A world with many religions or a world with zero religions

[Durus]

religion =
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

and so on.

That there have been atrocities committed with and without religion seems irrelevant.

Doesn’t change the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and the German Army was Christian.

Secondly, if you think Stalin massacred millions in the name of unbelief…then you must conclude he massacred millions because he had a mustache.

Not believing in the God of Abraham had nothing to do with his rampage.

Hitler was a baptised Catholic and led a Christian Army and still he went on a rampage…

 

[PeterJohn]

Isn’t that the definition of heaven?

Everyone blissfully happy, worshipping God non-stop?

No.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The separation of Church and State does not lead to blood shed.

But neither does it always prevent against it, so it seems irrelevant here. In the same way that having a religious government does not always lead to violence (e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain)

 

[PeterJohn]

Doesn’t change the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and the German Army was Christian.

Secondly, if you think Stalin massacred millions in the name of unbelief…then you must conclude he massacred millions because he had a mustache.

Not believing in the God of Abraham had nothing to do with his rampage.

Hitler was a baptised Catholic and led a Christian Army and still he went on a rampage…

Perhaps you haven’t read about statins dis-beliefs. Or hitlers.
What was the penalty for deserting the German army?
Hitler was raised catholic and fell away from faith in general.
The crusades were a rescue attempt of Europe. If your of European decent, your welcome.
The inqisition was a round up of leftovers from the Saracen attack that caused the crusades.

See how differing perspectives works?
Right there is a perfect example of how your no religion plan would fail.
You’d see it your way, and I’d see it mine. We would either kill one another as animals would or we’d lie on tv about our plans to save the economy like they do in a democracy.

 

[PeterJohn]

The fact is, if you want peace and unity, be peaceful and unified. If you want to argue with Christians about their belifes, get on catholic answers and post questions to amuse yourself

 

[Trigonometric]

I think the original premise is flawed for two reasons.

The first is that it fails to account for people that would not meet 1b if there were no religions, but would repent and lead sufficiently holy lives given the presence of religion.

The second flaw is that the “no organized religions” premise doesn’t necessarily mean invincible ignorance of Christ. Although it would be very difficult to have the Bible and the message of Christ without an organized religion forming around it, this hypothetical world could have that, and then those rejecting Christ would still be liable for that.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Perhaps you haven’t read about statins dis-beliefs. Or hitlers.
What was the penalty for deserting the German army?
Hitler was raised catholic and fell away from faith in general.
The crusades were a rescue attempt of Europe. If your of European decent, your welcome.
The inqisition was a round up of leftovers from the Saracen attack that caused the crusades.

See how differing perspectives works?
Right there is a perfect example of how your no religion plan would fail.
You’d see it your way, and I’d see it mine. We would either kill one another as animals would or we’d lie on tv about our plans to save the economy like they do in a democracy.

History is written by the victors.

It sounds like you want to make some combination of these two points:

1. Religion makes people good who would otherwise have been bad.
2. A lack of religion makes bad people out of good people.

However, we must also admit that religion has the potential to make good people do bad things (e.g. terrorism.) Do we have any reason to suspect that the number of people converted from “badness” to “goodness” is larger than the set of people who reject the true religion?

 

[MacBP]

I propose that if our goal is to get a maximum number of people into heaven, then it is desirable to have a world with no organized religions rather than a world with many.

1. It is possible to go to heaven even if you are not a member of the true religion; we can say, for the sake of argument, that this is Catholicism. To do so you must:
   a. Be ignorant of the true religion through no fault of your own.
   b. Obey “natural law” or the laws “written in our hearts.” Basically you must be a good person.
2. If there exist many religions and exactly one “true” religion then there will exist people who reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion
3. If people reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion then those people will not go to heaven.
4. Some people who reject the true religion are good people, i.e. would satisfy criteria 1b.
5. If there are no religions then people cannot reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion.
6. Therefore, the set of people who go to heaven is larger in the case of zero religions. Specifically, the people who get into heaven are:
   No religions|Many religions

All good people|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

Since we have claim that the set of good people who reject the true religion is non-empty, then more people would get into heaven if there were no religions than if there were many.

NOTE: this is not a discussion of atheism since our goal is “to get a maximum number of people into heaven.”

Peter Kreeft actually talks about this is one of his talks, although I can’t remember his argument. I remember the conclusion was that it is preferable to “send out” the missionaries so to speak.

There are a couple of reasons I think that this argument falls short. We do not know what the criteria is for a non-Catholic to get into heaven except to say we know that its possible. As a result while it is possible that the conclusion you have drawn might be valid it equally might not be. It is possible that the harvest from a given Catholic population would total more than individuals lost through 1a.

Furthermore for your conclusion to be valid we must make some assumptions about what it takes to fail 1a. It seems to me that plenty of people could be another religion besides Catholicism and have rejected it through no fault of their own. Is a person at fault if he rejects a strawman Catholicism? Might it be true that anyone who sincerely believes in their religion or lack thereof be not at fault? The fact of that matter is that there is far too much room for interpretation in 1 to safely make the assumptions you did.

Finally, as another poster has mentioned, even if the existence of many religion lessons the amount of people who are entering heaven that doesn’t mean it is inferior to the no religion option. Matters of justice, for example demand the former over the latter.

Hitler was a Catholic and the German Army was a Christian Army.

Mein Kamf is riddled with excerpts related to God and many of Hitlers speeches employ God as a tool of propaganda.

Awfully strange behaviour for an Atheist, speaking to Atheists? No?

The separation of Church and State does not lead to blood shed.

This is a misconception. Here’s some quotes from Hitler himself:

National Socialism and religion cannot exit together… The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity… Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest again nature. Taken to its logical extreme Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure…

Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944, Oxford University Press

Hitler may have espoused Christianity in public but he despised it in private. He also followed none of its teachings. Furthermore, even the Nazi party propaganda was particularly Christian friendly as the war proceeded.

For example one of marching songs was…

Pope and rabbi shall yield
We want to be pagans again
No longer creep into the churches
The orb of the sun alone is leading us
Out with the Jews
And with the pope from the German home

There’s a lot more where that came from. Look up the German Faith Movement some time. At the end of the day the only thing the Nazi Party and Hitler worshiped was themselves.

 

[PeterJohn]

History is written by the victors.

It sounds like you want to make some combination of these two points:

1. Religion makes people good who would otherwise have been bad.
2. A lack of religion makes bad people out of good people.

However, we must also admit that religion has the potential to make good people do bad things (e.g. terrorism.) Do we have any reason to suspect that the number of people converted from “badness” to “goodness” is larger than the set of people who reject the true religion?

Perhaps not the “true” religion. But there are more goodies then baddies! Like you! You seem good. Somewhat. I think with a little Jesus in your heart you’d make a great catholic.
I am a former atheist baddie!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I think the original premise is flawed for two reasons.

The first is that it fails to account for people that would not meet 1b if there were no religions, but would repent and lead sufficiently holy lives given the presence of religion.

The second flaw is that the “no organized religions” premise doesn’t necessarily mean invincible ignorance of Christ. Although it would be very difficult to have the Bible and the message of Christ without an organized religion forming around it, this hypothetical world could have that, and then those rejecting Christ would still be liable for that.

Indeed, there may be such people. However, might there not also be people who would meet the 1b requirement if it were not for their mistaken notions about religion? E.g. religious extremists? So we must ask: what are the relative sizes of these different sets of people?

There is an additional point to consider. Is the reformative power of religion unique to the “true” religion? I suspect that it is not, in other words, non-true religions can also make bad people into 1b good people. Therefore we might consider a 3rd category in which there were only untrue religions.

As for the “how” of no religion I admit it would be tricky. We could be talking about a large scale elimination of religious literature, such that the specifics of the teachings were lost. We might still know about each religion in the sense that we know that they once existed, but it would be very difficult if not impossible for someone to learn the details of any particular religion.

 

[MacBP]

Doesn’t change the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and the German Army was Christian.

Secondly, if you think Stalin massacred millions in the name of unbelief…then you must conclude he massacred millions because he had a mustache.

Not believing in the God of Abraham had nothing to do with his rampage.

Hitler was a baptised Catholic and led a Christian Army and still he went on a rampage…

The crimes of communism have as much to do with the their atheism as Hitler’s crimes with Christianity. Less, as the communists were not violating any tenets of Atheism as they committed their deeds. I think its safe to say there is very little connection in either occasion.

If we want to talk about massacres in the name of unbelief we need look no further than the French revolution. Truth be told I’ve always thought that comparing who killed more is a faulty comparison. For the vast majority of human history humans have have totally been religious. Atheism is new in that respect. Perhaps when Atheism represents as much of human population and for as long we’ll be able to make a fair comparison. They’ve certainly been working hard to catch up for the past 200 years…

History is written by the victors.

It sounds like you want to make some combination of these two points:

1. Religion makes people good who would otherwise have been bad.
2. A lack of religion makes bad people out of good people.

However, we must also admit that religion has the potential to make good people do bad things (e.g. terrorism.) Do we have any reason to suspect that the number of people converted from “badness” to “goodness” is larger than the set of people who reject the true religion?

Yes, religion can make people do bad things. I do think, however, that there is good reason to belief it makes more bad people good than vice versa. Most religion espouses what we consider “good” morals; consequently, if an individuals is to act in response to a religion he’/she will likely act in response to those teachings. Most of the cases of good-to-bad requires a manipulation religion to happen. If we say this is the exception rather than the rule then it follows that religion has done more good than bad.

Secondly, if we look at the field of evolutionary psychology we can see that religion seems to be ubiquitous. If religion was more detrimental than beneficial natural selection should have removed this trait. Since religion is alive and well I think we can say that it has been beneficial. Most literature on the topic seems to think these benefits come through its positive effects on social cohesion. This occurs through making bad people behave nicely. This hypothesis would seem to suggest that religion does make more bad people good than the other way around.

 

[Gods_Peace]

I think you’ve created an excellent post. I know that a lot of devout Catholics will answer that knowing about God and being able to partake in the sacraments is the greatest thing in life!

So, their answer would be, it’s better having religion, so as to give people the chance to experience the sacraments and know the fullness of truth.

I of course will say that it is much better having zero religion and then letting the chips fall where they may.

If you don’t know about the sacraments, then you don’t know what you are missing. So clearly, it is better not to have them, as you won’t risk anyone rejecting them or God.

Why would you not want to receive Gods life into your soul?

 

[Gods_Peace]

…except I reject the notion of him being real and I understand completely what I am rejecting.

Your rejecting Life and Truth, that’s what you are rejecting.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Peter Kreeft actually talks about this is one of his talks, although I can’t remember his argument. I remember the conclusion was that it is preferable to “send out” the missionaries so to speak.

There are a couple of reasons I think that this argument falls short. We do not know what the criteria is for a non-Catholic to get into heaven except to say we know that its possible. As a result while it is possible that the conclusion you have drawn might be valid it equally might not be. It is possible that the harvest from a given Catholic population would total more than individuals lost through 1a.

Furthermore for your conclusion to be valid we must make some assumptions about what it takes to fail 1a. It seems to me that plenty of people could be another religion besides Catholicism and have rejected it through no fault of their own. Is a person at fault if he rejects a strawman Catholicism? Might it be true that anyone who sincerely believes in their religion or lack thereof be not at fault? The fact of that matter is that there is far too much room for interpretation in 1 to safely make the assumptions you did.

Finally, as another poster has mentioned, even if the existence of many religion lessons the amount of people who are entering heaven that doesn’t mean it is inferior to the no religion option. Matters of justice, for example demand the former over the latter.

I thought the Catholic teaching on what it took to get into heaven without Catholicism was pretty clearly laid out (if my memory of my Baltimore Catechism is at all reliable.)

Indeed, there are plenty of people in other religions that have not rejected Catholicism. However, your argument is bordering on this:
“If a person really understood Catholicism, they would know it was the true religion. No one would knowingly reject the true religion. Therefore, all people who reject Catholicism do so out of ignorance and are not condemned because of it.”

However, it is true that we are not the judge of men’s souls. What exactly constitutes a sinful rejection of Catholicism is ultimately up to God. I will contend, however, that the set of people who sinfully reject Catholicism is not empty. There exist good people who have not gone to heaven because of their rejection of Catholicism.

I’m not sure why justice demands the existence of religion.

 

[Gods_Peace]

I propose that if our goal is to get a maximum number of people into heaven, then it is desirable to have a world with no organized religions rather than a world with many.

1. It is possible to go to heaven even if you are not a member of the true religion; we can say, for the sake of argument, that this is Catholicism. To do so you must:
   a. Be ignorant of the true religion through no fault of your own.
   b. Obey “natural law” or the laws “written in our hearts.” Basically you must be a good person.
2. If there exist many religions and exactly one “true” religion then there will exist people who reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion
3. If people reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion then those people will not go to heaven.
4. Some people who reject the true religion are good people, i.e. would satisfy criteria 1b.
5. If there are no religions then people cannot reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion.
6. Therefore, the set of people who go to heaven is larger in the case of zero religions. Specifically, the people who get into heaven are:
   No religions|Many religions

All good people|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

Since we have claim that the set of good people who reject the true religion is non-empty, then more people would get into heaven if there were no religions than if there were many.

NOTE: this is not a discussion of atheism since our goal is “to get a maximum number of people into heaven.”

But this is a discussion of athiesm, where you are providing NOTHING to the cause of TRUTH!!!

 

[davidv]

I thought the Catholic teaching on what it took to get into heaven without Catholicism was pretty clearly laid out (if my memory of my Baltimore Catechism is at all reliable.)

And the clear teaching does not equal “no religion”.

Indeed, there are plenty of people in other religions that have not rejected Catholicism. However, your argument is bordering on this:
“If a person really understood Catholicism, they would know it was the true religion. No one would knowingly reject the true religion. Therefore, all people who reject Catholicism do so out of ignorance and are not condemned because of it.”

However, it is true that we are not the judge of men’s souls. What exactly constitutes a sinful rejection of Catholicism is ultimately up to God. I will contend, however, that the set of people who sinfully reject Catholicism is not empty. There exist good people who have not gone to heaven because of their rejection of Catholicism.

I’m not sure why justice demands the existence of religion.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Secondly, if we look at the field of evolutionary psychology we can see that religion seems to be ubiquitous. If religion was more detrimental than beneficial natural selection should have removed this trait. Since religion is alive and well I think we can say that it has been beneficial. Most literature on the topic seems to think these benefits come through its positive effects on social cohesion. This occurs through making bad people behave nicely. This hypothesis would seem to suggest that religion does make more bad people good than the other way around.

Natural selection is an interesting topic, but I think I will avoid it for now, since evolution is banned. I will say, however, that religion is not necessarily ubiquitous. Instead of religion, certain parts of China embraced Confucianism which is not really a religion (although it did eventually incorporate some mystical aspects.) Rather, Confucianism seeks to achieve the social cohesion and order you mentioned simply by asserting norms, ethics and values.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

 

[Gods_Peace]

Natural selection is an interesting topic, but I think I will avoid it for now, since evolution is banned. I will say, however, that religion is not necessarily ubiquitous. Instead of religion, certain parts of China embraced Confucianism which is not really a religion (although it did eventually incorporate some mystical aspects.) Rather, Confucianism seeks to achieve the social cohesion and order you mentioned simply by asserting norms, ethics and values.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

Arguing with athiests is like talking to a deaf mule…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Arguing with athiests is like talking to a deaf mule…

If you likewise refuse to consider their position then we will simply end up with a conversation between two deaf mules.

 

[ChibiViolet]

God also gave man free will, which completely muddled the entire concept of getting everyone into the same boat.

**The vast majority of the world isn’t Christian and of course, absolutely does not believe that Jesus is the son of God./**QUOTE]

Here’s a link for you: adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html