What is the Purpose of Religion

[SLD]

Why is there religion in this world to begin with? What was the point of setting it up to begin with? And does it just persist because it has been with us so long? Sort of a QWERTY problem?

I tend to view human behavior in terms of evolution. Maybe religion is an offspring of our collective and cooperative nature. It I think it originally sprung out of a scientific need to explain the world. Create a superhuman being who did all of this. But I also think that it became a structured organized thing due to the need for elites to control the masses. Napoleon observed that the purpose of religion is to prevent the poor from killing the rich. Marx said it was the opiate of the masses. It’s also about patriarchy. Virtually all organized religions establish a patriarchy. Naturally, females choose their mates. Males want to mate with whomever and as often as they can. But a patriarchy allows men to control reproductive choice of women. Thus religion.

But why in a scientific society, that values (for the most part) equality before the law and human freedoms, does religion persist? Let’s face it, there is no logical reason to believe in the myths of organized religion. At a fundamental level, they’re all bullshit. Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, Mohammed wasn’t a messenger from god, and the Buddha was just a man (if at all). But these crazy beliefs persist even by logical and otherwise rationale people. Why?

I think it exists only by convention. People continue to believe because everyone else does. Their parents did. Their more concerned with other things than figuring out their faith. So they continue to go with the flow. And if you challenge those beliefs you are upsetting the natural order of things.

other thoughts?

 

[abaddon]

Why is there religion in this world to begin with? What was the point of setting it up to begin with?

Originally to communicate with the spirits of a bioregion in order for life there to keep thriving. They saw nature as a repeating cycle that needed help "going". For example, if you kill an animal it's necessary to do a ritual to assure the spirit will not be angry and go away to never reincarnate, causing the people to eventually run out of food.

And does it just persist because it has been with us so long?... [Why] in a scientific society, that values (for the most part) equality before the law and human freedoms, does religion persist?

Religion is not an effort to "explain the world" so much as an effort to RELATE with the world, to find a powerful ally out there somewhere to protect oneself against the sterility, stupidity, and hostility of what came to seem to humans as a mechanical universe. It's not so much a failed effort at proto-science as an effort at communication. The reason for the many anthropomorphisms is to put a human face on the inhuman to make the communication easier.

The scientific worldview doesn't work as a religion-replacement for many people because it tries hard to leave "mind" out of the picture. People find mind meaningful. So inasmuch as nature's described as a mindless, or spiritless, mechanism, the scientific worldview "disenchants" the world and makes the continuance of religion seem necessary as a counter-balance to the existential void, the horrible absurdity, that is a mindless universe.

 

[rousseau]

Why is there religion in this world to begin with? What was the point of setting it up to begin with?

Originally to communicate with the spirits of a bioregion in order for life there to keep thriving. They saw nature as a repeating cycle that needed help "going". For example, if you kill an animal it's necessary to do a ritual to assure the spirit will not be angry and go away to never reincarnate, causing the people to eventually run out of food.

And does it just persist because it has been with us so long?... [Why] in a scientific society, that values (for the most part) equality before the law and human freedoms, does religion persist?

Religion is not an effort to "explain the world" so much as an effort to RELATE with the world, to find a powerful ally out there somewhere to protect oneself against the sterility, stupidity, and hostility of what came to seem to humans as a mechanical universe. It's not so much a failed effort at proto-science as an effort at communication. The reason for the many anthropomorphisms is to put a human face on the inhuman to make the communication easier.

The scientific worldview doesn't work as a religion-replacement for many people because it tries hard to leave "mind" out of the picture. People find mind meaningful. So inasmuch as nature's described as a mindless, or spiritless, mechanism, the scientific worldview "disenchants" the world and makes the continuance of religion seem necessary as a counter-balance to the existential void, the horrible absurdity, that is a mindless universe.

I do think you want to delineate a thing we've labeled as 'religion' from more specific social practices that serve individual needs. To me, 'religion' as a global phenomenon doesn't serve a particular purpose. It's just a thing that happens among a species with complex language.

But specific communities have unique, localized aims in mind when deploying religious practices. I wouldn't necessarily call those aims purposeful, but in this more local context there is at least a reason behind the practices.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is believing that just because a social institution (like various religions) exist, that they must be somehow intrinsically tied to evolution/survival/reproduction. But a lot of our social practices aren't necessary for survival, they're just social phenomena that emerge from our biology and psychology.

 

[Tigers!]

There are so many ways to answer such a question.
Religion (and philosophy) are attempts to answer questions such as

• Why are we here (existing)?
• Where did we come from?
• Where are going?
• What happens when we die?
• Is there good or evil?
• Is there a difference between good and evil?
• How do we live at peace with our neighbours or family?
• Who is my neighbour?
• etc.

 

[No Robots]

abaddon, you are quite right. Bless you. My own journey is from the sterile madness of the so-called scientific worldview to the wonders of the beminded totality. The age of analysis has ended. It is the dawning of the age of synthesis. Those who refuse its call will be left behind.

 

[steve_bank]

Human imagination coupled with articulate speech and language equals mythology.

Religion has alwats served as a social glue enhancing stability. The Romans thought a state religion was essential to social order. In colonial times a community church would have been a center for social services of the day.

To some relgion provides answers to troubling questions. Whay an I here? What is the point?

Even today for many scientific explanations are not sufficient.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why is there religion in this world to begin with?

Why do humans pay to see a movie that isn't true? Why do humans buy and read books that aren't true? Why do humans pay actors and performers, people who make a living by pretending, obscene amounts of money? Why do we spend so much time and money to experience things that we know are fake?

It's because of how our brains, generally speaking, presently operate. I consider myself a pretty scientifically minded person but I just got done watching a fantasy movie on Netflix. Why did I just spend three hours watching this movie that I know is fake? Obviously I did it because it made me feel good at some emotional level, even though I know the movie is basically an entertaining lie.

The best thing humans can do for themselves today is figure out exactly how the brain works, particularly the prefontal cortex, the last big piece to come along and the part likely responsible for our most bizarre behaviors, which includes religion.

 

[bilby]

There are so many ways to answer such a question.
Religion (and philosophy) are attempts to answer questions such as

• Why are we here (existing)?

The mechanism is that the laws of physics demand it given the conditions of the early universe. The reason why that mechanism exists is unknowable; Religion is good at making shit up to avoid the dread "I don't know", but not good enough to be even vaguely credible. I don't know why anything exists, nor does anyone else, and anyone who claims to is either a fraud or delusional.

• Where did we come from?

Again, the mechanics are well understood. Whether the universe is eternal, or had a beginning, is unknown; If it had a beginning, the question "what caused it to begin" isn't even coherent, much less answerable. Again, only the fraudulent or delusional could claim to know the answer.

• Where are going?

I'm going to work soon. After that, who knows? It's highly unlikely that I will live forever, so eventually I will die and my pattern will disperse.

• What happens when we die?

Our pattern disperses, and the particles that made it up go on to other things, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

• Is there good or evil?

No.

• Is there a difference between good and evil?

No (see above).

• How do we live at peace with our neighbours or family?

Don't be a cunt. If you must be a cunt, try to do as little of it as you can. If someone is a cunt to you, toleration and empathy should be your first response; If that's not practicable, then the sad fact becomes that we cannot live at peace with our neighbours or family.

• Who is my neighbour?

Whoever you want.

• etc.

The thing that all these questions (and indeed all questions, universally) have in common is that religion is more of a hindrance than a help towards finding the right or best answers.

 

[Tigers!]

There are so many ways to answer such a question.
Religion (and philosophy) are attempts to answer questions such as

• Why are we here (existing)?

The mechanism is that the laws of physics demand it given the conditions of the early universe. The reason why that mechanism exists is unknowable; Religion is good at making shit up to avoid the dread "I don't know", but not good enough to be even vaguely credible. I don't know why anything exists, nor does anyone else, and anyone who claims to is either a fraud or delusional.

• Where did we come from?

Again, the mechanics are well understood. Whether the universe is eternal, or had a beginning, is unknown; If it had a beginning, the question "what caused it to begin" isn't even coherent, much less answerable. Again, only the fraudulent or delusional could claim to know the answer.

• Where are going?

I'm going to work soon. After that, who knows? It's highly unlikely that I will live forever, so eventually I will die and my pattern will disperse.

• What happens when we die?

Our pattern disperses, and the particles that made it up go on to other things, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

• Is there good or evil?

No.

• Is there a difference between good and evil?

No (see above).

• How do we live at peace with our neighbours or family?

Don't be a cunt. If you must be a cunt, try to do as little of it as you can. If someone is a cunt to you, toleration and empathy should be your first response; If that's not practicable, then the sad fact becomes that we cannot live at peace with our neighbours or family.

• Who is my neighbour?

Whoever you want.

• etc.

The thing that all these questions (and indeed all questions, universally) have in common is that religion is more of a hindrance than a help towards finding the right or best answers.

Thank you for your considered contribution. Even to calling people names.

 

[bilby]

Thank you for your considered contribution. Even to calling people names.

I didn't refer to any specific people at all, so I assuredly didn't call any people names.

By the way, being offended by "bad language" isn't a "get out of refuting the logic free" card; You can use it as an excuse not to participate in discussions, but not as an honest way to declare your opinion to have prevailed.

The question is, am I wrong?

The answer is apparently "No, but as you were rude, I don't have to admit it", which is truly pathetic.

 

[Learner]

Why is there religion in this world to begin with?

Why do humans pay to see a movie that isn't true? Why do humans buy and read books that aren't true? Why do humans pay actors and performers, people who make a living by pretending, obscene amounts of money? Why do we spend so much time and money to experience things that we know are fake?

Escapism, like the pleasure of dreaming, or day-dreaming if you will - even if you are well aware of the unlikeliness the movie will ever be that way in your life.

It's because of how our brains, generally speaking, presently operate. I consider myself a pretty scientifically minded person but I just got done watching a fantasy movie on Netflix. Why did I just spend three hours watching this movie that I know is fake? Obviously I did it because it made me feel good at some emotional level, even though I know the movie is basically an entertaining lie.

Feeling good, like "one feels good after eating good meal", which you are sort of portraying here, simplistically... which isn't an example I'd use, for 'why people follow religion', (Christianity in this case), I think it should be the other way round. You'd be in great error to dismiss any of the 'human emotions'; excluding them from any analysis....

The best thing humans can do for themselves today is figure out exactly how the brain works, particularly the prefontal cortex, the last big piece to come along and the part likely responsible for our most bizarre behaviors, which includes religion.

... which I mean here, to quantify at some level, the 'emotional intelligence', or 'emotional quotient' in individuals, which could indicate aspects of the psychological state of particular individuals under study. Crucial are these 'emotions' i.e. 'compassion, empathy, the understanding of pain and suffering; being expressed as recognised truths, when these people under scrutiny in particular situations, will show their individual characterisations.

Also.... for the ordinary folk or child, who do NOT require to be biblical scholars or know as much - who may even be illiterate, but can still hear the Gospel being preached - they will understand the emotional language, expressed in a way, found in the teachings of Christ. There maybe many reasons on different levels how people believe, but as just mentioned, there are those who also become Christians this way.

 

[steve_bank]

Well Tiger, stating the obvious yet again the bible and Christianity has shown themselves to not be any kind of model or source for living peacefully with neighbors.

While modern American Christians use atheists as a bogeyman out to get them, historically a Christian's worse enemy has been other Christians.

One Christian retort is to say 'they' are not really Christians. Anoter is to say Jesus was perfect, we are not. And so on. A 3200 year stream of apologetics.

As to your perennial questions, the answers science provides are not complete and are not liley to ever be. That being said the answers provided by science are based on observation and logic. Not on an imagined ill defined god living in someplace called heaven.

As adults we are supposed to be able to deal with reality and uncertainty without withdrawing into a mythological fantasy

And again the problem with Christianity in particular is the fanctical istence of an absolute truth and a bible based mandate to convert others to the faith.

The extent of the North American Native American cultural genocide in Canada and the USA by both Protestants and Catholics that have come out over the ast few yeras are disturbing.

If you want to live peacefully in our pluralistic society respcet others even when thy don't conform to yiur beliefs.

Did not Jesus say don't wear your faith on yiur sleeves like the hypocrites do, and mediate or pray in private?

 

[rousseau]

The scientific worldview doesn't work as a religion-replacement for many people because it tries hard to leave "mind" out of the picture. People find mind meaningful. So inasmuch as nature's described as a mindless, or spiritless, mechanism, the scientific worldview "disenchants" the world and makes the continuance of religion seem necessary as a counter-balance to the existential void, the horrible absurdity, that is a mindless universe.

A bit of a tangent, but I'm also starting to realize that this exists in academia. Among many academic circles there is an aversion to scientific conclusions because by implication they restrict what's possible in human cultures. So we don't just build religions as a counter-balance to the absurdity, but also non-religious ontologies.

I get the underlying motivation, but unfortunately it means that we're never going to collectively agree on what reality actually is, despite having clear and unambiguous evidence about that reality. Probably better for our mental health, but not necessarily political and economic planning.

 

[No Robots]

The denial of the reality of the soul is a tremendous crime. Those who do so inflict horrific damage. It is the separation of the person from that which is most essential within himself by denying the reality of that essence. It is like intercision in Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass. For people with undeveloped souls, this doesn’t matter. Their souls, being undeveloped, do not suffer from neglect or denial. The problem comes when those with undeveloped souls attempt to deny and destroy the souls of those for whom the soul is developed and operating as the primary motor of their existence. It seems that there are those who take sadistic delight in denying the reality of the soul. Knowing that doing so causes pain in others is part of the fun. They justify it by claiming that they are merely giving a healthy dose of reality, and that no real harm is done because the soul, being unreal, cannot suffer damage.

 

[abaddon]

A bit of a tangent, but I'm also starting to realize that this exists in academia. Among many academic circles there is an aversion to scientific conclusions because by implication they restrict what's possible in human cultures. So we don't just build religions as a counter-balance to the absurdity, but also non-religious ontologies.

Aversion to scientific conclusions? Or to physicalist conclusions? They're not one and the same.

I've noticed a reaction against physicalism among some academics lately. Which gives me a little hope for a paradigm shift, since IMV it's not just religion that needs an overhaul.

Physicalism isn't the one single logical conclusion that can be extrapolated from the scientific facts. If we input some different values, we could extrapolate a different metaphysical system. Because, like with ALL stories about reality, there's as much or more input of values than facts. People don't see that about their own stories. Which is too bad because there is latitude there... We could tell a better story without rejecting facts.

So it's not a matter of "aversion to scientific conclusions" but an aversion to the metaphysical extrapolations.

Panpsychism has some increased popularity lately. It's not a religious idea but versions of it are found in religions. The possibility it can "re-enchant" our way of seeing and interacting with nature makes it very intriguing to me.

But it's just an abstruse concept in the hands of philosophers. I've wondered, how would one live his life in a panpsychical universe? Well, if some strands of religions LIVE this idea, then IMV that's at least clues of what a future paradigm might look like if we recover from the horror of our reductive-materialist worldview.

So IMO religions have some valuable input on this sort of thing. That's the reason for my interest in some aspects of religions, and it's one reason why I see the notion they're nothing but a holdover from ancient days as mistaken. As presented by fundy scriptural literalists, they're a holdover but that's not the whole of the topic.

There are other instances where taking a new look at previously overlooked (and disdained) ideas in indigenous and eastern philosophies/religions is causing "academics" to rethink western assumptions. Maybe there's a paradigm shift in the works - more holism, less reductionism. I hope so.

 

[No Robots]

Religion, at its core, is a system for soul development. Christ is the great model and teacher for soul development. That is why the idea that he is a god, whether mythical or otherwise, is to be resisted. He models the divine soul within each human. In most humans, it lies dormant throughout life. But the volume of awakened souls is growing. They need Christ to anchor themselves, to orient themselves, to direct themselves. Christ shows the power of the developed soul. His soul has been guiding humanity for two millennia. Soon there will be billions of developed souls, and the Earth will be transformed.

 

[rousseau]

A bit of a tangent, but I'm also starting to realize that this exists in academia. Among many academic circles there is an aversion to scientific conclusions because by implication they restrict what's possible in human cultures. So we don't just build religions as a counter-balance to the absurdity, but also non-religious ontologies.

Aversion to scientific conclusions? Or to physicalist conclusions? They're not one and the same.

I wonder how often this distinction gets made among those with the aversion, and how often the two get mixed up as one and the same.

The sense I get is that people want science to work in the background and provide the desirable things it's able to, while at the same time not overriding our more dream-like, romantic notion of the world. Nobody wants their viscerally pleasurable experiences broken down into mechanical terms, and fair enough. I'm not here to push any particular worldview, just stating that I've noticed your pattern more broadly.

But I would add that harm can be done when we ignore an understanding of the world as it is. It's been my experience that understanding how the world actually works lends itself to much more sympathy for the way people are. Versus say, conjuring up an imaginary world that we think should exist, and vilifying anyone who doesn't meet it's standards.

To me, a scientific understanding is part and parcel to a holistic view, and often an aversion to scientific conclusions strikes me as more of a political, than holistic thing. Usually people want the world to be a way that it isn't, which is antithetical to holism.

I can accept the difference between science and physicalism, but vis-a-vis common understanding I don't think we're quite there yet. Even people who aren't ipso facto religious, are usually very much religious in perspective, and want nothing to do with any type of fact. I don't think these people are going to be comforted by a 'science but that's not the whole story' perspective. They want to see the beauty of the world, and nothing else.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The denial of the reality of the soul is a tremendous crime. Those who do so inflict horrific damage. It is the separation of the person from that which is most essential within himself by denying the reality of that essence. It is like intercision in Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass. For people with undeveloped souls, this doesn’t matter. Their souls, being undeveloped, do not suffer from neglect or denial. The problem comes when those with undeveloped souls attempt to deny and destroy the souls of those for whom the soul is developed and operating as the primary motor of their existence. It seems that there are those who take sadistic delight in denying the reality of the soul. Knowing that doing so causes pain in others is part of the fun. They justify it by claiming that they are merely giving a healthy dose of reality, and that no real harm is done because the soul, being unreal, cannot suffer damage.

Religion, at its core, is a system for soul development. Christ is the great model and teacher for soul development. That is why the idea that he is a god, whether mythical or otherwise, is to be resisted. He models the divine soul within each human. In most humans, it lies dormant throughout life. But the volume of awakened souls is growing. They need Christ to anchor themselves, to orient themselves, to direct themselves. Christ shows the power of the developed soul. His soul has been guiding humanity for two millennia. Soon there will be billions of developed souls, and the Earth will be transformed.

Dude, that's some major woo. Did you by any chance write the catholic catechism? Lots of similarities. You may want to attempt to jump-start your PFC. It may have stopped working.

In all seriousness I don't see what you're after. Would you care to translate?

 

[No Robots]

Those who have ears, let them hear.

 

[bilby]

The denial of the reality of the soul is a tremendous crime. Those who do so inflict horrific damage. It is the separation of the person from that which is most essential within himself by denying the reality of that essence. It is like intercision in Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass. For people with undeveloped souls, this doesn’t matter. Their souls, being undeveloped, do not suffer from neglect or denial. The problem comes when those with undeveloped souls attempt to deny and destroy the souls of those for whom the soul is developed and operating as the primary motor of their existence. It seems that there are those who take sadistic delight in denying the reality of the soul. Knowing that doing so causes pain in others is part of the fun. They justify it by claiming that they are merely giving a healthy dose of reality, and that no real harm is done because the soul, being unreal, cannot suffer damage.

Ah, souls. Are souls our souls?

(Read the above out loud for best results).


The concept of souls is as clever and useful as that of the luminiferous aether, phlogiston, and the miasmatic theory of disease.

It's an "obvious but wrong" idea that has the unfortunate result of slowing down actual progress in our understanding of reality.