Does religion have practical value?

Even though I have no belief in a god, I DO think that religion has a practical value for some people.

It enables people to deal with the issues of life and death, and offers emotional comfort in trying situations.
Churches supply a social milieu for many.
It helps provide positive social behavior in those who might have problems going it on their own.

i certainly think so. i was going to post a couple examples of saying that today, but then you've already seen them.

or maybe that was dys... anyway, this is a theme that douglas adams explores in an article about artificial gods.

Yes, it's a form of controlling the masses.

It provides a crutch for people who don't believe in anything else and who need one.

It provides a forum for people to congregate and socialize.

It gives some people a reason or rationale for the inexplicable... a way to find meaning in their lives.

It provides a place for people to deposit their faith.

Re: Does religion have practical value?


Good values? Not to me. In the U.S. four of the commandments are in violation of our Constitution.

Number two is actually repulsive to me as it punishes children for the violations of the father.

. Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth: Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the Lord thy God am
a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them
that hate me; And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments.

I think you need a better example than the Ten Commandments

it allows the religious to feel wiser than the atheist, and the atheist to feel smarter than the religious.

Questionable at best


What else would people believe in?


So does a bowling league


So does science. Everybody needs meaning in their lives. One should not assume that religious people do not have meaning beyond religion.


Interesting comment. People don't deposit their faith.... they have it or they don't and keep it within

In my opinion, most everything has practical value. Of course, those who do not value something will ignore or belittle it. People have different value systems and one should not look at themselves as beyond anybody else. Be it religious, atheist or agnostic. Everybody has value and the things that they hold dear are practical to them even if others do not understand.

In my opinion religion has a negative value. It is the most divisive, intolerant and biased concept ever devised by mankind.

I think the example is good enough. Even though some of the commandments are in violation of the US constitution, the constitution itself was written by men who see them as good values.

But wasn't the constitution was written by men who kept slaves? That is a direct violation of human rights.

But it's all a bit beside the point. I think that some beneficial and not so beneficial practical applications of religion have been mentioned here already.



Is it the concept itself that is divisive, or is it man's biased and intolerant application and interpretation of it that is the problem?

Come to think, there are things in the world today that cause a lot more trouble than religion. Unjust tradelaws, intolerance and fear and greed. Things most religions teach us to rise above, even though many religious leaders use religion to plant these things in their followers.

To me, the worst aspect of religion is that it allows, nay encourages people to allocate responsibility to a god whenever it is convenient.

God made me do it.

God saved my child.

God wanted my child with him.

God chose this life for me.

God wants me to worship it.

God is responsible for my Academy Award.

God will keep me safe.

It's God's will.

God owns the souls of embryos.

What a dangerous bunch of lies. Of course, theists often reject the idea of their god having any negative impact. God makes rainbows, but tsunamis aren't his fault. Strangest of all, theists seem to think they know the gods intent with absolute certainty while claiming it's impossible to do such a thing.

The Truth leaves very little room for the truth.

Religion is that which people through history have used use to justify hate,intolerance, war, slaughter and injustice. That is it's value.

"The Truth leaves very little room for the truth."
Ain't that the truth?

Hey, JL, nice to see you again.

I think that the term "religion" has been assigned a very narrow definition on this thread, so far at any rate. I don't discriminate between religion, spirituality or any of the other terms used to define this subject. I don't think that religion is synonymous with literalism, fundamentalism, or objectivism. I especially don't think that religion is particularly effective in its second hand form, that is, organized, but I think religion or spirituality goes hand in hand with a certain level of intellectual development.

That is not to say that the smarter you are the more religious you will be. I'm saying that in brain development in any animal that reaches a level of self-awareness acompanied with ego development becomes aware of and is confronted with the uncertainty of its future. So far as we know, in the present time, humans are the only animal on this planet to have reached an intellectual level allowing for the development of an ego. Other animals may be aware that they exist, but they don't know that they are aware that they exist. That is, they can't project themselves into the future, and it's fortunate for them because this means they don't have to become neurotic to deal with the uncertainty, the danger, and the insecurity of the near future. They not only don't have to worry about the possibility of death and the certainty of death, but they don't have to wonder what happens to their ego after death.

But I think that any living thing, animal or plant or otherwise is naturally religious, that is they live in a state of eternity, a state of timelessness. Humans also, but with the intellect we have the ability to realize this eternity or ignore it. Animals live in eternity, the eternal now, but they aren't aware of it. Regardless, eternity is religion, is god, so to speak--for want of a better word.

Everybody who has this self-consciousness has thought and worried about the future and death. Self-consciousness has a built in insecurity along with it. Religion deals with this insecurity and expands our identity from an individual ego envelope to an identity outside our own skin. This process is not limited to organized groups nor is it necessarily more successful outside the individual experience. That is, an individual experience may be much deeper and fulfilling than that obtained from subscription to an organized religion.

All I'm saying is that religion doesn't have to be confined within the "box," and it is most fulfilling outside the "box," the "box" being intellectual speculation. For instance, being rapt by a particular piece of music or entranced by a flower, bird, insect, or scenery is religion. That religion defined and restricted by the intellect is the lowest order of religion, whether it's defined as literalism, fundamentalism, or atheism; all these are thrown out the window by pure perception before the imposition of the intellect.

Those weren't perjorative or belittling statements, Intrepid. I was seriously answering the question as I considered it.

Coluber, really well stated IMO, I think I agree completely. These two bits struck me in particular...





I see the organised parts of any religion as being supplementary to individual perspective, awareness or insight. I like the idea of communities of people supporting each other in such endeavours. So, instead of people organising themselves under authority, they simply organise themselves around personal insight with the wish to share but not coerce. I worry a little that appreciating a religion purely because it's your group, encourages that division and also the attachment to ideas confined purely within this intellectual level. If you see religion in terms of "pure perception", this misses the point, dangerously so.

Thanks, Ashers. It's very disturbing that fundamentalism has had such an impact recently and that religion defined as morality, its lowest form, seems to be the popular connotation of religion.

That sort of reasoning isn't a strictly religious phenomena. This sort of paradoxical outlook is often associated with mental disorder, and can sometimes result in a clinical diagnosis.

Another strange thing is that when these paradoxical outlooks involve religious aspects psychology is useless, since every man is entitled to his own interpretation of his religion.

I would also like to stress that I am not saying that religious people are mentally out of balance. I am merely stating that it is quite common that mental disorders "hide" from the one inflicted, and very often the complex concepts of religion serve as a nearly invisible hideout.

Like so universally found institutions (e.g., family, marriage, class, military, politics, economics) religion is both eufunctional (positive) and dysfunctional (negative). On the positive side it helps many people cope with the loss of loved ones and the inevitability of their own death, and it often serves (according to functionalist anthropology) to lend unity and solidarity to societies. On the negative side, it keeps individuals from growing existentially through honest and courageous confrontation with the realities of life, and in modern complex-pluralistic societes it is divisive.
The same principles apply to the nationalism characterizing nation-states.

Like so universally found institutions (e.g., family, marriage, class, military, politics, economics) religion is both eufunctional (positive) and dysfunctional (negative). On the positive side it helps many people cope with the loss of loved ones and the inevitability of their own death, and it often serves (according to functionalist anthropology) to lend unity and solidarity to societies. On the negative side, it keeps individuals from growing existentially through honest and courageous confrontation with the realities of life, and in modern complex-pluralistic societes it is divisive.
The same principles apply to the nationalism characterizing nation-states.

Like so universally found institutions (e.g., family, marriage, class, military, politics, economics) religion is both eufunctional (positive) and dysfunctional (negative). On the positive side it helps many people cope with the loss of loved ones and the inevitability of their own death, and it often serves (according to functionalist anthropology) to lend unity and solidarity to societies. On the negative side, it keeps individuals from growing existentially through honest and courageous confrontation with the realities of life, and in modern complex-pluralistic societes it is divisive.
The same principles apply to the nationalism characterizing nation-states.