We’d be better off without religion

Religion has always been a topic of contention has drawn diverse and even conflicting opinions of the nature of the religious convictions. Individuals possess differing perspectives regarding faith and various religious convictions. In the case of any debate regarding the topic, it is expected to find proposers and people of contrary opinions in almost equal measure. That was the case of the debate held at the Methodist Central Hall. The motion of the debate was “We’d be better off without religion.” The debate pitted A. C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens against Roger Scruton, Julia Neuberger, and Nigel Spivey. The groups argued for and against the topic respectively. The debate was moderated by Joan Bakewell. The present paper discusses some of the issues that arose from the debate.
Q1
The proposers won the debate. The side arguing for the motion gave several reasons as to why the religion has caused the various problems that people encounter everyday. Though the proposers argued that religion is not the only cause of troubles being experienced in the world they gave strong evidence as to why religion has exacerbated the problems leading to a world of conflicts. The panelists for the motion were also able to demonstrate that even though scientific processes lead to empirical and tangible evidence religion has always opposed science. Another point that made the proposers’ case stronger is the argument that individuals tend to make irrational decisions and may be willing to kill in the name of religion.

Q2
Nigel Spivey is the panelist who made the strongest argument for spirituality. The panelist’s claim that human beings are hard-wired to believe in religious convictions is strong based on the fact that since the beginning of times human beings have practiced some form of religion or the other. Faith thus forms the foundation of human existence, and the world cannot be a better without the values and beliefs that are provided by spirituality. Julia Neuberger made the weakest point for religion by claiming that the religion is sole tool for the secondary mark for social life.
Q3
Christopher Hitchens made the strongest point for the support of the motion, against religion. The panelist links the war and conflicts that are experienced in the various parts. He states that violence and strife are experienced in regions where what he terms as “parties of God” perpetuate atrocities against other people in the society in the name of the religion. The strength of the argument is observed in his clear demonstration of the religion as a cause of division, violence, strife and persecution in the past and the modern world. On the other hand, the argument by Professor Anthony J. Grayling is the weakest as it does not provide evidence on how the lack of spirituality and religion leads to deeper self-fulfillment and happiness in life.
Q4
In participating in the debate, I would emphasize the argument by Christopher Hitchens that religion has perpetuated strife and animosity in many societies around the world. The current war waged by ISIS, for instance, is based on religious conviction. I would emphasize the argument by Nigel Spivey that religion is the basis for understanding many of the elements in the world and ourselves.
Q5
To the proponents of the motion, the question would be: “In any case, you were to do away with religion what will you offer as the basis of morality to the individuals who have always perceived religion as the standards for right and wrong?” To those opposing the motion: “What will you do after death when you realize there is no God after all?” Religion has always been a topic of contention has drawn diverse and even conflicting opinions of the nature of the religious convictions. Individuals possess differing perspectives regarding faith and various religious convictions. In the case of any debate regarding the topic, it is expected to find proposers and people of contrary opinions in almost equal measure. That was the case of the debate held at the Methodist Central Hall. The motion of the debate was “We’d be better off without religion.” The debate pitted A. C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens against Roger Scruton, Julia Neuberger, and Nigel Spivey. The groups argued for and against the topic respectively. The debate was moderated by Joan Bakewell. The present paper discusses some of the issues that arose from the debate.
Q1
The proposers won the debate. The side arguing for the motion gave several reasons as to why the religion has caused the various problems that people encounter everyday. Though the proposers argued that religion is not the only cause of troubles being experienced in the world they gave strong evidence as to why religion has exacerbated the problems leading to a world of conflicts. The panelists for the motion were also able to demonstrate that even though scientific processes lead to empirical and tangible evidence religion has always opposed science. Another point that made the proposers’ case stronger is the argument that individuals tend to make irrational decisions and may be willing to kill in the name of religion.
Q2
Nigel Spivey is the panelist who made the strongest argument for spirituality. The panelist’s claim that human beings are hard-wired to believe in religious convictions is strong based on the fact that since the beginning of times human beings have practiced some form of religion or the other. Faith thus forms the foundation of human existence, and the world cannot be a better without the values and beliefs that are provided by spirituality. Julia Neuberger made the weakest point for religion by claiming that the religion is sole tool for the secondary mark for social life.
Q3
Christopher Hitchens made the strongest point for the support of the motion, against religion. The panelist links the war and conflicts that are experienced in the various parts. He states that violence and strife are experienced in regions where what he terms as “parties of God” perpetuate atrocities against other people in the society in the name of the religion. The strength of the argument is observed in his clear demonstration of the religion as a cause of division, violence, strife and persecution in the past and the modern world. On the other hand, the argument by Professor Anthony J. Grayling is the weakest as it does not provide evidence on how the lack of spirituality and religion leads to deeper self-fulfillment and happiness in life.
Q4
In participating in the debate, I would emphasize the argument by Christopher Hitchens that religion has perpetuated strife and animosity in many societies around the world. The current war waged by ISIS, for instance, is based on religious conviction. I would emphasize the argument by Nigel Spivey that religion is the basis for understanding many of the elements in the world and ourselves.
Q5
To the proponents of the motion, the question would be: “In any case, you were to do away with religion what will you offer as the basis of morality to the individuals who have always perceived religion as the standards for right and wrong?” To those opposing the motion: “What will you do after death when you realize that there is no God after all?”