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:
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 Those in this camp tend to view religion as being outdated or primitive, based on superstition, and antithetic to progress.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:
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.
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 Those in this camp tend to view religion as being outdated or primitive, based on superstition, and antithetic to progress.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:
[emphasis added]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
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.