The role of religion in society

[Jobar]

This is from a thread I started back in 2002, which I titled "The good side of religion".

On Saturday, Nov. 23, my family gathered to bury the ashes of my oldest first cousin, David.

There were 21 people who were either born or are presently Barneses at the small Methodist church in Durand, an unincorporated town- little more than a wide spot in the road. My family has had a lot in the cemetery behind the church since the nineteen twenties- my grandfather and grandmother, an uncle and two aunts, and three (now four) cousins are there. All the stones have Barnes engraved on them.

It was a fine day, and my father had asked Bob, the pastor of the nearby Warm Springs Baptist Church, to say a few words- even though he did not know David, he has been a friend of my parents for many years now, and spoke with my father for many hours about my deceased cousin. As you might expect, I was prepared to endure a sermon in silence- but much to my surprise, it was not the trial I expected.

Bob spoke of the love of my uncle and aunt, and of the children they had. He spoke of the good things my cousin had done- his painting, and his poetry, and his singing at the Savannah Cathedral where he was a choir member for many years. He told tales of my cousin's visits to the farm where I grew up as a boy, where he often spent whole summers when I was young and he was in his late teens and early twenties (David was 12 years older than I.) Bob spoke of his battles with depression, and his lifelong mediocre health.

And though he did add an occasional 'God blessed' and 'thank the Lord' and other preacherspeak, almost all his eulogy was completely secular, and very moving. One of his main points was that we were there to talk about David- and that since every one of us would one day be talked about in the same way, it was a good idea to live our lives so that the eulogizers at our gravesides would have lots of good things to say!

Even his final prayer was based on Ecclesiastes- 'To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.'

I counted only three times when comments were made to the effect that 'he's gone to a better place now'- and perhaps it was just me, but they all seemed rather strained and artificial. David's funeral- memorial service actually, as he died in late September, and was cremated and his ashes were interred beside his parents- could have been shortened by fewer than a hundred words, and then would have been completely secular.

I was stunned, and delighted. David was Catholic, and I feel sure that was why the Baptist minister kept religion to a minimum- but the fact that he did so, and still made a fine and moving service, shows me what religion might be were the silliness of God removed.

An aside- all the adults there, save for Frank and Mary, David's siblings- are local, and no doubt read my letters in the local papers. And when I shook hands with the ones I had not seen since the letters were published- well perhaps I was imagining it, but it seemed I got some *very* strange looks! But nothing was said, and the event proved to be all that a funeral should be- a goodbye, and a closure, and an affirmation of familial love. I am very glad I was there.

We need to remember that religion is not all Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, Mohammed Atta and Jim Jones. It's also the ones like Rev. Joshua, and Bob Patterson. It has its human face, as well as the inhuman one.

(From later in that thread-)

If religion were always the dogmatic and mind-closing force that we all know that it can be- the evil which wears the mask of good- I am at a loss how it can inspire and fulfill such men as Bob Patterson, and some of the members of my own family. The dogma and doublethink is there, no one doubts it. But there is also a humanistic aspect- the best religious thinkers know that religion is for humans more than for gods.

For so many people, God is synonymous with good. We all have seen the knee-jerk reaction which equates atheism with evil; for the ones who don't have the brains, or the inclination, to try to work out the meanings and values of life in their own minds, religion is like a ready made suit which they can don without the effort of tailoring their own. (Oh, it will bind in some places, and sag in others; seldom does an off-the-rack suit fit like tailor made.)

The ethics espoused by most Jews, Christians and Muslims are usually good, by and large. I think that the ones who look for the darker and more hateful side are dark and hateful people; they use religion as a justification for the pride and greed and powerlust inborn in their personalities. If ever a religion could be made which blocked this- which did not allow evil to wear a mask of good- ahhh, I suppose that's just wishful thinking.

Still- that day, in back of that little country church, the sound of birds and cows and chickens in the distance, and the quiet and sonorous voice of that preacher speaking homely truths about my cousin, and life, and death- I saw that part of religion *is* a quest for what is good and loving and fine in this mix of good and evil we experience. Imperfect and simplistic and corruptible, oh aye; but for many, it serves as a template for a good life.

Hey, I am still an atheist. I see the dark side of that which claims to have no dark side. I see the repressed fear and the smothered hatred of the new and the different. I see that it is sometimes a mask for unspeakableness. But... I see that isn't *all* it is. For some people, it's the way they express the goodness within themselves.

And if we don't seek the good in life- what then do we seek?

 

[Keith&Co.]

There will be a time when even some Atheists would prefer to go back to some of the religious ethical ideologies imo.

No, I think atheists will hope to advance to actually develop ethical ideologies based on rational morals we can agree on, rather than pretend that sky fairies reveal and/or sponsor the rules.

And while there are organizations that are trying to lower the age of consent openly, through legal means, they're getting tremendous pushback. Compare that to the RCC, which has done everything in its power to hide pedophiles from secular, legal authorities, and silence the witnesses. Atheists are in no hurry to return to such "religious ethical" systems...

 

[ruby sparks]

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 .

Ah yes. The potential scariness of the world without religion.

Seriously, if there were any reliable indicators that lack of religion makes things worse, I'd sympathise with this general view. As it is, I think it's a natural viewpoint, for a worried theist, and that's all.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I think the point was that they're all positives.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

That so many are still cited today speaks volumes.

I'm not a fan of saying that Christianity necessarily caused the 'Dark Ages' which happened, to some extent, between then and now, but it is broadly true that many of the old, bright threads got picked up again during the renaissance and up to modern times, which also broadly coincided with growing scepticism about religion, in the 'west' at least.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think I/we missed a biggie, rousseau.

One very important, practical role of religion (aka organised superstition) was to make stuff work on a day-to-day, year-by-year basis. Methods included rain dances, magic spells, sacrifices, and/or praying, not all of which are still in common use in modern, 'western' religions.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Religion was a good way to help hold societies together in ages where there weren't really better options. Today, we have those better options and religion has become more of a drag on society than anything else.

It's like how you need a decent scaffolding in place to build a building, but once it's up, the building suffers by keeping the scaffolding sitting there.

 

[southernhybrid]

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 .

Wow! What a bunch of nasty assumptions. Are you a Christian because you can't be good without god? I've had Christians tell me that they need god to be good. Well guess what? People aren't moral because of religion, at least most of us aren't. People, and many other animals, most notably primates, experience empathy. Some variation of the golden rule has been found in all cultures. Empathy is what helps us do the right thing. Caring and advocating for others has its own rewards. We don't need religion to experience those rewards.

It's also rather disappointing that you equate transgenders with pedophiles. Transgendered folks don't hurt anyone. Pedophiles hurt children. Rapists hurt their victims. Some crazy incels think rape should be legal. Bestiality? Are you seriously equating that with secularism? Maybe you need to take a look at what some of the American Christian extremists did to women in the early 20th Century. There are all kinds of immoral people in the world. Nazis were Christians or have you forgotten that? Psychopathy is a brain disease and psychopaths lack a moral core. None of this has a thing to do with religion or atheism. Genetics and environment have the most influence on people, so immorality can be found among all varieties of people.

There are some benefits of religion, imo, but I will need some time to gather my thoughts on that.

One negative about religion or any type of strict ideology is that it often brings out the worst in people, Group thought can be a very harmful thing. Do I need to mention Nazis again?

 

[funinspace]

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.

Sure, I have no problem with the above. Much of my comments are due to comments by Steve along these lines that came from the thread he broke this off of, like the below:

Agreed.
Which is why I'm questioning your conclusion sans that research.
It seems shallow, knee-jerky.

Asked to provide a means of proving causation rather than just correlation, you list even more correlation.

This would be a topic for social science or morality.

I ascribe to freethought, looking at a problem without regard to ideology or personal belief. While not religious and often critical of religion I can acknowledge positive aspects of religion.

At the state level religion has always functioned as a stable reference point countering chaos. The Romans considered religion essential to stability.

We are seeing a rise in chaos among the people reflected in Congress and POTUS.

On what basis do you think that next year or even the next day will be stable?

Can our wide open most anything goes culture maintain cohesion without a moderating force? I am beginning to think no.

Now I have David Bowie's "The Pretty Things Are Going to Hell" rattling around in my head...

 

[rousseau]

I think I/we missed a biggie, rousseau.

One very important, practical role of religion (aka organised superstition) was to make stuff work on a day-to-day, year-by-year basis. Methods included rain dances, magic spells, sacrifices, and/or praying, not all of which are still in common use in modern, 'western' religions.

To an extent I think that's covered by the 'cognitive dissonance' thing I mentioned, or in the least by concerns that people had.

The world could be random and cruel, and beliefs usually acted as a psychological elixir, whether that was summoning spirits to cure disease, ensuring a good harvest, or what have you.

These days the psychological elixir is still there, but I'd argue it's sometimes only applied to problems we still have, e.g. the afterlife.

If there was one common thread that I've found in my studying religion over the past few years it's that material reality acts as the mold, and the belief system usually conforms to whatever the mold is doing. Whether it's natives showing respect to the bodies killed in their hunts, or a Christian who just wants to go to heaven, everything else being ok.

Now, in the West I think what we're seeing is Abrahamic religions adapt to modernity and scientific understanding. They twist and turn to try to stay relevant despite growing evidence that they shouldn't exist.

 

[bilby]

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)

Learner, no. It seriously fucking isn't.

Whoever told you that was lying to you.

Try telling a cop that nonconformity to the speed limit is really a shifting to conformity with another speed limit.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm pretty ok with calling atheism an ideology.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm pretty ok with calling atheism an ideology.

Meh.

It's one answer to one question.

HOW one became an atheist may be the result of an ideology. But it seems to me to be akin to calling a belt someone's costume.

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty ok with calling atheism an ideology.

So am I.

But it's not an ideology in which one might not conform. You can't break the rules of atheism, and you never have to set up your own sect of nonconformist atheists because the conformist atheists disagree with your way of not believing in gods.

To continue an analogy, having no speed limit is perfectly possible; But drivers on an Autobahn cannot be said to be 'conforming with' the absence of a speed limit.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm pretty ok with calling atheism an ideology.

So am I.

But it's not an ideology in which one might not conform. You can't break the rules of atheism, and you never have to set up your own sect of nonconformist atheists because the conformist atheists disagree with your way of not believing in gods.

To continue an analogy, having no speed limit is perfectly possible; But drivers on an Autobahn cannot be said to be 'conforming with' the absence of a speed limit.

If you believed in god you would not conform.

I'm not entirely sure I go with the idea that atheism is merely the lack of something.

I used to. Now I'm not sure.

It's a worldview which involves not believing that something in particular is not a part of that world.

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty ok with calling atheism an ideology.

So am I.

But it's not an ideology in which one might not conform. You can't break the rules of atheism, and you never have to set up your own sect of nonconformist atheists because the conformist atheists disagree with your way of not believing in gods.

To continue an analogy, having no speed limit is perfectly possible; But drivers on an Autobahn cannot be said to be 'conforming with' the absence of a speed limit.

If you believed in god you would not conform.

I'm not entirely sure I go with the idea that atheism is merely the lack of something.

I used to. Now I'm not sure.

It's a worldview which involves not believing that something in particular is not a part of that world.

I am an aunicornist too. It's not a worldview; It's just a fact about reality that it doesn't include unicorns. If I am wrong, and unicorns exist, I will, when I see the evidence of my error, change my position. However that will make me a unicornist, not an non-conforming aunicornist.

 

[ruby sparks]

...I am an aunicornist too. It's not a worldview...

Yeah I know.

But oddly I'd still say what I said.

So if I used the word 'Weltanschauung', then that means 'worldview/ideology/philosophy of life'.

And you already agreed that the word ideology was ok.

 

[bilby]

...I am an aunicornist too. It's not a worldview...

Yeah I know.

But oddly I'd still say what I said.

So if I used the word 'Weltanschauung', then that means 'worldview/ideology/philosophy of life'.

And you already agreed that the word ideology was ok.

Any of these words are fine, as long as you don't attach to them more meaning than is there

I am completely comfortable with the idea that both atheism and aunicornism are merely the lack of something. Neither exists in the absence of people who insist on the actual reality of fictional things. There are more theists than there are unicornists, so atheism is more frequently seen than aunicornism; But other than that, they are just like all the other lackings of belief, in the infinite number of purely fictional entities.

Humans tell stories, and make stuff up; It's what we do. This trait implies a need to understand where reality ends and fiction begins, but we enjoy blurring that line, so it is sometimes very difficult to do.

Atheism is merely the condition of not accepting as fact, a set of tall tales involving impossible entities.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm just not as sure as I used to be that atheism is merely the lack of something, I guess. Maybe in a dictionary, but not in practice.

 

[bilby]

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​

Indeed it does. I contend that in so doing it does more harm than good.

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

I could not agree less. Religion explains nothing; It merely provides a fiction as placeholder for an explanation. Either there is a real explanation out there, in which case religion is needless for this purpose; Or there is not, in which case it is more honest and less harmful to say "I do not know".

3. Education

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

Again, this can be done better without religion. Religion merely passes down poorly thought out dogmatic instructions and values that we would often be better off losing. Those values and morals that are worth keeping are independent of religion, despite the ongoing campaign by religions to lay claim to them.

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.

Again, this does not require religion; And where religions provide motivation, it is often harmful to society. The Spanish inquisition were highly motivated.

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.

Public holidays in no way require religion. Our values are far better reinforced by secular holidays such as Australia Day, ANZAC Day and Labour Day, than by Christmas or Easter, both of which are almost completely devoid of religious content as celebrated by most people in the developed world.

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.

Others have already pointed out how religion is used to justify the destruction of our environment for profit.

Again, religion doesn't actually help here - it just provides an excuse not to listen to other opinions than ones own. If you want to save the planet for God; Or rape the planet for God, you are better served taking away the 'God' and doing some serious thinking about what you really want and need to do, and why.

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

I see this as one of the primary drawbacks of religion. Discipline is not virtuous. It is the antithesis of freedom. It is occasionally necessary, but should be applied in moderation, and on the basis of morals, not dogmas. Religion (like any authority) cannot be a source of morality.

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.

Again, religion is completely needless for this purpose. It tries to pretend that it is somehow an essential part of all that - but that's a self-serving lie. Of course religions claim to be a huge boon to the societies they parasitise; If they didn't, they wouldn't last five minutes.
​

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.

Trying to deal with the complexity of reality with a single all encompassing ideology is fucking stupid. It's like a toolkit in which every tool is a hammer.

 

[rousseau]

Religion was a good way to help hold societies together in ages where there weren't really better options. Today, we have those better options and religion has become more of a drag on society than anything else.

It's like how you need a decent scaffolding in place to build a building, but once it's up, the building suffers by keeping the scaffolding sitting there.

This was a point I used to make, but these days I wonder if it's actually true.

At first glance the moral codes of a lot of religions would seem to have some kind of unifying and moralizing effect, and yet the pre-modern period doesn't strike me as an overly moral time. It's hard to say what impact religion actually had on day to day life, but from what I can gather the world was a somewhat brutal place before stable democracies became a thing, despite religions being in place.

So anymore I wonder if religion was more like a social phenomenon that ran in parallel with other trends, like democratization and technical innovation. Not really something that was actually holding anything in place, in itself, but instead just a thing that people did, and still do.