The role of religion in society

[steve_bank]

Religion goes back to the early civilizations. Does it serve a useful purpose, has it served a useful purpose? The thread is not about rehashing past and present religious excesses.

The Romans beloved religion was essential to social order and cohesion. In the American colonies a church was a community focal point. Historically thr RCC was a source of education for those not born to money. Descartes was educated by Jesuits.

If it developed early and has persisted, is there a survival advantage?

Religion has served to keep a lid on chaos...yes religion is also a source of chaos. Was it also beneficial in the long run?

Free market capitalism has befitted some and devastated others, yet we consider it in the balance a good thing.

 

[none]

If it is faith based it is an unreliable method to determine truth and leads to decisions that are uninformed.
If you already have an answer that is faith based and are convinced the answer is the best there is no reason to search for truth if an informed decision is the objective.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think religion has benefited societies in the same way that smallpox and other diseases have benefited societies. The societies that experienced them became stronger because they developed a resistance or tolerance for the condition.

From a rational perspective, religion is a mindfuck, typical religion is anyway. If one is afflicted and survives the condition one is stronger for the experience, and therefore so is the society.

 

[bilby]

Religion is parasitic on society.

One of the hallmarks of a successful religion is that it claims to be not just a force for good, but the only force for good, and thereby it persuades its victims that they will suffer (not just in the afterlife, but right now) without it.

Religion is touted as cohesive by religion; But what it actually is is restrictive - it stops people from deviating from the norm. It then paints deviancy from the norm as evil, and uses people's innate fear of the 'other' to make them imagine that variation is inherently bad, and conformity inherently good.

But all the best things humanity has are the result of non-conformity.

Worse still, where two or more religions come into contact, their insistence that their version of 'normal' is the only acceptable way to live, leads inevitably to strife and conflict.

All of the things religion claims to do to benefit society are either not benefits; Or not due to religion. Secular law provides a better means to control the harmful elements of a society than religion can - not least because secular law can be responsive to change, and can allow for nuance and subtlety that religious edict cannot.

Religions do charitable works. But so do secular charities - and religions are no less likely than secular organizations to allow the donations to stick to their fingers. The Roman Catholic church has been all about the virtues of giving to the poor for around 1500 years, and as a result Vatican City is positively dripping with gold that somehow hasn't made its way to the hands of the needy quite yet.

Religions are hypocritical, and get almost everything backwards. They teach people to stop thinking, stop innovating, and stop growing.

Societies that have abandoned religion are invariably nicer, safer, and wealthier than those that have embraced it.

Religion is a special case of propaganda - disinformation used by those with power to secure the support of those without power in acting against their own best interests.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Romans beloved religion was essential to social order and cohesion.

How much rigor was there in reaching this conclusion? What was their sample size?
How many societies did they know of that did not have a central religion?
Did all the barbarians around them embrace multiculturalism?
Why, in other words, do we give a shit what the ancient Romans beloved?

Free market capitalism has befitted some and devastated others,

So.... This thread is NOT about rehashing the excesses of your religion, but it is not above using the excesses of competing ideologies if you feel the need.

 

[sinkorswim]

Religions role has always been a tool to manipulate and control the masses for the benefit of the priests and politicians. Sometimes used to help and improve society, but more often leading to unrest, hatred, bigotry, injustice, ignorance, and wars.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

 

[Politesse]

I'm almost hesitant to post here, as I suspect anything not overtly critical of religion is likely to be taken as "fighting words". I'm not trying to criticize or lionize anyone's worldview. But understanding the function of religion in society is one of the oldest questions in the social sciences, and we do know a fair amount about this as a result. Some common social features of religion that are often discussed include:

1. Cohesion

Religion helps to organize society, promote a unified group identity, and delineate between insiders and outsiders

2. Explanation

It also helps to explain things that would otherwise remain inexplicable, both unexplained material phenomenon and deeper questions, like "why am I here? What is the best way to live?" etc

3. Education

Religion often has a role in instruction, especially moral instruction, and helps to pass down cultural values that might otherwise be lost

4. Euphoria

Religious ritual provides feelings of awe, excitement, relief, enlightenment, etc. These experiences are often transformative, leading to changes in personality or motivation, and tend to cement cultural and moral values in the minds of participants, while motivating further action.

5. Revitalization

Rituals also reinforce and reinvigorate the structures and values of society, and its subsets, such as family bonds and so forth. Most public holidays are good examples of this function in action.

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

7. Discipline

Religions provide a paradigm for moral behavior, a watchful community to enforce it, and promise both natural and supernatural punishments for perceived breaches of conduct

8. Support

Again, especially historically, religious hierarchies have been important agents of redistribution, taking in contributions of money and resources, and redistributing on the basis of need. The opening of religious buildings for community use or in times of disaster also qualifies. There is also individual support in terms of emotional counseling, spiritual guidance, and material assistance in times of trouble.​

None of these things can only be done by religion, but religion and other institutions similar to it (economic "theories", nationalist cults) are more efficient at accomplishing these goals, as they present people with a single, cohesive, and compelling worldview that accomplishes all of them at once, as opposed to say a government agency trying to tackle each goal individually and without the automatic buy-in from citizens that comes with an enculturated ideology.

 

[rousseau]

At it's core, religious ideas resolved cognitive dissonance in a time when there were no other explanations for our questions. That is the seed which bred religions. Today these ideas and the organizations they've produced are obviously less useful as we now have alternative explanations to the original problems, and are now dealing with them in more effective ways.

At the same time, I think there is still a human tendency for magical thinking, and so religious ideas may serve some kind of transient, comforting purpose for a lot of people. But that's about as far as I'd go with that.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm almost hesitant to post here, as I suspect anything not overtly critical of religion is likely to be taken as "fighting words". I'm not trying to criticize or lionize anyone's worldview. But understanding the function of religion in society is one of the oldest questions in the social sciences, and we do know a fair amount about this as a result. Some common social features of religion that are often discussed include:

1. Cohesion

Religion helps to organize society, promote a unified group identity, and delineate between insiders and outsiders

2. Explanation

It also helps to explain things that would otherwise remain inexplicable, both unexplained material phenomenon and deeper questions, like "why am I here? What is the best way to live?" etc

3. Education

Religion often has a role in instruction, especially moral instruction, and helps to pass down cultural values that might otherwise be lost

4. Euphoria

Religious ritual provides feelings of awe, excitement, relief, enlightenment, etc. These experiences are often transformative, leading to changes in personality or motivation, and tend to cement cultural and moral values in the minds of participants, while motivating further action.

5. Revitalization

Rituals also reinforce and reinvigorate the structures and values of society, and its subsets, such as family bonds and so forth. Most public holidays are good examples of this function in action.

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

7. Discipline

Religions provide a paradigm for moral behavior, a watchful community to enforce it, and promise both natural and supernatural punishments for perceived breaches of conduct

8. Support

Again, especially historically, religious hierarchies have been important agents of redistribution, taking in contributions of money and resources, and redistributing on the basis of need. The opening of religious buildings for community use or in times of disaster also qualifies. There is also individual support in terms of emotional counseling, spiritual guidance, and material assistance in times of trouble.​

None of these things can only be done by religion, but religion and other institutions similar to it (economic "theories", nationalist cults) are more efficient at accomplishing these goals, as they present people with a single, cohesive, and compelling worldview that accomplishes all of them at once, as opposed to say a government agency trying to tackle each goal individually and without the automatic buy-in from citizens that comes with an enculturated ideology.

Good list.

I might take issue (as many have done) with item 6, especially in relation to certain, very anthropocentric religions such as the very popular Abrahamic ones.

I might also have at least some concerns about item 8, again in relation to certain religions. Possibly to some extent the historical RCC, but definitely the more obviously money-grabbing, self-aggrandising ones.

But no sphere of activity involving hoomans is without flaws and miscreants. Religion has many positives, just like almost everything else. One could alternatively make a list of drawbacks. I suppose, ultimately, religion can be a vehicle for amplifying/justifying whatever other behaviours and ideas people may already have, framing their human nature in other words, for 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

But religions have also been a strong element to resistance to ecology, historically.
Evolution research shows that we're part of a big biosphere, related to every living thing around us, and those religions that teach mankind as a separate construct have rejected environmentalism as communist, Satanist, humanist and just plain anti-Christain.

Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was against environmentalism, exactly because he was sure the Rapture and the End Times were near, so any stewardship of the world's resources just meant that profit was NOT being made. His religious outlook was rather clearly 'rape now, so we won't have regrets in Heaven.'

When you start trying to provide specific positives of religion's role in society, it's dishonest not to also examine the negatives of the very same religion in the same society.

 

[ruby sparks]

At it's core, religious ideas resolved cognitive dissonance in a time when there were no other explanations for our questions. That is the seed which bred religions. Today these ideas and the organizations they've produced are obviously less useful as we now have alternative explanations to the original problems, and are now dealing with them in more effective ways.

At the same time, I think there is still a human tendency for magical thinking, and so religious ideas may serve some kind of transient, comforting purpose for a lot of people. But that's about as far as I'd go with that.

I mostly agree.

With the caveat that the further back you go, it might not have been so much about resolving cognitive dissonance, perhaps. In the relative absence of alternative explanations, it may have been more about resolving curiosity or perhaps general human angst and uncertainty. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance (which I personally think is often overstated by atheists when talking about theists) may have increased alongside the growing number of alternative explanations, as it arguably became harder and harder to use god as an explanation, or use old texts in light of new knowledge.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Learner]

There will be a time when even some Atheists would prefer to go back to some of the religious ethical ideologies imo. (Bilby, Non-conformity of an ideology is really a shifting to a conformity of another ideology).

Taking from an article:

"Leading animal rights activist Camille Labchuck demanded action by the Canadian Government claiming the current legislation gave a green light to individuals to use animals for their own sexual gratification"

Denmark passes law to ban bestiality (wow ...was it legal then?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32411241/denmark-passes-law-to-ban-bestiality
Banned only because its about the abuse of animals ? .

There are people who have sexual preference for children, who want the same legal rights as there is for transgenders. In the secular world without religion when more than enough people get used to the ideology and fight for their equal rights. Who's to say they won't get them eventually ... given time? Anything can become acceptable in the secular world!

Athough a main influence to the subconscious in what ever we see read or hear in the technological age, regardless of age, Its not entirely all about sex ("original sin") phew.

The Aged (including misfortunates, handicapped,poverty stricken) ; Efficiency and usefulness - the contribution to society but only up to a certain age when that indivdual becomes old. Those who are poorer without savings or pensions (life's time paying to live) will be looked upon as burdens especially without any famiy. Future programs introduced to elleviate so-called burdens.. "Logans Run" just came to mind .

 

[no-one-particular]

I'm almost hesitant to post here, as I suspect anything not overtly critical of religion is likely to be taken as "fighting words". I'm not trying to criticize or lionize anyone's worldview. But understanding the function of religion in society is one of the oldest questions in the social sciences, and we do know a fair amount about this as a result. Some common social features of religion that are often discussed include:

1. Cohesion

Religion helps to organize society, promote a unified group identity, and delineate between insiders and outsiders

2. Explanation

It also helps to explain things that would otherwise remain inexplicable, both unexplained material phenomenon and deeper questions, like "why am I here? What is the best way to live?" etc

3. Education

Religion often has a role in instruction, especially moral instruction, and helps to pass down cultural values that might otherwise be lost

4. Euphoria

Religious ritual provides feelings of awe, excitement, relief, enlightenment, etc. These experiences are often transformative, leading to changes in personality or motivation, and tend to cement cultural and moral values in the minds of participants, while motivating further action.

5. Revitalization

Rituals also reinforce and reinvigorate the structures and values of society, and its subsets, such as family bonds and so forth. Most public holidays are good examples of this function in action.

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

7. Discipline

Religions provide a paradigm for moral behavior, a watchful community to enforce it, and promise both natural and supernatural punishments for perceived breaches of conduct

8. Support

Again, especially historically, religious hierarchies have been important agents of redistribution, taking in contributions of money and resources, and redistributing on the basis of need. The opening of religious buildings for community use or in times of disaster also qualifies. There is also individual support in terms of emotional counseling, spiritual guidance, and material assistance in times of trouble.​

None of these things can only be done by religion, but religion and other institutions similar to it (economic "theories", nationalist cults) are more efficient at accomplishing these goals, as they present people with a single, cohesive, and compelling worldview that accomplishes all of them at once, as opposed to say a government agency trying to tackle each goal individually and without the automatic buy-in from citizens that comes with an enculturated ideology.

Sounds familiar to me

Fascism (pronounced: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist or ultranationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists paradoxically promote violence and war as actions that create positive transformation in society (See cognitive dissonance) and exalt militarism as providing national regeneration, spiritual renovation, vitality[3], education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[4] Fascists view conflict as an inevitable fact of life that is responsible for all human progress[5]

Ultimately, it is easier to define fascism by what it is against than by what it is for. Fascism is anti-anarchist, anti-communist, anti-conservative, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois, and anti-proletarian.[6] It entails a distinctive type of anti-capitalism and is typically, with few exceptions, anti-clerical.[7][8] Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.[9] In economics, fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[10]

Indeed, fascism is perhaps best described as "anti-ism"; that is, the philosophy of being against everyone and everything all of the time. The only place where fascism makes any sense is bootcamp. But if fascists had their way they would turn the entire world into one big never-ending boot camp (assholes and elbows).

 

[Politesse]

When you start trying to provide specific positives of religion's role in society, it's dishonest not to also examine the negatives of the very same religion in the same society.

When you start trying to characterize "positives" and "negatives" and other value judgements, you're leaving science behind. Observation can tell you that an effect exists, it can't prove to you that it is "good" or "nice", etc.

Personally, I don't think any of the functions I listed are morally unambiguous. Cohesion can be comforting or hellish depending on where you sit relative to the group; education can be beneficial or damaging depending on the lessons learned; etc. I don't see religion on the whole as having a "negative" effect, but then I'm not an atheist. If you think that God does not in fact exist, it stands to reason that you would prefer daddy government to daddy Jesus when it comes to doling out the social welfare. This I can grok.

 

[funinspace]

Religion goes back to the early civilizations. Does it serve a useful purpose, has it served a useful purpose? The thread is not about rehashing past and present religious excesses.

The Romans beloved religion was essential to social order and cohesion. In the American colonies a church was a community focal point. Historically thr RCC was a source of education for those not born to money. Descartes was educated by Jesuits.

If it developed early and has persisted, is there a survival advantage?

Religion has served to keep a lid on chaos...yes religion is also a source of chaos. Was it also beneficial in the long run?

Free market capitalism has befitted some and devastated others, yet we consider it in the balance a good thing.

As bilby already pointed out in the thread you broke this from:

When we look around the world, we see that the most stable nations are the least religious. And vice-versa.

If religion was a stabilising force, Iceland would be a war-torn hell-hole, and the Middle East an exemplar of peace and stability.

Clinging to an hypothesis in the face of clear evidence against its factuality is the antithesis of reason.

In the dark ages of Europe, there was essentially no such thing as 'no religion', yet that was chaos.

I brought up in the other thread, the point that the US murder rate is about the same as it was in the 1950's. The larger homicide trend in the US and Europe has dropped dramatically since the 19th century. Both of these sets of data run counter to your emotional 'its chaos I tell ya' rant.

 

[funinspace]

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

But religions have also been a strong element to resistance to ecology, historically.
Evolution research shows that we're part of a big biosphere, related to every living thing around us, and those religions that teach mankind as a separate construct have rejected environmentalism as communist, Satanist, humanist and just plain anti-Christain.

Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was against environmentalism, exactly because he was sure the Rapture and the End Times were near, so any stewardship of the world's resources just meant that profit was NOT being made. His religious outlook was rather clearly 'rape now, so we won't have regrets in Heaven.'

When you start trying to provide specific positives of religion's role in society, it's dishonest not to also examine the negatives of the very same religion in the same society.

Additionally, on this specific idea of concern about ecology, how does one attribute this growing concern more exclusively back to religion? By the 1970's religion was even on the decline in the US. Today's US evangelicals are some of the biggest deniers of global warming and generally scoff at so many environmental concerns. They more often than not put economic gains before environmental concerns.. They are not the ones driving Leaf's and Prius'.

 

[Politesse]

6. Ecology

Since the 1970s, there's been a growing awareness of the role that religion has played historically in mediating the contact between human groups and their environment, by adding critical moral value to decisions that are otherwise decided through self-interest. This insight led to the "Deep Ecology" movement, which attempted with varying degrees of success to reproduce the effect artificially.

But religions have also been a strong element to resistance to ecology, historically.
Evolution research shows that we're part of a big biosphere, related to every living thing around us, and those religions that teach mankind as a separate construct have rejected environmentalism as communist, Satanist, humanist and just plain anti-Christain.

Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was against environmentalism, exactly because he was sure the Rapture and the End Times were near, so any stewardship of the world's resources just meant that profit was NOT being made. His religious outlook was rather clearly 'rape now, so we won't have regrets in Heaven.'

When you start trying to provide specific positives of religion's role in society, it's dishonest not to also examine the negatives of the very same religion in the same society.

Additionally, on this specific idea of concern about ecology, how does one attribute this growing concern more exclusively back to religion? By the 1970's religion was even on the decline in the US. Today's US evangelicals are some of the biggest deniers of global warming and generally scoff at so many environmental concerns. They more often than not put economic gains before environmental concerns.. They are not the ones driving Leaf's and Prius'.

Well, hence the deep ecology movement, Earth Day, the promotion of Mother Earth as an alternative deity, etc; many felt that Christianity has essentially lost the plot here, possibly due to interaction with capitalist ideology. Ecological balance may be a potential function of religion, but that doesn't mean all the outcomes of that interaction are fantastic.

If you're interested, the most famous case study demonstrating the link between religion and ecological relationships was Roy Rappaport's study [1] of the Maring, later libricized as "Pigs for the Ancestors", which documented a complex system of religion, war, and ecological exploitation that kept the Tsembaga valley in a rough populational equilibrium for centuries. Note: it was customary at the time to focus on ritual in particular rather than religion in the abstract.

 

[funinspace]

I'm almost hesitant to post here, as I suspect anything not overtly critical of religion is likely to be taken as "fighting words". I'm not trying to criticize or lionize anyone's worldview. But understanding the function of religion in society is one of the oldest questions in the social sciences, and we do know a fair amount about this as a result. Some common social features of religion that are often discussed include:

<list>

None of these things can only be done by religion, but religion and other institutions similar to it (economic "theories", nationalist cults) are more efficient at accomplishing these goals, as they present people with a single, cohesive, and compelling worldview that accomplishes all of them at once, as opposed to say a government agency trying to tackle each goal individually and without the automatic buy-in from citizens that comes with an enculturated ideology.

Sure religion has provided many roles providing societal cohesion and benefits. The western age with much less religion is still pretty young. So things will change and adapt. At the same time some of the things listed can clearly be seen functioning w/o any real organized religion. Is the US as a still very religious nation, better for it, than say the extremely less religious Sweden? Also, it is hard many times to posit that religion shaped change in society, than merely responded to social pressures. The treatment of homosexuality is one of the clearest examples of where society if forcing religion to adapt, rather than religion causing society to adapt towards decency and fairness. Women's rights: who change whom?

 

[Politesse]

I'm almost hesitant to post here, as I suspect anything not overtly critical of religion is likely to be taken as "fighting words". I'm not trying to criticize or lionize anyone's worldview. But understanding the function of religion in society is one of the oldest questions in the social sciences, and we do know a fair amount about this as a result. Some common social features of religion that are often discussed include:

<list>

None of these things can only be done by religion, but religion and other institutions similar to it (economic "theories", nationalist cults) are more efficient at accomplishing these goals, as they present people with a single, cohesive, and compelling worldview that accomplishes all of them at once, as opposed to say a government agency trying to tackle each goal individually and without the automatic buy-in from citizens that comes with an enculturated ideology.

Sure religion has provided many roles providing societal cohesion and benefits. The western age with much less religion is still pretty young. So things will change and adapt. At the same time some of the things listed can clearly be seen functioning w/o any real organized religion. Is the US as a still very religious nation, better for it, than say the extremely less religious Sweden? Also, it is hard many times to posit that religion shaped change in society, than merely responded to social pressures. The treatment of homosexuality is one of the clearest examples of where society if forcing religion to adapt, rather than religion causing society to adapt towards decency and fairness. Women's rights: who change whom?

I tend to agree. Whether or not you call a given social institution a "religion" is subjective, and should have little bearing on its functional effectiveness. Any sufficiently complex worldview will gradually adapt to serve the same functions, else its host society will fracture and dissipate. And it will tend look more "religion-ish" over time or from an outsider's perspective, but that's another question.

 

[rousseau]

At it's core, religious ideas resolved cognitive dissonance in a time when there were no other explanations for our questions. That is the seed which bred religions. Today these ideas and the organizations they've produced are obviously less useful as we now have alternative explanations to the original problems, and are now dealing with them in more effective ways.

At the same time, I think there is still a human tendency for magical thinking, and so religious ideas may serve some kind of transient, comforting purpose for a lot of people. But that's about as far as I'd go with that.

I mostly agree.

With the caveat that the further back you go, it might not have been so much about resolving cognitive dissonance, perhaps. In the relative absence of alternative explanations, it may have been more about resolving curiosity or perhaps general human angst and uncertainty. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance (which I personally think is often overstated by atheists when talking about theists) may have increased alongside the growing number of alternative explanations, as it arguably became harder and harder to use god as an explanation, or use old texts in light of new knowledge.

Just my thoughts.

That's true. Ancient Greece and Rome are examples of some of the first communities where prosperity allowed people enough time to ask why. As far as I can tell theology in those days was almost analogous to scientific experimentation and philosophy of these days.

To modern eyes the results look primitive, but they were doing the best thinking they could with the materials and knowledge they had.