Do you see any benefits to religious faith?

[Mudhammam]

Are you suggesting that Dr King, for example, could not or would not have been motivated by anything other than religious means; and not that he was able to use religion as a motivator to others?

At that place and time, and given who his audience was, I'm pretty sure he couldn't have such a strong impact if he didn't describe the narrative of freedom in religious terms. This goes to the fact that most white people at the time were Christian, and that Christian blacks could expect a kind of spiritual brotherhood etc. etc.

I really can't imagine anyone who could have done better than he did with his "I have a dream" speech, and the religious overtones were a big part of that.

There's an interesting piece that we read in philosophy class at school last week by W.E.B. DuBois about the history of the black church in the U.S. and religion's role in both the perpetuation and abolition of slavery. I'd definitely recommend it insofar as it sheds light on possible benefits/harms, specifically in reference to the later reemergence of race and civil rights issues in the '60s.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/dubois/ch10.html

[Mr Greene]

It prevents them from getting kicked out of their family's church. Those are all obviously benefits.

Erm, surely that is a massive liability (or alludes to one) in itself...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Except in my examples they actually were motivated by religion, whereas you are merely speculating that it could have been otherwise. Perhaps you could provide examples of prominent abolishionists that were prominent atheists.

Are you suggesting that Dr King, for example, could not or would not have been motivated by anything other than religious means; and not that he was able to use religion as a motivator to others? Was he a good man only because of his faith, or could he have been good regardless, simply by being a good man? Or is there some other avenue?

Actual examples would help. But that is the point, not that people cannot have non-religious motives to do good, but that religious motivations lead the charge and dominate. As such they show a difference of degree, if not of kind.

Doctors were around for ages but the first hospitals and large scale organizations devoted to healing were religious. There where schools built around single teachers forever, but the original universities were founded on religious principles. Missionaries brought widespread relief to distant lands before secular not-for-profits even existed. Religions institutionalize and spread virtues. They lead the way.

[Angrboda]

From my studies of religion and the brain, there appear to be intrinsic cognitive rewards to engaging in religious behaviors. Raising our arms to the sky stimulates the production of certain hormones/transmitters, for example. And religious concepts appear to be built on the bedrock foundations of our social behaviors. So I imagine there are many benefits for the believing brain. Perhaps these neurological benefits conspire to create the apparent greater health of religious people. I'm skeptical of such studies, but if the results are borne out, perhaps the neurology of religious behavior offers a plausible explanation for why they are healthier, one that doesn't depend upon coming to any conclusions about the inherent truth of the beliefs. Atheistic Unitarian-Universalists engage in the same rituals that theistic believers engage in. This is often explained as satisfying things like "a need to belong", but perhaps it's a way of tickling our brain in a more fundamental sense.

[Mudhammam]

Speaking more broadly, the connection between truth and utility is obvious in a number of instances, but one can also conceive of scenarios where truth might be harmful or a falsehood beneficial. For example, if it were discovered that intelligence correlated in a significant way with a particular race; as a species, we would, I think, be better off continuing to ignore such differences. Or if it were shown that belief in some fabulous myth increased health and happiness by X percent, and there were no obvious costs; in which case, it begs the question, which is that I don't see why our knowledge of the factuality or fantastic nature of some given matter should necessarily increase or limit its value, and if it does, how one goes about measuring its extent?

[Macoleco]

If you never question your faith and have a decent life, then yes, it has benefits. That is if you are not bothered by being comforted by a lie. On the other hand, if you are being abused due your religious faith, then it has no benefits.

[bennyboy]

Speaking more broadly, the connection between truth and utility is obvious in a number of instances, but one can also conceive of scenarios where truth might be harmful or a falsehood beneficial.  For example, if it were discovered that intelligence correlated in a significant way with a particular race; as a species, we would, I think, be better off continuing to ignore such differences.  Or if it were shown that belief in some fabulous myth increased health and happiness by X percent, and there were no obvious costs; in which case, it begs the question, which is that I don't see why our knowledge of the factuality or fantastic nature of some given matter should necessarily increase or limit its value, and if it does, how one goes about measuring its extent?

It seems to me that false belief is intrinsic to the human condition, in the form of our instinctive motivations.  For example, most of us have the idea that it's good to reproduce.  And the most solid moral social argument you can make, ever, is a hysterical "But the kids!  What about the kiiiiiiiiddddds!?!??!!?"

There's nothing intrinsically important about anything we do, and yet even the philosophers among us continue to act as though there WERE something intrinsically important.  For example, while I think there are far too many people in the world, and especially in Korea, I'd probably run into a burning building to save a child.  Surely, there's an instinctive narrative at play there.

[Mudhammam]

It seems to me that false belief is intrinsic to the human condition, in the form of our instinctive motivations.  For example, most of us have the idea that it's good to reproduce.  And the most solid moral social argument you can make, ever, is a hysterical "But the kids!  What about the kiiiiiiiiddddds!?!??!!?"

There's nothing intrinsically important about anything we do, and yet even the philosophers among us continue to act as though there WERE something intrinsically important.  For example, while I think there are far too many people in the world, and especially in Korea, I'd probably run into a burning building to save a child.  Surely, there's an instinctive narrative at play there.

Sure, but I'm sure you'd agree that reading The Odyssey as a great work of fiction, containing pearls of wisdom woven together with mythology and ingenious storytelling, is an intrinsically more useful means of reading it and similar literature, as opposed to treating the blind bard's masterpiece as a divinely inspired piece that should serve as the final word on matters of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical intuition.  And this perspective also happens to be the true manner in which even the most devoted pagans ought to have revered Homer, or Hesiod, or any of their other "prophets" i.e. poets.  Similarly, there are facts about the world that correlate to more prolonged and fulfilling forms of happiness, and these can be discovered through science and philosophy, as can their opposite states (by which I think that running into a burning building to save a child can be shown to entail pros and cons that will affect the reasonings and/or motivations of individuals differently)?  If "intrinsically important" is synonymous with, or in proportion to, "intrinsic value," then I confess that I can conceive of nothing more objectively important, as a human being living amidst creatures both superior and inferior to myself.  My question is, when does utility triumph truth when the two are so obviously wedded together, despite whatever fictions may have served as stepping stones to progress?  Or should we contribute to the perpetuation of delusions that feel useful to certain individuals? How does one weigh the harm with a subject as broad as religion, or simply fantasy?

[bennyboy]

Or should we contribute to the perpetuation of delusions that feel useful to certain individuals?  How does one weigh the harm with a subject as broad as religion, or simply fantasy?

Unfortunately, I think the answer really is, "It's for the kiiiiiiids."

Parents want their children to flourish, but also want the ability to control them. Therein lies the omnipresent struggle between Dionysian and Apollonian influences. If the kids are out of control, they may be told lies, in conjunction with punishments, to bring them under control. If they are too oppressed, and therefore lack the creativity or inspiration to flourish and thereby assist their family in flourishing, they will be yanked out of church and encouraged to find their own meaning in their lives.

But then you end up with artist kids with heroin habits, and it repeats: "Oh shit, no matter what, we gotta make sure the next generation will respect authority, and will obediently get down to the job of building a house and making babies."

We can see this cycle between conservatism (always supported with some kind of mythology or honor code) and liberalism over various periods: Greece vs. Rome, Renaissance and Classical periods vs. Baroque and Romantic periods, and since the start of the 20th century, it's extremely easy to plot the flip-flopping of values every 20 years or so. Note that in none of this dance of life does Truth really serve the task of the day-- a good metaphor will drive minds much more than Truth will, pretty much all the time.

/pointlessly long and self-indulgent rant