What is the function of religion?

[archangle]

Religion address a few things.

1) human emotions. Many of them. "hope" is a valid one. Emotional connections to their surroundings is another. "I love my pet". I am thankful to be here.
2) self vigilance. We need a way to police ourselves and focused on the "good" things being human has to offer. To help us "not steal" that piece of gum.

Sure, we don't have to believe in a bearded guy in the sky. But to ignore these uses is to totally ignorant of the human ape and what it is.
Of all the religions, besides Islam, atheists is the least able to help people. Now they want a atheist chaplain for soldiers in the army. I am embarrassed to have to defend these types of fellow atheists.

[Hegel]

[Anomalocaris]

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

A Fact, no societ has existed without ignorance, or without tendency to presume knowledge where such presumption can clearly be seen to be unwarranted.

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.

So, on communal level, does ignorance or pretending to know when one can be seen to not know, increase the fitness of a society?.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

An atheist constructing a religion isn't contradictory?
A secularist establishing a religion in a society isn’t contradictory?

It'd help if you defined what you mean by 'religion'.

Also, your second point is way off the mark. I don't understand what a 17th century epistemological paradigm on governance and the structures of government has to do with religion?

After all, there are many millions of religious secularists out there. I know loads personally. Secularism was, after all, a Protestant invention.

[Ryantology]

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.

Yeah, some people do have a legitimate benefit of the mental placebo effect. It also has ruined countless lives, both in the direct fashion of religious conflicts, slavery, genocide and persecution, and in the indirect manner that results in religious-inspired child abuse (of which there are many kinds), the destruction of livelihoods, the demonization of individuals whose lifestyles are considered unacceptable, the resistance to legitimate science which leads to unprepared and ignorant children. The list of just the indirect negatives of religion could take up many threads.

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

A fact: on this planet, no society has ever attempted to exist without a religion (or a leader-worship system which was functionally identical to a religion). Let's actually try the experiment before we declare it a failure.

[Hegel]

So, on communal level, does ignorance or pretending to know when one can be seen to not know, increase the fitness of a society?.

Well you can say, yes, or: the way human mind functions is evolutionary adaptation. But these things should be kept separate: the adaptivity of religion, as I see it (and many evolutionary psychologists agree with me), is an adaptation on a different level. Its part of cultural evolution and group selection. Religions create group coherence, they create tribes of higher order than the small family/village/etc based units or something like that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I actually think the OP proposes a good question (or a good set of questions).

As a PhD student that studies 'religion', or rather, the way it intersects with the structures of the state, I'd have to say I have some answers to give for and against.

However, I am totally knackered, so will have to defer to another day to respond in detail,

[Hegel]

Yeah, some people do have a legitimate benefit of the mental placebo effect. It also has ruined countless lives, both in the direct fashion of religious conflicts, slavery, genocide and persecution, and in the indirect manner that results in religious-inspired child abuse (of which there are many kinds), the destruction of livelihoods, the demonization of individuals whose lifestyles are considered unacceptable, the resistance to legitimate science which leads to unprepared and ignorant children. The list of just the indirect negatives of religion could take up many threads.

Well, I think the only point you are really right about is that religious dogmi tends to make people ignorant about science, at least to the extent it is opposed to these dogmi, and that some religious moral codes (e.g. concerning homosexuality) are out-dated. Sure, I fully agree.

But on the other hand ... I have read about results which claim that religious people are, on average happier and have less problems with drugs, have smaller divorce rate etc, compared to non-religous folks.

And in the West religious people produce more children ... The population growth is a huge problem in the IIIrd world, and religion plays here a crucial role, but on the other hand, in the West, the birth rates of purely secular people are dangerously low.

So, its not as simple as you make it appear.

A fact: on this planet, no society has ever attempted to exist without a religion (or a leader-worship system which was functionally identical to a religion). Let's actually try the experiment before we declare it a failure.

Sure. but am I incorrect if a maintain that one should have proper understanding of religion so that, in getting rid of it, one does not throw a child away with the washing water? I am NOT claiming that you couldn't have all the benefits of religion without the bullshit, but I am less certain how our current hegemonic secularism accomplishes this task.

[Zidneya]

[Ryantology]

Well, I think the only point you are really right about is that religious dogmi tends to make people ignorant about science, at least to the extent it is opposed to these dogmi, and that some religious moral codes (e.g. concerning homosexuality) are out-dated. Sure, I fully agree.

But on the other hand ... I have read about results which claim that religious people are, on average happier and have less problems with drugs, have smaller divorce rate etc, compared to non-religous folks.

It's easier to be happy and live on the straight and narrow when you belong to the dominant belief system. Belonging to a minority religious belief is apt to subject you to a lot of extra stress, if not outright abuse and persecution. So, yeah, not being a persecuted minority will probably lead to you being happier. That doesn't suggest that the majority belief system is useful in any way, just that it is good at keeping everybody else down.

And in the West religious people produce more children ... The population growth is a huge problem in the IIIrd world, and religion plays here a crucial role, but on the other hand, in the West, the birth rates of purely secular people are dangerously low.

Population growth is a huge problem, precisely because there are too many people.

But, just because you're born into a family that is religious is no guarantee that you'll stay in that religion later, especially in a looser environment. Most of us atheists didn't come from atheist parents. I sure didn't. They have to reproduce at higher rates just to keep up, because the old-school style of converting people isn't doing the trick anymore. The market share, and even moreso, the influence of Christianity everywhere in the developed world is on the retreat. The fact that I can say this on a public forum without fearing retribution is proof of that.

A fact: on this planet, no society has ever attempted to exist without a religion (or a leader-worship system which was functionally identical to a religion). Let's actually try the experiment before we declare it a failure.

Sure. but am I incorrect if a maintain that one should have proper understanding of religion so that, in getting rid of it, one does not throw a child away with the washing water? I am NOT claiming that you couldn't have all the benefits of religion without the bullshit, but I am less certain how our current hegemonic secularism accomplishes this task.

What benefit does religion actually have? Historically, religion has not tried to supplement society, but rather has tried to conquer and define society. What practical need do we have for religion that a technologically-advanced society can't better serve in other ways? I honestly can't think of any.