What is the function of religion?

[Faith No More]

Not directly, but that's simply a logical consequence of the hypothesis. Your argument is of the same type that creationist do against evolution: you can't show some intermediary stage for them, and thus, they claim, eveolution is crap ... But if evolution is true, then obviously nature has not kept some fossils for us simply to convince the creationist.

Of course, if it is the case that religion has made society really fit, then there should be no non-religious societies.

But if it is as damaging as the New Atheists claim, I wonder why cultural selection has not done away with it?

What I posed is an alternative hypothesis for the New Atheist story, which makes much less sense and is even less testable.

And: I am not trying to convince you to think that religion should or should not exist. It will exist whatever you or me think of it, and trying to bash it, btw, is not the best startegy to get rid of its harmful forms, at least in my opinion.

I'm not making any argument. I'm pointing out that the premise of yours, that all societies have been religious and religion has benefited them, is impossible to prove. You're just making an assertion that you can't back up and exepcting everyone to just accept it.

The rest of your post is just fallacy ridden nonsense. I mean, if cocaine is so harmful, how come cultural selection hasn't done away with it? Because people don't necessarily choose to engage in activites simply by looking at the benefits or harm they provide.

And bashing religion itsn't a strategy to get rid of it. It's a coping mechanism for the fact that I have live with human beings that prefer to push their brand of delusion onto others. If people would learn to keep their fucking religion to themselves, there would be a lot less to bash.

[Hegel]

Not directly, but that's simply a logical consequence of the hypothesis. Your argument is of the same type that creationist do against evolution: you can't show some intermediary stage for them, and thus, they claim, eveolution is crap ... But if evolution is true, then obviously nature has not kept some fossils for us simply to convince the creationist.

Of course, if it is the case that religion has made society really fit, then there should be no non-religious societies.

But if it is as damaging as the New Atheists claim, I wonder why cultural selection has not done away with it?

What I posed is an alternative hypothesis for the New Atheist story, which makes much less sense and is even less testable.

And: I am not trying to convince you to think that religion should or should not exist. It will exist whatever you or me think of it, and trying to bash it, btw, is not the best startegy to get rid of its harmful forms, at least in my opinion.

I'm not making any argument. I'm pointing out that the premise of yours, that all societies have been religious and religion has benefited them, is impossible to prove. You're just making an assertion that you can't back up and exepcting everyone to just accept it.

I was not expecting anyone to accept anything. I just don't take the trash meme hypothesis as given.

The rest of your post is just fallacy ridden nonsense. I mean, if cocaine is so harmful, how come cultural selection hasn't done away with it? Because people don't necessarily choose to engage in activites simply by looking at the benefits or harm they provide.

Perhaps my argument was not the best possible (I am improvising this stuff, you see), but you still miss my point.

Clearly people have tendency to believe in deities etc.
You can correspond that with tendency to develop drug addiction if you want. But that's what man is like. Now what is the proof that religion is simply like a drug, that is has no other functions?

Well, one has no evidence. It is simply assumed, and by doing so, the question concerning the functions of religion is ignored. If you claim it is simply like a drug -- a "brain parasite" -- , you ignore totally the social dimension of the phenomenon, you look it from the point of you of modern individualism.

Religion organizes people into groups,a mong other things; and it also gives them "meaning of life", "spiritual guidance", etc. We know that by fact. And it seems that it is for some reasons the easiest way to do that with the aid of some supernatural stuff, hirarchies of priests, shamans or whatever.

Now, that people are organized into greater groups -- that is adaptive without doubt. Hence, it seems, religion is adaptive.

Perhaps there are no societies without religion because that's the only way, in the first place, to organize men into groups.

But today this seems to be the case no longer in the west. But as it has been the case for the whole bloody human history, am I speaking nonsense, if I ask, when this has been going on only less than a decade, and is far from being accomplished, that nobody can know what the results are? In any case, if religion belongs, or should belong, only to our past, it nevertheless makes no sense to see it simply as a drug.

Rather, the only rational argument is, that now we have something better, but from this standpoint it makes no sense to bash religion and think it as some wort of root of all evil.

And the question remains, as with all development, as whateverist (I think) so well put it, whether one has thrown the child with the washing water. There are loads of examples of such "developments".

So, if you want a society without religion, then you at least should take pains in order to understand religion, not simply take it as "drug", etc.

That's my bloody whole point, in a nutshell.

And as for cocaine and drugs. A society, which does not develop an efficient way of dealing with drugs that are abundant (by controllling access, by ethics of use, etc) is likely to perish. Think religion not as a drug, but as a way of dealing with drugs or the tendency to use drugs. What "drugs", you ask. Well, that's the very problem! What are the problems that religious texts are dealing with?

That's the alternative hypothesis to Dawkinsianism. And: I never claimed Dawkins & al are all wrong; it only seems to me their point of view is limited.

And bashing religion itsn't a strategy to get rid of it. It's a coping mechanism for the fact that I have live with human beings that prefer to push their brand of delusion onto others. If people would learn to keep their fucking religion to themselves, there would be a lot less to bash.

It is more than common that people choose strategies that are not optimal for attaining their goal.

[Zidneya]

That would only apply to a very narrow definition of religion which would exclude some extant religions from being religions. There's no inherent contradiction to an atheist or secularist constructing a religion without belief in any deities.

Do you even know the definition of religion?

Religious humanism comes to mind.

It’s hard for me to accept that the religious humanism it's a religion because it lacks a system of spiritual beliefs.
If you ask me the word "religion" in the title have nothing to do there. I would call it Humanist philosophy, or Humanist traditions.
Secularism is the separation of the state from religious institutions. So the last thing they would do it’s embrace or develop a religion. Not even Religious Humanism.
You wanna know why Secularist will never accept Religious Humanism? Because Secular humanism. That's why they invented in the first place. The fact that you think that they overpass their own humanism for a religious humanis it’s silly.

Jainism has some supernatural characters but no creator. Without folk religion added to it, the question of whether a God exists is considered pointless in Buddhism.

Okay I don't know what you think atheism is but I think that you don't understand it very well. You think that atheism only rejects christianity Islam and all the other theologies that mention supernatural divinities? Atheism it's against all religions. Not only this ones but all religions.
And you think that if we remove all the creator entities from religions we can develop a religion that we(atheists) can approve? Jainism? Buddhism?

So you think that we who reject christianity eternal afterlife would be okay and won't have any problems with accepting Jainism and Buddhism reincarnation beliefs? Do you think that a Jainism philosophy of a eternal universe would investment experiments and promotes the teachings of the origin of the universe trough the Big Bang?
Don't you think that the promise of future retaliations originated from a bad Karma mentioned in the Jainism won't have the same negative impact that the actual christian beliefs have with it's promise of eternal damnation originated from the sins? Do you think that atheists who don’t believe in any spiritual plain of existence will be okay with Buddhism six realms of existence? Do you think that atheists who are against hijab would be okay won’t question Buddhism who shave it’s hair?

Jainism has some supernatural characters but no creator.

And you think that atheists will be okay with a religions with supernatural characters because…?

Jainism claims that homosexuality would result in negative karma, as sexuality is only to occur between a husband and wife; celibacy is required on the path to spiritual liberation……
Yeah but you may be right if that won’t create any future social problems whatsoever.

And then there's Raellianism: the aliens they worship are not supernatural beings, so it's not a theistic religion in any conventional sense.

You suggest a not theistic religion THAT WORSHIP ALIENS!!!
Yeah good luck convincing an atheist or secularist that’s a good idea.

And belief isn't a requirement to be a Unitarian, as long as you're a liberal.

Religious liberals aren’t against keeping all the religious traditions…and atheist and secular does oppose to that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I’m gonna sound like an ass but again I don’t care.

There's no inherent contradiction to an atheist or secularist constructing a religion without belief in any deities.

You think that the deities are the only problem that atheist and secularist find in religions? Because if you do then you are nuts.(And I'm saying nuts to be polite, because the term I think it's extremely offensive)

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

Look if you can’t see the none sense of what you are saying right there I can’t help you.

You can reply to me if you want but I'm not gonna respond. This conversation is pointless.

[Last Things]

Many atheists, following or walking in pace with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and the rest (the "New Atheists" as they are called) seem to think religion is simply parasitic. It is conceived as just something that our brains are, due to some imperfection (evolutionary side products) are disposed to believe in. Religions are "memeplexes" without any proper function except spreading themselves.

But how plausible is this? Emile Durkheim and others have had a very different view of things: religion is essentially functional. And when you read the new atheists you recognize how they totally ignore the social and ritual side of religions; they view it only as cognitive "belief-systems". Evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt has claimed (as have many others) that the individualism the the view of the New Atheists implies is at odds with psychological reality.

I have three questions:

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

(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?

(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?

The problem with such views is that they derive from modernist philosophy. They would not dare wander into post-modernism as it makes everything irrelevant.

Modernism is centered around pragmaticism. There may or may not be truth, so the only truth is what is functional. Aerodynamics is truthful only in that it can get me from Seattle to New York in a matter of hours. Art does not get me anymore and does not seem to have any measurable objective ends, therefore it is not true, non-functional. There is no truth in things like love or beauty, they are only understood as means to end.

This is the problem with the world today, there seems to be no truth in things themselves. Rather, truth is only understand in what it does. Art, music, religion, and many other things express a meaning, a truth with appeals to the virtues of man that have long been forgotten.

[Zidneya]

So, if you want a society without religion, then you at least should take pains in order to understand religion, not simply take it as "drug", etc.

That's interesting since most atheist I know comes from religious families, specially christian ones.
What do you want from us do you want us to memorize every passage from the bible and tell you why we don't accept it? Because I know atheists who do that.

Cause I guarantee you that those atheist who used to be christians they believed in all the bible stuff, or at least most of it them, they believed faith was a good thing, they believed religion was a beneficial to the world, they believed in the resurrection, they accepted christ in their lives. And then latter in life they all realized that it was all bullshit. And they drop it. They were religious and now there not. Nor condone the atrocities that religion does and think that it's okay to let religion provides beneficial functions that governments should do instead because that it's governments job. That idea that if you are an atheist now but you weren't a religious before nor tried to understand it before that's such a lie don't act like you know us because you don't.
I was religious to begin with I went to Catechism they taught me to understand religion. A lot of ex-christians were christians before and now they are not because they know better. So don't say that because you're making a fool of yourself. Because it's stupid in the first place and you're not gonna last long discussing with atheism in this forum without making the ridicule.

I guarantee you that if you know an atheist, a full developed atheist that not only doesn't belief in god promotes atheism have read the bible and tried to understand it than most random christians that you know.And if you gave them a quiz atheist would do better. I think some survey has done that particular thing they asks different people what do they know about various religions what the teach and what they have done and the atheist score highest. Because we think about this stuff all the time so we generally understand more. And unlike religious we know about the holes are in particular issues this religions too. So yes I read and tried to understand larges parts the function of religion in this world. Other people have done than and about a whole of holy books too to not only know about christianity but religion in general. I have a question for you.


What atheist teachings have you tried to understand? Do you know their benefits? Their philosophies? How atheist feel after embrace atheism? What have they've done to help other people?
Because if you wanna have this discussion. You you at least should take pains in order to understand atheism, not simply take it as a bunch of critics.

I mean I should have knew better that you didn't came here to ask us questions you came here to defend your views of religions. Because the details are right there.

(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?

That questions right there is based on the idea that secularism can't be beneficial and that we need religion or develop a religion to function as a society. Secular countries have been proven to work better than religious countries. Mostly because they try to help people in the here and now, instead of worrying about some other existence that hasn't been proven to exist yet.

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.

Tell me genius is this video about an atheist ignoring the fact of the benefits of religion?





Dis he mention it as a drug? Did he overpass all the benefits of religion?
You say New Atheists simply ignore this fact IS HE IGNORING THAT FACT? It didn't took me 5 minutes to find an atheist statement that proves different of what you say atheists do.

So don't act like you understand atheism because you don't. You came here asking question like you wanna gain knowledge when you simply want to make a statement just because(I assume) you heard an atheist saying something about religion being a drug that you couldn't tolerate.

[Hegel]

What do you want from us do you want us to memorize every passage from the bible and tell you why we don't accept it? Because I know atheists who do that.

Dear Zidneya, I am making my questions for atheists from purely atheist standpoint about what religion is; I have no urge here except perhaps to convert "New Atheists" into atheists of different order/type. So that's "my agenda" if I have one.

[Zidneya]

Dear Zidneya, I am making my questions for atheists from purely atheist standpoint about what religion is.

And if you hadn't started to defend your point instead of hearing what atheists have to say and learn from it I would believed you.

I have no urge here except perhaps to convert "New Atheists" into atheists of different order/type. So that's "my agenda" if I have one.

All Hail Hegel who has come to us to save us.

So you came her to convert us?So you think that we need to be changed? That we need to change the way we see atheism? Yeah that's gonna get people to like you in here.

Those who try to save the world without understanding it, what they are really trying to save it's their own ego

To a man who was forever complaining about others the Master said, "If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth."

[Confused Ape]

So, if you want a society without religion, then you at least should take pains in order to understand religion, not simply take it as "drug", etc.

I agree. There's always that question of why humans, as a species, evolved to believe in deities and create religions. Evolutionary biologists are looking into this puzzle although they are still divided as to what the real answer is. I found a very interesting article on the subject. It's too complicated to make useful quotes from but definitely worth reading - Evolution and Religion - Darwin's God. It has nothing to do with Darwin's personal beliefs.

The problem with such views is that they derive from modernist philosophy. They would not dare wander into post-modernism as it makes everything irrelevant.

Postmodernism Definition

A late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, a mixing of different artistic styles and media, and a general distrust of theories.

Postmodern Religion

Postmodern religion[1][2] is any type of religion that is influenced by postmodernism and postmodern philosophies.[3][4] Examples of religions that may be interpreted using postmodern philosophy include Postmodern Christianity,[5] Postmodern Neopaganism[citation needed], and Postmodern Buddhism.[6] Postmodern religion is not an attempt to banish religion from the public sphere; rather, it is a philosophical approach to religion that critically considers orthodox assumptions (that may reflect power differences in society rather than universal truths).[7] Postmodern religious systems of thought view realities as plural and subjective and dependent on the individual's worldview. Postmodern interpretations of religion acknowledge and value a multiplicity of diverse interpretations of truth, being and ways of seeing. There is a rejection of sharp distinctions and global or dominant metanarratives in postmodern religion and this reflects one of the core principles[8] of postmodern philosophy. A postmodern interpretation of religion emphasises the key point that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual.[9]

The article gives a brief introduction to postmodern interpretations of Christianity and then goes on to NeoPaganism. It ends with a brief mention of Postmodern spirituality.

So, it doesn't make everything irrelevant where religion is concerned. It's just a different way of looking at religion.

Cause I guarantee you that those atheist who used to be christians they believed in all the bible stuff, or at least most of it them, they believed faith was a good thing, they believed religion was a beneficial to the world, they believed in the resurrection, they accepted christ in their lives. And then latter in life they all realized that it was all bullshit. And they drop it. They were religious and now there not.

This only applies to Christians who became atheists. It doesn't explain why people are dropping mainstream religions and turning to NeoPaganism, quantum mysticism or other New Age belief systems.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in deities but this doesn't automatically mean that no atheist can believe in conspiracy theories or alien abductions. I found an interesting discussion about this on Yahoo Answers.

Why Are Atheists Less Likely To Believe In Conspiracy Theories

A Poster:It's part and parcel of being a skeptic. Atheists tend not to take things on faith and demand hard evidence.

Another Poster: I think this may be true for a specific breed of atheists as it were. Many of us are Skeptics first and atheism is simply a result of that. Skepticism does not mean not believing in anything in this movement, it simply means assigning belief to things according to how much evidence you have for them. Conspiracy theories tend to have very little evidence backing them up, so skeptics tend not to believe in them.

That being said, not all atheists are skeptics, and I know a few atheists who will believe any conspiracy theory they hear.

[Bob Kelso]

I have three questions:

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

My take on early religion (which may be surprisingly optimistic to some on the forums, given my absolute disdain for religion) was that it was intended to function as what we would now call the "god(s) of the gaps" to answer man's questions about the workings of the world, and to bring comfort to lonely minds.

As for the more developed religions I'd say it's function was to blind and control the masses by way of bringing people together under false hope, all the while giving them people and things to hate.

(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?

If I'm understanding the question correctly, that you're asking if atheists should change their beliefs (or attitude) towards religion because it has some beneficial quality for society... then my answer is a resounding fuck no. Those who appreciate intellectual honesty, and truth, ideally should not play party to lies (even beneficial, comforting lies). To be real, everybody lies (a wink to you House fans), but lies of such a magnitude and breadth like religion are arguably a different matter entirely.

(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?

It's called ethics mate, no religion or dogma required.

[Mr Greene]

Many atheists, following or walking in pace with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and the rest (the "New Atheists" as they are called) seem to think religion is simply parasitic. It is conceived as just something that our brains are, due to some imperfection (evolutionary side products) are disposed to believe in. Religions are "memeplexes" without any proper function except spreading themselves.

But how plausible is this? Emile Durkheim and others have had a very different view of things: religion is essentially functional. And when you read the new atheists you recognize how they totally ignore the social and ritual side of religions; they view it only as cognitive "belief-systems". Evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt has claimed (as have many others) that the individualism the the view of the New Atheists implies is at odds with psychological reality.

I have three questions:

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

To facilitate the transfer of funds from the 'followers' to the 'leadership'.

(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?

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?

Humanism