(May 14, 2014 at 8:19 am)Hegel Wrote: I have three questions:

(1) What are/is the function(s) of religion?

(1) To subjugate and control the mass.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:19 am)Hegel Wrote: (2) Should someone who does not believe in the truth claims of organized religions (atheists in particular) change his/her view towards religion if it is accpeted that religion actually has beneficial function for a society that our secular age is in danger of destroying?

(2) No we shouldn't accept that. Because the society can do this beneficial functions as well without religious inclination. Is green peace religious?

(May 14, 2014 at 8:19 am)Hegel Wrote: (3) How could these functions, if one remains thoroughly secular in one's ethics and thought, be implemented within a secular framework; should an atheist or a secularist develop a secular religion, and if so, what could it look?

(3) ATHEIST OR A SECULARIST DEVELOP A RELIGION?!!! Okay I'm gonna sound like an ass but I don't care. ARE YOU NUTS? ARE YOU MOCKING US? Atheism and religion are contradictions genius. We would create an institution or foundation to implement beneficial functions to society. The last thing we would do is develop a religion.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 2) Someone that does not believe should look more closely to see the spiritual realities of life.
3) No. There is no secular alternative.

What if I told you that my atheism is in part originated and reinforced by the teachings of a Jesuit priest HA. And I'm not saying that I took them as a bad example. Actually is the other way around I read them, studied them, and agreed with them(I'm not talking about the whole Jesuit teachings I only refer to the ones that that man wrote and only him) until this very day and decided to stop waisting my time with religion and start to see the world as it is and not as I want it to be which lead me to become an atheist.

Those writings taught me to see the meaningful secular realities of life and embrace a atheistic view of the world

(May 14, 2014 at 8:19 am)Hegel Wrote: (2) Should someone who does not believe in the truth claims of organized religions (atheists in particular) change his/her view towards religion if it is accpeted that religion actually has beneficial function for a society that our secular age is in danger of destroying?

I don't deny that religion can be beneficial in some aspects. It does, however, cause a whole host of other problems by allowing people to live in denial rather than embrace reality, which completely outweigh any positive benefits.

So, any benefit of religion cannot truly be measured without considering its negative consequences.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 1) Function of Religion: to bring Man knowledge of the Divine and to join us in communion with that Divinity.

Does it succeed at this? Even the pagan ones?

(May 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 2) Someone that does not believe should look more closely to see the spiritual realities of life.

Whether someone who does not believe has any trouble seeing the spiritual side of life depends mostly on how you define 'spiritual'. Only supernatural definitions are off-limits to non-believers.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 3) No. There is no secular alternative.

You don't think religion has any non-supernatural benefits at all?

---

(May 14, 2014 at 9:12 pm)Zidneya Wrote: (3) ATHEIST OR A SECULARIST DEVELOP A RELIGION?!!! Okay I'm gonna sound like an ass but I don't care. ARE YOU NUTS? ARE YOU MOCKING US? Atheism and religion are contradictions genius. We would create an institution or foundation to implement beneficial functions to society. The last thing we would do is develop a religion.

That would only apply to a very narrow definition of religion which would exclude some extant religions from being religions. There's no inherent contradiction to an atheist or secularist constructing a religion without belief in any deities. Religious humanism comes to mind. Jainism has some supernatural characters but no creator. Without folk religion added to it, the question of whether a God exists is considered pointless in Buddhism. And then there's Raellianism: the aliens they worship are not supernatural beings, so it's not a theistic religion in any conventional sense. And belief isn't a requirement to be a Unitarian, as long as you're a liberal.

Most, though not all who have given thir guesses seem to be "New Atheist" type. Only from such standpoint can one make the question Chuck does:

(May 14, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Chuck Wrote: Name some that you woud alledge to be incidental benefits of religion, and we will go from there.

On individual level there is no need for argument here. To claim that religion has not have beneficial positive effects on individuals on regular basis, is delusional.

Of course one can say, as someone did, that that's a placebo effect and I agree mostly with this point -- you can have the placebo effects of a placebo drug without the drug, if you learn to control your mind -- , but the fact remains a fact.

In any case, I was thinking more on social level. And it tells something that "New Atheist" types don't recognize that this also a dimension in religion. That's why I cannot take Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Pascal Boyer seriously, even if they have some points: they ignore the dimension which is, so it seems to me, the most fundamental one.

A fact: on this planet, no society (except our own for less than a century) has existed without a religion.

Now, the New Atheists simply ignore this fact and what it might be (or it is very likely that it is) a sign of:

on communal level, religion increases the fitness of a society.

Some already made this point, although not in these words.

Of course, the New Atheists claim that there is no group selection. But this is only something they believe in.

There is also evidence for it.

I am not claiming that the following is any evidence, but nevertheless it is something to be paid attention to:

Stories like that of Sodom & Gomora and various other legends all over the world can actually be stories of what tend to happen for society without religion: they perish. "God" is perhaps in reality simply the name for those laws of reality that transcend man and he cannot control in these epics. "God's Will" -- is that not the same as "Destiny"? In other words, God is antropomorphized conception of the Law of Nature, which escapes all our efforts to have control over it.

That is what people worship in the name of "God": what they cannot control, understand but which nevertheless has effects upon them.

And its not stupid, for this transcendent force is real -- we only call it "the nature". But we tend to think this "nature" is under our control, but it isn't, the least our own nature. To worship the "agent" of what escapes our control, is not so much to control it in an imaginary fashion, as it is to keep it in mind, not forget that man is not god.

Many legends are, most likely, real history that has taken been mystified, simplified, etc. It tells hos God/Nature strikes back the "arrogant man", how the nemesis follows every hubris.

If every society has been religious, on what basis do you then claim that religion makes a society fitter?

(May 14, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I don't deny that religion can be beneficial in some aspects. It does, however, cause a whole host of other problems by allowing people to live in denial rather than embrace reality, which completely outweigh any positive benefits.

But what if there are aspects of reality that religion makes it easier to accept as real?

And one can live in delusions without religion.

But don't misunderstood: I am not particularly fond of religion ...

---

(May 15, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If every society has been religious, on what basis do you then claim that religion makes a society fitter?

On the basis that non-religious societies have been the losers in the game of survival of the fittest between societies.

That's the hypothesis.

Hegel,
I don't need the idea of a god, a creed, or assholes in funny hats asking me for money to remind me of my mortality or fragile existence in the face of nature. I also don't need to personify nature and worship it to make me feel better about reality. Religion is for feeble minded gullible cowards that don't have the guts to be responsible for their own humanity. Fuck 'em.

As far as the communal benefit; I prefer the environment in an episode of Cheers to the bullshit that goes on in churches.

(May 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Hegel Wrote: But what if there are aspects of reality that religion makes it easier to accept as real?

And one can live in delusions without religion.

But don't misunderstood: I am not particularly fond of religion ...

If you want to convince me that religion is worth keeping, you'll need more than "what if's."

(May 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Hegel Wrote: On the basis that non-religious societies have been the losers in the game of survival of the fittest between societies.

That's the hypothesis.

Your claim was that all societies have been religious, so you have no way of observing that.

(May 15, 2014 at 3:51 pm)Cato Wrote: Hegel,
I don't need the idea of a god, a creed, or assholes in funny hats asking me for money to remind me of my mortality or fragile existence in the face of nature. I also don't need to personify nature and worship it to make me feel better about reality. Religion is for feeble minded gullible cowards that don't have the guts to be responsible for their own humanity. Fuck 'em.

As far as the communal benefit; I prefer the environment in an episode of Cheers to the bullshit that goes on in churches.

Well, neither do I think I need it. But I am an elitist. You see, even an average man ain't that smart, far from it, and one half is below that. An average man is too stupid to understand complex philosophy and science.

Furthermore, intelligent people are the most likely to get into the hubris of control. Masses are always believers, for they can understand at least that they are in need of faith... Intelligentsia can understand their science ... and with the science, they think, they can control everything. But look what that has produced from soviet union to 2008 financial catastrophe and so on. But obviously they are not in need of "religion" ... they need critical thinking and philosophy. Schopenhauer said that religion is philosophy for the masses.

---

(May 15, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Your claim was that all societies have been religious, so you have no way of observing that.

Not directly, but that's simply a logical consequence of the hypothesis. Your argument is of the same type that creationist do against evolution: you can't show some intermediary stage for them, and thus, they claim, eveolution is crap ... But if evolution is true, then obviously nature has not kept some fossils for us simply to convince the creationist.

Of course, if it is the case that religion has made society really fit, then there should be no non-religious societies.

But if it is as damaging as the New Atheists claim, I wonder why cultural selection has not done away with it?

What I posed is an alternative hypothesis for the New Atheist story, which makes much less sense and is even less testable.




And: I am not trying to convince you to think that religion should or should not exist. It will exist whatever you or me think of it, and trying to bash it, btw, is not the best startegy to get rid of its harmful forms, at least in my opinion.

(May 15, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Hegel Wrote: Of course one can say, as someone did, that that's a placebo effect and I agree mostly with this point -- you can have the placebo effects of a placebo drug without the drug, if you learn to control your mind -- , but the fact remains a fact.

I was speculating about shamanism in the dim and distant past because shamanism was around thousands of years before any kind of organised religion. The shamans' rituals could have had a placebo effect so people who believed in them might have had a better chance of recovering from some illnesses and injuries.

Humans, as a species, seem to have in inbuilt drive to worship something but this isn't confined to deities because we can put other humans on proverbial pedestals and idolise them. This can be manipulated into cults of personality for political leaders such as Stalin or Mao Zedong.

We're still tribal creatures in many ways and a lot of human history has involved wars for territory, resources and power etc. This dark side of our nature has resulted in the negative side of religion. Humans also have a tendency to get fanatical and this isn't confined to religion and ideologies - there have been many internet flame wars on the lines of "My favourite TV show is better than your TV show".

If religion disappeared tomorrow we'd still fight for territory, resources, power and ideologies.