Religion's Role in Propping Up the Social Order?

[Sunstone]

Beginning at least 5,500 years ago in Sumeria, religions have been used to prop up and stabilize the social order, the status quo. And while they have also, at times, been used to challenge and even undermine the social order or status quo, it seems their role as support for the powers that be has been at least somewhat more significant than their other role in challenging the powers that be. At least, that's how I see it.

The question I have is has the role of religion in propping up the social order been mostly a good thing, mostly a bad thing, or more or less an even mix of both?

As for the option, "neither", that might be true in some sense, but it's also the most boring option. And, as Kierkegaard pointed out, "Boredom is the root of all evil". So, I would prefer we avoid that one, if we can.

So, do you think earlier civilizations would have been able to endure without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

Would our own contemporary civilizations last without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

Is propping up the social order a morally legitimate role for religion to play? Why or why not?

Is there a balance to be struck between religion's role in propping up the social order and its other many and various roles? If so, what's that balance?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I think that religion is an emergent property of civilisation.

Religion is indeed effective at creating social cohesion, as it gives communities a shared set of values and meanings.

This, of course can be achieved with other forms of social gathering, but it seems religion is the easiest way of achieving it.

So i'm going to say it is not so much necessary, as inevitable.

 

[Badran]

Beginning at least 5,500 years ago in Sumeria, religions have been used to prop up and stabilize the social order, the status quo. And while they have also, at times, been used to challenge and even undermine the social order or status quo, it seems their role as support for the powers that be has been at least somewhat more significant than their other role in challenging the powers that be. At least, that's how I see it.

I think that's true, but i think it's also true of almost every other thing such a question is applicable to. Not that you've indicated otherwise, but i thought i mention it to see your thoughts on it. Challenge to social order, and encouragement of that challenge in anyway happens much less often than the opposite, and even less so does change.

The question I have is has the role of religion in propping up the social order been mostly a good thing, mostly a bad thing, or more or less an even mix of both?

It's hard to judge, and it's certainly a mixture of both - just not necessarily an even one. For simplicity, i'll take it on principle, and say generally bad. Reason being that much more often than not, the ways with which religions, or religious institutions, prop up and maintain social orders are ways i consider negative. They're often not ways based on true knowledge or logic, but much more on other things. So even the positive impact resulting from maintaining some elements of social orders, the beneficial elements, is somehow undermined by the methods which are often used to do that. But in practice, the truth might be that it has been generally more positive than negative, i don't know enough to judge that properly.

So, do you think earlier civilizations would have been able to endure without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

I think some might have been able to and some might have not, depending on the intensity of the role and the nature of the religions and religious institutions in question, and how easily it could've been done without or substituted by something else.

Would our own contemporary civilizations last without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

Same as above.

Is propping up the social order a morally legitimate role for religion to play? Why or why not?

I think it depends on how it's going to be done, and on what that social order is exactly. In some cases it could be extremely moral in my eyes, in others it might be the exact opposite. IOW, in principle, i don't think it's something religion or religious institutions shouldn't meddle with, and i think it's actually inescapable that they will, but that it's moral weight depends on the details.

Is there a balance to be struck between religion's role in propping up the social order and its other many and various roles? If so, what's that balance?

The balance should be the benefit of the society and the individuals in it. Of course, that's debatable, and people will have different views on just what that is, but i don't see anyway to escape that. Somethings are less debatable than others, though. Despite how a lot of people will still try to debate them as if with equal legitimacy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Beginning at least 5,500 years ago in Sumeria, religions have been used to prop up and stabilize the social order, the status quo. And while they have also, at times, been used to challenge and even undermine the social order or status quo, it seems their role as support for the powers that be has been at least somewhat more significant than their other role in challenging the powers that be. At least, that's how I see it.

The question I have is has the role of religion in propping up the social order been mostly a good thing, mostly a bad thing, or more or less an even mix of both?

It seems to me that one must consider what a fragile and artificial thing this social order is in the first place. One can even argue that it is not a good thing to have it at all.

Historically, however, for most of human history (and arguably all of it) people quite simply need efforts at keeping social order whenever their demographic pressures raise above a certain level. There are many downsides, but without it people become self-destructive very quickly.

Unfortunately, social order can only the established at a price, and most of it is paid in lack of proper care to one's individual needs.

Most of the time, religion is indeed a far better cause to create social order than its alternatives such as nationalism and patriotism. If for no other reason because it always attracts some people who engage in healthy questioning and apply it to their faith.

As for the option, "neither", that might be true in some sense, but it's also the most boring option. And, as Kierkegaard pointed out, "Boredom is the root of all evil". So, I would prefer we avoid that one, if we can.

So, do you think earlier civilizations would have been able to endure without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

Mostly not. I wonder though if that is a good or a bad thing, and if we could even tell. Most historical civilizations became extinct at some point, after all. And civilization itself is in a sense the extinction of the individual.

It is conceivable that we could have found or created something more suitable for true societal stability instead of resorting to religion, war and nationalism. But odds are that we are simply not wise enough to truly adhere to such a cause in any significant numbers.

Would our own contemporary civilizations last without the stabilizing effects of religion? Why or why not?

Pretty good question. Particularly because now, in contrast to most of human history, the question of whether a civilization must survive so that its people may survive as well begins to become hard to answer.

We are not quite there yet, despite false hopes from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. But maybe we soon will, once we go through the current crisis of conscience.

Is propping up the social order a morally legitimate role for religion to play? Why or why not?

It truly depends on many circunstances, mostly on how legitimate we establish the survival and well-being of that society to be in the first place.

Mostly, though, I would say that yes, it is.

Is there a balance to be struck between religion's role in propping up the social order and its other many and various roles? If so, what's that balance?

Yes there is. However, as long as we are talking about how to distribute religion's roles, social stability is a fairly high priority right now. Individual expression and health should not be neglected, but it is not like religion is the only or even necessarily the main offender there. In many circunstances it is arguably not an offender at all.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think that religion is an emergent property of civilisation.

Religion is indeed effective at creating social cohesion, as it gives communities a shared set of values and meanings.

This, of course can be achieved with other forms of social gathering, but it seems religion is the easiest way of achieving it.

So i'm going to say it is not so much necessary, as inevitable.

This pretty much sums up my ideas about it as well. Religion isn't necessary to prop up and stabilize society, but it's what has been normally used. Even religions that tend to deny the importance of a society as a whole have eventually been used, or many times duped, into holding up society.

 

[sandandfoam]

The religions that attract me are subversive.
The Christianity of Tolstoy, The Cathars, The Sufi's. The religions that prop up the social order are of course many but they are implicitly evil according to the criteria of Kierkegaard you set outin the op

 

[collectivedementia]

Belief systems are a by product of the human need to place thier existance in a subserviant role to a higher, more powerful entity than themselves. The separate religions that result from this need tend to grow to become the guiding principles and precepts of all societies whether modern or ancient. The real problem of this condition is the differing doctrines and histories of the many beliefs that develop the in world, causing conflict and war. Religions seem to be strongest during times of conflict. Religious division,to me,is the leading cause of death due to a "I am better than you;My doctrine is stronger than yours" mentality resulting from the national religious identities of this modern world. If this seems a little off topic, my apologies.