Why the necessity of religion in our modern society?

May Allah have mercy with you all.Forgive me for the length of this topic but I wanted to include details to prevent it from being misunderstood.
I hope you will enjoy it dear reader.I am convinced that all the religion that exist in the world has been originally made to make us happy and works as a guideline for a social structure that is based upon true love and solidarity.
I am also highly convinced that true human nature is compassionate and caring, and not selfish and I dont solely draw that conclusion from religious studies within Islam, and other religions.When we look at the physical structure of humans we notice that feelings such as hatred, anxiety, selfishness( loneliness, wich is a following effect), competetiveness , amongst many others have a detrimental effect on our health and is the number one cause for heart problems and early death.
And there have been litterary hundreds of scientifical experiments that point to that aggressive behaviour isnt borned with and that when they do appear they are detrimental and destructive to our health.
Instead feelings such as love and commpassion and altruistic behaviours are more in coordinance with our physical structure.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us.So if our fundamental character is compassionate and caring, then how can one explain all the conflicts and aggressive behaviours that do exist everywhere in our surroundings?Of course one cant reject the fact that conflicts and tensions actually does exist , and not just within an invidual but also within his family and surroundings.
However I remain steady in my position that human nature is compassionate and Ill try to explain why.When some people look back at the human history and they see that humans have been responsible for acts beyond forgiveness or when they compare us to other animals and they see that humans have been responsible for much more aggresiveness then other animals, some of them draw the conclusion that humans are selfish and egoistical and that altruistic bahaviours perhaps do appear but such feelings are fragile and synthetic and that if you just dig deep enough you will find an invidual that has an aggressive and selfish nature.
Or they perhaps state that altrustic behaviours and aggresiveness are both a part of our nature and that they coexist.
Still I am convinsed that compassion and love is the dominating feature of the human nature, hatred, aggression and violence of course do appear but I believe that they appear at a more shallow and superficial level and that they probably arise when our efforts to reach love and warmth are failed, they are not part of our true natur.So even if aggression do appear I belive that these conflicts havent necessary been made by the human nature but by the human intelligence - unbalanced human intellect and misuse of intelligence and fantasy.
When we look at the developent of humans we notice that we have a weaker physical structure than animals.
But thanks to human intellect we could use many tools and discover many methods to overcome the harsh environement that we lived in.
And after a while, when human society and environement became more complicated, our intelligence and learning abilities became more and more necessary so that we could survive the hard conditions nature required of us.
That is why I believe that human nature is fundamentally altruistic and compassionate and that intellect is a later developement, and if this intelligence is misused or without having its counter balance in altruism it can be very destructive, and lead to chaos.That is why religion exists ,it works as a counter weight to unbalanced intelligence as a way of giving place to the fundamental nature of altruism and true love in our society,(love that is not based upon the misconception that it merely exists because of our need to stay alive, but that it really is REAL )But lets for a moment consider a situation in a perhaps coming future: Evolution has after millions of years replaced completely our previous altruistic nature to merely intellectual nature.
If we cant feel a direct hindrance of injustice and aggressive behaviours, then WHAT is to stop the act from happening if not religion?
We cant look for "it(social structure)" in the rest of the animal kindom because the animals are driven by instincts(as I have stated in a previous post) and dont question what they do.
We however are mainly driven by our intelligence, and our altruistic nature has to a certain degree taken as an "allie" religion to prevent an unbalanced intellectual misconception and to establish a social order wich works for the benefit of all.With that stated, one has to also keep in mind that when human intelligence is combined with a kind an compassionate heart, all actions will be constructive.Sincerely Delshad
Ma`SalamSome points were taken from Dalai Lama`s book, Happiness, authored by Dr Howard C. Cutler but the mayor part is of it are mine own thoughts.[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-11-2002][This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-12-2002]

Hi Delshad,Very nicely put, although I can't say I agree with the details, I do believe that religion has, at least to some extent, had some positive effects in the past. Although even if the "truth" about the world led to us all going out and mugging old ladies, it would still be the truth. The truth is independent of its consequences on human behaviour.Having said that, I think altruistic behaviour could, and has evolved. Take social insects, pack animals, birds, fish, primates - all form social groups which can operate in complex ways and often without any underlying intelligence whatsover. The fact is that cooperation can actually work (something thats very very difficult to believe IMHO).

quote:

---

Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us.

---

Do you have any references / links on this?PE

Delshad,An excellent opening essay. I hope you will forgive me if I don't respond immediately - it deserves a substantive reply. Perhaps tomorrow...Peace be with you during your holy month.

Moving this topic to Faith and Belief...--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Hi primordial Egg, thanks for the reply.Sure , here is the link http://www.unesco.org/human_rights/hrfv.htmBtw, wouldn`t you agree that insects, birds, primates, and all the other animals dont share the same way of upholding a social structure as we do.
That is, they dont question their motive because they CANT question their motives.
They perhaps even can think but they are not aware of themselves when they do it.
Hence we cannot just copy their way of maintaing a social structure because we cannot answer the question of why to maintain it.
Therefore I say that religion is still necessary in our modern society.
I hope I didnt understand your reply wrongly, if so, then let me knowSincerely Delshad[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-11-2002]

Thanks No problem quetzal, dont feel stressed.
I look forward to your reply.Sincerely Dilshad

Hi Delshad,

quote:

---

here is the link http://www.unesco.org/human_rights/hrfv.htm

---

This is an excellent link - it shows leading scientists trying to ensure that recent work (my guess is with evolutionary psychology) does not get abused in much the same way as Hitler abused the fledgling science of genetics in the 1930s, and the superpowers abused nuclear physics for the Cold war. A completely laudable aim in my opinion - time will tell how influential it actually is though.

quote:

---

Btw, wouldn`t you agree that insects, birds, primates, and all the other animals dont share the same way of upholding a social structure as we do.
That is, they dont question their motive because they CANT question their motives.
They perhaps even can think but they are not aware of themselves when they do it.

---

Its difficult not to agree that insects et al have different social structures to man but its important to note that they also have different social structures to one another. That is to say, birds have v. different social structures to insects and they are both different from pack animals etc. Thus having a differet social structure in itself does not elevate humans into a higher status.The same can be said for humans questioning motives. Because human beings have higher intelligence they can question their motives on anything ranging from what they eat to who they kill. So its applicable to just about anything.So we maintain social structure and we would naturally question why it is that why have the social structure we do. This to me does not lead naturally to religion. It is of course a difficult problem, but I would say that the best tools for analysing the problem can be found in game theory, theories of self-organisation and evolutionary psychology, not religion. The problem I have with religion is its invocation of the supernatural, appeal to irrationality and irrefutability, and dogma in the face of conflicting evidence. The best argument I've heard for believing in the existence of the supernatural is Martin Gardner's credo consolans - I believe because it is consoling - not because it may be true.Incidentally, I've just started reading a book called "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought" by Pascal Boyer so I'll share my thoughts with you on that when I've finished it - no doubt I'll probably end up agreeing with everything you've written PE

Hi primordial egg Thanks for replying again.
I understand your views but there is a thing I want to explain from my standing point about your reply:"...That is to say, birds have v. different social structures to insects and they are both different from pack animals etc. Thus having a differet social structure in itself does not elevate humans into a higher status.
- primordial eggBy saying that humans have a different way of maintaing a social structure than the rest of the animals , doesnt necessarily make the rest of the animals socially inferior.
My point is that by having the ability to have a free will, and having the ability to decide our actions from a third perspective brings our social structure to another level, a level where the "right" thing to do isnt explainable by impulses but from a free choise.
That brings the social nature of humans to a different level, the self-awared level.Ps: Thanks for being willing to share your views about the book Sincerely Delshad

Hi Delshad,

quote:

---

By saying that humans have a different way of maintaing a social structure than the rest of the animals , doesnt necessarily make the rest of the animals socially inferior.
My point is that by having the ability to have a free will, and having the ability to decide our actions from a third perspective brings our social structure to another level, a level where the "right" thing to do isnt explainable by impulses but from a free choise.
That brings the social nature of humans to a different level, the self-awared level.

---

Well I agree with everything you've written here - and yes, I made an incorrect inference by assuming that by "self-aware level", you meant a "superior" one.That said, human beings are unique in that they have to capacity to think through their actions and restrain their impulses (and perhaps the capacity of genuine altruistic behaviour? I don't know, I'll leave that to the philosophers). Human beings can also codify notions of "right" and "wrong" based upon the needs of a society (or more accurately the needs of the power-brokers in that society) - thus establishing a moral framework.But is a moral framework the same as a religion? To me, religion is a cultural meme, which has survived through a process of natural selection. It follows some very simple rules:1) Religions reproduce (spread) with mutationReligions (a set of coded instructions) are passed down through word of mouth, normally from parent to child. The fact that it mutates can readily be seen in the fact that today's religions have so many sects and points of divergence and from the simple maxim that information is never perfectly transmitted (not in humans at any rate, and certainly not in this post).2) Different religions are competing for the same resourcesYou can't follow more than one religion! All religions are competing in "belief-space" for the hearts and minds of followers. Those religions with the most hearts and minds will therefore reproduce more etc analogously with genes and organisms.Religions with other features will "stick" particularly well e.g. if the penalty for apostasy is death then the religion has a very stable platform on which to build, but if the religion is too outlandish then it simply will not survive at a serious level for very long (eg Hammarubi creation myths).So I see Religion as a mind virus which has affected man, not something mankind requires and thats where we probably differ. Thats not to say religion hasn't sometimes been good. In my opinion its probably been overall neutral, indifferent to the fate of its hosts as long as it could spew forth and multiply, but I do find the growing band of superstition and irrationality which one normally associates with religion to be disconcerting. Especially now as religious fundamentalists of varying creeds seem to have the finger on the button!PEPS A far better explanation of my point of view can be found in Dawkins essay "Viruses of the Mind", here:http://www.santafe.edu/...i/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

Hi Primordial Egg, thanks for replying once again Im afraid that I highly disagree with some of your statements.
I will now try to explain in my humble knowledge why:First of all, couldnt I by the same token suggest that some humans have through countless generations and evolutionary processes lost the ability to be religious?
That they in their despair has fabrictated an alternative mind that is more Atheistic suitable.
Of course I couldn`t , that would made me a walking sign where it is written Prejudist all over.Let me further explain my opinion, perhaps that link you refer to is outdated(It got especially scary when the author made the comment that a chineese mind doesnt function as a french!), I dont know, but I hope I will be able to clearify where I stand.Fistly, wouldnt you agree that the number one reason we humans have survived so succesfully is the brains ability to adapt to the environement.
There has been countless of experiments that show that the human brain is like a "hardware", that is made to fit as many "softwares" as possible , it should be able to change.
One experiment was made by avi karni and Leslie Underleider worked
like this:Several testpersons were instructed to perform some complicated finger movements for 4 weeks.
After that they examined that part that controlled the brains motorical movements and found that in the area that controlled the fingers, the neuron signal ways were almost twice as packed as previous.
That is, the brain can arrange different pathway and signals to be able to cooperate with the environement.This abilty the brain has is called plasticity and the brain "patterns" that this person has made will not be transferred in the genetical code to the next generation.
Indeed, if it were so then we can no longer call ourselves intelligent, intelligence is partially that you have a free will and not by being dependent upon and limited by previous stored data.If it were so then we humans would certainly not exist today as we know it, if we would have existed at all.
The truth is that this plasticity is what makes us succesfull, in example, if the brain worked as you said it is then the language for instance would not have evolved in the rate it does, and a person coming from Kurdistan ( wich I do) would have a hard time learning English , even if he was borned in London itselfSincerely DilshadMa`Salam

Hi Delshad,Thanks for the post.Third things first:

quote:

---

perhaps that link you refer to is outdated(It got especially scary when the author made the comment that a chineese mind doesnt function as a french!), I dont know, but I hope I will be able to clearify where I stand.

---

The part of the link you're referring to is a quote from Daniel Dennett, which Dawkins has used to begin his article. here it is in full:The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure.For a meme which preys on the cultural mind, a Chinese brain is very different from a French brain. Memes act on thoughts, ideas and cultural baggage - you'd be misunderstanding Dennett, one of the world's leading authorities on artificial intelligence, if you assume that what he meant was that a Chinese brain was physiologically much different to a French brain.But don't take my word for it, you can research his papers for yourself and draw your own conclusions.Interestingly also, Dennett mentions how memes restructure the human brain in order to make it more habitable - much like your comments on plasticity. I've no doubt this occurs as you say it does, but I'm afraid I don't understand its relevance to this debate. Perhaps you could elaborate.

quote:

---

First of all, couldnt I by the same token suggest that some humans have through countless generations and evolutionary processes lost the ability to be religious?
That they in their despair has fabrictated an alternative mind that is more Atheistic suitable.
Of course I couldn`t , that would made me a walking sign where it is written Prejudist all over.

---

Excellent point - not one I'd previously considered. One could merely have a meme for atheism rather than religion. The basic crux of memes, in my limited understanding, is that they work like fashions (indeed fashion is itself a meme) and you can certainly make an argument that atheism spreads like a fashion, as well.But lets look closer at any a priori assumptions we're making. You are claiming that humanity could have had, lets call it "God-consciousness", from the inception of the ability of the brain to hold and disseminate memes, whereas I'm claiming that the human brain would only have had the capacity to rationalise about the immediate world around him. I can say that this capacity arose through selction pressures and evolution, whereas you'd have to propose some entirely new mechanism whereby Homo sapiens and his ancestors acquired this "God-consciousness". This requires an extra step which requires explanation on your part.

quote:

---

if the brain worked as you said it is then the language for instance would not have evolved in the rate it does, and a person coming from Kurdistan ( wich I do) would have a hard time learning English , even if he was borned in London itself

---

I don't see why this is. How does the proliferation of memes affect the ability to acquire language? I'm afraid you'll have to also explain this further to me.I recommend having another bash at Dawkins article.PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

Just a nitpick... Is the concept of memes falsifiable? I once read Susan Blackmore writing about Dawkins' plea for humans to escape the tyranny of both genes and memes. Blackmore said Dawkins' plea is just another meme trying to dominate our minds by giving us the illusion that we are above the tyrant replicators...

Hi primordial Forgive me if i have misunderstood you, one of my perhaps greatest weaknesses is that i draw conclusions all to fast, without seeing other possibilities to the meaning behind it.
In this case, the term meme seemed at a first glance to illustrate, in the specific conext i was reading, religous information that is derived from biological differences due to a social adaption in a religous environement.
However i soon realised that it was not the case, and that Dawkins introduced that term to label for example religous information that usually via the parents, are transcended to generation after generation and that it isnt biological but social.Coming to think of it, i share most of his and Dennetts views but there are some specific points that i wish to share with you.First of all, the very term "virus" that religous information has been given in this topic is not my concept of a true religion.
The term virus is associated with information that destroys or is uncompatible with another primary system.
This is hardly not the case with religion, wich is willingly embraced by 2-3 billion people all over the world ( i dont consider an unwilling practitioner religous )
What is also associated with viruses is that they are very different to remove, if not impossible.
But the huge religous changes wich different people through the centuries have had, does not emply this pattern.One thing i have been thinking about is the prejudism against religion that has even reached its way to intellectuals such as Dawkins and Dennett.
For the life of me I cant understand why they show such intolerance against religion and perhaps that the reason why relious intellectuals have felt that they have been forced to prove religion through scientific means.That to me is ridiculous , since science has nothing to do with religion, they are litterary to different realms and any attempt to prove one of them by means of the latter, will result in nothingness, and is a sign of weak faith or insecurity.Most of the criticism against religion in the western society has been because of christianitys constraint on scientifical progress during the medieval times , where everyone that argued against their worldview was called a "heretic" and was usually killed or oppressed.By the introduction of the theory of evolution, the scientific community , well how should i put it,avenged, Christianity( wich is a peaceful religion in its original concept) and made sure that it dissapeared from every scientific field (wich is good), but also indirectly labeled all relious people as followers of an old bizzare concept wich acts as a vicous poison and a virus to the people and has to get ridden of.This is were i strongly dissagree, because although religion hasent got its place in the science classes, its imprtance in the society should not be trivialized.It is religion , together with the altruistic nature we have left that acts like a counter-weight to a later developed unbalanced intellect.
You belive that religion is a disease, or virus that should be avoided.
I however belive that religion religion is the only nurture of the altrusistic spirit we have and its coordinace with the physical nature of human is harmonius.The philosophy of the survival of the fittest isnt applicable in our human society, because although (i have mentioned this in a previous topic) it isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to society is that feelings such as love and compassion exist only because of our interest to stay alive, wich contradict the very essence of a social structure that is supposed to be in coordinance with our physical structure.That is why I stay firm in my position that the necessity of religion in our modern society is indeed needed, perhaps more now that ever.This is were my religous arguments end, because i do not wish to cross into the borders of science.Sincerely DelshadMa` Salam (Go in peace)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Just a nitpick... Is the concept of memes falsifiable? I once read Susan Blackmore writing about Dawkins' plea for humans to escape the tyranny of both genes and memes. Blackmore said Dawkins' plea is just another meme trying to dominate our minds by giving us the illusion that we are above the tyrant replicators...

---

In my previous post I was using the concept of memes as an analogy which to evoke some insight rather than as a scientific truism, but I take your point. I think I'm OK with this as long as I don't try to make any predictions, rather than use the concept as a way of viewing the world. I mean, after all, is the idea that we can represent the physical world in terms of pictures, numbers and words falsifiable? One way in which the memes idea might be falsifiable would be to see ancient voodoo religions which are not passed down generationally and not get much publicity sharing the same number of members as one of the monolithic (sorry - monotheistic) religions of the world? Almost seems too obvious. Can't say I've given this much thought though (yet).Given all the research that seems to be happening in memetics at the moment, I think I need to look into this a little bit further. Trouble is, once we start talking memes we start talking sociobiology and risk heading down the sickly tortured path that is post-modernism and all that is dark, dank and vile. Daniel Dennett's written a nice article here:Page Not Found - ASE - TUFTS UNIVERSITYBut since the meme idea is so controversial (more proto-social-science than science) and there's so much to read I'll get back to you on this if I may.Incidentally, I have great trouble with Susan Blackmore's point, not because I think its wrong (I don't) but by using the word "just" she cheapens the concept. Its like saying "humans are just a bunch of chemicals" - true certainly, but unequivocably false in that it loses so much of the contextual richness that being a human being involves. The word "just" has a lot to answer for in my opinion! PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

Hi Delshad,

quote:

---

Forgive me if i have misunderstood you, one of my perhaps greatest weaknesses is that i draw conclusions all to fast, without seeing other possibilities to the meaning behind it.
In this case, the term meme seemed at a first glance to illustrate, in the specific conext i was reading, religous information that is derived from biological differences due to a social adaption in a religous environement.
However i soon realised that it was not the case, and that Dawkins introduced that term to label for example religous information that usually via the parents, are transcended to generation after generation and that it isnt biological but social.

---

Thats right. There's very much a continuum as to what memes can actually be. Reading around today, I've seen words, fashions, even exchanges between animals classed as memetic. The important factor is that it is information that is transmissable and able to mutate.

quote:

---

First of all, the very term "virus" that religous information has been given in this topic is not my concept of a true religion.
The term virus is associated with information that destroys or is uncompatible with another primary system.
This is hardly not the case with religion, wich is willingly embraced by 2-3 billion people all over the world ( i dont consider an unwilling practitioner religous )
What is also associated with viruses is that they are very different to remove, if not impossible.
But the huge religous changes wich different people through the centuries have had, does not emply this pattern

---

Viruses do not have to be destructive. Many biological viruses are benign - the ones which do best are obviously the ones which leave their host "unharmed", as they themselves cannot survive without a host. Thats why Ebola outbreaks are relatively contained - they kill so quickly that the virus doesn't get a decent chance to propagate.Some viruses may be extremely short lived - these actually form the majority of all viruses which have ever existed. The fact is, they were unable to propagate successfully and they died out.Culturally however, the word "virus" is a loaded word, as it generally refers to disease. To be fair, I think Dawkins has deliberately chosen this word because he is fervently anti-religion and he wants to evoke mental images of viral infections with the analogy, but in its proper usage, the analogy with viruses seems to be quite sound. After all, loony religions and cults are springing up (and dying out) all the time and some of the most harmful (David Koresh, Rev Jim Jones etc) kill their adherents before they get a chance to infect the rest of the population.

quote:

---

One thing i have been thinking about is the prejudism against religion that has even reached its way to intellectuals such as Dawkins and Dennett.
For the life of me I cant understand why they show such intolerance against religion and perhaps that the reason why relious intellectuals have felt that they have been forced to prove religion through scientific means.

​

That to me is ridiculous , since science has nothing to do with religion, they are litterary to different realms and any attempt to prove one of them by means of the latter, will result in nothingness, and is a sign of weak faith or insecurity.

​

Most of the criticism against religion in the western society has been because of christianitys constraint on scientifical progress during the medieval times , where everyone that argued against their worldview was called a "heretic" and was usually killed or oppressed.

---

Dawkins is probably the most secular of secular humanists in the world, to my knowledge. He is virulently opposed to any form of faith, where "faith" means believing in something despite a lack of evidence for it. I've seen him described as a rationalist fundamentalist.In my personal experience (I was raised a muslim), religion is inhibiting rather than liberating and requires us to obey unquestioningly and without thinking.As an example of what I mean, lets take the first cause argument (used by many religious adherents) for God.1) Everything is caused by an external agent
2) The universe is a thing
3) Therefore the universe must have been caused by an external agent (God).But you're never supposed to substitute "God" for universe in the above argument. Why? This doesn't make sense to me - we're supposed to use this logic to arrive at a God, and this disapply it to God itself. Which is it? (Incidentally I think this argument is flawed because premise 1 is untrue).

quote:

---

It is religion , together with the altruistic nature we have left that acts like a counter-weight to a later developed unbalanced intellect.
You belive that religion is a disease, or virus that should be avoided.
I however belive that religion religion is the only nurture of the altrusistic spirit we have and its coordinace with the physical nature of human is harmonius.

---

In an earlier post I wrote that personally, I thought religion was essentially neutral - I can't really gauge whether or not its had a positive effect on the world without comparing with an identical world which never had religion. In fact a strong part of me thinks that religion had to evolve, an early attempt to make sense of the social rules and structures which evolution had already imposed upon us. When early man saw lightning hit a tree, is it any wonder he thought there must be a powerful being causing it, and that he should take steps not to offend this being(animal sacrifice anyone?).

quote:

---

The philosophy of the survival of the fittest isnt applicable in our human society, because although (i have mentioned this in a previous topic) it isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to society is that feelings such as love and compassion exist only because of our interest to stay alive, wich contradict the very essence of a social structure that is supposed to be in coordinance with our physical structure.

---

Agree with you 100%. Just because nature is harsh, it doesn't mean we have to be because we have rational thought and he capacity for compassion. Its a fallacy to say that just because you agree with evolution or don't believe in God you don't have a basis for morals. As mentioned above, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the idea (meme) for God(s) developed because we already had the morals embedded deep within our psyche, arising from no other factors than evolutionary pressures upon social cohesion, and we needed some way to rationalise them, based on our everyday experience.

quote:

---

That is why I stay firm in my position that the necessity of religion in our modern society is indeed needed, perhaps more now that ever

---

Here again we disagree, as I don't think that being without religion equates to being without morals (although it does make the choices more difficult).There is an ongoing philosophical debate as to whether ethics can exist without religion. You might find these ideas of an ethical system without absolutes quite informative:http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.htmlKind regards
PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell