One world, one religion

[relaxeus]

Would the world be a good place to live if all of us were of the same religion/set of beliefs? Although maybe not paradise, I think it would be a lot better than what we have now. It would definetly have to be a religion that would let people have hope in an afterlife and/or other such nice things. I can't see atheism as a world religion because it lacks that hope and I think many people need that hope or else they will be depressed/suicidal. Personally, of the religions around today, Christianity would be a good candidate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would the world be a good place to live if all of us were of the same religion/set of beliefs?

Not necessarily. What would happen to those people who start to think differently? One set of beliefs worldwide could encourage too much conformism, and too little imagination.

It would definetly have to be a religion that would let people have hope in an afterlife and/or other such nice things. I can't see atheism as a world religion because it lacks that hope and I think many people need that hope or else they will be depressed/suicidal.

I have to disagree with this. While many people alive today depend on a hope in an afterlife, I don't think it is necessarily the case that this will always be true. Perhaps an atheistic culture could find non-depressing alternatives.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[TooCurious]

I have to say that I don't find the idea of everyone in the world having the same religious ideas to be a positive state of affairs, either. As Eudaimonist said, what about people who think differently? I find the idea of enforced conformity to be a profoundly disturbing notion. The only positive effect the proposed idea would have would be that it would avoid religious wars (assuming that everyone had the same interpretation of the religion).

I don't think the idea of atheism is especially depressing, but I will acknowledge that there are some people who need the idea of an afterlife. If I had to pick a religion for the entire world to follow, I think I would choose Buddhism. It is peaceful, it teaches respect for all beings, and it encourages each individual to find his own spiritual path. It also contains spiritual ideas about what happens after death, for those who need them.

 

[relaxeus]

Not necessarily. What would happen to those people who start to think differently? One set of beliefs worldwide could encourage too much conformism, and too little imagination.

Other beliefs would have to be controlled somehow so that the society does not fall apart.

I have to disagree with this. While many people alive today depend on a hope in an afterlife, I don't think it is necessarily the case that this will always be true. Perhaps an atheistic culture could find non-depressing alternatives.

Some people need the hope of an afterlife. They can't handle the other option, that their lives are finite. They start thinking "theres no point to life". Religion cures them. Atheism doesn't offer that cure. Although I can't see it happening, maybe atheism will offer the cure in some form or another in the future.

 

[relaxeus]

I find the idea of enforced conformity to be a profoundly disturbing notion. The only positive effect the proposed idea would have would be that it would avoid religious wars (assuming that everyone had the same interpretation of the religion).

Since everyone would believe in the same thing, it would be an accepted fact. It would be the truth. Probably only a few people would not believe under those circumstances. They could just pretend to believe and do what they want with their lives in a peaceful society.

Religious wars as well as the intolerance between the different faiths in times of peace. There is less security as well. In a world with one religion, people would have security on a daily basis.

If I had to pick a religion for the entire world to follow, I think I would choose Buddhism. It is peaceful, it teaches respect for all beings, and it encourages each individual to find his own spiritual path. It also contains spiritual ideas about what happens after death, for those who need them.

A buddhist world is something I wouldn't mind either. I think it meets our needs very well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Other beliefs would have to be controlled somehow so that the society does not fall apart.

Argh! We've just entered dystopian territory.

This is definitely not a place I would want to live in. I doubt that it would be good for people to have their beliefs "controlled", and I also doubt that diversity of beliefs necessarily causes "society to fall apart".

Since everyone would believe in the same thing, it would be an accepted fact. It would be the truth. Probably only a few people would not believe under those circumstances. They could just pretend to believe and do what they want with their lives in a peaceful society.

And what if they did not "just pretend to believe", but chose to promote their views? What would you do with them?

Religious wars as well as the intolerance between the different faiths in times of peace. There is less security as well. In a world with one religion, people would have security on a daily basis.

No, they would still have problems with wars, criminal behavior, potentially totalitarian governments, and potential freedom fighter rebels (such as me ). They simply wouldn't have problems with differences of religious opinion. There are always things to fight about.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[TooCurious]

I have to agree with Eudaimonist; the idea of any society that "controls" people's beliefs and requires dissidents to "pretend to believe" worries me deeply. In some respects, conflict is the price we pay for the freedom to choose one's own path, and hold the beliefs that are satisfying to them, and that is not a freedom that I would willingly relinquish. I am sure that I am not alone in that sentiment.

 

[relaxeus]

And what if they did not "just pretend to believe", but chose to promote their views? What would you do with them?

Good question. A number of things I suppose. Maybe we could give them a choice of being banished to an island in the pacific somewhere where all their needs will be met. I'm sure there would be ways to handle them peacefully and not brutally.

No, they would still have problems with wars, criminal behavior, potentially totalitarian governments, and potential freedom fighter rebels (such as me ). They simply wouldn't have problems with differences of religious opinion. There are always things to fight about.

Your right, I had something different in mind when I wrote "security on a daily basis" in mind. I wanted to say that they would not have to worry about other hostile religions. Sure, the society wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would have a lot less problems than we have now. Freedom fighter? My, my, that wouldn't do. We'd have to send you to the island

 

[relaxeus]

I have to agree with Eudaimonist; the idea of any society that "controls" people's beliefs and requires dissidents to "pretend to believe" worries me deeply.

I would prefer pretending to believe rather than worrying about the next infidel army coming to crush me and all those that I hold dear. You would keep in mind that by pretending to believe you would not be casting doubt into all those others who do believe and are happy because of their beliefs. What is the price you pay? Having to go to church once a week and saying prayers at meals - small price .

 

[TooCurious]

I would prefer pretending to believe rather than worrying about the next infidel army coming to crush me and all those that I hold dear. You would keep in mind that by pretending to believe you would not be casting doubt into all those others who do believe and are happy because of their beliefs. What is the price you pay? Having to go to church once a week and saying prayers at meals - small price .

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[relaxeus]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

You would not be giving up essential liberty. You could believe whatever you would want to on the island. They would have everything there you would want. And should you turn back to the one religion youd be welcomed back. The fear of religious wars would be gone forever, not just temporarily.

You lose some, you win some. A lot less people would get killed.

 

[wanderphilos]

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

One day heaven will be brought to earth. There will be one "religion" but that "religion" will be truth. Imagine all the people living in truth. God wants friends in Heaven...not enemies...one day people will want to thank God and want to worship Him. There in is the difference...and God will allow us to worship Him as we choose.

 

[TooCurious]

You would not be giving up essential liberty. You could believe whatever you would want to on the island. They would have everything there you would want. And should you turn back to the one religion youd be welcomed back. The fear of religious wars would be gone forever, not just temporarily.

You lose some, you win some. A lot less people would get killed.

Personal integrity and honesty, the ability to have one's own beliefs and values, the right to be different, is not an "essential liberty"? And if I did not agree to surrender these liberties, I would be exiled. What is life like on this "island" you describe? Separate, but equal? Or is the quality of life demonstrably worse?

Recommended reading: Brave New World.

As Eudaimonist said, people will always find reasons to disagree and fight with each other--religion is only one of the reasons.

And I reiterate: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[relaxeus]

Personal integrity and honesty, the ability to have one's own beliefs and values, the right to be different, is not an "essential liberty"? And if I did not agree to surrender these liberties, I would be exiled. What is life like on this "island" you describe? Separate, but equal? Or is the quality of life demonstrably worse?

Ideally, I would like to see this Island beefed up with entertainment, technology, medicine - everything that people would want on an island + the nice weather and beaches. Hmmmm, that sounds real nice... Maybe I'd go against the system just to go there

As Eudaimonist said, people will always find reasons to disagree and fight with each other--religion is only one of the reasons.

Religion is probably the biggest reason, I think. Getting rid of that would eliminate a lot of conflict that would otherwise be present. People would have so much more in common. Maybe large conflicts could be eliminated entirely.

 

[TooCurious]

Ideally, I would like to see this Island beefed up with entertainment, technology, medicine - everything that people would want on an island + the nice weather and beaches. Hmmmm, that sounds real nice... Maybe I'd go against the system just to go there

Somehow, I'm not quite so sanguine about the prospects of the dissidents. If that was all that happened, why wouldn't everybody just refuse to go along with the state religion? What would be the incentive to conform?

Religion is probably the biggest reason, I think. Getting rid of that would eliminate a lot of conflict that would otherwise be present. People would have so much more in common. Maybe large conflicts could be eliminated entirely.

I don't think it's "religion" that's the reason, so much as "difference." There will always be ways in which people are different from one another; therefore there will always be conflict. Taking away people's right to think for themselves won't change that.

 

[relaxeus]

Somehow, I'm not quite so sanguine about the prospects of the dissidents. If that was all that happened, why wouldn't everybody just refuse to go along with the state religion? What would be the incentive to conform?

Because you would be a believer and a part of the society. Why would you want to banish yourself from the rest of the faithful? Maybe the odd case would occur but generally their faith wouldn't allow for such an idea as willingly opting for banishment to enjoy life on the Island.

I don't think it's "religion" that's the reason, so much as "difference." There will always be ways in which people are different from one another; therefore there will always be conflict.

I think religion is the most powerful difference between people. I agree there probably will be conflict on some level or another, we can't fix that, but eliminating that difference will make the ride a lot smoother.

Taking away people's right to think for themselves won't change that.

People would be born into the religion and would very likey accept it as a fact, especially when the rest of the world believes in the same thing. No one would be forced to believe. If you actually did start to question the religion then some priest would talk to you to try to convince you of "the truth". If you still didn't believe and started to cause trouble then youd have to go to the island.

 

[TooCurious]

Because you would be a believer and a part of the society. Why would you want to banish yourself from the rest of the faithful? Maybe the odd case would occur but generally their faith wouldn't allow for such an idea as willingly opting for banishment to enjoy life on the Island.

Many people are raised with a religion and end up not believing in it. And it's not always because of the introduction of other religious ideas; it's because the religion itself doesn't make sense to them. I was one of these people. Why should the consequence of being honest with oneself about one's beliefs be banishment from friends, family, home, and everything that a person cares about?

I think religion is the most powerful difference between people. I agree there probably will be conflict on some level or another, we can't fix that, but eliminating that difference will make the ride a lot smoother.

I think that culture is just as big a difference between people as religion. Should we also remove all cultural differences and distinctiveness? Physical appearance is a great divider, even among people of the same culture; people are often harassed and persecuted for looking different. Should we modify everyone's appearance surgically so that everyone looks the same?

The point is, people will find ways to divide themselves up and conflict with each other, even if you take away some of the existing ways. Tribalism and "us versus them" is an instinctive part of humanity, and taking away a few surface differences isn't going to make it magically disappear.

People would be born into the religion and would very likey accept it as a fact, especially when the rest of the world believes in the same thing. No one would be forced to believe. If you actually did start to question the religion then some priest would talk to you to try to convince you of "the truth". If you still didn't believe and started to cause trouble then youd have to go to the island.

Again, many people grow up in a religion and end up leaving it because it doesn't make sense to them. I was one such person. In your hypothetical world, I would've been browbeaten by an authority figure to accept what I can no longer honestly believe to be true, or risk banishment from everyone and everything I love. In this scenario, you have unwittingly created a new "different" group: the unbelievers on the island. What's to stop everyone else from getting the idea into their heads that they need to eradicate those "immoral heretics" and wage war against the tiny and defenseless community of unbelievers?

 

[ApocryphaNow]

The point is, people will find ways to divide themselves up and conflict with each other, even if you take away some of the existing ways. Tribalism and "us versus them" is an instinctive part of humanity, and taking away a few surface differences isn't going to make it magically disappear.

Excellent point. I think the sectarian violence in Iraq is a pretty good illustration of this. They are all Muslim... but some are more Muslim than others (or so they think).

I think it is essential in a thinking society to find one's own path. Indeed, there is some degree of cultural evolution even in the most conservative societies. Constantly fighting this would be a tiring burden, and I really don't think it would make people too happy.

 

[relaxeus]

Many people are raised with a religion and end up not believing in it. And it's not always because of the introduction of other religious ideas; it's because the religion itself doesn't make sense to them. I was one of these people.

I question whether or not you would not believe if you had been born into the theoretical society were talking about. The religion would be much more convincing because everyone would believe in it and no one would be there to make you doubt.

Why should the consequence of being honest with oneself about one's beliefs be banishment from friends, family, home, and everything that a person cares about?

To protect the rest of society so no one could cast doubt into their minds.

I think that culture is just as big a difference between people as religion. Should we also remove all cultural differences and distinctiveness? Physical appearance is a great divider, even among people of the same culture; people are often harassed and persecuted for looking different.

Culture and race are a problem too and a lot of lives have been lost on account of these. With one religion, though, say a loving religion like Christianity, those differences might be overshadowed by Christianity's love.

The point is, people will find ways to divide themselves up and conflict with each other, even if you take away some of the existing ways. Tribalism and "us versus them" is an instinctive part of humanity, and taking away a few surface differences isn't going to make it magically disappear.

Perhaps. But maybe having the same religion in common with the rest of the world would be enough to reduce the conflicts a great deal.

What's to stop everyone else from getting the idea into their heads that they need to eradicate those "immoral heretics" and wage war against the tiny and defenseless community of unbelievers?

Love

 

[ApocryphaNow]

Culture and race are a problem too and a lot of lives have been lost on account of these. With one religion, though, say a loving religion like Christianity, those differences might be overshadowed by Christianity's love.

Spanish Inquisition, dude. "Sometimes, in order to love somebody, you have to torture them and then burn them alive."

It's a nice, well intentioned idea to want everybody to get along. I don't think forcing everybody to think alike, or even dividing us into small homogenous groups, is the way to do it. Difference can be disturbing, but it is a fact of life; we all just need to learn to deal with it.