The role of religion in society

[bilby]

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.

It's interesting to speculate about just how much the church helped to maintain stability in medieval Europe. The feudal system was pretty effective at keeping the peasants in their place, and the fear of big blokes in metal suits turning up on their horses and burning your home, raping your daughters, and butchering you and your sons, was probably at least as effective as the fear of hell in keeping society from violent revolt.

 

[Learner]

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.

Of course there are good people in all walks of life. The good Samaritan(s). I understand what you're getting at although... Christians /Saints are not nazi's but then, those claiming to be Christian while doing those nazi-type things is also not Christian. Perhaps we should destinguish religion as according to individual group ideologies that can be a misleading genralisation , especially if opposite to the actual "Christian theology" itself i.e. IF not being more of the Jesus-like religion.

Are we to say then that those who are non-religious physcopaths/ dictators/murderers should mean atheism?

Anyone can wear the garment but they may not be the right person to wear it. Quite easy to say Christians did this and that when some of the atheists arguments also point out against believers when they say: " You can't be Christian because Jesus didn't say do this or that ... i.e. doing the actual opposite to His teachings.

But fair enough... religion acting like the cult form, that is adaptive through time by particular leader(s) or false prophets, is an ideology that doesn't follow the original doctrine ...Unless of course there are religions that exist ; that have alternative doctrines, allowing practises that are harmful to human beings.

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.

They (pedophiles) equated to transgenders themselves that "their rights" should be recognised in the same way. My point is that: sexuality in all its various preferences forms among people is in the context :as to whether there IS that legal right (argued) besides the gray area - where the morality line is, in this regard. Given time this may be acceptable (when its argued for... often enough).

 

[Lion IRC]

Pedophiles hurt children.

Why don't they agree with your claim?
They say kids can enjoy stuff.
They say kids can give consent. (Especially gay kids)
They say what kids don't know can't hurt them.
They say we do shit loads of stuff to kids without their permission.

Rapists hurt their victims.

Are you talking about in the animal kingdom?

Some crazy incels think rape should be legal.

Law of the jungle?

Bestiality? Are you seriously equating that with secularism

Have you got a secular argument against dogs being allowed to hump humans if they both consent?
BTW - In many cases of beastiality, the animal giving consent is the human/primate.

 

[southernhybrid]

Why don't they agree with your claim?
They say kids can enjoy stuff.
They say kids can give consent. (Especially gay kids)
They say what kids don't know can't hurt them.
They say we do shit loads of stuff to kids without their permission.



Are you talking about in the animal kingdom?

Some crazy incels think rape should be legal.

Law of the jungle?

Bestiality? Are you seriously equating that with secularism

Have you got a secular argument against dogs being allowed to hump humans if they both consent?
BTW - In many cases of beastiality, the animal giving consent is the human/primate.

That's not even worth giving a thoughtful response. It's nonsense. Why don't you stop judging the morality of people who don't share your Christian beliefs and come to terms with the fact that people are primarily influenced by their genetics and their environment? Stop judging and making up nonsense about people that don't agree with you! It sounds as if you're saying that if it wasn't for your beliefs, you'd be having sex with dogs? Is that it? I really don't think that dogs are capable of consensual sex with humans, although I once had a chihuahua who seemed to enjoy humping a particular toy, despite the fact that he was neutered. You and Lerner seem to have some kind of obsession with bestiality. Yuck!

But, I do think that religion can sometimes have positives for some people.

Religion helps people keep from feeling isolated. For example, one of my former patients was a Jehovah Witness. She was a very difficult person to be around, demanding, and sometimes very manipulative. I always tried my best to be a patient advocate for her. I knew that she suffered from being abused as a child, as well as being cognitively immature. In other words, she was a 70 plus year old child. Other than me, her JW friends were the only ones that ever visited her or did little things for her. So, I came to the conclusion that there are some people in the world that need community so badly, that they will join a religious group for community and emotional support. I salute religious folks who are willing to put in the time caring for people like my former patient. Another example of this would be the Black Christian church and the organization of the Civil Rights Movement. Ironically, Christianity was once used to justify slavery, but later it was used as a defense of civil rights for all. Religion can become progressive over time.

Religion gives people hope. Imo, it's false hope but who cares? If the belief in an afterlife and a supernatural power helps you cope with the sometimes very harsh aspects of reality, then it's helpful. I remember a prayer from my ex husband's religion, the Baha'i Faith. "Is there any remover of difficulties, save God, Say praise be god. He is god. All are his servants and all abide by his bidding. ( something like that ) Ritualistic prayers and meditations sometimes keep people calm. They help people have hope. Hope is something that helps us cope. My husband's late grandmother was a Syrian Catholic. She spent many hours a day with her rosary beads in her lap. I think her prayers brought her peace. She was a very tolerant, lovely person, who was probably helped by her rituals and beliefs.

Religion can sometimes inspire us to be better people. I feel I am able to be good without god, but I have known several people that have told me that they can't be good without god. They have told me that Jesus keeps them straight. I like some of the ideas of the NT, like helping the poor, having compassion and not judging others. Not all Christians abide by these NT teachings, but some are certainly motivated by them. For example. Many years ago, my husband and I were in a car accident. We were stranded about 25 miles from home, in an area where it was hard to find a taxi. A man overheard me trying to phone a friend without success and he offered to drive us home. During the ride home, he told us that his pastor had preached about doing more for others during the last Sunday service and that motivated him to give us a long, out of the way, drive home. He was certainly a good man. He may not have volunteered to drive us home if he hadn't been inspired by his church. I really don't know, but as we two atheists sat quietly, glancing at each other in the back seat of his SUV, you better believe that we were glad that he had attended church in the past week.

So, I've given you three things that religion can sometimes be good for, but there are plenty of people who don't have religion that also do outstanding things for others. Case in point. Several months ago, my husband and I decided to attend the Atlanta Freethought Society's monthly meeting. We were once members and hoped to see some old friends. The speaker was a retired atheist nurse who voluntarily traveled the world, often with Christian nurses, to care for people in other countries that were extremely poor, sometimes ravaged by the impact of war and disease, but always without good access to medical care. She was getting ready to get back on the road to travel to Africa for her next act of kindness and caring. I found her very inspiring, although I will readily admit, that I don't have the courage or will to do something that selfless and remarkable. My point is that one doesn't need religion to be highly moral, and inspiring.

So, don't tell me about your beliefs, which might seem sensible to you but seem like total nonsense to me. Tell me the good things that your beliefs have inspired you to do. Then, at least I can respect you, regardless of what influenced you to be a better person. My personal philosophy is that we should not judge others based on their beliefs. Other than genetic luck, there have been many things in my life that inspired me to be a better person, and none of them have a thing to do with religion. If we must judge people at all, let it be by their character. Yes. It's hard at times, but I keep reminding myself that we are all influenced by very different factors.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think its important to realize the there is nothing inherently positive about something being "useful". Rape, murder, and actually setting off nuclear bombs all can be argued to have utility to those that employ them. Similarly, every "tool" is also a "weapon".

Part of the problem is the vagueness of the word "religion". Many things that were useful customs and social celebrations might be called paganism, but that doesn't make them any more religious than a group of atheists who get together every fall to eat, sing, and dance to celebrated the fall harvest. But then along come Abrahamic monotheism with a specific ideological agenda and co-opts these social practices for its own gain and the gain of those in power, turning a useful pasttime into a structured weapon of control.

This can be well illustrated by showing how each of the following that were offered with a more positive spin about "religion" in the broadest sense have been used by monotheistic religion to do more harm than good.

1. Cohesion

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

Which has most often meant promote inequality, authoritarian power structures, and xenophobic violence toward outgroups, mostly for the benefit of the few at the top of the hierarchy. Equality and democracy are messy and disorderly.

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

IOW, it stifles intellectual progress by insisting on answers without validation (and thus almost always wrong) and punishing those who dare to seek better explanations, because accepting that new knowledge invalidates the authority.
It also imposes answers to questions of existential values and morals, rather than allowing people to find their own purpose and allowing intellectual progress to inform and progress our moral reasoning.

3. Education

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

Similar to above, it stifles real education in favor of authoritarian indoctrination. Any values with either intellectual or widespread functional utility would not be "lost" without this. Such indoctrination is only required to preserve cultural values that are useless or destructive to the masses but serve the interest of the powerful who determine the contents of the religion.

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, religion has done more to restrict and confine these things than encourage them. Music, art, and celebration long predate organized religion and are outlets and vehicles for these things. Religion does far more to limit music, art, and celebrations to only a narrow band of acceptable forms, reducing how well these things actually fit the context and psychological/sociological needs of the people.

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.

This seems another area (like music and art) where religion has done more to co-opt and control these things that much broader and more secular. Turning largely secular harvest and solstice celebrations that served more broad social functions into promotions of a narrow theistic ideology.

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.

I don't think it is a coincidence that secular communities today show stronger commitments to ecology than religious ones. The self depends upon the environment. Thus the masses acting in self interest is actually far more environmentally friendly than when they act in accord with religious dictates, which are overwhelmingly only in the interests of a powerful few, who can typically use their power to shield themselves from the harmful effects of these actions.

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

Again, the inequality inherent to monotheism and to most systems with formal religious doctrines (and thus authorities) means that the rules are primarily enforced to benefit only a minority at the top. Also, supernatural punishments are often used to passify the masses from actually acting to demand justice in the natural world. There is a good reason why the powerful almost always try to promote religion among those they enslave and abuse.


In sum, formal religions with doctrines and authorities tend to take these qualities that are no really religious per se and abuse them toward controlling ends that stifle well being and progress that would benefit the many.​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Similar to above, it stifles real education in favor of authoritarian indoctrination. Any values with either intellectual or widespread functional utility would not be "lost" without this. Such indoctrination is only required to preserve cultural values that are useless or destructive to the masses but serve the interest of the powerful who determine the contents of the religion.

There's religion, there's science, and there's fundamentalism. It can be argued that fundamentalism is not religion. At it's best religion seeks knowledge, explanations and answers that satisfy and enhance the human condition. Scientific knowledge is not incompatible with religious explanations. It is fundamentalism that rejects scientific knowledge and imposes authority.

But religion is still simply superstition practiced at the group level.

 

[ronburgundy]

Similar to above, it stifles real education in favor of authoritarian indoctrination. Any values with either intellectual or widespread functional utility would not be "lost" without this. Such indoctrination is only required to preserve cultural values that are useless or destructive to the masses but serve the interest of the powerful who determine the contents of the religion.

There's religion, there's science, and there's fundamentalism. It can be argued that fundamentalism is not religion.

It can be far more reasonably argued that only fundamentalism is religion, since fundamentalism is really nothing more than sincere religious believe and implementing those beliefs in everyday life as one would if they actually believed. Every person that steps on their brakes to decelerate and the gas pedal to accelerate is a "fundamentalist" when it comes to belief about physics underlying automobiles. Similarly for every user of every technology. Fundamentalist religionist are those that actually think and act like the founding documents of their religion are something more real than just another of countless fictional fables.

At it's best religion seeks knowledge, explanations and answers that satisfy and enhance the human condition.

Almost never is this true. Religion seeks emotionally satisfying conclusion in place of knowledge, because actual knowledge is usually too ambiguous, uncertain, and complex to placate the fear and other emotional predilections of those who create and promote religious ideas.

Scientific knowledge is not incompatible with religious explanations.

They very often logically exclusive (which is why religious leaders have more often than not attacked novel scientific ideas). Perhaps more importantly, every valid definition of the basic principles of the scientific method is the logical opposite of what it means to believe based upon faith. As already explained and ignored by you, There would be no need for the concept of faith as a basis of belief if it were simply the same as reasoning. Religion is nearly the sole promoter of the idea that faith as an epistemology is virtuous, which is because religion cannot and has never thrived when the liberty to engage in reasoned thought has been permitted.

It is fundamentalism that rejects scientific knowledge and imposes authority.

The very concept of a creator God is the most authoritarian idea ever conceived and is logically incompatible with the masses using their own reasoning to decide what the moral/political policies should be in their community. The Bible and Koran repeatedly endorse the divine justice of genocide against all those whose only "sin" is applying their own free will and reasoning to doubt that the God of Abraham exists and/or is worthy of worship.

It is not coincidence that every study done on these variables shows that strength of belief in monotheism is highly correlated with authoritarian values and political preferences, racist worldviews, misogyny, and just about every form of government sponsors bigotry there is.

But religion is still simply superstition practiced at the group level.

Superstition is by definition the opposite of rational thinking and thus of science. At the group level , any such anti-rational ideas that cannot be promoted via reason, can only be promoted by force and emotional manipulation which are anti-thetical to democracy, liberty, and reason. I explained all of this in detail in my prior post, yet you responded to zero of my actual argument, which is predictable because your faith based worldview makes you blind to reasoned argument.

 

[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.

It's interesting to speculate about just how much the church helped to maintain stability in medieval Europe. The feudal system was pretty effective at keeping the peasants in their place, and the fear of big blokes in metal suits turning up on their horses and burning your home, raping your daughters, and butchering you and your sons, was probably at least as effective as the fear of hell in keeping society from violent revolt.

Yea, I can't imagine Christianity in the middle ages was much different than Christianity now, in that people followed the religion but their behavior didn't necessarily reflect their beliefs. Or if it did reflect their beliefs, those beliefs were twisted in such a way to support whatever it was that they wanted to do anyway.

I think it's quite likely that a lot of people literally believed and it did impact their behavior, but to the extent that it held society together, eh, I dunno if that's just giving it too much credit. If nothing else it probably served as more of a social/ritual club for a lot of communities. People having common reason to get together and sing, talk, eat.

 

[Politesse]

It's interesting to speculate about just how much the church helped to maintain stability in medieval Europe. The feudal system was pretty effective at keeping the peasants in their place, and the fear of big blokes in metal suits turning up on their horses and burning your home, raping your daughters, and butchering you and your sons, was probably at least as effective as the fear of hell in keeping society from violent revolt.

Yea, I can't imagine Christianity in the middle ages was much different than Christianity now, in that people followed the religion but their behavior didn't necessarily reflect their beliefs. Or if it did reflect their beliefs, those beliefs were twisted in such a way to support whatever it was that they wanted to do anyway.

I think it's quite likely that a lot of people literally believed and it did impact their behavior, but to the extent that it held society together, eh, I dunno if that's just giving it too much credit. If nothing else it probably served as more of a social/ritual club for a lot of communities. People having common reason to get together and sing, talk, eat.

And you think that isn't what holds societies together?

 

[rousseau]

It's interesting to speculate about just how much the church helped to maintain stability in medieval Europe. The feudal system was pretty effective at keeping the peasants in their place, and the fear of big blokes in metal suits turning up on their horses and burning your home, raping your daughters, and butchering you and your sons, was probably at least as effective as the fear of hell in keeping society from violent revolt.

Yea, I can't imagine Christianity in the middle ages was much different than Christianity now, in that people followed the religion but their behavior didn't necessarily reflect their beliefs. Or if it did reflect their beliefs, those beliefs were twisted in such a way to support whatever it was that they wanted to do anyway.

I think it's quite likely that a lot of people literally believed and it did impact their behavior, but to the extent that it held society together, eh, I dunno if that's just giving it too much credit. If nothing else it probably served as more of a social/ritual club for a lot of communities. People having common reason to get together and sing, talk, eat.

And you think that isn't what holds societies together?

1) Not sure what 'holding societies together' actually means in the context of the OP. I took it to mean an institution that was intrinsic to the functioning of society during the time. I'm not sure that's true of the Christian church as medieval society wasn't super functional. I don't think 'being a social club' qualifies as something 'intrinsic to to the functioning of society'.

2) Explain why there being a social club was intrinsic to the theology/administration of Christianity and not just the reality of how people organize themselves, with Christianity acting as the vehicle during it's period of prominence in history

On the second point I think the best you can say is that Christianity was early Europe's iteration of religion and was a fundamental part of the world at the time, but also that when Christian theology goes away all that will realistically happen is that people will stop acting on it as a belief system, which should in theory be a net positive because it's ideas are outdated and incorrect.

 

[Politesse]

1) Not sure what 'holding societies together' actually means in the context of the OP. I took it to mean an institution that was intrinsic to the functioning of society during the time. I'm not sure that's true of the Christian church as medieval society wasn't super functional. I don't think 'being a social club' qualifies as something 'intrinsic to to the functioning of society'.

I don't see anything in the OP about "intrinsic to the functioning of society", so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Society is a complicated beast; it cannot be explained by only a single factor, in any place or time.

2) Explain why there being a social club was intrinsic to the theology/administration of Christianity and not just the reality of how people organize themselves, with Christianity acting as the vehicle during it's period of prominence in history.

And now I feel you are adding a bunch of "connotation" to both the OP and my own post. And I am very puzzled by your dismissal of regular social contact as "just the reality of how people organize themselves". People organizing themselves is a pretty important thing, if understanding the functioning of society is your goal. It is the goal. Not an aside. Or a "social club". Without organized social interaction, there is no society to talk about. Society is in fact defined as a community of people in persistent social relationships. Persistent social relationships do not exist unless a regular context for the same also exists.

Uninterested in the rest. Seemingly everyone believes that their belief system will somehow save the human world from our own nature, "some day, when everyone agrees with ME"; in my opinion, the proof is in the pudding!

 

[rousseau]

1) Not sure what 'holding societies together' actually means in the context of the OP. I took it to mean an institution that was intrinsic to the functioning of society during the time. I'm not sure that's true of the Christian church as medieval society wasn't super functional. I don't think 'being a social club' qualifies as something 'intrinsic to to the functioning of society'.

I don't see anything in the OP about "intrinsic to the functioning of society", so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Society is a complicated beast; it cannot be explained by only a single factor, in any place or time.

2) Explain why there being a social club was intrinsic to the theology/administration of Christianity and not just the reality of how people organize themselves, with Christianity acting as the vehicle during it's period of prominence in history.

And now I feel you are adding a bunch of "connotation" to both the OP and my own post. And I am very puzzled by your dismissal of regular social contact as "just the reality of how people organize themselves". People organizing themselves is a pretty important thing, if understanding the functioning of society is your goal. It is the goal. Not an aside. Or a "social club". Without organized social interaction, there is no society to talk about. Society is in fact defined as a community of people in persistent social relationships. Persistent social relationships do not exist unless a regular context for the same also exists.

Uninterested in the rest. Seemingly everyone believes that their belief system will somehow save the human world from our own nature, "some day, when everyone agrees with ME"; in my opinion, the proof is in the pudding!

Maybe look for the post that spurred my reply and start from there? And if my definition of 'holding society together' isn't good for you then propose another one.

 

[bilby]

It's interesting to speculate about just how much the church helped to maintain stability in medieval Europe. The feudal system was pretty effective at keeping the peasants in their place, and the fear of big blokes in metal suits turning up on their horses and burning your home, raping your daughters, and butchering you and your sons, was probably at least as effective as the fear of hell in keeping society from violent revolt.

Yea, I can't imagine Christianity in the middle ages was much different than Christianity now, in that people followed the religion but their behavior didn't necessarily reflect their beliefs. Or if it did reflect their beliefs, those beliefs were twisted in such a way to support whatever it was that they wanted to do anyway.

I think it's quite likely that a lot of people literally believed and it did impact their behavior, but to the extent that it held society together, eh, I dunno if that's just giving it too much credit. If nothing else it probably served as more of a social/ritual club for a lot of communities. People having common reason to get together and sing, talk, eat.

And you think that isn't what holds societies together?

Medieval people didn't need a common reason to get together; They lived in each other's pockets. Most people lived in tiny villages where everyone knew everyone else and saw them daily. Many people lived and slept communally - before the development of the chimney, everyone in the lord's household (including servants as well as his family) slept in one room, around the fire.

Before the invention of television, people went out and did things. Take a look at any old photographs of outdoor scenes - the streets and parks are packed, as are puns and theatres; and sporting events are positively heaving with people.

Even the word and concept of a 'club' doesn't exist during the Middle Ages - it first appears in the 'Early Modern' period, around the mid 17th century

The idea that one needs an excuse to get together and sing, talk and eat is very modern indeed - medieval man would be horrified at how lonely life is for 21st century people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

medieval man would be horrified at how lonely life is for 21st century people.

Ya, but he wouldn't be able to tweet about it, so we couldn't consider his opinion to be real.