What practical function does religion hold?

[Stevicus]

We are doing that now and descending further into wars and chaos. We have chosen man’s way instead of God’s ways and that is leading us i feel to destruction. God tells us to be at peace with one another but we think of brilliant ideas like nuclear weapons. We need God’s guidance to teach us how to get along. We have so much hatred, prejudice and $trillions spent on weapons to kill and destroy but in God’s world life and the happiness and well-being of people comes first. So looking at the world today, what it tells me is that when man turns away from God he becomes like a savage and brutalises his fellow human without any conscience. Religion teaches not to kill or harm others and if we all followed these teachings, we would live in a happy and peaceful world. Any person who acts like a savage although he may call himself religious is only religious in name only. A true religionist loves all people.

In this context, if we're assuming that God created all of this in the first place, then it would imply that God created humans and the basic instincts, emotions, and biological processes we go through. We're assuming that God created the entire physical reality in which we live. If humans were created to be savages - or at least with the potential of becoming savages if put under enough duress and hardship - is that really humans' fault or is that the fault of whoever designed us to be that way?

If you have a pit full of hungry dogs, then throw in a piece of meat, they're going to fight over it. That's to be expected. They're under the duress of hunger - and even if they could be trained or conditioned to not fight, they're still very, very hungry and might not be able to restrain it. Is it their fault that they're hungry? Of course not. They were simply designed that way. It can be presumed that they simply are as God made them - just as humans are said to be. Should we chastise them or scold them for acting that way? Or should we chastise and scold the nimrod who put them in a pit, let them go hungry a few days, and then threw in a piece of meat and acted so outraged and shocked at their behavior?

 

[Stevicus]

I think there are people out there that just can't go through life without belief in a god...err higher power, so there is a benefit in terms of coping, but it's also a crutch and a conduit that should be overcome because if you act on behalf of one's god by things like good actions and being friendly and all that, it poses the question as to whether it's done through actual sincerity or through something else, like fear and a compulsion to be compliant for rewards.

Yes, I can see it as a coping mechanism. Of course, one can still cope through the struggles of life in other ways. I don't see religion as absolutely essential in that regard, but if it helps, I can't argue against it.

Although that doesn't really explain some of the ritualistic aspects or the acts of worship or sacrifices that some religions require - as if that has some sort of practical function. Or even going further, when people of different religions or sects argue over what seems like minutia - such as whether to do the Signs of the Cross with two or three fingers or whether they do it at all. Why do things like that matter to religious people? Would it matter to God?

What if we were supposed to have been sacrificing virgins for all this time, but now that we've given up that practice, we're in deep doo-doo now? God's wrath could be visited upon us because we haven't sacrificed our quota of virgins. How do we know that's not true?

 

[bobhikes]

There are those who might argue that, without religion, psychiatrists and therapists might have a lot less work to do.



The question was about religion and whether it serves any practical function - either for human society or even for any possible deity or deities which may have created us. At least on some levels, religion seems to strongly imply that whoever created us did so just to create minions or "pets" to worship them, perhaps out of boredom, vanity, or ego gratification? Considering the age of the universe and comparing that with the number of years humans existed, it would seem that humans would not have been necessary for any deity to create the universe or set in motion the processes which govern it, so why would any god need us for anything? Just to worship? A form of entertainment?

There are those that will argue anything.

Not all religions are led by God at least one I know has a spiritual flow to the universe. A direction that is best to follow and not fight against because it is futile. They explain it as standing in a rushing river sure you can maintain your position and yes you can move against the flow, but at some point you are going to be moving with it. To make your life easier it is best to just move with it always.

 

[MikeF]

I am puzzled by why you think this is significant. What aspects of human society AREN'T intended to perpetuate? Are there businesses that are intended to render themselves insolvent after a set time? Are there governments that are intended to be disbanded and replaced with something else? Are there families that at a certain date choose to no longer associate? I find it very odd that you seem to expect that religious collectives are doing something unisial or unseemly because they seek to maintain and expand their own existence.

After all, what DOESN'T?

The issue is more about the way in which it is done in some religions. Starting from the moment a child can begin to understand, the work to build an emotional dependency on the institution begins and fear is a primary tool with which to achieve this. From the beginning, a child is conditioned into believing that if they do not accept and follow a fixed set of tenets of the particular religion, follow specific prescriptions and proscriptions, very bad things will happen to the child and they will continue to happen to them forever and ever.

We have deemed it inappropriate in society to allow children to consume dependency inducing substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, the idea being that they do not have sufficient capacity to make an informed decision and fully appreciate the risk involved in the use of such substances. Yet there does not seem to be any concern regarding this type of involuntary indoctrination in a fixed system of beliefs when the child does not have the capacity to properly evaluate said fixed beliefs.

As to businesses, don't we have anti-trust laws to prevent one business from dominating an industry and enabling it to completely control that market?

As to government, do we not want a say in how it functions and have mechanisms by which government can change and respond to changes in society?

 

[Stevicus]

Not in the eyes of many animists and pagans. We see the divine as being very much a part of this world.

As far as our physical reality is concerned, I see what I see. I can perceive what is around me as having physical form and substance. Although I can surmise that, if I were the size of an electron, I would see something completely different - even within the same physical reality. But whether there's anything beyond that - anything divine, I'm not really sure what exactly to look for to be able to see it.

Depends... what about dead people, for example? They're gone, you can't see them anymore. Do you cut all ties of relationship because they are now "unseen"? Or do you keep them on your memory and your stories?

Well, obviously I still remember them, as I'm still alive and my brain still functions (more or less). But since they're dead, I can't really have any relationship with them anymore. Even if I could see their bodies, they'd still be dead.

And what about archetypes and concepts? Fertility, the cycles of the year, hope, hospitality... we can be grateful for these things, and celebrate them, even though they are technically unseen. For me, that's a form of religion as well.
It doesn't really require belief in unseen, personal gods and goddesses.

Actually, things like fertility and the cycles of the year are observable phenomena, so they can be seen. Hope is rooted in human emotions which can be perceived and understood by other humans - as it also would appear to be an observable characteristic in humans. Hospitality is probably more of a social function, but humans are social animals and such phenomena are clearly observable. Our ability to use language makes it possible for humans to label and name every single thing we can observe or perceive. The object or phenomenon may be "seen," but the word itself is a signifier, not the object itself. In that sense, the word is "unseen." I suppose there might be some rationale to the idea that someone once wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Without words, can there be a god?

 

[Kenny]

Even setting aside the question of "belief," let's just assume for the sake of argument that there really is some sort of intelligent higher power which created this place we live in - and created us to live here. My question would be: So what? Even if that were true, why would that require us, as humans, to create a religion
around it

First, it doesn’t require us to create a religion
Last, In Christianity, religion is an action of helping people. Relationship, based on trust, is whom love and not in religion as you defined it.

and worship whatever it is we think created us?

Worship isn’t “a requirement, per se, it is a response of love. Worship is to give “worth” to a “ship” person. When I extol my wife, whom I love, I am giving “worth” to her person.

What actual function does it serve for whatever deity or deities built this place?

A little hard to actually apply “function”. I wasn’t “forced” to love Him, I simply responded to His love. In the purest sense, what “function” does a marriage have? It isn’t so much as a “function” as it is a decision to love that person for the rest of your life. The marriage relationship may create a baby but I wouldn't classify a marriage on the basis of the “function of making a baby”.

EDITED: from “would” to “wouldn’t”.

What practical use does it hold for humanity?

In Christianity, the practical aspects of a love relationship is a changed life. If it didn’t change the life, then probably it wasn’t a true marriage relationshp.

For John Newton, It changed a slave trader and murderer into a lover of humanity and a lover of the people whom he used to trade. In my life, it changed a certain divorce into a life-long relationship. Practical aspects will vary person to person.

Human minds have derived our own concepts of morality, so we didn't really need any god to tell us how to behave or what is good and what is evil.

But we also know that human minds are fickle on their concepts of morality.

If we just live our lives and deal with the world as it is presented to us, then isn't that enough?

It can be enough for people. My parents lived their lives and dealt with divorce and continued living. One could say “Well… they lived and that’s enough”. I’m sure that the children won’t agree with that and certainly I’m glad that I don’t have to deal with it.

Why can't we be atheists, even if there really is a god or gods or some other higher power?

You absolutely can! And I support your right to do so

Why is a lack of belief such a horrible thing in the eyes of religious people?

On a strict basis of the statement, it isn’t a “horrible thing”. It is one’s right to believe what they want to believe.
On a love point of view, if my child is making a decision that I know will hurt him, love would say “It will be a horrible thing at the end of the road that you are taking”.

What's the worst thing that could happen?

“Worst thing”, IMV, would be subjective. Not sure why that is a question. Hopefully the best thing is that upon one’s death on that type of decision, their spirit is dissolved. The worst thing, at least in our perspective, is a time of suffering being separated from the God that is Love. I think we all know the results of not being loved.

 

[Stevicus]

If reality has a transcendent dimension and our mind/self/spirit is a part of that transcendent dimension, then we can only know and understand who we are by perceiving that.

I can see that, but then, is it important or necessary that we do that? As a human, I can certainly relate to the desire to know and understand some of the great mysteries, but then I also consider the possibility that maybe we're not supposed to know? Is it possible that, if a deity or deity exists, they may not want to be worshiped? Could it be that they want us to be atheists and totally disregard and discount their existence?

 

[Augustus]

Yet there does not seem to be any concern regarding this type of involuntary indoctrination in a fixed system of beliefs when the child does not have the capacity to properly evaluate said fixed beliefs.

All children are “indoctrinated” into a set of beliefs before they gave the capacity to evaluate them though.

There is no value neutral way of bringing up children and no value neutral society.

When you think about all the diverse human cultures that have existed throughout history, being born in a certain time and place leads to very different kinds of “indoctrination”. People aren’t simply all choosing similar cultures from free choice and independent thinking. We are all socially conditioned, and most want to more or less conform.

 

[Stevicus]

To echo @SalixIncendium I also am a religious person that doesn't view irreligious as 'bad.'

I also have some feelings about how our society is a little too quick to characterize utility as merely something the whole group can benefit from. I'm a fan of some degree of collectivism and individualism. I do actually agree with @9-10ths_Penguin in calling my religion a hobby (just not a MLM because I have no intention of recruiting, or desire growth.) And personal hobbies are something beneficial to each individual within a community, even if its utility isn't group orientated.

For example, I don't think people NEED to read books, but reading books is beneficial to me, brings me peace and enlarges my worldview. And my spiritual journey is much the same *to me.*

The problem is when those books or spiritual journeys involve things that have negative impacts on society and the self, and that should be discussed individually on a case by case basis instead of whether religion and irreligion in general are 'good' or 'bad.'

I'm also not a theist, so I don't really have a figure of worship. So I can't really answer you there.

Yes, the analogy of a hobby works for me. Whatever works to get through life is arguably a good thing, as long as it can exist harmoniously with one's fellow human beings. But I guess my overall question was in the context where some people might believe that their particular hobby is so important and so essential that everyone must do it - or else they'll suffer some severe consequences, either in this life or the next.

 

[MikeF]

All children are “indoctrinated” into a set of beliefs before they gave the capacity to evaluate them though.

There is no value neutral way of bringing up children and no value neutral society.

When you think about all the diverse human cultures that have existed throughout history, being born in a certain time and place leads to very different kinds of “indoctrination”. People aren’t simply all choosing similar cultures from free choice and independent thinking. We are all socially conditioned, and most want to more or less conform.

The criticism is not in the instilling of social norms, it is the manner in which it is done. Attitudes have changed regarding corporal punishment of children for example.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why can't we be atheists, even if there really is a god or gods or some other higher power? Why is a lack of belief such a horrible thing in the eyes of religious people? What's the worst thing that could happen?

I'll argue this generalisation, because I simply don't believe it. It's not at all horrible to be an atheist. That's a myth perpetrated by some other religion besides mine.

As to practicality, I can only speak for myself ... (My father was in many ways the most practical person I ever met. He was an atheist.)
- provides a sense of purpose, provides a sense of community, provides opportunity to contribute to humanity (charity) provides opportunities for mental health improvement, reflection on oneself, etc. So I think it has lots of practical aspects.

There are lots of great things in life that, when studied serve no obvious practical purpose: professional sports, walks in nature, watching TV, discussing stuff on-line. Life has a lot of impractical stuff in it.

 

[Stevicus]

Religions is about your relationship to the world. Is this world all there is or is their some otherworld. What happens when you die. How do you treat the world around you or your "moral" behavior. How do you know what is true and what is important. These are questions that face everyone even atheists have to answer for themselves. There does not need to have a set of specific beliefs, no god or goddess is necessary, no written word, there does not have to be a supernatural, there no absolute moral code.

So I would say if you are atheist and have considered these questions with answers that feel right to you then you have your religion. The diversity in religion around the world is so great and diversity within religions is so great that there is no other way to define religion other than in your relationship to the world and everyone has one.

Yes, I can see your point here, and well said. Of course, atheists have a relationship to the world, although they might be faced through observation and critical examination through scientific methods. It is, admittedly, an imperfect process and sometimes contains uncertainty, but it also remains flexible and adaptable when new evidence or new information comes to light. I don't think I would agree with calling it a "religion," but perhaps a philosophy or a mode of thinking.

I guess the bottom line for me is this: I won't make a positive claim to know something exists, unless I either see it myself or I have reliable information from multiple reliable sources. If I'm not sure of something but think that it might be true (or maybe not true), then I'll express it in that way.

Some in this thread have mentioned that religion relates to the seeking of knowledge and truth. I think the same could be said regarding science, except religion seems to think that they've already found all the answers and seek to spread it among humanity. Science freely acknowledges that they haven't found all the answers yet, and they're not even close. But at least they're putting in an honest effort and trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Once that process ends and one concludes that one has figured it all out, then it becomes a religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In this context, if we're assuming that God created all of this in the first place, then it would imply that God created humans and the basic instincts, emotions, and biological processes we go through. We're assuming that God created the entire physical reality in which we live. If humans were created to be savages - or at least with the potential of becoming savages if put under enough duress and hardship - is that really humans' fault or is that the fault of whoever designed us to be that way?

If you have a pit full of hungry dogs, then throw in a piece of meat, they're going to fight over it. That's to be expected. They're under the duress of hunger - and even if they could be trained or conditioned to not fight, they're still very, very hungry and might not be able to restrain it. Is it their fault that they're hungry? Of course not. They were simply designed that way. It can be presumed that they simply are as God made them - just as humans are said to be. Should we chastise them or scold them for acting that way? Or should we chastise and scold the nimrod who put them in a pit, let them go hungry a few days, and then threw in a piece of meat and acted so outraged and shocked at their behavior?

I think to counter that would be to say we were created pure and without fault or sin but that God has always sent us Educators or Prophets to guide us. However, He does not force us to follow their guidance so a Prophet may counsel us to love one another but we choose hate instead and wars etc. it is ultimately our choice to choose evil as we could have chosen good. Today, the current world is the way we have chosen it to be. Baha’u’llah was sent with teachings to unite us and help us get along but which have been ignored. Man’s choice to turn away and choose terrorism etc. If humanity turns to God then this world becomes a happy place but we choose not to.

 

[Stevicus]

Setting aside that many if not most of the gods are "of this world" . . .

. . . something having a "physical reality" is not necessary for existence or influence. I mean, law is hardly a physical thing you can put in a jar or point a stick at. In spite of that, any human in a nation that believes in these things called "laws" must navigate their relationship with said laws (or not, at their own peril). Does one have to worship the law? Consider it sacred, worthy of reverence? Reserve a holiday to celebrate it? Deeply ponder it and study it? Read daily or weekly devotions from the book of laws?

Of course not.

But one would be an idiot not to pay it mind and due respect if one lives in a nation under laws.

One could argue that laws are a part of our physical reality, even if they're not tangible. As I was noting earlier, words are signifiers of physical objects, and humans have the physical ability to use words. The same could be said of laws, since laws are made of words. It's still a physical process, since someone has to speak the words and/or write them down on paper. Or even if just pixels on a screen, that would also be part of physical reality.

Laws exist because members of a society agree to them - or someone may be big enough or powerful enough to force everyone to agree with them. But either way, if they exist, it's because some human or humans in a role of authority want them to exist for whatever human-related reason they deem fit. It's still an arguably "physical" process, but focused more on thought and language than putting it in a jar or poking a stick at it.

Ultimately, it comes from human thought and human philosophy, not from "somewhere else." Moreover, I believe it would be a faulty assumption to believe that human-derived philosophies and modes of thought have any real endorsement from any possible divine entity which may or may not exist.

 

[Stevicus]

If you see something as a gift you are grateful and want to thank the giver.

If one sees it as a "gift," then I can see how that can be true. But even then, if the "giver" is someone you haven't met, then how do you know who gave it to you? How do you know whom to thank? And does the giver even want to be thanked?

Not just people helping people but also people helping (comforting and giving meaning) themselves.

Yes. No extrinsic power required. But it can help to believe in one - as something that pushes you forward, maximizes your ethical virtue potential, inspires your art, heals your despair and fears ... Even if it's like a placebo (self-deception), it's better than nothing.

Yes, as some have noted, it's more analogous to a hobby, which is perfectly fine.

 

[PureX]

The issue is more about the way in which it is done in some religions. Starting from the moment a child can begin to understand, the work to build an emotional dependency on the institution begins and fear is a primary tool with which to achieve this. From the beginning, a child is conditioned into believing that if they do not accept and follow a fixed set of tenets of the particular religion, follow specific prescriptions and proscriptions, very bad things will happen to the child and they will continue to happen to them forever and ever.

We have deem it inappropriate in society to allow children to consume dependency inducing substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, the idea being that they do not have sufficient capacity to make an informed decision and fully appreciate the risk involved in the use of such substances. Yet there does not seem to be any concern regarding this type of involuntary indoctrination in a fixed system of beliefs when the child does not have the capacity to properly evaluate said fixed beliefs.

As to businesses, don't we have anti-trust laws to prevent one business from dominating an industry and enabling it to completely control that market?

As to government, do we not want a say in how it functions and have mechanisms by which government can change and respond to changes in society?

The problem here is that you are confusing two different issues and treating them the same. One issue is mind control, and the other is behavioral control.

We connot control what people think about the world and each other. We just can't. It's not possible. Even propaganda needs the target to want to believe it for it to work. Yet you seem to imagine that there some magical way that we could control what people think, and that we should be doing it because you don't like what some people have come to be thinking. And I find this to be quite fascistic.

We do need to control each other's behavior, though, for our society to function. And we do have ways of doing that. We cannot control people's minds but we can control people's actions, at least to a degree. But that's not an ideological task. It's a very practical political task. So attacking people's religious participation is not going to work. And in fact all it does is confuse and distract us from the real task at hand, which is focusing of social functionality and how to best enable it through behavioral control. Not because behavioral control X is right according to e or you, but because it's necessary for the healthy function of our collective society.

We WANT people to think freely, even when we disagree. That's healthy for our collective society. But we cannot allow everyone to behave as they please. That is not healthy for any society.

So the issue here is not what religious theists believe, or teach their kids. It's how we ALL behave toward each other and toward our collective society. You say but one effects the other. But that doesn't matter. Because it's only the latter that we can or even should be trying to control.

 

[Stevicus]

There are those that will argue anything.

Not all religions are led by God at least one I know has a spiritual flow to the universe. A direction that is best to follow and not fight against because it is futile. They explain it as standing in a rushing river sure you can maintain your position and yes you can move against the flow, but at some point you are going to be moving with it. To make your life easier it is best to just move with it always.

Well, yes, go with the flow. We don't really have that much choice in that regard, gravity being what it is. We're stuck here on this ball of mud, although we can build spaceships and boats which can sail upstream. We have ways of adapting.

 

[bobhikes]

Well, yes, go with the flow. We don't really have that much choice in that regard, gravity being what it is. We're stuck here on this ball of mud, although we can build spaceships and boats which can sail upstream. We have ways of adapting.

Not the point but OK, the point is that not all religions have a God as the head. This particular religion has over 12 million practitioners in Asian countries

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, I can see your point here, and well said. Of course, atheists have a relationship to the world, although they might be faced through observation and critical examination through scientific methods. It is, admittedly, an imperfect process and sometimes contains uncertainty, but it also remains flexible and adaptable when new evidence or new information comes to light. I don't think I would agree with calling it a "religion," but perhaps a philosophy or a mode of thinking.

I guess the bottom line for me is this: I won't make a positive claim to know something exists, unless I either see it myself or I have reliable information from multiple reliable sources. If I'm not sure of something but think that it might be true (or maybe not true), then I'll express it in that way.

Some in this thread have mentioned that religion relates to the seeking of knowledge and truth. I think the same could be said regarding science, except religion seems to think that they've already found all the answers and seek to spread it among humanity. Science freely acknowledges that they haven't found all the answers yet, and they're not even close. But at least they're putting in an honest effort and trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Once that process ends and one concludes that one has figured it all out, then it becomes a religion.

The problem with the word religions is that it was seen only pertaining the dominant religions of the west for so long that it became associated with believing in one god. As western anthropology has opened up to the idea of viewing religion within the Umwelt or perspective of the people and accepting their way of thinking (which is hard for many to do) the concept of religion changes. No longer does it require a supernatural because do many indigenous cultures do not believe in something supernatural and often do not even have a word for this idea. Everyone develops their relationship to the world around. It may be that the world is corrupt, and one must only aspire to a heaven through worshiping a single god, it may be that nothing matters at all accept the individual and the world around is just a commodity to be used for one's pleasure, or it may be that this world and everything in it is sacred and equal and must be treated as sacred, or that the world can be completely understood through a specific method such as the scientific. In seeing religions in this way, I believe we can understand each other's positions better, and it definitely explains why some will take the positions they take.

 

[PureX]

The problem with the word religions is that it was seen only pertaining the dominant religions of the west for so long that it became associated with believing in one god. As western anthropology has opened up to the idea of viewing religion within the Umwelt or perspective of the people and accepting their way of thinking (which is hard for many to do) the concept of religion changes. No longer does it require a supernatural because do many indigenous cultures do not believe in something supernatural and often do not even have a word for this idea. Everyone develops their relationship to the world around. It may be that the world is corrupt, and one must only aspire to a heaven through worshiping a single god, it may be that nothing matters at all accept the individual and the world around is just a commodity to be used for one's pleasure, or it may be that this world and everything in it is sacred and equal and must be treated as sacred, or that the world can be completely understood through a specific method such as the scientific. In seeing religions in this way, I believe we can understand each other's positions better, and it definitely explains why some will take the positions they take.

"Supernatural" is a very weird conceptual attribute coming from the minds of beings that exist naturally and can't actually perceive anything that doesn't. However, we can and do recognize that there is a great existential mystery afoot that cannot be "naturally" resolved. And that's where our concept of the "supernatural" comes from, I think.

By definition, whatever set the possibilities and impossibilities being adhered to and expressed as "nature" is "supernatural". We may not be able to recognize it when we see it, but we can logically surmise it's validity.

Spiritualism, think, is related to this great existential mystery but is more commonplace among most humans as a concept because it's more experiential. We can witness for ourselves that there are forces and entities at work in our world that we cannot see or grasp directly. But we can know that they are there. And there are a lot of these experiences; different kinds, with different presumed explanations.