What function do religions serve?

[crystalonyx]

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?

The function of religion is both selfish(to gain believers and power), and as a
tradtional means of social control.

 

[Rhizomatic]

The function of religion is both selfish(to gain believers and power), and as a
tradtional means of social control.

Of course; that's why the Romans needed to spend so much effort persecuting and executing Christians. Because the religion was such a great tool for social control. Same with Satanism--by rejecting social norms and encouraging individualism, self-assertion, and non-conformity it helps ensnare everyone into... not submitting to power. Same thing with Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law in Thelema--having people do whatever is in accordance with their will with no regard for social norms is totally the way to enslave them.

 

[Sunstone]

Religions have as many functions as humans have been able to give them.

 

[charles brough]

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.

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.
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.

Not merely the Abrahamic religions but all successful world-view ideologies serve the same function, provide most of the same type of answers, and, if mainline society-bonding religions or world-view systems, also hold territory just as do territorial mammals. Moreover, there has been a typical change-process that has occured in the mainstream religion-bonded societies such as that of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greek-Rome, Islam and the Christian West even though, as to be expected in the social sciences, there are some minor and explainable exceptions created by variant circumstances. Also, the cycle of change has tended to speed up from one era to the next.

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.

This infers things I did not state. I am literal. I'll restate and expand on what I wrote: a new religion could only be successful enough to take over territory and become mainstream if it provided modern-for-those-times answers to "the meaning of life." From then on, the ideology had to try to adapt to the inevitable social, environmental and other changes and needs as time went on. Gradually, as it aged and human technological understanding increased, it became no longer able to adequately adjust to and deal with needed change. That is when a secular ideology arose (Buddhism, Hellenism, "Westernism") and the two supplement each other. In the end, both fail and a new world-view ideological system arose.

 

[charles brough]

The function of religion is both selfish(to gain believers and power), and as a
tradtional means of social control.

That is the "explanation" of the past, of the 19th century and of Karl Marx. It is the lazy atheist way of dismissing the existince of something that has been with humanity for as long as we have been human. I am an atheist, but I think it is important to really find out why religion exists. We are, after all, ideological creatures and we cannot think except within our ideological framework, atheists included. Typically, non-theists thinking is completely shaped by our Secular Humanist ideology. Knowing the function of religion does not contradict atheism. After all, "Communism" (Marxism) is atheistic.

The corporations don't need Christianity to dominate us. All it has taken is our secular belief in "the right to the pursuit of happiness" and to achieve "the American Dream." With those ideological ideals and corporate advertising, they turned us into not people but into "stuff-buying consumers." We are so indoctrinated we cannot even imagine any other desirable way to live.

 

[charles brough]

The function of religion is both selfish(to gain believers and power), and as a
tradtional means of social control.

If you do actually believe it is that simple, why don't you explain your case? Give us some reasoning so we aren't dealing with just a simplistifc opinion. Convince us!

 

[charles brough]

Religions have as many functions as humans have been able to give them.

.
Yes, but that certainly doesn't explain much, does it? It doesn't get us anywere or explain anything. Everything we use has a function or we wouldn't use it. What is the function of religion? In all that detail, what generalizations can be made that we can build an come to more of an understanding of something that is so powerful in our world?

 

[Rhizomatic]

Not merely the Abrahamic religions but all successful world-view ideologies serve the same function, provide most of the same type of answers,

Plenty of orthopraxic religions don't really give answers about the nature or meaning of reality, let alone give answers of a similar type to other belief systems.

Moreover, there has been a typical change-process that has occured in the mainstream religion-bonded societies such as that of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greek-Rome, Islam and the Christian West

Would you care to expand on that?

I'll restate and expand on what I wrote: a new religion could only be successful enough to take over territory and become mainstream if it provided modern-for-those-times answers to "the meaning of life." From then on, the ideology had to try to adapt to the inevitable social, environmental and other changes and needs as time went on.

As per the above I don't agree with this because plenty of religions aren't in the business of providing those kinds of answers, but I am broadly sympathetic with the idea that a religion must be amenable to the local society to survive and adapt otherwise.

That is when a secular ideology arose (Buddhism, Hellenism, "Westernism")

What are you using the word "secular" to mean? It's not something I'd ever apply to Buddhism, so apparently we're understanding the word differently.

 

[Looncall]

As far as I can see, religion functions among many believers as a way to outsource thinking. If everything is supposed to be covered by some holy book or other, one need not think for themselves at all.

For an example, just look at arguments by believers on this forum. They often seem to think that quoting from some book constitutes an argument. No thinking required (or even permitted).

That must be such an easy way to live. Too bad it so often has disastrous consequences.

 

[charles brough]

Plenty of orthopraxic religions don't really give answers about the nature or meaning of reality, let alone give answers of a similar type to other belief systems.

As per the above I don't agree with this because plenty of religions aren't in the business of providing those kinds of answers, but I am broadly sympathetic with the idea that a religion must be amenable to the local society to survive and adapt otherwise.

Why bring up orthopraxic "religions" and the like? I'm dealing with the process of civilizations and the mainline religions that bonded societies that covered vast areas of the Earth. "Orthopraxic cults" seem like nit-picking.

Would you care to expand on that?

What are you using the word "secular" to mean? It's not something I'd ever apply to Buddhism, so apparently we're understanding the word differently.

As a general rule, each civilization starts from a period of brutal hardship, such as under barbarian control. If the latter, the barbarians adopt the religion of the society they conquor and the civilization holds together, expands, and progresses. With its growing success, the ideology breaks into denominations and the disunity weakens adding stress that is balanced by more assertiveness in the women and the intellectual freedom enabled by the break up of the theocracy. It goes through a more democratic and humanistic period. Then a new ideology appears that is in line with the changes and further progress. . . in other words, a secular ideology such as was Buddhism when it first appeared. Secular ideologies reach a mutual but unheralded compromise with each other and the civilization coasts along furhter as the secular ideology also begins to divide and gradually break down.

The nature of the civilizational cycle is not rigid and there is also the rest of the cycle downward (I can only write so much detail here in the forums). It changes some from one civilization to another, but those changes are also part of the cause and effect process which I can and have explained in my book.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Why bring up orthopraxic "religions" and the like? I'm dealing with the process of civilizations and the mainline religions that bonded societies that covered vast areas of the Earth. "Orthopraxic cults" seem like nit-picking.

My contention from the outset of this conversation has been that your representation of the function of religion is overly-generalized and reductive. Pointing out broad religious traditions with widespread manifestations that do not fit the mold you cast is the most effective way to demonstrate this. Post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation Western society tends to prioritize belief as the substance of religion, but across history and the globe this is very often not the case.

in other words, a secular ideology such as was Buddhism when it first appeared. Secular ideologies reach a mutual but unheralded compromise with each other and the civilization coasts along furhter as the secular ideology also begins to divide and gradually break down.

You still haven't explained you're usage of the term "secular," which doesn't seem to correspond to its generally-understood definition of separation from religion. What do you mean by "secular?" How do you see Buddhism as an example of it?

 

[charles brough]

My contention from the outset of this conversation has been that your representation of the function of religion is overly-generalized and reductive. Pointing out broad religious traditions with widespread manifestations that do not fit the mold you cast is the most effective way to demonstrate this. Post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation Western society tends to prioritize belief as the substance of religion, but across history and the globe this is very often not the case.

we seem to have unresolvable views there.

You still haven't explained you're usage of the term "secular," which doesn't seem to correspond to its generally-understood definition of separation from religion. What do you mean by "secular?" How do you see Buddhism as an example of it?

What other than religious belief is there other than secular? Or do you believe what you "know" is not belief? That it is the eternal, final "truth? Is there anything you believe that will not become more accurately understood in the future and be looked back at then as "false"? Everything we think is shaped by our old religious and/or secular beliefs. Buddhism, like Hellenism and Secular Humanism have all arisen as a more advanced ideological system springing from an older and being outgrown faith. Being more advanced, they have all helped to both bond the people back into society with a fresh sense of community but also enable science/technical advances to continued even while the advancing of knowledge become continually more inconsistant with the older faith.

 

[InChrist]

I believe the function of religion(s), which are beliefs or practices created by human beings and inspired or encouraged by Satan, is to keep people from knowing and relating to their Creator.

 

[Rhizomatic]

we seem to have unresolvable views there.

Which views? Obviously you don't think that your explanation of the function of religion is too generalized and reductive, but is this because you deny the prevalence of orthopraxy or because you deny the relevance of orthopraxy as a counter-example to your characterization of religion as changing orthodoxies tied to social development?

Or do you believe what you "know" is not belief? That it is the eternal, final "truth? Is there anything you believe that will not become more accurately understood in the future and be looked back at then as "false"? Everything we think is shaped by our old religious and/or secular beliefs.

None of that seems to relate to any of the points I have brought up.

Buddhism, like Hellenism and Secular Humanism have all arisen as a more advanced ideological system springing from an older and being outgrown faith. Being more advanced, they have all helped to both bond the people back into society with a fresh sense of community but also enable science/technical advances to continued even while the advancing of knowledge become continually more inconsistant with the older faith.

Without getting into whether these claims are true or false, that doesn't explain why you are describing Buddhism, a religion, as secular, which is generally understood to mean "characterized by separation from religion."

 

[charles brough]

Which views? Obviously you don't think that your explanation of the function of religion is too generalized and reductive, but is this because you deny the prevalence of orthopraxy or because you deny the relevance of orthopraxy as a counter-example to your characterization of religion as changing orthodoxies tied to social development?

I would appreciage it if you would put that in plain English for me. I have cleansed myself of acadmese several times in the past.

It seems clear to me that religions that build societies/civilizations that occupy territory can reasonably be defined as "successful" and be regarded or defined as something related to but not the same as those which do not. They constitute what needs to be recognized as "the Mainstream". Our society/civilization was based on Catholicism and, as with all such civilizations, that divided into sects or denominations which continue to divide as also has our secular ideology. The continued dividing has consequences.

None of that seems to relate to any of the points I have brought up.
Without getting into whether these claims are true or false, that doesn't explain why you are describing Buddhism, a religion, as secular, which is generally understood to mean "characterized by separation from religion."

I thought it would be clear. And surely by now you recognize that I am not impressed by what is "generally understood". I stick to the data and find I need to interpret some of it differently because, by doing so, I open up a look at the social evolutionary process involved in the immense growth of the human cultural heritage---and in our numbers.
Buddhism grew out of a maturing Hindu Society and civilization as an enlightement as our secular system did and it indeed was an advanced, less "spiritual" system for those times. Take a look at what historians say about what the Buddha originally taught. Later on, it evolved into a religious cult during the decline of Hindu Civilization, and that was the form it took by the time it spread Eastward.

It might be noted that in my glossary, I find it necessary to re-decine some words---most of them with specific, restricted meaning. "Secular" is an example. Patterns return in the growth and fall of civilizations and the same patterns are named differently and people fail to realize they are going through a cycle which is very similar to what other civilizations had gone through.

Here is an example: if you look for it (and most scholars and the public do not because it is "politically incorrect*, the historical data shows that women became more assertive as decline sets it. This ties in closely to our primate nature. When the chimp group, for example, becomes unstable, stress builds up to where females take on a placative role. If that fails, they begin to leave the group---which, with us, cannot generally take place. The stress on them had built up because the ideology was dividing---as ours has and is. That means its members gradualy lose their sense of community and as in any small-group animal's group that becomes to large, stress builds. With us, religious regression occurs or a new and even more advanced world-view system spreads in its place.

 

[Rhizomatic]

I would appreciage it if you would put that in plain English for me. I have cleansed myself of acadmese several times in the past.

I'm arguing that your explanation of "the function of religion" is too broad and generalized, which you obviously disagree with. What I was asking was which of these two points you disagree with:
-That religions which emphasize taking certain actions, not holding proper beliefs, (orthopraxy, as opposed to orthodoxy, an emphasis on holding the proper beliefs) don't fit your function of religion, since they don't tend to care about one's answer to the types of questions you describe religion as primarily dealing with

-That counter-examples such as the above, or more broadly any examples of religions which do not fit into the function you have described for religion, demonstrate that religion does not merely fill the function you have described.

And surely by now you recognize that I am not impressed by what is "generally understood". I stick to the data and find I need to interpret some of it differently because, by doing so, I open up a look at the social evolutionary process involved in the immense growth of the human cultural heritage---and in our numbers.

That's all fine and good, but if you're going to redefine a word, you should mention that. Otherwise I have no reason to know that I shouldn't be understanding it as it is generally understood, which becomes problematic in conversation.

Here is an example: if you look for it (and most scholars and the public do not because it is "politically incorrect*, the historical data shows that women became more assertive as decline sets it.

That also seems extraordinarily generalized and overly broad. Look at Hawaii, where the colonization and annexation of the island and subsequent decline of the indigenous culture and way of life led to a fairly-well documented increase in the marginalization and oppression of women. I'd be curious as to what "historical data" you have, in what detail, and for how many cultures.

Buddhism grew out of a maturing Hindu Society and civilization as an enlightement as our secular system did and it indeed was an advanced, less "spiritual" system for those times. Take a look at what historians say about what the Buddha originally taught. Later on, it evolved into a religious cult during the decline of Hindu Civilization, and that was the form it took by the time it spread Eastward.

I have massive disagreements with this, but they're pretty tangential to what we're discussing so I'll hold off to avoid sidetracking the conversation.

 

[idea]

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

progression.

 

[charles brough]

I'm arguing that your explanation of "the function of religion" is too broad and generalized, which you obviously disagree with. What I was asking was which of these two points you disagree with:
-That religions which emphasize taking certain actions, not holding proper beliefs, (orthopraxy, as opposed to orthodoxy, an emphasis on holding the proper beliefs) don't fit your function of religion, since they don't tend to care about one's answer to the types of questions you describe religion as primarily dealing with

-That counter-examples such as the above, or more broadly any examples of religions which do not fit into the function you have described for religion, demonstrate that religion does not merely fill the function you have described.

OK, thanks. I distinguish "mainline" religions from those that never encompassed and dominated large areas of the Earth and bonded people into civilizations. Those religions succeeded in achieving that because they appealed to people. They appealed to people because they provided an advanced-for-their-times explanation of "the meaning of life." I don't know whether the mainline religions have been more orthodox or othroprax because I fail to see what difference it makes. Let the professional students and theological academics debate that in their Ivory Towers.

That's all fine and good, but if you're going to redefine a word, you should mention that. Otherwise I have no reason to know that I shouldn't be understanding it as it is generally understood, which becomes problematic in conversation.

Well said.

That also seems extraordinarily generalized and overly broad. Look at Hawaii, where the colonization and annexation of the island and subsequent decline of the indigenous culture and way of life led to a fairly-well documented increase in the marginalization and oppression of women. I'd be curious as to what "historical data" you have, in what detail, and for how many cultures.

Social evolution involves treating religion bonded societies as a form of loose organism in that they have a life cycle of sorts. From primate behavioral studies, it is clear that the female is most sensitive to the health of the social/ideological bond and when primate females began to sense the weakening brought about by its dividing, they become more assertive. As the social bond continues to weaken, people revert back to emphasizing the old religion (religious regression) and restore its influence at the expense of the secular ideology as it divides and looses its influence.

What you describe in Hawaii seems to me to be typical of what happens to non-mainstream societies when they become dominated by a more powerful one.

I have massive disagreements with this, but they're pretty tangential to what we're discussing so I'll hold off to avoid sidetracking the conversation.

Secular systems arose in the cycle of all the mainline civilizations and for an explainable reason: they served a function..[/quote]