Religion vs. law

[sobrique]

I'd like to put forward a theory.

For a very long time, the human race has been religious. Regardless on your viewpoint of your religion, it's undeniable, that for the last few thousand years, there's been some form of belief in the supernatural.

One of the key elements of religion, is that of aspiring to be better than you are. If you do certain things during your life, and you aspire to live well, then there will be a reward, often a reward after death. OR indeed, punishment if you're bad.

This kind of counterbalances against the legal system - the religious aspect tells you what you should do, and offers the carrot. The legal system tells you what you shouldn't do, and offers the stick. There's also a bit of overlap in the sticks, too, where religion also declares some stuff as bad, and that you'll suffer if you do it. Conveniently, this leaves room for the things that are hard to prove in a court of law.

But the thing is, the people I know don't tend to be of criminal inclination. This is not because they are bothered about getting caught, and the consequences thereof. They do not do certain things, because they believe they are wrong. Of course, similarly there's 'approximately illegal' things, that I've seen done, because whilst they're illegal, they're also not thought to be 'wrong' in turn. Things like speeding, down an empty, clear straight road, for example, might be a fairly common example, of illegal, but (often) accepted.

So I'd like to put forth the notion, that mankind is not ready for atheism. There are many wise people out there, who have considered the notion, and reached a personal conclusion. However similarly, there are also those who _haven't_ really considered it, they've just ... well, gone along with whatever.

There was a time, not so very long ago, that what you did on a sunday, was go to church. It was the accepted thing to do. As was being seen to follow the intent of Christianity. It didn't always work, but... well, actually, there are many worse ways to live your life, than by following the Ten Commandments.

But I digress. Religion, if believed, tends to lead towards the spiritual, to the aspiration of being greater than we are. The dream of transcendance, that leads to living a better life. If paid lipservice to... well, actually, if someone's pretending to be good god fearing folk, then that's almost as good.

This is not to say that religion cannot be perverted. It has been, many times over the centuaries. Wars have been fought over differences in interpretation. Crusades have been started, because slaughtering the infidel was considered holy. And more recently, we have the Islamic fundamentalist perversions of the faith, leading to suicide bombing and terrorism.

There will always be people who walk willingly into evil. There will always be those who can be lead astray. This is why we have the safety net of law - law is essentially laying down the consequences of certain actions, for those who are not deterred by the general consensus of 'it being wrong'. This does actually tend to correlate quite highly with the prevalent religion - how could it be otherwise, when you have a society believing, or pretending to believe in certain key tenets as to how to lead their life.

It's this, I think, that might be the problem we are starting to see emerging in society today. I'd make the assertion that 'religion' is diminished, and almost negated in modern society. Our new 'religion' is the celebs, and the media. It's the glitz of hollywood, and the iconisation of stars.

But this religion is flawed - it has no structure to good and bad. It doesn't lead the 'average citizen' into aspirations which are good for society. At the end of the day, ruthlessness, malice, and corruption are VERY powerful. If one is prepared to apply them sufficiently, to be prepared to take advantage of every opportunity, no matter the cost to others, then ... well, would it suprise you to find that many of our top 'movers and shakers' in politics and industry are borderline psychopathic?

The drive to power, the drive to succeed, the drive to press onwards, and accept the consequential harm to others, is a very valid and powerful survival trait.

This can only really be tempered, by the collective assertion of 'what is good'. Religion serves as a very useful mechanism to this end. There's probably others, but at the very least, if society as a whole, condemns the 'immoral' then one is essentially forced into that morality, and conformity, by one's very drive to excel.

Different religions have different aspirations. I'd probably go as far as saying that all our current relgions have been over interpreted. Again, they've had bits hacked in, and elements read, to serve the purposes of the corrupt. Their original meaning distorted, to a short term advantage.

Perhaps it's a factor that's needed. But perhaps we don't actually need a priesthood to tell us what The Word of God actually is. I mean, if you got rid of most of the bible, and made the holy book the ten commandments, and a bit of exposition of the intent, I daresay a lot of the evil carried out in the name of christianity wouldn't have been pulled off so easily. It's a bit hard to say 'I have interpreted this holy work, and actually, it says it's ok to go and kill all those funny looking people in Jerusalem' when you've only got 10 lines to 'interpret' and one of them is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Perhaps we should be looking to review, and re-instill beliefs in society. Something nice and simple, and less prone to misintepretation, by evil men. But the effect of religion as a whole, on the growth of our society, I think overall has been a positive one.

Mankind needs the myth. It needs the hope of eternal reward, for a life well lead. The 'average working man' needs his guidance, for how he should live - he's not interested in considering religion, or not, he just wants to conform with a society. Society itself should be supplying the moral constraints of what is acceptable and what is not, and at the moment it is failing.

This myth is the balance, for the fact that is law. This myth is what manages the expectations, and leads the aspirations of the 'average man'. It's what manages the populace, and focusess their intent and objectives. It outlines what is meant, by a good life, well lead. It is used to manage the natural tendency to ruthlessness, to kill, maim and brutalise one's way to glory, by supplying a counterpoint, and a hard to contradict counter argument, for "why should I not take what I can?".

One might even call it myth management.

Comments

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Hello, this is Helsinki calling. This is the vote of the Finnish jury.

Peikko model after perjantai ehtoo?

[necessitysslave.livejournal.com]

ok, I'm confused

What?????

translation

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see you used Intertran as that was how I created the Finnish in the first place.

Rather than say "It appears that Ed is trolling for comments once more", I wrote it in Finnish instead.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Surely that couold also be translated to: Attempting to start a discussion?

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

"Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged."
Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[queex.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's a factor that's needed. But perhaps we don't actually need a priesthood to tell us what The Word of God actually is. I mean, if you got rid of most of the bible, and made the holy book the ten commandments, and a bit of exposition of the intent, I daresay a lot of the evil carried out in the name of christianity wouldn't have been pulled off so easily. It's a bit hard to say 'I have interpreted this holy work, and actually, it says it's ok to go and kill all those funny looking people in Jerusalem' when you've only got 10 lines to 'interpret' and one of them is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

What you have left isn't a religion, though, it's a code of morality. What makes it a religion is the appeal to have faith in that which is inexplicable and unobservable. If you pare away the observances, the creation myth and the prophecy- you are left with a moral code.

A code of morality is good. But what some atheists contend is that codes of morality rooted in religion will inevitably pull what should be the province of faith into issues of morality.

Sunday church-going is a case in point. Regular church attendance has nothing to do with morality- it is an observance of ritual for both the individual and the community. Failing to attend church does not impair upstanding morality. Yet, for centuries, non-attendees were thought of as morally suspect simply on that basis.

You don't even need to construct a code of morality from a religious basis- plenty of philosophers have had a bash at one.

The danger of conflating moral behaviour with religious certainty is that the former should be flexible, as changing circumstances raise new problems and lessen old ones. Moral codes rooted in religion are notorious for inspiring anachronistic interpretations that, in the end, actually become immoral.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I think attending church regularly used to have a moral dimension when more people did it. For some people, notably batty old ones or boring ones, that was the only place they would see anybody, and everybody else could give them some conversation so they didn't go stir-crazy and find out if they needed any help by asking them there.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

A code of morality without incentive to apply it, is a great and wonderful thing.

IF you can convince everyone to spontaneously accept it.

A moral man, might well choose to do approximately the same thing.

But I think the _average_ man, would put the question:

Thug: "So, your moral code, that says 'be excellent to each other'. Why should I?"
You: "Well, it's your choice, but society is better that way"
Him: "Oh yeah. Now, gimme your money, or I'll hit you with this pick-axe"

Vs.

You: "BECAUSE YOU WILL BURN IN ETERNAL HELL FOR BEING EVIL MWAHAHAHAAHA"
Him: "Prove it".
You: "Proof denies faith. But can you afford to take the risk"
Him: "Good point. Here have your wallet back"

A code of morality is a fine and good thing, but ... at the end of the day, it relies ome someone who's already thinking of such things, and inclined to apply them.

Religion, the reward/punishment after death, supplies the incentive to apply a moral code, to someone who might not see 'what's in it for them' otherwise.

[queex.livejournal.com]

A code of morality based on reward or punishment in the afterlife, is a great and wonderful thing.

IF you can convince everyone to spontaneously accept the same interpretation of the same religion.

Fixed. ;)

Even when Europe was a religious monoculture, it wasn't so hot in the morality stakes. Just sayin'.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of religions have a general consensus on the 'not being a shit to thy fellow man'.

Now, ok, I think you're right - even as a relious monoculture, there was still immorality, corruption, and generally people being horrible to each other.

But, again, to the best of my knowledge, and very broadly speaking, a lot of the 'problems' were actually working a gainst the primary teachings of the faith.

Does the fact that a minority ignore 'the rules' preclude the rules from having a benefit?

[queex.livejournal.com]

The point I think should be made is that a code of morality derived from religion is no less arbitrary than one generated from irreligious thought.

What people choose to be the most important aspects of a religious work usually reflects their own politics rather than any higher truth- holy rollers in the US being a prime example. The emphasis on the virgin Mary in Catholicism would not jump out at you just from reading the Bible.

Your objection to an irreligious code of morals seemed to be the perceived lack of authority making it difficult to get everyone to play along- but I'd say there are equal difficulties in getting everyone to accept the same interpretation of a religion.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

I touch on this in my response-post further down (it was too long for a comment) but I would suggest that eternity is a dangerous tool to leave lying around.

While it can be used to "tame" thugs, it has also been used in several religions to justify terrible things. Because what are years of drudgery/days of torment against an eternity in heaven?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't so much meaning the eternity bit, as the risk/reward part, at the end of it.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

You've lost me there completely - I'm a bit rusty on Christianity.

The common read on it (while wrong) was I thought: Die --> Judgement --> Hell/Heaven for ever. This was what I was working off.

The other version I've heard is: Die --> Heaven/Hell until second coming --> Eternal life/Oblivion.

Either way I was working on the basis that time spent in Heaven/Hell is vastly longer than "Real Life".

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I was thinking just that in the bath this morning. Environmentalism seems to be starting to rival celebrity as the new religion, though, which cheers me a bit.

I also think that religion gives people a reason not to lie in bed feeling terrified all day. If many people didn't think everything would somehow be alright, that good people would be rewarded and bad people punished or at least sent somewhere different from the good people (viz. themselves) and that one day they would find themselves somewhere illness and pain wouldn't be able to touch them, they would be terrified all the time. Certainly when I am ill I am tempted to go and join a church.

[necessitysslave.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Green becoming the new religion of the masses and that scares me a bit, for several reasons.

To have no "carbon footprint" you have to go so far out of your way not to do things like take advantage of the streetlights etc. At heart (when taken too far) Green is anti-progressionist. No you can't have that new technology infact letus all give up our cars.....

What is really annoying is that this is based on just about as bad science as "nuclear winter". A model is only useful as anything other than a teaching technique or a thought exercise when it makes a prediction about data that was not used to create said model. Therefore our best climet models should be able to make a good prediction about the weather/global tempereatures/number of cyclones etc. in the future and be judged on them.

However in the short term. No harm. Less polution is good and less wasting of resources better used elsewhere at different times will be good I just worry that bad science is taking us down the route of stagnation/regression.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

What exactly are you saying is based on bad science? Are you talking about the CO₂ link to climate change? If so, then you're completely wrong. The link is extremely well established by very good science.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

I would agree that it's happening AND a "Bad Thing"

While I accept that things have to be done about the environment, moving into a religious phrasing puts us in dangerous territory. Climate science is just that. Science - a notoriously complicated one. Science works by the continual challenging and revising of theories. When it becomes a religion (We have posters at work exhorting us to avoid the 7 environmental sins) it becomes difficult to challenge dogma. This means that resources are being funnelled according to a skewed set of priorities, which ends up worse for the environment!

It seems odd that in the era of most rapid sociological and technological change that people are so pessimistic about our ability to cope with problems. It doesn't help that when improved techniques & GM could increase food production to meet population growth & cheap air travel let's poor communities export food to the world the Green/anit-human movement campaign against them.

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=368
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3612/

[linamishima.livejournal.com]

Environmentalism is only rivalling celebrity as a 'religion' for the middle classes. Active environmentalism by definition often requires greater expenditure to afford such alternatives and associated activism and devotion of time, and this class of people is also the most likely to spend the least amount of time being subjected to media influences.

[ephrael.livejournal.com]

You seem to be troubled by the concept that average people cannot accept a system of morality that does not have a basis in divinity.

Yes, religion is governing our lives less than it did 50, 100, or 200 year ago. This is a good thing. I'm not having the way I live dictated to me by spoon-fed rhetoric, simply because my distant forebears accepted it unquestioningly.
Human civilisation has always had bright peaks (Galileo, Turing, libraries and schools built by public subscription, Médecins Sans Frontières) and dark and dirty lows (gin palaces, slavery, gangs with knives, crack).
Yes, a coherent moral and legal structure is necessary. No, it doesn't have to come from religion.

May I recommend Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

There are exceptions to every situation.

Are you trying to tell me though, that the vast majority of the human race, have made the same thought process, and have reached the same conclusion?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

And to follow on, I see _lots_ of examples, of people on the streets, ignored. Of people acting as thuggish louts, 'because they can'. Of parents, leaving their children ignorant, and nearly feral, because they can't be bothered, and don't see why they should take care of them
And of people actively looking to take advantage of benefit systems, and petty crime, because it's 'only hurting the shops/government'.
And of people who don't really see any need to do anything other than take full advantage of 'the other guy'.

Now there'll always be people who choose that way, and there will be always people who choose to be moral.

But the middleground, is filled with people who are swayed by arguments. Some will listen to the unprovable argument of 'behave or you go to hell'.

And if some do, who would otherwise not, surely that makes it all worthwhile?

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I do not have the slightest problem with religion per se. However, it seems to attract to its organisational structure people who are after a power trip. The net result of this is people like Osama Bin Laden. Religion WAS the opium of the masses. Now the less bright and the less decent have no opium, so they kick the shit out of each other (and you and me) instead. I think I'd prefer to bring back hanging before bringing back mass religion. Saves time, in the long run.

[necessitysslave.livejournal.com]

Interesting that you use Osama Bin Laden as an excuse not to bring in more religion. Osama is only able to be in power in the first place because the people he preaches to are repressed or have connections with the repressed. I personally think he and his ideals stinks but he is more of a symptom of a situation brought about by American policies and could quite easily be replaced by someone less media friendly and more effective.

However I, personally, know or have known a fairly good sample of the british Catholic Churches hierarchy. And although I have not always seen eye-to-eye with all of them on every issue I would rather have any of them in charge of our moral rules than any of the popular culture figure heads or heads of state that I have heard about or read about in the last 25 years. Moral guidelines as preached by George Bush, Tony Blair, even Gorden Brown? These are the popular (or not so popular) leaders who are having extensive influence on the structure and substance of our laws.

And as for the last point about hanging, I ask you the question I always ask people who support it. Will you be the one to open the trap door whenever a judge/jury tells you to even if you are convinced the person is innocent and just a scapegoat for a wounded community? In America where your stint on death row can be upwards of 7 years people are still found as not guilty post mort-em. I would not want that on my conscience.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I hardly think British Asians such as my former neighbour from Beeston Leeds, the July 7th suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer, can be said to be oppressed, and links with the oppressed were mainly of their own devising. I lived in Beeston for 12 years, and whilst it ain't the nicest place, the Asian population for the most part have less to worry about than the whites, given that their youth 'keep the streets' as it were. Any group of young whites wandering around were more likely to be 'oppressed' by the Asians than vice versa. Afro-Caribbeans generally got thumped by both. Osama Bin Laden may have originally had a small group following him because of oppression, but now he is followed by thousands, possibly millions, who see him as a religious warrior, NOT because he is in any way fighting to make their personal lot a better one.

Who would I put in charge of our morality? Well, almost no politician in this country since the venerable John Smith died his untimely death, that's for sure. Myself, probably, in the form of a benign dictatorship! Seriously, I'm afraid I coudn't agree with you about putting anyone in the upper echelons of the catholic church in charge, as long as said church holds its worldwide anti-contraception stance - world overpopulation is a huge problem (and a rant for a nother day) and will not be solved by people putting their heads in the sand and saying contraception goes against god.

Could I pull the lever/press the button? I honestly don't know. A few years ago I would have told you I would struggle to kill a fly in cold blood (although in a blood-rage temper I have knocked people out cold in the past, so I know I am capable of unpleasant things), but having had to put a number of small animals out of their misery thanks to our killer cats, I have had to reassess my own capability for violence. I think perhaps I could. I am pretty sure I would be capable of killing someone to defend a person or animal I cared about, and since I am passionate about my beliefs, IF I believed a person's execution would be for the greater good of society, then, yes, I believe there is a possibility I could flick that switch.

[ephrael.livejournal.com]

Are you trying to tell me though, that the vast majority of the human race, have made the same thought process, and have reached the same conclusion?

I think the vast majority aren't thinking at all, about anything. Which is why our society appears to be going to hell in a handbasket. (to use an expression)

Some sociologists are investigating the nature vs nurture of belief at the moment:

Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer

[jorune.livejournal.com]

It is a fine thing to study and train the mind, thanks to wonderful books like I can read Qu'ran Anywhere! we can continue this important right and duty.

To quote Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

"The search for Knowledge is a sacred duty imposed upon every muslim. Go in search of knowledge, even to China."

"God has not created anything better than reason, or anything more prefect or more beautiful than reason. The benefits which God gives are on its account; and understanding is by it, and God's wrath is caused by it, and by it are rewards and punishment."

[velvet-nothing.livejournal.com]

"The 'average working man' needs his guidance, for how he should live - he's not interested in considering religion, or not, he just wants to conform with a society."

Er... that's a bit patronising, isn't it?! I think perhaps you are underestimating the population in general here. Whether people are religious or not, I think that most *do* in fact have their own moral code, and that there are innate things such as the ten commandments that ring true to most people as being 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of what myths are attached to them.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't think that IS an underestimation. I assume you have a job? If you work somewhere that is mainly populated by 'average' people e.g. an office, a shop, a factory, a call centre, please think for a moment of the last time you had an intelligent conversation with your co-workers about morality, religion/atheism/spirituality. More likely you hear nothing but drivel about TV, what the latest panic in the media is, money, fashion, getting pissed every weekend....you get my drift? (Unless of course you have a job somewhere more 'alternative', or work with people who were already your friends, or with people who mainly live 'alternative' lifestyles.) I have worked in offices, mostly in so called professional services firms but occasionally in sales or manufacturing, for over 18 years, and I have rarely been actual 'friends' with anyone I have worked with. There is one exception where I am now, a beautiful lesbian lady with opinions I do not always agree with but which she holds to passionately. The reason for my socialising only with people outside of work is, that way I get to choose people who use their brains as opposed to allowing them to atrophy whilst feeding them a diet of TV and media crap. No, I don't think the population is capable of its own moral code - I think a small minority of thoughtful people - some religious, some not - are capable of being decent moral creatures without some sort of system being imposed on them by religion, but ont he whole, I think humans are a nasty bunch who care about nothing but themselves. And yes, I am aware that this makes me sound horribly arrogant, snobbish and judgemental.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. Admittedly I currently work in a professional (95%+ grad) environment - rarely even remotely alternative - but I think that almost everyone has opinions about religion/morality.

However, for some reason culture has developed such that talking about religion/politics/something important you might seriously disagree about is rude. Personally I think that's silly. I'd much rather have a "big discussion" than "small talk".

Sometimes, all it takes to get such a discussion going is ask a contentious question. *cough*This post*cough* : )

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

How many of those discussions have you started, only to have someone relate it to something they saw on TV last week, and then the whole thing meanders off topic back to BB and sleb culture? I stopped counting a few years back. Now I choose not to throw pearls before swine, and keep my opinions for those who voice theirs to me in an intelligent and articulate manner. Sadly, many of the recipients are people who spend far too much time philosphising online :P :D

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Actually I find that eventually people start ignoring me or actively shutting me down - just because I think it's okay (in fact interesting) to talk about doesn't mean they do.

And I don't do all my philosophising online, I tend to read around it & occassionally write stuff offline as well. I've even considered getting into politics IRL. Not likely to of course - this way I get to say "I told you so".

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I've actually considered doing much the same - politics seems a dirty game, but one of the only ones where one can actually change the world.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

My stepdad works at Tory HQ and insists that they are eager to get young (ie still in work :) ) people involved. Even if you run to a different political persuasion, I'd bet that they are all in the same boat.

The thing that's stopped me (okay the one I'll admit to - the main one is laziness) is that I never intended to live here long enough for it to be viable. It seems a bit off to get elected then move to a different area.

If you reconsider it and want to pool research you know where I am.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Patronising, maybe. But as someone else commented, my observations are such that of the _vast_ majority of my colleagues, their real interests are what's going on in Corrie, and who's next out the bigbrother house.

I daresay, those nice chaps I see outside the job centre daily, are filled with spiritual enlightenment, given so much time to contemplate the subject?

It may be an underestimate, but ... well, there's actually a frightening number of children these days who don't actually know what a potato is.

My impressions are subjective, as I'm not sure what measurable demographic would support a hypothesis, that 'on average' spirituality and religion is irrelevant.

Most of the people you and I know, and meet up with around Coventry, I'm afraid are the exception, not the norm.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Two ways to resolve that:

I'm a hopeless optimist who believes that people on the whole are good. (Despite the Sun being the best selling paper and *rudeword*ing Labour getting repeatedly re-elected.)

I'm a hopeless optimist who believes that those of us bright enough to see problems and "good"* enough to want to do something about them can and will enter politics and engineer society/manipulate people in such a way to make things better, despite themselves. : )

*Mileage may vary

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

"So I'd like to put forth the notion, that mankind is not ready for atheism."

If you're going to put forward the notion that mankind needs religion to stop people misbehaving you might want to find a few facts out first, perhaps such things as whether atheists are over or under represented in the prison population? Whether less religious countries have lower or higher crime rates than more religious countries? You know, just for example.

But let's not get the facts in the way of a good rant, hey?

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Heh. You're surely not suggesting a rational, empirical approach to social decision making? Surely a media-bias-informed, peasants-are-revolting, no-one-can-be-trusted approach would be better?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Doesn't necessarily signify. Quantifying 'belief' is almost impossible anyway, especially if there's a context where claiming one or the other is beneficial.

But even those who aren't actively religions are pushed to conform with basic moral codes when the majority are.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Opening and closing paragraphs from "answer" post: http://syntheticbrain.livejournal.com/21461.html

I think I have a more positive view of things - rather than thinking we need to hit the "Religious" button in peoples heads to control the masses, who after all can't be expected to behave properly</>. I think we are in a better position than ever before to design systems - at every scale - that achieve the aims we set. (*Statement of bias below)

This isn't only happening in theories. There is a fight back going on. Call them new rationals or people who follow the ideals of the enlightenment over post-modern pseudo-science or religious dogma - they are around***. In fact, this discussion I would say is part of that movement.