Measuring the good and bad of religions

[Wedge]

Hi there. It just occured to me, that one can compare religions and maybe kind of "measure" which one is "better" or "worse".
For measurement, you must choose a criteria you want to compare.
I would compare, how each religion treats non-believers or followers of other religions, NOT what they do for their own community, but how they care and help other communities.
So my criteria would be: How does each religion treat outsiders, from the outsiders point of view.
Following this criteria I would consider, helping outsiders = good, alienating them = bad, killing them = very bad, and so on.

Also I don't want to compare their holy books, but rather compare what they are doing NOW.
Why? 1- Because for example going by some passages in the bible, Christianity could be a very peaceful religion, and going by other passages it could be one of the bloodiest. 2- I don't know if the analogy is correct but: Saying that Christians are peaceful because it says that they should be in their book, it's like saying that: Germany is not racist because it doesn't say so the constitution, even if 90% of Germans would be racist.
What I'm trying to tell it that, I prefer to look at the behaviour of the followers than at the theory of how they should behave.

For example, you could try to compare which religion is more intrusive and which one less. You give "intrusivness points" (i.p.) to religions, for example missionaries ringing your bell in the morning gets 10 "i.p." , the bell from churches calling on Sunday 5 "i.p.", the calling from the minaret 5 "i.p." or depending on the time and frequency, more points. Maybe another thing to give "i.p." would be to look how many of their temples per believer-capita they have. So for example in average there are 2 synagogues per 1000 Jews, 15 mosques per 1000 Muslims and 20 churches per 1000 Christians, Christians would get more "i.p.".
At the end, you have assigned "i.p." to the different religions and the one with the lowest score is the best in this point. The one with highest score is therefore the most intrusive and worse. Why? A religious person would try to argument that: A missionary ringing your bell in the AM is actually good for you, because it is a chance for you to get to know their god and "the truth" so you can get to heaven and not hell. But remember that we are judging this from the outsider point of view. It doesn't matter if you are an Atheist, Muslim or Jew, an asshole trying to convince you of their religion waking you up in the morning is bad news.

Another aspect to compare could be religion inspired violence. These are the "violence points" ("v.p."). Stoning a woman for religious reasons 100"v.p.", circumcision for religious reasons 30"v.p.", clitoral amputation for religious reasons 50"v.p.", more gay violence inspired by religion, more "v.p." points you get. Maybe you could include rape of children for religious reasons 50"v.p." (because you don't see that in evangelical or orthodox priests, so maybe it has to do with that stupid religious requirement?). Here the same, the one with most "violence points" is the worse in this aspect.

There are also "technology braking points" ("tb.p.") for how much gen-tech and so on is being slowed down by religions.

And to show my good faith you could also compare something good. For example "charity points" ("c.p."). But you only count "c.p." for outsiders. So for example a school for illiterate children payed by the Jew community that only Jew kids can assist has 0 "c.p." A youth center open for everyone were people can play music, games and so on has 20"c.p." but if tries to preach their religions it loses "c.p." for it's "i.p." Missions to help people in the third world 50"c.p." again if the preaching is to much it loses "c.p.".
So you have (charity points - intrusive points) = final charity points.

So what do you think? Could a research that more or less followed this idea be taken serious? Would it be of any importance? Would it even get more "my religion is better than yours" depending on what the results were? Would it be worth comparing?

[Wedge]

Sorry for the double post. The title was supposed to say:
Can you measure the "good" and "bad" of religions?

If a Mod could do me the favour to fix it, and adapt the title to something that will fit in the space I will be very thankfull.

[ray245]

Well, this issue will be rather problematic due to anyone labelling a widespread religion as bad or good. Sure on a logical basis, it sounds good but when you factor in how the religion followers will response...I don't think calling any followers that their religion is bad will be a good move.

Islamic fundementalist are already trying to demostrate their devotion by blowing up people. This will only encourage them further. No follower of any belief likes the idea that their belief is evil or bad, even atheist.

And how to get 'neutral' people to assess it? Alot of scientist, researchers have their own religion but have a slightly different view points as compared to average joe. And if we are going to measure in atheist as well, the researchers(if they are atheist) will have a hard time convincing people they are neutral towards atheism.

And when one say through this measurement, a certain belief is considered the best, we are basically spreading this belief.

It will become a political or religious tool for the 'winning' religion. People will discrimate against the 'losing' religion EVEN more.

I don't think grading a belief over others is a good idea. That is my view.



But if want to assess it, you may want to take note of other good and bad points religion can provide if anyone wants to assess it.

If you want to be fair, you may try and assess religion through the eyes of a religous follower as well.

For example, you can say that one 'good' thing religion provides is to allow humans to have a easier time accepting death, given that if everyone wants to escape death...earth will be rather overcrowded...

So religion that depict a good afterlife can comfort the people who has lose people dear to them, and during life and death sistuation, may motivate them to perform act of courage by saving others and etc? That is to some people who follow their view of religion.

Other than that, christianity views that commiting sucide works to a certain extend. Prevents some people from commiting sucide when they feel useless or trying to cope with the death of a loved one. And preventing the idea that mass sucide is good way for you to go heaven. After all, if everyone believe that heaven is so much better than earth...alot of humans will be dead.



Overall, it will be a better idea to force people to accept people with other belief. Make it so that people from one religion will not be able to say people who don't follow their belief is evil.

Like how some christians view people who are not chrisitan, and follow other religion. Respect other belief dammit! And somehow, unless the government do something to force people to tolerate other people belief, people will continue to say you are evil or something.


Perhaps force people to learn something about the concept of different belief and etc in schools?

[Darth Onasi]

No follower of any belief likes the idea that their belief is evil or bad, even atheist.

How can lack of belief be either good or bad? Surely it's neutral by definition.

[ray245]

Firstly, even atheist don't lack a belief. They simply reject the notion of god and a afterlife. That is a belief or viewpoint. They simply believe that such things does not exist.

And if you are an atheist, do you like to be called evil in the face by any religous person? Sure, you can reject it being evil, but as a person, will it enjoy it?

To atheist, it is good idea because it means we are not limited by religous morals and we are able to push for more scientific advancement and development.

But to a religous person, atheist is basically what most christians is saying, because they reject their belief to be fake and it takes away their meaning of life and death, their purpose in this world, in their lifetime. And I do want to point out the fact that some atheist in this forum don't want religion to exist.


Because different perception exist, people don't want to be the losing side, and people have different ideas on what belief is good or bad. Hence, to most people they will not accept a atheist group to grade whether their religon or belief is good or bad.

And if the grading system includes atheism, can anyone say that the graders will not be biased? It does not matter whether the biasness is a good or bad thing. But it will be bias.


Only if the graders takes our atheism as part of the grading system, then people may not view it as that bias.

I'm only talking about atheism because the OP include atheist in his idea of a grading system.

[Shroom Man 777]

Beliefs in supernatural things are unnecessary. Not good or bad, per se.

The fact that the belief in supernatural things warrants dumb or sloppy thinking and irrationality... well, that's the bad thing. Since that leads to things that just gets worse and worse.

[Vicious]

Firstly, even atheist don't lack a belief. They simply reject the notion of god and a afterlife. That is a belief or viewpoint. They simply believe that such things does not exist.

Actually, it is lack of belief. I don't believe in the existence of a deity, or the lack thereof. I accept the natural world as presented, interpreted as accurately as possible via a rational medium. If evidence - actual falsifiable evidence - were presented for the existence of a god of some sort or another, I would accept that as part of my world view. Since there is no such evidence, I don't accept it.

And if you are an atheist, do you like to be called evil in the face by any religous person? Sure, you can reject it being evil, but as a person, will it enjoy it?

To atheist, it is good idea because it means we are not limited by religous morals and we are able to push for more scientific advancement and development.

Of course people don't like to be called evil. But since when do other people's feelings have anything to do with an objective analysis? If we objectively study organized crime, and conclude that it causes great harm to innocent people and call mobsters evil, does that detract from the merits of the analysis? If someone is unwilling to tolerate an objective analysis of their actions and/or teachings, then they need to re-evaluate those actions/teachings.

But to a religous person, atheist is basically what most christians is saying, because they reject their belief to be fake and it takes away their meaning of life and death, their purpose in this world, in their lifetime. And I do want to point out the fact that some atheist in this forum don't want religion to exist.

Many vocal religious groups don't want atheists - not to mention many other diverse groups - to exist. Again, just because it might offend someone is no justifiable reason to not study the merits of various belief systems. Or are those with religious beliefs excused from rational examination simply because they embrace irrational ideas?

Because different perception exist, people don't want to be the losing side, and people have different ideas on what belief is good or bad. Hence, to most people they will not accept a atheist group to grade whether their religon or belief is good or bad.

And if the grading system includes atheism, can anyone say that the graders will not be biased? It does not matter whether the biasness is a good or bad thing. But it will be bias.


Only if the graders takes our atheism as part of the grading system, then people may not view it as that bias.

I'm only talking about atheism because the OP include atheist in his idea of a grading system.

By all means, include atheists/humanists in such a study. There's no good reason not to.

Again, offending people is not, in and of itself, grounds to not conduct an objective study like the one in the OP. Frankly, religious individuals have utterly no right to feel offended in instances like these. Considering that these are groups who's most visible members publicly declare atheists, gays and other groups criminals, child molesters and worse, I feel no sympathy whatsoever at any offense they may feel.

Now, if people personally feel that their own actions aren't evil, that's fine. But they have to face up to the fact that the organizations from whence they draw their beliefs might not come out favorably under an objective light. How they deal with that is up to them.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Firstly, even atheist don't lack a belief. They simply reject the notion of god and a afterlife. That is a belief or viewpoint. They simply believe that such things does not exist.

Last time I checked, bald was not a hair colour.

[ray245]

I'm not talking about belief as in religous belief, I'm talking about belief as in what is your view in regards to death and how everything began. You believe in science through research and etc. It does not matter whether this is a correct if you are asking what do you believe and support.

And the last time I remember, the word belief simply means what a person believe in. You can believe in correct things, and you can believe in wrong facts, but you still are beliving in something.



I object to measuring religion because some people will not accept it in a sense...or most people. Because through this measurement, you can justify the TOP religion or best belief.

Not only will most people whose religion or belief isn't at the top reject it, the people whose belief is at the top will make use of this as another political tool. As long as their religion is slightly better than other religion, religious group will use it as look, our religion score higher than yours, hence you should not worship your previous religion, worship our god instead!

Because nothing good can come of of this graph. As a academic point of view, it is a good idea. But from a cultural point of view...I don't think so. Yes, you guys may not give a damn about what is other people feels...but I doubt some religous group will take that lying down. Some people are willingly to kill for their belief....and to them you are insulting their religion. I don't think the researchers likes to live under constant threat of death by any religious group or nutcases.



And to any atheist in this forum, the top or best belief will be athesim right? You don't see views from a extremely religous person, because you guys reject those religion. Hence even if you say you are not bias, you can be slightly bias.


I remember in a report that it is impossible for any humans not to be bias in thier judgement.

Remove athesim from the belief graph if a atheist want to judge any religion.

[Enforcer Talen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_ ... ngs_letter

This article just came out, and I found it to be an interesting bit considering the topic.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A plaintive letter asking Jesus "why didn't you ever answer my cries?" was found in the car of a gunman who killed four people at a church and missionary school before committing suicide, police said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The unsigned, undated letter is laced with expletives and asks, "Jesus, where are you? Do you even care these days?" KMGH-TV television in Denver reported.

The letter was found in the car of Matthew Murray, 24, on Dec. 9 after he killed two people at a missionary training school in suburban Denver and killed two others at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

KMGH said it obtained a copy of the letter from someone close to the investigation but did not identify the person. Colorado Springs police later made the letter public.

The 1 1/2-page letter, handwritten on lined paper, sometimes insults God and asks, "Why couldn't you write your (expletive) book more clearly?"

It asks "What have I done so wrong? What is wrong with me anyways? Am I really such a bad person?"

It concludes, "Am I too lost to be saved? My soul cries for deliverance. I'm dieing (sic), praying, bleeding and screaming. Will I be denied???"

[Wedge]

*BLABLA*You believe in science through research and etc.
And the last time I remember, the word belief simply means what a person believe in. You can believe in correct things, and you can believe in wrong facts, but you still are beliving in something.*BLABLA*

Where did I say that I was measuring believes?
I said I wanted to measure religion, since atheism doesn't count as a religion it wouldn't enter the ranking. Unless you think atheism is a form of religion stop mixing it.

I object to measuring religion because some people will not accept it in a sense...or most people. Because through this measurement, you can justify the TOP religion or best belief.

What exactly can you justify?

Priest: - Don't you think we should revise that celibacy requirement? We are losing priests, besides it has that nasty "collateral damage".
Bishop: - Ahhhh, nonsense. We still rank better than the Muslims, the collateral damage is justified.

Did you meant something like that?

Not only will most people whose religion or belief isn't at the top reject it, the people whose belief is at the top will make use of this as another political tool. As long as their religion is slightly better than other religion, religious group will use it as look, our religion score higher than yours, hence you should not worship your previous religion, worship our god instead!

Yeah, because NOBODY is doing that now...
Nobody is saying that their religion es less violent, better, the true path, the only path to, it has better/more laws etc.

Guess what a lot of people don't like?

Worldwide press freedom ranking of countries
World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Yeah, it kind of sucks if you think your country has great liberties and freedom of speech/press and not even be in the top 15/20.
Look, Trinidad and Tobago beats Germany in Press Freedom even when Germany improved and "T&T" stayed the same. Spain ranks 33 behind Ghana and Namibia. I really didn't expect that. I could say, fuck it they don't know what they were doing, you can't measure freedom of press like that.
But maybe the intelligent thing would be to look what they do better than us, and copy that or try to improve.
When there is a ranking there will always be people whining and bitching for not being at the top, SO WHAT?

Because nothing good can come of of this graph. As a academic point of view, it is a good idea. But from a cultural point of view...I don't think so. Yes, you guys may not give a damn about what is other people feels...but I doubt some religous group will take that lying down. Some people are willingly to kill for their belief....and to them you are insulting their religion. I don't think the researchers likes to live under constant threat of death by any religious group or nutcases.

So should we restrain ourselves in everything, because religious people might get offended? What about stem-cell research, or abortion. You have people ready to kill to prevent that, are you going to stop because of it? Fuck that shit, in this case fear is not a good reason not to do it.

And to any atheist in this forum, the top or best belief will be athesim right? You don't see views from a extremely religous person, because you guys reject those religion. Hence even if you say you are not bias, you can be slightly bias.

I don't think atheism is better than religion in ALL aspects. Sure it's tougher for an atheist to find "purpose in life". He doesn't has it written anywhere and must search it. Maybe many religious people are happier because they believe in a lie. It's like your wife has cheated you, would you be happier to know the truth or never ever finding out? I'm not asking which one would be better, or reasonable. Maybe sometimes lies make you happier.

Remove athesim from the belief graph if a atheist want to judge any religion.

Wow, someone is SCARED that atheism would be at the top when comparing belief systems. Just remember that I said compare religions. So who's sheep are you? Which temple do you attend?

Besides, I don't think that atheist should be the only ones distributing points. Each religion should be giving points to the other religions.
For example, a Jew tries that the clitoral amputation gets high "violence points". So you give it high violence points, but then you also have to give more points to circumcision.

My main question is, could one make such a research empirical enough, or would it have to much woo-woo in it?

[Darth Onasi]

I'm not talking about belief as in religous belief, I'm talking about belief as in what is your view in regards to death and how everything began. You believe in science through research and etc. It does not matter whether this is a correct if you are asking what do you believe and support.

Bullshit. Looking to and using science for answers is not the same as belief and faith in something intangible.
Religion implies a uniform belief held by a group, atheists have no such common belief. Science is not faith-based. If it was we'd never have progressed beyond stone tools.

If you buy a car that the manufacturer says can run on unleaded fuel, are you being religious because you regard this as true and in fact use unleaded?

[wjs7744]

Frankly, I doubt such a thing would work. It's well known how studies can easily be designed to give misleading results, and considering that the kind of things you are talking about are not directly quantifiable, I can't see anything like this working.

[ray245]

Wow, someone is SCARED that atheism would be at the top when comparing belief systems. Just remember that I said compare religions. So who's sheep are you? Which temple do you attend?

Besides, I don't think that atheist should be the only ones distributing points. Each religion should be giving points to the other religions.
For example, a Jew tries that the clitoral amputation gets high "violence points". So you give it high violence points, but then you also have to give more points to circumcision.

Scared? Hardly...I think it is pretty obivous that atheism be at the top of this graph.

And in regards to you asking what religion I am following...it does bring up another question.

How are you going to grade an unorgainzed religion?


The word belief doesn't mean it is related to religion at all. Science is a belief that is justified by facts in essence. Saying that atheist having a belief is the same meaning as saying I believe in facts.

You believe in the evidence provided in front of you. Doesn't the dictonary states that the word belief means mental acceptance of a claim as truth( well at the least on wikionary) . If you don't have mental acceptance of a theory, then how do you accept it as fact. I am rather confused by people keep seperating the word belief from science.

I'm not talking about religious belief, I'm talking about belief as a whole. Just because you believe in something does not mean you are religious...

Why do people keep on linking the word belief with religous belief?

[Wedge]

And in regards to you asking what religion I am following...it does bring up another question.

Yeah, how about answering? Are you ashamed of it? Why not come out and just tell which religion you follow?
My guess is you are a Christian, and more concretely evangelical.

*SNIP*I'm not talking about religious belief, I'm talking about belief as a whole. Just because you believe in something does not mean you are religious...

Why do people keep on linking the word belief with religous belief?

Hey MORON, look up and tell me who started talking about atheism in this thread? That's right YOU. So who is confusing what asshole? I was talking about comparing religions and somehow you mixed atheism in the pot. Then you act surprised when people are trying to explain to you that atheism =/= religion?

[Resinence]

Science is a belief

Quoted out of context yeah, in the conetxt your using it, it doesn't matter does it. "Science" IS NOT a "belief", to "believe" in something implies you have FAITH in said thing.

Good ol'websters: Science - "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Belief doesn't even come into it.

Now lets look at it in context;

Science is a belief that is justified by facts in essence.

It's not "justified by the facts", all science IS is experiments and observations, and the conclusions drawn from those. Darwin didn't go "i believe that new species arise from pressures of the environment that allow the better adapted to more rapidly increase their numbers" and then go looking for evidence of his already made conclusion. He drew the conclusion from the observations he made of ecosystems. This is the difference. A religion does the opposite, it concludes that <<diety>> exists and then goes searching for facts. So a religion could possibly be "supported by the facts".

Why do people keep on linking the word belief with religous belief?

Belief implies faith. What the fuck do you think believing in something means?

[ray245]

And in regards to you asking what religion I am following...it does bring up another question.

Yeah, how about answering? Are you ashamed of it? Why not come out and just tell which religion you follow?
My guess is you are a Christian, and more concretely evangelical.

Nope, I'm not a christian, nor a evangelical. Just because I believe that this system is bias, that makes me a christian?

Hell...I have never read the offical bible before, my only knowledge about christianity is those children books I have read as a kid.

I don't attend church, and I don't like an orgainzed religion. I'm not a atheist that's for sure, but I'm sure I'm not a chrisitan either. In fact, I live in a enviroment pretty free from any christian influence which I am glad for. I don't believe in creationism, and can accept evolution as a given fact.

And I have ask members in other board what is my religion known as...and the only word they can come out with is delusional.

In fact to this day, I have no idea what religion am I believing in.

How am I suppose to tell you what is my religion when I can't even figure out that myself???

[Wedge]

Nope, I'm not a christian, nor a evangelical. Just because I believe that this system is bias, that makes me a christian?

It was a guess, don't go making yourself a victim now.

Hell...I have never read the offical bible before, my only knowledge about christianity is those children books I have read as a kid.

So, your "knowledge" is none at all.

I don't attend church, and I don't like an orgainzed religion. I'm not a atheist that's for sure, but I'm sure I'm not a chrisitan either. In fact, I live in a enviroment pretty free from any christian influence which I am glad for. I don't believe in creationism, and can accept evolution as a given fact.

Maybe you have more in common with Christians than you think, how can you know if you don't have any knowledge? Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a way of God, and had also the idea that many passages of the bible including some in Genesis were not to be taking literally (word by word).

In fact to this day, I have no idea what religion am I believing in.

How am I suppose to tell you what is my religion when I can't even figure out that myself???

So, why not say so when I asked you the first time instead of dicking around? Maybe you could get help here identifying your favourite man-in-the-sky if you were interested.

Well did you at least comprehend that science is not a belief?

[ray245]

Maybe you have more in common with Christians than you think, how can you know if you don't have any knowledge? Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a way of God, and had also the idea that many passages of the bible including some in Genesis were not to be taking literally (word by word).

I support the idea that the bible cannot be taken literally all right, that it is basically exergration of events, like mistaking red sea with the reed sea and etc. But at the same time, I don't really accept the existence of christianity god fully either, that every thing is limited to the events in the bible, as well as accepting the christian god as my god.

While my belief has some similarities to christianity, I'm influenced by other religion as well, from chinese mythology to buddishism.

So, why not say so when I asked you the first time instead of dicking around? Maybe you could get help here identifying your favourite man-in-the-sky if you were interested.

Well did you at least comprehend that science is not a belief?

Oh, I have ask other people this question all right in regards to my religous stand and belief, and I do remember people agreeing that delusional is the only word close to that.


Because at times, I belief in an afterlife yet without the existence of a god...to believing in many gods from different religon...to somewhere close to atheism.

And somehow, I like my religous belief to be rather undefined in a way. And not going to follow any orgainsed religion doctrine and etc. Sometimes, life seems more fun where you don't have to label your religous belief or be defined by them.


Ok, in regards to saying science is not a belief, I find it hard to think people will be able think of new theories if they don't even accept it themselves.

Science by itself isn't a belief...but humans accepting science can be counted as one. Science is a study of our surrondings and nothing else, but isn't accepting or acknowledging science something you believe in.


Yes, I understand what is you guys trying to say, but I think you guys don't get what I am really trying to say to you guys. What you guys are thinking what I am saying isn't really what I really mean...

I'm rather poor words I guess...


And in regards to me bringing up atheism in this topic....I thought you have mention it somewhere in your OP. And hell, why do I keep forgetting you are the OP?


Damn...my mind is getting screwed up this past few weeks...

[Darth Onasi]

Ok, in regards to saying science is not a belief, I find it hard to think people will be able think of new theories if they don't even accept it themselves.

Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between believing you are correct about your new theory based on the evidence you have collected so far, and believing in unprovable, intangible deities and spirits based on nothing but what somebody has written or told you about?

Science by itself isn't a belief...but humans accepting science can be counted as one. Science is a study of our surrondings and nothing else, but isn't accepting or acknowledging science something you believe in.

Except that observations made by scientists are provable.
I know that my glass of water will fall if I drop it and shatter and spill it's contents if I drop it on the kitchen floor, I can prove this by dropping it.
A Christian may believe they are going to an eternal paradise after they die.. this is proved how?

[Darth Onasi]

ghetto edit:

Moreover, atheism does not = science.
There are many scientists who believe in God or whatever. They just don't include God in their studies because it's an unknown, unprovable factor.
Atheists don't believe in this factor to begin with, hence it's a lack of belief.

[Singular Intellect]

Religion: I believe in god! A test? No testing required! All that is required is faith! All the proof I need is written in this book and/or substantiated by vague, untestable claims and assertions!

Science: Gravity is a fact. A test? No problem. This object will accelerate and hit the ground when I drop it. *thump* Take careful note class, it should be noted that the object dropped here didn't give a shit whether anyone here believed it would fall or not...ergo, no belief required.

[Rye]

Just use secular humanism, nihilism, atheistic anarcho capitalism etc instead of atheism, Jesus Fuck. You want to compare ethical systems? That's fine. Atheism is the wrong category to compare, since it is a position on one issue (gods), much as theism is. "Theism" is not a religion or ethical system by itself, and nor is atheism. It is that goddamned simple.

As for comparing ethical systems, to do that you describe what ethics are for and then compare the systems against that defined "goal" to see which do better in the real world, regardless of their claimed intents.

Now, someone put a sock in Ray's mouth.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*cracks Behavioral Ecology knuckles*

Ok, general statements first. Religion.Is. Adaptive.Usually.

I know you will probably gasp and want to rip me apart for saying this, but if you apply natural selection to you will find that it is very good at doing some things that are adaptive for a society living in competition with other societies. These things are the transmittance of cultural information, formation of group identities, and social policing.

Transmittance of Cultural Information

Religions are constructed in such a way as to be very good at this. First off, they utilize authority. We like authority, it is one of those little issues with being a social mammal. So, a top down authority figure, or figures in the form of a priest (which in turn derive authority from some mystic alpha male) work very well for getting our mammal brains to respond and listen. After this authority is established, they use the same techniques used by cults to indoctrinate the information. Physical and Cognitive isolation from competing ideas, justification of costs(they invest so much time and in some cases money that cognitive dissonace applies and they rationalize away any doubts in order to justify the investment) etc.

This is the reason why there are churches, why they have sunday school, and even the real reason they tithe. It is all part of how they pass on cultural info. And when I say cultural info, I mean things like rules for mate selection and number, rules for how to treat eachother. The fact that it is dressed in mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant when you look at it from a functionalist perspective. A group competing against a group with this sort of information transmittance system is at a marked disadvantage.

Group Identities

One word: Ritual. Rituals be they in the form of chanting, dance, song, death, birth, rites of passage, marriage, all of them help form shared experiences, which promote the building of a group identity. I should not even need to go into why that is adaptive for a group in competition with other groups.

Social Policing

Religion is a form of social policing. Ideas about punishment in the afterlife(or even in this one) help keep people in line by bumping up the perceived risks associated with bad behavior. In behavioral biology, we generally think of bad behavior as cheating, taking advantage of the group for one's own benefit. Murder, rape, theft, being a tyrant, all of these things are forms of bad behavior that in sufficient amounts can lead to the collapse of a group.

To use an example: you have three populations on an island. One with reactive social policing mechanisms (in this case, stoning people who get out of line), one that has proactive policing mechanisms in addition to reactive ones (in this case, religiously inculturated social mores that further increase the perceived risks associated with bad behavior, followed up by stoning in the event someone gets out of line) and a group that does not have any social policing mechanisms.

Now, say that in each population a rapist appears.

In the poulation with no policing mechanism, this guy will rape repeatedly causing a lot of social problems. False paternity, suffering etc. All of this leads if he does it enough, to a decrease in capacity of this population to compete with the other groups on the island, and this rapist maximizes his reproductive success, and rapists will increase in frequency in the population... eventually the society will be outcompeted by the other groups and go extinct.

In the population with only reactive mechanisms, a rapist appears and will rape until he gets caught, and stoned to death. There are social problems associated with this, and as a result the group will experience a decrease in its competitive capacity. But not as large as the first group. However because there are no proactive mechanisms top prevent rape, they still have rapists cropping up with a constant frequency.

In the proactive religious population, people with a propensity to rape still crop up, however some of them weigh the risks and decide against acting on their impulses, because the stakes are higher. While in the ractive population the guy is only punished if he gets caught, in the proactive population he is punished even if he never is. As a result, rape occurs at a lower frequency and causes fewer social problems as a result. This group will outcompete the reactive group.

Now that is not to say that you cannot have proactive cheating prevention without religion. You can. The thing is, religion is a complete package. It does all this. It does three things for the price of one. It is a cognitive swiss army knife. A secular society has to have different mechanisms to perform the same functions.

Now, this is not to say that religion has a price. It has two. The first is that because of the entrenched tradition and authority, it does not change fast enough to keep up with a modern technological society and its needs (and secular challenges to the doctrine of faith)

The second price is that religion is very very susceptible to exploitation. The same mechanisms that make it so very good at forming group identities, socially policing, and passing down cultural information are also very easy for a malicious idea or person to exploit, and cause DISASTROUS results. But it is an evolutionary tradeoff, and selection is not forward looking...

[Darth Wong]

Transmittance of Cultural Information

Religions are constructed in such a way as to be very good at this. First off, they utilize authority. We like authority, it is one of those little issues with being a social mammal. So, a top down authority figure, or figures in the form of a priest (which in turn derive authority from some mystic alpha male) work very well for getting our mammal brains to respond and listen. After this authority is established, they use the same techniques used by cults to indoctrinate the information. Physical and Cognitive isolation from competing ideas, justification of costs(they invest so much time and in some cases money that cognitive dissonace applies and they rationalize away any doubts in order to justify the investment) etc.

This is the reason why there are churches, why they have sunday school, and even the real reason they tithe. It is all part of how they pass on cultural info. And when I say cultural info, I mean things like rules for mate selection and number, rules for how to treat eachother. The fact that it is dressed in mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant when you look at it from a functionalist perspective. A group competing against a group with this sort of information transmittance system is at a marked disadvantage.

Dude, we have this thing called "media" now. We have no problem transmitting our cultural values and behaviours.

Group Identities

One word: Ritual. Rituals be they in the form of chanting, dance, song, death, birth, rites of passage, marriage, all of them help form shared experiences, which promote the building of a group identity. I should not even need to go into why that is adaptive for a group in competition with other groups.

No, but you might want to provide some EVIDENCE of this being a competitive advantage.

Social Policing

Religion is a form of social policing. Ideas about punishment in the afterlife(or even in this one) help keep people in line by bumping up the perceived risks associated with bad behavior. In behavioral biology, we generally think of bad behavior as cheating, taking advantage of the group for one's own benefit. Murder, rape, theft, being a tyrant, all of these things are forms of bad behavior that in sufficient amounts can lead to the collapse of a group.

To use an example: you have three populations on an island. One with reactive social policing mechanisms (in this case, stoning people who get out of line), one that has proactive policing mechanisms in addition to reactive ones (in this case, religiously inculturated social mores that further increase the perceived risks associated with bad behavior, followed up by stoning in the event someone gets out of line) and a group that does not have any social policing mechanisms.

Now, say that in each population a rapist appears.

In the poulation with no policing mechanism, this guy will rape repeatedly causing a lot of social problems. False paternity, suffering etc. All of this leads if he does it enough, to a decrease in capacity of this population to compete with the other groups on the island, and this rapist maximizes his reproductive success, and rapists will increase in frequency in the population... eventually the society will be outcompeted by the other groups and go extinct.

In the population with only reactive mechanisms, a rapist appears and will rape until he gets caught, and stoned to death. There are social problems associated with this, and as a result the group will experience a decrease in its competitive capacity. But not as large as the first group. However because there are no proactive mechanisms top prevent rape, they still have rapists cropping up with a constant frequency.

In the proactive religious population, people with a propensity to rape still crop up, however some of them weigh the risks and decide against acting on their impulses, because the stakes are higher. While in the ractive population the guy is only punished if he gets caught, in the proactive population he is punished even if he never is. As a result, rape occurs at a lower frequency and causes fewer social problems as a result. This group will outcompete the reactive group.

Now that is not to say that you cannot have proactive cheating prevention without religion. You can. The thing is, religion is a complete package. It does all this. It does three things for the price of one. It is a cognitive swiss army knife. A secular society has to have different mechanisms to perform the same functions.

Wow, that's wonderful speculative bullshit. Got any actual EVIDENCE for the real-life effectiveness of this mechanism? Or will you just post some anecdotes?

Now, this is not to say that religion has a price. It has two. The first is that because of the entrenched tradition and authority, it does not change fast enough to keep up with a modern technological society and its needs (and secular challenges to the doctrine of faith)

The second price is that religion is very very susceptible to exploitation. The same mechanisms that make it so very good at forming group identities, socially policing, and passing down cultural information are also very easy for a malicious idea or person to exploit, and cause DISASTROUS results. But it is an evolutionary tradeoff, and selection is not forward looking...

Really? Those are the only two downsides of religion that you can think of? Seriously?