What's the practical purpose of religion in a modern world dominated by scientific facts...

>No, religion also plays a major role in psychological well-being and social cohesion. Highly religious people (like fundamentalists and Mormons) are happier than average, live longer, have more stable marriages, more children and a community they belong to.

source?

to combat unbridled hedonism and degeneracy

5 seconds in Google:
internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/258/392
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_health:
>Church attendance has been found to increase life expectancy (Hummer et al. 1999) with a life expectancy at age 20 of 83 years for frequent attendees and 75 years for non-attendees.

Maybe in the past Christianity was more common among scientists, but in modern times atheism and agnosticism is now common. Do you know why? Because a person who operates with logic and reason can't cling to outdated ideologies when presented with evidence disproving it. It's a natural progression.

Philosophies are religions now?

Based on what criteria?

how has science disproven God?

If you believe that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and be cleansed of your sins, and all you have to do to her into heaven is believe in whatever sm savior is hot this century, would that not actually lead to more hedonism and degeneracy?

Non believers don't have that kind of safety net on the backs of their minds. So you either better behave or suffer consequences that you can't escape from. Also don't be a retard or you'll die and cease to exist forever. This is essentially how atheists live. .

The religious mind is soothed at the thought that no matter what terrible things they do they will always be loved, always be forgiven, and will live eternally in bliss and happiness even if they don't deserve it.

Put two and two together.

The same way you disprove the existence of the thousands of gods you don't currently believe in. Common sense.

euphoric

god exists in the same way capitalism exists lol

So it has not disproven the possibility of the existence of God. That leaves the rational person with three choices: take the leap of faith and say there is God, take the leap of faith and say there is no God, or say we don't know. Each of those is a personal choice and equally valid.

basically consciousness and subjectivity exists, what you call explaining is merely listing what things are made of and noting their behavior, but people experience a very complex range of subjective stimuli and some of them don't think/feel that naming what things are made of and how they behave truly grasps their whole being.

>The sole purpose of religion was to provide explanation about the nature of the world
When will this meme die?
Cosmological explanations rank really low in priority for any religious text.
Heck, some eastern faith are literally "who cares the world started? Go back to getting enlightened!"

A vehicle for morality. Something modern secular societies are instead trying to make the responsibility of the state.

Saying we don't know is the only honest choice concerning the mere possibility of some kind of higher being. However I know your plagiarized god of the bible is as real as the characters I read in published fiction.

Have you ever learned about critical thinking and logical fallacies? That's a big step in what made me realize Christianity is fraudulent, and I was the biggest bible thumper of all when I was still brainwashed. Then I actually started learning about natural science, watching debates between Christians and atheists, reading literature both for and against the Christian god, and even neutral literature like "A History of God" that doesn't tell you what gods to believe in, but seeing the progression of human belief in a timeline made me realize there is nothing inherently special about the beliefs in Christianity. Learning layer on how much Christianity plagiarizes from past religions like Zoroastrianism Aang ancient Egyptian religions, it just makes it all too clear.

Sorry for my autocorrect typos

It's just something Humans are compelled to create for the purpose of overcoming societal and individual nihilism. We seem to have evolved to thirst for values and meanings that are objective, and this is for the best.

Laws, rules and authority placed on individuals exist for the purpose of a society to function properly, but these can't operate if their validity is not granted by a supreme authority. So the supreme authority manifests itself as God(s) or spiritual metaphysical forces.

I used to be a secular "rational" atheist like you OP, then I realized that secular laws are doomed to fail because they can constantly be changed or disregarded since they have no actual basis in truth.

I don't believe in any Gods, but it's clear as day that religion is a necessary institution in society and will always manifest itself in different ways. Even Atheists love to create figures that they worship, it's just in our nature.

Not everyone is as complacent with the status quo as you user.

As I said, religion is a part of our reality as a species. It's in our nature to want to create objective truths and overcome Nihilism.

Too bad if you don't like it, you can't overcome human nature.

Scientific facts aren't knowledge

t. plato

>The sole purpose of religion was to provide explanation about the nature of the world and to set moral codes in society

I'm an atheist but that's incorrect, that sort of thinking is a product of centralized Abrahamic religions.

What gives religion its appeal is the satisfaction and sense of community it gives people, with relatively little effort. Really, it's human psychology, you could say that there's a god-sized hole in the human brain.

If you really want to dismantle religion, you can't just attack it from a logical or scientific perspective (though that is important), you have to stop the spread of the religious meme from parent to child and so on, and give people opportunities to find "spiritual" and communal satisfaction without the supernatural connotations. Though the cynic in me would say that's impossible.

>secular laws are doomed to fail

Gee, that must mean western civilization is a hotbed of anarchy, considering how many secular laws we have.

Oh wait, no. Guess you should have thought this through a bit more, huh? You didn't really take fundies seriously when they said that America is based on the ten commandments, did you?

Structure, authority, and order is inherent. Everything else is just a symptom. Religion is no longer necessary in today's world. There is too much available knowledge for any excuses for people older than 17 to still be clinging to it. Humanity can self govern without it. You want religion to stay relevant because it is familiar and the unfamiliar, a secular world, seems too alien. Thing is, humans are able to adapt to change. That always have and always will.

>that must mean western civilization is a hotbed of anarchy,
Not on the surface, but the west is fundamentally decaying from the inside.

>Oh wait, no. Guess you should have thought this through a bit more, huh?
Did I say that anarchy is a symptom of Secularism?

>Structure, authority, and order is inherent.
Yes and no. While respect for authority certainly is inherent, the will to garner power on a personally individual level is also inherent. In a world with no objective moral systems imposing laws that are solidified in their validity, there's nothing stopping from me from simply disregarding the material laws and deviating from societal norms.

Sure, a leader could enforce a law with political power, but that leader has no actual power beyond the trust his army and soldiers would do his bidding. If he isn't granted the authority to dictate authority, then his existence isn't valid.

>Everything else is just a symptom
Of what? You mean that order manifests itself in religion? That's what I'm saying.

>Religion is no longer necessary in today's world
Big leap.

>Humanity can self govern without it.
You're putting a lot of faith in the same species which has committed atrocities such as the Holodomer or the Holocaust.

>You want religion to stay relevant because it is familiar and the unfamiliar, a secular world, seems too alien
I wasn't raised to be religious, I've grown up in a secular world, and I've seen the consequences of it on a societal level.

>the west is fundamentally decaying from the inside

Oh, you're one of those. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, you only have to predict it a couple more thousand times. Then maybe Jesus will return too. Let's throw in a couple incarnations of the Buddha while we're at it.

>Did I say that anarchy is a symptom of Secularism?
>secular laws are doomed to fail

Or do you have some magical definition of "failure" where everything mostly works properly and gets better results than theocracies?

You need to diversify your sources of information my friend, you've fallen for some spicy memes that've led you to accept irrational beliefs.

>Oh, you're one of those.
Sorry to burst your bubble

>Then maybe Jesus will return too.
I hope not, or I'll be going to hell.

>do you have some magical definition of "failure"
Well, the fact that we are currently experiencing a self inflicted societal suicide at the hands of an intense Behavioral Sink, plus the fact that families that do not share the culture of their respective host culture are quickly out reproducing the native inhabitants.

The lack of kids is literally the best example of a failure of a society. Plus, the fact that wealth inequality has become so sharp because we've maximized our desire for material wealth at the expense of other people.

Go to Japan if you want an example of a doomed and failing society.

>You need to diversify your sources of information my friend
Having actually started at your position, I feel I've very much experienced a nice diversity of opinions and information.

>that've led you to accept irrational beliefs.
Too bad

youre naive to think that religious and non-religious people think in radically different ways. im sure they both have similar moral compasses and both fear death as much as the other.

this is biased towards abrahamic religions with a more rigid hierarchy under god.

desu i dont think there can be one reason, i dont think your reason would be necessarily accurate either and is probably a memetically biased conception of religion, though im not saying its necessarily false.

"give people opportunities to find "spiritual" and communal satisfaction without the supernatural connotations." look at atheists and you will see thats not true. Im sure many people also dont have any communal benefits from religion but believe in god.

What if you just like it?

^_^
head over to 8ch/christian/
^_^
God bless!
^_^

>What's the practical purpose of religion in a modern world
Money for priests (from idiots).

Ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'?
That's because when someone makes a claim, they have to back it up. There is no such thing as disproving something. It is either proven or not.

Religion serves many different purposes for many different people. Think about it.
>no such thing as a stupid question

*tips fedora*

>It's a natural progression.

So what was wrong with all these great scientists before the 'modern' age who practiced logic and reasoning and yet also subscribed to religious ideology?

The more we know, the less there is for God to do. In olden days, a new discovery still left some mystery to how the world worked, we still didn't know very much. There's so little left for God to do nowadays, that fewer scientists can bring themselves to believe in a God that flicked a domino and then packed his bags and went back to heaven.

>scientific """facts"""
Fucking faggot scientists go full god-of-the-gaps mode whenever reality doesn't match up to their little theories.

>Our theory says that the universe shouldn't be expanding as fast as it is
>There is nothing wrong with our theory, we just haven't accounted for the nearly-impossible-to-detect, totally-not-hypothetical particles that make up 90% of all matter in the universe and just so happens to have all the qualities needed to explain why our theory doesn't match up with reality

>So what was wrong with all these great scientists before the 'modern' age who practiced logic and reasoning and yet also subscribed to religious ideology?
For most? Society expected them to.
For some? The "you couldnt no nuffin" "world has mysteries" schtick.

Wasnt so hard.

Jesus dude, did a scientist murder your parents or something?

Science says jack shit about the metaphysical and only spastic nu-athiests try to claim otherwise. Science gives no input on the big questions like "why are we here" and "where are we going." All it talks about are the How's. Secular philosophies pop up to fill the void but end up offering nothing more (and often less) than many religions already do.

>Science says jack shit about the metaphysical and only spastic nu-athiests try to claim otherwise.

Oh my god, this. When I first got into philosophy I used to dismiss metaphysics as a load of hogwash because I came from your standard "science is my religion" mental framework, until I started actually putting thought into where my mental framework leads to logically (a sort of complete and utter nihilism, even down to the mereological sense of it) and just how much of our reality as we understand it is metaphysically constructed.

Consider this op: Not all religions have disagreements with or opposition to science. Many non-Abrahamic religions agree with science 100%.
Also scientists haven't really even tried to understand certain ideas traditionally considered to be religious such as reincarnation.

It's Pascal gamble.
You can't know but you have more to win in believing.