Religion: Useful or Useless?

[_truth dancer]

I think religion would be lovely if it was about joining together in community, honoring life, living decently and honorably, caring for each other, and lifting up one another.

If it provided ways to serve and help our human family.

If it brought us together to help us live in tune with the highest and most noble within.

If it helped us each find peace and hope as we journey through life.

If it provided support and care and direction to help us manage our challenges.

Unfortunately, my experience is that most religions focuses on believing a certain way, being the right and only true church, living in fear of punishment and enemies, following leaders, separating believes and non-believers, pride and wealth, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I actually believe that many of the teachings of spiritual masters throughout the ages have actually BEEN about what I consider goodness/holiness, however in my opinion, it seems humans have often missed the point. :-)

In other words, there is the possibility that religion could be a healthy, beneficial organization for individuals and society, but it doesn't always turn out so... in my opinion.

~dancer~

[_GoodK]

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.

Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying a community is useful?
Or fear is useful (in the sense that people are scared of going to hell)?

Religion is simply the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, or a personal God or gods.

I don't see anything inherently useful in that.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think religion can be useful. As long as the question of what happens after death remains, we will always have religion. Science doesn't satisfy questions of the afterlife because it simply can't. People will always wonder what happens after they die, and if there are any spiritual forces at work. These are wonderful things to ponder. The problem with religion comes when one guy or small group of guys claim they know all the answers, and they are the only ones who know all the answers and have a pipeline to the spiritual world. This is when religion gets dangerous.

[_dartagnan]

Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying a community is useful?

Well, it depends on what the community is espousing. Religions are communities that teach moral principles. Like the TIME article said, having an innate sense of morality in and of itself doesn't mean you'll behave morally. Humans need something more. They need encouragement. They need guidance.

Or fear is useful (in the sense that people are scared of going to hell)?

That is a horrible generalization of religion. At best, you're talking about a fraction of fundy Christians. I was raised Baptist as a kid and I was never told I should believe "or else." It isn't like that. And it certainly isn't like that for religions espousing some form of Universalism, which seems to be the trend in religions nowadays. Even DCP said he is almost a universalist.

Religion is simply the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, or a personal God or gods. I don't see anything inherently useful in that.

That's because you see only the part you want to see. You really think that is all a religion is? Most religions don't accept your premise that God is a "controlling power." But religions are far more than that anyway. They provide moral guidance where humans would otherwise be left to guide themselves.

[_GoodK]

That's because you see only the part you want to see. You really think that is all a religion is? Most religions don't accept your premise that God is a "controlling power." But religions are far more than that anyway. They provide moral guidance where humans would otherwise be left to guide themselves.

The definition is from the Oxford dictionary Widget on my Mac. What do you think is missing from the definition?

[_dartagnan]

The problem isn't with your definition, but rather what you think it establishes with respect to the question. You ask a question about the usefulness of religion. This presumes you're interested in what religions actually do for society. But the definition you provided only tells us what religion is. It doesn't explain its function or "usefulness" in society. Definitions don't make judgment calls.

Let's suppose you have a choice.

1) Let your kids go to public school where they are likely to be exposed to a mediocre education, alcohol, drugs, sex and virtually every other peer pressure. They'll be taught the basic survival of the fittest principles that cavemen learned.

2) Let your kids attend a school owned by a religion. They will be exposed to an advanced education, a controlled environment free of harmfu stimuli . They will be less likely to get pregnant, arrested or hooked on alcohol or drugs. They'll be taught to treat others with charity and respect.

Which is more important for caring parents? Most people who aren't even religious see this as a no-brainer, and they'll send their kids to a religious school if they can afford it.

This is what I am getting at. Religions do far more than teach about God. They provide several social services and encourage moral behavior.

[_Moniker]

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.

This is a tough one for me. I think religion can be beneficial for many people. Yet, something authentic to religion? Quite possibly not.

Story: Sorry! I watched a show earlier this evening and I was saddened to see young men that just had absolutely no concept of "right" and "wrong". Just things we don't think of as being the tricky aspects..... just common sense - don't steal, don't kill, don't rape -- I mean, not tough ones. And of course, I acknowledge that socio-economic status impacted where they found themselves (prison) or other contributing factors -- broken homes, schools that more often than not shove troubled young men out their doors, possible learning disorders, etc... and merely thought about how our society so UTTERLY FAILS so many of our citizens in understanding that certain things are harmful to others -- the ability to just recognize other humans as having value and not wanting to harm them.

Schools do a piss poor job with kids in regards to character eduction. Some teachers put an emphasis on character education but many do not. If these young people do not have parents that have the inclination, the time, or the ability to help steer them to adulthood with skills to navigate in society then society is left with a subset of our citizens that we institutionalize over and over and over again while we hope they don't get out and hurt us.

Can religion help with this? I'd like to THINK so! Do I know it does? I would think in some cases, yes. There seems to be some evidence (from just personal knowledge) that many find the teachings of Jesus a guide for their life. This is not a bad thing. Matter of fact I can think of just a few other "historical" figures that would be just as worthy to emulate in regards to how we treat our fellow humans.

So...... my answer is this: What religion teaches in the realm of socialiability is NOT only found in religion -- yet..... if we fail in other aspects of our society (AND WE DO) to teach these simple lessons on charity, compassion, empathy, honesty, and respect then we should not scrap anything that attempts to do this -- we would suffer for it.

[_moksha]

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.

Hope is hope. Who has the true insight to know whether thoughts of the Divine are false? Naysayers are ultimately as ineffectual as believers to furnish contrary evidence. What is comforting, at the moment when comfort is needed, is what is important. This opiate for the masses can provide that comfort.

Futhermore, many have a yearning for the spiritual. It might even be genetic. Religion helps meet that spiritual need.

[_Dr. Shades]

It gives people a feeling of connectedness to the great beyond.

But is that necessarily a useful or a good thing?

[_GoodK]

The problem isn't with your definition, but rather what you think it establishes with respect to the question. You ask a question about the usefulness of religion. This presumes you're interested in what religions actually do for society. But the definition you provided only tells us what religion is. It doesn't explain its function or "usefulness" in society. Definitions don't make judgment calls.

Let's suppose you have a choice.

1) Let your kids go to public school where they are likely to be exposed to a mediocre education, alcohol, drugs, sex and virtually every other peer pressure. They'll be taught the basic survival of the fittest principles that cavemen learned.

2) Let your kids attend a school owned by a religion. They will be exposed to an advanced education, a controlled environment free of harmfu stimuli . They will be less likely to get pregnant, arrested or hooked on alcohol or drugs. They'll be taught to treat others with charity and respect.

Which is more important for caring parents? Most people who aren't even religious see this as a no-brainer, and they'll send their kids to a religious school if they can afford it.

This is what I am getting at. Religions do far more than teach about God. They provide several social services and encourage moral behavior.

As someone who has experienced both LAUSD and a religious school, no disagreement there. But I don't think a school is better just because of religion. (Kevin, I think you said you were from So. Cal? You know about Notre Dame Highschool

You are describing things that some religions do sometimes. Not always. The equation depends on who (good people), not what (generic religion).

In the Mormon world, I've attended different wards, some I felt very welcomed and part of a community, other times I felt like an outsider and unwelcomed. For every good thing religion can do, it can also do bad things.
I don't think I need to try and convince you that religion can be used to promote good values and equally can be used to promote bad ideas. What's useful about that?