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]

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.

So I should not defend my opinion of religion? That's pure nonsense.
The problem is that you have not grasped what I asked: I am talking about scientific understanding of religion as a phenomenon of nature. My standpoint is totally atheist: religion as social, natural, psychological phenomenon, and how to understand it as such. Get it?

On average, religous persons understand religion scientifically just as well as plants understand photosynthesis. If atheists come from fundamentalist backgrounds, that tells nothing about their understanding of it -- but more about their SES.

---

I was speculating about shamanism in the dim and distant past because shamanism was around thousands of years before any kind of organised religion. The shamans' rituals could have had a placebo effect so people who believed in them might have had a better chance of recovering from some illnesses and injuries.

You're right. Magic works ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death

The question here is, what is the relation of magic to religion, is it one of its functions or is it foreign to it?

Magic is also basically the source of technology and science, where it has developed from.

But Durkheim, who makes these same points, claims religion and magic are distinct. He thought religion is all about defining the difference between sacred/profane, and that is its real function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

Humans, as a species, seem to have in inbuilt drive to worship something but this isn't confined to deities because we can put other humans on proverbial pedestals and idolise them. This can be manipulated into cults of personality for political leaders such as Stalin or Mao Zedong.

We're still tribal creatures in many ways and a lot of human history has involved wars for territory, resources and power etc. This dark side of our nature has resulted in the negative side of religion. Humans also have a tendency to get fanatical and this isn't confined to religion and ideologies - there have been many internet flame wars on the lines of "My favourite TV show is better than your TV show".

If religion disappeared tomorrow we'd still fight for territory, resources, power and ideologies.

I fully agree on all this. Tribalism. And religion is connected to it. Perhaps that's the way to build tribes larger than the "natural" unit of village, etc?
So, that would be adaptive. Many evolutionary psychologists hold this view; and they have also refound Durkheim.

[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]

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.

So I should not defend my opinion of religion? That's pure nonsense.
The problem is that you have not grasped what I asked: I am talking about scientific understanding of religion as a phenomenon of nature. My standpoint is totally atheist: religion as social, natural, psychological phenomenon, and how to understand it as such. Get it?

So I should not defend my opinion of religion?
Your not gonna like my answer but hey you asked.
Actually thats the whole point of my speech. Questions.

What if someone ask me to see what people think about a specific topic(that I don't like). So I go by the streets to interview everyone who agrees to answer my questions to see what people thinks. Or I make a online poll or quiz(the point is that nevertheless the method I choose, I end up asking people questions about what they think).
And then
I start defending a statements just because I don't like peoples answers. The ones that I like I don't say anything but the ones who's answer I don't like I start refuting them again and again to see if they can change their mind. A'm I respecting people opinion by doing that? Can I really tell myself or others that I wan't to know what they think?
Because the whole point of asking someone something isn't to show them what I think is right. I'm asking questions to see what THEY think is right.

So I should not defend my opinion of religion?

So NO
Look if you want to defend your opinion of religion I have a crazy idea. Why don't you say that in the first place?
Start a thread when you say Listen I think "this", and I think religion is "this", and I think that because of "this." And I would like to discuss it with you guys.

But no what you did is:
Listen I read all this people. And I find silly so I'm gonna ask you this questions but hey hey wait a minute be ready because I'm gonna defend myself again and again. This isn't of me to see what you say on the other hand listen to me. You are gonna back up your word with statements well even better because I would have more to refute.

That's not asking thats bragging pal don't tell me otherwise.

I made a thread here a couple of days ago asking whats the difference between a cult and a religion? Because to me there was no difference and I said that from the beginning.
And then there was this guy called "FreeTony" who said different. And I explained him why I disagree with him and in the end I said to him: I think we will agree that we disagree.
And then there was "psychoslice" he also disagree with me so I showed him a couple of videos of purity balls and discrimination. To see if I could make him see my point but he didn't so in the end I told him. Okay pal if you are still gonna maintain your word okay so be it. And even when others started to question him again and again I left him alone because I asked, he decide to respond, we may think that the other is wrong but each one has the right to say what they want and I have to respect that. Later if I want to debate with him I can contact him anytime I want I tell him that.

See for yourself.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26013-page-3.html

I wasn't defending my opinion of religion so they can agree with me I did it to see what they think. And it turns out that most of them agreed at some level with me.
The only one I kept arguing was "Last Things" because he said that I shouldn't take in consideration the answers that the other atheists gave me. Who the hell is he to say which thoughts should and shouldn't be taken in count IN MY THREAD .

So don't give me the " My standpoint is totally atheist: religion as social, natural, psychological phenomenon, and how to understand it as such."

Because you already admited that you want to to convert "New Atheists" into atheists of different order/type. That's your point with your own words. So don't try to convince me otherwise.

[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.