News4 mins ago
If God did not exist...
46 Answers
Suppose athiests like myself were right and the Universe were not created by God, if we did not have immortal souls and all the religious people were continuing on under a mistaken misaprehension.
How would the world look? What would be different?
How would the world look? What would be different?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would agree with Waldo, jake has asked an excellent question... a few observations about what would be different:
Firstly, continued slavery, most likely on a greatly increased scale. Your own Wilber Wilberforce was driven by his Christian ideals to eradicate slavery in England., while it was defended by powerful politicians on the basis of economic need. Slavery's eradication in the U.S. was the result of dedicated churches and Christians who were counterparts to Wilberforce.
There would have been 500,000 fewer violent, battle induced deaths between the years of 1861 and 1865 here in the U.S. since there would have been no Civil War to free men based almost entirely on Biblical principals.
Science probably would not have advanced so far so quickly except for the likes of Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, and even Einstein who said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and inumerable other early scholars and scientists whose inquiry was based on reconciling their Biblical views and observation of the natural world.
There would be many more sick and dying people in their relatives homes, since the Christian based hospitals who support care to any and all who walk through the doors wouldn't exist.
Crimes would be more numerous, but wouldn't be viewed as crimes. By that I mean, in a totally natural world, why wouldn't the paradigm be "survival of the fittest"? What would be wrong with the strongest, meanest human dominating others... wouldn't that just be natural? After all, it's Dawkins who says nature is "red of fang and claw"... In the interest (believe it or not) of brevity, I'll only offer these examples, but many more abound...
Firstly, continued slavery, most likely on a greatly increased scale. Your own Wilber Wilberforce was driven by his Christian ideals to eradicate slavery in England., while it was defended by powerful politicians on the basis of economic need. Slavery's eradication in the U.S. was the result of dedicated churches and Christians who were counterparts to Wilberforce.
There would have been 500,000 fewer violent, battle induced deaths between the years of 1861 and 1865 here in the U.S. since there would have been no Civil War to free men based almost entirely on Biblical principals.
Science probably would not have advanced so far so quickly except for the likes of Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, and even Einstein who said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and inumerable other early scholars and scientists whose inquiry was based on reconciling their Biblical views and observation of the natural world.
There would be many more sick and dying people in their relatives homes, since the Christian based hospitals who support care to any and all who walk through the doors wouldn't exist.
Crimes would be more numerous, but wouldn't be viewed as crimes. By that I mean, in a totally natural world, why wouldn't the paradigm be "survival of the fittest"? What would be wrong with the strongest, meanest human dominating others... wouldn't that just be natural? After all, it's Dawkins who says nature is "red of fang and claw"... In the interest (believe it or not) of brevity, I'll only offer these examples, but many more abound...
Clanad offers some good examples, but I fail to understand why 'crimes would be more numerous but wouldn't be viewed as crimes'. That surely assumes that only religion keeps people on the straight and narrow, that all atheists are, therefore, criminally inclined, and that no atheist, including atheistic judges, possesses any sense of morals or ethics, and hence hasn't the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
There are many downsides to religion. Take a look at the Middle East. Just one example. Without religion, that wouldn't be happening - and all the resultant knock on effects wouldn't be happening either.
There are many downsides to religion. Take a look at the Middle East. Just one example. Without religion, that wouldn't be happening - and all the resultant knock on effects wouldn't be happening either.
I agree with the majority of the above but feel quite strongly that if people did not believe that there was a life hereafter, they might make a better job of this one. It would be the end of suicide bombers, kami kazi pilots and the like. I will probably cause a tremendous backlash now but I would mention that I have had a lifelong contention that at least 90 per cent of the world's population are emotionally lacking at the least, if not mentally retarded, the vast majority of that group being the religious ones. I am also arrogant enough to claim that I am part of the 10 per cent. Not all at once, please!!!
You miss the point naomi24, that being any universal definition of good and evil can only be the inborn, culturally common recognition of such. Any other defiinition and enforcement of a code of behavior is as variant as there are humans. My definition of conduct will, neccessarily be at odds with yours. Why is that that the tribesman in the Amazon wil have, generally, the same code of right and wrong at the bowler clad gentleman on London (or New York's) streets?
The regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia had, at their basic, the belief in Eugenics... the quest for a co-called "Master Race." Through the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype.
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin�s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies (Source: Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust) "� struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at � by Darwin � but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. � Thus developed the doctrine of Germany�s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength � [of a] �hammer and anvil� relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.�' (Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnam�s Sons, New York, p. 230).
Taken to its logical conclusion, the Third Reich would be the epitome of such a full bloomed world view... Diametrically opposed to that of the Christian view, however imperfectly lived out...
The regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia had, at their basic, the belief in Eugenics... the quest for a co-called "Master Race." Through the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype.
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin�s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies (Source: Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust) "� struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at � by Darwin � but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. � Thus developed the doctrine of Germany�s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength � [of a] �hammer and anvil� relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.�' (Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnam�s Sons, New York, p. 230).
Taken to its logical conclusion, the Third Reich would be the epitome of such a full bloomed world view... Diametrically opposed to that of the Christian view, however imperfectly lived out...
Even if religionists and atheists share a somewhat similar moral code, I believe that communicating such a code of behaviour would be extremely difficult for atheists without the "societal glue" of ceremonial and community based religious ceremony, unless of course our educational institutions suddenly managed to impart a code of ethics and moral standards on their students, backed up by parental and family support. But my observations tell me that this method is failing now, and our 21st century societies are slipping down the slope of moral decline. For many, God already doesn't exist, and their behaviour generally reflects this.
Clanad, I wasn't considering any particular regimes being in operation in the absence of belief in God.
This is precisely the point I was making.
.Why is that that the tribesman in the Amazon wil have, generally, the same code of right and wrong at the bowler clad gentleman on London (or New York's) streets?
I don't understand this .......
My definition of conduct will, neccessarily be at odds with yours.
Why do you think that?
Theland You appear to be saying the same thing, but by saying Why is that that the tribesman in the Amazon wil have, generally, the same code of right and wrong at the bowler clad gentleman on London (or New York's) streets?, Clanad is surely contradicting that argument?
This is precisely the point I was making.
.Why is that that the tribesman in the Amazon wil have, generally, the same code of right and wrong at the bowler clad gentleman on London (or New York's) streets?
I don't understand this .......
My definition of conduct will, neccessarily be at odds with yours.
Why do you think that?
Theland You appear to be saying the same thing, but by saying Why is that that the tribesman in the Amazon wil have, generally, the same code of right and wrong at the bowler clad gentleman on London (or New York's) streets?, Clanad is surely contradicting that argument?
One has to wonder why, if Theland is correct, there are fewer atheists in jail than their proportion of the wider population for any given country you care to name. Why, if God is necessary for moral and we're on the slipperly slope, do more atheist countries such as Sweden etc have few social problems than we do?
Clanad repeats his specious arguments essentially characterising Christianity as the sole driver of anything useful or good. That a scientific discovery were made by a religious person in a religious environment does not in any sense mean it is only discoverable if one has religion! Education may often have been nurtured within religious communities but to imply that if religion never existed nothing would fill that vacuum is inane at best. Does he contend that we'd still be living in the trees? The Romans all worshiped false gods, yet they managed great civilisation.
Wilberforce may have been Christian, but Clanad surely does not expect us to forget that so were the slavers themselves, many provably devout men? Does he expect us to forget that the Bible itself makes many references to slavery, not one of them critical of the practice?
He then goes on to add some strawman twaddle about Social Darwinism (which if he knew the first thing about it, would have to conceed is based in a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin was actually saying and that b) evolution mandates no behaviour at all. It is simply descriptive.) as if the fact that bad people do bad things is news or that religion would prevent it. As is always the case, in insisting (without a great deal of evidence to support it) that Hitler was an athiest and he was a naughty boy, he overlooks that the vast majority of Germans carrying out naughty Hitler's plans were themselves Christians.
I still contend this is much more interesting question if limited to the natural world.
Clanad repeats his specious arguments essentially characterising Christianity as the sole driver of anything useful or good. That a scientific discovery were made by a religious person in a religious environment does not in any sense mean it is only discoverable if one has religion! Education may often have been nurtured within religious communities but to imply that if religion never existed nothing would fill that vacuum is inane at best. Does he contend that we'd still be living in the trees? The Romans all worshiped false gods, yet they managed great civilisation.
Wilberforce may have been Christian, but Clanad surely does not expect us to forget that so were the slavers themselves, many provably devout men? Does he expect us to forget that the Bible itself makes many references to slavery, not one of them critical of the practice?
He then goes on to add some strawman twaddle about Social Darwinism (which if he knew the first thing about it, would have to conceed is based in a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin was actually saying and that b) evolution mandates no behaviour at all. It is simply descriptive.) as if the fact that bad people do bad things is news or that religion would prevent it. As is always the case, in insisting (without a great deal of evidence to support it) that Hitler was an athiest and he was a naughty boy, he overlooks that the vast majority of Germans carrying out naughty Hitler's plans were themselves Christians.
I still contend this is much more interesting question if limited to the natural world.
If people like Clanad and Theland are correct, we are here because God created us. So, if God didn't exist, and we had got here via evolution as we dirty atheist scum propose, what would be different in the natural world?
Given that creationism and evolution are not compatible, one would expect that the world should look substantially different. How?
If the question is expressed more widely, it just leads to the sort of squabbling as above (and I admit my own part in that).
Given that creationism and evolution are not compatible, one would expect that the world should look substantially different. How?
If the question is expressed more widely, it just leads to the sort of squabbling as above (and I admit my own part in that).
As most of the established religions preach hate of others who do not share their version, one would hope there would be less hate in the world if the zealots were taken out of the equation.
Alas, people prefer their moral codes to be handed to them on a plate even though the codes are 2000 years old, rather than work out for themselves what is right.
Alas, people prefer their moral codes to be handed to them on a plate even though the codes are 2000 years old, rather than work out for themselves what is right.
I'd rather intended the question to be more about how the things we see around us would be different, rather than if everybody were athiests (which I think we had a question on before)
In a Universe without a God I'd still expect people to believe in God and men like Wilberforce to act accordingly.
So for example I might expect people to suggest that without a God there could be no souls and humans would be more like animals.
Or even more interestingly how the world would be different if God lost interest and stopped caring about us.
(something close to the Cathar Heresy for any history students)
In otherwords the first question relates to what you believe God did to create the Universe and the second to what God does to maintain the Universe.
Having said that the answers so far are still very interesting
In a Universe without a God I'd still expect people to believe in God and men like Wilberforce to act accordingly.
So for example I might expect people to suggest that without a God there could be no souls and humans would be more like animals.
Or even more interestingly how the world would be different if God lost interest and stopped caring about us.
(something close to the Cathar Heresy for any history students)
In otherwords the first question relates to what you believe God did to create the Universe and the second to what God does to maintain the Universe.
Having said that the answers so far are still very interesting
