Skip to main content

Is Religion Good for Society?

· 8 min read
0TickPulse
0TickPulse
Owner

Introduction​

Religion has been a part of human society for thousands of years. It has been a source of comfort, guidance, and inspiration for many people. However, it has also been a source of conflict, division, and oppression. This discussion will explore the question of whether religion is beneficial for society.

Definitions​

"Religion" will be defined as a system of beliefs and practices widely held to be of divine origin and to have a spiritual or moral significance.

"God"​

Firstly, the existence of God must be addressed. This discussion will define "God" as a supernatural being that created the universe.

There are many arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. These can be categorized as either a priori or a posteriori arguments; that is, they are either based on reason alone or on empirical evidence.

On the other hand, there are also many arguments against the existence of God, such as the problem of evil, the argument from nonbelief, and the argument from divine hiddenness. These arguments raise serious questions about the nature and existence of God.

For the purposes of this discussion, no attempt will be made to prove or disprove the existence of God. It will assume that the question of God's existence is ultimately unanswerable, and that people will continue to hold a wide variety of beliefs on the matter. Instead, this discussion will focus on the impact of religion on society, regardless of the truth or falsehood of its claims.

"Good for society"​

"Good for society" will be defined as having a positive impact on the well-being and flourishing of individuals and communities. This definition encompasses a wide range of factors, including physical health, mental health, social cohesion, and economic prosperity.

Religion as a Source of Philosophy and Morality​

Individuals adhere to a framework of values and principles, many of which extend beyond biological imperatives to external philosophies not grounded in belief in a higher power.

According to the concept of free will, humans contain a "decision-making self" and possess the capacity to make choices independent of predetermined causes or external influences, transcending evolutionary biology. Even those who do not subscribe to the notion of free will typically behave as if they do. Additionally, notions of morality, truth, and rationality are considered to be independent of biological determinism. Some assert that these external philosophies are integral to human societal constructs, with religion often cited as a wellspring of such philosophies.

However, a logical fallacy arises: in a deterministic universe devoid of free will, the presence of a deity does not resolve this quandary. The existence of God cannot be established through reason alone; thus, if God's existence cannot be proven, neither can free will.

Moreover, employing the law of excluded middle, when a decision is made, it is either dictated by preceding causes or external influences, or it is not.If determined by external factors, it cannot be considered an exercise of free will.If attributed to an internal source, the problem persists at that level. If the decision is indeterminate, it is merely random, devoid of free will. Consequently, the issue either recurs indefinitely, tracing back to an external cause, or culminates in random outcomes, neither of which aligns with the concept of freewill. Even the proposition of a "soul" fails to solve this problem, thus invalidating the existence of free will.

Absence of free will reduces decision-making to a deterministic process governed by neuronal activity shaped by preceding causes, with the body merely reacting to external stimuli. Many adherents of religious faith argue that a life governed solely by biological impulses lacks purpose or meaning. Religion imbues life with purpose by affirming the significance of free will, purportedly fostering decisive action imbued with purposefulness. Consequently, even if free will is illusory, it remains a requisite illusion.

In conclusion, while free will ultimately remains an illusion, a functional society necessitates the illusion of free will, which is precisely why humans evolved to possess it. Religion, by providing a framework for free will, is thus beneficial for society.

Objective Moralities​

Morality is a system of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Religion is often cited as a source of objective morality, providing a framework for ethical behavior that transcends individual or cultural beliefs. Even utilitarians, who argue that actions are judged by their consequences, still must establish a framework for determining what constitutes a "good" consequence.

Firstly, while it is unclear whether objective morality exists, grounding morality in religion does not entirely resolve this issue, especially if done exclusively. For instance, the Euthyphro dilemma, as posed by Plato, questions whether actions are good because God commands them, or whether God commands them because they are good.

Assuming that religion is false, that is, that their teachings are simply inventions of humans, then morality is not objective, as it is contingent on human beliefs.

In a practical sense, many religious-based decisions ("I will do this because God has told me so.") tend to lead to imperviousness, arrogance, and stubbornness because by definition, God's word is infallible and cannot be questioned.

Therefore, religious morality is a combination of subjective error-prone human beliefs and divine certainty and faith, which can lead to a lack of flexibility and adaptability, potentially causing great harm to society. This is evident in many religiously motivated conflicts and acts of violence, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and many others.

On the other hand, some argue that there are many moral absolutes that are universally accepted across cultures, such as "killing is wrong." When a human creates an objective morality, it is intrinsically subject to self-interest, hence the need for a higher power to establish an objective morality. Many current moral systems are based on religious teachings.

There are many statistics that show this. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, religiously affiliated individuals are more likely to do volunteer work

Cite: Alper🔗
.

They argue that while religion may cause conflict, most conflicts come from self-interest.

However, does religion actually provide objective morality?

The Bible and Slavery​

The Bible, a religious text, condones slavery. Some religious apologists argue that it doesn't support the "bad" kind of slavery, like the 19th-century Antebellum South, but rather a more benign form. The problem with this argument is that it's false. Instead, the laws in the Hebrew Bible are very similar to those leading up to the Civil War, even with the same legal rationale. As such, a defense of slavery in the Bible is essentially a defense of Antebellum slavery.

The famous example that many athiests and skeptics like to bring up to claim that the Bible supports slavery is in Exodus 21:20-21:

20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

They say that this is a clear example of the Bible condoning the beating of slaves without punishment. As previously stated, religious apologists argue that the slavery in the Bible is different, quoting for example:

2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." (Exodus 21:2-4)

16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." (Exodus 21:16)

As shown, the same chapter that skeptics use to claim that the Bible supports slavery is also used by religious apologists to claim that the Bible doesn't condone mistreatment of salves.

Many religious apologists argue that in the ancient Near East, other laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi, were the "bad" kind of slavery. However, it's also illegal to kidnap people there ever since these law collections were established. There's nothing novel in the Old Testament about kidnapping.

Indentured Servitude​

The first argument that religious apologists use is that some slaves were voluntary, stating that they only serve for six years. Firstly, the law of Hammurabi had a shorter duration of three years

Cite: King🔗
. Secondly, indentured servitude is not entirely voluntary. Contracts from the ancient Near East, like the ones from Nuzi, let the master adopt the slave, provide them with care, obeying them, and performing proper burials. However, they have certain clauses that forbid the slave from leaving without paying a large sum of money.

References​

Is Python Really a Good First Language?

· 5 min read
0TickPulse
0TickPulse
Owner

Introduction​

If you're considering learning programming, you've likely heard that Python is an excellent starting point. It's widely regarded as one of the most beginner-friendly languages.

However, is Python truly the optimal choice for beginners?