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:
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.
(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.
