Does religion have practical value?

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 some 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 structurally/socially divisive and disruptive.
The same applies to the nationalism characterizing nation-states.

READ THIS REITERATION OF THE ABOVE POSTS

Wow, Ashers, Coluber, Cryacuz, and JLN on the same post--if Fresco and Asherman were here we would we'd have a nearly full house.

Coluber I AGREE that what you call "pure perception" or preflective perception "before the imposition of the intellect" (the mental posture of zen meditation) is an essential, even defining, feature of "real" religion (re-ligare: to reconnect the individual with Reality).

To me, the literalism (belief in the fairy tales) of fundamentalism is not "religion".

I think you brought attention to an interesting and somewhat disturbing problem here.

It is not neccesarily religion just because we invoke god and recite scripture. The motive behind the practice is what defines it.

If you invoke scripture to control others, it is not religion. It is politics, and you prey on the ignorance of others.

And if you let yourself be controlled in this way, it is not religion. It's ignorance.

It's like with musical instruments. Everyone can make noise with them, but to make music you must know how to play. And to learn how to play you must work at it with a genuine desire to improve.

And so, if you practice religion for personal benefits, with a genuine desire to improve yourself, then it is true religion. To that I offer my respect and support.

Upside : It brings a group of people together

Downside : it brings another group of people together from another religion...often the cause of wars

Upside : It gives people similar values, leading to social cohesiveness

Downside : It often alienates those with differing values

Upside : It usually performs social work, and lessens the tax burden on govt (who would otherwise have to pay for said social work)

Downside : they sometimes/often/not always try to convert people while doing it

Upside : they are conservative

Downside : they resist change

Upside : many people are happy following a religion

Downside : a decent percentage are unhappy and confused

Upside : Singing

Downside : hmmm...is there a downside to singing? Arguably used to brainwash people?

Upside : one of the last remaining bastions of the Storytelling art

Downside : arguably used to brainwash people

Upside : Contributed many architecturally beautiful buildings to society

Downside : I don't think there is any to this aspect

Anyway, I'm sure there's more to that list, those are just what I can think of off the top of my head

I like "to reconnect the individual with Reality" and that would be my personal perspective too but it is so rarely the case when criticism of religion is the focus. Even within religion, the mystical elements have never been at the forefront, or very rarely, at least against the backdrop of the orthodox streams. Even so, I still don't intrinsically see fault in more orthodox religions regarding day to day ethics and the organisation of man but as above, it is the motive which defines the practice, this seems to be the core of a great issue.

This topic, concerning the practicalities of religion, reminds me of what I read of Confucianism, is this even considered a religion or a philosophy? It's inspiration seems to be deep in the practicalities of life anyway. From what I understand one of the main things Confucius did in respect to his time/culture was to move the focus from Heaven to Earth so the chief concern was not what was expected of us from far above but what is right for the community. So the key relationship moves from between man and god to just man, give and take, rather than universal authoritarian, submission. It's actually quite specific about the key relationships there are like between child/parent, ruler/subject, old/young and the different general attitudes/stances the individual in question should take like reverence, respect and benevolence but the key to it all seems to be that those that carry greater power/responsiblity in any relationship cannot act as if the position carries built in pre-requisites, authority must be earned.

The idea that I think flows right the way through the different concepts in Confucianism and maybe through Chinese culture as a whole (?) is that you are never alone when you act, apart from human relationship there is no self, the self is constructed through interaction and it's a point where upon lives meet. The culmination of Confucianism as I've read and also had it described to me can be considered with an analogy (which I really like) of an eagle soaring and gliding on the turbulent air current. Human relationships are the atmosphere through which it flies and confucianism (a religion...) is the art of adjusting ones wings to the elusive/never ending goal of being "a more complete human being". Then there is this extension from the self via relationship and growing empathy to include family, community, nation and humanity escaping the clutches of selfishness and nationalism as you develop.

(Apologies if I am mistaken regarding any of the above, I don't know much of the specifics involving Confucianism but the "practicalities of religion" just screams for a mention of it)

Does anyone else find it interesting how the Chinese (as I understand) seem to very happily (and wisely I might add!) blend the religions of Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism in their day to day lives to suit the situation/motive?

Zen buddhism is the product of the confluence of Buddhism and Taoism (and, of course, Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism). The earthiness of Chinese culture transformed theoretical Buddhism into the practical version known as zen. (this would be a good time for Asherman to make an appearance).
I don't know if and how Confusionism comes into this: I've always thought of it as an ethical system devoid of mystical and theological implications.

Fair enough.

well said. regarding your sigline, it's nice to see einstein and campbell side by side. a bit of an exaggeration for campbell, but i know which one i can really relate to. i'm curious what you think of his work on the whole.

To find whether there is any practical value to the religions, I would have to think how the world would have been without them. Very difficult to say if it would have been in a better shape or worse.

One thing I can say is that religions keep a lot of people within certain limits of behaviour, and I mean in general. I look at that more as a reminder than as a restriction. Of course, it may be different for the religious people how they see those things (like the Ten Commandments).

"Religion" has served as a means to practical ends most for the televangilist.

Religions tend to teach an ethical and moral position that includes helping others. That usually infers getting your hands dirty for the benefit of someone else. A perfect example of this is the recovery effort in the Gulf Coast (and other disaster areas).

On a recent trip to New Orleans we were talking with some locals who are rebuilding their homes by themselves. When discussing outside help that has been forthcoming they commented that it has primarily been religious groups of all genres that have stepped in (and stepped up) to offer hands on support.

JPB, good to hear that some religious groups have a strong ethical dimension, even though "religion" is not synomous with ethics.
Most televangelists help themselves to others.

There is something to be said for groups of people linked via religion, fueling the very best and worst sides I guess. Interesting to me that meditation as a primary form of activity in many of the oriental philosophies, has an added dimension to it (in my mind) within a group setting. I've spoken to others that agree as well, there is an added inspiration maybe, or it just brings you back to a place of renewed energy for life outside of that setting? I think in JPB's example, it's good will inspiring good will. A shared commonality of thought and place in the world does seem to spill over into other areas of life irrespective of whether the group in question specifically has the purpose of practical aid etc.

JL, how do televangelists work exactly? What is it they are advertising on the TV? The whole thing fascinates me to an extent, I'm guessing there is a fair amount of scaremongering etc. This is the terrible problem, we are the solution, here is the amazing result. You must go through us to find solace etc. Totally backwards to me. This is why when cello asks, what would the world be like without religion, I struggle to answer. That organising, problem creating/solving, classifying mind seems to naturally inspire (along with the great stuff like above), religion itself. I think that's one thing that resonates with me regarding Buddhism/Taoism and the like. That total change of perspective regarding problems/solutions. So if Taoism is living life in harmony with the Tao or the way of reality, what could be more practical i.e. to practice, to participate fully?

A though occured to me.

One practical value of religion (or perhaps consequence is better in this regard) is that scientific progress was greatly hindered by it . We all know the stories of scientists through hundreds of years who suffered under the oppression of the church.

Even today the religions make it hard for some people to accept scientific progress.

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how the world would be if this barrier didn't exist.

Some areas of science is banned in most countries. Cloning of human beings, for instance. The use of stem cells to cure illnesses is outlawed here in Norway. I wonder if the ethical consideration that lie at the base of such a ban would still prevail if we didn't have religion. Personally I lean towards thinking that they might well have. Religion isn't what taught man ethics and morals. Morals and ethics led man to create religion.

I agree with the last sentences of the last posts of both Ashers and Cryacuz.

Scientific progress, at times, was greatly enhanced by religion. (Gregor Mendel leaps to mind). It's usually when the evidence of nature conflicts with the religious dogma that things get tricky.

which religions try to stop people from exploring things with scientific integrity, cyracuz?

how many of them would you guess take an active part in resisting scientific progress (beyond a mild interest in ethics, less than forbidding stem cell research?) christianity... islam... scientology forbids psychology... but how about paganism, taoism, shintoism, hinduism (okay, no research on mad cow but then they way they live, it would never have developed...) buddhism, zoroastrianism, mithras worship, bull worship, horus/isis/osirus worship, bahai, judaism, jedi, church of google, gnosticism, falun gong, universalism, wicca? why do you attack religion when you're talking almost exclusively about islam and christianity?

Religion provides a social structure for communities.

Religion provides people with comfort regarding life's uncertainties.

Religion provides people solace in times of loss and pain.

Religion provides people with justification for their prejudice.

Religion provides answers for everything. And those answers may never be questioned. Some people find that satisfying.

Religion provides a tax-free shelter for scamming vast fortunes off of the common person.

Religion provides vast political power to those who know how to harness credibility with the communities of faith.

tiny

I am not attacking anything. I'm just asking questions.

In the US nearly half the population doesn't believe in evolution theory. They think it's a false theory and believe that the bible contains the true story. These people are working towards banning evolution theory in schools. Nuff said.