Does society need religion?

[AgnosticBoy]

In regards to God and religion in society, there are two common perspectives that I've encountered:
1. There's those that agree with Dostoevsky view, that if God is dead, then everything is permitted. I don't know Dostoevsky was a theist, but many theists tend to agree with him that religion provides some sort of moral stability. I think Dr. William Lane Craig view here is a good representative for this side:

Consider first the question of objective moral values. If God does not exist, then what basis remains for the existence of objective moral values? In particular, why think that human beings would have objective moral worth? On the atheistic view human beings are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On atheism it’s hard to see any reason to think that human well-being is objectively good, anymore than insect well-being or rat well-being or hyena well-being.

2. Then there those like Sam Harris that say society doesn't need religion. Those in this camp tend to view religion as being outdated or primitive, based on superstition, and antithetic to progress. Here's a sample of this view from one of Sam Harris' articles:

Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and growing more probable by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities

[emphasis added]

For Debate:
1. Does society need religion?
2. Do you agree with any of the two perspectives above? If you have an alternative perspective then feel free to post it.

 

[bbyrd009]

i wonder if religion wasnt useful as a bridge, that we have mostly gotten across at this point…and interesting to me that the more secular cultures—Iceland, Norway—seem to have much more moral governments.

but imo as long as a culture has a majority of their population seeking to become immortals after they have died--which might indicate their level of self-centeredness—then we unfortunately need religion (politics)(manipulated fiat)
i say this bc those types of ppl wont be satisfied with the truth, hence politics (artful deception)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Does society need religion?

I believe society needs some religious values, as opposed to the entire system. I think society benefits from having morals that are looked at as being binding and absolute while also having a motivation/oughtness to follow them. As far as I've seen, this combination of traits is uniquely found in religion since the religious systems tend to involve beliefs and principles that are transcendental to humans (anchored to God, beyond normal life, our normal instincts, etc), while other systems can be easily seen as being man-made, imperfect, relative, etc. This is not to say that religious values are proven but they at least help society function good.

Do you agree with any of the two perspectives above? If you have an alternative perspective then feel free to post it.

I agree with most of Sam Harris criticism of religion, however, I wouldn't go as far as saying that society doesn't need religion. This is why I claim that society needs some aspects of religion and not the entire system.

As for the Dr. William Craig's view, I agree with his points about oughtness. In secular systems, I simply don't see as much motivation to follow morals. However, Craig's view has some areas that are speculative and probably some unnecessary baggage. Just my two cents.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

…and interesting to me that the more secular cultures—Iceland, Norway—seem to have much more moral governments.

This reminds me of the old debates on which societies have killed more. Christian apologists tend to bring up all of the communist regimes, while atheists are quick to point out the Crusades, etc.

i wonder if religion wasnt useful as a bridge, that we have mostly gotten across at this point

I like that idea and many progressives would probably agree. I believe religious values are a must so I don't view it as something we can fully progress beyond. However, I think we shouldn't over rely on it and should also look to science and other things. I think past societies relied on religion too much.