How to overcome religion's role in providing identity and belonging?

[Calypze]

I think one of the greatest lures of religion is that it provides people with an identity and a sense of belonging, in other words a basis for "us vs them". I think it is one of the most powerful providers of that, moreso than ideology or nationality/ethnicity. Let's illustrate what I mean with a quote from Richard Dawkins:

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Religion fuels both.

So how should this be handled? Should people be offered something else with which they can identify and feel a sense of belonging to? Or should that instinct be overcome, if that is even psychologically possible?

[I WUB PUGS]

Ugh, yet another atheist with perverse interpretations of religion.

If I am correct in reading this, you seek to remove religion as a community that provides an identity. You know, the Einsatzgruppen and NKVD were basically religion free and they did a good job of carrying out evil.

Or you wish to remove the instinct leaving us with:

A society of individuals with no connection to one another at all. Everything we do of worth in life is through some sort of community. Whether it be with just a friend or coworker or your family or even cheering for your favorite athletic club.

A society comprised of mere individuals is impossible and it is not optimal. That is pure anarchy. Individuals cannot have law. Once you create a structure you create community.

Animals are competitive by nature and humans are animals. We will never remove this. Community provides a buffer more than anything, lest we become like outcast predators.

[Ummagumma]

Ugh, yet another atheist with perverse interpretations of religion.

Ugh, yet another one of whatever you self-describe yourself as.

You do realise that all the things you mention, about community and identity can exist perfectly well in a secular environment? It just skips over the 'I know fundamental truths of the universe you can never see' aspect, and the nonsense that it spawns.

OP: There is nothing you can do, nor is their anything you should try to do. It is tempting to think of many organised religions as a social cancer but it isn't. It is at worst a demonstration of the human mind, for good and bad. Religion will exist for as long as consciousness exists. It may not maintain the current flavours - Religions come and go. It (hopefully) may not have any socio-political power if global education and scientific research continue to advance.. but there will always be something. Some folks want/need to 'believe' in something. It's not fundamentally bad, it is just often corrupted, and divisive. Challenge views if you want. Laugh if you must, but thinking of some crusade to wipe clean religion is quite bigoted, in my opinion.

Even if there was no religion, we'd still have regional identity clashes. Or PC vs. Mac. Facebook vs. twitter. Primal, tribalistic urges to be part of an 'us', which will inevitably have a 'them' to which the individual feels superior. I suppose the up side is you can actually smash someone's Macbook while telling them 'It is simply called a laptop' rather than killing someone because gooboodoodie is a better imaginary construct than boogoodoodie.

[I WUB PUGS]

Ugh, yet another one of whatever you self-describe yourself as.

You do realise that all the things you mention, about community and identity can exist perfectly well in a secular environment? It just skips over the 'I know fundamental truths of the universe you can never see' aspect, and the nonsense that it spawns.

OP: There is nothing you can do, nor is their anything you should try to do. It is tempting to think of many organised religions as a social cancer but it isn't. It is at worst a demonstration of the human mind, for good and bad. Religion will exist for as long as consciousness exists. It may not maintain the current flavours - Religions come and go. It (hopefully) may not have any socio-political power if global education and scientific research continue to advance.. but there will always be something. Some folks want/need to 'believe' in something. It's not fundamentally bad, it is just often corrupted, and divisive. Challenge views if you want. Laugh if you must, but thinking of some crusade to wipe clean religion is quite bigoted, in my opinion.

Even if there was no religion, we'd still have regional identity clashes. Or PC vs. Mac. Facebook vs. twitter. Primal, tribalistic urges to be part of an 'us', which will inevitably have a 'them' to which the individual feels superior. I suppose the up side is you can actually smash someone's Macbook while telling them 'It is simply called a laptop' rather than killing someone because gooboodoodie is a better imaginary construct than boogoodoodie.

Wow. You clearly didn't read the linked article but okay! And then you rehashed what I said.

My question to the OP was should we remove identity and belonging or are we merely arguing for the removal of religion because it corrupts identity and belonging, which is why I then cited the Nazis and Commies. Communities full of identity and belonging but free of religion, and then they corrupted it just as well as religion!

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Religion fuels both.

Sadly, humanity will always need something to fuel this. My question to the OP is should we just remove identity and belonging (community) as he hinted at.

[Calypze]

My question to the OP is should we just remove identity and belonging (community) as he hinted at.

I also hinted that I don't believe it is possible (perhaps except for psychopaths). Human psychological self-identification is very well-established. Some linkies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identit...ial_science%29

In other words, it is a fundamental part of human nature, and indeed of all social animals (otherwise there can be no packs). Religion can fill that role, but it's not the only possible filler.

If this book is to be believed, tribalism (the very basis of "us vs them") isn't so much a mental deficit as it is how we think at an everyday level.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

My question to the OP was should we remove identity and belonging or are we merely arguing for the removal of religion because it corrupts identity and belonging, which is why I then cited the Nazis and Commies. Communities full of identity and belonging but free of religion, and then they corrupted it just as well as religion!

When National Socialists and Communists were forces for evil in the world, we (speaking as the collective human race) eliminated those ideologies. Today religion is a force for evil in the world. Why not religion next?

Sadly, humanity will always need something to fuel this. My question to the OP is should we just remove identity and belonging (community) as he hinted at.

I think you must have misunderstood him. I don't see where he said that. He's talking about the identity and community religion provides rather than identity and community in general. Most religious people don't care about the truth. They are in it for other reasons.

[Ummagumma]

Wow. You clearly didn't read the linked article but okay! And then you rehashed what I said.

Yes, I did. No, I didn't.
I replied to the OP, and criticised the fevered arguments of the article in the second half of the post.

The part to you was due to you saying 'but Nazis! Commies!!'. It is like saying that.. Cucumber-sandwich eating Anglicans are like 13th Century Crusaders. I'm sure there is a word for that type of argument, but I can't remember it (not quite strawman.. reducio-ad-Nazi maybe? ). It was also just fun to paraphrase your opening line. Cool?

[Biggieboy]

Yes, I did. No, I didn't.
I replied to the OP, and criticised the fevered arguments of the article in the second half of the post.

The part to you was due to you saying 'but Nazis! Commies!!'. It is like saying that.. Cucumber-sandwich eating Anglicans are like 13th Century Crusaders. I'm sure there is a word for that type of argument, but I can't remember it (not quite strawman.. reducio-ad-Nazi maybe? ). It was also just fun to paraphrase your opening line. Cool?

actually, it's called argumentum ad hitlerum, which i've seen appear quite frequently lately. Some things never change I guess

[Biggieboy]

Wow, only one post to get to Nazism, must be a record. Godwin's law strikes again!

[MaximiIian]

Religion's social aspects can be and are taken up by other social organisations and institutions. The state, local communities, family, etc. Though more often than not, these are all blended together into a working organism rather than one supplanting the other.
All the best, I'd say; any one of these elements dominating leads to oppression and cruelty. Whether religion becoming the fundamentalist or domineering Church, the state becoming the Fascist edifice, or one's community becoming rigid collectivity. A balance between social institutions and individual liberty is essential in a good society.

[Ratzor]

There is probably no way to overcome it. All the major religions preach for peace and forgiving towards your fellow man in some respect, yet it is often the most ardent "believers" who are the most likely to aggressively attack other beliefs. They excuse their own behaviour by telling themselves it's for the protection of the faith, what weak ass faith would need the "protection" of mere men anyways? Doesn't help that religious authority has a long history of sanctioning violence and persecution against other faiths as well.

Would be dandy if people could just work out their differences in a peaceful fashion, regardless of belief or ethnicity or cultural heritage or whatever but it won't happen as long as people keep viewing vast masses of peoples as groups instead of individuals.

Quite mind boggling to think that all the animosity between nations and religions alike cab in most cases be traced back to the actions of a single individual.

[fkizz]

I'm taking a bet that 99% of the atheists here didn't have a clue who Dawkins was before he wrote "Delusion of God"

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I'm taking a bet that 99% of the atheists here didn't have a clue who Dawkins was before he wrote "Delusion of God"

and your point is?

[fkizz]

and your point is?

I have this personal theory that Dawkins bashes religion for the fame rather than for a genuine dislike of religion, or even if he dislikes it he exagerates and dramatizes his dislike to become more famous.

The figures adds up: his popularity rose exponencially since he stopped writting intelligent-harder-to-understand science divulgation books and wrote easy-to-understand-bashing-religion books.

I'm taking a bet 99% of Christians didn't know about Christianity until the council of Nicea wrote the Bible.

That metaphor is so piss poor I don't know where to start. Dawkins wrote many books (and better well written) before God's Delusion, some of them written before I was born, like The Selfish Gene. God's Delusion is in dumbed down easy for everyone to understand language compared to the others, that are designed to a more intellectual audience.

So there were previous chances to know Dawkins. But it would require a personal interest in Science that the masses simply don't have.

[Ratzor]

That metaphor is so piss poor I don't know where to start. Dawkins wrote many books before God's Delusion, some of them written before I was born, like The Selfish Gene.

Indeed it was. Thank you for noticing (:

Edit: Though it has some merit as comparison material.

Dawkins wrote several books before his breakthrough made his works known to the general public. There were several versions of the bible and christianity before tCoN, mostly obscure cults and smaller communities. However after tCoN and the implementation of christianity as the state religion of the eastern roman empire everybody knew about this hip new religion! Is it not uncanny?

Edit #2: also tCoN should be an annual thing.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I have this personal theory that Dawkins bashes religion for the fame rather than for a genuine dislike of religion, or even if he dislikes it he exagerates and dramatizes his dislike to become more famous.

The figures adds up: his popularity rose exponencially since he stopped writting intelligent-harder-to-understand science divulgation books and wrote easy-to-understand-bashing-religion books.

It doesn't affect the truth of what he says though. I'd like to hear you countering it.

[Ummagumma]

I have this personal theory.....

...his popularity rose exponencially since he stopped writting intelligent-harder-to-understand science divulgation books and wrote easy-to-understand-bashing-religion books.

I also have a theory: If you write books for a wider audience, you will gain a wider (therefore larger) audience. How profound I am.

Nice point, well made.. nothing to do with the topic.

[fkizz]

Dawkins wrote several books before his breakthrough made his works known to the general public. There were several versions of the bible and christianity before tCoN, mostly obscure cults and smaller communities. However after tCoN and the implementation of christianity as the state religion of the eastern roman empire everybody knew about this hip new religion! Is it not uncanny?

Still trying to save a failed metaphor out of pride? Dawkins previous books were not bashing religion, they were of a different subject altogether, with different target audiences, the God's Delusion target audience is a less educated and less intellectual one, his other works are for the interested in science, intellectual and educated in such, so your metaphor fails due to lack of similiarities, while the religious books were about christianity, same subject, same target public.

Also comparing a book written in dumbed down language to be easy to understand "God's Delusion" to the Bible itself, the Bible being an extremely long and hard to understand book, I mean your argument just doesn't hold any water. Let it die.

Nice point, well made.. nothing to do with the topic.

Aww cmon Dawkins is always ontopic for EMM atheists.

It doesn't affect the truth of what he says though. I'd like to hear you countering it.

If we're going to talk about Atheist Authors I'd prefer Friederich Nietzsche, despite being an Atheist he actually studied Theology and understands well the religious phenomena he tries to reject, unlike Dawkins.

Nietzsche is even much more agressive with Christianism than what Dawkins is, making Dawkins look like a little boy. He is also extremely harder to read, making him unatractive to a larger sway of masses.

[Ratzor]

I'm taking a bet that 99% of the atheists here didn't have a clue who Dawkins was before he wrote "Delusion of God"

I'm taking a bet 99% of Christians didn't know about Christianity until the council of Nicea wrote the Bible.

[MaximiIian]

I'm taking a bet 99% of Christians didn't know about Christianity until the council of Nicea wrote the Bible.

That metaphor is not only clunky, it's inaccurate. The canon of the Bible wasn't codified at the council of Nicea. It was done decades earlier, and even that was based on common, popularly-held canons.