Religion: Useful?

[Annex]

I do not wish to engage in absurd straw men like where the burden of proof for God should lie, whether religion is objective truth, or whether Christianity is a perversion of reasonable but essentially areligious sentiments seized by power hungry rulers to impose their will on society.

My question is: In a society, does religion serve some practical purpose that justifies its existence (in theory, at least). I ask this question because I have found that many people become mired in the aforementioned sidetracks of the debate, finding themselves throwing about tautology and claiming it means something ("God cannot be proven to exist so religion is wrong"). I don't care about the metaphysics, I care about the utility of religion, about its ethical value, its social value, and its entertainment value (I'm reserving that argument for a later time). I see religion as quite useful, and so it puzzles me to see so many demanding it be destroyed, burned to the ground in the very fervor they decry. My experience is limited to American society (I cannot say the same of the European sort), and falls somewhat in line with our beloved John Locke's argument of religion a social organization. Religion is the enemy of society only as much as money is the enemy of the economy; in some cases it might cause problems and strife and whatnot, but it is a deeply important component of the whole, and does quite a bit for it.

So, to unfairly place the burden of proof on the counterargument, as I suppose is tradition, why should religion be abolished? What is it about religion that makes it so hostile so society it should not even exist (despite the fact that it has, of course, for some time)?

[Feniexia]

Well, religion is one of the few topics I agree with the Commies - religion is opium for the people. Basically, religion gives the common people something to give them strength to endure uncomfortable conditions etc; they believe that even when their life is unpleasant, they'll come to heaven afterwards. This is useful for those people who suppress those below them. One might argue about if this is a good or a bad thing, but for me, it's the only justification for religion today. Some people need to be kept happy or at least tolerant towards their regime, because they are not able to rule themselves - not everyone can or deserves to be happy in our modern times.
Tradition is no argument for me, just by the way. Lot's of things are tradition (like the idea that women should be primarily homemakers or such), but very few of them are good. Tradition just slows down progress.

[Gulliver]

The Economist had a rather interesting article a while back about research into the evolutionary basis for religion. That fact that humans would develop and retain such an instinct seems to imply that it's useful in some respects. Certainly, if you want to maintain social cohesion and order what better way than to make people they're always being watched and judged for their actions? Keeps people from committing crimes even if they could get away with it. The various ceremonies that a religion may entitle also serve as a mark of commitment for members of the social unit and helps to address the free rider problem.

[kor]

Religion, Useful? Yes, it has served our masters quite well in controlling us throughout the ages.

[Annex]

I do not wish to engage in absurd straw men like [...] religion [...] seized by power hungry rulers to impose their will on society.

Religion, Useful? Yes, it has served our masters quiet well in controlling us throughout the ages.

No need to sarcastically subvert the debate already.

[Gulliver]

Stop knoqqing, Kor.

[kor]

That wasn't sarcastic.


Also, Knoqqing is a myth.

[Myroria]

"The common people" - typical meritocratic thinking, just as it's typical aristocratic thinking. Religion serves a purpose. Is that purpose a good one? It depends on the circumstances and the society. If you know anything about the Old Testament (I've never read it, but I know it), you'll know the Jews' God is a fucking prick. That's because the Jews, in that time, were out of control. They needed some goddamn rules, or they'd go crazy. The Roman Empire was falling apart, so the New Testament portrayed a God who's really, kind of a nice guy. The people needed cheering up, and some God who doesn't let a faithful guy in after 40 years won't cheer you up.

Atheists don't NEED religion. They have other ways to get guidance. Atheists are atheists for a reason. It's not like we became atheists on a bet. I don't believe in God, because I don't need it. If I need cheering up, I have other ways. Porno isn't made for the priests, now is it?

Which leads me to morals. Morals are relative in many atheists' opinions. Religion is entirely based on absolute morals: Right and wrong is right and wrong, and God decides it. Moral relativity states that in a society where murder is a rite of passage, such as ancient Sparta, than murder is morally right. In a society where giving birth to a girl is morally wrong, than giving birth to a girl is wrong.
In religion, believing in God is right, and it is right in every society. You MUST believe in God, or you are morally wrong. This is where religion and atheism, and, to a lesser degree, science, clash. Atheists are wrong, in some religious people's opinion, though atheists, at least the normal atheists among us (I disassociate with American Atheists), find that religious people may be incorrect, but they are not bad people. Now, I'm not trying to classify all religious people as mean to people like us. I have many religious friends, and I just don't argue with them because it is pointless for both of us.

[Annex]

Well, religion is one of the few topics I agree with the Commies - religion is opium for the people. [...] Some people need to be kept happy or at least tolerant towards their regime, because they are not able to rule themselves - not everyone can or deserves to be happy in our modern times.

I find this an interesting, if puzzling attempt at synthesis between Marx's religious criticism and elitist political philosophy. Though it is, indeed, an argument in favor of religion, I think it is a false one. In Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction, in the same section where Marx states his opium metaphor, he sharply criticizes religion in calling for "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men [...] a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions". I would object to Marx's characterization of religion (but that's a different argument), though I think his counterargument to yours is a valid one. It is one thing to not afford the weak and undeserving any charity of society, but it goes too far, I think, to claim that they should be actively oppressed in such a way that any freedom or progress they may achieve is systematically suppressed by religious doctrine. Implicit in Marx's argument is a worry that "illusory happiness" provides a false satisfaction, proomoting a stangancy that impedes progress. I do not think that religion inherently does this, nor do I think that one would advocate said process as a positive thing.

Which brings me to your second point, regarding tradition. By definition, tradition opposes progress; this is tautologically true. Your statement, which includes "just", implies tradition is useless. But tradition is crucially important to a society because it allows for smooth, incremental change. A society without tradition progresses through violent steps, it rejects the foundations on which it was made. Your devaluation of tradition seems to contradict, firstly, your praising of religion as an opiate for the masses, and second, that you implicitly seek a stable societal ideal. Of course, if any society is to be "good," its constituents will have developed traditions. This is human nature. I say again, to have no tradition is to have no grounding in society, to have a dynamic system not amenable to a human population.

Are some traditions bad? Yes. Perhaps those can be weeded out over the course of history. But there are ethical norms embedded in meta-traditions that are crucial to a functioning society; I do think that overall it is worthwhile to have tradition. Which, of course, is where religion comes in. Not the "illusory happiness" of Marx, per se, but a philosophical structure of tradition that binds society together socially. 

[Khem]

religions are like any other meme they serve to gather and control the people that they infect. escape the memetic influence think for yourself on all things. or don't remember it's your choice.

[Chairman Steve]

religions are like any other meme they serve to gather and control the people that they infect. escape the memetic influence think for yourself on all things. or don't remember it's your choice.

This seems a rather rosy picture of human individuality. To have no influence on you by society seems rather isolating, and quite counter to the social impulse. I'd prefer to embrace the meme than to live in the closed cubicle of my own mind.