What Is The True Purpose Of Religion?

[darkblight]

Religion is mans first attempt at explaining the world around him, at least that which he does not understand. When people were sick I suppose praying was better than doing nothing, but as time has progressed we have developed more intelligent applications to heal the sick, explain the tides, explain why the sun rises and sets, rain, earthquakes, stars etc.

The more we understand about the natural world the more watered down religion becomes.


This is the purpose of religion, now of course religion has been used for good and bad, most here would think the bad outweighs the good, but it was necessary for us to get to a point where we can sit on a computer and discuss why it is not needed. Evolution works slowly and in a social sense to me it is apparent that some feel they still need religion to deal with life and some do not, and as the Not's begin to number more I believe we will find ourselves in a society that is better off for it.

That is certainly not the purpose of the invention of gods. People were always interested in studying themselves the nature, and in giving 'scientific' (i.e. proven) explanations to what they see - there were people in antiquity interested in cosmology, for instance, and in medicine (practical methods of healing). In old times (or only in some 'religions') the clergy was also dealing with healing (i.e. medicine). In Judaism, the clergy was the one who was supposed to study the scriptures/laws deeply, and were acting as judges to the people (i.e. when people had a problem that is solvable by laws, they appealed to those who learn and study the laws - the priests). There might be even things like a religion to have started from a very wise philosopher, and people to add fairytales as the time was passing. As for the present, most if not all religions do not have as purpose the explanation of the physical world around. They are rather concerned with life after death.

Anyway, it is somewhat difficult for the 21st century man to imagine the beliefs, day-to-day life, philosophies of the people 4000 years ago or more.

wrong.
tell this to the young earth creationists who think the planet is 6,000 years old and want to teach creation alongside evolution. It is one of the most debated issues between atheist and theist and it most def. a way to explain something the religon does not understand: the origins of man

and death and afterlife? again another thing man does not understand yet, and religion claims to have the answer, religion does not claim to know how to make your coffee ,as we know where it comes from , how it works etc, religion tries to explain again that which we cannot explain, and as we explain more religion is used less and less. this is the downfall of religion, as i do believe one day we will understand the origins of man, the universe , and death even better than we do now.

[TrueSpirit]

Yes religion is about control, but it's about much more than that. It's also about money, ego and power. And, yes the ruling elite actually did get together to plan this whole "shebang," because it is the quickest, easiest, most efficient way to gain all of the above without any "friction" from the masses whatsoever.

[Angrboda]

I'm kind of jumping in the middle here, so if what I say has been said -- sue me.

Somewhat akin to Minimalist's quote of Aristotle, religion and revealed truths are a useful tool for legitimizing authority, from the Delphic Oracles to the Pharoahs of Egypt, to the justification of Jewish kings to the Roman Caesar, and on into the first few millennia in the form of divine right of kings -- China took a similar route in justifying rulers with reference to a mandate of heaven, which, much like Jewish kingship, was summarily withdrawn from disliked rulers. Putting the blessing of god or gods upon the authority of your rulers saves a lot of messy recourse to appealing to the populace's self-interest.

I'm sure there are other generic pragmatics of religion quite apart from simply shaping the behavior of the believers, but divine right is the one that pops to mind most readily.

Oh, ETA: Probably the most universal use of religion, explaining phenomena which aren't understood, and giving people the illusion of control and order (and meaning) where frequently there is none to be had.

[Zenith]

Religion is mans first attempt at explaining the world around him, at least that which he does not understand. When people were sick I suppose praying was better than doing nothing, but as time has progressed we have developed more intelligent applications to heal the sick, explain the tides, explain why the sun rises and sets, rain, earthquakes, stars etc.

The more we understand about the natural world the more watered down religion becomes.


This is the purpose of religion, now of course religion has been used for good and bad, most here would think the bad outweighs the good, but it was necessary for us to get to a point where we can sit on a computer and discuss why it is not needed. Evolution works slowly and in a social sense to me it is apparent that some feel they still need religion to deal with life and some do not, and as the Not's begin to number more I believe we will find ourselves in a society that is better off for it.

That is certainly not the purpose of the invention of gods. People were always interested in studying themselves the nature, and in giving 'scientific' (i.e. proven) explanations to what they see - there were people in antiquity interested in cosmology, for instance, and in medicine (practical methods of healing). In old times (or only in some 'religions') the clergy was also dealing with healing (i.e. medicine). In Judaism, the clergy was the one who was supposed to study the scriptures/laws deeply, and were acting as judges to the people (i.e. when people had a problem that is solvable by laws, they appealed to those who learn and study the laws - the priests). There might be even things like a religion to have started from a very wise philosopher, and people to add fairytales as the time was passing. As for the present, most if not all religions do not have as purpose the explanation of the physical world around. They are rather concerned with life after death.

Anyway, it is somewhat difficult for the 21st century man to imagine the beliefs, day-to-day life, philosophies of the people 4000 years ago or more.

wrong.
tell this to the young earth creationists who think the planet is 6,000 years old and want to teach creation alongside evolution. It is one of the most debated issues between atheist and theist and it most def. a way to explain something the religon does not understand: the origins of man

and death and afterlife? again another thing man does not understand yet, and religion claims to have the answer, religion does not claim to know how to make your coffee ,as we know where it comes from , how it works etc, religion tries to explain again that which we cannot explain, and as we explain more religion is used less and less. this is the downfall of religion, as i do believe one day we will understand the origins of man, the universe , and death even better than we do now.

Seriously darkblight, I don't see where you contradict me: man has always been interested in sciences, while only recently (recent centuries) we have an atheist fashion and a strong relationship between science and atheism. As about antiquity and far past, it was not the religious books that taught to make wine, for instance, but the god of wine and celebration that taught people how it's done! in other words, they attached a god to the 'scientific' discovery.

As about young earth and afterlife, religions always seem to explain the philosophical and questionable issues, and the issues which cannot be known. But that doesn't mean that religious people (whichever religion) are confined to things that cannot be checked and studied. Also consider the fact that teachings about gods have changed in time, so was it really hard for people to change the teaching of a god from A to B according to the new discovery? I don't think so.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The 'true' meaning of religon?


There's no such thing. What is true varies not only between each believer in the common herd,but depends on one's status and place within an organisation.

I can think of about half a dozen valid 'true' reasons for the existence of religion,not all of which have anything to do with the notion of the divine.

Ten thousand monks ten thousand religions (Buddhist saying)

[JohnDG]

The 'true' meaning of religon?


There's no such thing. What is true varies not only between each believer in the common herd,but depends on one's status and place within an organisation.

I can think of about half a dozen valid 'true' reasons for the existence of religion,not all of which have anything to do with the notion of the divine.

Ten thousand monks ten thousand religions (Buddhist saying)

No theres an applicable purpose to it, I've actually been looking into it for some time now. Just getting all the facts together which is why I needed some fresh ideas here but nobody seems to think outside the box.

Religion isn't just used to keep people in line and ect, one of it's main usages is to stifle the human desire to become more knowlegable. People who are severly taken by faith "stupidity" become more complacent and a little snooty if you ask me. The reason why is well, they believe they know all there is to know about anything and everything because apparently everything is done by god. With this system the dumbest person can be as wise and the most intelligent scientist if they both believe in their religion meaning there is not much use in learning very much else is there?

So far my conclusion is that religion is meant to keep people ignorant and stupid so they don't realize their being used by a ruling upper class. And I say ruling upper class not as in a conspiracy but because there would be no point to religion if there wasn't. If not for war in which religion is a main cause besides primordial instincts, we probly wouldn't even have the technology we do today. Although we have technology thanks to religion and instincts, it severly limits the potential in which humanity can rise to be.

What will happen when the comman people find out they have been ripped off and enslaved?

[Angrboda]

The 'true' meaning of religon?

There's no such thing. What is true varies not only between each believer in the common herd,but depends on one's status and place within an organisation.....<snip>
.
.

Ten thousand monks ten thousand religions (Buddhist saying)

No theres an applicable purpose to it, I've actually been looking into it for some time now. Just getting all the facts together which is why I needed some fresh ideas here but nobody seems to think outside the box.

Religion isn't just used to keep people in line and ect, one of it's main usages is to stifle the human desire to become more knowlegable. People who are severly taken by faith "stupidity" become more complacent and a little snooty if you ask me. The reason why is well, they believe they know all there is to know about anything and everything because apparently everything is done by god. With this system the dumbest person can be as wise and the most intelligent scientist if they both believe in their religion meaning there is not much use in learning very much else is there?

I'm not sure this jibes with historical fact. The Reformation was largely driven by the Catholic clergy's desire to keep the keys to the kingdom in their hands. The church fought viciously to prevent the bible being translated into vulgar tongues that the commoner could understand. One might argue that this was an authoritarian way of stifling the desire for knowledge, and the so-called Dark Ages are a result, except that from my meager explorations in the area, historians are revising the picture of the middle ages as a time of enforced stupidity at the hands of the Church. If anything, the Protestant Reformation has been a flowering of empowerment in which the decisions and sources of knowledge were explicitly delivered into the hands of the Everyman.

But there's an even bigger problem in that this view is rather ethnocentric, and seems most successful only when applied to Semitic Religions. Hellenistic pantheism and Roman pantheism were very egalitarian; to portray them as anti-gnosis (save that nasty little business with Socrates) doesn't jibe with what I know of them, though I confess no more than passing familiarity with them. The religions of the Indian sub-continent, whether Dravidian or Aryan in origin, are hard to reconcile with your model (Buddhism and Jainism alike are also empowering religions in terms of gnosis, and I can't speak intelligently about Hinduism [even in an unfairly simplistic sense], but I do not get the impression that the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita are works aimed at providing easy, smug answers [certainly not the Bhagavad]). I think Taoism is a judgement call, but it doesn't fit in my view as Taoism is about abandoning intellectual understanding in order to discover a more fundamental underlying truth; not exactly the type of anti-knowledge stance you suggest, but like Ch'an and Zen Buddhism, and Christian and Sufi mysticism, the Taoist is arguing that there is a better path to the summit -- not that one should abandon the climb. (And it's worth noting that Theravada Buddhism places explicit emphasis on intellectual understanding; the fact that Hinayana Buddhism was the exclusive province of the elite -- the monks and the nuns-- doesn't fit your model because the commoner wasn't discouraged from pursuing knowledge, he wasn't even allowed to play the game.) I'm not even going to go into the complex and variegated attitudes of the manyfold forms of Buddhism, but just a sampling of the body of literature regarding Tibetan Buddhist Psychology reveals yet another square peg for your round hole. The complex relationship between knowledge, authority, praxis and revelation in the main branches of Chinese philosophy (primitive, Taoist [two kinds], Confucianist, Buddhist [north and south schools], neo-Confucianism and modern folk religion) would take a dissertation length essay to do justice to, but failing some demonstration otherwise, my conclusion is that fitting your model to these religions would take some serious stretching of the fabric of your argument. And that's not even to begin to account for Shinto and the millions of religions which I profess insufficient familiarity with to comment on.

To be blunt, Your model smells of post-facto reasoning; you picked a religion you didn't like, identified what you didn't like about it, and generalized that to all religions. I don't think your ideas stand up well when examined in the context of the broad spectrum of forms that religion has taken. And that's not even counting religions we don't know about and judgment calls that are hard to make: the Eleusinian mystery cults lasted for two millennia -- were they anti-knowledge? Even if we knew the full details of the cults, it would be hard to say that your model is even meaningfully applicable.

Sorry. You need to add some more decals, pinstripes and stickers to your model. As it sits, I don't think it will fly.

[JohnDG]

Your absolutely right, Ive been contempt in understanding the main religions in the western world ive completely forgotten about those in the eastern. Mainly ive only studied Christianity, Catholicism and a little bit of Islam and Judaism. Take in not im not just studying the religions im studying the people that believe in it. Ive been to many churche's around my city and talked to many of the people, none of which are really interested in anything scientific some are hostile to it. Mainly the Catholics for some reason some which still believe in supernatural things like witches and trolls oddly. My model doesn't rightfully encompess the entire world because I havent studdied every religion mainly just the ones closest to me. But from what Ive seen and heard it fits my area quite well.

I live in United States, Lancaster California.

Im not picky but to me a Religion is Religion, therefore to me their all bad and science is the only answer.

"I've actually learned a small bit about buddhism and I don't believe it's truely a religion therefore is excluded. And I might actually practice it so I can get out of all the stupid christian group activities and crap because they narrow mindedly will think it to be a religion."

[Minimalist]

What will happen when the comman people find out they have been ripped off and enslaved?

Over here, they still vote republican.


Just plain stupid, I guess.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What will happen when the common people find out they have been ripped off and enslaved?

Nothing will happen until those who REALLY run our society on a daily basis get really pissed off. I refer to the bourgeoisie.It is they who have fomented every major revolution I can think of since 1776. It is they who stir up the great unwashed.


I'd love to know what's going on in the Middle East right now,with those revolutions. It'll be fascinating to work out who is pulling the strings.One thing I'm pretty sure of; they are not the result of spontaneous uprisings of the common herd.

Min; speaking of being tricked and ripped off: Isn't the incumbent Prez a Democrat? He promised the moon,but has remained curiously earthbound. If I were voting in a US election,I would be voting AGAINST both major showers*.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*for American who may not be familiar " a shower" is English slang and is short for "'shower of shit"'