I have to agree with The Other Waldo Pepper here: while all that you have said is true…what does it have to do with religion? A cultural narrative can do the job just as well. Why drag in the supernatural, when the natural works?
As you note, postmodernists and atheists have a moral narrative, and, yes, these are based on non-provable (non-testable!) postulates, such as “There is such a thing as reality,” “Other people exist and have points of view,” and the rejection of psychopathy, “Other people are important.”
Why invoke gods, devils, spirits, heavens, and hells, when ordinary concepts such as the Golden Rule work quite well, and don’t require anything spiritual at all?
ETA: to paraphrase an old joke: “There is much that is good and religious in what you say, but the good parts aren’t religious, and the religious parts aren’t good.”
So your answer to the OP’s question – why religion is so important in so many people’s lives – boils down to “you need a narrative to be a person at all. Culture, religious or not, provides that narrative.” (And “that what we call a person is dependent on language and culture providing a context for the persona to emerge.”)
So in your view, people get a narrative and a context from a culture – and some of those cultures aren’t religious, but some of them are? Have I got that right?
I would like to think that I provided more perspectives than that, but sure, I agree with that statement.
My other main point was that the role of religion in our evolution as a species is usually not appreciated by the moderns and the post-moderns. That we need(ed) religious authority in order to create advanced enough societies that would later lead to us being able to abandon the authoritative and conformist cultures of religion.
That echoes too uncomfortably of Marxist Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or, perhaps less offensively, of Plato’s Republic with its leadership of Philosopher-Kings.
Perhaps mankind’s enslavement by priests was historically inevitable, but the last thing in the world I would call it is “needed.”
Really? You want to misinterpret it that badly and then go for some strange guilt by association. I thought we were having a nice, open and honest conversation here. If you just want to perpetuate a religion-is-mad meme fine, but I am actually interested in fresh perspectives and a deeper understanding. Please don’t actively work to lower the level of the discussion.
That struck me as comparable to both Marx and Plato.
How is this a misinterpretation? You said that a myth-based social authority was “needed” to foster societies advanced enough to get away from these natal myths. That may be true, but it’s ugly. It really is like Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a period of ugliness that (Marx claimed) was necessary to foster a society that was advanced enough to embrace equality and liberty.
Again, it may be true that history has necessary stages of this sort, and that we could not have jumped directly to enlightened thought. I’m not saying you’re wrong.
Stoneburg, for the waft of oxygen that it was reading your atypical non-cartoonish view of religion, I however wonder, why do you even bother? Have you seen these threads? Many many times I see implied here (Great Debates) that we are at the pinnacle of our civilization, which started around the enlightenment, and the idea of future progress as an extrapolation of the consequent technological development.
If you do indeed find, or have found anywhere, from somebody, anybody, a fresh perspective for you, I beg of you to let me know.
Why, exactly, would you disagree with this idea? Do you think civilization was greater, nobler, better, or more moral…in 1850? 1750? 1650?
Civilization is at a high-point…and there’s no end in sight. More people enjoy self-determination than ever before. Fewer people are enslaved. The global per capita economic product is higher; global life expectancy is higher.
Sure, there are tons of problems still needing to be solved. And we have the tools to solve them. In 1860, the only way we could abolish slavery was via warfare. Today, that isn’t necessary.
Seriously: how can you disagree with the premise that you recited with such venom?
Correction: Religions give us untold hundreds of different unsubstantiated mythologically-based guesses as to why we are here. Absolutely none of them have backed up their guesses with solid evidence to date.
Atheists/Agnostics, in my opinion, are just lazy. I have on numerous occasions attempted to provide proof of the supernatural by suggesting that they personally carry out certain exercises that will leave them more than convinced about the existence of the spirit realm and the dynamics therein. All of them seem to never show an interest. Its as if they’re afraid that once they’ve verified the existence of the spiritual realm, their whole atheist beliefs will crumble around them and will now be forced to accept the obvious.
Really? And if we completed your little exercise, which sect or religion would we all come to realize was the “truth”?
BTW-why the hell is it so hard for some religionists and all woosters to tell the difference between “evidence” and “proof”? Usually what is asked for is the simplest of solid evidence, but what we get instead are whines about how “You want us to prove that it’s real!”. If you don’t have any evidence at all, just say so.
I doubt you’ll ever achieve much with such an attitude. Sometimes it’s best to suspend any level of skepticism before judging or coming to any form of conclusion.
I am asking for your conclusion, not another evasion: If one were to complete your exercises, what religion/sect would they find to be the “truth”?
edited to add: BTW, you are also responding to everyone else in this thread. Are none of them worthy of this knowledge?
Planetary worship, you know, worship the Moon on Monday, Mars on Tuesday, Mercury on Wednesday, Jupiter on Thursday, Venus on Friday, Saturn on Saturday and the Sun on Sunday.
The Ancient Egyptian Religion, though they never had word for ‘religion’. The religious rites were considered as the normal basic standard of living life.