The function of religion ?

[myrkul]

The function of religion is simple: it provides the illusion of control. When your life is out of control, it's comforting to think that Somewhere up there, god has a plan for you.

[sippsnapp]

The function of religion is simple: it provides the illusion of control. When your life is out of control, it's comforting to think that Somewhere up there, god has a plan for you.

Yep, and another insult to our little brain is that everything around us most probably will be still there when we are dont. This insulting feeling makes us create heavens and world-end scenarios, we just cant stand the fact that its over one time and everything else will go on as is, ironic, isnt it.

[Herodes]

The function of religion is simple: it provides the illusion of control. When your life is out of control, it's comforting to think that Somewhere up there, god has a plan for you.

Yep, and another insult to our little brain is that everything around us most probably will be still there when we are dont. This insulting feeling makes us create heavens and world-end scenarios, we just cant stand the fact that its over one time and everything else will go on as is, ironic, isnt it.

I think if people understand they're truly insignificant, some may perhaps lack a feeling of purpose ?

A few years ago, I went to a grave yard in a very rich neigbourhood, and those with most 'money and power', had made bronze heads of their own head on their grave. And of course, with a lot of nice bragging words on a metallic plate attached to it.

The only thing I could think of was: "Hahahahaha, yeah, like it fucking matters, they're dead".

Same with some living persons, they put themselves in very high regard, but most people are insignificant and expendable, I would say all are.

When we realize that, and in addition realize that we're the only one that can steer our own life in the direction of our choice, then we're in control.

[dancupid]

The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.

That is not true, there are a lot of things that evolved that have absolutely no beneficial function.  Religion is more likely a symptom of a emotion brain along with a cognitive brain.

Evolution only cares about survival - I follow your religion and I raise my kids or else I genetically fail. The only benefit is survival.
The Zoroastrians were wiped out by Islam. The European pagans were wiped out by Christians - either convert or die.
It's pure tribalism - evolution doesn't promise any benefit or advance just survival (hence worms are so successful).
If having an emotional symptom makes survival more likely then it will be selected. If rationalism makes survival more likely then it will be selected. Wait a few thousand years and we'll have our answer.

[Herodes]

Evolution only cares about survival - I follow your religion and I raise my kids or else I genetically fail. The only benefit is survival.
The Zoroastrians were wiped out by Islam. The European pagans were wiped out by Christians - either convert or die.
It's pure tribalism - evolution doesn't promise any benefit or advance just survival (hence worms are so successful).
If having an emotional symptom makes survival more likely then it will be selected. If rationalism makes survival more likely then it will be selected. Wait a few thousand years and we'll have our answer.

Very interesting large picture view from you. I'd love to peek 5000 years ahead!

[bb113]

Evolution only cares about how much you reproduce which is correlated with survival. My opinion on religion is that a primary reason it became a successful meme because if you can introduce a nugget of FUD into a possible enemies head that some terrible thing may happen to them if they challenge you (even if they win), they are less likely to challenge you and, if they do challenge you, they are more likely to doubt themselves.

[bb113]

Interesting Senbonzakura, I did not know about him. Looking it up further it appears the basic idea goes even further back.

Anaximander (play /əˌnæksɨˈmændər/; Greek: Ἀναξίμανδρoς Anaximandros; c. 610 – c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in Miletus, a city of Ionia; Milet in modern Turkey. He belonged to the Milesian school and learned the teachings of his master Thales. He succeeded Thales and became the second master of that school where he counted Anaximenes and arguably, Pythagoras amongst his pupils.

....

Origin of humankind

Anaximander speculated about the beginnings and origin of animal life. Taking into account the existence of fossils, he claimed that animals sprang out of the sea long ago. The first animals were born trapped in a spiny bark, but as they got older, the bark would dry up and break.[40] As the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt. The 3rd century Roman writer Censorinus reports:

    Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.[41]

Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth's climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales.[42] He thought that, considering humans' extended infancy, we could not have survived in the primeval world in the same manner we do presently.

Even though he had no theory of natural selection, some people consider him as evolution's most ancient proponent. (The theory of an aquatic descent of man was re-conceived centuries later as the aquatic ape hypothesis.) These pre-Darwinian concepts may seem strange, considering modern knowledge and scientific methods, because they present complete explanations of the universe while using bold and hard-to-demonstrate hypotheses. However, they illustrate the beginning of a phenomenon sometimes called the "Greek miracle": men try to explain the nature of the world, not with the aid of myths or religion, but with material principles. This is the very principle of scientific thought[dubious – discuss][citation needed], which was later advanced further by improved research methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander_of_Miletus

[Jermainé]

All I can say about religion is:

If god does exist; I hope he's got some good excuses.

haha ikr?

[hashman]

In the beginning, god created hash, and it was good.
 
Pardon me but do you know where is the satoshi mecca ?
I'm ok with facing east every 10 minutes and mumbling SHA256 mumbo jumbo but i want somewhere to go where I can show off my tinfoil hat with deluded masses.

Yeah a black cube of solid ASIC power would work well.  Hmm..     
Praise The world He began almost 200,000 blocks ago, sorry to disturb you.     

[grondilu]

Religions do not necessary have a function per se.  They exist just because they can, as all living species do.

You guys should consider listening to Daniel Dennet's view on the subject.  He sees religion as a natural phenomenon of memetic nature which takes its roots in superstition but has evolved in a very sophisticated, domestic form.

«
- Evolutionary theory of religion?  Oh yes:  every human group that's every been studied has religion so it must be doing us some good.  So what is it for?   What do you think religion is for?  It must be for something if every society has them, right?
- Yeah...  And every society that has ever been studied also has the common cold.  What's that for?
»

[TECSHARE]

One thing I often find missing from debates such as these is the fact that faith in something greater than oneself is an inductive force to creative growth and innovation in a very real and physical way, no actual interference from deities required. When a person believes that there is nothing beyond what they currently experience, the mind reaches a state of perceptual stagnation.

A common example of this most people might recognize is reading a book verses watching the same story in movie form. When one watches a movie, one is fed the sounds, pictures, and scenarios directly and almost completely based on ones senses, rather than ones thought process. When a person reads a book it has been proven that the mind is more active because it in fact must create all of the previously mentioned sensory images from ones mind, either imagined or experienced in the past. If this part of the mind is not exercised, as any muscle left inactive, its ability to function will atrophy just like a muscle. Occasionally the mind will be called upon to invoke images for which it has no previous association. This is when the mind is truly exercised and has potential to create something new and amazing.

This being said, the less one challenges the mind to perceive of the possibility of something greater than ones self, the less likely one will be to have exercised that part of the human mind which can often lead to amazing and inexplicable logical leaps that have been the drivers of innovation since human self awareness existed. 

On a more personal note, I find it quite arrogant for anyone, believer or not, to claim that they know what "God" is in any shape or form, know "God"'s possibility of existence is, or have the capacity to comprehend an omniscient being for that matter. In my opinion you should believe whatever you like, just don't pretend like some how you have figured it out any more than the rest of us.

[Luno]

Wow, this tread has gotten a lot more interesting with posters now agreeing to discuss the meta properties of religion, not just discussing for / against etc.

Thumbs +1

[grondilu]

When a person believes that there is nothing beyond what they currently experience, the mind reaches a state of perceptual stagnation.

Very few people think there is nothing beyond what they currently experience, because we experience very little of the whole world.  Think about astronomers.  They might believe there is nothing beyond what could possibly be experienced, yet they don't lack any imagination to create new ways of seeing beyond what could previously be seen and thereby discover new worlds.  And sometimes, these new words blow our minds:  there are many quite amazing stuff in the universe.

So believing there is nothing beyond what can be experienced does not produce stagnation of the mind, on the contrary:  it gives an incentive to expand our ability to experience things.

A common example of this most people might recognize is reading a book verses watching the same story in movie form. When one watches a movie, one is fed the sounds, pictures, and scenarios directly and almost completely based on ones senses, rather than ones thought process. When a person reads a book it has been proven that the mind is more active because it in fact must create all of the previously mentioned sensory images from ones mind, either imagined or experienced in the past. If this part of the mind is not exercised, as any muscle left inactive, its ability to function will atrophy just like a muscle. Occasionally the mind will be called upon to invoke images for which it has no previous association. This is when the mind is truly exercised and has potential to create something new and amazing.

Yes, imagination is great.  And fantasy is often an effective way to exercise it.  But you don't need to actually believe it.  I like Star Wars movies and yet I don't believe in the power of the Force.

[scribe]

Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?

[myrkul]

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

Wiccans do not proselytize, advertise their religious services (at least, not outside their social circles), or even, usually, make a big deal of being Wiccan. Most other nature religions (collectively known as "Neo-paganism") are similar.

Perhaps that is why you thought such a religion was hypothetical.

Religion itself is neutral, and most have positive messages at their cores. It's what the followers do with (and to) that message that defines whether a religion is acceptable or dangerous.

[scribe]

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

Wiccans do not proselytize, advertise their religious services (at least, not outside their social circles), or even, usually, make a big deal of being Wiccan. Most other nature religions (collectively known as "Neo-paganism") are similar.

Perhaps that is why you thought such a religion was hypothetical.

It was mainly hypothetical to avoid arguments relating to the specifics of any given religion. Personally, I'm not religious, agnostic or atheist - I merely borrow from everywhere, as it were. Some things inspire me or explain things more than others, but for me labelling that process also restricts it. I think we're agreeing, as you go on to say:

Religion itself is neutral, and most have positive messages at their cores. It's what the followers do with (and to) that message that defines whether a religion is acceptable or dangerous.

This is precisely what I was getting at - "religion" is everything and nothing. There are "messages", "cores", "followers", and "actions", plus a whole range of other things going on under the banner of "religion". A concise critique of "religion" needs to untie all of these if it wants to make "progress" - but in the process, one will probably find that each element exists ubiquitously in society under many other banners. (Each) "Religion" is just a certain configuration with a particular set of symbols and brandnames.

[Rassah]

Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?

If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken. Also, the word is "antitheist."
Regarding the rest, first we must be sure to separate "religion" from "stories." Things like Star Wars, Dune, or the collections of Greek myths, may be fantastical and inspiring, but we understand them as stories: untruths with a moral message meant to entertain, teach, and inspire. What separates religion from those is that religion is believed to be the truth, not just an inspiring story. What's worse is that religious truths are based on faith, not facts, but are believed to be the truth nonetheless (if it was factual, it would be called history, geology, geography, anthropology, or science, not faith/religion).
Due to this, I believe that even those religions that are not vocal or aggressive are still dangerous. They seek to give reasons and explanations for various events based on absolutely nothing, and therefore make people feel content with unreasonable explanations of events instead of inspiring them to search for the real truths. In short, religion, regardless of how aggressive it is, teaches us to be content with remaining ignorant.

[bb113]

Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?

If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken. Also, the word is "antitheist."
Regarding the rest, first we must be sure to separate "religion" from "stories." Things like Star Wars, Dune, or the collections of Greek myths, may be fantastical and inspiring, but we understand them as stories: untruths with a moral message meant to entertain, teach, and inspire. What separate religion from those is that religion is believed to be the truth, not just an inspiring story. What's worse is that religious truths are based on faith, not facts, but are believed to be the truth nonetheless (if it was factual, it would be called history, geology, geography, anthropology, or science, not faith/religion).
Due to that I believe that even those religions that are not vocal or aggressive are still dangerous. They seek to give reasons and explanations for various events based on absolutely nothing, and therefore make people feel content with unreasonable explanations of events instead of inspiring them to search for the real truths. In short, religion, regardless of how aggressive it is, teaches us to be content with remaining ignorant.

I agree with this. If I die from cancer/whatever and it makes others feel bad I do no want them praying for my soul. It gives them a false sense of doing something about a problem. It is much better for people to focus their energies on finding practical solutions. If you feel bad that someone died from something, well, then do what you can to work towards preventing similar situations from occurring in the future.

[yrtrnc]

"IN MY OPINION"

Atheism, as you say you are, has an -ism on the end! Which also implies it is a religion. After all, religion is a collection of belief systems. And every single person has a right to believe in what they want. I believe in the balance, that every view has its up sides and down sides and they keep each other in balance. We prefer a certain view because it suits us better, the up's and the down's fit in our lives at that point in time. Our views and belief's ( religion ) can change over time. I think that if you asked two different Muslims or Christians or etc they would give differing views on their beliefs even though they are under the same label or name or category and pray at the same temple or shrine or etc.. I think people like to feel like they belong to a social group that they can relate to. It is difficult to say that all muslims are the same or all atheists are the same as different groups may have different ways of expressing themselves. And I think thats where culture plays a role. So its hard to say that all religions only have down sides, you see! At some point in a persons life, religion may be all a person has to hang on to life. I believe life is precious and we humans are all related one way or another and I know, we have it in us to play fair and be kind to one another. Because no matter what we are all family.

I'm an atheist and have the following standpoint:

 - All religions are hoaxes, making people belive in non-existing gods.

Religions serve the following purposes:

1. Making people have some comfort in their lives, having something else than themselves to pray to and look up to. This is mostly culturrally dependent,
most people adhere to the religion were they grew up, and what was ingrained in them from early childhood.

2. To keep uneducated people in control.

3. To keep power and control in a central position.

If religion was all about love to your God, and it was all a mental thing, there would be no need for churches, and all accessories that goes with a religion.

It's sad that a God-fearing man goes regularily to church to get closer to his maker. He could've been just as close to his God in his couch at home.

Many religious entities collect money, and are rather greedy, there are internal battles about power and control, just think of the Vatican.

I think it's rather sad that in 2012, so many people put their belief in something that doesn't exist. You may pray, and you may feel that your prayers were heard,
and things turn for the better in your life, but most of the time, the prayers are futile, and the only one that can change anything in your life is yourself.

States need to separate themselves from religion, and any religious society needs to take care of itself. Many religious societies does serve a good purpose in their
municipality, and there's nothing wrong with that,  and I do respect anyone that has their faith, but I don't think there's any God of any sorts, and people need to take
responsibility for their own lives.

Will the earth ever come to a point where people are so educated that they understand that science is the only true answer, and that everything else is fairytales ?

As much as I respect any Christian or any devoted religious person from any other religion (I may think his belief is a joke, but I would never say it to his face to force a confrontation in disrespect), I don't think any religions should have any special protection under the law.

Part of the problem is that Religion is so ingrained into the culture of most countries, that many people don't even question it.

Education will put the power in the hands of the people to learn about the world around them, and will remove the power of the leaders of their religion over them.

As an atheist, I don't think your religion defines whether you're a good person or not, that's more down to the person itself, and the values you've been taught in your upbringing, and what you've learned through your education.

Now, with the recent uproar about the 'Innocence of Muslims'-movie, people shouldn't get upset about it. If they don't like it, they should simply ignore it, and don't speak of it. Killing people, making riots etc. and claim that it's because of this movie, this is not right. People are always responsible for what they do.

If I were a Christian, and someone mocked my religion and called me a religious fool, and I got angry and burned down their house, that would be completely unacceptable by me, and I would need to take the full penalty for it.

Some people say we should not provoke 'islam' through cartoons, movies etc. And this may seem like the easy way out. But what if we continously bombarded Islam with this material, would they keep rioting every day of the week, every week, every month and every year, or would they finally sit down and say to themselves: "I'm tired of fighting, I can be a good muslim, no matter what any people say about my religion".

Islam doesn't receive more goodwill by having it's followers react like this, I would think most sivilized people just seeing this for what it is; outright crimes. Also I think a lot of the people that we see rioting in the streets, are only using this movie as an excuse for acting like they do.

Is there a single other Religion in the world were the members would've reacted like this over a movie ?

What do you all think ?

[Rassah]

"IN MY OPINION"

Atheism, as you say you are, has an -ism on the end! Which also implies it is a religion. After all, religion is a collection of belief systems. And every single person has a right to believe in what they want.

If that were true, then we have to consider the following as religion as well:
Fascism, racism, consumerism, nationalism, colonialism, alcoholism, militarism, surrealism, cannibalism...

When you redefine a word "religion" to mean any "belief system," you make your arguments in regards to "belief systems," not in regards to the generally accepted definition of religion. And in this case, you are arguing for/against your own position and ideas, not for/against what this topic is actually about, which is religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith.
So, sure everyone has a right to believe what they want,and we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality, because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs.