Is religion a necessary evil?

[Angrboda]

Higher female suicide rates were associated with lower aggregate levels of religious belief and, less strongly, religious attendance. These associations were mostly attributable to the association between higher tolerance of suicide and higher suicide rates ... In individuals, stronger religious beliefs are associated with lower tolerance of suicide. Personal religious beliefs and, for men, exposure to a religious environment, may protect against suicide by reducing its acceptability.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...FA15131F91

[vulcanlogician]

Higher female suicide rates were associated with lower aggregate levels of religious belief and, less strongly, religious attendance. These associations were mostly attributable to the association between higher tolerance of suicide and higher suicide rates ... In individuals, stronger religious beliefs are associated with lower tolerance of suicide. Personal religious beliefs and, for men, exposure to a religious environment, may protect against suicide by reducing its acceptability.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...FA15131F91

That's all fine and good, but what about the higher instances of suicide among gays? It's difficult to measure the impact of general cultural attitudes having an affect on people's self worth. But I'm pretty sure it happens.

[Dr H]

Looking at the tragic statistics on suicide and crime, does religion with it's scare tactics doesn't sound so bad?

I mean, if you believe in Hell, even partially, you won't be as likely to kill yourself or become a criminal.

The basic purpose of religion is the same as the basic purpose of government:  
to vest power in the few, to allow them to control the many.

If you believe that the many need  to be controlled by the few, then it may well be necessary.
Whether or not it's evil becomes a matter of personal taste.

[robvalue]

I think we shouldn't be too angry at religion, because it does helps lot's of people. That was my thought.

Of course. I have no problem with it helping people. My problem is the harm it causes, which in my opinion outweighs the good. But either way, much as I loathe the idea of religion, I’m not angry at actual religious people.

What does make me angry is children being indoctrinated with ideas about hell, because it’s known to be psychologically damaging. If a parent can’t come up with any other way of encouraging good behaviour, they shouldn’t be parents in the first place. Fear doesn’t produce understanding either, it just produces blind obedience.

[Anomalocaris]

I do think some people need religion. It gives them structure, guidelines, hope. Not everyone can cope with the idea of their own death and not everyone can live morally without a reward system. My god parents' kid went to prison for 7 years and came out "with religion" he is still unbalanced but now he has a kid and job which we were scared to death of him having a kid. If his religion is keeping him on a good path so be it. I will never tell him he is wrong to believe.

Some people need religion just like some people needs to commit crime. That doesn’t make religion tolerable any more than it makes crime tolerable.

[robvalue]

I made a video about this in response to Godless Cranium asking what benefits religion offers that secular systems don’t.

[mlmooney89]

I do think some people need religion. It gives them structure, guidelines, hope. Not everyone can cope with the idea of their own death and not everyone can live morally without a reward system. My god parents' kid went to prison for 7 years and came out "with religion" he is still unbalanced but now he has a kid and job which we were scared to death of him having a kid. If his religion is keeping him on a good path so be it. I will never tell him he is wrong to believe.

Some people need religion just like some people needs to commit crime.  That doesn’t make religion tolerable any more than it makes crime tolerable.

I'm sorry but that comment made no sense, was not relevant, and was childish. Someone doing good for themselves and getting on a better life track is NOT like someone "needing" to commit crime. They don't correlate at all. One is finding a reason to feel and do better while the other is giving into greed/self importance. Not to mention you can't just say it doesn't make it more tolerable without saying -for you- because you don't speak for everyone and what you think is not the official guidelines for what is and isn't tolerable. To me I tolerate religion being around me when it comes to him and I don't speak negatively about his beliefs because it DOES make a difference to me. I don't want all religion to die out if it helps a good majority of the population. All I want is it to be reigned in so it's not hurting or oppressing others.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people need religion just like some people needs to commit crime.  That doesn’t make religion tolerable any more than it makes crime tolerable.

I'm sorry but that comment made no sense, was not relevant, and was childish. Someone doing good for themselves and getting on a better life track 

-that's not exactly how I'd describe the majority of peoples religions - people doing good for themselves and getting on a better lifetrack. Right now, it seems to mostly be about being terrified of the gays, shouting at whores, and keeping out the browns.  

Try this....though, imagine some completely intolerable religion.  Accept that it might actually be the case that a person needs that religion, just like some criminal needs to commit crime.  Does that make their intolerable religion tolerable?

[Dr H]

Try this....though, imagine some completely intolerable religion.  Accept that it might actually be the case that a person needs that religion, just like some criminal needs to commit crime.  Does that make their intolerable religion tolerable?

That seems like stacking the deck, to me.  From the OP, the question at issue is "Is religion a necessary evil?", and not "is the most intolerable religion you can imagine necessary?"

Most people with whom I come in contact practice their religion relatively unobtrusively, most of the time.  Occasionally some overstep their bounds, and try to force their beliefs or their code on others, and that's where I draw the line.  I don't go around proposing laws to force evolution to be taught in theology classes, for example, so in return I don't expect to be forced to teach creationism in biology classes.

There are some particularly egregious religious offenders against that sort of "live-let-live" attitude, for sure -- some violently radical jihadists or the old Thugee cults come to mind.  But that doesn't necessarily taint the whole sphere of religion as "intolerable", anymore than the fact that some atheists are flaming assholes should taint all of atheism.

To me religion is silly, childish, misspent energy, and a waste of time and sometimes resources.  Yet I mostly tolerate it because what are the alternatives?  I could impotently rail daily against the world, or I could go live in a cave and withdraw from the world.  Neither option seems very viable.

If religion ever does end, it will be when we have a mature, fully educated society.
Until that time, some people are always going to feel that it's absolutely essential.  So long as they are willing to tolerate me, I'm willing to tolerate them.  Where we clash, well, that's why there's such a thing as "negotiation".

[The Grand Nudger]

That seems like stacking the deck, to me.  From the OP, the question at issue is "Is religion a necessary evil?", and not "is the most intolerable religion you can imagine necessary?"

The point being conveyed is that necessity might not make something more tolerable - which cuts directly at the OP Q.  The hypothetical example only presents a clear case of that point.  Do you disagree with that point?  That no amount of some intolerable religion being necessary to a person will make the religion more or less tolerable?  No more so than the necessity of crime to some person makes crime more or less tolerable?  

Now, I'm speaking for myself here, not anom..but I don't think that religion -is- a necessary evil.  Even, when we say, "but this person might really need the religion"..to me at least, we seem to be referring to a package of tangibles offered by that religion, not the religion itself.  Those tangibles never seem to be exclusive to religion.  So, while anom might note that something being necessary won't make it tolerable..I don't think it's necessary in the first place..but I do think it's evil... making it even more intolerable.  

You're already living in a world that doesn't tolerate the silly, childish, misspent energy and waste of time and resources of all but three or four religions (three of them being different products in the same brand line)..and a world in which those remaining few exemptions are severely limited and stripped of crucial deference in developed countries. No one would tolerate a human sacrifice. No amount of gnashing of teeth and nervous breakdowns on the part of the believer would change our minds about that. Magic book says we should kill the gays - we no longer tolerate that.

You are only tolerant of the husk of religion that your ideological predecessors left in their wake as they castrated them one by one and sent the remainder to live on the reservation. Even the religious know that. That's why those weirdos are so pissy all the time.