DiscussMormonism.com

After watching several threads get derailed discussing the dangers of religion, I thought maybe a better question to pose to the community is

Is there anything useful about any kind of religion?

I would qualify useful as something authentic to religion that contributes to society positively.

While Mormonism might not be considered dangerous, at least by conventional standards, I think the amount of time and money that is consistently being invested on behalf of the church is useless and wasteful.

Useful is dependent upon the intended outcome and the parties involved. For example, it may be useful for me to save my economic stimulus package check, while it would be useful to the government for me to spend it.

Often what is useful to society is not necessarily useful to the individual. For example, charging a machine gun nest may be useful to the society but detrimental to the individual charging.

So religion, with its ability to keep the masses in line, might be useful precisely because it gets individuals to ignore their own self interest.

Of course, all of this has nothing to do with truth.

Back in November I posted something I thought was interesting in the current issue of Time. It was talking about what makes some humans bad and others good. Here is something I jotted down from the article:

"Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. Hauser believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar—the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone teaches you how to apply it."

I believe religion serves that need quite effectively.

Now I know people will start pointing to evil theists, but most people are theists, and ae not necessarily acting on their theism. Gangbangers, for example, might believe in God, but how many of the crimes in Compton are committed by regular Church goers?

Religion nurtures our innate sense of morality, and provides guidance.

edit: I found the article online - http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... -1,00.html

Religion can provide people hope in a time of hopelessness. It gives people a feeling of connectedness to the great beyond.

I think it can be dangerous if raised in the religious home but may be useful at other stages in life. I think Plato talked about different stages in life for children and things they should learn. I don't think religion was in the first ten years.

Of course I was brought up in a mixed home (mother very Mormon and father very not) which is kind of worse than one or the other - it pulls you apart.

dartagnan wrote:Back in November I posted something I thought was interesting in the current issue of Time. It was talking about what makes some humans bad and others good. Here is something I jotted down from the article:

"Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. Hauser believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar—the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone teaches you how to apply it."

I believe religion serves that need quite effectively.

Now I know people will start pointing to evil theists, but most people are theists, and ae not necessarily acting on their theism. Gangbangers, for example, might believe in God, but how many of the crimes in Compton are committed by regular Church goers?

Religion nurtures our innate sense of morality, and provides guidance.

edit: I found the article online - http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... -1,00.html

Hey - I worked in Compton for ten years - you would be suprised.

thestyleguy wrote:I think it can be dangerous if raised in the religious home but may be useful at other stages in life. I think Plato talked about different stages in life for children and things they should learn. I don't think religion was in the first ten years.

Of course I was brought up in a mixed home (mother very Mormon and father very not) which is kind of worse than one or the other - it pulls you apart.

Oddly enough, my mom was very not Mormon, my step father very Mormon. I wonder which combination is more toxic !

moksha wrote:Religion can provide people hope in a time of hopelessness. It gives people a feeling of connectedness to the great beyond.

But is false hope useful? The Nation of Islam probably provides hope for people who feel hopeless.

dartagnan wrote:Back in November I posted something I thought was interesting in the current issue of Time. It was talking about what makes some humans bad and others good. Here is something I jotted down from the article:

"Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. Hauser believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar—the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone teaches you how to apply it."

I believe religion serves that need quite effectively.

Now I know people will start pointing to evil theists,

I won't, but I will point to the good non theists and secular organizations that don't root their morality in religion as a sign that religion isn't a required piece of the moral programming equation.

I won't, but I will point to the good non theists and secular organizations that don't root their morality in religion as a sign that religion isn't a required piece of the moral programming equation.

Well, the question is whether religion is useful, not whether it is required for moral behavior.

dartagnan wrote:

I won't, but I will point to the good non theists and secular organizations that don't root their morality in religion as a sign that religion isn't a required piece of the moral programming equation.

Well, the question is whether religion is useful, not whether it is required for moral behavior.

Right, but I interpreted what you said to mean that religion is useful because it nurtures morality.

I interpret morality absent of religion as indication that religion doesn't really nurture morality.

Right, but I interpreted what you said to mean that religion is useful because it nurtures morality.

Well, yes. It does. That isn't to say atheists can't also act morally.

I interpret morality absent of religion as indication that religion doesn't really nurture morality.

This is like saying lifting weights doesn't really build muscles since our muscles already exist without working out. Religious people tend to be more giving when it comes to charities, humanitarian activities, etc.

As the article suggested:

Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community.

Religion is community. So it serves that purpose. People do not generally do humanitarian work on their own. They are usually done in groups, whether it is done in a religious or non-religous organization. Religions are organized, and theya re already designed to provide that kind of social service.