Is religion a necessary evil?

[Dr H]

That seems like stacking the deck, to me.  From the OP, the question at issue is "Is religion a necessary evil?", and not "is the most intolerable religion you can imagine necessary?"

The point being conveyed is that necessity might not make something more tolerable - which cuts directly at the OP Q.  The hypothetical example only presents a clear case of that point.  Do you disagree with that point?  That no amount of some intolerable religion being necessary to a person will make the religion more or less tolerable?  No more so than the necessity of crime to some person makes crime more or less tolerable?

Are you saying that something cannot be both necessary and intolerable?

Or just pointing out that necessity might sometimes be intolerable?
If the latter, I'd say it's an "eye of the beholder" situation.

Now, I'm speaking for myself here, not anom..but I don't think that religion -is- a necessary evil.  Even, when we say, "but this person might really need the religion"..to me at least, we seem to be referring to a package of tangibles offered by that religion, not the religion itself.  Those tangibles never seem to be exclusive to religion.  So, while anom might note that something being necessary won't make it tolerable..I don't think it's necessary in the first place..but I do think it's evil... making it even more intolerable.  

"Evil" is a pretty strong word.  I think religion once served a social evolutionary purpose -- long since past.  That it persists into the present is not a particularly good thing IMO, and some people do put it to evil use.  But to just consider it fundamentally evil is sort of like considering trees evil, because humans sometimes make clubs out of the branches and beat on each other.

You're already living in a world that doesn't tolerate the silly, childish, misspent energy and waste of time and resources of all but three or four religions (three of them being different products in the same brand line)..and a world in which those remaining few exemptions are severely limited and stripped of crucial deference in developed countries.  No one would tolerate a human sacrifice.  No amount of gnashing of teeth and nervous breakdowns on the part of the believer would change our minds about that.  Magic book says we should kill the gays - we no longer tolerate that.  

You are only tolerant of the husk of religion that your ideological predecessors left in their wake as they castrated them one by one and sent the remainder to live on the reservation.  Even the religious know that.  That's why those weirdos are so pissy all the time.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think it's a considerable oversimplification.  
For one thing, we tolerate -- and even encourage -- plenty of silly, childish misspendings of energy, time, and resources which a lot of people pursue with religious fervor:  football, anyone?

For another, the fact that a handful of religions have made it to the top and stayed there for a while in terms of membership doesn't mean that the others have gone away.  Where I live, for example, you don't have to throw your ball too far to hit a pagan celebrating one of their cardinal festivals eight times a year..  Scientology still rakes in its share of gullible supporters with open bank accounts.

Recent polls show that nearly half of Americans believe in ghosts, and 75% hold on to at least one paranormal belief.  This sort of superstition differs from religion only in lacking large scale organization.
Not only are these beliefs tolerated, but plenty of people will think you rude or even anti-diversity if you challenge them openly.

Sure, some things have changed over time, to minimally conform with evolving general social mores.  Human sacrifice, as you say, is no longer tolerated.  But as recently as 20 years ago a small Christian sect in the PNW was withholding medical care from sick children and practicing faith-healing.  Not only was that tolerated, they were specifically exempted by law from having to provide proper care to their children.  Eventually somebody noticed that they had a unusual number of child deaths over a relatively short period, and the exemption was removed from the law -- so that practice is no longer tolerated, in this state at least.  But I'm sure plenty of other examples could be found where similar things are still both tolerated and protected in law.



Given the reality of this situation, I think the questions "Is this stuff somehow necessary?" and if so, "How or why?" are pertinent.