Are you referring to the infallibility of the pope? I think there will always be times when we are not sure what to do. In those cases, we can proceed with a clean conscience simply by following the chosen spokesman for the church. It’s not good to leave people wresting with their conscience.
Another thing about religion I like is the mystery of the trinity, I don’t see it as a mystery at all, Again, I think it is all about us. Most of us are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters and free citizens amongst our peers. Teachers, managers, coaches, team captains, anyone in a position of authority is acting in a father mode, anyone under those is acting in the son or daughter mode. We tap into a different part of ourselves depending on the position we are occupying at any given time. Religion outlines ideal behaviors in these positions.
With respect, no, it does not. Who we are is a serendipitous amalgamation of elements that came together in such a way as to have started “life”. Until we better understood that, religion ‘answered’ that question.
There is a distinction that the OP doesn’t address. Those that believe in (a) God are going to be more prone to believing religion is good. Those that don’t will probably see it for the evil it can be.
You appear to be conflating “religion” with one particular religion, and arguably the one with the worst historical track record.
No, I am referring to the infallibilities of the gods themselves.
Not common to most religions.
Although, as I understand it, there have certainly been societies that did not have a concept of “religion” as a separate category from “not religion.”
The question may be unanswerable because of the difficulties in defining and delimiting what “religion” encompasses. It might well be true that society needs either religion or something that serves the same functions as religion—but if it serves the same functions, what distinguishes it from religion?
Supernatural deities with the power to decide our ultimate fates, perhaps?
I can understand the extreme measures religion often takes trying to keep people in line. I don’t think we really do believe as much as just accept most of what they say. I have never put my finger in a light socket because I know what will happen, yet I don’t hesitate to sin on a daily basis even with the threat of eternal damnation. When a woman on a dating site tells me she is a strict Christian I almost feel like that guarantees I will be getting laid. It doesn’t always work out that way but often enough it does.
Religion’s hold on society is less severe, here and now. In other times and/or other places, where and when religion is more powerful and in control, strict obedience is more common.
Also, there have been many progressive and revolutionary movements which have used religion as a motivating force. One could argue that it is government and class division which are the fundamental causes of oppression, and that, despite its use as a tool of oppression, religion is actually a net positive, because without hope of supernatural intervention people wouldn’t dare to rebel against seemingly invincible enemies at all.
But IMO that’s not an argument which has any convincing evidence for either side.
It is rare when the prevailing religion is not already tied to the state.
This is a very Judeo-Christian-centric view of religion. Many religions had none of those attributes.
I think that this in and of itself shows that religion must have some benefit for cultural survival from a Darwinian point of view. But as with many things, such as attraction to fat and sweets, what was adaptive in our species’ early history may not be adaptive today.
Yes, but historically what the oppressed have done is to reinterpret the dominant religion to suit their needs. Consider the history of the Black church in America, taking the same Christianity that was used to justify their enslavement and re-inventing it as an anti-racist ideology.
If there had never been Christianity, would there still have been slavery in America? Or if there had never been Christianity, would there still be slavery today? My guesses are “yes” and “no” respectively, but they’re only guesses.
Strongly disagree. From a Darwinian point of view (DPOV), primitive tribes would have benefited more from firearms than pointy sticks, why didn’t they use them? From a DPOV, primitive tribes would has benefited more from using the wheel, than without, why didn’t they use them? The list is endless. The answer is knowledge. They didn’t have the knowledge.
So when primitive tribes were huddled around the base of a volcano searching for a reason why their crops got wiped out, they believed what someone made up, the gods did it - they didn’t have the knowledge of the natural world and believed in magical thinking. That doesn’t mean it served a good purpose, they were grasping at straws and at that time, science wasn’t there to provide real answers so that’s all they had.
This kind of thing really confuses me and always has. Where is the cutoff for belief? There was a Time Magazine issue once that was all about Jesus. One of the articles was about whether or not there was an historical Jesus. One nationally prominent preacher/priest proclaimed historical Jesus is irrelevant, the message is all that matters. Well, wait a minute, wasn’t he supposed to be the messenger?
I’ve heard the devout say, ‘Oh, this part of the Bible is true, this part is just a parable’. And no one ever agrees on which parts are which.
So that part is not true? If Jesus isn’t true and Noah didn’t build an Ark and eternal damnation isn’t true how do I know any of it’s true? And how do you know that Islam isn’t true? Or Sikhism, or Shinto? The whole belief system is just so darn messy. I bet you dollars to donuts had you grown up in Japan you wouldn’t even be Christian.
Well, from a DPOV, our continued existence only proves that we have an adequate number of adaptive traits, not that we have no maladaptive ones at all. It’s certainly possible that we’ve survived despite our tendency to develop theology rather than because of it.
I think it’s way oversimplified to say that religion was invented just to answer the sort of questions that science can answer. That sort of primitive magical thinking can’t help with the sort of existential questions I alluded to earlier.
You can start with belief that gods or demons or whatever control volcanoes and weather, but it’s a big jump from there to start thinking that these forces can be controlled or appeased by human action, and at that point you’re still just at magic.
To make it a religion, you need to take it to a collective level; “It’s not enough for me to sacrifice a chicken so that my crops will grow, I need to have the king sacrifice a chicken so that all of our crops can grow”.
As civilization advances, you’ll need to come up with a progressively more sophisticated theology in order to address the more philosophical questions that come with advanced capacity for logic and abstract thought (and to explain all those years when the chickens were properly sacrificed and the crops still failed).
There are numerous steps in that process that wouldn’t be necessary if the only purpose was to answer questions like “what’s the deal with stars?”.
That’s the next step in the process. At some point, the theological attempt to integrate religious belief with scientific truth reaches the conclusion that no religion is verifiably true. The message is all that matters, and it’s parables all the way down. As the Dalai Lama says “Any religious belief which is inconsistent with science must be rejected”. And yet many people still find it meaningful.
I think religion played a part in the evolution of our competitive nature. Belief that Gods would protect us when we raided the village in the next valley, and if we were killed in that act we’d be rewarded afterward, probably gave people strength to do the horrible things they otherwise would not have done when thinking sensibly. Take it to the next level where God (or an agent thereof) tells people to do those horrible things to the enemy and now you’re really driving some innovation in weapons design and warfare tactics. Religion supports our inbred savagery toward one another - and thus success of one group over another.
Maybe because deep down they still believe, or want to. Science, or even the Dalai Lama can’t disavow people’s deeply held beliefs. Just check out the flat earthers.
Most religions start with a charismatic leader! They rely on it! Whether he be Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Jerry Falwell, or L Ron Hubbard, religions are all about the leader.
And conversely, religion didn’t prevent people from following Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro…the list is virtually endless.