The Biological Value of Religion

[Mudhammam]

While it is clear that a lot of people gain solace from religious faith, isn't this obviously a false kind of solace, akin to people who need to take drugs to cope, or those poor sorts with OCD who can't make out their front door without going through pointless (to the rest of us, anyroad) rituals?

I would no more excuse religion on the basis of it being a coping mechanism than I would excuse the dangers of drugs abuse because it helps some people get through the day.

I'm not so sure, Boru. Is it a false kind of solace if it works for that person? Who am I to tell anyone whether or not their source for peace and comfort is genuine, whether it be a drug or a faith in possibilities not available in the typical run-of-the-mill materialistic philosophies, if that is what in fact does bring them the most solace? I think the comparison with drugs is an apt one; clearly, drugs do work for some people, but not for everyone, and nor should it. In terms of the religious experience, is it a matter of true versus false or useful versus useless? I think I tend to side with the sentiment, "Our responsible concern is with our private destiny," and if something works for you, you know what? Fine, great. Should we really demand or expect that a person's chief affections lie with anything else besides their own happiness and prosperity (obviously not at the expense of others, but in coexistence with them)? Whether one adopts materialism or religion, I don't see why it ought to be so. Now on the other hand...

On a no less practical level, is the ostensible 'good' done by religion worth the vile and obscene horrors that ALL religions have always perpetrated? Human sacrifice, mutilation, pointless restrictions on diet, sex, and bodily functions, the inculcation of false ideas, abuse of the young (both physically and psychically), the systematic retardation of event attempts to expand human knowledge, murders both wholesale and retail, the promotion of war, the coddling of fascism, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but the coping mechanism of religion isn't NEARLY enough to save it from the ash-heap of history to which it so rightly belongs.

Boru

Clearly I'd be unfathomably naive or simply insane to dispute that many religious beliefs have resulted in abominable practices, and for these theological dogmas and doctrines, I share your desire to see them forever disintegrate into the past. But I also think it would be a mistake to overlook the difference between ecclesiastical and private religion, the former of which I think is far more to blame for the atrocities that have occurred than the latter. Consider the analogy of government; there has never been a government that hasn't been the active participant of some incredible evil or injustice, and yet we'd be fools to wish all forms of it away. There are indeed valuable, and some might say necessary, principles upon which governments, no matter how corrupt, are initially formed. I wonder if perhaps the same could be said about religion. The experiences themselves--are they not a crucial part of the inner life for the vast majority of human beings?--and only when intellectualized into systems that seek to establish rule through dogmatic, coercive reasoning do we find that true conflict begins to take root? Perhaps the "intellectual content" that various religions offer is necessary for different kinds of experiences for different kinds of individuals, that is, the doctrines give the sensations private meaning, but should never pretend to be Absolute Truths. And if this was the attitude of more religious practitioners, as it is for many (though not enough), could it find its proper place as a valuable human tool for coping and/or surviving (going back to the biological question)? With some reluctance, I confess, I think it could.