Robin Ince wrote:Recently, I took part in an "Intelligence Squared" debate at Wilderness Festival in England. The debate was: "The world needs religion, just leave God out of it." Before you go straight to the comments section to start typing your opinion, the debate was not "religion has done nothing but evil" or "militant atheists demand the desecration of all temples," it asked if a decent human civilization without religion was imaginable. So here is my edited speech, unhindered by my usual on stage wild gesticulation and frantic arms:

There are many pessimistic, sometimes apocalyptic, predictions of what happens to human beings when they lose religion.

What of the sense of community?

How will we face death?

What of charity, empathy and altruism?

A strong and fair society needs all these things, but does religion really provide them?

Some agnostic and atheist intellectuals eulogize the powers of religion. Of course, it's not needed for them. They can survive without it because they have read Plato in the original classical Greek, Attic dialect and all, and are financially secure enough not to need the pew, sermon and parish fete. They are thinking of others not as strong as them; how kind, how patronizing.

So what of those societies like ours that are reaping the benefits of fervent religion and the joy, community and altruism it brings...

Ironclad wrote:Yes! There certainly ought be a decent human civilization in the absence of religion, one which keeps those altruistic characteristics. I have a fear though (I'll remove this if it is considered a derail, starting a new thread) - would not the human race simply continue to clan into opposing interest groups and keep fighting? I fear we would, and I don't know how or if we can stop being violent.

Macdoc wrote:Sure the Scanadavian nations are pretty close. 1% in Sweden attend kirk regularly

One percenter.

Some outlaw motorcycle clubs can be distinguished by a 1% patch worn on the colors. This is claimed to be a reference to a comment made by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in which they stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, implying that the last one percent were outlaws. As a result, some outlaw motorcycle clubs used it to unite or express themselves and are commonly referred to as "one percenters". The comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947, is denied by the AMA—who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press, and that the story is a misquote.

According to the ATF they are also known as Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMG).

hackenslash wrote:I'd say that having no religion was almost a prerequisite for a decent civilisation.

What, you think society is civilised now?

redwhine wrote:

Macdoc wrote:Sure the Scanadavian nations are pretty close. 1% in Sweden attend kirk regularly

Off topic, but that reminded me of the renegade motorcycle 'clubs'...

One percenter.

Some outlaw motorcycle clubs can be distinguished by a 1% patch worn on the colors. This is claimed to be a reference to a comment made by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in which they stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, implying that the last one percent were outlaws. As a result, some outlaw motorcycle clubs used it to unite or express themselves and are commonly referred to as "one percenters". The comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947, is denied by the AMA—who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press, and that the story is a misquote.

According to the ATF they are also known as Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMG).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club

OMG? But doesn't that mean something else?

nunnington wrote:One problem here is how you define religion.

I'm pretty sure that researchers in anthropology and sociology don't try to, as it is pretty much undefinable. Obviously, religion is not necessarily theistic, and theists are not necessarily religious; so it seems that 'religion' involves a kind of intersection of some of the following, ritual, shared direct experience, theism, use of texts, various practices (e.g. meditation), moral strictures - but these are not obligatory. In other words, you can have a religion without some of these. For example, if a group of people regularly meet in a woodland glade, do a dance, and recite certain texts, while placing certain plants on an altar, which plants they later ceremonially cook and eat - is this religion? I haven't got a fucking clue.

I was checking a few definitions, and Durkheim's is quite cunning: 'a system of beliefs and practices involving sacred things'. I think it's cunning because he doesn't fall into the trap of equating religion with theism; thus, for example, animism seems to be included in his definition. Yet, isn't football (soccer)? I mean for many fans, some aspects of football are sacred, and might involve certain rituals. I guess it depends on how you define 'sacred'.

nunnington wrote:One problem here is how you define religion.

Quaker wrote:Paul Tillich defined religion as that which is our 'ultimate concern'.

Quaker wrote:I've always rather liked that definition as it speaks to and of all people, and gets to the heart of who we are.

Quaker wrote:I relate to it because there have been times I've been rather agnostic and yet deeply interested in who I am, and what is my purpose in life. In that way of looking at religion all people and societies will have a religion.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Not convinced decent civilisation exists with or without religion. A lot of people suck.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Not convinced decent civilisation exists with or without religion. A lot of people suck.