In a World With No Religion, Would All Humans Live Up to Their Potential (Consider the Following)?

Question by : In a world with no religion, would all humans live up to their potential (consider the following)?
Many Christians for example believe that all children (teens included) should blindly submit to and obey their birth parents. Trouble is, these same people come from a culture where people who do not reproduce are condemned to hell. Therefore, millions of unwanted children are brought into the world every day. The parents in these cases feel an urge to torture their unloved kids. Science (and common sense) prove that people who suffer childhood trauma (as in abuse victims) will have a very difficult road in life. Many even develop developmental disorders such as autism, if not mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. The worst part about this could be that kids with mental problems in many cases are often denied legal adulthood if their parents request “guardianship”. This guardianship system is notorious for the corrupt lawyers in it who help abusive parents to lie in order to win guardianship. We all know what happens to people from broken homes. For many, all roads often lead to drug addiction. If they have a mental illness, they may never access proper treatment until they end up committing Columbine-style shootings for instance. America is a glorious nation, but it is notorious for its unofficial race and income segregation. The productive capacity of the mentally disabled is impaired. Thus they will end up surrounded by bad neighbors once they have to support themselves. Get the picture?

Best answer:

Answer by Private <}:-})
Religion and Personality.
Religion is essential to personality development,
without it, there would bo no adequate explanation of life.
Religion aids in the formation of life. If there were no purpose
for which life is lived, the idea of personality development
would be meaningless. – Father Flanagan ?

Answer by The Philosopher
You misuse the information… and are being very vague for someone who apparently refer to scientific researches. Cite your sources if you do so and, of course, be free of preferences and opinions when making so.

Also, when a sentence begins by “many of something believe,” it’s extremely risky to start extrapolating about the situation — if you do have statistics or reference to some believable author, you could say “the majority of” which would constitute a clear term (it would mean more than 50%). There’s an other problem right bellow this statement when you start making all sorts of assumptions about people’s belief.

Really, it’s not pretty objective and logical to work this way — even the least scientific. Want an example of how to do? Well, when you say that “Science (and common sense) prove that people who suffer childhood trauma (as in abuse victims) will have a very difficult road in life.” you are taking position without any purpose.

It’s rather “Scientific researches held by developmental psychologists such as Bowlby and Ainsworth — even Erikson to some extent — show that there is a strong correlation between the quality of social interactions at an early age (Bowlby and Ainsworth will speak of the quality and the nature of the attachment held between the child and the other) and social interactions afterwards.” I don’t have the references under my hand right now, but because I mentioned actual concepts and theories with names, any people that reads me can find that information can confirm that what I said is accurate.

“We all know what happens to people from broken homes. For many, all roads often lead to drug addiction.” Well, that happens to be mostly inaccurate… If I refer to Erikson’s psychosocial theory and Vygotski’s theory of development about the zone of proximal development, any one person can change and re-adapt their behavior progressively to a more functional instance — with very few exceptions like language (if you do not learn to formulate appropriate sentences between 3 and 5 years of age, it will be either impossible or very hard, if you learn only few, to speak, read and write later on). Why this age? Because this is the moment around which regions like “Broca’s” are developed physiologically speaking. But you have to understand that the kind of abilities that are developed there are extremely rudimentary; if not, there are also modes of learning abstract thought when you get near 21-23 years of age… if you did not have owned your cognitive ability to a sufficient level, then, in adulthood, you will have a very hard time learning new methods to study, new ways to work theories and it will be harder to adapt yourself very complex thinking. Anyway… you see the point of all of what I did?

The idea is that you can’t just say things in your words without leaving some basis for people to find and verify the information. The minimum is to leave the right concepts, then it would be to cite the names and, the best of the best, to quote the book or work in which it was first published.