What is the function of religion?

[Hegel]

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.

You're probably right, but I think there are other factors as well and that is not the whole picture. Perhaps in some US states atheists are well, not persecuted, but regarded with suspicion. Yet, this is no universal condition. Think European countries. I admit that I have no stats, but I guess the patter can be found also in places like Sweden. (disclaimer: atheists are certainly not deemed with suspicion in Sweden, France, etc)

It's easier to be happy and live on the straight and narrow when you belong to the dominant belief system.

Perhaps it is also the case that it is easier to be straight and narrow when you have a belief system which gives you a rigid code of ethics which you must follow in order not to be punished after death and to get your place in paradise?

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

Certainly. And here is the catch: when you have two tribes, A and B, and A produces more children than what B does, which one will become dominant and spread its moral code?

So, it is obvious why religions tell you to reproduce.
But in a secular society with effective contraception methods, an opposite problem occurs: people began to produce to few children.

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.

You are correct when talking about modern history. But one should take a wider perspective. Actually, the phenomenon that stata and church are separate is particularly Western, Christian and modern phenomenon. Evidence is clear:
Rome: Roman state religion with worship of the Emperor (rememver, Christians were persecuted only because they did not take part in it);
China: Confucianism;
Islamic Empire = Islam;
Egypt: Egyptian religion;
Aztec: all the stuff with human sacrifices;
etc.
In other words: the normal condition is not secular, but religious state, that religion and state are one.
So, where does the idea of secularism come from?
This is something most atheists have hard time getting: it comes from Christianity: "give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar"
There it is, idea of secularism. And it was in reformation (for Catholicism did not quite follow this idea, although it never managed to become a church-state) when this idea was first put into practice full force for the first time in human history. That is to say: it is the very Calvinist sects that most American fundamentalism stems from that were, in reality, the ones that were the founders of modern secularism, freedom of religion, etc.
Irony?
You ask what benefit religion has. Well, in historical perspective you can tell, that secularism itself has religious origins, and if you are are secular, at least you should thank Christianity for making it possible.

For our day ... Well, if you don't have religion, you should have a substitute for its benefits, how it offers meaning for life, offers clear moral codes for ordinary folks, methods to attain some spiritual experience, etc, things which, as some have said in this thread, is what explains why people find religion so appealing. So, the question is not perhaps not so much "why religion?" but rather "what instead of it?" I guess that was what I was aiming at with the opening of this thread, particularly with the last question which was not necessarily put as well as it could have been put. What most secularist offers is simply this: freedom and being kind to others. Now, I haven nothing against freedom nor being kind to others, but I cannot but doubt that this might not be quite sufficient answer to the question.

[paulpablo]

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?

(1)
From the perspective of evolution religion has several functions in increasing success.
Help a group of people in times of war, for example in gathering funds, recruiting people, giving comfort to the people about to die and their families, increasing how dangerous the army is by reducing their fear of death and increasing their power of attack for example the 9/11 attacks and the kamikaze pilots of ww2. Also it helps forge alliances.
Calms people down during death.
Increases breeding, especially for example in mormons and muslims where more than one wife is a possibility.
It probably helped morale during the era of Christopher Columbus during long voyages and helped during slave capturing expeditions, converting and enslaving tribes.
It can increase charity, and act as an invisible babysitter.

2.
My view towards religion is that it promotes self deception. Self deception in terms of evolution probably is a beneficial that's why I'm pretty certain all humans have self deception as a part of their mentality.
So to answer the question should I change my views towards religion IF the self deception is accepted as beneficial...
I can't do that because my brain doesn't have the ability to think like that. I can't think to myself "Ok believing this thing that is unbelievable is better for me in terms of breeding and evolutionary success so I will do that now."

3)
I don't really know what a secular religion is.
All of these thoughts and ethics are implemented in secular ways. People don't need religion to be kind enough to be charitable, to have lots of kids , to commit mass murder, to capture slaves or to be riddled with self deception.
Also a lot of these things which help increase success from the perspective of evolution come with consequences, for example being fearless and aggressive in war can be good, but can be bad if these characteristics are causing so much conflict a group of people can't even function as an organized country because of internal conflicts, suicide bombs going off on a regular basis for example.
But if a country or some organization wanted a secular way of being as effective as religious countries at being good at war, breeding, colonizing, slave capturing than there's probably 2 options, leader worship (could be considered to be a religion anyway)
or just use lots and lots of propaganda, probably in the form of patriotism or something along those lines.

[Confused Ape]

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

Well, if the placebo effect works it's not surprising that the opposite effect exists. I was particular interested in Notable Cases.

Though cases within aboriginal societies are the most commonly cited when researchers such as Cannon set forth examples, similar cases of psychosomatic death have also been reported in other cultures.

In his 1964 article, James L. Mathis, MD, describes a case of a previously healthy man who died from asthmatic attacks when his mother "cursed" him for going against her wishes. Mathis proposes that "fatal psychosomatic conditions" were the cause of this man's death, and thus a form of voodoo death.[13]

Another scientist—Clifton K. Meador, MD—in 1992 discussed the case of a man diagnosed with cancer who, along with his physicians and family, believed he was dying of cancer. In the autopsy after his death, however, the doctors discovered that his cancer was not at all the cause of his death. Meador deduces that the man's belief in his imminent death was the cause of his death itself.[14]

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

Magic or sorcery is an attempt to understand, experience and influence the world using rituals, symbols, actions, gestures and language.[1][2][3][4]

Intellectualist Perspectives

The belief that one can influence supernatural powers, by prayer, sacrifice or invocation goes back to prehistoric religion and is present in early records such as the Egyptian pyramid texts and the Indian Vedas.[46]

Theories on the relationship of magic, science, art and religion

Magic and religion are categories of beliefs and systems of knowledge used within societies. While generally considered distinct categories in western cultures, the interactions, similarities, and differences have been central to the study of magic for many theorists in sociology and anthropology, including Frazer, Mauss, S. J. Tambiah, Malinowski, Michael Nevin and Isabelle Sarginson. From the intellectualist and functionalist perspectives, magic is often considered most analogous to science and technology.

Magic can be separate from religion - Ceremonial Magic. On the other hand, magic as in the belief that prayers etc might influence deities is definitely part of religion.

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

Durkheim was trying to figure out the social aspects of religion. He was looking at what all religions have in common when it came to shaping societies. This meant having to disregard everything which religions don't have in common because followers of different religions believe different things.

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.

What was useful to hunter gatherers and early civilisations isn't necessarily useful in our 21st century civilisations, though.

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.

Humans are experimenting with secular societies now. This is probably the best we can do when the human brain is hardwired like it is.