What is the use of religion?

[Darth Wong]

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*

Oh puh-lease, they're miniscule communes. There were Marxist communes that pulled off the same trick in the 1960s, and many which exist even today. That doesn't mean it works on the larger scale of a society, unless you want to be pedantic and say that "society" can refer to small groups.

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.

But there is not even any evidence that religious societies are more "moral" than irreligious societies. Even the fundie Barna Research Group gave up trying to prove that atheists are any less voluntarily moral than theists.

It is not that religions never adopt new ideas, it just happen across generations as opposed to being inside one.

Oh right, that explains all of the revisions and improvements that we see in the Bible ... oh wait.

[SWPIGWANG]

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.

I'm just reading this, and I'm wondering if we are defining "religious fervour" with "backwardness."

A person in a modern society could be as religious as any crazy nut in some shithole, but because his religion is build with modernist values they are ignored. The chain of illogic and the worship of authority is the same but they are simply taught different things.

That said, I don't actually have the numbers to back it up. *wonders if he should dig poll numbers*

[SWPIGWANG]

But there is not even any evidence that religious societies are more "moral" than irreligious societies. Even the fundie Barna Research Group gave up trying to prove that atheists are any less voluntarily moral than theists.

Where does morality come in here? In any case morality is undefined in this discussion.

Social control is more about uniformity and obedience to authority, and we do see how religion helps with that in backwards homogeneous societies.

It is not that religions never adopt new ideas, it just happen across generations as opposed to being inside one.

Oh right, that explains all of the revisions and improvements that we see in the Bible ... oh wait.

The very structure of the Abrahamic religions sets limits. However even with those religions, the interpretations of holy text has changed quite a bit over time. A religion is only tied to some symbolic historical linerage and can really mutate into just about anything. Under the Christian framework, everything from divine right of Kings to effective anarchy can be supported with the right word twisting.

This allows the truely stupid and outdated ideas to be slowly retired over time, however it takes eons compared to the modern information cycle.

[Darth Wong]

Social control is more about uniformity and obedience to authority, and we do see how religion helps with that in backwards homogeneous societies.

Evidence?

[Pablo Sanchez]

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.

As if the only thing stopping representative democracy from flowering in tenth-century Europe was the Catholic Church...

[Darth Wong]

Well, even today it's no secret that the Catholic Church is growing most quickly in the most poverty-stricken parts of the world. It feeds on misery.

[SWPIGWANG]

Social control is more about uniformity and obedience to authority, and we do see how religion helps with that in backwards homogeneous societies.

Evidence?

The first part of the sentence or the second?

Any idea what would be valid evidence in this case? Or inversely, what would prove a negative in this case? *thinks*

[Darth Servo]

*points to the amish*

If anything, the Amish only support Mike's argument about strong religious beliefs leading to backwards societies. Hell, "life with as little technology as possible" is one of their primary goals. I still don't understand why a man-made buggy constitutes acceptable technology but things like electricity do not.

[Darth Wong]

Social control is more about uniformity and obedience to authority, and we do see how religion helps with that in backwards homogeneous societies.

Evidence?

The first part of the sentence or the second?

Any idea what would be valid evidence in this case? Or inversely, what would prove a negative in this case? *thinks*

Well to be honest, your definition is seriously fucked up. You're arguing that religion helps maintain social control, which you define as uniformity and obedience to authority. But you argue that religion only helps with this in "backwards homogeneous societies", which are already uniform by definition and hence do not require religion to make them uniform. So really, you're only arguing that religion helps maintain obedience to authority, and for that, I still want to see evidence.

[Howedar]

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.

Again, no argument here. Supremacy of religion, as a theoretical best case, leaves you with societal stagnation.

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.

That could be. I'm trying hard not to get into a rigorous debate on the topic, because I really have nothing like the background knowledge necessary to do so in an honest, meaningful and complete manner.

[K. A. Pital]

Supremacy of religion, as a theoretical best case, leaves you with societal stagnation.

So, you essentially agree to the claim that religion acts as a hindrance to technical and social progress? Then, frankly, what is it's usefulness that can outweigh the social and technical stagnation or stasis? Fairy tales for deluded people about Sky Pixies? Please.

[Howedar]

Boy, for someone who sides with the free-thinking atheists, you sure are keen to hop on an intellectual and rhetorical bandwagon. Go peddle your whining to someone who actually argued for the net worth of religion. I never argued that the net change was a positive one.

Yapping lapdog piece of shit.

[K. A. Pital]

Talk about fucking rethorics - your initial claim.

I don't think that people who are religious (or societies who are religious) in general have a vastly lower goal of self-improvement.

Compare with:

Supremacy of religion, as a theoretical best case, leaves you with societal stagnation.

Fuck yeah! Consistency at it's prime.

I never argued that the net change was a positive one.

Net change has jack shit to do with your claim in question. Fuck off.

[Howedar]

Talk about fucking rethorics - your initial claim.

I don't think that people who are religious (or societies who are religious) in general have a vastly lower goal of self-improvement.

Compare with:

Supremacy of religion, as a theoretical best case, leaves you with societal stagnation.

Fuck yeah! Consistency at it's prime.

Fuck yeah! Black and white fallacy at it's prime.

I never argued that the net change was a positive one.

Net change has jack shit to do with your claim in question. Fuck off.

Uh, usefulness outweighing disadvantages is precisely the definition of net good. Dumbass.

[K. A. Pital]

Fuck yeah! Black and white fallacy at it's prime.

So you claim on one hand that societies which are religious in don't have a vastly lower goal of self-improvement [than a non-religious society], but on the other hand that religion leads to social stagnation. Pardon me, this isn't a "black & white" fallacy, it looks like two mutually exclusive claims.

Uh, usefulness outweighing disadvantages is precisely the definition of net good.

I wasn't even willing to argue anything about "net good" or "net bad" of religion (though if we do, certainly it's net bad), I was merely wondering at your claims about religion and social progress made above.

And I made a mistake of mentioning "outweigh" and "usefulness" of religion in a mockery fashion, as if I was making a comparison of usefulness of religion versus it's "disadvantages". I was not intending to discuss net effects of religion.

The comparison that interested me was between religion and it's absense, relating to progress.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I suggest reading the relevant chapter in The God Delusion if you want some possible answers here. Mainly, religion is likely a side-effect, not a Darwinian trait evolve for specifically, but merely a consequence of something else. One proposed idea is the gullibility of human children, for their safety, to accept what their elders say without raising questions. That, when combined with various immature ways of understanding the world, such as "Sacrifice a goat every month or the rains won't come" are taken on and so it snowballs from there.

A better question is "How did religion come about?" rather than what use, if any, it has.

[Howedar]

Fuck yeah! Black and white fallacy at it's prime.

So you claim on one hand that societies which are religious in don't have a vastly lower goal of self-improvement [than a non-religious society], but on the other hand that religion leads to social stagnation. Pardon me, this isn't a "black & white" fallacy, it looks like two mutually exclusive claims.

Only if you believe that you can either have no religion or religion supreme above all else. I said that supremacy of religion probably leads to social stagnation, not that any amount of religion must have this end.

I wasn't even willing to argue anything about "net good" or "net bad" of religion (though if we do, certainly it's net bad), I was merely wondering at your claims about religion and social progress made above.

And I made a mistake of mentioning "outweigh" and "usefulness" of religion in a mockery fashion, as if I was making a comparison of usefulness of religion versus it's "disadvantages". I was not intending to discuss net effects of religion.

Fair enough. People misspeak.

The comparison that interested me was between religion and it's absense, relating to progress.

Fair enough. I don't know if it's a feasible comparison to make, what with the vast array and magnitude of the forms religion can take in society.

[Darth Wong]

Only if you believe that you can either have no religion or religion supreme above all else.

Unfortunately, certain religions uphold their supremacy as part of their doctrines, so even if they haven't achieved supremacy, they will always tend to push for it. The fact that the Abrahamic religions welded their theology together with their morality has caused no end of trouble for the world, because that fusion of faith and morality leads true believers to conclude that unbelievers must be immoral.

Many religions have either an impersonal deity or a deity which is capable of doing wrong. The Abrahamic religions seem to be unusual in the way they proclaim that anything their God does or says is moral by definition, because morality = God = morality = God = morality. This naturally leads to the kind of supremacism we've mentioned, since societies will tend to forcibly prohibit unethical behaviour (or what they believe to be unethical behaviour) if they can.

[Howedar]

I won't lie, that argument definitely holds weight. I'll ponder that one. I'm not yet comfortable with the claim that the Abrahamic religions "uphold supremacy as part of doctrine".

[Magus]

I won't lie, that argument definitely holds weight. I'll ponder that one. I'm not yet comfortable with the claim that the Abrahamic religions "uphold supremacy as part of doctrine".

Well, since Abrahamic religions tend to have moral codes that are decidedly not shared by the rest of the world, the fact that they believe they're right is a good reason to consciously or subconsciously hold beliefs of superiority.

After all, if no one agrees with you, and you can't be wrong, then you are superior.

[Magus]

Ghetto Edit: It should be "aspects of their moral codes..."

[SWPIGWANG]

Well to be honest, your definition is seriously fucked up. You're arguing that religion helps maintain social control, which you define as uniformity and obedience to authority. But you argue that religion only helps with this in "backwards homogeneous societies", which are already uniform by definition and hence do not require religion to make them uniform. So really, you're only arguing that religion helps maintain obedience to authority, and for that, I still want to see evidence.

Well, religion both produces authority and legitimize them in the minds of believers. In many stable arrangements, religious authority is wedded to secular authority of physical power.

One example of the effect of religious control would be holy wars across history. In such wars, people are united despite often terrible personal costs for such action. Without the power of religion, it is exceedingly difficult to achieve a level of obedience to the point of self destruction, like the sucide bomber we all know about. Traditional application of physical force is rather ineffective in this case. (an army of conscripts can not be transformed to a force of sucide bombers by the threat of force)

As for uniformity, religion enforces uniformity by default. The so called "uniform, backward society" is the result of the religious value system that legitimize various forms of destruction to be applied to those that disagree.

There are other ideological systems that is similar to religion that has the same effect, but religion is a very common one.

[Howedar]

I won't lie, that argument definitely holds weight. I'll ponder that one. I'm not yet comfortable with the claim that the Abrahamic religions "uphold supremacy as part of doctrine".

Well, since Abrahamic religions tend to have (aspects of their) moral codes that are decidedly not shared by the rest of the world, the fact that they believe they're right is a good reason to consciously or subconsciously hold beliefs of superiority.

After all, if no one agrees with you, and you can't be wrong, then you are superior.

I meant supremacy over all other social issues. Obviously many religions, including Abrahamic ones, hold that they are superior to other religions.

[Imperial Overlord]

Many religions have either an impersonal deity or a deity which is capable of doing wrong. The Abrahamic religions seem to be unusual in the way they proclaim that anything their God does or says is moral by definition, because morality = God = morality = God = morality. This naturally leads to the kind of supremacism we've mentioned, since societies will tend to forcibly prohibit unethical behaviour (or what they believe to be unethical behaviour) if they can.

This is actually environmentally related. Coastal societies don't tend to have their morality tied to their divinities (because you can do everything right and the sea can still kill you at any moment).

[Magus]

This is actually environmentally related. Coastal societies don't tend to have their morality tied to their divinities (because you can do everything right and the sea can still kill you at any moment).

A similar effect can be observed in ancient Babylon, whose residents believed the Gods to be evil and vindictive, due to the Tigris and Euphrates floods continually causing havoc and loss of life.