What are the purposes of religion?

I'm saying that the opeing of the heart, that is, compassion is spiritual in its nature even without the recognition of organized religion.

I'm not sure is Asherman is refering strictly to organized religion or including personal spiritual experience. Some people discrimminate religion from spirituality. In my case god is an experience, but if someone asked whether I believed in god or not, no answer suffices; I can't say I believe, I can't say I don't believe, and I can't say I don't know, but I still consider myself spiritual. The Buddha held up a flower and considered it a sermon. Is that religion? I would say so.

Was Jesus himself religious before he had the supernatural thrust upon him? I would say yes, even before he had a single follower.

My position on this topic is very clear; if something existed before relgion, we can't credit religion. You are free to interpret personal experience as "religioius" in any of its forms, as I would surely say if I saw something beautiful in nature, "that's a religious' experience!"

BTW, I say that as an atheist.

Cicero,

Nicely put, and in agreement I think with purpose 4. The origins of religion are lost in time, so it is impossible to surmise if the chicken came before the egg. Can folks subscribe to the purposes of religion, those elements that seem to have kept religion on the front burner of human societies, without being even being a nominal member of an organized religion? I think so. There are many who regard themselves as extremely religious who explicitly reject the religion of their culture, or of any religion whatsoever.

I'm not the kinda guy who would normally propose such nonsense but since nobody else has suggested it.....

The purpose of religion may be to distract people from the truth about God...in this case it would be a purpose designed by the devil his bad self.

Unlikely, sure, but you never know

EorI, You never know is right! If we look at religion and history, the possibilities are great IMHO.

Doesn't religion purport to explain our place in the universe?

And is this included in the other 5 purposes? Seems the first 3 Asherman purposes revolve around the metaphysical, and the last 2 the social.
In my mind one of religions' main facets is helping anchor the indivitual in their reality.

I also don't agree that death-coping is a purpose of religion (even accepting the assertion it is the "ultimate mystery").

Yes, from the beginning when god created this world in six days and nights.

Gravy,

"Doesn't religion purport to explain our place in the universe?"

Yes, that does seem to be an almost universal characteristic of religions. I accepted that as inherent in our Number 2 purpose above, it needed to be more clearly stated. Thanks for making it more explicit. The listing is my paraphrasing of points made earlier by participants in the thread. One of the examples given early on was the importance that religion plays in our dealing with death. Death must have been one of the most obvious and important facts that our remote ancestors had to deal with, and many believe that "answers" and "explanations" about death and its significance may have been one of the earliest functions of religion. In providing an explanation of our place in the universe, we are given by extension a means of "understanding" death.

The first few purposes of religion that the group identified are indeed concerned mostly with the metaphysical. Number 2 addresses our need to have the inexplicable explained. We are continually asking ourselves about the true nature of the universe and our place in it. Religion, Philosophy and Science are all means of addressing that sort of question. Sociology, History and Political Science are our modern disciplines devoted to exploring our relationships with other people. Each of us is also constantly trying to find a comfortable way of living with ourselves, some means of avoiding suffering and unhappiness. Religion in presenting a model of what the universe is like by extension provides at least partial and tentative answers to each of those seminal questions.

Trying to influence the forces of nature also seems to have been an important function of religion in every culture. Our ancestors sought protection from risks, and to attract good fortune. Cleansing rituals involving water and fire still can be found symbolically in almost every religion. Churches, groves, and relationships are sanctified to protect them from the sullying influence of "evil". Congregations pray and perform a variety of rites and rituals to summon the forces of "good", and the good fortune that is thought to accompany such spirits. The most important of the ancient rituals was the sacrifice of something especially favored by the gods, or by those making the sacrifice. "I give unto thee, my most cherished that you might be pleased and continue to favor your devoted servants". A simple quid pro quo that has evolved into symbols like bread and wine, and Easter legends. Isn't all this still metaphysical, and properly an important subset of "Explaining the nature of the universe"?

bookmark

I have had some difficulty with the "influence the forces of nature" part, because I am not associating as much of that to more recent religions. It seems there is a deminishing trend with this purpose, which I wonder about...and that is the expansion of our knowledgebase to the demystification of the forces of nature.

So,
The religions serve the purpose of 'influencing the forces of nature that are yet outside our realm of empirical knowledge.

E.g. Praying for rain seems more and more symbolic (and indirect) than literal (direct appeal) as one moves from pre-agrarian native american cultures towards the monsanto farmers of today, even though both can be considered religious.

Quite right. What was once a direct appeal and attempt to literally bring rain or blind predators to the tribe, become more and more symbolic as our understanding and ability to control nature change. That which defies our understanding and control (in the province of the gods) may continue to be a matter of supplication. Magical incantation, rite and ritual can take many forms, but are only a hopeful means of extending our control over the inexplicable and uncontrolable forces we wish to influence.

As our understanding and control of our environment and natural forces change (Number 3), so does the model of the universe and reality change (Number 2). When the two get out of sequence, congregations are put into a bind. If one has scientific proof that Holy Writ is hogwash, what is the religous person to do? Some will deny the observable and replicable facts no matter how clear and certain they are. Others will abandon the religion whose model of the universe is no longer sufficient to explain the inexplicable. Sound familiar? Both of these two strategies for dealing with apparent contradiction seem reasonable, but both may also have pretty serious and unintended consequences.

are we confusing 'religion' and 'sprituallity' here?

[religion being the wanton effort to invent a world which meets one's unsophisticated primal needs; and spirituallity being that aspect of willful emotional mind control, which allows us to steep ourselves in the lush positive aspects of an insideously negative 'natural' environment.]

BGW,

Why not just come straight our and say, "In my opinion, both religion and spirituality are a load of perfumed hogwash unloaded on hayseeds to control their minds"? You ask if we are confusing the two, but then if both are pipedreams why should you care?

Anyway in answer to your question; no, I don't think anyone here has confused the two. The "spirituality" element is a subset of "religion", though some might argue that it is such a powerful element that it may in some cases stand alone. It is also quite possible that pretty much all religion evolves from the spiritural experience, in which case "religion" would be a subset of "spirituality".

For the purposes of this discussion, the "truth" or"falsisty" of religion/spirituality is not at issue, either generally nor specifically. What can you add to the discussion that will either add to it, or deepen our understanding of what the fundamental characteristics of religion are, and that have kept religion a major concern for pretty much the entirety of human existence?

Perhaps i implied a disdain for spirtuallity (in my terms) that i do not hold;
i can enjoy the 'wonder' (probably a poor choice of word) of a forest - an emotional reaction to the vistas, smells, memories, intricacies of patern and light, etc., etc. that overwhelm me as i move through the landscape. But i do not, in desperation at seeking 'meaning' from that experience, instill a mystical reverence to such feelings, and invent a whole supernatural substructure to the natural world, in order to 'explain' a simple biological reaction to an invironment that has for millions of years, been the arena in which we have existed.

[i use the epiphanal gestalt to recognize new ideas that will help me to see 'order' in the natural chaos around us]

There is indeed a profound difference between aesthetic sensitivity and the transcendental experience. Aesthetically our emotions may be greatly stirred by some sensory experience, but we remain a part of the world of perception. The experience of Ultimate Reality, on the other hand, isn't so much aesthetic as it is transforming. The mundane world evaporates, time and space really do vanish along with the ego. The aesthetic experience is one where we are finely attuned to the differences between things. We feel the gulf that separates the sublime from the mediocre. The transcendent experience destroys difference, leaving only the indivisible essence that underlies all things, ideas, and concepts.

I believe that one of the purposes associated with religion springs from the transcendental experience. The founders of religions have an experience completely foreign to that of their cultural setting. The Cave Analogy is a good description of the quandary facing a person trying to communicate the transcendental experience to his fellows who are mired in the mundane. A person may be so transformed by the experience that the changes will be evident to others. If they are charismatic, they may attract followers who want to share in the transforming event/process. They will translate the experience reported to them into terms and concepts that fit more or less comfortably into their cultural milieu. Thats one way that religious doctrines and dogmas are born ... as a recipe for sharing in the transformative without necessarily ever personally having the transcendental experience. In some religions, the individual is encouraged to have the Enlightenment experience by either fallowing a particular discipline, or by ingesting certain sacred substances (peyote, mushrooms, marijuana, coca, and alcohol intoxication are all common).

While in the transcendental state, one may not only understand the inexplicable, but may as some believe be able to influence some things, forces, trends and/or events. The shaman in his trance is believed to see the future, to enlist the aid of totemic animals and spirits. Is any of that "TRUE"? Certainly debatable, but not really the issue in this discussion.

BGW,

I assumed this discussion was about 'religion', regardless of my apriori conclusions/judgements about it. I don't think this is about 'spirituality' (again without attaching my opinions on whether spirituality is willful mindcontrol, or reaching a higher plane of existence, or both)

Religions seems to be vehicles to reach a 'spiritual destination'. Whether or not I think the destination is fake, or the vehicle is clunky or environmentally friendly, I still think it is interesting to ponder how the combustion engine got there, and if gloveboxes are really that useful anymore...

Religions exist, and serve intended purposes (and some unintended abusive ones). Understanding the purposes (and a pathology of purposes) are helpful tools (to me) for understanding before I pass judgement on its usefulness or harm.

Book mark

The purpose of religion may depend on the view.

To God, one might hope it would be to enlighten mankind about his will and activity, or to explain why we have suffering. Perhaps to provide a sound guide for life.

To men, it has often been used to console the masses while providing power to the priests and their political sponsors.