I've been awake for a good 60 hours, so this is probably going to jump around a lot, but bear with me:
As was touched on, religion isn't inherently a bad idea. But to say it's the root of all evil (I know these aren't anyone's exact words, but the sentiment is definitely there) is to go a tad too far. Religion had an important role to play in our early history. The way I see it, you could have gone three ways in the early days: a religion, a secular government (based on logic and reason), or a marriage of the two. Had you tried something else, a civilization wouldn't have sprouted from the soil because you'd be far too busy moving around, foraging for food, trying not to get killed. Civilization rises from a certain level of comfort and stability. If you have time to relax, you have time to think. Time to think breeds ideas, and ideas move us toward progress. But for that stability to exist, you have to first have a reason to live amongst fellow humans. Religion, for many, provided such a reason. A belief or fear of something outside of your control, and an ideology that would help bring order to the chaos. Once rules and regulations were established, behaviors that were detrimental to the whole were no longer tolerated. And so they learned to work together. Why? Because what benefits me, benefits you. Alone, I am no match against many, but together, we can face the agents of chaos and win.
This isn't different from government whatsoever. In the beginning, we needed something to control us to a degree. We were wild, and undisciplined. Government makes laws, religions makes laws. They both served to control our behavior. In the beginning, it wasn't meant to manipulate us into obeying these laws, but to convince us to obey these laws. Because, again, we are stronger, and better if we work together. Some agreed, others didn't. Those who did founded civilizations. Those who didn't were conquered and either destroyed or assimilated. The multitudes generally win against the few.
But a problem arises. Though I disagree that humans are inherently selfish and, in a word, evil (rather than focus on the word as a conceptual force, focus on the characteristics it implies of an individual or thing), there are certainly people out there who are. And these people are generally attracted to the illusion of power. Why? Because if you wield that illusion of power, you can strike down those who are either incapable of using it, or unwilling to use it, and take whatever it is that strokes your ego. Those who deny the existence of said power are a different story altogether, however, and they are usually the only people said agents of chaos fear. And so slowly but surely, these sociopaths made their way into the highest echelons of power, manipulating the system that was meant to protect us from the likes of them. The one thing we do better than most is evolve, however, and so no one strategy is successful for long. We change, they change. Forever warring against each other in our little way, forever failing to overcome the other. And probably for the best, because we need each other. We keep each other strong. We keep each other sharp.
The problem isn't so much one system or another, but our unwillingness to keep balance as a result of manipulations of our counterpart. I present to you exhibit A. Keep in mind I've simplified this to the point of absurdity, but the general idea is still sound:
Center is balanced, sides represent the same extreme. I didn't bother addressing opposing ideologies, but should someone decide to bring them up, I'll be sure to follow through.
Any who, in the center represents a nice-sounding, extremely naive idea. On the extremes, we see what could become of such an idea in the hands of someone who would prefer to benefit the few, rather than the many. Provided the few are the ones benefiting, said person is somehow always part of that group. Throw in something about race and creed, and you have a simplistic view of the not-so-Third Reich. This explains why Hitler, who didn't match any of the criteria he set forth for the master race, was still somehow totally qualified to lead in said endeavor.
What's my point? Stray too far to either extreme, and you end up ******* everything up. The many will definitely pay the price, everyone suffers, a few make out pretty damn well, and, in the long run, we as a species probably lose.
So a degree of selflessness, to me, is similar to a degree of selfishness, in that what benefits you, benefits me provided we maintain a certain level of balance. I may not know this consciously, but I guarantee it crosses my mind on some level. When you go to the extreme, as in the case of the rich vs. poor, what benefits the rich, the few, does not necessarily benefit the poor, the many.
Moving on.
So it's the year 2010. Do we still need religion? Some do, some don't. But if we are to agree that religion, as a controlling force, is no longer needed, can we get rid of government as well? It serves the same purpose, and is generally more destructive, so why put up with it?
"But the Crusades and Jihads and all the religious wars of all time!"
Right, were perpetrated by governments who manipulated the religious beliefs of its people in order to achieve an aim or goal. So what do we do? Are we ready to rid ourselves of both? Are we mature enough as a species to live in a state of anarchy (as the actual concept entails, not the "blow everything up" mentality shared by idiots who don't understand anarchy)?
Personally, I don't think so. The balance has shifted so far to both extremes, that the idea of getting rid of either wouldn't even cross the minds of the vast majority of our species. We cling onto both, because they both tell us we need them, and our social structure reinforces that notion. On the one extreme, you have political and religious leaders controlling people through their religion, and on the other, you have secular governments controlling their people through the law. Both sides think they're better than the other, neither side really works on a large scale.
@J-Dude: Being logical and reasonable doesn't mean you ignore your emotions. You simply learn to observe them, and control them when the necessity arises. Also, going from a devout Christian to atheism is, to me, the difference between having an obsession with lollipops and having an obsession with jolly ranchers, in that there really is no difference. Different candy, sure, but still candy. The two views are the same, existing on opposite extremes. I'm sure there will be those who will rabidly deny this, but until you
know, you don't, and so that's the approach I take. Not saying one is better than the other. Just posting an observation.