Is Religion Worth It?

[wenglund]

I would like to pose a question for discussion that has been addressed by at least one scholar in the negative: Christopher Hitchens on "Is Religion Worth All That Comes With It?"

 

 

I am hoping to use this general discussion on the net value of religion to lay a foundation for future discussions on more specific topics--i.e the net worth of Christian observance as well as the net worth of active LDS faith.

 

I would like to examine this issue on a micro level in addition to the macro level briefly covered in the video linked above.

 

Is Hitchens correct or ironically mistaken?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

No, not worth it. I propose we abolish it. All in favor please manifest it.

[rpn]

Truth and faith are worth it.   Satan's counterfeits can be hijacked for much ugliness (though clearly most religious leaders are seeking truth and faith for themselves and their flocks).

[wenglund]

While simple yeah or nae answers to the question are appreciated, it may prove more useful to also provide rationale for your answers. More particularly, I would like to learn what costs and benefits within your personal lives you have factored into the equation behind your answers.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Just depends on what is part of that religious observance.

 

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[stemelbow]

what is religion?

It would be impossible to imagine a scenario wherein religion or something like it was not manifest among the peoples of the world. It would be an impossible hypothetical to imagine no religion. Anything that replaced what is religion would just be religion, packaged in some new package. If we can't imagine no religion how could be possibly answer the question?

[wenglund]

Just depends on what is part of that religious observance.

 

I am asking on balance--i.e religious observances added together as a whole. 

 

Most of the people in the world identify with a religion (8 in 10) And, the majority of people in the U.S. view religion as important (50 to 59%), while In other countries the majority of people don't (ibid). There must be a reason to explain the difference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

what is religion?

It would be impossible to imagine a scenario wherein religion or something like it was not manifest among the peoples of the world. It would be an impossible hypothetical to imagine no religion. Anything that replaced what is religion would just be religion, packaged in some new package. If we can't imagine no religion how could be possibly answer the question?

 

If you have a personal challenge grasping the basic notion of "religious," there are a wealth of online resources (wiki, dictionaries, etc.) that can provide you with a working definition. Any of those will suffice in this informal discussion. For example, a Google search provided this definition of religious: "relating to or believing in a religion." Feel free to us this one.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I really can't address other people let alone other countries. However for myself. I think religion is a good thing. Used properly it motivates me to act in a way consistent with my religious beliefs of fair play, treating others as I want to be treated, to be of service to my fellow men(women).

[Ahab]

Bad thread title. "it" is too ambiguous.

Should be more like "is religion worth __________(fill in the blank).

And even that would not be a very good title because religion itself is a too ambiguous concept with anybody being able to consider anything a religion that is worth to them whatever they want to put into it, whether it is a little, a lot, or nothing.

Like football, for example. For some it is a religion, even though it has nothing to do with God, and they put qyite a bit into it at least during football season, while others don't value football any at all in their own lives.

So in summary I suppose I would say "whatever the market will bear."

[stemelbow]

If you have a personal challenge grasping the basic notion of "religious," there are a wealth of online resources (wiki, dictionaries, etc.) that can provide you with a working definition. Any of those will suffice in this informal discussion. For example, a Google search provided this definition of religious: "relating to or believing in a religion." Feel free to us this one.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you beg the question, what is religion. Some have argued, not that it's convincing, that many an atheist ascribe to a religion in a sense. It does seem, though, people who reject religion often replace it with something. Some might wonder if that something can be considered religion.

[wenglund]

Bad thread title. "it" is too ambiguous.

Should be more like "is religion worth __________(fill in the blank).

And even that would not be a very good title because religion itself is a too ambiguous concept with anybody being able to consider anything a religion that is worth to them whatever they want to put into it, whether it is a little, a lot, or nothing.

Like football, for example. For some it is a religion, even though it has nothing to do with God, and they put qyite a bit into it at least during football season, while others don't value football any at all in their own lives.

So in summary I suppose I would say "whatever the market will bear."

 

You and Stemelbow have clearly demonstrated that an inane semantic quibble can render a good thread bad for some people. I trust, though, that the vast majority of potential participants wont be similarly challenged.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeanne]

As long as you don't kill for this religion...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, religion as a whole is worth it. For many it brings happiness and a sense of purpose. There are some bad that comes with it, mainly those that use religion as an excuse to do bad things, often due to misinterpretation of scripture. I think as a whole religion is liberating. Knowledge = power and I think religion offers us knowledge.

[wenglund]

Then you beg the question, what is religion. Some have argued, not that it's convincing, that many an atheist ascribe to a religion in a sense. It does seem, though, people who reject religion often replace it with something. Some might wonder if that something can be considered religion.

 

It only "begs the question" for semantic players and those who are challenged in grasping working definitions of the term (like the common vernacular I provided--not to be confused with the rare and idiosyncratic usage you provide as an example) within informal discussions such as this. To each their own. Feel free to open a thread discussing the meaning of "religious" if you wish. However, I ask you kindly not to derail this thread with that tangent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As long as you don't kill for this religion...

 

Would that include not fighting to protect religious liberty or religion?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[danielwoods]

I would like to pose a question for discussion that has been addressed by at least one scholar in the negative: Christopher Hitchens on "Is Religion Worth All That Comes With It?"

 

 

I am hoping to use this general discussion on the net value of religion to lay a foundation for future discussions on more specific topics--i.e the net worth of Christian observance as well as the net worth of active LDS faith.

 

I would like to examine this issue on a micro level in addition to the macro level briefly covered in the video linked above.

 

Is Hitchens correct or ironically mistaken?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hitchens (among others) makes a classic mistake in his argument, he assumes that "good" and morally "right" are absolutes that everyone intuitively knows. Then on this basis, he constructs a criticism of religion in general saying that it's not good or even morally right.

 

The fundamental issue then or question for him, is what makes something good or not? And how do we know this is universally applicable? 

 

For example, it's communally accepted that hurting others is wrong. Yet, in some cultures this is not the case. In some cultures deception and hurting others (or even eating them) is seen as the highest good. So, defining what is good or moral isn't a matter of simply assuming the "common good" because things aren't so common. 

 

Ultimately Hitchens argument demonstrates an intrinsic need in humans for the existence of a God or Gods or Creator, that would define what good means and what moral means, because without that outside reference point, all we are left with is a "he says, she says" level for definitions of these things. 

[JLHPROF]

As long as you don't kill for this religion...

 

Well, God sure made some mistakes then didn't he.  He often killed (and had others kill) for religion.

[The Nehor]

You and Stemelbow have clearly demonstrated that an inane semantic quibble can render a good thread bad for some people. I trust, though, that the vast majority of potential participants wont be similarly challenged.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dispute your premise that this thread was ever "good". Edited September 23, 2014 by The Nehor

[wenglund]

Hitchens (among others) makes a classic mistake in his argument, he assumes that "good" and morally "right" are absolutes that everyone intuitively knows. Then on this basis, he constructs a criticism of religion in general saying that it's not good or even morally right.

 

The fundamental issue then or question for him, is what makes something good or not? And how do we know this is universally applicable? 

 

For example, it's communally accepted that hurting others is wrong. Yet, in some cultures this is not the case. In some cultures deception and hurting others (or even eating them) is seen as the highest good. So, defining what is good or moral isn't a matter of simply assuming the "common good" because things aren't so common. 

 

Ultimately Hitchens argument demonstrates an intrinsic need in humans for the existence of a God or Gods or Creator, that would define what good means and what moral means, because without that outside reference point, all we are left with is a "he says, she says" level for definitions of these things. 

 

This is a good point.

 

However, I think Hitchen's fundamental mistake is in his selective view of "good" and "bad." For example, he views religion as a substantial impediment to intellectual pursuit and knowledge acquisition, not realizing that religion provides different a perspective and examines different dimensions that can add to the general well of intellectual pursuits and knowledge acquisition (I am using the word "knowledge in a lose sense of the word.) By looking at things only from a secular perspective, or selectively restricting it to such, Hitchens inadvertently, and ironical, commits the very "bad" for which he mistakenly accuses religion.

 

Said another way, religion broadens the vistas of human understanding rather than the opposite as Hitchens claims.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I dispute your premise that this thread was ever "good".

 

Since the thread is in the beginning stages, I was speaking in terms of potential "good."

 

However, in terms of what little has gone on thus far, I concur that at least your participation in the thread renders your dispute warranted. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Well, God sure made some mistakes then didn't he.  He often killed (and had others kill) for religion.

 

More likely it was men blaming God for their own actions.

[JLHPROF]

More likely it was men blaming God for their own actions.

 

Hey Nephi, go kill Laban.

Yours truly,

God.

 

Yeah, sometimes God kills and sometimes he has us kill for him.  Fortunately, not often, but it is all through the scriptures.

I don't know why we can accept things in scripture but reject them in our society.

[stemelbow]

It only "begs the question" for semantic players and those who are challenged in grasping working definitions of the term (like the common vernacular I provided--not to be confused with the rare and idiosyncratic usage you provide as an example) within informal discussions such as this. To each their own. Feel free to open a thread discussing the meaning of "religious" if you wish. However, I ask you kindly not to derail this thread with that tangent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can't help the religion is many things to many people. To me defining and questioning what is meant will get to the bottom of any sort of conversation on this topic. But if it upsets you, I'll gladly exit and leave you to it.

[thesometimesaint]

Hey Nephi, go kill Laban.

Yours truly,

God.

 

Yeah, sometimes God kills and sometimes he has us kill for him.  Fortunately, not often, but it is all through the scriptures.

I don't know why we can accept things in scripture but reject them in our society.

 

I doubt that Nephi would recognize our definition of self defense, nor was it necessary for him to. He was justified by the laws of the time.

 

Why would it be fortunate? Is that any better than having "God" doing what we recognize as evil acts sometimes? The problem with that logic is that any number of people have used and continue to use "God" as their excuse.

Edited September 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint