While reading Tocqueville he mentions often his belief that religion is a crucial aspect to a successful democracy. While I do agree that religion plays a strong role in promoting social and political activism, I do not consider religion to be vital to society, or a successful democracy.
Religion, although useful during the rise of civilization, is now becoming more and more irrelevant. I see the decline in church attendance over the last 50 years as evidence supporting that people don’t need organized religion to develop their own beliefs and morals. I believe in time, greater worldly understanding (both in science and cultural interaction) will result in the end of need for religion.
Religion provides rules or a set of laws that dictates how humans should interact with each other; in this sense religions have been vital in human self-preservation. I believe religion is a human creation, a tool to build values and communities. Perhaps it could be considered in our nature, a human characteristic or evolutionary trait, to form regions. Religion also provides answers to large, often frightening, questions; it gives life meaning and direction. However in many religions, this meaning and direction is often not found directly in a religion’s text, instead they are inferred. One instance of when I come in conflict with religion is when people read the bible, or other texts, as if they were fact.
The bible has been largely successful because it is so relatable and easily understood by different people and cultures, that many can find a common meaning, or truth, or message of good. If people can infer these truths from a centuries old text, why can’t they find similar meaning on their own or in the natural world? I believe ethics are derived by our instinct to survive as a species. It is in our best interest to form communities and positive relationships because they develop our intellect and success as an individual, as a nation, and as a species. Morality, I believe, doesn’t come from God, but from our intrinsic nature to build communities.
It’s for the greater good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY
Evan,
ReplyDeleteLots here that I'd love to respond to.
1) Notice that Putnam is most interested in the ways that churches (as voluntary associations) contribute to social capital. This functional concern might suggest that other sorts of associations might replace churches. He does not, in this article or the follow up book, consider the content of the beliefs though his data generally suggest that where there are more churches (and other religious groups) social capital is higher.
2) Nonetheless, as he mentions in the book, social capital can be used to evil ends and that is as true about religiously generated capital as about any other kind. In a way the materials we have for 121 today make that point about insiders and outsiders.
LDL
hot fuzz clip = genius.
ReplyDelete