A World without religion

[Nuke_em_05]

It isn't possible to determine the entire effect of an element of human culture without knowing the full reach or what substitutes might arise.

Well, you'd have to define religion.

Organized beliefs?
Faith in a "higher power" of some kind?

Without attributing to a deity or something, people still have ideals and beliefs that would take the place of religion as far as lobbying and wars and such. People don't join a religion unless they buy it or generally agree, so even if they didn't ascribe their morals or values to a "higher power", they'd still unite anyway.

Faith in a "higher power". People like to think that religion has suppressed science because they deemed it an attempt to undermine their "god". Well, how many scientific things were suppressed by a religion, really? Yeah, there's the whole "age of the earth" and "evolution", but how recent is that and how much did it relatively suffer? Not a lot of science has really been relevant to religion, so they haven't gotten involved. Even under an oppressive theocracy, people who disagree have still studied what they wanted, they just didn't let the government/religious leaders know about it.

While on science, the morality issue is still existent without religion, there are non-religious people are uncomfortable with the idea chopping up unborn babies for stem cell research. Also politically, some people, without religion, don't like the idea of homosexual marriage or abortion.

Religion has also motivated a lot of "good", social service organizations, mission work, etc. Again, this is just shared belief in helping other people, so they would probably exist the same.

Hope and such... well, there is a certain motivation in religion, especially in the afterlife, and something to strive for (or avoid). Of course, without religious afterlife, people might be more motivated to do more with the life they are given, and determine how to make it longer.

In short, not that different.

 

[tsb247]

People would still be killing each other, but they would be doing it for different reasons. Religion was also a catalyst for a great deal of art and culture, especially in Europe. The world would probably be a far more boring palce.

 

[RicoADF]

Would be a better world.

True, I think even our technology and cultural development would have progressed faster.

 

[Axeli]

Well, for such a historical scenario to be even possible, people themselves should be different.

People as creatures should not be so eager to go for and cling to the easy answers, they should be capable of accepting their own ignorance, mortality and insignificance. They should be rational and intellectually independed.

A smart and wise person without any religious upbringing does not jump to the conclusion that thunder is cause by a giant blacksmith's hammer or that after you die a guy with a dog face will measure your heart against a feather.
Yet someone made such conclusions and evidently managed to somehow convince other people, too. All because they just couldn't accept that they really knew nothing.

Should I remind the world that egyptians and romans and greeks, who were very intelligent and advanced, were also very religious?

There was a phrase "without any religious upbringing" in there, plus you make the assumptions that it was the same Egyptians in the same time who made up the religion and advanced scientifically, or that it was even the people we categorize as ancient Egyptians who started the religion.

They just accepted religion as "fact" just like we accept the articles we see published in newspapers, and got on with their studies.

We should do the same.

The beginning of religion and a inaccurate news story are hardly perfectly analogous. It's rather work better if you were to describe how an already notable religion gains more followers. I.e. "Everyone knows this newspaper is reliable/everyone knows our god exists". It does not explain how a ridiculous belief starts from nothing.