In another thread this popped up:
I was wondering how true that was. Are there examples of societies in the past falling apart once religion was cast aside or even deemphasized, or is it a case of organized religion claiming credit when people get together for the good of the group?
One very important thing that religion does is tell us who we are. If we are made in the image and likeness of God and god has all these virtues, then we must also be virtuous. We are less prone to follow charismatic leaders. I don’t believe society could last long without some form of religion. It gives us a model to build on for all aspects of our personality. Man seems to have figured out even before we could write that defining who we are as a species is very important.
I’m not sure how many examples we have of such societies prior to the 20th century, though I suppose that post-revolution France could qualify.
There are no primitive human societies that didn’t develop some sort of organized religion, so clearly the tendency to do so is hardwired into us and the OP as stated is unanswerable, because there is no example of a primitive non-religious society to study. The debatable question is whether organized religion still serves any useful purpose today.
In modern times, organized religion has become less important, which has gone hand in hand with a whole bunch of other big social changes, where the causation/correlation is very difficult to untangle. Whether these changes constitute “society falling apart” is in the eye of the beholder.
I think it’s false. Interesting that JDF posted,
But then he, himself, doesn’t mention the other societal organizations that would have replaced it.
Religion was a detriment not a boon and still is today; abortion ban, stem cell ban, mistreatment of women, the list is very long.
Prove any of that. Charismatic leaders just say they were sent by god and doing his work. The Bible tells us who we are, but not in the way you’re thinking. All aspects? It’s certainty making learning things that don’t apply to their beliefs, difficult. Teaching people to trust faith, (believing in something without good reason) over rationality is harmful.
Exactly. You could look at, say, Russia, as an example. Up until 1917, the Orthodox Church was the state religion; the Soviet Union attempted to eliminate (or at least de-emphasize) the Church (and religion in general).
But, it’s difficult to say if that, alone, damaged their society, as so many other things went on during the Soviet Union era (pogroms, collectivization, focusing the national economy on defense spending, etc.) that weren’t directly tied to a lack of religion.
One benefit of religion is that it can help enforce a moral code on larger societies. A small community will likely be closely related and the members may act morally since they feel close to the other members. But when societies get larger than family relations, the members may not feel like acting morally if they aren’t harming members of their own their own family. But with religion, there is an outside observer who sees all. It doesn’t matter if another person sees you. God will see you. If you act immorally at any time, god will see and you will be punished. In addition, religion creates a larger sense of community among the members of that religion. There is now a parent above all who believe in that god. If religion never existed, I might assume that people would act more in their own self interests. Larger societies might have trouble forming and being productive.
Without religion sex wouldn’t be dirty. Which would be a shame. 
I believe that once intelligence reaches a certain awareness, it searches for answers to questions that are not readily available with current technology. What are the stars, why did Grok die, he was good? So you have some know-it-all or kook to fill in those knowledge gaps. What is hardwired into us is a need to know the unknowable. In the absence of knowledge, faith and religion step in, usually with disastrous results.
Let’s not forget that the “enforcement” is in the form of fear. Going to hell, made a human sacrifice of, burning at the stake, stoning, etc. I don’t feel that’s a compelling case.
It’s certainly easily possible to imagine a society where religion never existed, with ethics and civil law being developed based on secular concepts. But it never happened (or if it did, the experiment failed too quickly to have left traces in the historical record).
Or that society was quickly put down by another more powerful religious society.
There is a difference between providing answers and providing responses, especially responses that cannot be questioned.
I would argue that we are also hardwired to seek meaning in life and a sense of community with their fellow humans. These are also functions that have historically been served by religion, and which aren’t served just by advances in scientific knowledge. There are certainly secular philosophies that can meet those needs, but the sort of hyper-rationalism that denies that they are needs doesn’t lead anywhere good.
I don’t think that has anything directly to do with religion, though. Assuming that without religion we still would have developed government and laws, those laws would have to be enforced through threats of punishment, as is still the case even in secular societies.
Most of those things are human activities that might be done if you are caught by a person. If you steal from a pile of food and you don’t get caught, you won’t get punished by other people. But god sees you and will punish you in some way. Perhaps he will make your life harder or punish you after death. That “sees all” aspect of god may mean some people will not steal even if they know they won’t get caught by another person. They know god sees them steal.
There is a difference between an authority you can confront directly and overthrow (either violently or not), and an authority that you cannot see, touch or communicate with, an authority that you have been told since birth can punish you forever.
When the rich and powerful control religion wanting a redistribution of food, land, wealth etc. to benefit all becomes “stealing”.
Right, historically religious authority and political authority have worked closely together, oppressing the ordinary people for benefit of the elites. So what do you think would have happened in the absence of religion? Would we just have remained happy egalitarian hunter-gatherers? Could we have evolved into modern society without inventing government and class divisions at all? Or would it look a lot like actual history, with the elites just having one fewer tool of oppression at their disposal, and possibly with social progress having occurred faster than it did on our timeline?
Removing the fear of eternal damnation would put more power in the hands of the oppressed, I would think. The enemies that are then targeted are real, they are human, they are vulnerable.