Some people appear to need it.
Some of the lesser developed religions aren't really needed though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there a need for religion?
- Thread starter Where Is God
- Start date
Some of the lesser developed religions aren't really needed though.
Where Is God
Creator
My questions were more directed to society's need than individual. I feel like a lot of people are often inhibited by their religion. Like when people refuse health care to pray for healing. It's sad.
Societies consist of individuals. If individuals need it, then societies need it. If individuals don't need it, then society might not.
It is sad indeed.
That's why lesser developed religions aren't really needed.
That is sad. You'd think the fact that whenever health care is refused in favor of prayer healing, it fails, people'd learn.
In addition to the "comfort" suggestion, I think it also provides a sense of community.
Not that one couldn't build a community around something non-religious ~ many have already done this ~ but churches have been doing it so well for so long, it's an easy option for anyone looking for a place to belong.
So far as I can see, religions are ultimately based on human nature -- that is, based on our DNA -- yet have only the purposes we culturally and individually assign to them.
That is, I think humans have a predisposition towards religiosity that, in a natural state, would most like manifest itself as an animism. But we have invented elaborations based on that predisposition, so that now, for instance, religions might have several functions which have been created by us over the centuries.
That is, I think humans have a predisposition towards religiosity that, in a natural state, would most like manifest itself as an animism. But we have invented elaborations based on that predisposition, so that now, for instance, religions might have several functions which have been created by us over the centuries.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh, I disgree, Luis! Most people want to serve God... but only in an advisory capacity!
People clump. They clump into groups that like baseball players who wear one color of hat so that they can hate baseball players who wear another color of hat. They clump to go watch birds together. They clump to quietly read books together. Young people clump depending on whether their interests lie in football, the arts, academics, or defiance. People even clump to share their nonbelief with each other.
People will clump around spirituality as long as there are people and they have common opinions concerning spirituality. We call those clumps "religion". And as long as some clumps of humans are inclined to get aggressive towards other clumps of humans or humans who remain unclumped, we'll have problems with clumps, including religions, behaving badly.
Religion is certainly not a requirement of spirituality. Nor is spirituality a requirement of religion: Unitarianism in particular contains open atheists, and, on a much less conscious level, a great many people who belong to religions have very little grasp of what their religion's spiritual views actually are.
I take a perverse delight in informing, say, "devout" -- meaning militantly for their team and against the rival teams, and not meaning spiritually active-- Roman Catholics of the Church's social teachings ("go-team-go!" attitudes are strongly correlated with what is called the authoritarian follower personality by sociologists, and authoritarian followers almost always hate the disadvantaged).
Let me emphasize again here that I'm using Catholicism as an example: this sort of person, who is more aware of which team he or she is on than what that team stands for, can be found in every religion. This is because religions are, largely, social clubs, so much so that some of their members are there almost entirely for the social activity.
This also works in the opposite direction btw : there are religions whose founders embraced ideas most modern people find offensive, but many sects have explained them away and many members are entirely unaware of them-- for example, the Buddha's teachings on women. Modern people rarely countenance gross gender inequality, and so Buddhists make those embarrassing teachings disappear.
All this said, my eyes wide open, I'm a big supporter of religion. Private spiritual practice doesn't require the presence of others. But having a shoulder to lean on, having an ear that will listen, knowing who in your community needs your condolences, having somewhere to gather for dinners and parties and bingo games and the people to gather with, having someone to approach for advice, having a base to organize doing good things great and small, or even as the core of a great national movement for justice --- for all this and more, you need religion and other forms of social organization.
People will clump around spirituality as long as there are people and they have common opinions concerning spirituality. We call those clumps "religion". And as long as some clumps of humans are inclined to get aggressive towards other clumps of humans or humans who remain unclumped, we'll have problems with clumps, including religions, behaving badly.
Religion is certainly not a requirement of spirituality. Nor is spirituality a requirement of religion: Unitarianism in particular contains open atheists, and, on a much less conscious level, a great many people who belong to religions have very little grasp of what their religion's spiritual views actually are.
I take a perverse delight in informing, say, "devout" -- meaning militantly for their team and against the rival teams, and not meaning spiritually active-- Roman Catholics of the Church's social teachings ("go-team-go!" attitudes are strongly correlated with what is called the authoritarian follower personality by sociologists, and authoritarian followers almost always hate the disadvantaged).
Let me emphasize again here that I'm using Catholicism as an example: this sort of person, who is more aware of which team he or she is on than what that team stands for, can be found in every religion. This is because religions are, largely, social clubs, so much so that some of their members are there almost entirely for the social activity.
This also works in the opposite direction btw : there are religions whose founders embraced ideas most modern people find offensive, but many sects have explained them away and many members are entirely unaware of them-- for example, the Buddha's teachings on women. Modern people rarely countenance gross gender inequality, and so Buddhists make those embarrassing teachings disappear.
All this said, my eyes wide open, I'm a big supporter of religion. Private spiritual practice doesn't require the presence of others. But having a shoulder to lean on, having an ear that will listen, knowing who in your community needs your condolences, having somewhere to gather for dinners and parties and bingo games and the people to gather with, having someone to approach for advice, having a base to organize doing good things great and small, or even as the core of a great national movement for justice --- for all this and more, you need religion and other forms of social organization.
Where Is God
Creator
So you are saying being a part of the same species doesn't bring a sense of community?
Oh, I disgree, Luis! Most people want to serve God... but only in an advisory capacity!
Many people want to serve God, for sure. Many others want to advise him, I suppose (I'm not really sure I understand what you mean). Perhaps 10% of all people don't actually believe in the existence of God to a sufficient degree to want to serve him.
And many others, so many that I guess it might be the majority of all people, want to believe that they serve God mainly because saying so makes them feel better. But that same group actually lacks true desire to serve God. It is a social, perhaps psychological motivation, a manifestation of the desire to be accepted and self-accepted. But it is not true devotion, although it can be tricky to tell the difference on casual contact.
Last edited:
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
You are making the erroneous assumption that religion is based on some sort of scientific ignorance. If that were so, religion would be useless eventually. The reason it is still here is because it is not based off of scientific ignorance.
IMO, even if all religions were just gone right now, eventually, there would be religion again. In a different way, under a different name, but it would still be the same. What we call religion and humanity go together. They are inseparable concepts.
Where Is God
Creator
You obviously have some what of a biased opinion being that you are catholic. Your argument that religion is not based of off scientific ignorance is false being that there are more then one religions, therefore, unfortunately; someone is wrong.
If all religions stopped, and we documented it's removal, and accurately showed our descendants the errors and effects of it's way, religion would not resurrect. The only "religions" that would exist would be ones that are more of a way of life, like mine.
The argument that religion and humanity are inseparable concepts is lunacy. Would you say a tree is religious? How about a moose? What is its religion? If not, why do humans need religion and not any other species?
Sure, it could. But that's kind of broad. I think people might need more than that in common to bond effectively.
Orias
Left Hand Path
You remind me of this guy from the O9A, and is strangely familiar.
Oh well, it is off topic.
So do you agree with my proposition?
Where Is God
Creator
I don't!
I don't see what makes humans from America any different from ones from Africa. Seriously, we humans think so highly of ourselves and the majority of us hold humans as (for a lack of words) better than other species on earth. This is simply untrue, how many other species wage war on each other? When we look at nature, we don't see too much violence or conflict within each species. We see team work and cooperation for the betterment of each species, for the most part( I will admit we often see violence over the dominate male, etc.. But we do that too.).
So what I am saying is, why can't humans work together for the betterment of our species? Why are we so selfish?
Where Is God
Creator
You never clarified what you meant by "fundamentalist."
Orias
Left Hand Path
fun·da·men·tal·ism
n. 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
The first definition clarifies a lot.
I don't!
I think many do work together for the greater good. Off the top of my head, I think of everything from local charities (food pantry) to world wide relief efforts (Doctors Without Borders).
Orias
Left Hand Path
You forget to mention the payment they give themselves before actually "donating".
The United States deficit budget (national debt) could be whiped clean if the Churches would actually pay taxes or even crumbled themselves in totality.
But that well never happen