Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  In his book "The Righteous Mind" Jonathan Haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.

  To put it very briefly Haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans. Our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species. Despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.

  His description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee. We have a "hive switch" that can be activated by group activities giving us a sense of belonging and common purpose.

  He agrees with other researchers that religion and supernatural belief evolved as a by-product of a hypersensitive "agency detector". In other words our ancestors did well to assume random events were a result of purposeful minds. But he then goes one step further and proposes that religions are sets of cultural innovations that make groups more cohesive and cooperative. Groups that were able to put their gods to good use outperformed those who failed to do so. Groups with less effective religions didn't necessarily get wiped out they often just adopted the more effective variations.

  This form of group selection is not opposed to the model of selfish gene. Individuals who possess genes that lead them to groupishness increase their chance of survival and successful mating.

  So according to Haidt religion is not a meme or a parasite of the mind but a vital development in cultural evolution.

  That is a very brief synopsis of Haidt's argument but even as somebody who has been very much influenced by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris I admit I find the idea interesting. I will add some more details of Haidt's evidence later.
• 

  Saethydd

  I would argue that, as with any similarity, religion is good for cohesion within a group who all believe in exactly the same religion. People are generally going to be more comfortable with people who are more like themselves than people who are completely different. The cohesion is often lost because eventually different factions form in most religions. (Judaism splitting to Christianity for example) This is because human beings have other attributes that fight against the cohesion and conformity found in religion.

  Two of those qualities are creativity and curiosity, both of which are lethal to dogma which is a common thread in most religions.

  Progress, however, requires a steady balance between the order provided by cohesive conformity, and the freedom that comes with creative curiosity. It seem that religious leaders, typically prefer to be the ones doing all the creative thinking though, which slows down progress tremendously.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  according to Haidt religion is not a meme or a parasite of the mind but a vital development in cultural evolution - I'm not sure if religion is a vital "development in cultural evolution" but I do think religion had some use for our species (and still has today, when it's separated from the state).

  he then goes one step further and proposes that religions are sets of cultural innovations that make groups more cohesive and cooperative - interesting, but how cohesive and cooperative might depend on the religion and its doctrines?

  even as somebody who has been very much influenced by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris I admit I find the idea interesting - yes me too. I'd like scientists to try to investigate the evolution of religious behaviour, if that's possible!
• 

  steve2

  In the mid to late 19th Century, French Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, did some ground-breaking work on the function of religion in human societies. It was published in a book called "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life"). His main thesis was that religious power is simply the power that human societies hold over the individual - but it is abstracted and perceived as "God's" power.

  So when people are held in subjection to religious ideologies and are loathe to break the rules, they are frightened of the group's censure in the first place and "God" in the second.

  Closely related, dictatorships' main function is to impose severe sanctions on behaviour so that disparate groups within a community or nation are forced to bury their differences to avoid severe sanctions. Of course we now realize that when dictatorships end and more open forms of rulership emerge, the old buried differences resurface big time - and divisions are played out in the open. Look at the brutal methods employed by Saddam Hussein who managed to still the sectarian divisions in Iraq but when he was toppled, all the old supressed difference came back into play.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Religion may unite people in socialized way but if its expressed doctrines do not not respect or are oppressive toward human rights of individuals, the consequences of that unity can be detrimental toward individuals and to a greater extent to humanity.
  

  Religion can also incite hatred and prejudice against non-members crippling peaceful community social behavior .
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Lies, fear, myths and superstitions are useful in controling people; besides that, a sugar pill has a placebo effect if believed; But if one takes a sugar pill to cure cancer, the pill won't kill you but the cancer will.

  Religion teaches that god punishes bad conduct and rewards good conduct; but people conduct themselves religiously not because religion says so but because people believe the religion that says that god says so. So as long as people believe that god exists, they will believe also that religion is useful.

  But for those that believe that there is no God, religion is for fools. They venerate evolution and worship Epicurious and scientific realism - but with this in mind: "And by a sleep to say we end?"
• 

  cofty

  In the mid to late 19th Century, French Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, did some ground-breaking work on the function of religion in human societies. - Steve2

  Emile Durkheim is very much an influence of Haidt.

  He coined the phrase Homo duplex to describe our dual individualistic and groupish natures. He thinks Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) societies dismiss the things that bind us as groups at our peril.

  Of course he acknowledges that the things that bind us as a group such as religion also blind us to the virtue of other groups.

  He lays out six foundations of moral intuitions and explains how they evolved and shape our world today. Very interesting stuff.
  
  
  
• 

  Crazyguy

  NO , it's an excuse for man not to advance in all things. If churches weren't around to do charity work other groups would. Belief in a higher power keeps people from taking responsibility for the bigger issues in life. One other thought, War. If people knew there was no afterlife people would be a lot less likely to go and fight and possibly be killed.
• 

  sparrowdown

  The grouping of people who share a similar view or belief can make them more cohesive and cooperative and tap into the "master" mind, that is a co-ordination of knowledge and effort for the attainment of a definite purpose but can also promote mindlessness, create order followers and stifle innovation and new ideas.
• 

  venus

  Religion, even it is true, takes people backward because it does everything possible to ensure that believers do not think which is nothing but intellectual slavery. Hence rationalists fight for a nobler cause. Whatever progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual, and any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than the rest who hug religious beliefs.