[nostalgk]

Spoken as a non-religious person, religion gives a lot of people something to rely on and a base foundation of ethics and morals from an early age. It also opens many people to reading and philosophy, and can create a great sense of community in healthy environments.

[arethuza]

When I was a wee boy here in Scotland our primary school teacher for our class of 12 was an ex WW2 Spitfire pilot - we read the bible every day. For some odd reason we only ever read the old testament and generally the bits where people are being rather beastly to one another.

I do believe that dear old Mr C might have been trying to teach us a lesson about the reality of religious beliefs.

[NB I grew up in a small quite religious community where things like cycling, playing football, hanging out clothes to dry (and probably humour) were effectively banned on Sundays].

[Fellshard]

If you read a book on the Third Reich, would you suppose it was being raised as a positive example?

In a similar way, a great deal of the Old Testament is presenting history, not condoning those beastly actions (and, indeed, often directly and straightforwardly condemning them). Context is vital.

[arethuza]

Well, that was rather my point - I suspect he was condemning them. Certainly he never usually mentioned anything to do with his service in WW2 or anything like that - he was a conspicuously decent guy.

[Fellshard]

Fair enough, and good to hear about. Others use that to condemn the book as barbaric as a whole, which misses the point. Couldn't tell which you were implying.

[oytis]

> It also opens many people to reading and philosophy

Anecdotally in my case (Orthodox Christian) it was a dive into classical philosophy that opened me to religion.

[nostalgk]

This as well. Often people who are looking for answers (or questions) find them.

[Tsubasachan]

This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.

Looking at my own country many people simply feel that they have no need for religion. Instead of going to church on Sunday why not watch Netflix in bed?

[0815test]

> This is true. However when a country is sufficiently developed it may no longer need religion. The functions that the Church used to provide (education, healthcare, charity) will be taken over by the State.

This is quite wrong - the main beneficial function of religion is to provide an institutional framework for enhancing social capital and the overall "sense of community", which is a critical antidote (far more so than "welfare" or even private charity) against social exclusion and marginalization for the most vulnerable in society. The only states which try to take over this function altogether are totalitarian states - in fact, even in many authoritarian or otherwise dysfunctional and unfree states, religion - at least at a "grassroots" level - tends to function in practice as a haven for civil society. The only institutions that even compete would be labor unions (in some places), and for obvious reasons these are far less universal in their overall outlook.

[Tsubasachan]

Not at all, a government can easily subsidize any non profit organization. There are many community centers in my country run by volunteers and funded by local taxes for example.

I think my country has proven that if there is less necessity to turn to religious institutions a society can start the path to secularization.

[atentaten]

>It also opens many people to reading and philosophy...

I would argue that the more religious the less one is inclined to broader reading and philosophy because the practice is usually constrained to one's own religious ideologies.

[nostalgk]

For the average person, yes, but many people got their start on philosophy reading religious texts (see: Kierkegaard, Hegel, Tolstoy, and others)[1].

Going into the realm of personal experience, I made the choice to go to church as a child, and reading the bible expanded my horizons to lots of other religious texts and eventually philosophy and literature. My closest friends in this hobby and discipline started the same way as well.

I am not positing that it opens everyone to philosophy and new ideas (as it is deeply steeped in tradition), but that it opens those who may already be interested and gives them an "in".

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_philosophy

[pnongrata]

If what you are saying is true, then predominantly atheist countries (or societies) are mainly unethical and immoral (exaggeration). Children of atheist parents will grow to be rapists psychos (also exaggeration).

[irishcoffee]

Saying "A can provide X" doesn't mean "without A there cannot exist X"

[pnongrata]

That's maybe not what has been said here, but it's said pretty much in every discussion I've been. They argue that religion is necessary to "give" us a good moral compass, that without it we would be lost, etc.

[nostalgk]

Depends on what you consider religion, and morals, and I'd still argue it's not necessary. There are many philosophical sects that preach morality or reject the traditional compass that one can believe and internalize. Not all of these are traditionally recognized religions.

[nostalgk]

Exactly. There's lots of ways to go about it. Religion is just one.

[mopsi]

There is no need to treat religion and atheism as polar opposites. Atheism, at least in the west, has considerable overlap with Christian theology on topics like human rights. There is little rationality behind human rights, they can't be measured nor observed. Eg, who, when and how determined that humans have the right to life, but dolphins do not?

"Universal human rights" feels like a more modern wording for "God-given lifestyle". They are beneficial, but also as irrational as any religion before them, and rely on supernatural origin to make them them non-negotiable.

[dylan604]

Some religions actually discourage reading non-approved content especially things contradictory to their core beliefs. They will also tell you that you are not allowed to be aquantances with non-believers to the point of cutting off ties with your own family. Of course, some religions only teach that men can be allowed to read.

[root_axis]

> It also opens many people to reading and philosophy

This is definitely not typical of religion unless by "philosophy" you mean their faith's religious text.