What is Religion for?

[ApostateAbe]

Re: What is Religion for: Meme Me

This is interesting. My personal belief is any religion is okay as long as it is not too destructive and if it benefits the owner. Let religions evolve to fit the times. Yet this is difficult because this evolution best happens unconsciously. If the change is too conscious, that defeats a purpose of religion which is to believe in something convenient where one can relax and not be torn apart by divided loyalties.

Think of the Catholic doctrine of natural sex confined within narrow channels where no artificial birth control is allowed. Catholics will violate this requirement under the covers. By keeping quiet, the Catholic hierarchy is happy, but Catholic members will feel either defiant or guilty. This is a tough one to evolve. The corruption is there but it's hard to say whether the doctrine is overall good or evil.

I would love it if religion disappeared from the face of the earth, but that would be like curing the common cold. Religions are too diverse and too adaptable to eradicate, even more so than the common cold. Instead, it would be better to influence their evolution toward something better.

Even in the Catholic Church hierarchy, the doctrine against birth control is evolving for the better. The Catholic Church hierarchy is much more diverse and much more divided than we all tend to think. The pope is not "the pope" of Catholicism.

 

[AnnaC]

Re: What is Religion for: Meme Me

I would love it if religion disappeared from the face of the earth, but that would be like curing the common cold. Religions are too diverse and too adaptable to eradicate, even more so than the common cold. Instead, it would be better to influence their evolution toward something better.

Even in the Catholic Church hierarchy, the doctrine against birth control is evolving for the better. The Catholic Church hierarchy is much more diverse and much more divided than we all tend to think. The pope is not "the pope" of Catholicism.

Religions are essential for unfortunately unintelligent humans to become moral, and also for them to maintain a sense of dignity. People use it as a foothold to reach toward higher authority, and have done so since religions first appeared. However, I see nothing wrong with religion, so long as it permits a healthy sense of curiosity and is compatible with science.

Being a non-atheist/non-agnostic myself, I can appreciate the beneficial qualities of religion: Wonders have been built in the honor of God/Gods, people have gone to war with faith carrying them to the forefront of the battle, and much great literature has been based around some form of religion or another. On a smaller scale, religion fosters a sense of morality and intelligence in the non-scientific mind.

At the same time, I can see the atheist/agnostic point of view, which is that some restrictive religions suppress scientific breakthroughs, encourage wars to convert or destroy supposed heathens, and grants authority to small-minded men and women shouting from pulpits.

There are good and bad points to either side of the argument. Extremist religions suppress curiosity, at the same time extremist atheists suppress dignity in the common man. It's mind-boggling, the lack of intelligence which can be attributed to both sides. Surely religion will never be eliminated, and so long as both parties continue to squabble over who is right and who is wrong, there will never be peace among men. Both sides would benefit from neutrality: Atheists from dropping their evangelism to the religious, and religious from dropping their evangelism to the atheists.

That's not saying, of course, that it isn't fun to disprove and frustrate the attempts of religious or non-religious extreme evangelists. It's kind of fun to watch them wriggle around uncomfortably.

 

[BigApplePi]

What is Religion for: Questions

I would love it if religion disappeared from the face of the earth, but that would be like curing the common cold.

This question is the challenge to meet. These are the questions I have to ask:

1. Is this an INTP or ISTP bias?
2. Is this position held only by those on the outside of any religion?
3. What if religion is not for reason, but for the emotions? Does this half of the population get any points?
4. Can a thinking person hold a religious attitude if they subtract the doctrine?
5. If current religions left the face of the earth, can something coherent and adequate replace them?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Re: What is Religion for: Questions

This question is the challenge to meet. These are the questions I have to ask:

1. Is this an INTP or ISTP bias?
2. Is this position held only by those on the outside of any religion?
3. What if religion is not for reason, but for the emotions? Does this half of the population get any points?
4. Can a thinking person hold a religious attitude if they subtract the doctrine?
5. If current religions left the face of the earth, can something coherent and adequate replace them?

1. INTP bias, I would imagine. They are the truth seekers.
2. Primarily.
3. Points? Religion is about reason and emotions, both.
4. You mean like people who just go to church, listen to sermons, sing, drink wine, fraternize, and don't believe a word of it? Don't see why not.
5. Religions don't need replacements any more than viruses, as far as I'm aware, but they would leave a wishful-thinking void that may be filled by non-religious ideologies that are even worse, such is what happened in communist states. If there was a way to solve the religion problem, we would need to broaden the solution to the ideology problem.

 

[BigApplePi]

AnnaC

Religions are essential for unfortunately unintelligent humans to become moral, and also for them to maintain a sense of dignity. People use it as a foothold to reach toward higher authority, and have done so since religions first appeared. However, I see nothing wrong with religion, so long as it permits a healthy sense of curiosity and is compatible with science.

Being a non-atheist/non-agnostic myself, I can appreciate the beneficial qualities of religion: Wonders have been built in the honor of God/Gods, people have gone to war with faith carrying them to the forefront of the battle, and much great literature has been based around some form of religion or another. On a smaller scale, religion fosters a sense of morality and intelligence in the non-scientific mind.

At the same time, I can see the atheist/agnostic point of view, which is that some restrictive religions suppress scientific breakthroughs, encourage wars to convert or destroy supposed heathens, and grants authority to small-minded men and women shouting from pulpits.

There are good and bad points to either side of the argument. Extremist religions suppress curiosity, at the same time extremist atheists suppress dignity in the common man. It's mind-boggling, the lack of intelligence which can be attributed to both sides. Surely religion will never be eliminated, and so long as both parties continue to squabble over who is right and who is wrong, there will never be peace among men. Both sides would benefit from neutrality: Atheists from dropping their evangelism to the religious, and religious from dropping their evangelism to the atheists.

That's not saying, of course, that it isn't fun to disprove and frustrate the attempts of religious or non-religious extreme evangelists. It's kind of fun to watch them wriggle around uncomfortably.

I can't get it out of my mind that a religion is like a club. If you're in it, you like it; if you're out, you hate it or are annoyed by it or are indifferent.

This is not a religion, but a business. Recently there was some business (think of the workers and management as being in a club) in Bangladesh I think it was. Some outsider wanted a union. They killed him and he was found with broken kneecaps and smashed toes. These clubs take things seriously. Is it the club which is bad or morality of the club which is bad? If the latter, we are tossing the baby with the bathwater.

 

[AnnaC]

AnnaC

I can't get it out of my mind that a religion is like a club. If you're in it, you like it; if you're out, you hate it or are annoyed by it or are indifferent.

This is not a religion, but a business. Recently there was some business (think of the workers and management as being in a club) in Bangladesh I think it was. Some outsider wanted a union. They killed him and he was found with broken kneecaps and smashed toes. These clubs take things seriously. Is it the club which is bad or morality of the club which is bad? If the latter, we are tossing the baby with the bathwater.

The morality of the club, or so I would think. Those who are knowledgeable will keep counsel within their own minds and among those who share the same religious values as they do, sharing their opinion only when it is asked of them. Those who value power and a sense of "I'm right, and you're wrong" above any virtue at all (i.e., the business in Bangladesh) will do anything that's possible to prove that the party which refuses to acknowledge the religion's power (that would be the outsider).

It's not a matter of who's right or wrong, so much as who has the upper hand in the tug of war between the theist and atheist points, and even between different groups of theists. This has been illustrated in the Crusades, 9/11, and the ongoing debate as to the God-question, which none seem willing to drop. Atheists scare theists with thoughts that of a nonexistent afterlife, which they're terrified of, and which makes them hold even faster to their beliefs; theists attempt to terrorize atheists into beliefs with obviously falsified deities.

I'll applaud atheists their inquisitive minds, but as a general rule, I've not met one atheist who is willing to allow a theist to follow their religion without challenging them to a philosophical debate as to the reality or unreality of their God. Religious folks are generally conservative and of a following mindset. They're not programmed to comprehend the philosophical points that the atheist has come to consider truth, and that is where the birth of religion started.

In other words, where science and philosophy separates, religion begins. I believe that regardless of whether or not a God truly exists, neutrality must be maintained, because all is an opinion in the mind of the theist, even scientific fact which has been proven and proven again. Constant bickering will lead to strong opinions; neutrality leads to peace and open-mindedness, as the pot is not constantly stirred, as the saying goes.

And hopefully you guys can follow that; I'm multitasking, and it's hard for me to explain what I'm thinking when I'm concentrating on even a sole topic.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's not hard at all to say that Catholic doctrine is evil, as it disallows people to have a perfectly reasonable control over an aspect of their lives. It creates a false dichotomy of either abstinence or having children. It ultimately denies a compromise between the human psychological need for sex and control over your future achievements prior to being ready for children. It's evil for denying a perfectly reasonable solution to a real problem.

 

[AnnaC]

It's not hard at all to say that Catholic doctrine is evil, as it disallows people to have a perfectly reasonable control over an aspect of their lives. It creates a false dichotomy of either abstinence or having children. It ultimately denies a compromise between the human psychological need for sex and control over your future achievements prior to being ready for children. It's evil for denying a perfectly reasonable solution to a real problem.

That cannot be denied. However, I think the God could have potential to be good, if only the doctrines weren't so constrictive and so against normal human behavior, not to mention science. I know several people who believe in God who have chosen to shirk the canon doctrine, and the religion that they have is perfectly compatible with science; they are also able to peaceably share ideas. They pray and follow the philosophies of Christ as a sage. (Personally, I think we was rather a madman, but I always tread carefully on that ground to maintain my impartial position.)

I think that some of the teachings of Christianity are inherently good, but there are many evil things, such as inability to feel pride in one's accomplishments or to express one's self, and the stifling effect created by priests and preachers. It also perverts young women's minds to believe that they are worthless, having created sin in the world (I don't know where Catholic doctrine stands on this, but the type of Christianity which I was raised with taught us this).

I've also seen men and women who have no reason to reach beyond drug addictions and alcoholism because of their faith alone. Through church, they found something to make their days and recovery less banal, and learned a new way of life. They've grown to care for their children again, by learning the habits taught in the Bible.

I won't try to convince them they are wrong, so long as they don't intervene with my faith in reason. I have tried to change Christian opinions in the past, to no avail, and I've learned that the best way to forget the differences between I and myself is to bypass debate with the extremely faithful altogether. Empty, circular quarrels are beneficial to neither of the people or groups of people involved.

 

[addictedartist]

Mystic phenomenalism, political idealism, pagan skepticism, eclectic behaviorism, monadic realism.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

AnnaC

I can't get it out of my mind that a religion is like a club. If you're in it, you like it; if you're out, you hate it or are annoyed by it or are indifferent.

This is very close to what my answer would be. Religion gives people a way to belong to large "idealized" group. One that usually meets on a regular basis further instilling a sense of community. It also provides a way to perform a service for that community and strengthen an individual's self-worth.

Religions can have many purposes but the social connection it provides is why they are popular. People need a sense of belonging. If the question was about inner-city gangs, I'd give the same answer.

 

[AnnaC]

This is very close to what my answer would be. Religion gives people a way to belong to large "idealized" group. One that usually meets on a regular basis further instilling a sense of community. It also provides a way to perform a service for that community and strengthen an individual's self-worth.

Religions can have many purposes but the social connection it provides is why they are popular. People need a sense of belonging. If the question was about inner-city gangs, I'd give the same answer.

This. This is what I was trying to illustrate, I think, but much simplified.

Beyond even needing philosophy to guide their lives by or to explain phenomena that they couldn't otherwise comprehend, I think the sense of belonging is what they would describe it as the most. Like the man I know who was "saved" by the grace of God, he only seemed to be saved by his faith in that God, which he shared with others in his community. That community was constantly around, helping him increase his faith in God, and thus the goodness of his heart according to their standards.

The purpose of religion may be so simple as that: The human's need for belonging. Humans are social creatures which benefit from positive contact with others, and what is church but positive contact? Granted there are a few who, like myself and many other people who have broken away from Christianity, have questioned God's authority and existence since childhood. I'd guess that these people are less reliant on social order and togetherness, which may suggest also why the INTP is generally averse to religion, or at the very least suspicious of it: We're okay with thinking outside of the mindset of those around us.

 

[Nikolaj]

"Don't throw pearls before swine"

I know, I'm sorry, I also don't like when somebody pops out, posts a few words and puts a smiley. But it spices things even more because it's from from New Testament. But really, what are pearls and who are swine? And why would anyone say that?