Is God necessary for society to exist

[Moontanman]

Is a belief in God or some other higher power necessary for humans to get along in a society? I don't want to argue is god good or bad, real or imaginary. I want to discuss the idea of would we as a society be able to exist without the idea of an Omnipotent being guiding us. Does the idea of an omnipotent being bring about behaviors in humans that allow our society to function. Would the behaviors that allow our society to function continue without the idea of God?

[pamela]

Is a belief in God or some other higher power necessary for humans to get along in a society?

I believe that living by a moral code would dictate our interactions with each other.

 

I want to discuss the idea of would we as a society be able to exist without the idea of an Omnipotent being guiding us

Society is so diverse in it's different ideologies as it stands, that it would seem illogical to think that it as a whole, would be viewed as omnipotent driven.

 

Does the idea of an omnipotent being bring about behaviors in humans that allow our society to function

I would not say society as a whole, but it certainly dictates the actions of individuals within the society

 

Would the behaviors that allow our society to function continue without the idea of God?

as long as there are moral guide lines that serve to build up humanity and not tear it down

[Moontanman]

I think an argument can be made that religion give people a opportunity to serve the community in ways that would not be as widely available if religion did not exist. I like to cook and serve food to the hungry. The church i go to gives me the opportunity to do this that i wouldn't have if it didn't exist. Many other venues of public service exist that are driven by religious bodies. I know that many of the people who serve at these venues are not members of the religion that sponsors the venue. I see pagans working at events that help the needy, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics and people who simply don't think along the lines of religion. Often the religion that is supporting these events will do a considerable amount of recruiting but as long as you are willing to ignore there attempts at winning you over it is a pleasant experience.

 

Of course it has to be asked "If these religious groups didn't exist would there be similar groups anyway? I know Shriners do considerable work along the same lines without a religious baseline. I have to say that when you give money to religious groups the dollar amount that goes to the needy is a very small percentage of the total.

[pamela]

I think an argument can be made that religion give people a opportunity to serve the community in ways that would not be as widely available if religion did not exist. I like to cook and serve food to the hungry.

agreed. The church across the street serves meals for the needy every weekend.This charitable act is from the Bible based upon feeding the hungry.

Many other venues of public service exist that are driven by religious bodies. I know that many of the people who serve at these venues are not members of the religion that sponsors the venue.

 

Habitat for Humanity was founded upon Christian ideals

I see pagans working at events that help the needy, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics and people who simply don't think along the lines of religion

Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners provided by the community are prime examples

 

Often the religion that is supporting these events will do a considerable amount of recruiting but as long as you are willing to ignore there attempts at winning you over it is a pleasant experience

.

Fall festivals at Halloween offer an alternative to trick or treating but along with the goodies, you get Bible tracts as well

 

Of course it has to be asked "If these religious groups didn't exist would there be similar groups anyway? I know Shriners do considerable work along the same lines without a religious baseline.

Charitable acts and morals can exist without religion, while for some, religion can be the impetus for these actions to occur

I know Shriners do considerable work along the same lines without a religious baseline. I have to say that when you give money to religious groups the dollar amount that goes to the needy is a very small percentage of the total.

Unless there are accesses to the church books, this cannot be verified. Unfortunately there are some unscrupulously religious leaders, who have bagged the cash, and taken gross advantage of their congregations. While this may be common, it does not set the precedent for all churches.

Some aspects of religion can benefit society and other aspects not only divide society but can severely harm the individual

[InfiniteNow]

Isn't this a bit like asking if unicorns are necessary to breathe or if leprechauns are necessary for our hearts to beat?

[pamela]

posted by Infinite

Isn't this a bit like asking if unicorns are necessary to breathe or if leprechauns are necessary for our hearts to beat?

Maybe a better question would be" If my mind was open to see the parallel between religion's effect on society versus a moral effect, would I understand this thread and be able to post something that would add to this discussion?"

How about if the question is posed this way

does belief in an omnipotent being have a direct result on behaviours that affect society as a whole? Would, if that belief was removed, change how society deals with the concept of caring for humanity?

[modest]

Isn't this a bit like asking if unicorns are necessary to breathe or if leprechauns are necessary for our hearts to beat?

 

I think it's more like asking if Santa Clause is necessary for holiday cheer (aka 'the christmas spirit'). I believe the answer is no.

 

Moontanman was really rather explicit about discussing "the idea of an omnipotent being" not the effects of such a being's existence. 93% of Americans indicate they believe in God or some higher power. The belief is consequential.

 

I think this is very-well touched on in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification By Michael Martin a notable author on philosophy of religion. I quote a relevant bit from the last chapter—'conclusions':

 

As we saw in the Introduction, there is no reason to suppose that either moral anarchy or moral relativism would be justified if atheism were accepted. This is not to say such positions might not become dominant in an atheistic society. But if they did, it would not be because they were necessitated by atheism.

 

Should one anticipate a decline in religion or church attendance in an atheistic society? Certainly. But the extent to be expected is not clear. Religion is possible without belief in God, even with disbelief in God. If atheism became widespread in our society, new atheistic religions might arise to fill up the gap in people’s lives, or old atheistic religions such as Jainism might gain converts. Moreover, it is not only possible but likely that some people would continue to attend theistic religious services and to be members of theistic churches even if they did not believe. To some people church membership meets an important social need, and to other people religious ceremonies have significant aesthetic value. The teachings of theistic religions can provide moral insights to atheistic participants.

 

-Atheism: A Philosophical Justification p.456 (my bold)

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

I think it's more like asking if Santa Clause is necessary for holiday cheer (aka 'the christmas spirit'). I believe the answer is no.

 

I completely agree with your assessment and thank you for offering the more accurate analogy.

[InfiniteNow]

Would, if that belief was removed, change how society deals with the concept of caring for humanity?

 

This issue has already handily been addressed by studying secular societies who have higher standards of living and better all around metrics for success (low crime, good health, etc.)

 

IINM, Galapagos has posted about this numerous times in the "Is Religion Harmful to Society" thread, once where he shared these two videos:

 

 

YouTube - Irreligion & Scandinavian Society- Phil Zuckerman Part1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn1il00qIzI

YouTube - Irreligion & Scandinavian Society- Phil Zuckerman Part 2 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eEojwlG4cU

 

 

And also, where he shared a book on this topic:

 

New article by Phil Zuckerman at the Huffington Post..

 

Phil Zuckerman: The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries.

 

And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today. The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic. A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations.

 

 

Zuckerman recently did some extensive research and then wrote a book about religiosity in Scandinavia, check it out:

Amazon.com: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148

 

 

 

 

And I, myself, also addressed this in the "Theistic and Atheistic influences on society" thread:

 

 

Amazon.com: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: Books

 

 

 

Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth. Based on a year's worth of research conducted while living in Scandinavia, SOCIETY WITHOUT GOD by Phil Zuckerman explores life in a largely secular culture, delving into the unique worldviews of secular men and women who live in a largely irreligious society, and explaining the reasons why some nations are less religious than others, and why religious faith doesn't seem to be the secret to national success that so many claim it to be.

 

"

Most Americans are convinced that faith in God is the foundation of civil society. Society Without God reveals this to be nothing more than a well-subscribed, and strangely American, delusion. Even atheists living in the United States will be astonished to discover how unencumbered by religion most Danes and Swedes currently are. This glimpse of an alternate, secular reality is at once humbling and profoundly inspiring--and it comes not a moment too soon."

 

-Sam Harris, a Co-Founder of the Reason Project and author of the New York Times best sellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

[HydrogenBond]

Religion attempts to define the principles for human subjectivity. Science is more concerned with the principles of objectivity. Humans use both at the same time. Just to use a simple example, following the latest fad is both subjective and objective or feelings and justification. Science will not teach one to be objective to the subjectivity, because it doesn't go beyond objectivity. This is out of its range of science due to the subjectivity of its own philosophy, which is objectivity. Religion makes one more aware of subjectivity by creating mental dams. It also defines what to expect when dams are in place because of the way the brain reacts.

 

Let me give example of the two blended effects; eating. Science can detail the objective principles of the entire eating and digestive train, from the neural beginnings of the instinct, through the chemical makeup of content, to the biochemical principles of healthy assimilation. Paralleling this is human subjectivity, that generates preference. Science does not require that one be objective to the subjectivity, unless it appears to be causing an objective problem. One can stay linear or flow blindly if the subjectivity creates no objective harm to the objective pathways.

 

Religion, on the other hand, sets up dams for all blind subjectivity. This dam creates an awareness of subjective affects that are usually below the radar, especially if linear is doing no objective harm. Every dam creates self awareness of subjectivity, because one hits a wall for linear and needs figure out how to overcome or coexist.

 

If you look at homosexuality, based on objective evidence, there appears to be genetic effects that control this behavior. But the entire output effect is a blend of objective and subjective effects. Religion tries to place a dam on the subjectivity aspect to create more self awareness of the linear subjectivity. It makes it harder to act in a linear way if one takes it to heart. This is more difficult to do because it takes more effort. Subjectively, this will be resisted in favor of the path of least resistance.

 

Relative to the mind, any subjectivity dam causes the subjective linear river to stop and form a lake. This lake will submerge many trees of thoughts that worked with the linear subjectivity. Self awareness does not allow old impulse-thinking or rational justifications for irrational impulse (that is how I am). Eventually, a new eco-system develops around this artificial lake that is natural. The lake and dam can be used in a civilized way (not animal linear). The gays have come a long way from the compulsive 1980's; Gays are now thinking in terms of marriage and adaptions for social integration. The linear has formed a pool and a healthier eco-system is starting to reform.

 

If we had stuck with the science objectivity of the linear river of subjective impulse, which science can define, the subjectivity would not have evolved as fast. The god principle, by being higher than the individual, allows dams, where the ego would prefer take the linear subjective path. If the ego is at the top, it will seek pleasure and avoid pain. This means doing what comes easier, which is linear.

[Galapagos]

This issue has already handily been addressed by studying secular societies who have higher standards of living and better all around metrics for success (low crime, good health, etc.)

 

IINM, Galapagos has posted about this numerous times in the "Is Religion Harmful to Society" thread, once where he shared these two videos:

 

And also, where he shared a book on this topic:

 

The book itself is quite good; I found it to be very readable, and it was full of interesting statistics. Also, I found the book cover to be quite aesthetically appealing as well, which is a plus.

 

There was actually another article in the NY Times about Zuckerman's work about a week ago:

Scandinavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

 

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

[InfiniteNow]

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

It's amazing how if a lie is told enough times and by enough people, then people start to think it's true despite clear and readily available data to the contrary.

[CraigD]

Is a belief in God or some other higher power necessary for humans to get along in a society? I don't want to argue is god good or bad, real or imaginary. I want to discuss the idea of would we as a society be able to exist without the idea of an Omnipotent being guiding us.

Isn't this a bit like asking if unicorns are necessary to breathe or if leprechauns are necessary for our hearts to beat?

I think this simile (smile-provoking as it is ;)) is significantly flawed.

 

Moontanman’s question is, more like asking if the belief in unicorns and leprechauns are necessary for us to breathe and our hearts to beat. Of course, neither the objective existence of these mythic creature nor our belief in them is necessary for our bodies to work. The question of whether belief is something known as “God” is necessary for human societies to be about like they are, is a much more difficult one.

 

Much of what makes this a difficult question, I think, is the need to maintain the distinction between belief in God, and His existence. Another major difficulty is establishing a workable definition of what “belief in God”, and “human societies about like they are”, are, in sociologically significant terms.

 

A pro anthropologist or sociologist would, I expect, dedicate many pages and references to defining terms, but hobbyist that I am, I’ll just jump to a speculative conclusion: nearly all human societies, ancient, historic, and present-day, rely heavily on perceived authority and hiarchies. The hiarchies are explained, or we might say legitimized, by stories ranging from bona fides (good things said about respected people) to family histories (the basis for hereditary rulership) to legal traditions and written laws (the basis of most present-day governments) to supernatural and religious traditions and documents. I’ll call these hierarchy-legitimizing stories, or HLSs

 

If we look to the earliest available HLSs, we find leaders claiming to be either appointed by, or genetically related to, one or more gods. Even some large modern governments, such as Iran’s, have public offices held by people believed to derive authority in his manner.

 

A couple of kinds of questions come to mind:

• Would human societies have formed as early as they did, had their HLSs not involved gods? Would the size of populations granting authority to a single individual or “court” be as large? Would they have as much specialization – roles and professions, such as farmer, soldier, craftsmen, etc?
  
• Do the HLSs of present-day constitutional republics and similar nations depend on references to God or gods? Note that this is not the same question as whether their laws do. For example, US law explicitly prohibits deriving authority from religion, but government officers commonly profess allegiance to religious authority, sometimes explicitly greater than their allegiance to US law.
  

The first question is, I suspect, impossible to answer with much certainty given our current understanding of human society and psyches. The answer to the second, however, seems to me a clear “yes”. Because candidates for public office who profess allegiance to religious authority may win election over candidates that don’t. So, in practical terms, many of the US’s HLSs do depend on references to God.

 

Because many people, such as me and many of my fellow atheistic hypographers, are able to understand our society’s hierarchies, and function well within them, it’s clear to me that it’s not necessary for all HLSs to contain reference to God.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Good question. The idea that John Locke brings with regard to societies is that it works because there is an inherent moral value possessed by all men. His assertion is that, because God created men, they share this common origin and therefore aught not cause harm to one another because doing so is an insult to their common creator.

 

This theory goes way back to the 1600's and Locke's theories are the foundations for the USA constitution. Which makes sense because the founding fathers intended the nation to have those values(morals).

 

I think that as society has evolved through knowledge and science, it has become more possible to disregard religion with regard to societal constructs (not that I agree it's a good thing) and become a completely workable society (world) without religion at all. However, I doubt that earlier in history, this would be possible. As man was leaving the state of nature, and entering the societal contract, there needed to be a binding element to foster trust etc, and religion serves that purpose well. But, to answer your question, I think it might be possible now, and I thank you for asking the question because it's a fascinating thing to consider.

 

Glenn

[Moontanman]

I've given this thread much thought since I first posted it and I think it's more likely that society must exist for god to exist. The formation of societies brought about the possibility of an elite religious caste who did nothing but spout mumbo jumbo to earn their bread. Until society existed this religious elite could not have existed. Until society existed there was no need for a god, as we define it now, possibly a loose system of spirits and other imaginary creatures but there would have only loosely explained and mostly personal in nature and probably conformed to the beliefs of the leader of the group.

[Glenn Lyvers]

I think it's more likely that society must exist for god to exist.

 

Classic debate. It's such an interesting topic. I have never given this much thought. The idea is counter religion of course, but I'm trying to consider it from both perspectives.

 

I do want to thank you for posing this idea though, it's a good topic to think about and learn from.

 

Peace,

Glenn

[buddhaboy]

Which god? the spiritual teacher barry long said that we cant really search for god... he said it was like saying "does x exist"? first you have to define what x is and then you can set out to try to find it.... the problem is ,how do we define god?...and what if i define it one way, and you another? we may go to war to prove who is "right". Maybe society would be better off if we didnt try to define god...with our words, definitions and ideas. we can say that god is not necessary but we shoud be careful... i dont believe in a taditional "god" but i can see a tremendous intelligence at work in this existence... you know, the sun shines, we are at a perfect distance from the sun for life to live here on earth, we have a breathable atmosphere, just enough sun...we have chemical elements in just the right combination so we can breathe... isnt all that amazing... i certainly think so! so maybe the god of the bible and other books isnt necessary, but this amazing intellignce certainly is!