|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is religion good for? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Ifen, are you approaching sociology from a Darwinist perspective?
Jared Diamond apparantly did. What do we have so far?
Ben writes: The religious folks do two things. First, when they argue about ToE and ID, they parrot their crap and ignore the facts before them. Is there anything we can do to get through to them? Is that truely an impossible task?Second, following from the first, they continue to cram their religion down every throat they can without regard to the horrible results brought about by religion. They do not respect the rights of other beliefs. They are drunk on religion. They only see with blinders on.
nwr writes: We have to hone our definitions at this point.
What is the value of religion, in the sense of its social role within society? And what is the value of religion to an individual?Websters writes:
If religion is defined as #1 above, the clash of absolute values will manifest in society. re”li”gion 1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2 : devotion to a religious faith 3 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4 : a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor ” re”li”gion”ist n If religion is defined as #2 or #3 there will be cultural differences yet less conflict. If religion is defined as#4, it becomes entirely relative and personal. nwr writes: This is not a question about any particular religion, although answers might be different for different religions. This is intended as a science topic, not a faith topic, although the scientific issues might mainly concern the social sciences. OK, I am not a scientist, but I am a social science type of guy!
Crashfrog writes: I would maintain that this is an individual problem. Divisions exist only within our minds.
Religion serves to divide the world into believers and unbelievers. In that sense, I would describe it as an influence against cohesion, a divisive influence.Ben writes: Good point. 9-11 fostered an us v. them mentality. It undid any trust that the fall of communism brought about between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd worlds. As a side note, it was ironic yet interesting that George Dubya said something to the effect of nations having to make a choice of being with "us" or against "us". Jesus once said that if you were not for Him, you were against Him. Both Dubya and Christ caused division within society. The choice, however, was always left to the individual or the nation/state. Here's another good example of how cultural changes dictate how things may be cohesive or may be divisive: nationalism. Do you think nationalism brought a country together after 9/11? Do you think anything has changed since then? I would suggest that nationalism was a big bonding factor around 9/11, but now is turning into a divisive force. Really fast change.nwr writes: Friendships foster unity. Religion need not be as important as relationship. And if a person makes good friends in the religious group, that makes it so much easier to accept the religion.nwr writes: Does a virtual internet community mean as much in a cohesive sense as would a community such as the one truthlover lives in? This is a valid question. Religion has been part of the glue that binds societies together. Maybe we don't need that today, because we have radio, television, cable, the internet, rapid travel in aircraft, rock music, etc. This message has been edited by Phat, 10-18-2005 03:21 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Saying that religion may have been a useful trait for societal bonding doesn't cut it for me, as surely there are other non-supernatural systems (xenophobia?) which would do the same? It doesn't matter if something else MIGHT have worked just as well; if religion is what provided social cohesion for a group of people in the past, then religion provided that benefit. I don't think the supernatural part is necessarily important either. But if religion is what provided social cohesion, then that was a good aspect of religion. Heck, evein if religion COULD provide social cohesion, it's a good aspect of religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
meet me in chat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Remember the big atheistic, communistic movement? You mean in Soviet Russia, or in China? Those movements weren't atheist or humanist; they deified the state and the party.
(well, historical memory). Looks like you have some issues with your memory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you think that 18th century Japanese culture has any fundamental differences compared to now? No, I don't. The words change but the music is always the same. And I think I made a pretty good case for that, which you didn't even address.
Do you think religion was a factor for the pilgrims who first came to America? How about 1000 years before that? How about 20,000 years before that? I don't see the relevance. The pilgrims you refer to were kicked out of England for their religion, and you're trying to portray religion as a cohesive influence? You've just proved my point.
Do you think nationalism brought a country together after 9/11? Do you think anything has changed since then? I would suggest that nationalism was a big bonding factor around 9/11, but now is turning into a divisive force. Really fast change. And I don't think nationalism had that effect. It was a divisive force immediately after 9/11; it's a divisive force now.
Not if everybody's a believer. There isn't a religion in the world that claims universal appeal; one of the built-in protections of every religion is a rationale (and a suggestion for disposal) for people who simply won't convert to it no matter what. "Everybody's a believer"? Under what condition do you think that's possible? If the only situation in which religion is cohesive is a situation that cannot possibly occur, you've just proved my point again.
Not if believers are stronger from their faith and are able to co-exist with non-believers. I think it's clear from history that neither of these things have ever been true. Earlier you gave an example of believers who couldn't co-exist with non-believers and so founded our country.
Maybe religion works really well for tribal-sized cultures. Or maybe religion divides large cultures until they're about tribal-sized, and is thus a divisive influence.
You can't make the conclusions you want to unless you rigorously explore these scenarios. What scenario? "Unknown factor X"? Fill in the blanks, and maybe you have a point. Unknown factors are beyond the scope of the article, and my point. And neither I nor the authors of the paper are required to rebut the influence of "unknown factor X." You can always say there's an "unknown factor." Such claims should not be taken seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I've always thought that societies would be great if everybody got a "little bit" of religion when they were young, but then all became Agnostic and open-minded as adults.
If nobody's sure, then what is there to fight about? If everybody believes in divine retribution during their formative years, then they will internalize thost acceptable social behaviors. Maybe everyone should be raised Unitarian?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
It doesn't matter if something else MIGHT have worked just as well; if religion is what provided social cohesion for a group of people in the past, then religion provided that benefit. No, this would just mean that the benefit was coincidental to religion and not as a direct consequence of it. Xenophobia (which I would not consider a religion) can also lead to social cohesion. Therefore religion is not necessary required for social cohesion (aside: is the social cohesion brought about by xenophobia, or religion, necessarily a good thing?) This also means that we cannot rightly say if religion has been good because of its social benefits, it may even be that religion is a coincidental side effect of something altogether more fundamental (the human pack instinct for example).
I don't think the supernatural part is necessarily important either. But if religion is what provided social cohesion, then that was a good aspect of religion. Heck, evein if religion COULD provide social cohesion, it's a good aspect of religion. As I said, my take on religion is that it necessarily involves the supernatural and ceremony, so the topic can be rephrased: "what survival benefits would an organised system of supernatural beliefs have, if any?". If the same benefits can be achieved without religion, then we're not really specifying what it was that religion brought to the table. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Those movements weren't atheist or humanist; they deified the state and the party. They were officially atheistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They were officially atheistic. And we're "officially" a federal republic. In practice, we're not. And in practice, those nations were theocracies - governments that mandated worship of the state and the leader of the party. They did, after all, outlaw religion. Why would an atheist state do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And in practice, those nations were theocracies - governments that mandated worship of the state and the leader of the party. They did, after all, outlaw religion. Why would an atheist state do that? The way you are using the term "theocracy" is mighty broad, Crashfrog. They did not believe in the supernatural--it was not a "religion" unless you use the term in an excessively generalized sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They did not believe in the supernatural--it was not a "religion" unless you use the term in an excessively generalized sense. No generalization necessary. In those countries the state explicity took the place of church. It was to be worshipped, literally; appealed to for intercession; and held to be both inerrant and supernaturally eternal. Now, they certainly attacked what they considered "superstitions", so there were components of the supernatural that they explicitly denied. But other elements of the state apparatus took on a supernatural character - i.e. televisions and radios that could "transmit back", spies who could listen to any conversation or even read minds. The USSR had a program to train "remote viewers", Robin. (That's why we had one, too.) And you claim that they denied the supernatural? Ludicrous. Those governments were theocracies, Robin. Religion doesn't have to simply be the worship of a god. (Otherwise Scientology could not be considered a religion.) Worshipping a state believed to hold supernatural powers of influence, survelliance, and literally power over life and death, certainly constitutes a religion to anybody, presuming that person is not like you - an ideologue slavishly determined to tar all atheists with the brush of socialist atrocity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Worshipping a state believed to hold supernatural powers of influence, survelliance, and literally power over life and death, certainly constitutes a religion to anybody, presuming that person is not like you - an ideologue slavishly determined to tar all atheists with the brush of socialist atrocity. Or maybe it's the other way around. Maybe Crashfrog's line of thought is: Religion is bad; communism is bad; therefore, communism must be a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or maybe it's the other way around. Maybe Crashfrog's line of thought is: Religion is bad; communism is bad; therefore, communism must be a religion. That's a funny, if erroneous, assertion. Now, why don't you try addressing my points. Or is it your intention then to simply abandon the discussion? Don't blame you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Or is it your intention then to simply abandon the discussion? Don't blame you. I deny that communism is a religion. I maintain that calling communism a "religion" is a misuse of the term. If you use it in that way, you could call any firm, dogmatic belief or system a religion. One could call the figure of "Uncle Sam" a God if you want to, but it's not a legitimate use of the term as traditionally defined. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-18-2005 07:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I deny that communism is a religion. I maintain that calling communism a "religion" is a misuse of the term. Fascinating, but completely irrelevant to my point. I've never asserted that communism is a religion. On the other hand, worshipping a deified state held to be eternal, all-knowing, and inerrant is definately religion. But I challenge you to find any post of mine where communism is said to be a religion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024