What is the use of religion?

[ray245]

I know most of the board here do not have religion, and often felt religon's view may not be logical or useful. But religion do serve their purpose isn't it?

My former teacher once told me about this, Religion allows humanity to developed, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

It allows laws to be enforced easier in the past, as he says, humans will have more to fear from God or gods than a fellow human making judgement.

Morality like killing a fellow human is wrong needed religion to reinforce that statement in the past.

So I want to ask you people this question, do you think religion are useful or useless, either in the past or present?

[Magus]

I know most of the board here do not have religion, and often felt religon's view may not be logical or useful. But religion do serve their purpose isn't it?

My former teacher once told me about this, Religion allows humanity to developed, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

It allows laws to be enforced easier in the past, as he says, humans will have more to fear from God or gods than a fellow human making judgement.

Morality like killing a fellow human is wrong needed religion to reinforce that statement in the past.

So I want to ask you people this question, do you think religion are useful or useless, either in the past or present?

Religions are undoubtedly useful - anyone who says otherwise is a fool. They can unify countries, inspire people to great things, and help maintain morality.

Of course, religion can also divide peoples, inspire people to do horrible things, and cause people to commit truly immoral acts.

The real question should be: "Now or at any point in the past has religion's usefulness outweighed its drawbacks?"

To which I would have to answer: Impossible to determine in generic terms - must be taken at a case-by-case basis.

[salm]

The question is wrong. You have to ask to whom is religion usful and to which degree? For a leader ein a country full of uneducated sheep religion certainly is a very usefull tool to drive the masses. Religion certainly came in handy for Ron Hubbard and similar filth.
If you ask the sheep they will tend to say that religion is usfull but in reality it´s not because it allows them to be controlled more easily by said leaders.

[K. A. Pital]

Useless for the majority of people, both in the past and present.

Useful to a small class of people who, either by using religion to their ends, or being religious leaders themselves and using religion to their ends too, manipulate, dominate and perpetually enslave the human being in false beliefs and servitude to his masters.

If you use the "opiate for the people" argument (religion is desired by the masses and satisfies them), I can point out that a non-religious ideology or freethought, belief in other people, or atheism, can supplant religion quite the same on an individual level, and there's not much preventing such supplementation on mass level (barring, of course, the counteraction of the already existing and powerful religions).

Not only has religion outlived it's usefulness as "opiate of the mass", since far more advanced and world-grounded opiates without supernatural beliefs have been invented (entertainment, ideology, philosophical currents), it has also totally outlived it's usefulness as a tool for aquiring knowledge, a long time ago.

Therefore, into the trasher of history with religion.

Religion allows humanity to developed, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

Bullshit. Even if it had a measly measure of historical usefulness at some point, now it's not. Humanity developed religion. That's one. Intelligence separates humans from animals, that's two. Humanity developed itself and advanced itself to the point of religion becoming obsolete and an obstacle to progress by the Renaisannce, so now religion is totally worthless.

[Pablo Sanchez]

A lot of the time people suppose that religion has always been a universally negative influence or that it only served the ruling class (viz. the Marxist argument). This isn't necessarily true. Remember that opium also has applications as a painkiller; potentially the ability of religion to offer hope and psychological support to the downtrodden masses (who from the dawn of civilization up until very recently composed over 90% of the population of every country on Earth) can be argued as a plus of religion. The actual effect of this can never be isolated or easily understood, however, so it's a purely hypothetical argument.

In the modern age, however, when we are aware of things like natural rights, the scientific method, etc., religion is naught but an obstacle.

[Covenant]

I know most of the board here do not have religion, and often felt religon's view may not be logical or useful. But religion do serve their purpose isn't it?

Religions don't really have a mission statement. If their goal is to save humanity from Hell, then well, that's inventing a problem that doesn't exist. If it's to help the poor and feed the needy, spread peace and love and combat the ravages of society, then I'd like to see those guys at work, cuz we don't seem them around too often. If religion has a purpose, it has failed it.

My former teacher once told me about this, Religion allows humanity to developed, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

Humanity allowed humanity to develop, and humanity developed religion. It's like saying that Art is what made Cro-Magnon man smarter than Neanderthals. No, that's backwards. People concoted their conceptions of religion based on the world around them. I'd definately challenge the idea that all religions of all successful societies put forth a supremacy of man doctrine to seperate us from animals.

Really though, what allowed humanity to develop was the development of agriculture, the domestication of animals, and the availability of natural resources. Religion is a cultural byproduct, like art, not the other way around.

It allows laws to be enforced easier in the past, as he says, humans will have more to fear from God or gods than a fellow human making judgement.

At least so long as the person actually believes in that God, and believes that God to be infallable (most pantheistic traditions have them remarkably flawed in their thinking), and believes this person to actually be speaking on behalf of the God's thinking. It also doesn't mean the law is just. From what we've seen, even corrupt governors are better at administering law than priests, especially when this is law decided by man.

Morality like killing a fellow human is wrong needed religion to reinforce that statement in the past.

No, it didn't. What religion did is give justification for the killing of specific other people. It doesn't act as a suppression for the urge to kill, it acts as a free pass for people to conduct war. The morality of a Hammurabi's code, applied to national policy, would have been far better at stomping out murder than--say--Incan theology was.

So I want to ask you people this question, do you think religion are useful or useless, either in the past or present?

Religions are useful, to a point. Religion is a sword. It can be used for good or for evil, but it is never something you needed in the first place. If you abandoned it, you wouldn't be any worse off. And what's better, you could spend all those manhours creating things like great libraries or dams or roads rather than temples. Things like the Pyramids were certainly good for the people from a public works perspective, but there's no reason they couldn't have been employed doing other things rather than stacking rocks up into a pile for really no good reason. It's not like those tombs really protected much of anything for long.

Really, it's like asking if a wooden mallet is useful. Yes, it is, but it's not as good as a real hammer. It is a flawed basis for morality, it holds back progress and causes problems with neighbors. People have a natural desire to explain the world around them, and religion was the default "I dunno, but I think it might be that way" response. Science gives us a better explination for natural phenomena, ethics gives us a better method of determining good and evil, and I daresay a solid judicial system is keeping more people from murder than their religions are. The US is definately more of a fundamentalist whackjob country than Britian, but I wouldn't say that it's exactly noticable from our murder rates.

[K. A. Pital]

Remember that opium also has applications as a painkiller; potentially the ability of religion to offer hope and psychological support to the downtrodden masses (who from the dawn of civilization up until very recently composed over 90% of the population of every country on Earth) can be argued as a plus of religion.

I just referred to this argument earlier. This "opiate" indeed is a painkiller, a worthwhile comparison. What does this give? When a body feels pain, it's a signal that something is wrong in the organism and you have to see the doctor/do surgery, etc. If the body is constantly drugged with painkillers so that it doesn't feel pain, that's clearly a negative effect.

The same with society. Religion intoxicates human masses with the promise of afterlife and the rule of obedience of the masses to the elites.

Did you not wonder, how did it come that the "downtrodden mass opressed by elite" has held so strong for many centuries? Well, religion is a mechanism of keeping this situation in place, "killing the pain" of the people, diverting their attention from social issues to some theological bullcrap about Sky Pixies.

[K. A. Pital]

Really though, what allowed humanity to develop was...

...labour and natural resources, and the application of this labour to natural resources, which required intelligence (and, therefore it evolved). Definetely "religion" doesn't figure anywhere in the equation.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Outside of the frauds who use religion to manipulate people, I believe most people don't use religion at all; it uses them. The more strongly people are religious, the more mindlessly and often self-destructively they follow it's dogmas and commands; they become more and more the puppets of whatever religion infests them. That's why they behave so stupidly; they've allowed themselves to be taken over by something subhuman; religion has no mind. They replace thought with dogma, and they and we pay the price.

So no, I don't think religion is useful for any good purpose, and never has been.

[Bounty]

...labour and natural resources, and the application of this labour to natural resources, which required intelligence (and, therefore it evolved). Definetely "religion" doesn't figure anywhere in the equation.

Wait, are you saying that religion didn't encourage advancement directly, or are you denying that religion was a factor in human development period?

I can see how you can say that religion didn't consciously attempt to develop humanity, but it has been at the basis of some of the great human achievements. Just look at architecture; where would construction technology have been if the gods hadn't demanded bigger and bigger temples?

Deliberate advancement? Debatable. But a clear effect on human development? Undeniable, I think.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, are you saying that religion didn't encourage advancement directly, or are you denying that religion was a factor in human development period?

Adressing the claim in the OP:

Religion allows humanity to develope, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

Fact is, humanity (as in "homo sapiens civilization") did not arise because of religion, it wasn't "religion" that "ensured humans are different from animals". It was intelligence, the supreme form of higher nervous activity. And why intelligence developed? Not because of religion, quite obviously, but because of the necessities I explained above.

So, is religion necessary for the human intelligence (which is "Humanity" and "What separates us from animals") to arise? No. Did religion cause it? No. Is religion a necessity for human development? No. All.

[Bounty]

That I can agree with. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Darth Wong]

I know most of the board here do not have religion, and often felt religon's view may not be logical or useful. But religion do serve their purpose isn't it?

My former teacher once told me about this, Religion allows humanity to developed, and ensure we humans are different from animals.

It allows laws to be enforced easier in the past, as he says, humans will have more to fear from God or gods than a fellow human making judgement.

Morality like killing a fellow human is wrong needed religion to reinforce that statement in the past.

So I want to ask you people this question, do you think religion are useful or useless, either in the past or present?

Sounds like your teacher is an idiot. The idea that religion separated mankind from the animals or was somehow necessary for the development of human society is the biggest non sequitur I've heard since the Greeks concluded that the movement of the Sun across the sky must be due to equine locomotion of a flaming chariot.

Religion is arguably an instrument of social control, but since no religious society has ever been able to maintain law and order without the use of physical force, I suspect that this mechanism is far less effective than people believe.

Religion is also said to promote morality, but that is an anomalous claim made by the Abrahamic religions. Most of the religions in world history had to do with explaining how the universe works, and made no effort whatsoever to claim exclusive origin of morality. The ancient Greek religion, for example, has no moral commandments. No claim to exclusive moral authority. No claim that its deities are perfectly just, or impeccably moral. It is the ignorance and historical myopia of the average Christian that lets him maintain the delusion that morality and religion must always be intertwined.

Take a look at the average aboriginal culture. They believed in various animalistic gods and they had some kind of origin story, but when it came time to ask for judgment on what was right or wrong, where did they turn? Tribal elders, not gods or Scriptures.

[PainRack]

One could argue that the social control imposed by religion made it possible for efforts to educate the poor and treat them medically, as dogma imposed by the Church to help missionary efforts..

But then again, that's something that ANY humanistic society does. Any culture that evolves a philosophy based on our common humanity and ethics and morality has some form of efforts to either heal the sick or educate the poor.

Even the argument that only religion could had evolved something like the Hippocratic oath is of no value. After all, that didn't prevent christian nations like Germany and America from conducting inhumane medical research on uninformed subjects.

[General Zod]

One could argue that the social control imposed by religion made it possible for efforts to educate the poor and treat them medically, as dogma imposed by the Church to help missionary efforts..

During the dark ages the only way of getting any type of education was to join the church or be very wealthy to hire private tutors. Otherwise the common peasantry was largely illiterate and uneducated so the church could keep them under control. It's especially worse when the church went about destroying documents that didn't agree with dogma. So scratch that idea.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I can see how you can say that religion didn't consciously attempt to develop humanity, but it has been at the basis of some of the great human achievements. Just look at architecture; where would construction technology have been if the gods hadn't demanded bigger and bigger temples?

Building bigger and bigger palaces perhaps. Or roads, or dams. Besides, bigger buildings are hardly worth the price of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the innumerable other evils that spring from religion.

[Coyote]

Jared Diamond, in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" theorizes that religions gave people a reason not to kill each other over petty differences when you have large groups of unrelated strangers living together in extended villages and proto-empires.

That and establishing a hierarchy of priests and the like is a means to bring organization to a band or tribe, but there are other social structures that can provide this as well; religion is not the unique supplier of hierarchical organization.

Religions get really problematic when they become instruments of fear and tyranny or monetary exploitation for the peopel they were supposed to protect and organize; and, when a tribe of one religion encounters a tribe of another religion and the two groups decide they just can't get along. But again, like with the "organization" argument, religion is hardly the sole motivator of this.

[Howedar]

Remember that opium also has applications as a painkiller; potentially the ability of religion to offer hope and psychological support to the downtrodden masses (who from the dawn of civilization up until very recently composed over 90% of the population of every country on Earth) can be argued as a plus of religion.

I just referred to this argument earlier. This "opiate" indeed is a painkiller, a worthwhile comparison. What does this give? When a body feels pain, it's a signal that something is wrong in the organism and you have to see the doctor/do surgery, etc. If the body is constantly drugged with painkillers so that it doesn't feel pain, that's clearly a negative effect.

Not if the disorder is incurable (or incurable with current medicine).

The same with society. Religion intoxicates human masses with the promise of afterlife and the rule of obedience of the masses to the elites.

Did you not wonder, how did it come that the "downtrodden mass opressed by elite" has held so strong for many centuries? Well, religion is a mechanism of keeping this situation in place, "killing the pain" of the people, diverting their attention from social issues to some theological bullcrap about Sky Pixies.

No, it held because of the requirement of subsistence agriculture, combined with the technological inability to solve problems in quality of life.

Religion was, at most, a secondary issue. It wasn't God/Allah/Buddha/Ganesha's fault that there was no real sanitation system to speak of so everyone was sick all the time.

[K. A. Pital]

Not if the disorder is incurable (or incurable with current medicine).

So? The person in question is a metaphor for human society, in which case, he's a doctor for himself. If he always sits on drugs, he won't be eager to find a solution for his pain other than drugs, right?

No, it held because of the requirement of subsistence agriculture, combined with the technological inability to solve problems in quality of life.

This doesn't change a single bit with the presence or absence of religion, or what? Do you think that without the Dark Age Christianity, people would spend just the same amount of centuries for the scientific progress which brought industrial revolution, mechanization and the increase in life quality? I'm fairly certain that religion does divert attention from the problem of technological inability/backwardness to continue itself into the future.

It wasn't God/Allah/Buddha/Ganesha's fault

That's not what I said. I said that when people think that the current state on Earth is explained by some religious power - and especially harmful are heaven beliefs - and thus doesn't require human improvement, or decide that humans can't improve "natural order of things" at all (Hinduism went static with that), religion curbstomps social and scientific progress. So much for "not their fault". When people have no running water or wonder what good can an invention of a steam machine get, the last thing they need is a Jesus belief which tells them that the world is bad, no need to improve this doomed place, and heaven awaits him who spends time on glorifying Sky Pixies, not him who works to improve the daily situation of the people.

[Howedar]

Not if the disorder is incurable (or incurable with current medicine).

So? The person in question is a metaphor for human society, in which case, he's a doctor for himself. If he always sits on drugs, he won't be eager to find a solution for his pain other than drugs, right?

No, not right. I don't think that people who are religious (or societies who are religious) in general have a vastly lower goal of self-improvement.

No, it held because of the requirement of subsistence agriculture, combined with the technological inability to solve problems in quality of life.

This doesn't change a single bit with the presence or absence of religion, or what? Do you think that without the Dark Age Christianity, people would spend just the same amount of centuries for the scientific progress which brought industrial revolution, mechanization and the increase in life quality? I'm fairly certain that religion does divert attention from the problem of technological inability/backwardness to continue itself into the future.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to comment beyond the fact that I think the religious aspect was a minor one.

It wasn't God/Allah/Buddha/Ganesha's fault

That's not what I said. I said that when people think that the current state on Earth is explained by some religious power - and especially harmful are heaven beliefs - and thus doesn't require human improvement, or decide that humans can't improve "natural order of things" at all (Hinduism went static with that), religion curbstomps social and scientific progress. So much for "not their fault". When people have no running water or wonder what good can an invention of a steam machine get, the last thing they need is a Jesus belief which tells them that the world is bad, no need to improve this doomed place, and heaven awaits him who spends time on glorifying Sky Pixies, not him who works to improve the daily situation of the people.

See above, I guess. I don't think that this was the major factor in everything, but that's mostly my gut feeling.

[Darth Wong]

There is a very strong correlation between the level of religious fervour in any given country and its level of backwardness, both technologically and socially. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to argue that the net social effect of religion is negative, and significantly so.

[SWPIGWANG]

I don't think you can completely seperate usefulness and value systems.

Given modern secular humanist values, religions are generally detimental. I wouldn't say the same is true in general however. People that hold religious values obviously thinks that religion is useful in itself.

To quote myself in a thread that no one replied to..... see section 2 of the quote

Warning: Long as hell
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=102605

After many non-starters at trying to make a thread about the topic, here it is, after a entire night of sleeplessness, so forgive me for mistakes.

Here is an different sort of analysis about the entire idea of religion.

This is largely analyzing religion as a meme and a sociological structure.

Index: 1. Why people believe. 2. Why did the belief survive 3. Implications

1. Why People Believe

The best answer is: because they can. People can believe almost anything if they are taught in the supporting manner. Beliefs do not have to be rationally consistant, or even consistant with observed reality.

The biological base epismological system for understanding reality by people is a fuzzy inference system that links across ideas very loosely and only marignally consistancy.

It is sometimes thought that beliefs require a "reason" for example fear of god or result of "systematic logical" or something like that. No, beliefs requires it to be implemented in a mind and not seriously contradicted by stronger beliefs which has been thought about. While people make jokes about invisible dragoons and flying spaghetti monster, the joke is probably on them. Both invisible dragoons are flying spaghetti monsters are perfectly "believable" ideas that is only not believed in due to massive social education against it. If people are raised in a society that believe in such things, than it would be strange for them not to. Rationality and the scientific method is powerful new tools, but to the brain it is just another belief as opposed to something fundamentally intrinstic to thought. To a firm practitioners of ideas of logic, it excludes a large set of ideas from belief, but only after dedicated analyzation. Most people, thoughout most of history, do not remotely come close.

Just about any idea that can be believed, will be believed at some point.


2. Why did the religious beliefs survive and thrive

I.
Before we get into religion, lets review why do people hold beliefs at all and how do culture work.

Well, ideas is what seperates intelligent animals from less intelligent ones. A collection of ideas developed by a large group over time of course superceeds what an individual can come up in his limited lifespan. The creation and transfer of the large body of ideas is culture.

It should be noted that what a person "DO" as opposed to think is what keeps him alive. If there is two ideas that makes him do the exact same things, then they are basically the same.

Ideas that help people survive and adopt to different environments are not limited to the immediately pratical like how to make a spear. It does not necessarily need to make any sense from the point of the individual observer. Ideas go through its own mematic evolution in which bad ideas usually result in its believers killed. Good ideas gets passed on, and in general, the passing of culture is a net positive on the survivability of individuals. (but not always) If we accept the above, it makes sense that just about any belief can be formulated and believed in.

Examples of ideas that makes little sense to the individual observer while having long term benefit can be found everywhere. For example, ideas governing the choice of long term diet, to choice of housing (away from unstable habitats that may fail catastrophically once a few generations), to socially stable structures (reduction of war and random violence) and so on. The entire body of knowledge of science also points to alot of behavious that operates beyond the personal scale yet keeps the human species alive.

With simple thinking and transmission errors, new ideas are created all the time, and the can become beliefs and join the mematic evolution game.

II.
Now we've established how beliefs are useful reguadless of origins, we'll analyze why the ideas of supernatural has been successful.

The problem with culture is that transfering all those beliefs are extremely difficult, as anyone can see by a short trip to the library. Every belief has an cost in time of education to tech it to the next generation. It makes sense that a low cost method of transfering those ideas would be successful.

Religious type of ideas has been successful because.
1. It justifies the transfer or nearly any arbitary belief. Eg. cutting down trees anger the gods.
2. It is extremely simple to comprehend and remember by utilizing the well developed brain functions for remembering humans, by anthropomorphism.

The simplicity of the system probably is what made it work. Instead of things like "force at a distance" or "optimalization involving intergations of probability functions," it is so simple that a five year old can understand and it is effective in transfering the right sort of behaviour in no time flat.

That is probably sufficient to explain the large bodies of myth surrounding various cultures. Those ideas survive generally due to some usefulness, as a group people can perfectly not really think about natural events (just look at the large group of people not interested in figuring how a VCR works) and natural curiosity is only a part of the reason of its survival, though its low transfer costs means that society can afford quite a few of them.

III.
Now how did those loose end of myth evolve into religion?

Well, a large set of myth is perfectly fine for a closed small group of people. Large organized religion grew with the growth or large society that is composed of many different peoples. Organized religion probably grew from the new pressues from this environment.

At the start, most religions of new large civilizations are not really different from the large set of myth passed around. That absorbed local myth and had some shuffling from communication. It was fairly successful and lasted upto the modern era at some places (India, China, Japan).

However, there is also a new type of religion, either monotheistic or otherwise "universal" in it approach that have largely overshadowed the old. The basic difference is its generally refining all those mythical ideas into one "universal" force that encompasses all of space-time.

This has two effects: First it organize its believers into a strong, specific, unique identity. Second it opens the way for conversion for culturally different people. (one god for all) Thirdly, it allows stronger idea bundling.

Now, an idea like Christianity isn't an "standalone idea" but is really a carrier idea that transfers alot of ideas at once. Together with strong identity build with complex rituals, this has advantages of allowing the bundling of ideas of forced education, indoctrination, controlling power all at once. The disadvantage is higher entry cost as a large volume of ideas has to be transfered before can be called a Christian while a throwaway myth is only a few sentences long. However, even incomplete transfer (say dietism) of ideas benefit the meta-idea of Christianity thus it is not so bad off.

3.Implications
Now, all this discussion involved very little about god. If we view religion as just another piece of culture, there is really no reason to argue fundamental metaphysics for its spread. Ideas exists and is believed because it is believed. There is no reason to think that a human-meta-chooses an idea based on merits, especially when the human lacks such ability at the start.

The thing about religion is that they can believe in god and still do just about everything. God is irrelevent to daily life but still deemed "important" and thus the perfect carrier for ideas.

An religion is basically an "arbitary" idea that can be use to justify just about anything. It is functionally the "quick hack" in culture that passes on ideas and behaviour in a quick manner. It works by brancing out rapidly and experimenting with different ideas, with successful ones surviving. The massive "flexibility" in interperting scripture isn't just an random artifact, instead it is the absolute necessarity for the survival of an religion. However, it often only finds a local minimum, as with all evolutionary systems. Also, mematic evolution is not particularly fast with respect to the modern era, as it works on linear generational scales, while technology and economics in the recent past have worked on exponential scales.

An idea is just an abstract concept, it has no human considerations of basically anything. It does not care for suffering, unfairness or any moral value except those that contradict itself. Beliefs "care" about those human factors as much as the humans believe those factors. If a person do not believe in the possibility of a "just earth", than the person can tolerate in a belief system that imposes injustice. What determines what idea survives is what works.

Finally, religion is a very real thing. It builds churches, it raises armies, it votes and it converts. God is an excuse, it is the very real and physical effect it has on people's lives and their social structure that it survives. The evolution of religions also works on this, as there is no "religious character" that shapes how religions change, but the branch that somehow obtains power simply does.


--------
Ideally, modern science, social science in particular, can possiblely replace the parts of the haphazardous mess of killing ideas (and people) with evolution. However, sciences is largely value neutral, while everyone needs values to live. Social science itself is a culture artifact and there is not guantee that it will succeed despite is claims of more systematic and effective methodology resulting in better ideas. Whatever is the case, natural selection will pick the winner.

[Howedar]

There is a very strong correlation between the level of religious fervour in any given country and its level of backwardness, both technologically and socially. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to argue that the net social effect of religion is negative, and significantly so.

In this day and age? I don't think so either, thought I'd wonder what's the cause and what's the effect. That said, I thought we were discussing possible benefits as opposed to total impact.

[Darth Wong]

There is a very strong correlation between the level of religious fervour in any given country and its level of backwardness, both technologically and socially. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to argue that the net social effect of religion is negative, and significantly so.

In this day and age? I don't think so either, thought I'd wonder what's the cause and what's the effect.

I don't know if there's a clean cause-and-effect relationship. However, I would argue that the kinds of things that societies do in order to ensure the supremacy of religion will intrinsically ruin that society.

That said, I thought we were discussing possible benefits as opposed to total impact.

I would say that none of the claimed benefits of religion are really backed up with any evidence. People simply declare these beneficial mechanisms a priori, and expect that no one will challenge them to back up these claims. In general, people expect a vastly higher standard of evidence for the harm caused by religion than the benefit.

[SWPIGWANG]

Religion is arguably an instrument of social control, but since no religious society has ever been able to maintain law and order without the use of physical force, I suspect that this mechanism is far less effective than people believe.

*points to the amish*

The question is there effective social control without the use of physical force and religion. I belive that beyond a certain scale, no society have been able to maintain full control without the use for force. When even the hugely imbalanced relationship of parents treating children resorts to physical force all too often, there is simply no ideology or power structure that could avoid the need force in all cases.

It is not completely effective, but it does have an effect.

That's not what I said. I said that when people think that the current state on Earth is explained by some religious power - and especially harmful are heaven beliefs - and thus doesn't require human improvement, or decide that humans can't improve "natural order of things" at all (Hinduism went static with that), religion curbstomps social and scientific progress.

Social and scientific change has happened at glacial speeds throughout most of history. The modern, post scientific method era is an anomaly unpreceedented in history. For the most part of human history, society exists in whatever form and there is no changing it in a generation. It is not that religions never adopt new ideas, it just happen across generations as opposed to being inside one.