Imagine a world with no religion
The challenge has been made many times before, perhaps most eloquently by John Lennon in his song Imagine. I've always liked the song for its sentiment, although it sounds like the brochure for Marxism and Communism. It's a song that exemplifies "be careful what you wish for" because we've seen some very clear examples (Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Kim's DPRK) of the nirvana offered by the State in the abolition of property, equality in wages and the attempt to wipe out religion because it is seen as a threat to the state.
Once (after the Beatles split) Lennon reportedly disparaged Paul McCartney's songs as being nothing more than "silly love songs" because John and Yoko were preoccupied by world peace and all that important stuff. So Paul McCartney responded with his hit Silly Love Songs and I think that is a better blueprint for world peace than "Imagine" will ever be. Go have a listen to it.
In another sense, we could have looked at the song Imagine as a preview on Heaven, but his opening verse rules out that interpretation. So apparently, we can all live as saints as long as there are no countries, religion and property. Ironically, two songs later on the Imagine album, John is apologising to Yoko for being a Jealous Guy (great song too BTW). John Lennon, with his blueprint for happiness in Imagine, ends up confessing to his human frailties. Nothing in Imagine addressed the root causes of sin, of which Jealous Guy is an example. Misuse of political power is really just an amplification of personal sin, institutionalized. But I digress.
I'll take LRO's challenge and imagine a world with no religion. I've come up with four main lines of discussion, so I'll deliver this post in 4 parts. Here is part one.
Introduction
Imagine a world with no religion.
Firstly, what do people mean by "religion". I suspect atheists such as LRO simply want the belief in God to stop. After all, that's the cause behind wars and strife is it not?
Would it stop Greenies making a religion of environmentalism, and demanding population controls, euthanasia, and campaigns against people that don't follow their prescription for life on planet earth? Would this stop communists deciding some citizens are better off in the gulags? Would it stop State controlled economies keeping people in poverty and killing them off by starvation, like North Korea? Would it stop rampant, unfettered capitalism that would see the creation of monopolies and the reduction of people into mere economic expressions of humanity? No, "but it would be a start", is perhaps what they would argue. I suspect the attack on Christianity (in particular) from atheists isn't a start, but merely a continuation of a completely different problem, but I'm not here to discuss that today.
No religion means no philosophy and no independent thought
The definition of religion, at its most basic could be considered "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." [ref]
People believe in God because they are capable of independent and free thought. They are capable of philosophy. After consideration, many have arrived at the conclusion that the Universe has been created by an intelligent, omnipotent being or force we have called "God". That the Universe exists is more than random, blind chance and more than laws of physics that simply exist and therefore create Universes as a consequence of existing.
This is not the thread to outline the philosophical works that successfully argue for a Creator, it is enough to acknowledge they exist. To stop people reaching a conclusion that there is an entity called "God" I think you'd have to have a world without philosophy, and a world without independent thought.
Even so, the freedom to have incorrect thoughts (if atheists are correct) would have to cease to exist. To kill God, you need to kill philosophy. The God question is not a question science can answer.
I think the best example we can see of a society where such 'independent thought' doesn't interfere with "the natural order" the atheist desires is an ant colony. It would be a boring existence, unless you were the most ardent of Marxists.
The atheists solution to religion is more education. Education about science, because the visible and invisible can supposedly be explained by science. However, I disagree. Science deals with things of this Universe, not outside it. When it tries to move outside it, it becomes as theoretical as God, and only dogmatic insistence that scientific guesswork is more correct than philosophical guesswork on such matters makes the scientist look a little foolish. Many intelligent, well educated people, (and that includes notable scientists) have come to the conclusion that there is some kind of God out there. There need be no conflict between science and God.
To deny God is to deny creative thinking. If there was ever a sign of God, it is perhaps found in humans, who, in his image, are capable of abstract and creative thought. As a dim reflection of God, we can create ideas out of nothing, and then manifest those ideas into the physical world by manipulation of the elements and laws of physics that govern our Universe. Destroy this at your peril.
The challenge has been made many times before, perhaps most eloquently by John Lennon in his song Imagine. I've always liked the song for its sentiment, although it sounds like the brochure for Marxism and Communism. It's a song that exemplifies "be careful what you wish for" because we've seen some very clear examples (Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Kim's DPRK) of the nirvana offered by the State in the abolition of property, equality in wages and the attempt to wipe out religion because it is seen as a threat to the state.
Once (after the Beatles split) Lennon reportedly disparaged Paul McCartney's songs as being nothing more than "silly love songs" because John and Yoko were preoccupied by world peace and all that important stuff. So Paul McCartney responded with his hit Silly Love Songs and I think that is a better blueprint for world peace than "Imagine" will ever be. Go have a listen to it.
In another sense, we could have looked at the song Imagine as a preview on Heaven, but his opening verse rules out that interpretation. So apparently, we can all live as saints as long as there are no countries, religion and property. Ironically, two songs later on the Imagine album, John is apologising to Yoko for being a Jealous Guy (great song too BTW). John Lennon, with his blueprint for happiness in Imagine, ends up confessing to his human frailties. Nothing in Imagine addressed the root causes of sin, of which Jealous Guy is an example. Misuse of political power is really just an amplification of personal sin, institutionalized. But I digress.
I'll take LRO's challenge and imagine a world with no religion. I've come up with four main lines of discussion, so I'll deliver this post in 4 parts. Here is part one.
Introduction
Imagine a world with no religion.
Firstly, what do people mean by "religion". I suspect atheists such as LRO simply want the belief in God to stop. After all, that's the cause behind wars and strife is it not?
Would it stop Greenies making a religion of environmentalism, and demanding population controls, euthanasia, and campaigns against people that don't follow their prescription for life on planet earth? Would this stop communists deciding some citizens are better off in the gulags? Would it stop State controlled economies keeping people in poverty and killing them off by starvation, like North Korea? Would it stop rampant, unfettered capitalism that would see the creation of monopolies and the reduction of people into mere economic expressions of humanity? No, "but it would be a start", is perhaps what they would argue. I suspect the attack on Christianity (in particular) from atheists isn't a start, but merely a continuation of a completely different problem, but I'm not here to discuss that today.
No religion means no philosophy and no independent thought
The definition of religion, at its most basic could be considered "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." [ref]
People believe in God because they are capable of independent and free thought. They are capable of philosophy. After consideration, many have arrived at the conclusion that the Universe has been created by an intelligent, omnipotent being or force we have called "God". That the Universe exists is more than random, blind chance and more than laws of physics that simply exist and therefore create Universes as a consequence of existing.
This is not the thread to outline the philosophical works that successfully argue for a Creator, it is enough to acknowledge they exist. To stop people reaching a conclusion that there is an entity called "God" I think you'd have to have a world without philosophy, and a world without independent thought.
Even so, the freedom to have incorrect thoughts (if atheists are correct) would have to cease to exist. To kill God, you need to kill philosophy. The God question is not a question science can answer.
I think the best example we can see of a society where such 'independent thought' doesn't interfere with "the natural order" the atheist desires is an ant colony. It would be a boring existence, unless you were the most ardent of Marxists.
The atheists solution to religion is more education. Education about science, because the visible and invisible can supposedly be explained by science. However, I disagree. Science deals with things of this Universe, not outside it. When it tries to move outside it, it becomes as theoretical as God, and only dogmatic insistence that scientific guesswork is more correct than philosophical guesswork on such matters makes the scientist look a little foolish. Many intelligent, well educated people, (and that includes notable scientists) have come to the conclusion that there is some kind of God out there. There need be no conflict between science and God.
To deny God is to deny creative thinking. If there was ever a sign of God, it is perhaps found in humans, who, in his image, are capable of abstract and creative thought. As a dim reflection of God, we can create ideas out of nothing, and then manifest those ideas into the physical world by manipulation of the elements and laws of physics that govern our Universe. Destroy this at your peril.