Is it possible to have no religion?

[Fonceai]

Religion is a natural occurrence in the development of intelligent life.

At some point, there are things to which there are no answers.

Those things without answers are considered supernatural.

At one point, the moon was considered supernatural. No one knew what it was or what it was doing up there.

Further on, the idea of an entity being "in charge" fills the gaps.

Finally, there ends up being a "my entity is better than your entity" and when people start agreeing on an entity, there is organization.

That organization is religion.

When people start having their own opinion about the supernatural independent of organized worship, religion is unnecessary.

When people start believing that the supernatural will eventually become natural as Science finds more answers, religion is unnecessary.

The key is in accepting that supernatural doesn't mean you believe in ghosts and magic, etc. Supernatural is the correct and accurate term for anything that is yet to be explained by science. It's another word for the unknown.

So yes, it is possible to have no religion.

[xJesterx]

To coffeesaints post:
1.Nobody can believe there is no superhuman controlling power because we witness that every day. You try stopping a cyclone with your bare hands. It leads to people having to plan around the cyclone rather than defeating it therefore it has a degree of control. But admittedly oxfords definition is a little dodgy because not everybody believes the superhuman power is controlling. The majority of religions believe that the physical world was created by a superhuman power but they don't interfere with it.
2. Worship comes in many forms. In most religions worship is just giving credit to the supernatural force for its actions good or bad.
3. Using the definition of worship above - I think it's in complete agreement that everybody has a degree of faith and therefore a system by which that faith operates.
Non-theistic - A spritual being is simply something that doesn't take physical form. Many things we take for granted as existing qualify as spirtual entities. A lot of people believe that their god/s have already been discovered but given other names like air and water. Others believe the universe itself is their god, or even nature. In those relgions their god/s do take physical form. A spiritual entity is also the human soul, therefore making humans in part spiritual beings themselves.
zynner & fonceais posts:

atheism would have been the original state rather than the natural state since the natural state of humanity required theism to evolve.

So basically you're both saying that this part is true.

That seems to me like saying, "If nudity is the natural state of things, then why does nudity exist at all?" It's because we take our clothes off! lol

Likewise nudity would be the original state of things but not the natural. Our natural state requires some form of protection against the elements. Our natural state is void of the external, it's simply primal need. We need to eat - is our nature, we need to drink - is our nature. Anything that doesn't support the primal needs is unnatural. Animals are part of nature yet they still build and evolve their civilisations on their own scale. Are their practices therefore unnatural?
Atheism is in the mind, it's a choice. We choose to accept or not accept god/s. We don't choose our physical form - so it's not the same thing as nudity. When we take off clothes we then put clothes back on because our natural state requires it. In the situations that we don't it's because our natural state requires us not to.

Science while it did have a positive impact in some places. Didn't structure society. People did. They saw a need for a legal system - so they made one.

Religion played a huge role in this attempt to explain the world when no other means was available. It also served the purposes of those who wanted power over other people. Control the people's minds and you can control their actions.

Isn't science the same? I agree that some people who built relgions wanted control, but most god/s of those religions didn't claim complete control over the people. Actually they're all mostly laid back about what people choose to do. But then when you look at science, there are always going to be other elements to the already discovered elements of knowledge. But by stating these things as 'science' and therefore beyond the average persons ability to question - aren't they doing exactly what religion does using different methods?

The reality is that we are all born without a religion

I agree that we are born without the title of religion, but we are still born into the same religious hierarchy.

We have to be taught to believe in gods and religions

We have to be taught to believe in science as well. Even taught to believe in nothing.

That's why most of the Christians are in one part of the world, most of the Muslims in another part, the Hindus in another part, etc. Each culture teaches their own brand of mysticism and sheep-following ideology.

I agree. But then if this is all there is to it then it wouldn't be 'most' but 'all'. A person can grow up in a society where members of alternate religions are killed for their belief, and religious texts are an underground product, then still find a different faith and follow it while living in that society. Knowing that they will probably die a horrible death because of it.

The key is in accepting that supernatural doesn't mean you believe in ghosts and magic, etc. Supernatural is the correct and accurate term for anything that is yet to be explained by science. It's another word for the unknown.

But then wouldn't the science itself become your religion? Nothing in science is definite. They can know nothing beyond reasonable doubt. They might know that the air is made of nitrogen and oxygen but they don't know if there are other qualities which they haven't discovered yet. Doesn't that therefore make a large part of science a religious belief?

[Zinkovich]

Jester:

1.Nobody can believe there is no superhuman controlling power because we witness that every day. You try stopping a cyclone with your bare hands. It leads to people having to plan around the cyclone rather than defeating it therefore it has a degree of control. But admittedly oxfords definition is a little dodgy because not everybody believes the superhuman power is controlling. The majority of religions believe that the physical world was created by a superhuman power but they don't interfere with it.

Where is the "human" part of a tornado? I do not think tornados fall under the category of "superhuman". I think the term "superhuman" was an attempt to cover the part of sentience in the governing power, rather than it's mere abiltiy to not be controlled by humans.

2. Worship comes in many forms. In most religions worship is just giving credit to the supernatural force for its actions good or bad.

That's nice. Can you give me an example of a religion that "worships" in the same way as atheism acknowledges the existence of consequence in our naturalistic world?

3. Using the definition of worship above - I think it's in complete agreement that everybody has a degree of faith and therefore a system by which that faith operates.

Sure, using the definition above. But the connotation of the faith central to religions that are diametrically opposite of atheism goes further and adds much dogmatism, ritualistic trappings, and inflexible codes into the mix. That is where the "faith" in science and the faith in religion differ. They are not equivalent, and no amount of linguistic stretching on anyone's part will make it so.

Isn't science the same? I agree that some people who built relgions wanted control, but most god/s of those religions didn't claim complete control over the people. Actually they're all mostly laid back about what people choose to do. But then when you look at science, there are always going to be other elements to the already discovered elements of knowledge. But by stating these things as 'science' and therefore beyond the average persons ability to question - aren't they doing exactly what religion does using different methods?

Where are you getting the idea that science is unquestionable? It is questionable in ALL respects- from my experience, the only people who say those sort of things about science are the ones who criticise it with incomplete knowledge on various media circuits without actually engaging in actual peer reviews, experiments, or studies.

Science by it's very nature questions it's own central tenets. Can you say the same of the Bible, the Quran, or any other religious text? Can you think of any central religious scripture that changes with the discovery of new data in our externalized world?

But then wouldn't the science itself become your religion? Nothing in science is definite. They can know nothing beyond reasonable doubt. They might know that the air is made of nitrogen and oxygen but they don't know if there are other qualities which they haven't discovered yet. Doesn't that therefore make a large part of science a religious belief?

No, that makes science pragmatic in it's conceptual model. Its does not make assumptions based on what is possible, but forms hypotheses. Then it tests them. Science is all about application in it's purest form, not about dogmatically asserting itself as the absolute truth in it's current form like most religious texts out there.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Jester But then wouldn't the science itself become your religion? Nothing in science is definite. They can know nothing beyond reasonable doubt. They might know that the air is made of nitrogen and oxygen but they don't know if there are other qualities which they haven't discovered yet. Doesn't that therefore make a large part of science a religious belief?

The difference between believing in a supernatural power and religion is worship.

There are those who do, indeed, make science their religion.

But that doesn't make science a religion in the general sense to Catholicism.

[zynner]

xJesterx --

(1) Superhuman is not the same as supernatural. Cyclones and such are part of nature. Superhuman, yes; supernatural, no.

(2) "Original state" and "natural state" are concepts that seem to be getting mixed here. I'm not sure there's really much of a distinction. If there is, I'm not sure it's important. Let's just look at humans.

Humans are born nude. Therefore, it is the "default" situation. We can add clothes and subtract them. The point is, we are not born wearing clothing. We must add that, and the behavior of wearing clothing is learned through our culture (mama).

Humans are also born atheistic, meaning infants have no concept of gods since they have no concepts at all. We must learn the concept of what a god is through culture (mama or otherwise), and religion is built around the concept of god(s).

(3) Most people born into a particular culture learn to accept one religion at the exclusion of other religions. Of course, some people are born into families that have different views than the majority in the culture and the child is likely to learn that instead. Also, a person can learn to change his opinions later in life. But the fact remains, most people just accept whatever the other people within their culture teaches them. That's why people are grouped around the world by religion -- it is ALL learned behavior within different cultures.

(4) You are right that we need to eat and drink because it is in our nature as humans. We also need to THINK because that, too, is in our nature. It's just that most people accept the thoughts that are already "out there" -- thoughts of other people within the culture -- and do not think all that much about it. Those who do a lot of thinking are usually the ones who have different views (of course, some people with different views learned it because they were brought up in a family with different views, but then it was someone within their family who did the thinking and broke out of the cultural norm, passing it on to the kids).

Set aside religion for a moment. Consider communism. Did the people of Cuba or the former USSR all independently come up with the idea? Were they born with the concept? No, a couple of guys, Marx and Engels, came up with the idea, which was built on ideas of earlier people. The ideas were learned by a few who really wanted to implement it and the rest within the culture went along (for awhile). The same is true of all cultural ideas, especially religion.

(5) In some cases, the gods of religions might not have "wanted" control (an impossible concept since gods cannot want anything; they are figments of human imagination). The point I was making is this: HUMANS who want to control other humans use religion as one of their primary tools (government being the other primary tool).

(6) The reason science is different from religion is because science is objective, it can be tested, and it can be proven true or false, or modified with new information. Religion has none of those properties. It is subjective, not objective. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven true and has no false option (meaning, theists will not admit that a particular test or argument will prove their religion false; scientists will). It will never be modified from its original form (though people "interpret" it in various ways -- but that's not the same thing). Because science has these properties, we can gain knowledge about the world. We do not have to "believe in" science. We can prove it. With religion, we can only follow dogma. Apples fall to the ground when they are dropped. That can be proven. We do not have to have faith it will happen. What do gods do?

~ zynner

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: xJesterx but this raises the question whether it's possible to have no religion at all or whether we are just slapping new names on old theories.

Last portion of Ur post first. Human inquistive mind wondered from pre-historic time, how and why of this universe, our destiny after death and other misterial doubts that formulated few theories which developed into various religions. Such religious faiths have come down the ladder and been transported from generations to generations. So much so the word religion and its importance can not be wiped out from the world's community. So I firmly feel that religionless world is not possible as said earlier as well. But then, at personal levels some may not believe in any faith or religion but they too might have inquisitive questions about creation of universe, what after death and the like still baffling them (so called atheists)

I'm saying - what constitutes a religion? You have god/s which are supposed to give you guidelines and/or dictate the way you should live your life. You have subordinate 'authorities'. Then you have rules, consequences for breaching those rules and rewards for abiding by them. You are generally expected to tell other people about the religion/faith or 'enlighten' them if you prefer. These qualities are also to have been responsible for the creation of the universe yet there is only ever limited evidence that it/he/she/they were.

Exactly that way only religions were constituted!

And most if not all religions predict the destruction of mankind.

True, most if not all religions predict the destruction of mankind, but hindu religion(Sanatan Dharma to be more correct) says mankind runs in four distinct periods (Yugas, viz. satya, Dwaper, thrithya and kalyuga). It furthwer predicts destruction in between every two yugas but I feel there must be a gradual transformation without complete destruction.

Since things are worshipped in various religions as well (not just immortal or invisible beings) - a God can also be physical.

But to best of my knowledge none of the religions have ever given proof for "Physical God" though physical individuals have claimed to be present as incarnation of God (not of physical God). My feeling is God is some spiritual power behind the whole drama, the universe and beyond!:eek:

[Fonceai]

@Cephus

Read what I wrote again, then write what you wrote.

I will simplify for you...

Religion occurs in the beginning and as the intelligent life develops and starts seeking answers scientifically then religion is no longer needed to explain the supernatural.

You paralleled my statement because you failed to understand that I was referring to religion in the beginning phasing out later.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai Religion is a natural occurrence in the development of intelligent life.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd lean the other way, religion is something that gets left behind in the development of intelligent life. It is superstition, it is fear of the unknown, it is ignorance of the real causes of things, instead simply inventing something to believe to make one feel better. As humanity progresses farther, religion will fall behind because it is no longer necessary for the majority, especially the more intelligent and educated.

Studies have shown that there is an inverse correlation between religiousity and intelligence and educated. That says something important right there.

[another day]

Quote by: Cephus I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd lean the other way, religion is something that gets left behind in the development of intelligent life. It is superstition, it is fear of the unknown, it is ignorance of the real causes of things, instead simply inventing something to believe to make one feel better. As humanity progresses farther, religion will fall behind because it is no longer necessary for the majority, especially the more intelligent and educated. Studies have shown that there is an inverse correlation between religiousity and intelligence and educated. That says something important right there.

What he means (or what I mean then) is that in the evolutionary development of an intelligent species, religion will likely come into play at some point. This is the point where people are not yet advanced enough to discover the true reasons for the naturally occuring things in their society, and so blame them on supernatural elements. Because of our basic animal tribal nature, we relate better to things that concern our own type of animal being then to things that concern abstract concepts and forces. And so we explain these things with personified human like beings with an emotional driving behind them. They are nothing more then invented characters used to explain unknown forces. The ancient greeks did it with lightning bolts, explained by Zeus being angry at the people and throwing the bolts down on earth. A silly idea nowadays, yet it is the exact same concept that has peopel explaining the cosmos and natural forces of life with the silly Abraham god of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. People will claim their god is not like a human but is divine, but when you read the bible/koran you see that he is nothing more then a human-like character invented, with human emotions. Like a boy who's built a lego world and rules over it. Eventually every intelligent species will begin by using these kinds of ideas, until their species continues to learn and advance to the point where they realize there are logical reasons for these things. They begin to lose their religion as it becomes irrelevant. This is slowly happening now and I'm sure in 500 years religion will be an uncommon practice.

Religion really is the opposite of science. It's taking a problem (ie: how did humans come to me), and inventing a made up story to explain that problem, and that passing that around as truth. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth, and so the brainwashing meme infects billions, being passed down within families and cultures for so long that it becomes unthinkable that the religion be thought of as anything but totally true.

Science is taking a problem, forming a possible answer, and then conducting tests and observations to see if that logic naturally explains the problem. If it doesn't, then the hypothesis is thrown out and a new one is thought up.

So you see, there really IS a huge difference between Science and Religion, and you can't just water them both down with semi-common threads and say they are the same basic thing. There is a big difference.

[Cephus]

Quote by: another day What he means (or what I mean then) is that in the evolutionary development of an intelligent species, religion will likely come into play at some point.

You can't really say that because we only know of one intelligent species and for all you know, human religion is an anomaly. One is a pretty poor sample size, wouldn't you say?

[Fonceai]

Not really.

Since the presence of another intelligent species is Unknown, then the current and valid sample size is: one.

Currently, it would appear that the hypothesis is true until we run across another intelligent species.

The trick is in being flexible in our conclusions.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fonceai Since the presence of another intelligent species is Unknown, then the current and valid sample size is: one.

But that makes about as much sense as assuming that all intelligent species have two arms because every intelligent species we know of has two arms. Or two eyes. Or walks upright. Or has an appendix. There simply isn't enough examples to start making assumptions about what intelligent species can and cannot have, the only thing we can assume is that *HUMANS* have these characteristics.

[another day]

But that makes about as much sense as assuming that all intelligent species have two arms because every intelligent species we know of has two arms. Or two eyes. Or walks upright. Or has an appendix. There simply isn't enough examples to start making assumptions about what intelligent species can and cannot have, the only thing we can assume is that *HUMANS* have these characteristics.

Ahh, but there is one thing that any intelligent being WILL have - consciousness. We know this because the most intelligent beings display an idea of consciousness - through the passing of the mirror test. All the animals which were thought to be intelligent, dolphins, apes, elephants, have passed this test AFTER we already thought they were intelligent (so we are not simply attributing a passing of the mirror test to intelligence, this was done after the fact).

When an organism starts to develop conscious awareness and break that barrier, ie: becoming conscious of it's own consciousness, inevitably it will begin to wonder about how it has come to be, what it is etc.

Can we agree that when an organism reaches this barrier of consciousness that those questions will inevitably spring up?

To me, that will usually lead to something LIKE religion. It's just a thought, but to me it's rational that newly conscious organisms will begin to seek answers to their own existance. When these answers prove to be mysteries, answers will be invented to satisfy those needs - hence religion.

[Kuldeep]

Nicely explained! To my mind this very question has given birth to religion.

[Fonceai]

@another day

Another way to look at your point is this...

When intelligence leads to self-awareness, those questions of self and purpose will be asked. The big Why questions.

When the understanding of the natural world cannot provide answers, the answers are believed to be supernatural. By supernatural, I simply mean beyond the understanding of current science.

Having no religion, being atheist, whatever you want to call it, is still believing in the supernatural. Responsible atheists simply call it unknown and believe science will eventually find the answers. Irresponsible atheists will say that if science can't prove it, it doesn't exist.

[Hostile55]

Having no religion, being atheist, whatever you want to call it, is still believing in the supernatural. Responsible atheists simply call it unknown and believe science will eventually find the answers. Irresponsible atheists will say that if science can't prove it, it doesn't exist.

I basically agree with this but I wouldn't put it in those words, but yeah. I think though that supernatural is a misnomer. If it exists in is natural. Same with metaphysical. Beyond the physical, obove the natural, apart from everything else; no. Science can explain everything. Everythng is natural, everything is part of the physical (bearing in mind that string theory tells us there are are 11 dimentions).

But all this science malarchy gives me a sort of grounding, anchorage if you will. So, by that, it can be construed as being a religion (in a sense).

consider:
L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion;

[Fonceai]

@Hostile

Religion = binding through faith. Interesting.

I understand what you're saying about not using my words. I don't know how to express the concept that there are things that science can't quite explain yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or are invalid.

Psychic abilities and ghosts and such are considered supernatural. But I don't know any other word to use for something that science is currently not able to explain. Personally, I just say "unknown".

I'm really big on the probabilities of science. Some don't care about the probabilities at all. Those are the people that I would say have made science their religion. They accept what science says on faith; because science says so.

Granted, science usually has some actual proof, but sometimes it doesn't. The people who just want to hear science make a statement, regardless of the completeness of the proof, are the ones who are worshipping science.