Religion, its Function

[Zythryn]

The underlying thought here is that man created god, that we use religion as some sort of segurity blanket while we advance through the evolution of civilisation and at some point we get rid of it or at least keep it in a drawer so we know where it is if we need it again.

 

God and religion really have very little to do with each other. The question is not about the existance of god, but what purpose religion serves.

 

If there is only one religion's view of god that is correct, there would be times man existed on earth where that specific religion didn't exist. Therefore religion only existed after mankind was created/evolved into homo-sapiens.

 

What if religion came first? what if God created us for a reason, His reason, and what we find in reality is that when we find God, we also find a reason for our life.

 

I believe many people find reasons for their lives that don't rely on god.

 

The reason I ask is, that the 'take it or leave it' attitude towards God presupposes that it doesn't matter which option we chose.

 

It matters a great deal to the individual who makes the choice:)

[chill]

The books I have seen tend to blame Islam, and perhaps Muslim culture, for most of this, not religion per se. I would be interested in your examples of books which blame religion in general?

 

Richard Dawkin's the God Delusion is not about terrorism but about the human tendency for superstition (unless I am mistaken).

 

Well yeah, you've got a point there. The End of Faith discusses this.

 

 

 

I think when religion is a necessity it is a very strong sign that something is very wrong. It is not the religion that is the problem, but the lack of welfare, social stability, education, safety etc. When these basic necessities are not present, religion tends to be a shelter.

 

There are a lot of thigs that are "very wrong" in the world today. And honestly, what can we do about it? Yes, religion is a shelter, that's what I'm trying to get at. "Is" cannot become "should"; the world IS very wrong and religion IS used as a shelter in this world. This cannot become: The world SHOULD be a better place and hence religion SHOULDn't be ncessary. Inequality will always be there. Let me stress upon this point about "is" cannot become "should" because it is a fallacy that is very often made in connection to the social sciences.

 

I partly agree. One problem arises when religion is *enforced*, like when certain missionaries or politicians demand that people adopt religious beliefs in order to gain public services, for example.

 

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. And although it kinda pisses me of to HAVE to have a religion as an Indonesian (me being a free-thinker), it's not such a big deal because its practice isn't monitered by the government (unlike, say, some provinces in Malaysia that adopt Islamic law). To ugahibu, the 5 religions are Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Judaism isn't allowed.

[chill]

By religion I mean a God and -dare I say it- a set of rules.

 

I can understand the reasoning behind proving the existence of God, the "causa prima", for example, but what makes you suppose that He especially created a set of rules for human beings (religion)? Ok, assuming you trust science, human beings are just a result of evolution, and although we are intelligent and self-conscious, I doubt we are in any way "special" in the large scheme of things (the Universe, its billions of galaxies). We're just a happy coincidence, and we would like to think we're special and that God gave us Special Attention. But I think it's much more likely that God made up rules governing the General Affair of Things (assigned random numbers to # of dimensions, mass of elemtary particles, how these particles interact, and so on). I doubt very much that He Intended for us to happen, and even if he knows, I doubt He cares much.

 

However, this is not the point. Let's not talk about the validity of religion's existence philosophically but rather through its real-life results.

 

Religion has been used as a tool to repress, but it doesn't stop it from being a positive influence on society in the right hands, look at free health care, orphanages, free education, that can be traced back to religious folk who wanted to help mankind because of their belief.

 

Yes, that's true. But should something be judged by its intention or by its results? The question is, has the Good done in the name of religion offset the Evil done in the name of it?

[BibleBeliever]

But the point is the origin of religion, if we find that then the effects of it in the real world will have a point of reference.

 

If the religion of the day is not following the original principles and society is going downhill then it may be that we need to return to the original system rather than to reject this faulty religion and go it alone.

 

To say we are not special is just false humility, why would God not make the whole of the universe just to show us His awesomeness, after all there may come a time when we get to go and have a look at it ;-)

 

To judge something by it's result is not necessarily judging the thing itself but those who are completing the laws, for example if the law says thou shalt not kill and people cary on killing- in the name of religion- then to say the law is at fault is wrong, you need to go back to the original and point out that these people are not following the law.

 

Is it possible that religion, (a specific one) is given to us to help us live at peace but we in our selfishness twist it so we can get the better of others?

 

But that's the point of Old Testament law to show us that we are not the good people that we think we are.

[InfiniteNow]

But the point is the origin of religion

Religion, its function. Not sure these are the same...

 

To say we are not special is just false humility,

Well, perhaps, but it could also be an accurate representation that we are in no way different from all other decaying matter. The special is self appointed label, and really does not speak to anything about nature.

 

Is it possible that religion, (a specific one) is given to us to help us live at peace but we in our selfishness twist it so we can get the better of others?

Of course anything is possible, however, I have rather strong reservation that religion helps us live in peace, and history (I feel) supports this reservation rather vehemently.

 

But that's the point of Old Testament law to show us that we are not the good people that we think we are.

This could be interpreted in other ways. Perhaps it's to keep us locked in a sense of guilt so we are more malleable. The rat afraid of shock tends to be easier to train...

 

 

Religion has many functions. It offers solice. It offers a place of commune. It provides hope to many who have lost it, but the negatives in our religious world are (IMO) quickly overtaking the positives.

[chill]

To say we are not special is just false humility, why would God not make the whole of the universe just to show us His awesomeness, after all there may come a time when we get to go and have a look at it ;-)

 

Well, at least in my case I know it's not false. After reading things like The Elegant Universe, A Brief History of Time, and others, I kind of got a sense of how insignificant we really are and how big the Universe is. We are the Thermodynamic Miracle, as Dr Manhattan of the Watchmen said, but truthfully that's all we are; a coincidence. If you want to get a sense of how big the universe really is, I recommend you the two previously mentioned books, by Brian Green and Stephen Hawking respectively (Watchmen is by Alan Moore).

 

If the religion of the day is not following the original principles and society is going downhill then it may be that we need to return to the original system rather than to reject this faulty religion and go it alone.

 

To judge something by it's result is not necessarily judging the thing itself but those who are completing the laws, for example if the law says thou shalt not kill and people cary on killing- in the name of religion- then to say the law is at fault is wrong, you need to go back to the original and point out that these people are not following the law.

 

Is it possible that religion, (a specific one) is given to us to help us live at peace but we in our selfishness twist it so we can get the better of others?

 

Yes, you have a good point there. It would be wrong to imply that when someone does something Evil in the name of religion it's the fault of the religion. It would, however, also be wrong to imply the reverse; that religion has no part to play whatsoever. Afterall, extremists quote their Holy Scipture, too. It is also the fault of the Scripture for being ambiguous in its phrasing. In the end, you realize, it boils down to the person's basic character.

 

Aside from that, yes, religion I understand was meant to be Good, to govern society and people. However, it comes with many side-effects (extremism, the intolerance of other religions, and so on). Hence, as a governing system, is it the best? Afterall, all modern law systems absolutely encourage peace. Hence, I am trying to move away altogether from the concept of religion as a governing system. Notice that I didn't make mention of it as a benefit of religion. The relevant function of religion today is Faith amd its ability to manipulate it, powerfully.

[BibleBeliever]

 

Religion has many functions. It offers solice. It offers a place of commune. It provides hope to many who have lost it, but the negatives in our religious world are (IMO) quickly overtaking the positives.

 

That's because people lump all religion together, this cannot be done as they all have different principles and ways of dealing with the real world. To look at any one religion and see it's effect on the society that embraces it, gives a better idea of the value of that particular religion, than to look at a culture that has accepted all views as equal and therefore tries to accomodate them.

This does not mean that everyone is not entitled to a view, but that it is realised that some views are not beneficial to the population.

 

Then again majority rule is not always a good basis for good government either.

 

This is an ongoing problem, but to reject the 'real' religion just because false religions don't work puts us in a position where we have to make up our rules from scratch and anarchy will soon follow.

[InfiniteNow]

You raise a nice point, BB, but I do, however, take issue with your final paragraph. It's arrogant, and baseless, and is your own belief... It is not founded on any truth that is unsubjective.

 

This is an ongoing problem, but to reject the 'real' religion just because false religions don't work puts us in a position where we have to make up our rules from scratch and anarchy will soon follow.

 

Told ya it wouldn't be easy... :beer:

[BibleBeliever]

 

Aside from that, yes, religion I understand was meant to be Good, to govern society and people. However, it comes with many side-effects (extremism, the intolerance of other religions, and so on). Hence, as a governing system, is it the best? Afterall, all modern law systems absolutely encourage peace. Hence, I am trying to move away altogether from the concept of religion as a governing system. Notice that I didn't make mention of it as a benefit of religion. The relevant function of religion today is Faith amd its ability to manipulate it, powerfully.

 

Here's a suggestion, perhaps religion, and I mean here a system of laws from which if you keep them you will receive some reward, if you don't keep them then some punishment follows - perhaps we're missing the point. What is it's function? After reading and listening a lot about this subject my conclusion is that it's function is to show us who we really are.

In a nutshell:

 

There are rules - do you agree?

We don't keep them -true?

We deserve punishment - realistic consequence.

 

But that's not the end of the story...

 

If I say more it will be preaching, I'm just putting forward a different view.

[BibleBeliever]

Infinitenow wrote

I do, however, take issue with your final paragraph. It's arrogant, and baseless, and is your own belief... It is not founded on any truth that is unsubjective.

 

 

What about communism? That may not have been anarchy but it didn't do what it said on the packet.

[Tormod]

What about communism? That may not have been anarchy but it didn't do what it said on the packet.

 

This is pointless and quite off topic. Communism is not a religion but an ideology.

[Tormod]

Here's a suggestion, perhaps religion, and I mean here a system of laws from which if you keep them you will receive some reward, if you don't keep them then some punishment follows - perhaps we're missing the point. What is it's function?

 

The way you describe it, religion has only one function: social order and control, sometimes abuse, with the threat of punishment. However not all religions threaten with punishment nor offers eternal life. They don't even all have deities (like Buddhism).

 

Being religious is something else entirely, and is about the individuals' expression of faith. I think most "religious" people in this world are so because they were born into a system of religion, not because they chose it.

 

In a nutshell:

 

There are rules - do you agree?

We don't keep them -true?

We deserve punishment - realistic consequence.

 

It's impossible to answer these without generalisation.

 

But the three questions basically describe a judiciary system: law, enforcement, punishment. It does not apply to religion only but to society as a whole.

 

If I say more it will be preaching, I'm just putting forward a different view.

 

Your views are not as original as you may think, and you are pretty close to preaching in several of your posts. I would advise against a strategy of using religious items as proof or to use *your* religion's artefacts as example of religionin general (as for example the old testament).

[chill]

my conclusion is that it's function is to show us who we really are.

 

Well go on, try me. What do you mean by show us who we really are? How do you connect this to religion's fucntion at the societal level?

 

If you mean religion at the existentialist level, then I comprehend. But how much time does it need, and how many people, actually take religion to an existentialist level. And how do you ensure their interpretation is correct? How do YOU know your interpretation is correct? How do you know in all honesty that it's not the extremists who had the correct interpretation all along? If you take religion to the personal, existentialist level it becomes way too subjective to be functional at a societal level; there are simply too many different interpretations.

[Zythryn]

But the point is the origin of religion...

 

Let's do our best not to turn this into a discussion of religion being right vs religion being wrong.

The original question is (to paraphrase) 'What is religion's function?'

 

Again, I resubmit that religion was created in order to answer questions. Later religions were formed to provide social structure and then as a tool to give the heads of religion control over society.

 

I think for this discussion it is VERY important that nobobdy (not picking on BB here;)) focus on the effects of any one religion, but the idea of religion as a whole.

 

Again, god<>religion so we can leave god out of this one.

 

If anyone wants to discuss a different topic I would be happy to participate in another thread. I just ask as I really am fascinated by the function of religion and people's views on that specific question:)

[BibleBeliever]

Let's do our best not to turn this into a discussion of religion being right vs religion being wrong.

The original question is (to paraphrase) 'What is religion's function?'

 

Again, I resubmit that religion was created in order to answer questions. Later religions were formed to provide social structure and then as a tool to give the heads of religion control over society.

 

 

:doh:

Let me apologise to you all then, you see the word 'Religion' means different things to different people, so when you ask why it was created I jumped to the illogical conclusion that because I have a belief in God and the bible that you were including people like me in your statement, however I see your point and I agree that religion, in the sense that you are talking, is what you said, more or less.

 

So does that make me not religious? That depends upon whom you ask and what their definition of religion is.

 

I am sure you don't want to discuss the definition here, in fact I bet if I look, I'll find a thread where people have discussed it.

[sanctus]

But Zythrin, BB views are also an answer to what the religions functions is,ie. we can't find it out as it was made by god (sorry BB in case I put words in your mouth you don't mean/think/believe jsut replace in case the reference to you with a reference to some believer).

[Zythryn]

:doh:

Let me apologise to you all then, you see the word 'Religion' means different things to different people, so when you ask why it was created I jumped to the illogical conclusion that because I have a belief in God and the bible that you were including people like me in your statement, however I see your point and I agree that religion, in the sense that you are talking, is what you said, more or less.

 

No apologies necessary. It is very easy to veer off topic when the topics are closely related and dear to your heart:)

 

In my opinion, belief in god does not, necessarily, make one religious.

 

So does that make me not religious? That depends upon whom you ask and what their definition of religion is.

 

I don't know as I don't know enough about you:) From what you have said, I would say that you are a very spiritual person. Being spiritual is a very personal thing and isn't, in my opinion, reliant on trappings of the social structure of religion (participating in rituals for the sake of the ritual instead of as a reflection of personal spirituality).