No. We don't need religion to make good decisions. And by religion, I mean that which differentiates it from other community organizations:
• belief in the supernatural and the superstitious (a god being, prayer, miracles) and
• faith in the infallibility of ancient texts or the authority of the priestly class (bible, koran, pope, preacher, etc.).
Decision making ought to be based on the best facts that one can surmise. Since we know that ancient texts are often filled with barbaric cruel immoral contradictory stories (see the Bible) written by a multitude of men for a multitude of ancient cultures, they cannot be the best source of wisdom when deciding things today.
These facts ought to based on reality or as close an approximation to reality that is currently available. The Scientific Method (and its handmaiden: Technology) is the best tool we have for investigating reality. With science, we separate fact from wishful thinking (an afterlife, angels, psychic power). With science, we separate fact from superstition (prayer, ghosts, curses, hell).
Reality ought to be based on evidence. Evidence is the foundation of science. And evidence ought to be the foundation for good decisions. Not supernatural beliefs, not superstitions, not faith in ancient texts, not adherence to dogma, not anything non-reality based.
Therefore, the best decision making from the minute (or individual) to the grand (or governmental) ought to be based on facts, based on reality, based on evidence.
And most people already live their lives in this way. People insist their transportation, medicine, food, buildings and utilities meet strict scientific standards. People insist their professionals: doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, and mechanics are trained according to strict scientific standards.
(fade in scary music) Less and less, the purveyors of the supernatural - the priestly class - influence the day to day decisions of humanity. And that is good. Otherwise, a return to the Dark Ages awaits! (swell music) Wha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!! (fade out)
(The preceding was my comment in resonse to a post at Newsvine.com.)
*Obviously, I'm an Atheist (naturalist, humanist, rationalist). I used to call myself an Agnostic until I thought about it. I can't definitively prove that Unicorns don't exist but I'm a Unicorn Atheist nonetheless. With that in mind, I've since dropped the wishy-washy Agnostic label when it comes to omnipotent omniscient magical God Beings in the sky and now Atheist easily and confidently rolls off my lips whenever anyone asks.
... and to "religion" I personally would add any other "infallible ideologies", including "Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought" :-)
Hi,
I stumbled across this page as I am writing a thesis on the role of religion in the fashion world, and I thought that your page was interesting so I couldn't help myself from commenting.
You stated that 'reality ought to be based on evidence. Evidence is the foundation of science'. I too agree with you on that. I am religious, and from my study on religion, I have found that a religion does exist that uses scientific evidence hand in hand with faith - not like Christian derived religions that preach on faith alone, as well as being ruled by decadence. No sensible human being would see logic in that, and hence i understand your rationale in revoking religion as an influence in your life.
Many people believe that we do not need religion to make good decisions, as we are all moral beings. My personal beliefs, suggest the opposite. I think that we can err, in believing that we all have the same morals - and that integrity, virtue and good high character are a part of the package. If our morals differ greatly, then who has the power to judge and make a decision on whether a person's decisions are good or bad. What might be beneficial for an individual, could be destructive for society as a whole.
Speaking about evidence, were the Bible a "secular" book, it would be the most validated (from outside sources, other ancient texts, etc.) and backed up piece of historical documentation available today. It is only because it is labeled as a "religious" book that people say it is false, contradictory, and not usable as any sort of evidence. Just thought I'd throw that out there.