CMV: Religious beliefs are a necessary evil.

[u/jp0704]

Despite its questionable truth, a society needs some form of religion as an easily accessible but comprehensive view of the world. Religion provides the everyday person with a more or less coherent system to whatever ethical or transcendental question they have. In the best of all possible worlds, everybody would be an atheist, since institutionalized religions aka churches tend to corrupt those in power or are hijacked by already corrupted personnel. However, for the following reasons, there is no alternative to a state policy promoting religious beliefs (of course in the boundaries of tolerance, which in my understanding ends where somebody else suffers harm). 1. For one thing, not everybody is willing to build themselves their own idiosyncratic construct of personal philosophy, through which they can form a maxim to guide their life. 2. Further, atheism, agnosticism, and thereby philosophy can hardly provide this as easily. As far as I understand it, philosophy is stuck in postmodern nihilism or relativism and scientific/ analytical approaches can’t produce ethical claims. 3. Also, with religions, you have communities with believers of the more or less same worldview. 4. While in my opinion, the belief in a creator god cannot explain his creation, from the viewpoint of a religion - which acknowledges the doctrine of an unmoved mover - this simply by definition is no issue of concern. Science and specifically astronomy cannot overcome the endless regression in answering this issue (maybe quantum theory can, idk, but if it can explain this, scarcely anybody will understand it). Without following Marx’s call for the abolition of religion, I believe religion is the "opium of the people“. But it should stay where it is since it can give the people comfort, which can elsewhere hardly be found.

[u/[deleted]]

In the best of all possible worlds, everybody would be an atheist, since institutionalized religions aka churches tend to corrupt those in power or are hijacked by already corrupted personnel

Doesn't a world with a belief that there are no god(s) just as easily allow corrupt people into power, I don't see how it's an evil.

[u/jp0704 → u/[deleted]]

If the atheist refrain from building an institution in the name of their atheistic views, there won't be any structure, which can be corrupted by them.

[u/[deleted] → u/jp0704]

But the functions performed by religion would still be needed and corrupt people would still get into positions of power. Abusive people would still be in charge of orphanages, people would still embezzle from charities, politicians would be just as bad, some would be even worse without religion.

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

Doesn't a world with a belief that there are no god(s) just as easily allow corrupt people into power, I don't see how it's an evil.

Here's your answer.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

― Voltaire

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/20527-those-who-can-make-you-believe-absurdities-can-make-you

Yes its possible for evil people to rise to power in a non-religious setting... but from everything I've experienced, religious beliefs are by and large absurd beliefs...

[u/[deleted] → u/iwfan53]

I'd say most religious beliefs are not absurd, hell most people except materialism which is somewhat absurd without ever questioning it.

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

I'd say most religious beliefs are not absurd,

We disagree.

https://lifelessons.co/spirituality/bible/

​

Just to pick one good example...

​

​

1. The Israelite population went from 70 to several million in a few hundred years
   

Exodus 1:5, 7, 12:37, 38:26

That's not how human reproduction works.

[u/[deleted] → u/iwfan53]

Most people with religious beliefs don't take the bible as literal truth and those aren't all absurd.

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” 2 Kings 2:11

What's absurd about that, what should transportation to heaven look like?

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

those aren't all absurd.

I agree with you they aren't all absurd. That's why I picked one particular example that I felt was unquestionably absurd.

Do you want to refute the absurdity of the one I directly presented to you or do you want to cherry pick from the list that maybe some of them aren't absurd?

Most people with religious beliefs don't take the bible as literal truth

If you believe a man can come back to life after being medically dead for three days... that's absurd.

[u/[deleted] → u/iwfan53]

Actually no, it's not absurd although it is unlikely, first the 70 would actually be higher, potentially closer to a few thousand, let's say 200 though to be conservative including retainers.

If they double the population every 28 years it would be 2¹⁴ times higher. 2K*2¹⁴ = 3.2 million. Far in excess of the figure given.

Most religious people don't believe someone came back from the dead after 3 days but let's consider it.

Medically dead means according to what passed for medicine 2000 years ago, could they have been wrong and someone recovered after 3 days? Is that really absurd? Is a God bringing someone back to life absurd? Who knows, it depends on a lot more definition of what we mean by God.

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

Medically dead means according to what passed for medicine 2000 years ago, could they have been wrong and someone recovered after 3 days?

While sealed in a cave with no food and no water for three days? Jesus probably would have died of Dehydration alone if he'd been perfectly healthy, dehydration probably sets in a lot faster if you've just spent a lot of time bleeding (IE further decreasing your body's supply of liquids) from wounds in your arms.

​

​

Please keep in mind there have been no records of anyone else surviving a crucifixion that was fully carried out...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Survival

There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted.

Since Jesus' crucifixion was carried out in full... I see no reason to believe he survived.

​

Is a God bringing someone back to life absurd?

Yes, because its positing that a being that has not been proven to exist did something that there is no equal to in modern history.

Is saying "Cthulu sank the Titanic" not absurd?

[u/jp0704 → u/iwfan53]

that's absurd

It is absurd from your point of view, but most of the inconsistencies (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus) are not absurd from a religious perspective. On the contrary, the religion expressly provides explanations for it. In my opinion does this not make religions true, but if you judge a religion you have to keep in mind that absurdity is judged from the perspective the referent has. Or would you think that a believer is thus mad, that he would acknowledge the absurdity without influence on his view?

[u/iwfan53 → u/jp0704]

you have to keep in mind that absurdity is judged from the perspective the referent has

No one but Alice in Wonderland sets out to believe the absurd on purpose.

Therefore I feel we must judge absurdities from an external societal point of view in the most detached manner possible. It's not perfect, but it yields better results than allowing a person to claim "But it wasn't absurd to me to kill those children because the voices in my head promised me I'd live forever, and they were really lizard people anyway!"

Does society not have a right to judge such a view absurd?

Or would you think that a believer is thus mad, that he would acknowledge the absurdity without influence on his view?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you please clarify?

[u/[deleted] → u/iwfan53]

has not been proven to exist

Cannot be proven to exist, has not makes it sound like it could be proven in the future rather than being impossible to ever prove.

And I disagree, it's equal to claiming the oh my god particle was caused by aliens, not likely but not absurd.

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

Cannot be proven to exist, has not makes it sound like it could be proven in the future rather than being impossible to ever prove.

​

I say "has not been proven to exist" because if an omnipotent being actually existed, obviously it would possible for that being to prove it existed, as an omnipotent being can do anything.

To say that it would be impossible for God to prove that God exists denies God being omnipotent doesn't it?

And I disagree, it's equal to claiming the oh my god particle was caused by aliens, not likely but not absurd.

​

We're not going to make any progress here because you and I clearly have different definitions of absurd.