Why religion?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The structural-functional approach to religion has its roots in Emile Durkheim’s work on religion. Durkheim argued that religion is, in a sense, the celebration and even (self-) worship of human society. Given this approach, Durkheim proposed that religion has three major functions in society: it provides social cohesion to help maintain social solidarity through shared rituals and beliefs, social control to enforce religious-based morals and norms to help maintain conformity and control in society, and it offers meaning and purpose to answer any existential questions.

To read more:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/the-functionalist-perspective-on-religion/

I was first introduced to Durkheim in a theology course at University. One part of reading in theology is to examine the why of things.

Why do humans self-organize into tribes, groups, nations, and other groups?


Religion, like every other aspect of tribalism, has the function of furnishing a group identity. And, like all human organizations, hat group identity can and does lead to positive and negative behaviors.

So when I read a comment in the vein of: "if only we could eradicate religion", I wonder exactly what the commenter feels is the point that is being made.

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. Associating for common goals, identity and purpose are fine; however, doing so on the basis of fairy

tales is silly at best.

[marylandblue]

3. Yet people have done exactly that for thousands of years.

Humans are, after all, pretty silly creatures.

[guillaumeb]

6. Similar to the fairy tales that are a part of US history?

Calling theism, something that the vast majority of humans associate with, defines the vast majority of humans as silly.

[edhopper]

19. The vast majority of humans have been wrong and continue

to be wrong about many things. The vast majority of humans are silly about many things.

[guillaumeb]

28. Are you ever in that vast majority?

And if so, when?

[edhopper]

37. At one time

I believed in ghosts and UFOs and God.

At one time I thought Bill Cosby was a great guy and Lance Armstrong a great champion.

[guillaumeb]

38. Bill Cosby and Lance Armstrong.

For some reason, those 2 names sound familiar.

[edhopper]

39. I also thought

that there was no way enough Americans would be dumb enough to support Donald Trump to make it a close election.

Wrong about that too.

[guillaumeb]

40. Sadly, you are correct there.

Never underestimate the ability of the uninformed voter to make bad choices.

[edhopper]

41. Lesson learned

[Cartoonist]

2. Durkheim is wrong.

He sure does assume a lot. I'm sure he's happy that his world is just the way he wants it.

[marylandblue]

4. Yes he does assume a lot, but has he been proven wrong?

[guillaumeb]

7. His reputation among sociologists will not suffer too much from your opinion.

Some prefer to filter the world through their own cognitive biases.

[Cartoonist]

13. He makes the same mistake you do.

The same mistake other sociologists make because they want to.

People get together in social groups because that's what people do. Just because they get together in their religious clubs doesn't prove God's existence. The local Star Wars club doesn't prove the existence of Yoda.

Religious sociologists of his stripe start with a conclusion and then try to justify it with anecdotal evidence.

[guillaumeb]

30. Have you ever considered, for even a moment,

that you are mistaken?

This article deals with the "why" of religion, not the proof that religious feeling is provable or correct.

People band together because it is a literal necessity for mental and physical health.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. And what reputation would that be?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. He would be happy...

...if he hadn't died over a hundred years ago.

[MineralMan]

22. Ha!

[ismnotwasm]

5. Religion is a human response

All arguments about the validity of deities aside, the forms of worship are entreaties, give me something, or take away something. The foundations of religion are answers to the “why” of how things are. When people group together, there is always, first, greater safety.

I’m a feminist so there is something in every single patriarchal religion that I find off putting, offensive, or terrifying. A better question to me is “Why, once we organize into tribes, groups, nations and other group, do we so quickly find enemies within and without?

My favorite quote from Sci-fi author Octavia Butler from one of her books is this one, and in her book, dooms mankind

Octavia E. Butler
“You are hierarchical. That's the older and more entrenched characteristic. We saw it in your closest animal relatives and in your most distant ones. It's a terrestrial characteristic. When human intelligence served it instead of guiding it, when human intelligence did not even acknowledge it as a problem, but took pride in it or did not notice it at all... That was like ignoring cancer

[guillaumeb]

8. First, what is the name of the book? Thank you in advance.

My view on tribalism is that a tribe defines "the other" as non members of the tribe. In the interest of social cohesion, there must be an "us" and an "other".

Tribalism is also seen among primates. Perhaps it is because tribalism is the figurative air that we breath.

And dominance is, in my view, a part of that tribalism.

[marylandblue]

9. Tribalism doesn't necessarily mean there is an "us" and an "other" and a need for dominance

When two chimpanzee groups encounter each other, they go to war. When two bonobo groups encounter each other, they make love. Humans seem to do one or the other, depending on the situation.

[guillaumeb]

10. I was speaking predominantly of humans.

What is a tribe but an "us"?

At the most basic level, a family group is a tribe. Humans do not personally relate to all humans.

[marylandblue]

11. You mentioned primates, there are different types of primate groups and interactions

There are different types of human tribes and different types of human interactions. It's a lot more complicated and varied than a simple "us" vs. "them."

[guillaumeb]

26. THere are complicating factors,

but the foundation is "us" versus "them".

[ismnotwasm]

14. It's actually a trilogy, the first book is called "Dawn"

Here is a pretty good review by another author

https://www.tor.com/2018/01/18/starting-with-the-womb-octavia-e-butlers-dawn/

I also think, and there is some evidence for this, that humans survived and thrived because of cooperation, in small family groups at first of course. We may have survived because of altruism — how did such a characteristic become not only entrenched, but admired?

[guillaumeb]

27. Altrusim is also self-interest in the same manner that group altruism

is self-interest.

Thank you for the name. I will look for the book.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. That's a two part question, but Butler only answers one part.

Organization entails heirarchy, yes. Religious leaders no doubt realize they owe their wealth and power to the widespread belief that what they say is true; that if people start believing something else, they will lose that wealth and power.

But what those who don't materially profit from such organization? They are no less vociferous in their defense of the heirarchy than those at the top. In fact, the system is usually more detremental to them than beneficial, and they're usually the ones to "defend" the heirarchy with violence and atrocity. Look to the Peasant's Crusade of 1096 for a textbook example.

[ismnotwasm]

25. You know I think about that quite a lot

Does organization HAVE to entail hierarchy? In her books, the aliens do not a a hierarchical culture but one of biological assimilation, obviously not something humans can do.

It’s can be an uncomfortable thought, actually, to NOT have the hierarchical standards we are used to. We seem to want a parent, or a boss, or an authority figure. Religion fits this role to a tee, and every religion has some sort of hierarchy, even the ones that claim they don’t.

Too often Revolution has stirred its..proletariat, if you will, and it’s impoverished among the people, manipulated them in order for reward. Not that true grassroots rebellion is any different.

The fights between Protestant and Catholics come to mind though. So much death and destruction.

Another sci-if author I adore is Roger Zelanzy, in his book “Lord of Light”—in this he creates Gods (based on Hindu mythology) that were once people, who deliberately keep humans technologically primitive, and so, easier to manipulate

[Nitram]

12. It comes down to two ways of looking at what makes society work. Do we need myths to hold us

together, or would we do better to learn how to face the truth and come to terms with reality?

[trotsky]

15. One simple question: who said "if only we could eradicate religion"?

Please link to the post.

[MineralMan]

16. Who here has said "if only we could eradicate religion?"

Personally, I don't care about religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with people's lives who don't follow it. What anyone believes with regard to such things is completely irrelevant. It is only actions that matter. Actions that attempt to impose religions beliefs on others are wrong. Such actions deny the individual right to believe whatever that individual believes regarding such things. Sadly, such actions are all too common in our society, so there's a need to point that out often.

I don't think there is anyone in this Group who wants to "eradicate religion." I think you have created a strawman to use in your argument.

You have posted a very brief quote from some theologian. Apparently, you think it has some significance. I think Durkheim gets the basic point wrong, but am not going to write an argument against that point of view today. I will simply say that religion reflects society, rather than the other way around. That is my understanding, after studying it for many years.

But, your strawman does not convince. I have not met such a person.

[trotsky]

17. Guillaumeb using a straw man? NO WAY!! n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I racked my brain, briefly, and tried to think of someone

here who advocates the eradication of religion. Now, it's possible that someone might have done that at some point, but I can't remember such a thing.

Maybe our fellow Religion Group subscriber has simply thought he saw someone write something like that, or has projected that onto someone here. Still, it's an incautious thing to say, since it's not accurate.

I have a certain sympathy toward that poster. I see grasping at straws (or strawmen) as an act of quiet desperation. When faith is challenged in one's own mind, it can be frightening in some ways.

[guillaumeb]

29. Reboot and try again.

[MineralMan]

31. I almost never take instructions from you, Guy.

Surely you have noticed that.

[guillaumeb]

32. Your loss.

Self-reflection can be a good thing, but self-awareness is required for it.

Agreed?

[MineralMan]

33. Oddly enough, I experience no sense of loss from

ignoring your instructions to me.

[guillaumeb]

34. That is where the reflection and awareness enter. eom

[MineralMan]

35. ..

[trotsky]

36. POST EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

[edhopper]

20. So their is a debate on whether

religion is a net plus or net negative for human society?

Does any of that show any support for the premise of any religion.

And if there is no basis for the religion, what does that say about the time and effort people put into it. Not to mention the actions taken on it's behalf.

[guillaumeb]

43. Of course there is a debate.

And both sides will insist that the other is incorrect.

[edhopper]

52. But what does it say

about the basis of these religions? ie the deities?

[guillaumeb]

53. Nothing, in my view. eom

[trotsky]

42. STILL waiting for evidence that someone here has said "if only we could eradicate religion".

You have provided NONE. So far, it's a FALSE SMEAR.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

Is lying a Christian value?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Maybe the point is "getting rid of tribes would be good"

Not many see tribalism as a good thing.

[guillaumeb]

45. And how exactly would we eliminate the human need for family?

And its larger equivalent, the tribe?

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. We'd realise that the tribe is not the equivalent of a family

and that it's incorrect to say that eliminating one entity means eliminating all entities that have a bit of similarity to it.

Indeed, most of humanity doesn't live in tribes any more. Better communication and history-keeping enables different ways of living. Democracies, for instance.

Nationalism is another thing that's dangerous.

By an amazing coincidence, I was wondering if to post these Peter Gabriel lyrics, when my shuffling music chose it anyway, so I will:

Not One Of Us

It's only water
In a stranger's tear
Looks are deceptive
But distinctions are clear
A foreign body
And a foreign mind
Never welcome
In the land of the blind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is
You're not one of us
...
There's safety in numbers
When you learn to divide
How can we be in
If there is no outside
All shades of opinion
Feed an open mind
But your values are twisted
Let us help you unwind

[guillaumeb]

47. That is the goal.

And John Lennon's Imagine made a similar point.

But getting from here to there requires...... what?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Requires ... letting go of institutions that demand loyalty for the sake of belonging

and which use supernatural promises, rather than reality, to justify their influence?

[guillaumeb]

49. National identity offers and demands similar things.

My view is that this goal requires a basic restructuring of human behavior.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. national identity is not based on supernatural promises (or threats)

History is real. It may be imperfectly known, but that's better than "totally made up". The history of a nation can be used to judge it - what's worth continuing, what should change.

Human behaviour does change. We respond to our environment.

[guillaumeb]

51. We both respond to and create our social and physical environment.

And if humans are still behaving as they did 5,000 years ago, that shows the difficulty facing us.