From a functionalist perspective, what can Atheism do to help society?

Question

Religion has always created a social fabric with moral standards, social mores and taboos but atheism has none except don't have any. I hear some atheists claim that our morals are just socially evolved but every religions Holy Books give specific instructions. How would an atheist society decide which set of morals to adhere to? Who defines right and wrong? It isn't just common sense or else all societies would have similar laws. Things like cannibalism, polygamy, homosexuality, rape etc. are either socially accepted or horribly wrong depending on what society you live in. Moral relativism instead of pursuit of absolute truth would just lead to a societal breakdown of marriage, morality and all other traditions (based on religion) that a keep a society together. Look at America and Western Europe. Relativism and individualism are tearing apart tradition and leaving a void. WHat will atheists fill it with?

You are wrong sir. Christianity is what spawned the anti-slavery movement in the UK and the US. William Wilberforce, John Brown. The civil rights movement had the same motivation look at REV Martin Luther King JR. Even now Christians donate four times as much money to charity than atheists. Aids in Africa, poverty, human rights etc.. these are all Christian causes because of Jesus' command to love one's neighbor.

Answer 1

"From a functionalist perspective, what can Atheism do to help society?"

Since atheism is the absence of a belief, atheism itself can't "do" anything.

Hypothetically, if we could convince everyone on the planet that there is no God, it would have little or no effect. People would find some other silly rationalization for their beliefs. They'd still die and kill for their religions.

For an "atheist society" to make any difference, its ideological positions must be much more radical than mere atheism.

"How would an atheist society decide which set of morals to adhere to?"

We would use other documents, like the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

"Who defines right and wrong?"

Since the destruction of the second temple, Judaism has made a lot of progress letting rabbis interpret Jewish Law. Just expand the rabbinic system to include other historical documents (beyond the Torah) and I think you'd have a pretty good system for defining right and wrong. Which is pretty much what we have today. To answer your question in one word: intellectuals.

Moral philosophers define right and wrong. Their definitions then filter down to the people through the media and universities.

"It isn't just common sense or else all societies would have similar laws."

You already established that every religion's Holy Book gives specific instructions. Don't you realize that those instructions are all different? How, then, are secular laws any more "relativistic" than religious laws?

"Things like cannibalism, polygamy, homosexuality, rape etc. are either socially accepted or horribly wrong depending on what society you live in."

If you're worried about the laws being different in each jurisdiction, you should advocate one world government.

"Moral relativism instead of pursuit of absolute truth would just lead to a societal breakdown of marriage..."

Who says atheists can't pursue absolute truth?

Atheism is not synonymous with moral relativism.

"Relativism and individualism are tearing apart tradition and leaving a void."

There has been a void in western civilization for hundreds of years. A 2,000 year-old religion does not and cannot apply to modern times. We need new myths more suitable to the common era.

With the creation of the first cave art some 30,000 years ago, mankind established an invisible world overlapping and underlying our own. Only through the creation of that world could we create the social constructs that formed the "real" world we know today. We are living in an artificially created world, but we've lost touch with the invisible world that gives it meaning, and this has caused a cognitive split. As I see it, we have only two options: return to the prehistoric lifestyle or recreate the invisible world through the creation of new myths.

I believe that the Internet will fill that void: the invisible web that connects us all.

Answer 2

I hate to differ with you David but religion has taught intolerance and fear throughout history and it continues today.
Atheism can teach you that today is what matters so live your life right, teach the golden rule and be happy....
Morals are not a religious creation nor are they a commandment from God, they are a social necessity for a creature prone to war and violence, especially in our overpopulated world.
Some ridiculous restrictions and social taboos are the result of religion, but not morals.

Answer 3

The academic research on morals is quite interesting. When you give moral problems to people of different religions or cultures including atheists, they generally agree with one another. This implies that morals and ethics are biologically and economically driven and religion just codifies the boundary cases. Game theory would be a better predictor than religious affiliation. Of interest, religion does seem to play a role in determining who we can kill. People tend to permit horrendous behavior if it is done by their group to another and call it an atrocity when it occurs in reverse.

For example, the President of the United States supports the use of torture and Congress debated whether or not torture is a good idea. Yet, until quite recently, torture was universally condemned by America. Likewise, the use of torture by the Inquisition or by the Protestant equivalent during the Reformation is not considered horrid, but was a good idea at the time.

Religion seems to be more about who is considered in our family group than a deep connection to anything else. Some people of course take these ideals to a fanatic level, but that is even true of atheism. The communists took atheism to its extremes just as bin Laden did with Islam and people can easily list Christian criminals for the faith...err saints.

Cannibalism has even occured in the United States, such as at the Donner Pass during a blizzard and was expected to occur at sea during the 19th century.. Polygamy is permitted in Arizona and Utah and serial polygamy occurs throught the United States with divorce and remarriage.

Moral relativism is a loaded term. As an economist, I tend to observe that our morals are tightly tied to environmental uncertainty and resources available. Our morals move, even in the most religious societies. We just use religion as the justification after the fact for our activities.

Holy Books give specific instructions, but I would point out that sacrificing our children as Abraham considered would automatically bring jail time in our society and many of the laws of the Torah would now be considered crimes, including elements of the ten commandments. The primary crime of the ten commandments was having another God, yet the first amendment guarantees such a thing.

Religion serves to identify co-members of your family group who deserve protection and defense. Other groups are misguided and need fixed or opposed if they conflict with your beliefs. However, these conflicts only seem to matter during a resource crisis. Civilizations of differening religions have survived side by side until a resource crisis occured and then religion or ideology suddenly matter.

America and Western Europe are tearing apart their traditions, but that is positive. Many of our traditions come from preliterate and prescientific times and are destructive. They do need obliterated. Atheists and non-atheists will fill the void with new social contracts that will be unrecognizable to our grandparents just as the ethics of a slave owning society are foreign to us. There is a wonderful users manual written on the care and keeping of ***** slaves in the sugar colonies, primarily for use in the Indies. It shows a world, much like ours, with values that are frightening really, showing how to minimize the death of livestock...err human slaves due to suicide, disease and forced miscarriages. As well as rewards to women who successfully carry children and who appear to be good breeding stock. I am sorry I forget the title, but I just recently read it.

Do not fall in love with your own traditions, they will be the future group's abominations.

Answer 4

In every human advance since the Dark ages religion has been anti progress, anti human rights, anti women and anti minorities. Religion has constantly fought for oppression and ignorance. The only reason most people have rights is because of secular society, you sir are on the wrong side of history!

Answer 5

You must ask yourself, what is religion doing to help society and what is it doing to hinder?

It is doing way more damage than good. We can keep the good and get rid of some of the bad by getting rid of religion.

Something that we have learned through the ages is that religion does not stop people from doing bad things. So it really has no benefit.

Answer 6

the Bible or the Koran — these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

Answer 7

Have you ever been to Canada? Or England? That's what secularism does. Canada and England have better social security, freedom, free speech, healthcare etc.

Answer 8

Screw that, i just came in to look at your picture.