[Dave]

No, negative effect

Religion provides a useful system of social mores and ingrains conservatism. Without religion it is far easier for dangerous ideological fads like liberalism to take over society.

[Dr House]

No, negative effect. Religion provides meaning to people's lives, as well as a socially beneficial code of conduct and an incentive structure to follow it; without which controlling society would require the use of force and massive amounts of resources.

Additionally, religion is inbuilt into the human psyche, as a natural defense mechanism against anomie and existentially-driven suicide. Therefore, it's not only a bad idea but outright impossible to get shot of religion.

[Rugoz]

Without religion it is far easier for dangerous ideological fads like liberalism to take over society.

We've already taken over. The battle ist lost, the war is lost. Time to take your pills, friendo.

Therefore, it's not only a bad idea but outright impossible to get shot of religion.

Somehow the japs manage.

[Dave]

We've already taken over. The battle ist lost, the war is lost. Time to take your pills, friendo.

That is my point. Traditional religion did not survive its contact with rational scientific inquiry in the West and exists today in serious form only among lower social classes who lack influence over the direction of society. The result of this has been the destruction of the moral and social fabric of Western society and a serious of dangerous ideologies. Liberalism was arguably the "least bad" when compared to its competitors communism and fascism, but it is destructive none the less and will not last.

That said, it is possible that the knowledge being amassed from science will allow us to properly regulate social mores without religion. Neo-Darwinism as a guiding principle?

Somehow the japs manage.

People who claim not to be religious are usually still superstitious in some way and cling to various irrational belief systems. The Japanese believe in all manner of absurdities. This is a culture where people believe that blood type is correlated with personality.

[Dr House]

That is my point. Traditional religion did not survive its contact with rational scientific inquiry in the West and exists today in serious form only among lower social classes who lack influence over the direction of society. The result of this has been the destruction of the moral and social fabric of Western society and a serious of dangerous ideologies. Liberalism was arguably the "least bad" when compared to its competitors communism and fascism, but it is destructive none the less and will not last.

You should remember the argument you yourself made that liberalism is comparable to a religion. Arguably the God part of the secular humanist's psyche may be replaced by the promise of Scientific Enlightenment -- meaning that people are just as religious as they've always been. The difference is that modern European theology is shitty and destructive.

[Thunderhawk]

No, negative effect
We are having problems establishing and enforcing social norms and civility within our secular/agnostic societies, and that is with many religious people acting in secular ways to keep society together and civil. If every one became an atheist tomorrow without further development of their rationale and long term thought, I think society would regress to more uncivilized levels.

Nietzsche was right.

[Daktoria]

No, negative effect
We are having problems establishing and enforcing social norms and civility within our secular/agnostic societies, and that is with many religious people acting in secular ways to keep society together and civil. If every one became an atheist tomorrow without further development of their rationale and long term thought, I think society would regress to more uncivilized levels.

Nietzsche was right.

I agree.

It would be nice to get rid of religion, but it's not possible. People don't want to be philosophical, and at the bottom of every economy is an emotional working class that can't even afford to philosophize while being socially competitive.

To prevent anarchy and fascism, we need ceremony and mystery to keep these emotions in check. We also need ceremony and mystery to let the less emotional feel secure in interacting with the more emotional.

[fuser]

If every one became an atheist tomorrow without further development of their rationale and long term thought, I think society would regress to more uncivilized levels.

But this is an impossibility, society isn't going to become atheist suddenly if it would. It would be a very slow process and your fear regarding development of rationale can be sorted out during that process.

[Maas]

Religion gives besides resentment also comfort and peace of mind.

It's worth something. In theory it should be possible to give each a value times a number of people and than subract it. And see if the outcome is possitive or negative. But remains to be rather vague to give a value to a number of people who all say "we find a lot of comfort" etc. This means the outcome always remains disputable.

[Cartertonian]

Yes, positive effect

...but probably not for a very long time.

Humans rationalise what they don't understand. 'God' is one of those rationalisations. And since all 'faiths' are intrinsically based on placing belief in something that cannot be empirically proven, I call bullshit on the whole lot of 'em.

[Fraqtive42]

Other

No, unknown effect.

[Takkon]

Cart, that's exactly how I feel. People who support the continuing of religion aren't looking far enough into the future. They cite examples of the immediate negative effects of the transition towards universal secularism, without realizing that in order for us to stay on the path of technological progress, we must not be retarded by beliefs that emerge from divinity, intangible and un-empirical.

Of course, if you see the world as a struggle for survival between parties that have always and will always be at odds, working to destroy and subvert each other, then it's hard to see how the end of religion would be useful, since religion is so necessary to keep people from questioning why exactly they have to be at odds with someone just because they're from another piece of land. Not that religion is directly used to justify this, but as so many have pointed out, religion is a very useful tool society has for keeping people from questioning the social order.

To them I would pose that the alienation that comes from secularism is growing pains. The existential crisis exists because the way we live is at odds with how we perceive that we should live. Religion is useful for keeping those thoughts at bay because it supposes that we have another, ethereal lifetime in which to make up for our mistakes. With the end of religion, we have no such comfort and we have to realize that all the mistakes that we have made have to be rectified before we die if we want them to be rectified, and all the indirect suffering we cause just on account of our lifestyle is also on us until the day that we die. People who either don't believe that's true or don't care that it is true don't want people to realize that, because then, as Dave so aptly put it, "it is far easier for dangerous ideological fads like liberalism to take over society".

Now, I'm not a liberal, nor do I believe that conservatives don't have a good point about what should happen here and now (it's a little bit much to ask the entire world to stop being religious), but it's important for society to analyze and catalog all the mistakes that it makes and try to rectify them, not just rationalize them away. If there are things that some say are mistakes that others say are not, so be it, but we should at least have the discussion instead of ignoring it altogether, using religion as the rational for doing so.

[doc ob]

The existential crisis exists because the way we live is at odds with how we perceive that we should live. Religion is useful for keeping those thoughts at bay

This is something I struggle with personally a lot: I feel the structure of society is not in equilibrium, so there's an underlying tension in lots of people, in a Kackzinski kind of way (not sure if that's how his name's spelt??). Although your point raises an interesting thought about "how we perceive we should live". Is it not important for each individual to discover this within themselves? Whichs inevitably going to be very different for each person. But then fulfilling the conclusions reached are, for me at least, very difficult to attain.

[Thunderhawk]

But this is an impossibility, society isn't going to become atheist suddenly if it would. It would be a very slow process and your fear regarding development of rationale can be sorted out during that process.

A great deal of the Western world is already atheist, agnostic or largely indifferent. Seeing, acknowledging and copying others rationale on the non-existence of god is not too difficult as it has been widely published and well established as legitimate. Why we should be moral and civil is not so well argued and published, and what there is, is often contradictory and/or tied to religion and at odds with many portrayals of success.

I'm an atheist and view religion as currently holding us back in many ways, but I also believe religion is providing a social glue for much of society, and not much of a secular equivalent has arisen over the last several decades.

edit:
I am optimistic that one day rational societies will be the overwhelming majority and they will innately dismiss religion.. but I don't expect that to happen any time soon, and I expect most transitions will be done to quickly leading to large social problems which will halt/slow/undo progress.

[Arkady2009]

Just think...9/11 was a result of extreme religious beliefs.

If religion didn't exist, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

[Suska]

placing belief in something that cannot be empirically proven, I call bullshit

Empirically proven bullshit is of equal value with intuitively understood bullshit. I see you as someone carrying around a bucket without a bottom. Try not-knowing what you don't know, it's much less stressful.

The ideology at a glance is the cover of a book. If you don't want to read it quit acting like you know it from watching movies and the news.

[Cartertonian]

Try not-knowing what you don't know

That is central to my point, Suska, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

I acknowledge that there is something about our very existence that we don't understand and, unlike 'people of faith', I don't try and rationalise it away as some kind of sky-god...I simply admit that I don't know. That's agnosticism in its literal sense.

[fuser]

I am optimistic that one day rational societies will be the overwhelming majority and they will innately dismiss religion.. but I don't expect that to happen any time soon, and I expect most transitions will be done to quickly leading to large social problems which will halt/slow/undo progress.

Basically, that's my position too.

Just think...9/11 was a result of extreme religious beliefs.

If religion didn't exist, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Religion was not the switch that triggered 9/11, it fueled it but it was not the cause. Extremism will/can exist without religion.

[Paradigm]

Just think...9/11 was a result of extreme religious beliefs.

If religion didn't exist, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

American imperialism is a religion?

[Daktoria]

To them I would pose that the alienation that comes from secularism is growing pains.

When you're personally and physically assaulted by unreligious people, get back to me.

You have no right to talk about "growing pains" unless you've actually endured them.

Religion is useful for keeping those thoughts at bay

No, religion is useful for keeping people who don't think at bay.

because it supposes that we have another, ethereal lifetime in which to make up for our mistakes.

"Our" mistakes?

With the end of religion, we have no such comfort and we have to realize that all the mistakes that we have made have to be rectified before we die if we want them to be rectified, and all the indirect suffering we cause just on account of our lifestyle is also on us until the day that we die.

This makes just as little sense as expecting Italians to pay for affirmative action.