flawed, but can always be improved.
#27
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,581
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Science provides the most probable answer with the evidence and logic it has, which may be flawed, but can always be improved.
I agree that it can always be improved. However, it was not yet improved to perfection. What is not perfect, is flawed. However, in terms of morality, there will always be many disagreements due to different people having different values. Science cannot really decide which value is the best, since every person can choose his own value and have different morality based on that value. Science may teach certain morality, but the question is if that will be as effective as religious teaching. Person can have selfish morality, oriented entirely around that person, without consideration for the wellbeing of others.
Topic's author
#28
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I see where you draw this conclusion, but what I'm saying is that the result was perfect given the available data even though it was incorrect. It was the most probable and most reliable response given the available knowledge. Therefore, science can produce knowledge that is incorrect, but science only suggested it was the most probable and reliable answer, so it can still be correct.

If you still disagree that is fine, but this is my last attempt to explain myself.
#29
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,233
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
What constitutes a better society and civilization?
In current social standards, there are indicators that tell us what society is better than others. And I'm pretty sure religions play an important role on it, just see the islamic countries.

Would society be better if everyone was religious?
I think it's not just a matter of religions but what is the role of religions on societies, I mean how people use the religion. It's a very complex issue, because for example christianity is present in several countries but not all the countries took advantage of it for their own progress. To me, the most efficient religion I've ever seen is the judaism because jews have outperform any other society in this world. Jews have shown that they can progress no matter what the obstable may be, they even survived the nazis which is very telling, and their religion had to do a lot with their survival.

Would society be better if everyone's religion was unified, and is it possible to ethically achieve this?
We really don't know. What I can say though is that religions should be as effective for people's lives as it is the judaism. Religions can tell the most illogical stories ever heard, it doesn't matter, what really counts is how people use it for their own progress, socially and economically. Being said that, the least recommended religion to me is the islam, I think I don't need to give further explanations. 

Would society be better if everyone was Atheist?
No. As I said, religions should encourage people to keep progressing. I don't see atheism do the same thing. You can replace religions with another set of beliefs, like new age beliefs, but replace it with nothing would be useless. Even asians, who are thriving economically, believe in something (in Budha) even though buddhism is not a theistic religion (there is no god).

What are the pros and cons to society of people being religious vs Atheist?
Atheism is just a reaction to christianity mainly. At the end atheists are basically christian atheists.

Will society move past religion towards a more scientific understanding of the world, and would it be better or worse for society?
No. Science has deep limitations to understand the whole world. What I see is that religions are being replaced slowly but surely with more secular set of beliefs, like the new age movement or the buddhism.

Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
As I said, the new age movement seems to be a good substitute, but it could be another similar.

Topic's author
#30
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
Would society be better if everyone was religious?
I think it's not just a matter of religions but what is the role of religions on societies, I mean how people use the religion. It's a very complex issue, because for example Christianity is present in several countries but not all the countries took advantage of it for their own progress. To me, the most efficient religion I've ever seen is the Judaism because jews have outperform any other society in this world. Jews have shown that they can progress no matter what the obstacle may be, they even survived the nazis which is very telling, and their religion had to do a lot with their survival.
Do you then believe that a society's religion is dominantly responsible for its success?

Would society be better if everyone's religion was unified, and is it possible to ethically achieve this?
We really don't know. What I can say though is that religions should be as effective for people's lives as it is the judaism. Religions can tell the most illogical stories ever heard, it doesn't matter, what really counts is how people use it for their own progress, socially and economically. Being said that, the least recommended religion to me is the islam, I think I don't need to give further explanations. 
Do you think it is or isn't important for the religion to be based in truth, and why?
Do you then believe that Judaism is better than Christianity, which is better than Islam? By what metric did you evaluate?

What are the pros and cons to society of people being religious vs Atheist?
Atheism is just a reaction to Christianity mainly. At the end atheists are basically Christian atheists.
Do you then believe that Christianity provides something Atheism lacks, and what exactly?

Will society move past religion towards a more scientific understanding of the world, and would it be better or worse for society?
No. Science has deep limitations to understand the whole world. What I see is that religions are being replaced slowly but surely with more secular set of beliefs, like the new age movement or the buddhism.
Can you describe the new age movement and whether you believe it captures what religion has that you believe science lacks?
You said that religions are being slowly replaced by more secular beliefs, would you elaborate?
Do you think science could become a religion if people choose to believe in science?