Is religion necessary for social order?

[Eddi]

Is it possible for a group of people to form due to another reason besides religion?

If so, then perhaps religion is a redundant in this respect. If it is redundant, is it necessary for social order?

I wouldn't go as far to say that it is now redundant

But in the past (say) 50 years I think it's societal function may have changed as society changed

Especially religious pluralism and multiculturalism

Those are big changes

 

[Tomef]

The thing is though, is that religions form people into groups, so they have a unifying influence by doing that

The tendency to group together came before the particular religions, though. Humans have always been social animals, and this or that religion is just a popular way of codifying that. Almost every society (except the Pirahã afaik) of humans anywhere has some sort of god or gods, and a creation story, but it’s extremely improbable that someone created those stories and then humans started to live together. Tribes and groups seem to form these narratives to give them a sense of identity, and to codify some particular expression of the more or less universal need to organise society and have it function according to some set of cultural norms and rules. You don’t need religion for that, it’s just the case that until fairly recently in human history there weren’t such solid grounds for rejecting the idea of a supernatural creator.

 

[Eddi]

The tendency to group together came before the particular religions, though. Humans have always been social animals, and this or that religion is just a popular way of codifying that. Almost every society (except the Pirahã afaik) of humans anywhere has some sort of god or gods, and a creation story, but it’s extremely improbable that someone created those stories and then humans started to live together. Tribes and groups seem to form these narratives to give them a sense of identity, and to codify some particular expression of the more or less universal need to organise society and have it function according to some set of cultural norms and rules. You don’t need religion for that, it’s just the case that until fairly recently in human history there weren’t such solid grounds for rejecting the idea of a supernatural creator.

Yes

Functionalism

Religion is best understood by its social function

And what needs and problems it solves

Other things can do some of the things religion does

I think that's just common sense

 

[an anarchist]

It's more that both religion and society are inherent to the human species and an inseparable aspect of what the species is. You could use the word "necessary" rather than inherent, I suppose, but... I wouldn't.

I think you bring up an interesting point of discussion that I would like to elaborate further on.

I believe that "necessary" and "inherent" are two different things.

Something that is inherent is not necessarily necessary.

Human violence seems inherent. But is it necessary? I think not. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist.

I would call religion inherent to the human species if it meets the following criteria:
- Been with us in some form since we've been a species
- Has persisted throughout each generation

Would you agree or disagree with my criteria?

If we can rise above religion, however, I do not think that takes away that religion was once inherent. Obviously, even if society were to have a cultural shift and be mostly irreligious, religious individuals would persist.

I'm curious if it is necessary for social order.

Religion is inherent to the human species.

I agree that religious individuals may always exist, but they may one day be in the minority. I guess ultimately I am curious if you think religion is necessary for social order.

Religion being inherent does not mean it is permanent.

We can evolve. That sounds a bit condescending "we can evolve beyond religion" so I apologize but I do not know how to state my point better.

 

[clara17]

Christians as a group strongly support Zionism.
And Israel's doing as it pleases with money &
materiel they send there. Evidence...
How many non-Christians & non-Jews support
this....any?

Zionism is the most anti-christian movement to ever exist. Its true many have been duped into supporting it.

 

[clara17]

And yet the countries with the most prosperous, orderly, crime-free and happiest populations are the least religious ones.
How do you account for that?

Nor respect for even the land itself.
In USA, tis believers leading the charge
to ignore environmental degradation
in pursuit of expanding the population
& the economy.

where did you come up with nonsense like this. The fortune 500 are now religious groups?

 

[Tomef]

The answer is yes. The reason is religion, by belief in a higher power, causes the ego to moderate behavior, since it accepts that the ego is not in control and thereby become humble enough to sacrifice the its urge for power, so it can get along.

For example, fake news which divides the US, does not come from religion. Fake religion and politics creates a divide as a path to power. The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not bear false witness. The gossip busy bodies that divide the country, such as those connected to the DNC and Swamp, do that all the time. If they were more humble and self contained by religious values, the media would more be boring but truthful, and the country would not be divided. In this forum, those without religion are the most blind to this common sense.

How many people how hate religion will accept and carry the water about the current lies about Harris, and then blame religion with another lie? Deception like that cause division. Act like a scientist and look around and see who is willing to lie and follow the propaganda of man, while lacking proof that what you believe is real. If you believe in God, you are taught that is not the path to salvation, and you will try to bring peace through reason and the truth and not propaganda and emotional thinking.

Then again religions of Satan, may have the option to lie since, he is the spirit of deception. Lack of faith and the religions of Satan are the problem, since it encourages the ego to inflate by creating deception that leads to division. Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Delusion. The religious actually figured out the truth before the godless. When you deflate the ego you can become more rational.

Christians of the American fundamentalist type lie constantly, online at least. The news sources they use are a constant flow of bull****, their opinions and ideas about the world are rooted in lies and fantasies. I’ve never met one who wasn’t an inveterate liar. Not that they seem to know it; if all you have is lies, presumably you believe its all true, but on the other hand none of them, when asked to, can ever provide anything but the words of some other liar as a basis for what they think. So either they really have no clue about how to engage with real things and real ideas, or they just feel they are somehow right, and that is enough for them.

 

[Arnaud1221]

It's possible but I would say it's for the child. Later, a human need a religion to understand everything and being in order.

 

[Madsaac]

There's also the question of what constitutes a religion. Practically any belief, social, or ethical system could function as one, god or no god.

Yes this it true but aren't we normally talking about the larger traditional religions that relate relate to Jesus, or Islam or Judaism.

These are the religions where all the 'action' happens, especially because it relates to the societies we live in. Also, the questions that are often posed in threads like this one, often relate best to these types of religions.

So, you know, do we always have to explain what religion is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes this it true but aren't we normally talking about the larger traditional religions that relate relate to Jesus, or Islam or Judaism.

These are the religions where all the 'action' happens, especially because it relates to the societies we live in. Also, the questions that are often posed in threads like this one, often relate best to these types of religions.

So, you know, do we always have to explain what religion is?

We are on an international forum, so there really is no we for only the Abrahamic tradition.
But yes, the majority is Western, but that doesn't make it normal in an normative sense.
And you do have to include philosophical and political ideologies, when you try to make sense of a Western society.

And yes, it always is a part of critical thinking to note ones own cognitive assumptions. And try to look beyound those, if you want to play critical thinking.

 

[Nimos]

For a moment, suppose there is no God. Would it be preferable (or at the very least non-consequential) then, if society as a whole eventually moved away from the God belief? Or does religion play an essential role in social order, regardless of the lack of God?

Im not sure it could have been any different. By that, I mean that in many cases religion is a forerunner to a more scientific/knowledge-driven society as we see it today.
But where science can't rapidly grow from nothing, religious belief can grow from superstition, which can lead to a social order, whether that is true or not.
So I think religion is a fundamental building block when it comes to social order in large groups of people where there isn't a foundation for science because you need something to convince people that sticking to the social order is beneficial or required. And having a religious foundation seems to be very effective, which is also why I think it has done so well.

But in societies that is dominated by science, religious superstition is at a huge disadvantage, because it is easily exposed for its lack of foundation for securing social order.

I think societies with a foundation in science will have the potential to lead to a better (fair, humane) social order than one based on religion. But that doesn't mean that an atheist society would be perfect because humans are masters of manipulation and corruption, so whatever issues we have now that have their basis in religion, will simply find new foundations in an atheistic society, just under a different explanation.

But overall, I think the world would be better off without religious superstition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Im not sure it could have been any different. By that, I mean that in many cases religion is a forerunner to a more scientific/knowledge-driven society as we see it today.
But where science can't rapidly grow from nothing, religious belief can grow from superstition, which can lead to a social order, whether that is true or not.
So I think religion is a fundamental building block when it comes to social order in large groups of people where there isn't a foundation for science because you need something to convince people that sticking to the social order is beneficial or required. And having a religious foundation seems to be very effective, which is also why I think it has done so well.

But in societies that is dominated by science, religious superstition is at a huge disadvantage, because it is easily exposed for its lack of foundation for securing social order.

I think societies with a foundation in science will have the potential to lead to a better (fair, humane) social order than one based on religion. But that doesn't mean that an atheist society would be perfect because humans are masters of manipulation and corruption, so whatever issues we have now that have their basis in religion, will simply find new foundations in an atheistic society, just under a different explanation.

But overall, I think the world would be better off without religious superstition.

Yeah, I don't know how sicence has anything to do with a true social order or a better society. But maybe you know?

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, I don't know how sicence has anything to do with a true social order or a better society. But maybe you know?

Science can lead to decisions based on knowledge rather than superstition. "You do this and that, because God say so and it is written in the scriptures" compared to "Data shows that some people suffer from this mental condition and therefore we have to treat/punish them differently than those without".

That to me, leads to a more just society order governed by knowledge rather than superstition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science can lead to decisions based on knowledge rather than superstition. "You do this and that, because God say so and it is written in the scriptures" compared to "Data shows that some people suffer from this mental condition and therefore we have to treat/punish them differently than those without".

That to me, leads to a more just society order governed by knowledge rather than superstition.

Yeah, I agree. It is better, but that is because we feel it is better.

 

[Revoltingest]

But God will set everything right, in the end, so no worries.

Yeah, I've heard that from them before, ie,
it doesn't matter what humans do. Either
God will fix it, or there'll be Armageddon
anyway. Really stupid reliance on myths.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least in my lifetime, it is the secular left that has embraced far more irrationality than the religious right.

You & I have different perspectives on what's rational vs irrational,
& progress vs backsliding. The differences don't seem reconciliable.

It was people on the secular left, not anyone on the religious right, who found Marxism, one of the most irrational doctrines in history, rational. It was only on the secular left that people morally equated the United States and the Soviet Union. It was secular leftists, not religious Jews or Christians, who believed the irrational nonsense that men and women were basically the same.

It is overwhelmingly among the secular left that people have bought into the myriad irrational hysterias of my lifetime — huge mortality rates in America from heterosexual AIDS, and now destruction of the planet by man-induced global warming. It is extremely revealing that with regard to global warming scenarios of man-induced doom,. TODAY ad the last 150 years who is more rational, considering Europe's history since Marx on issues — the secular left or the religious right. I bet everything on the religious.

There is no question but that many religious people have irrational religious views, specifically fundamentalists, however, theology and values are not the same. I am convinced that the human being is programmed to believe in the non-rational. The healthy religious confine their irrationality to their theologies and are quite rational on social issues. On the other hand, vast numbers of secular people in the West have done the very opposite — rejected irrational religiosity and affirmed irrational social beliefs testified to over, as said the last 150 years

FYI, I'm a Libertarian, & share some agendas with
both conservatives & liberals. And I loathe Marxism,
which is the worst flavor of fascism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Leave fighting for peace for the people living over there. The hundred years of bickering around the world isn’t helping them.

IOW, you object to discussing specific causes & solutions.
If you dislike my doing this, why bother posting to me?

 

[Viker]

No.

 

[Viker]

Sorry about that long drawn out tirade.

 

[Jimmy]

IOW, you object to discussing specific causes & solutions.
If you dislike my doing this, why bother posting to me?

It hasn’t helped in the past hundred years