What is the function of religion?

[MindForgedManacle]

I have three questions:

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

Put simply, social cohesion, comradeship and a digestable worldview.

(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 accepted that religion actually has beneficial function for a society that our secular age is in danger of destroying?

Depends on what you mean by "change his/her view on religion". Most especially, it would need to be defended that religion is the only such way to get the supposed benefits, and at the cost of knowingly entertaining falsehoods. Comparatively, should we go around trying to abuse the placebo effect instead of medicine simply because the placebo effect has some limited beneficial effects? Of course not, and the same goes for religion.

(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?

I don't know really. Humanism is a possible route, but I think this sort of misses the point. Given our knowledge of our evolution and psychology, why should we bind ourselves to what we've evolved to be? This would be a blatant naturalistic fallacy, I think. We're also evolutionary predisposed to be rather selfish much of the time - which has benefits, mind you - yet we recognize that's just not something we should accept, and we rightly regard the abnormally selfish in a negative light.

[Mister Agenda]

I have three questions:

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

To enforce social conformity, codify moral beliefs, signify important events, and provide entertainment. Off the top of my head, not a complete list.

(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?

In the example you give, the only relevant change would be to start believing in the truth claims or organized religion because the religion has benefits, which is a fallacioius argument for believing something is true, so no.

(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?

Secular clubs that provide a space to think about morality and ethics, opportunities for networking, a support system, and teaming up for purposes of charitable activities don't have to be too religion-like to provide the relevant benefits of religion, and can be separate groups for different functions. I suppose it depends on how expansively religion is defined. Certainly at least some atheists can benefit from organized community.

---

3. I agree with the North Korea example. Absolute devotion and blind obedience with or without a theological component is wrong.

Those don't seem to be necessary components of religion. See Unitarian Universalism.

[Anomalocaris]

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

Does malfunction have a function? Does cancer have a function?

(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?

A lie is still a lie even if it seems to offer some incidental benefit.

(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?

Name some that you woud alledge to be incidental benefits of religion, and we will go from there.

[Godlesspanther]

3. I agree with the North Korea example. Absolute devotion and blind obedience with or without a theological component is wrong.

Those don't seem to be necessary components of religion. See Unitarian Universalism.

I was raised UU -- both parents are ordained ministers and they performed services for several UU churches years ago. Those who were raised in a strict religious environment often say that being raised UU doesn't count for a religious upbringing at all. "Intellectuals playing church."

When I was a kid, being an atheist and a UU was not a problem for the group as a whole -- so it was not much a leap for me to declare that I am an atheist and NOT a member of the UU church.

Buddhist groups, new age groups, and some others enjoy quite a bit of latitude for individualism while maintaining a theological or spiritual or otherwise woo-woo opinion.

There are varying degrees of authoritarianism too. A group can have some authoritarian leanings without being stark-raving uniforms and marching in lock-step.

[Angrboda]

(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?

This has many of the same problems as Pascal's wager; even if there were benefits to believing, it's near impossible to make yourself believe in something solely for the potential benefits of doing so, independent of whether it's true or not. Moreover, I suspect that much of the power of traditional religions to transform people depends on them not knowing how and why it is effective; I suspect if you were consciously aware of what is causing these effects, the effects themselves might disappear.

[The Valkyrie]

Originally: Likely to explain what early man did not understand.
But it evolved into a way to control people.

[Confused Ape]

[archangle]

religion does many things. And we look at the good verses bad, and be honest, it is beneficial.

1) taxes) Send no taxes to help Africans killing themselves with aids when we have a 17 trillion dollar debt. Let religions do that kind of stuff.

2) emotional connection. Human have emotional connections and needs that can't be filled without a ton of tax money with secular agents. The small price of false hope and having and outlet religion offer is very good for the mind. I don't want obama near that stuff.

3)anxiety release. enough' said. Public taxes to run that is flat out stupid. Well, unless you were abused and can't think clearly on how things work that is.

What I really dislike about religion is when they start making laws based on them. Or damning people to hell because they don't believe what you believe.

We cant get rid of it. To many believe that there is something more than "nothing". Religion should have as much political weight as the local soccer clubs. Then they wouldn't be a big deal.


But the nut jobs that want all the ten commandants off of state builds have serous ocd pd problems. At least the ones I asked. What about nut case mommy, usually mentally ill, or boozed up, yelling at students that are just gathering for pray before school.

[Neo-Scholastic]

1) Function of Religion: to bring Man knowledge of the Divine and to join us in communion with that Divinity.
2) Someone that does not believe should look more closely to see the spiritual realities of life.
3) No. There is no secular alternative.

[Rampant.A.I.]

1) Function of Religion: to bring Man knowledge of the Divine and to join us in communion with that Divinity.
2) Someone that does not believe should look more closely to see the spiritual realities of life.
3) No. There is no secular alternative.

But religion doesn't bring us knowledge of the divine. It brings social strife and division, but doesn't bring any meaningful experience of or communion with divinity.

2. There are no spiritual realities discernible from the perspective of someone who has spent 20 years looking. No reasonable explanation ends in "magic".

3. How can someone indoctrinated since birth possibly present the argument that there is no secular alternative?