What practical function does religion hold?

[Bear Wild]

"Supernatural" is a very weird conceptual attribute coming from the minds of beings that exist naturally and can't actually perceive anything that doesn't. However, we can and so recognize that tere is a great existential mystery afoot that cannot be "naturally" resolved. And that's where our concept of the "supernatural" comes from, I think.

By definition, whatever set the possibilities and impossibilities being adhered to and expressed as "nature" is "supernatural". We may not be able to recognize it when we see it, but we can logically surmise it's validity.

Spiritualism, think, is related to this great existential mystery but is more commonplace among most humans as a concept because it's more experiential. We can witness for ourselves that there are forces and entities at work in our world that we cannot see or grasp directly. But we can know that they are there. And there are a lot of these experiences; different kinds, with different presumed explanations.

I understand how supernatural is represented and this is how most in western culture see the world but I would argue back that this was not always the case and is definitely not the way all culture see the world. Another view is one natural world with two aspects that are a part of the same world the direct observable and the mystery.

 

[Quintessence]

One could argue that laws are a part of our physical reality, even if they're not tangible. As I was noting earlier, words are signifiers of physical objects, and humans have the physical ability to use words. The same could be said of laws, since laws are made of words. It's still a physical process, since someone has to speak the words and/or write them down on paper. Or even if just pixels on a screen, that would also be part of physical reality.

Hmm. There are many, many, many words that do not signify or point to physical objects. How do those fit in? I'm not sure I follow you here. I can write the word "law" on a piece of paper and poke it with a stick, but I am not poking that which the word is signifying since the word is pointing at something that is not physical. I am unaware of any process by which we can poke ideas - law, values, ideals - with sticks.

 

[Stevicus]

Hmm. There are many, many, many words that do not signify or point to physical objects. How do those fit in? I'm not sure I follow you here. I can write the word "law" on a piece of paper and poke it with a stick, but I am not poking that which the word is signifying since the word is pointing at something that is not physical. I am unaware of any process by which we can poke ideas - law, values, ideals - with sticks.

As I said, the words are signifiers, but they still relate to a physical object, process, or some sort of perceptible phenomena.

Take your "law" example. An obvious example would be a law against murder, which is most definitely a physical process and part of physical reality. It may even subdivide further into specific definitions, such as first-degree and second-degree murder.

Just because something can't be poked with a stick, doesn't mean it's not physical. If you smell something or hear something, you can't poke it, but you can still sense its physicality.

 

[sayak83]

I can see that, but then, is it important or necessary that we do that? As a human, I can certainly relate to the desire to know and understand some of the great mysteries, but then I also consider the possibility that maybe we're not supposed to know? Is it possible that, if a deity or deity exists, they may not want to be worshiped? Could it be that they want us to be atheists and totally disregard and discount their existence?

I do not think that the ultimate reality is a deity who has any wants. So there is no requirement per se to connect to it. However I have found that such an awareness/connection creates an inner stability and anchoring base which makes it easier to navigate successfully the turmoils of life. If you are successful and content with your life and how you navigate through it, then maybe you do not need to have that conscious connection with the inner transcendent reality. Each person is different after all.

 

[MikeF]

The problem here is that you are confusing two different issues and treating them the same. One issue is mind control, and the other is behavioral control.

We connot control what people think about the world and each other. We just can't. It's not possible. Even propaganda needs the target to want to believe it for it to work. Yet you seem to imagine that there some magical way that we could control what people think, and that we should be doing it because you don't like what some people have come to be thinking. And I find this to be quite fascistic.

Well, I suppose I find it equally fantastic that you don't think it is possible to influence what people believe and think.

By your reconning, a young adult who grew up in a Christian community only believes the tenets and doctrine of Christianity to be objectively true because they wanted to and specifically did not want to believe in an alternative. By the same token, the young adult growing up in a Muslim community only believes Islamic tenets and doctrine are objectively true, and does so freely, without fear or favor, because it is what they want to think.

I'm not sure many would agree with this view. Here is a non-religious example. Some cultures use belching as a form of compliment after a meal to signal to host or meal-preparer that they were well satisfied. To not belch would be seen as a slight. Conversely, in other cultures, belching is considered rude as well as unpleasant or even disgusting and strictly discourage letting it happen openly and in public. If someone travels from a culture in which belching is taboo, to a culture that belches, is that persons visceral displeasure or disgust to a post-meal belch an attitude they would have held regardless the culture to which they were raised? I think not.

We do need to control each other's behavior, though, for our society to function. And we do have ways of doing that. We cannot control people's minds but we can control people's actions, at least to a degree. But that's not an ideological task. It's a very practical political task. So attacking people's religious participation is not going to work. And in fact all it does is confuse and distract us from the real task at hand, which is focusing of social functionality and how to best enable it through behavioral control. Not because behavioral control X is right according to e or you, but because it's necessary for the healthy function of our collective society.

We WANT people to think freely, even when we disagree. That's healthy for our collective society. But we cannot allow everyone to behave as they please. That is not healthy for any society.

So the issue here is not what religious theists believe, or teach their kids. It's how we ALL behave toward each other and toward our collective society. You say but one effects the other. But that doesn't matter. Because it's only the latter that we can or even should be trying to control.

And how are these rules that establish control determined? Who gets to decide and what informs their choices? Are their choices informed by ancient and anachronistic religious doctrines that are considered objectively true and immutable?

 

[Quintessence]

As I said, the words are signifiers, but they still relate to a physical object, process, or some sort of perceptible phenomena.

Take your "law" example. An obvious example would be a law against murder, which is most definitely a physical process and part of physical reality. It may even subdivide further into specific definitions, such as first-degree and second-degree murder.

Just because something can't be poked with a stick, doesn't mean it's not physical. If you smell something or hear something, you can't poke it, but you can still sense its physicality.

I don't agree with your extreme metaphysical reductionism, but if it makes sense to you that's what matters. That this will erect barriers of understanding is of no consequence either as it is all but inevitable - it reveals something of why you ask the questions you ask. Of course the practicality of much of religion - or many other kinds of human experiences - is not going to make sense from the lens of extreme metaphysical reductionism. It's like trying to understand an art museum with the scientific method or the methods section of a science paper with a song and dance.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't agree with your extreme metaphysical reductionism, but if it makes sense to you that's what matters. That this will erect barriers of understanding is of no consequence either as it is all but inevitable - it reveals something of why you ask the questions you ask. Of course the practicality of much of religion - or many other kinds of human experiences - is not going to make sense from the lens of extreme metaphysical reductionism. It's like trying to understand an art museum with the scientific method or the methods section of a science paper with a song and dance.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You were speaking of what constitutes being part of physical reality and suggesting that if it can't be poked with a stick, then it's not part of physical reality. I don't understand the basis of that viewpoint.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't agree with your extreme metaphysical reductionism, but if it makes sense to you that's what matters. That this will erect barriers of understanding is of no consequence either as it is all but inevitable - it reveals something of why you ask the questions you ask. Of course the practicality of much of religion - or many other kinds of human experiences - is not going to make sense from the lens of extreme metaphysical reductionism. It's like trying to understand an art museum with the scientific method or the methods section of a science paper with a song and dance.

A group of us doctoral students wanted to do our finals together as skits...some of the faculty were not amused, but they should have known, as they had all had us in class...

 

[PearlSeeker]

If one sees it as a "gift," then I can see how that can be true. But even then, if the "giver" is someone you haven't met, then how do you know who gave it to you? How do you know whom to thank? And does the giver even want to be thanked?

I agree. However, some people believe that God provided that info through the messengers.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10)

Yes, as some have noted, it's more analogous to a hobby, which is perfectly fine.

Are you saying a hobby like collecting stamps helps making you a better man and so on?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You were speaking of what constitutes being part of physical reality and suggesting that if it can't be poked with a stick, then it's not part of physical reality. I don't understand the basis of that viewpoint.

There might've been some miscommunication here. It sounded like you were saying words are signifiers of physical objects only, which made no sense to me because there are many, many, many words that do not point at or reference the physical. Rejecting that many words are not about physical things sounds like denying anything else even exists - the extreme position of substance monism whereby there is but one and only one kind of stuff in the universe (in this case, matter). Were you not intending to imply that?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree. However, some people believe that God provided that info through the messengers.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10)

The only caveat is there's no reliable way to verify if the message is valid or from anyone other than a human being rendering an opinion.

Are you saying a hobby like collecting stamps helps making you a better man and so on?

I don't know about collecting stamps, so I can't say what utility or purpose stamp collecting might serve for philatelists. But if they like it and enjoy it, then maybe that will make them happier people. I tried stamp collecting as a kid, but got bored with it rather quickly.

But other hobbies, like football or baseball - there are those who say it builds character and a sense of teamwork.

 

[Stevicus]

There might've been some miscommunication here. It sounded like you were saying words are signifiers of physical objects only, which made no sense to me because there are many, many, many words that do not point at or reference the physical. Rejecting that many words are not about physical things sounds like denying anything else even exists - the extreme position of substance monism whereby there is but one and only one kind of stuff in the universe (in this case, matter). Were you not intending to imply that?

Well, if we're referring to thoughts and ideas, then I acknowledge their existence in the sense that I understand it to be a part of the human experience.

But even if we're talking about theoretical, abstract concepts or any product of the human imagination and creativity, doesn't it still emanate from human brains, which are biological, physical organs?

Our thoughts are not necessarily limited to the physical, and as you alluded to earlier, humans have created wonderful works of art and music - and many other ideas and concepts which aren't necessarily "physical," but also not necessarily coming from any "divine" sources either. It comes from us, from humans who are still contained within physical bodies in a physical reality.

I'm not denying anything else exists, so I was not in any way intending to imply anything along those lines. If anything, I was acknowledging our own limitations within that physical reality and postulating that there's no real reliable way of knowing what is "divine" or "unseen." We can certainly imagine it, as we have vivid imaginations, but that's as far as it goes.

Some might argue that our own sentience and consciousness are, in and of themselves, a "divine spark," so maybe there's something to that. But even assuming that's true, that brings us back to the original question. But beyond that, I don't think there's any real assumptions one can make, even including the idea that we have some sort of obligation to acknowledge the unseen or worship or obey any possible commandments they might have given us.

If they're unseen, it can only be because they don't exist, or they don't want to be seen, which would imply a desire to not interfere or intercede in the daily affairs of humans or the general course of nature as understood within our physical reality. So, even if there might be something beyond physical reality, this is what we've got for now. This is what has been presented to us as our existence.

So, I guess my position would be this: If "they" wish to remain unseen, then let them remain unseen. We humans can go about our lives as if they don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Setting aside that many if not most of the gods are "of this world" . . .

. . . something having a "physical reality" is not necessary for existence or influence. I mean, law is hardly a physical thing you can put in a jar or point a stick at. In spite of that, any human in a nation that believes in these things called "laws" must navigate their relationship with said laws (or not, at their own peril). Does one have to worship the law? Consider it sacred, worthy of reverence? Reserve a holiday to celebrate it? Deeply ponder it and study it? Read daily or weekly devotions from the book of laws?

Of course not.

But one would be an idiot not to pay it mind and due respect if one lives in a nation under laws.

Laws usually have physical effects, otherwise they're pretty pointless.

I can also think of a number of holidays that celebrate various laws (e.g. Canada Day, Emancipation Day).

 

[Trailblazer]

While reading some of the debates about religion and atheism, a lot of the focus seems to be on "belief" or "non-belief," which sometimes seems to go in circles. In this thread, I'm thinking of looking more in the sense of the practical function of religion in everyday life in modern society.

I do not think that the practical function of religion has ever changed, so it is the same in modern society as it was in ancient times.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

If we just live our lives and deal with the world as it is presented to us, then isn't that enough? Why can't we be atheists, even if there really is a god or gods or some other higher power? Why is a lack of belief such a horrible thing in the eyes of religious people? What's the worst thing that could happen?

Lack of belief is not a horrible thing in my eyes. Whether or not atheists believe in God or not, they cannot avoid being affected by religious teachings since those teachings are in society. No man is an island.

 

[Unfettered]

While reading some of the debates about religion and atheism, a lot of the focus seems to be on "belief" or "non-belief," which sometimes seems to go in circles. In this thread, I'm thinking of looking more in the sense of the practical function of religion in everyday life in modern society.

Even setting aside the question of "belief," let's just assume for the sake of argument that there really is some sort of intelligent higher power which created this place we live in - and created us to live here. My question would be: So what?

Even if that were true, why would that require us, as humans, to create a religion around it and worship whatever it is we think created us? What actual function does it serve for whatever deity or deities built this place? What practical use does it hold for humanity? Human minds have derived our own concepts of morality, so we didn't really need any god to tell us how to behave or what is good and what is evil.

I'm not completely dismissing some of the more positive aspects, at least in terms of charitable work, giving a helping hand to people in need or people going through various trials and tribulations in life. These are good things which do have beneficial aspects for society. But this is just people helping people - no higher power is really needed or required.

If we just live our lives and deal with the world as it is presented to us, then isn't that enough? Why can't we be atheists, even if there really is a god or gods or some other higher power? Why is a lack of belief such a horrible thing in the eyes of religious people? What's the worst thing that could happen?

To be human is to be moral. Morality is religion (in the most general, though real, sense). So to be human is to be religious. The practical function of religion, then, is to adhere human societies. Without religion, human societies are animal societies. Again, using the terms "religion" and "religious" only in the sense of appealing to morality.

 

[Madsaac]

I think religion functions as something some people want/need to make themselves feel better and that's fine. I have my family, golf, my political party and friends.

And if you need religion, that's okay but the problem is when it gets in the way of rationale thinking, with these archaic ideas that related to a society of the past. Religion, directly or indirectly has a detrimental effect on many people, so keep it to yourselves.

It's the 21st century, we can explain things these days without the power of the supernatural.

I strongly believe if religious people didn't teach their children about religion, they would not be religious, it doesn't make sense

 

[Spice]

"Religion" is not necessary for all, IMO. But it gives hope for a better existence, a purpose for enduring suffering, and direction on how to live one's best for those who have not developed a natural sense of morality and community. Unfortunately it has been used against its own principles as a tool of control by fear. And far too often, even that fear is not enough to keep members of our species in line of the cooperation required for our continued existence. But IMO, humanity has a chance for survival because of the history of religion, and perhaps one day those ties can be released without total calamity. It has started by way of the growth seen of those who live a communal life of cooperation and respect without the fear of fire and brimstone. May it continue.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Religion" is not necessary for all, IMO. But it gives hope for a better existence, a purpose for enduring suffering, and direction on how to live one's best for those who have not developed a natural sense of morality and community. Unfortunately it has been used against its own principles as a tool of control by fear. And far too often, even that fear is not enough to keep members of our species in line of the cooperation required for our continued existence. But IMO, humanity has a chance for survival because of the history of religion, and perhaps one day those ties can be released without total calamity. It has started by way of the growth seen of those who live a communal life of cooperation and respect without the fear of fire and brimstone. May it continue.

I fully agree with all that you said...
I also wanted to point out that you joined this forum on the exact same day that I joined. How is that for a coincidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's simple - the practical function that religion holds is control over people.

And also how an individual can get filthy rich from it.

 

[Spice]

I fully agree with all that you said...
I also wanted to point out that you joined this forum on the exact same day that I joined. How is that for a coincidence?

And yet I've been absent for a LONG time and you have made "veteran"! LOL