Is religion useful?

[SeVeR]

What is the use of religion in society?

How is religion a product of natural selection?

 

Many people use the argument that religion is useful for providing absolute morality to people who would otherwise be unable to act for the good of society without it. I would reply that although religion is used in this way, it doesn't need to be used at all. Christians have become dependent on absolute religious morality, and although they may not be able to exist without it, they never needed it in the first place.

 

The evolutionary development of religion is a question that i wish to delve into in the future, so i welcome your thoughts. At this stage I would say that religion has survived natural selection by providing strength through a uniting of thought among the weaker members of society at the expense of rational decision making. In the weaker members of society sacrificing rationality does not provide a disability sufficient enough to cancel out the benefits of collective thought, and so religion survives among the weak. Sacrificing rationality is an all-or-nothing gamble that can cost you everything, and the stronger members of society, with more to lose, will ultimately reject religion. This theory undoubtedly needs a bit of tweeking as i just spewed it out of my thoughts, but please chip in with your own thoughts.

[FMBI]

I hope everyone on here's an atheist, or else I foresee death threats - but I've always found this article interesting.

 

Link

Edited April 4, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[»freakmonger]

Some people just need something to believe in...

 

Me? Not so much

 

O I do find it funny that more people have been killed in the name of God/Allah than anything else

Edited April 4, 2009 by freakmonger

[SeVeR]

Hah, very interesting article. The author makes the same mistake Dawkins is making. Despite vertical and horizontal parasites being an analogy that accounts for many more variables than simple diseases, it still fails to account for human choice and various other probabilistic factors that would dilute the results of any actual studies undertaken to verify their theories. I actually have a much better theory, and I'm beginning to think it's time to write a paper on it before someone else does.

[NBVegita]

Well useful is a very vague interpretation.

 

First let me disclaim that you all know that I'm about as religious as Sever and nearly always agree with his ideas concerning religion.

 

Now, for your concept that only the weak follow religion, I disagree. On many levels. First, the majority of the most powerful people in history were stoutly religious, or appeared to be so. Kings, Presidents, Pharaoh's, Generals, Prime Ministers, ect. The would inject religion into many aspects of their lives and kingdoms. One idea behind this is that if you can instill the "fear of God" into a man, that is more effective at preventing crime/immoral behavior (as you mentioned above) than trying to instill the fear of fellow man into a person. Is this a requirement? Could they live without the fear of a mythical all powerful being? Sure, but if you can convince them of one, it is a great deterrent.

 

Keeping with the concept of powerful people, keep the above list and add in priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope (I'll focus on Christianity for now). These men used religion to control not only the masses but each other. The crusades are one example where the powerful religious controlled the powerful rulers. Manipulating religion could allow you to go to war, where it might otherwise not be acceptable, along with many other things. Now that isn't useful for the masses, in fact the masses usually catch the short end of the stick there, but it is useful for the powerful.

 

Now as for religion being useful to the masses I would have to say it is. Religion gives those who lack faith in themselves a way, or outlet, to gain faith. For example, AA is a program that to stop alcohol addiction infuses religion into their lives. These are people that cannot, or believe they cannot, stop drinking on their own means. For those who "find religion", they end up with the faith that God will give them the strength to beat alcoholism. Faith is a powerful tool. Look at Alexander the Great, he accomplished things, that by a generous account were unrealistic against the Persians. He was very charismatic, religious and garnered the unwavering faith of his soldiers (as a whole). His campaign ended when his soldiers started doubting him. Erie coincidence, which it might well just be.

 

Faith is a powerful tool. It is much easier for a person, who has no faith in themselves, to find faith in an all powerful being that will provide them with strength, courage, compassion, ect. than it is to try to find those very same things in yourself. It gives people an outlet to cope with death, now when you think of losing a loved one, you can think that they're going to "heaven", a utopia of bliss. If something terrible happens to you, fear not, for God works in mysterious ways.

 

Ultimately anything that people can have faith in, that can help them in a time of need is more than useful.

[»Lynx]

Well useful is a very vague interpretation.

 

First let me disclaim that you all know that I'm about as religious as Sever and nearly always agree with his ideas concerning religion.

 

Now, for your concept that only the weak follow religion, I disagree. On many levels. First, the majority of the most powerful people in history were stoutly religious, or appeared to be so. Kings, Presidents, Pharaoh's, Generals, Prime Ministers, ect. The would inject religion into many aspects of their lives and kingdoms. One idea behind this is that if you can instill the "fear of God" into a man, that is more effective at preventing crime/immoral behavior (as you mentioned above) than trying to instill the fear of fellow man into a person. Is this a requirement? Could they live without the fear of a mythical all powerful being? Sure, but if you can convince them of one, it is a great deterrent.

 

Keeping with the concept of powerful people, keep the above list and add in priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope (I'll focus on Christianity for now). These men used religion to control not only the masses but each other. The crusades are one example where the powerful religious controlled the powerful rulers. Manipulating religion could allow you to go to war, where it might otherwise not be acceptable, along with many other things. Now that isn't useful for the masses, in fact the masses usually catch the short end of the stick there, but it is useful for the powerful.

 

Now as for religion being useful to the masses I would have to say it is. Religion gives those who lack faith in themselves a way, or outlet, to gain faith. For example, AA is a program that to stop alcohol addiction infuses religion into their lives. These are people that cannot, or believe they cannot, stop drinking on their own means. For those who "find religion", they end up with the faith that God will give them the strength to beat alcoholism. Faith is a powerful tool. Look at Alexander the Great, he accomplished things, that by a generous account were unrealistic against the Persians. He was very charismatic, religious and garnered the unwavering faith of his soldiers (as a whole). His campaign ended when his soldiers started doubting him. Erie coincidence, which it might well just be.

 

Faith is a powerful tool. It is much easier for a person, who has no faith in themselves, to find faith in an all powerful being that will provide them with strength, courage, compassion, ect. than it is to try to find those very same things in yourself. It gives people an outlet to cope with death, now when you think of losing a loved one, you can think that they're going to "heaven", a utopia of bliss. If something terrible happens to you, fear not, for God works in mysterious ways.

 

Ultimately anything that people can have faith in, that can help them in a time of need is more than useful.

 

I were going to write a reply, but it seems you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

 

-L

[FMBI]

@ Sever - Yes, but the thing about that theory is that it might help explain a lot of really stupid things religion has done. For example, the wars against the old cultures of South America and Southeast Asia, during the Spain-as-Superpower period: attempted conversion, followed by extermination if the potential converts [or, let's say, "carriers"] refuse the religion. It also suggests that some people, over time, might develop an "immunity" to religion; for example, someone who grows up in a religious family and later rebels has been "vaccinated" and will probably refuse to get "infected" again.

 

Pretty stretchy with the definitions there, but it's still kind of interesting to speculate about. (Although, in the long run, alternative explanations probably do have more to do with the survival of religion. )

Edited April 4, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[»Lynx]

There's a lot of irony in that post.

 

-L

[Aileron]

This forum has clearly gone off the deep end since I left. Can't say I'm suprised. Personally, I've learned much in the past few months. I've found out that the reason why my opinion appears to be the minority is that those who share it are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan right now mostly, and those who aren't have better things to do but than to argue anyway.

 

 

You have to be careful regarding religion. Atheism is a religion too, and if you accept atheism as a religion, then it also follows that both the Nazi's Third Reich and the Soviets' aggressive expansion policies could be interpreted as an atheist version of a holy war of forced conversion.

 

 

Anyone who really understands Christianity would know that Jesus' major adversary was the Pharisees. At that particular time and place, a Pharisee was a person with religious authority who was so caught up with his power and his doctrine that he was blind to everything going on around him. While these people clung to a doctrine of waiting for a messiah, they couldn't actually comprehend of one actually being in front of their face due to the very fact that they clung to their doctrine so much. Avoiding such attachment is a fundimental part of the Christian faith that has not always been followed successfully.

 

The major point I'd like to drive home here is that all religions have their Pharisees. Every religion, including agnosticism and atheism, has doctrine that goes with it, and when you combine doctrine with humans, who make mistakes, you occassionally get people who become to attached to the word and not the meaning.

 

 

The current variety of Islamic terrorism is one of these examples. In reality, there are probably only about a dozen or so hardcore Islamic Pharisees in the bunch with about a million or so getting dragged along for the ride by economic and social forces. The problem is that the economic and social climate has become toxic and that the Pharisees have power. One couldn't absolutely prove it without being there, but with monarchies in place, it is likely that such a toxic climate existed in time of the holy wars, so they were probably caused by the same reason.

 

 

As for the article:

 

He assumes religions don't get converts, contrary to evidence. No, believe it or not people actually do decide they want to change religions often enough.

 

He has a large list of references which for the most part all were all written by the same three authors. A half a dozen people in agreement form a drinking party with too much free time on their hands, not a scientific community.

 

The best one is the nice little part where they specifically choose politically vohement wording, wait for the response, get it, then claim the response as a result of 'defensive' behavior by the 'disease'. I'll play by their game just for the sake of putting the coup de grace on this one: Mass defensive behavior is not a behavior known to be utilized by any disease. Viruses, Bacteria, and Fungi do not defend themselves at all. Animal parisites such as ticks, leeches, and worms my show some defensive tendencies, but even then do so in an extremely limited fashion.

 

How then can he use defensiveness as evidence of his theory when such behavior doesn't coincide with the behavior of a disease is merely evidence that his real aim is just to try to piss people off. To that I say: GET A LIFE AND QUIT TELLING THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OURS!!!

[SeVeR]

Now, for your concept that only the weak follow religion, I disagree. On many levels. First, the majority of the most powerful people in history were stoutly religious, or appeared to be so. Kings, Presidents, Pharaoh's, Generals, Prime Ministers, ect. The would inject religion into many aspects of their lives and kingdoms. One idea behind this is that if you can instill the "fear of God" into a man, that is more effective at preventing crime/immoral behavior (as you mentioned above) than trying to instill the fear of fellow man into a person. Is this a requirement? Could they live without the fear of a mythical all powerful being? Sure, but if you can convince them of one, it is a great deterrent.

I think there are a number of rebuttals for your argument that the strong are also religious. Firstly, the strong by their nature will use religion to dominate the weak, and being seen as religious is important to fool the weak. As i said earlier, religion is a uniting of opinion that brings about survival benefits (with the sacrifice being rationality), and it is therefore important for the strong among society to be seen to embrace religion, as the weak will see their opinion united with the strong. They will welcome that which will ultimately oppress them. I see you described this in later paragraphs, so does this not strike you as a reason for the strong to appear religious?

 

The reason i believe the weak populate religion is simple. Religion provides us with a purpose and a method of achieving this purpose, it provides a way to reach perfection both morally and spiritually, while providing safety, security, immortality, an answer to the big philosophical questions, and a special relationship with the most powerful and knowledgeable entity in the universe. It takes our naturally evolved desires and tempts us with a perfect solution. This is why Christianity always appealed to the lower classes, the weak and the desperate, as the prospects of living a fulfilling life were minimal. This is also why we find Christians in schools, hospitals and prisons. Where else do you find people as easily fooled or desperate? The weak are tempted with psychological candy, and they are prone to accepting it.

 

Now as for religion being useful to the masses I would have to say it is. Religion gives those who lack faith in themselves a way' date=' or outlet, to gain faith. For example, AA is a program that to stop alcohol addiction infuses religion into their lives.[/quote']Religion is a delusional fix, it's a drug to wean them off the alcohol. I would say alcohol is the safer drug and i am saddened that religion has infiltrated yet another source of weak and desperate people. This fits with that i said in the previous paragraph.

 

Faith is a powerful tool. It is much easier for a person' date=' who has no faith in themselves, to find faith in an all powerful being that will provide them with strength, courage, compassion, ect. than it is to try to find those very same things in yourself. It gives people an outlet to cope with death, now when you think of losing a loved one, you can think that they're going to "heaven", a utopia of bliss. If something terrible happens to you, fear not, for God works in mysterious ways.[/quote'] Exactly, but don't you think it's wrong for people to delude themselves into thinking their problems don't exist rather than attacking them head-on? You may tell me that they won't be able to handle their problems otherwise, and wouldn't that be justification for my theory that the religious are generally the weaker members of society?

[SeVeR]

@ Sever - Yes, but the thing about that theory is that it might help explain a lot of really stupid things religion has done. For example, the wars against the old cultures of South America and Southeast Asia, during the Spain-as-Superpower period: attempted conversion, followed by extermination if the potential converts [or, let's say, "carriers"] refuse the religion. It also suggests that some people, over time, might develop an "immunity" to religion; for example, someone who grows up in a religious family and later rebels has been "vaccinated" and will probably refuse to get "infected" again.

 

Pretty stretchy with the definitions there, but it's still kind of interesting to speculate about. (Although, in the long run, alternative explanations probably do have more to do with the survival of religion. )

I'll tell you why parasite or virus theories always fall down in my eyes. The transmission of such a virus would always imply that the process is involuntary and unselective. Conversion is voluntary and selective. There are better analogies that explain conversion as well as many other characteristics of religion.

[SeVeR]

You have to be careful regarding religion. Atheism is a religion too, and if you accept atheism as a religion, then it also follows that both the Nazi's Third Reich and the Soviets' aggressive expansion policies could be interpreted as an atheist version of a holy war of forced conversion.

Many people would say Hitler was a Catholic. Some would say Hitler is the reason why the theory of evolution is wrong, but then if Hitler was right about evolution he would have won the war. Stalin was an atheist but what about his atheism influenced his policy? In religion we have wars waged to spread the religion, but did Stalin wage war to spread atheism? No, he waged war to spread communism. Edited April 7, 2009 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

I see you described this in later paragraphs, so does this not strike you as a reason for the strong to appear religious?

 

I ask you what is the difference from appearing to be religious and being religious? As Tigron mentioned in the great faith debate, there are so few people, of just about any religion, who truly follow their religion the way it is meant to be followed. Thus in effect they appear to be religious but in effect are not. I would say the people whom you talk about, the ones wholly and completely committed to their religion are the vast minority.

 

Religion is a delusional fix, it's a drug to wean them off the alcohol.

 

I disagree. Religion is a support structure. People, or at least they appear to, lend you their encouragement, faith and compassion. In return you gain strength and confidence where it did not exist before. How religious you want to be involved, concerning God, is up to you. Religion's only negative effect is with the extremists, which are rare. For example, the current day Islamic religion has been torn to shreds by the minority of religious fanatics, who just so happen to be the ones who make the news. Infusing religion into someone's life is no worse than giving them a placebo and sending them on their way. If they believe the placebo helped them, then it did.

 

Exactly, but don't you think it's wrong for people to delude themselves into thinking their problems don't exist rather than attacking them head-on? You may tell me that they won't be able to handle their problems otherwise, and wouldn't that be justification for my theory that the religious are generally the weaker members of society?

 

First, I never stated that religion was a way to hide from their problems. I said that religion can give a person who might otherwise lack the strength to attack a problem, the strength needed. For the last few sentences I posted, death is not a "problem" you can "attack". If you lose a loved one and believing that they are in heaven sitting with god alleviates your grief, how is that hiding from anything, or a bad thing? Also my statement that if something bad happens to you, I am referring to things you cannot control. For example, you get into a car accident. A religious person might look at it as "God works in mysterious ways" to move past the negative and think of the positives (Well at least I'm alive; I needed a new car anyway; ect.).

 

I'm not saying that people can't handle their problems without religion, but it CAN help SOME people through their problems. How many children have a blanket/stuffed animal/doll that they carry around or grab when they're sad or scared? Would they survive without it? Sure. But does that inanimate object comfort them during a situation of stress? It sure does. I guess one analogy I could use is that religion is a safety blanket for adults to carry around.

[Requiem.]

I personally believe everyone takes religion so much farther that it needs to be, so much so that at a point recently it began a giant clique for the world to participate in.

Now I do not know about you guys, but I prefer looking at people simularities, not argueing over their diffrences...

 

I just wish some of you would quit acting like there is no gray in the black and white

 

The point of a conversation like this is not to argue blunty why you're right or wrong, its to be open-minded to what other people believe while telling what you believe.

Noone in these conversations should ever feel like they have to defend what they believe in or attack because someone put them into defense.

 

That's all I'm going to say.

 

-Req

Edited April 19, 2009 by Requiem.

[SeVeR]

I think you should step off your high horse for a moment.

 

We wouldn't be here if we didn't want to hear the beliefs of people with differing views.

 

I see forum discussions as a valuable tool for learning more about the topic, and arguing a side is key to the learning process.

 

What better way is there to gauge the veracity of your doubts than to get other people to do the work for you?

[FMBI]

I personally believe everyone takes religion so much farther that it needs to be, so much so that at a point recently it began a giant clique for the world to participate in.

Now I do not know about you guys, but I prefer looking at people simularities, not argueing over their diffrences...

 

I just wish some of you would quit acting like there is no gray in the black and white

 

The point of a conversation like this is not to argue blunty why you're right or wrong, its to be open-minded to what other people believe while telling what you believe.

Noone in these conversations should ever feel like they have to defend what they believe in or attack because someone put them into defense.

 

That's all I'm going to say.

 

-Req

 

Well, that's a nice idea, but unfortunately, it implies that we would have to give equal time to, say, neo-Nazis if they wanted to come on here.

 

I can imagine the conversations:

 

Nazi: Let's kill Jews, destroy most of Europe, and try to take over the world!

Other people: Er... Yeah....... [tries to find middle ground]... Would you settle for half of Europe?

[Drake7707]

I think that religion in its basic concept is nothing more than beliefs for people, to get them through difficult times, to share opinions with others that agree, to explain things that are hard to understand or to find solutions for it, etc.

 

The reason why people think religion is bad (and probably why this topic exists) is because a minority of people force beliefs onto others, saying that they are right and all others are wrong and forcing people to do something leaves a bad and hostile impression.

There are people like that everywhere, in every religion or culture, you even encounter them as a collegue or boss, an annoying friend you shouldn't really call 'friend' and so on. There have been persons or groups like that in the past (crusades, nazi's, ...), there are people like that now, and there will probably be in he future.

[Requiem.]

I think you should step off your high horse for a moment.

 

We wouldn't be here if we didn't want to hear the beliefs of people with differing views.

 

I see forum discussions as a valuable tool for learning more about the topic, and arguing a side is key to the learning process.

 

What better way is there to gauge the veracity of your doubts than to get other people to do the work for you?

Hearing and argueing are two entirely diffrent things.

The fact of the matter is that I was talking about SOME people, please note that I didnt say everyone.

Yes, I agree. Talking about and listening is a good instance, however the number of you whom actually listen instead of passionatly (and in some cases bluntly) argueing why what you believe is correct versus what someone else believe is correct and why your right and they are wrong.

 

 

These discussions help further people, but only when the conversations aren't "I'm right your wrong gtfo my forumz lulz"

 

@finland

I'm not saying we should all give. To the contrary, I believe in argueing your case passioantly, but that doesn't mean we should close ourselves off to what other people believe in. Nor does it give people the right to argue about why they are correct and why the other person is not.

 

 

Religion is so stupid imho.

 

EDIT: It's stupid if you force it on others or are closed off. I'm all for you believing whatever you want to believe in. I'm even for you telling people what you believe in, but, when it becomes an arguement more so then a discussion it makes it look less and less attractive in MY eyes.

 

 

EDIT2: SeVeR, This is my opinion... I believe I'm still entitled to my own opinions... yes?

Edited April 20, 2009 by Requiem.

[SeVeR]

EDIT2: SeVeR, This is my opinion... I believe I'm still entitled to my own opinions... yes?

And i think this is the problem. You seem to think other people are telling you what to think if they disagree with you. I started my post with the words "I think", not "I demand".

 

-EDIT- Not to mention you've taken this topic well of course anyway...

Edited April 20, 2009 by SeVeR

[Synister]

What is the use of religion in society?

How is religion a product of natural selection?

 

Many people use the argument that religion is useful for providing absolute morality to people who would otherwise be unable to act for the good of society without it. I would reply that although religion is used in this way, it doesn't need to be used at all. Christians have become dependent on absolute religious morality, and although they may not be able to exist without it, they never needed it in the first place.

 

The evolutionary development of religion is a question that i wish to delve into in the future, so i welcome your thoughts. At this stage I would say that religion has survived natural selection by providing strength through a uniting of thought among the weaker members of society at the expense of rational decision making. In the weaker members of society sacrificing rationality does not provide a disability sufficient enough to cancel out the benefits of collective thought, and so religion survives among the weak. Sacrificing rationality is an all-or-nothing gamble that can cost you everything, and the stronger members of society, with more to lose, will ultimately reject religion. This theory undoubtedly needs a bit of tweeking as i just spewed it out of my thoughts, but please chip in with your own thoughts.

In my opinion religion is a false hope. I understand people believing in god, jesus w/e it may be. Idc if people have their religion. To each his own, but when something like religion gets in the way of reality thats when I believe religion is completely useless.

 

I know people here don't believe in anything but those people I'm sure they believe in science. If science can prove it, they'll believe it.

[»D1st0rt]

I agree with the idea of religion in trying to encourage good in people, but I think the implementations of it in our current organized religions are missing the point a lot of times. I think there's a famous Gandhi quote about liking Jesus very much but not so much the Christians he encountered. It's not entirely their fault, there are certain things you have to do as an organization to perpetuate your existence. Also positions of power unavoidably attract the power-hungry. In the end though, if it helps make you a better person who am I to tell you what is right or wrong. I sure as hell don't know.

[Synister]

I agree with the idea of religion in trying to encourage good in people, but I think the implementations of it in our current organized religions are missing the point a lot of times. I think there's a famous Gandhi quote about liking Jesus very much but not so much the Christians he encountered. It's not entirely their fault, there are certain things you have to do as an organization to perpetuate your existence. Also positions of power unavoidably attract the power-hungry. In the end though, if it helps make you a better person who am I to tell you what is right or wrong. I sure as hell don't know.

 

From like 1400-1600s religion didnt really encourage good. They'd spend alot of money converting people to catholism, and even kill people who wouldn't. They believed if you werent Catholic you were inferior. Yea religion has become alot less intense now but really in 3rd world countries religion is causing alot of problems. Really depends how much you believe in your religion. Yeah there are those christian, or whatever it may be who believe in hell/heaven and some of those will lead fulfilling lives being nice and fair to those around them because they believe they will go to heaven, and that it great but there also some who don't.

 

Really though any discussion on religion is bound to be a long one..

[Lisa]

EDIT: It's stupid if you force it on others or are closed off.

 

Jehovahs witness's. Enough said.

 

Had a pretty uncomfortable experience with them recently. Used to have bible studies with them for 6/7 months, with an old neighbour of mine,. I got to the point of wanting to quit, because someone pointed out that they go against the christian bible. Ofcourse, the jehovahs witness I was having the studies with, did not like that I wanted to quit, but tried to be nice about it. Until I went to leave her house. Then I got the whole 'If you fall out of the truth now, you wont be able to have everlasting life in the next system, and that it would be a shame to see her 'friends' go in Armageddon.

 

She even tried scare tactics concerning my daughter while I was still having the studies. Telling me that if I don't start getting my daughter to learn about Jehovah now, she wont make it to the next system with me. It kinda ticked me off.

 

I go to a christian church now, which both myself and my daughter enjoy going to. I just don't tell the Jehovahs witness lady about it, because I don't think she'd be too happy with me >.<

[Incomplete]

Haven't read the replies but yes religion can be useful. especially if you want to manipulate people.

[Syrith]

There is no point to religion'.'

The only function it serves is to control.

 

There should be no need to "encourage good" in people. It's each person's responsibility to do what they can to advance their society and avoid causing detrimental effects.