What function do religions serve?

[charles brough]

They serve an evolutionary function.

We are evolved beings, and as such we function in a lean-mean way. That is, there is an evolutionary economy in our anatomy, physiology, social nature and way of thinking. It is all geared to survival and continued growth (in numbers). All that still lingers in us that is no longer needed has shrunk to insignificance.

And we don't believe in ideologies for any other reason other than that they serve a function---like most everything else. We invented all of them for our own use, and as far as we know, we have depended upon them since we developed language and speech to a level that made it possible more than fifty-thousand years ago.

Karl Marx said that "religion" (old ideology) is "the opiate of the people" as if it was an addiction. Is it? What is essential to being an addiction is having to get ever more of it inorder to achieve the same reward. Ideologies don't do that; even the old ones (the so-called "religions"). When they get too old and hence obsolete, they are eventually replaced.

So, what is the function of both old and new ideologies?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Karl Marx said that "religion" (old ideology) is "the opiate of the people" as if it was an addiction. Is it? What is essential to being an addiction is having to get ever more of it inorder to achieve the same reward.

Dopamine. Google dopamine and paranormal belief

 

[cablescavenger]

They serve an evolutionary function.

We are evolved beings, and as such we function in a lean-mean way. That is, there is an evolutionary economy in our anatomy, physiology, social nature and way of thinking. It is all geared to survival and continued growth (in numbers). All that still lingers in us that is no longer needed has shrunk to insignificance.

And we don't believe in ideologies for any other reason other than that they serve a function---like most everything else. We invented all of them for our own use, and as far as we know, we have depended upon them since we developed language and speech to a level that made it possible more than fifty-thousand years ago.

This is just my opinion, on the evolutionary aspect.

The earliest written records we have are religious, across cultures, so I don't doubt for one second that religion has been around way before recorded history.

That said, I am not convinced it is evolutionary, nor purely social, or we would see evidence in animals of religious behaviour, we do see social behaviour without religion in animals; so I see religion as a communicable solution to explain away a poor understanding of our surroundings, with the incredible. I think it is too sophisticated to exist without speech.

I think the evolutionary argument would need some convincing evidence because it is looking beyond the anthropological reasons, which I think are already a convincing argument.

One only has to look at sociological studies to realise that people are only too willing to yield to authority.

It is also human nature to reject the void of the unknown, and fill it with an imperfect known. How do I know that? I am dong it now. It is called opinion, or lies or storytelling etc

It is idle curiosity filled with loose belief, some of which will be fact, some will be false and some of it will be neither.

I could swap my opinion; by changing my mind, having an epiphany or learning from others more knowledgeable, or more authoritative.

If I am firmly fixed to my opinion, then it might take debate, or discussion, or a body of evidence to convince me, or I may never be convinced even with a evidence before me.

If enough people bought into my opinion then it would be a shared belief, more still, a belief system, if my unknown was filled by a deity, then perhaps it would be a religion.

How much do we want to find answers and fill the void of the unknown? One only has to think of the thirst for news, or gossip, to realise it is a strong need.

Take personal traits and see if they are satisfied by knowing, or believing you know the outcome compared to being unsure of, or not knowing the outcome.

To illustrate:

• Fear of death - reduced with knowledge, or religious belief that it is painless or there is an afterlife, but made worse from lack of knowledge.
• Hope satisfied by knowledge or belief that the future is going to be ok, but left frustrated by lack of knowledge.
• Confidence, improved with knowledge or education, or belief, weakened with lack of knowledge.

You can probably find examples that are satsified by lack of knowledge, but there will be fewer of them, I can think of the example where one doesn't want to know a present they are going to get, in order to build anticipation.

The desire for knowledge is so strong that people prefer to know bad news, rather than not know at all because, strangely it is a more satisfying outcome. We don't even have to know the truth as long as we believe it is the truth.

It would therefore be easy to see why religion would be appealing to many, it fills a knowledge void with something more satisfying to human nature. Whether you call it fact, or opinion, or fiction does not really matter too much because it is serving a purpose.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sanity maintenance, at least for me.

 

[charles brough]

This is just my opinion, on the evolutionary aspect.

The earliest written records we have are religious, across cultures, so I don't doubt for one second that religion has been around way before recorded history.

That said, I am not convinced it is evolutionary, nor purely social, or we would see evidence in animals of religious behaviour, we do see social behaviour without religion in animals; so I see religion as a communicable solution to explain away a poor understanding of our surroundings, with the incredible. I think it is too sophisticated to exist without speech.

I think the evolutionary argument would need some convincing evidence because it is looking beyond the anthropological reasons, which I think are already a convincing argument.

One only has to look at sociological studies to realise that people are only too willing to yield to authority.

It is also human nature to reject the void of the unknown, and fill it with an imperfect known. How do I know that? I am dong it now. It is called opinion, or lies or storytelling etc

It is idle curiosity filled with loose belief, some of which will be fact, some will be false and some of it will be neither.

I could swap my opinion; by changing my mind, having an epiphany or learning from others more knowledgeable, or more authoritative.

If I am firmly fixed to my opinion, then it might take debate, or discussion, or a body of evidence to convince me, or I may never be convinced even with a evidence before me.

If enough people bought into my opinion then it would be a shared belief, more still, a belief system, if my unknown was filled by a deity, then perhaps it would be a religion.

How much do we want to find answers and fill the void of the unknown? One only has to think of the thirst for news, or gossip, to realise it is a strong need.

Take personal traits and see if they are satisfied by knowing, or believing you know the outcome compared to being unsure of, or not knowing the outcome.

To illustrate:

• Fear of death - reduced with knowledge, or religious belief that it is painless or there is an afterlife, but made worse from lack of knowledge.
• Hope satisfied by knowledge or belief that the future is going to be ok, but left frustrated by lack of knowledge.
• Confidence, improved with knowledge or education, or belief, weakened with lack of knowledge.

You can probably find examples that are satsified by lack of knowledge, but there will be fewer of them, I can think of the example where one doesn't want to know a present they are going to get, in order to build anticipation.

The desire for knowledge is so strong that people prefer to know bad news, rather than not know at all because, strangely it is a more satisfying outcome. We don't even have to know the truth as long as we believe it is the truth.

It would therefore be easy to see why religion would be appealing to many, it fills a knowledge void with something more satisfying to human nature. Whether you call it fact, or opinion, or fiction does not really matter too much because it is serving a purpose.

What a well-thought out post!

Yes, as you say, religions fulfill a human emotional need. It is as if we take “his” world-view since there are too many of us to take cues directly from the “group's” alpha male. And, our“groups” are now huge societies which we are bound into by our “religions” (world-view belief systems).

Being, as we are, small, hunting gathering size group primates, we don't function well in huge groups that lack a tight ideological bond. We feel increasing stress because of our innate need for a sense of community;

In other mammals, this sense of “crowding” can cause enough stress to affect their general health or, in some, cause a break down in their behavior. If necessary, they kill each other or themselves in increasing numbers. Or they kill one or more of their offspring. Could that be why some women abuse or actually kill their own children, show preference for one over the other, or their father harm them?

So, when the old world-view system or religion has grown too old and can no longer support the people's technology or science, it divides and its parts subdivide until it becomes such a conflicting patchwork that people loose much if not most of its value to them. They feel crowded and stressed.

Then, finally, the society and its civilization declines and collapses.

Resolution comes with a new and more advanced world-view system. If it is both advanced and serves human emotional need, it succeeds and a new civilization begins. In “The Last Civilization,” I show the whole social evolutionary process that is involved in this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It seems to me that this really only addresses modern Christianity, and completely ignores the history of religion.

Fear of death - reduced with knowledge, or religious belief that it is painless or there is an afterlife, but made worse from lack of knowledge.

Hope satisfied by knowledge or belief that the future is going to be ok, but left frustrated by lack of knowledge.

Confidence, improved with knowledge or education, or belief, weakened with lack of knowledge.

Many religions, especially ancient ones, care nothing for the afterlife and religion doesn't address the future at all.

Perhaps a wider knowledge of religion - especially ancient religions - would be useful in arguing for the evolution // evolutionary roles of religion.

 

[cablescavenger]

It seems to me that this really only addresses modern Christianity, and completely ignores the history of religion.



Many religions, especially ancient ones, care nothing for the afterlife and religion doesn't address the future at all.

Perhaps a wider knowledge of religion - especially ancient religions - would be useful in arguing for the evolution // evolutionary roles of religion.

Thank you for your comment, but you have misread the post.
I am not arguing that religion is evolutionary, but disputing it is.
More so, I am saying I believe it to be social, because it fits well with human nature and is delivered by authority. You have merely picked out a small exampleand misinterpreted what I was saying. Not to worry.

That does fit with all religions ancient or not. The semantics of the religions are not necessarily that important, but thank you.

 

[cablescavenger]

What a well-thought out post!

Yes, as you say, religions fulfill a human emotional need. It is as if we take “his” world-view since there are too many of us to take cues directly from the “group's” alpha male. And, our“groups” are now huge societies which we are bound into by our “religions” (world-view belief systems).

Being, as we are, small, hunting gathering size group primates, we don't function well in huge groups that lack a tight ideological bond. We feel increasing stress because of our innate need for a sense of community;

In other mammals, this sense of “crowding” can cause enough stress to affect their general health or, in some, cause a break down in their behavior. If necessary, they kill each other or themselves in increasing numbers. Or they kill one or more of their offspring. Could that be why some women abuse or actually kill their own children, show preference for one over the other, or their father harm them?

So, when the old world-view system or religion has grown too old and can no longer support the people's technology or science, it divides and its parts subdivide until it becomes such a conflicting patchwork that people loose much if not most of its value to them. They feel crowded and stressed.

Then, finally, the society and its civilization declines and collapses.

Resolution comes with a new and more advanced world-view system. If it is both advanced and serves human emotional need, it succeeds and a new civilization begins. In “The Last Civilization,” I show the whole social evolutionary process that is involved in this.

It seems we have like minds, I think you raise valid points, which I would agree with.

Your new world view is something I also hold dear.

 

[Madhuri]

Sanity maintenance, at least for me.

Lol, yes I think it is a relevant answer.

 

[Rhizomatic]

The category "religion" seems to imperfect and abstract to correspond to any essential functions. Things that we call religion vary radically, and it seems insurmountably problematic to try and establish an essential set of traits of all of the phenomena that we consider to be religion that translate into a cohesive function. It seems more reasonable to say that a vast number of highly diverse social situations, patterns of thinking, and biological conditions of experience combine differently in different places and times to produce a wide range of phenomena that we then retroactively group together under the category "religion" because we find it useful for whatever reason to do so.

 

[charles brough]

It seems to me that this really only addresses modern Christianity, and completely ignores the history of religion.

Many religions, especially ancient ones, care nothing for the afterlife and religion doesn't address the future at all. Perhaps a wider knowledge of religion - especially ancient religions - would be useful in arguing for the evolution // evolutionary roles of religion.

Seems to me the statements sum up the history of religion. It is common for all faiths to look to the future. Christians have always looked to heaven and the Return of Jesus to save us from a tribulation and they still do, the Mayans looked to what they thought was the future, the Muslims have the same general anticipation as Christians and Judaics have. Hindus look to Nirvana and the Chinese look to be in the afterlife care of their descendents. Even the Marxist dream of a egalitarian utopia. All the old religions dreamed of an afterlife.

 

[charles brough]

The category "religion" seems to imperfect and abstract to correspond to any essential functions. Things that we call religion vary radically, and it seems insurmountably problematic to try and establish an essential set of traits of all of the phenomena that we consider to be religion that translate into a cohesive function. It seems more reasonable to say that a vast number of highly diverse social situations, patterns of thinking, and biological conditions of experience combine differently in different places and times to produce a wide range of phenomena that we then retroactively group together under the category "religion" because we find it useful for whatever reason to do so.

Yes, the subject is certainly complex; it is a challenge for science but a necessary one since its function is to broaden and make more accurate our understanding of ourselves and our world. Just because it is complex does not mean it is beyond human comprehension. I found out it is not. It is expllainable, even enlightening.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For one, there'd be a lot less good joke material if we didn't have religion to make fun of.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

They serve an evolutionary function.

And I thought it was to give choirs something to sing about.

 

[charles brough]

And I thought it was to give choirs something to sing about.

Good point . . . I enjoy going into religious forums and "spreading a little science" to the unenlightened, but at the same time, our secular-science way of thinking is also an ideology. I make careful distinction between old ideological ways of thinking and modern ones!

 

[Rhizomatic]

Yes, the subject is certainly complex; it is a challenge for science but a necessary one since its function is to broaden and make more accurate our understanding of ourselves and our world. Just because it is complex does not mean it is beyond human comprehension. I found out it is not. It is expllainable, even enlightening.

I don't disagree that religion can still be studied and understood (I'm applying to graduate programs in religious studies at the moment, after all). I just don't think that we'll ever arrive at an accurate understanding of the roles that religions play if we insist on thinking of religion as having a uniform nature or function.

Depending upon how you use the term, I'm also hesitant to say that it is a challenge for science to unravel. Empirical, hard science can certain produce many insights that are useful for the study of religion, but the empirical model of controlling variables and conducting experiments to test hypotheses is entirely inadequate for directly studying culture. That's why we have humanities.

 

[charles brough]

I don't disagree that religion can still be studied and understood (I'm applying to graduate programs in religious studies at the moment, after all). I just don't think that we'll ever arrive at an accurate understanding of the roles that religions play if we insist on thinking of religion as having a uniform nature or function.

Depending upon how you use the term, I'm also hesitant to say that it is a challenge for science to unravel. Empirical, hard science can certain produce many insights that are useful for the study of religion, but the empirical model of controlling.

You might have patience enough for me to introduce you to another way of looking at the subject. Please let me take the first step and if it makes sense to you, I'll go further.

The most vital function I see that religions serve is to unite people into groups larger than we evolved to live in through millions of years of evolution. During all that time, we evolved social instincts which the social (hunting/gathering) groups adjusted or conditioned to the needs of the group. Being small group primates, only the development of speech enabled us to adjust to living in much larger groups. By having a common world-view ("religion"), people could be brought together, feel the sense of community they would have otherwise lost and cooperate to achieve common goals and by commonly accepted means.

This is not speculative. It is noted among animal behavioralists that when such small group social animal's groups grow too large (i.e., beyond the optimum range), they invariably break up. What happens that actually triggers the break up? Many reasons can be given and with humans, there is always a "reason," but the inevitable underlying cause is "a rise in the level of stress." Over-crowded deer have been known to die of stress alone. The stress tears apart the behavioral pattern of rats and mice. It causes an increase in organ failure in most mammals.

 

[Rhizomatic]

You might have patience enough for me to introduce you to another way of looking at the subject. Please let me take the first step and if it makes sense to you, I'll go further.

The most vital function I see that religions serve is to unite people into groups larger than we evolved to live in through millions of years of evolution. During all that time, we evolved social instincts which the social (hunting/gathering) groups adjusted or conditioned to the needs of the group. Being small group primates, only the development of speech enabled us to adjust to living in much larger groups. By having a common world-view ("religion"), people could be brought together, feel the sense of community they would have otherwise lost and cooperate to achieve common goals and by commonly accepted means.

This is not speculative. It is noted among animal behavioralists that when such small group social animal's groups grow too large (i.e., beyond the optimum range), they invariably break up. What happens that actually triggers the break up? Many reasons can be given and with humans, there is always a "reason," but the inevitable underlying cause is "a rise in the level of stress." Over-crowded deer have been known to die of stress alone. The stress tears apart the behavioral pattern of rats and mice. It causes an increase in organ failure in most mammals.

This seems reasonable, and I can see where you would take it. Even if you could show convincingly that differentiated social groups are simultaneously necessary for social cohesion and division to maintain functionally-sized societies, I don't think it follows to leap to a universal form or sole function of religion, but given that you asked for patience while you lay out your argument I'm fine to wait until you make the rest of your points to start seriously criticizing any that I disagree with.

 

[charles brough]

This seems reasonable, and I can see where you would take it. Even if you could show convincingly that differentiated social groups are simultaneously necessary for social cohesion and division to maintain functionally-sized societies, I don't think it follows to leap to a universal form or sole function of religion, but given that you asked for patience while you lay out your argument I'm fine to wait until you make the rest of your points to start seriously criticizing any that I disagree with.

Yes, there are other reasons why people develop religions. People long to know "the meaning of life." They want to know what lies ahead, what goals they as "the group" need to achieve, the moral means they need to agree on so they can work together to achieve them. They also want to be able to look back and "know" where they, their group, came from and what is the obstacles they need to face to achieve their goals. In otherwords, world-view systems evolve to fit human emotional needs while shaping the emotions to fit the need to achieve technological progress.

All during historic times, each civilization has been based on a single religion (world-view) which has ideologically divided and then ultimately splintered as it became obsolete because of advances in the very technology it had enabled. For a new and more up-to-date ideology to replace the old one, it has generally had to provide a more advanced answer to the "meaning of life" as described above.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Yes, there are other reasons why people develop religions. People long to know "the meaning of life." They want to know what lies ahead, what goals they as "the group" need to achieve, the moral means they need to agree on so they can work together to achieve them. They also want to be able to look back and "know" where they, their group, came from and what is the obstacles they need to face to achieve their goals. In otherwords, world-view systems evolve to fit human emotional needs while shaping the emotions to fit the need to achieve technological progress.

All during historic times, each civilization has been based on a single religion (world-view) which has ideologically divided and then ultimately splintered as it became obsolete because of advances in the very technology it had enabled. For a new and more up-to-date ideology to replace the old one, it has generally had to provide a more advanced answer to the "meaning of life" as described above.

I've highlighted my major sources of disagreement in red. I have smaller squabbles, like considering your list emotional needs fulfilled by religion too reliant on the model of Abrahamic religion, but they're not really significant to your larger point and you didn't really present that as an exhaustive list.

In otherwords, world-view systems evolve to fit human emotional needs while shaping the emotions to fit the need to achieve technological progress.

This seems forced to me. Perhaps if you explained in more detail your argument would make more sense? As it stands, I can't help thinking of various religions opposed to technological progress and questioning the idea that most, let alone all, religion could be seen as a fundamentally driving force here.

All during historic times, each civilization has been based on a single religion (world-view)

That's just factually incorrect. Broad-strokes portrayals of other cultures and historical civilizations enables this kind of thinking by focusing on predominant, halmark cultures, but wide ideological and religious diversity is extremely prevalent throughout history. This seems like a problem for your model of uniform structural evolution.

For a new and more up-to-date ideology to replace the old one, it has generally had to provide a more advanced answer to the "meaning of life" as described above.

I don't think you'll find any scholar of religion who agrees with this. The factors that drive the growth and decline of religion are generally non-religious and completely divorced from actual teachings of a given ideology; rather they follow social instability, diaspora, shifts in population demographics, and radical changes in society. Even without getting into the problematic nature of suggesting that the crux of religion is to answer "the meaning of life," it's not a question of better answers coming along and being accepted. Religious identity is an index and derivative of social affairs and individual relations to them, not a precursor to social change.