What are the purposes of religion?

Humans are not "hard" wired, but there is something that predisposes humans to religion and war. Most ancient and current cultures have participated in wars - whether amongst tribes (their own culture) or other countries. I see it as a given, and my personal opinion.

Both religion and war are so characteristic of our species that it is hard to imagine us without either. BUT, people do imagine such a thing and staunchly believe that we would be better off if both war and religion had never existed. Imagine us without conflict, still prey for predators and still foraging for coconuts in the tree tops.

Religion has served, over the years, the same purpose that is now being taken over by television; keeping the 'common herd' engaged, defining their lives, and making sure they know their place (and don't get involved in thinking!).

[similar to a 'social' cattle prod!]

BGW,

Good link to Marx's "opium of the masses" there !

Notice how we are communicating with each other by discussion of "control".

Interestingly the legal issues of "free will" versus "balance of mind disturbed" are lurking in the background there. together with the whole question of the meaning of "morality". Some theologians (Polkinghorne) now argue that the origin of our sense of "morality" is the only substantial reason for "belief", but Darwinists have countered that by saying that a gene for "altruism" is an evolutionary advantage.

Feels like this (along with fresco's recent and earlier posts) alludes to a pathology of purposes, a "shadow" side, a subversion of the power of original set of purposes.

As time passes the effects overwhelm the cause, and the 'supposed' purposes get overshadowed/employed to their own demise.

I think those were good contributions from BoGoWo, Eorl, Dauer, c. i., and gravy (in order of appearnce - no relative qualitative evaluation expressed or implied :cool: )

Asherman, the list is lookin' good, IMO - startin' to really flesh out and promises to polish up very nicely.

fresco - I'm still chewin' on that first set you offered - this may take a while yet, you sure served up a bunch.

Now, Rex, lookin' at the New American Standard Bible, the Ancient Greek artios translates as "adequate", while in the King James Bible, it translates as "perfect". In contemporary Orthodox Bibles, both Russo-Cyrillic and Greek, and in contemporary non-scriptural Cyrillic and Greek canonical writings, the translation is more along the lines of "fit", "proper", or "suitable", with certain context calling for a sense akin to "complete" or "finished". Its been many, many years since I've really thought much about it, but as I recall, looking at the works of Homer, the other Greek playwrights, philosophers, and historians, the word appears to have connoted a state of fitness or suitabiliy, as for a particular purpose, use, or task, though good argument may be made for inclusion of at least some sense of the concept of immediacy or timeliness, and to perhaps a lesser extent a concept we would characterize as "elevated" - lifted up, borne on high, carried above. Context matters quite a bit. The association of the word with the concept of "perfect", as without flaw, blemish, or shortcomming, appears no earlier than the direct antecedents of the King James Bible. Comparing Latin, Greek, Hebraic, Syriac, and Aramaic writings both of Judaeo-Christian scripture and independent of but contemporary with Judaeo-Christian scripture, artios in those times appears generally to have meant something far closer to "good enough" than to "perfect". All that, however has zip to do with anything other than the silly lexico-etymologic digression for which I freely acknowledge responsibility and herewith do apologize and from which semantic tomfoolery I declare intention henceforth to abjure.

Perhaps, Rex, some fault for the perception and assertion of some here that you do not address the point at discussion lays in that while those who criticize your presentation and content approach the issue through objective philosophic inquiry, you approach the issue through subjectictive theologic doctrine. To some, myself included, it appears you have made no point, offered no argument, engaged in no topical, forensically valid debate, but rather have preached, prosyletized, and quoted a bit - a selection of no apparent relevance to the discussion-in-progress you joined - from a particular one among many translations of the Judaeo-Christian core canon. One charitably may surmise we talk at cross purposes regarding the matter at question. Less charitably, one might ask of you, "where did that come from, why do you think it belongs here, and just where do you figure you're goin' with it?"

Please understand no one is pickin' on you, but neither will anyone here accord you, or anyone else, dispensation from basic standards of forensic practice. This is a tough crowd, no doubt, but no tougher on new acquaintances than on one another. If you stick around, you'll get an opportunity to see, and if you so choose participate in, an exchange of ideas. Ideas not all of which will be good, ideas not all of which will be presented well, ideas not all of which will survive the challenges and criticisms directed their way, to be sure, but ideas of all sorts fly around a lot in these discussions. Some ideas will survive, some even may prosper. Mostly nobody "wins", nobody "loses", but mostly the idea is we discover and explore some of one anothers ideas, formin', reshapin', solidifyin', and sometimes even junkin' some of our own. You're more than welcome to play if ya wanna, but know up front this is a full-contact game. There are rules against unnescessary roughness, and the players are expected to provide and maintain their own protective gear while in general observin' sportsman-like conduct, but other than that, play as hard as you wish and are able to - everyone else does. Thats what we're here for.

Asherman raises the issue of whether the "original purposes" of religion are still valid.

I would argue that the essential nature of man as a cognitive primate has not changed despite his apparent technological progress. Thus psychological security needs still remain valid, but global communications now severely question parochial concepts of "local community". This seems to be linked to the modern backlash of fundamentalism and the rise of the "global terrorist."

Thus IMO the positive "purposes" of religion have now been swamped by its negative aspects which have been amplified and exacerbated by technology. I believe also that there is a good case that those who claim to be "thinkers" have a duty to try to redress the balance and awaken "believers" out of their infantile somnolence. This is not a question of "rights"...it is a question of "common sense" !

I agree with that fresco. But I also think the terrorists play an important role. Without them there could be no global war on terrorism. Without the GWOT there is no justification for American meddling around the world. And whats the point of having an empire if you dont meddle with it to suit yourself?

Bookmark...looks interesting.

KP

Steve brings up a salient point - single-minded, self-servin' partisan activism for any agenda pretty much precludes reasonable, solution-oriented discourse, particularly interjected irelevantly and in context of nothin' actually t discussion. That sorta thing strikes me as bein' similar in concept, intent and effect as Shar'ia law, for example, or to any other sorta hidebound, inflexible fundamentalism.

Since no one has suggested additional purposes for religion in the past few days, lets move along to the next phase of the discussion.

I have tentatively arranged and paraphrased the purposes of religion so far advanced below.

1. To help individuals move toward higher consciousness.

2. To explain the mysterious. To explain and give meaning to the inexplicable forces of nature. Relgion provides a "meaning" to existence and gives us a model of what the universe/reality is/means. Religions help us all deal with death, the ultimate mystery.

3. To influence the forces of nature.

4. To instill a sense of community. Communities perpetuate themselves by developing traditions, and traditions in turn strengthen the community. Religion may provide the basis for authority within the community. A byproduct of this is the establishment and maintenance of the social order.

5. To provide a uniform moral/ethical standard for the community. Religions use both positive and negative motivators to promote "good" behavior and to punish violation of "taboos".

Does anyone take serious issue with the order or purposes of religion as paraphrased above? If so, quote the purpose and state your objection(s) and then give us your version of how that purpose should be stated. It may be a good idea to concentrate on one purpose at a time. Purpose 3 is, in my opinion, the least likely to have modern relevance ... though maybe not, if magic is a valid means of dealing with the quantum universe.

I take issue with No.1 for two reasons.

(a) Following Krishnamurti any "method" or " authority" which is utilised to attain enlightenment is antithetical to a realization of that enlightenment. In K's words "Truth is a pathless land". There are extensive Google references to K's rejection of organized religion and its meditational practices e.g. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._Krishnamurti

(b) States of higher consciousness deconstruct "the individual" as an independent entity. Such "states" may be no more than palliatives for dissipating the "individual problems" and "mortality of the self".
Religion which is "used" to this end logically leads to passivity or withdrawal from "the world" and could be viewed at best as "insulation" and at worst as "parasitic". Even if "selfless acts" appear to be a by-product of such a quest ,it could be argued that such acts are "self-flagellation", "higher-self serving" or even a "natural" by-product of Darwinian selection of "altruism" as a useful gene.

I therefore re-state no. 1 as religion is a misguided attempt at elevation or dissipation of the self. because it focuses on becoming(attaining) rather than being

Even if religion fails to effectively assist individuals toward some sort of transcendental experience, that does not negate that as a purpose. Don't most organizations have one or more purposes? Yet some prosper and others fail, though their purposes are identical.

Buddhism, for instance, appears to have a pretty good record for helping individuals to the Enlightenment experience. Even though the weltanschauung of the Abrahamic faits is quite different from Buddhism, he mystical experience is also reported in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The realization of Ultimate Reality, or God, is a common purpose of many, perhaps all religions. Shaman and priests enter altered states of consciousness as an essential part of many of the world's religions. These are all evidence that religions can lead to some sort of higher consciousness.

Asherman,

What "evidence" ? Since "higher states" are by definition experiential and subjective we have no normal evaluative procedures. Compare your statement of "evidence for enlightenment" with a counterstatement of "evidence for pernicious tendencies".....who has the stronger claim to "evidence" ? (...even if I might be persuaded that Buddhism restrains such tendencies at the expense of dissipation of the individual as argued in (b) above...)

BTW, I believe I have also experienced such a "state" but it certainly did not occur via "religion",
nor did the experience of holistic compassion imply any sort of deity other than perhaps "myself as the universe". "Religion" seems merely to provide some of the mental furniture in what may turn out to be a biochemical brain process little different to those commonly giving rise to dreams.

NB

There is still a problem with your anthropomorphic use of the word "purpose" which you have not addressed. Individuals have "needs" like psychological security, but organizations/groups might have different teleological targets, like self-perpetuation, domination and expansion, which (a)transcend or clash with those of the individual and (b) may not be reducible to the binary logic of causal explanation (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) "Religion" can be deemed to serve both levels of activity.

I guess one question is whether organized religion promotes or precludes higher consciousness. Jung said, "Religion is a defense against the experience of god."

I would suggest that the basis of religion is the opening of the heart of compassion and an altering of identity from egocentrism to the recognition of myself in the other, i.e., the golden rule.

Religion comforts its adherents.
Religion explains the unknown.
Religion grants power to the clergy class.

The problem comes when these purposes compete. When explaining the unknown requires a noncomforting explanation. When granting power to the clergy class requires that its adherents be discomforted.

A tripod, whilst geometrically one of the most stable structures tends to cause difficulty in social relationships...

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Again, the success or failure of religions to accomplish their purposes is not at issue here. This discussion is meant to be of very limited scope. Religion, like war, has existed in so far as we can know from our earliest times. We earlier constrained the discussion to exclude religion as being genetically "hard-wired" into us. I know of no culture or society where religion is not evident, and in some groups the culture/society is defined by its religion. If religion isn't genetic, then it served some purpose(s) to our ancestors that must have been very powerful. Even today, religion is widespread and fundamental to many humans in ever human society. Religion very probably survives and retains much of its vitality because it is still fulfilling some needs and purposes that humans need to have filled.

It is entirely possible that some purposes of religion will come into conflict from time to time, and its even possible that not all of the purposes we have thought of so far will be found universally in all religions. How a religion might deal with conflicting purposes is an intresting question, and might be something that this discussion may evolve into ... but later. For the nonce, lets focus on coming to consensus on what the purposes are, and in fully exploring the general implications to societies. We are at the threshold of discussing how religions may go about supplying the needs of people. Each of the points/purposes we've come up with when fully expanded might easily fill at least a chapter in a lengthy book. One step at a time here.

Actually, Fresco, I thought that I had addressed your definitional question of whether an organization (an abstract thing without consciousness) can have a purpose, a reason, an intention, etc. Of course they can't in reality, but organizations are made-up by conscious beings who ascribe purposes, objectives and goals for organizations. A large corporation has no feelings, conscience, or even will to survive apart from the purposes it serves. The corporation provides many purposes: it provides a means of living for employment for many, it is a profit machine for stockholders, it provides goods and services to customers, it is an element in the economic fabric of the City/State/Nation/World, and it may have lofty goals and ambitions that it wishes to be defined by. The purposes of the corporation aren't defined by itself, but by all of the stakeholders in it. Religion is just another specialized kind of human organization, but one that is found in every society, in every land and time.

Fresco, I admit that I was imprecise in my use of the term "evidence". There is no evidence for our existence either, but for everyday purposes (there's that word again) we accept the dubious "evidence" of our senses. I should have been more precise, but I didn't think I was defending my doctoral dissertation either. What I was referring to was the reports of transcendant experience that can be found in large numbers in human populations expending back in time to some of our earliest written history. People believe that they, and others, have had experiences that transcend the mundane world. They might be wrong, but they believe that the experience is real. Those who of personally experienced Enlightenment, believe it though there can be no objective scientifically acceptable proof for it. Our personal experience, may be "no more than a bit of undigested mutton". Neither is it necessary that the Experience be absolutely connected with a religion, it is always spoken of in "religious" terms. Some religions, perhaps all, may have been founded upon the personal transcendent experience of some individual. The shaman who accidentally ingested a hallucinogen may have helped found a religion when he/she reported their experience to their tribe. There is no evidence for the reality of particularly vivid dreams, but we accept their existence and the possibility that dreams may have been the source of belief in ghosts.

The discussion, I don't think, is about the "truth" of religion, but rather about what it is about religions that have kept them an important part of human culture and society.

Asherman,

My argument about group dynamics and "purpose" could be taken to imply that "religion" might be construed as an evolutionary mechanism by which one group dominates the other. This would be similar to saying that religion is a cognitive disease giving a presdispostion to warfare which is "used by nature" to limit the population. It is precisely our embracing of "positive purposes" which precludes our observation of the negative aspects.

Quote, "I would suggest that the basis of religion is the opening of the heart of compassion and an altering of identity from egocentrism to the recognition of myself in the other, i.e., the golden rule." I don't believe in the above quote for one second. "Compassion" existed long before the creation of any gods, and there is ample evidence that many cultures that did not have "religion" treated the members of their group with generosity and compassion.