The purpose of religion

[VonNoble]

The negative connotation is that religion placates the less learned into submission.

 

The skeptical view indicates religion is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing

doing the same old greed and real estate grabs and power plays that turn human kind 

to the dark side.  The more traditional versions promote judgments and a black and

white world of rights and wrongs and good vs. evil.  It fosters a mindset of like me

or inferior to me. 

 

The hunch for some, is there is no longer a need for religion.  Faith and hope maybe still 

of use but the value of religion long ago died but the remnants of the faithful are fighting 

even though even the find explaining it borders on credibility.

 

If organized religion gets shelved, what replaces it?

 

von

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

We would not ask what to replace cancer.  Sanity and humanity would replace religion.   

[VonNoble]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

We would not ask what to replace cancer.  Sanity and humanity would replace religion.   

Hmmm.  

 

Having religious beliefs is not a disease nor is it indicative of sanity or lack thereof, perhaps.

Disease is a reflection of a biologic evolution not a spiritual organization, perhaps.

 

Does the absence of religion automatically/instantly change the need of large swaths of humans

across the globe to be gather for some form of group spirituality?

 

Considering, the world is not comprised by an entire introverted population, there are those

who feel most comfortable in work/life settings with others.   They are recharged by 

gathering socially for all aspects of their life.   What serves as their vehicle for recharging

spiritually? 

 

thx

 

von 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have to ask.  What do you mean by spiritual and spirituality?   

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:09 AM, VonNoble said:

Hmmm.  

 

Having religious beliefs is not a disease nor is it indicative of sanity or lack thereof, perhaps.

Disease is a reflection of a biologic evolution not a spiritual organization, perhaps.

 

Does the absence of religion automatically/instantly change the need of large swaths of humans

across the globe to be gather for some form of group spirituality?

 

Considering, the world is not comprised by an entire introverted population, there are those

who feel most comfortable in work/life settings with others.   They are recharged by 

gathering socially for all aspects of their life.   What serves as their vehicle for recharging

spiritually? 

 

thx

 

von 

 

Of course religion is not, of itself,  a pathology.   You asked what will replace religion.   Nothing  will replace religion. We can come together, and nurtur each other, and do good with out religion.   First, we must see that religion is not the only path forward.   We can simply let it go.    🤔

 

A simple experiment.   Point to yourself. 

Did you point to your brain?

No.  You pointed to your heart.  You did that without religion.  😀

[VonNoble]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

First, we must see that religion is not the only path forward.   We can simply let it go.    🤔

 

 

You and I do not ascribe to a religious affiliation so there is zero letting go required.

 

For those who are socially oriented, who for example vacation with friends, need a friend to "go running", who have

Oscar watch-parties cuz they don't want to watch alone....they need a social connection for many aspects in life.  

I think this is a very good thing.   Most of my birth family is comprised of high socials who not only are very fun people,

make life interesting and are often very generous of their time and treasure .   I ain't one of them by a long shot.  Quite

the other end of the spectrum.   But I understand they have a NEED for social interaction.  As much as I need to 

take breaks from all of it.   It is real. 

 

They need group events.    For art exercise and quite possibly affirmation of ethical behavior. 

 

At work, we profiled over a thousand workers.   All types represented in more than the thousand employees.  

I discovered, over a number of years, high socials contribute a great deal to society and productivity.

The production was just as good if hired more of them than it was with fewer of them.

 

They stopped to chat, annoying non-social people, they planned break room parties, they greeted everyone

if the wanted to be greeted or not...and I clocked it all assuming they were less productive and distracting. 

 

Not true.   They come too work looking forward to the social aspect even on a production floor assembling stuff.

They socialize AND get their work done.   They need to socialize TO GET their work done, 

 

If religion, as we know it now - vanishes, I believe your prediction ignores their natural tendency does not

lend itself to your life style (possibly, I don't know you that well) or mine.

 

Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that will occur based on human dynamics and the eclectic bunch of humans we

share the planet with....

 

If, as you suppose, religion were the only impediment to humans advancing - you might have a point.

Religion is only one entity holding back evolution.

 

It is not an evil.

It is, however, dying in its current form. 

What is likely to replace it, is the question. 

 

Religion, like all institutions - offers as much good as evil. 

 

Von

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I am not unsocial.  I attend a senior center five days a week, schedule permitting.  I teach a weekly qi gong class.  There are ways to find community that have nothing to do with religion.

 

No.  Religion is not humanities only obstacle.  If religion vanished today, humanity would still be a mess.  It would be a different mess, but it would still be a mess.

 

As for God.  I am an Apatheist.  I don't care whether or not God exist.  I am persuaded that even the question is futile.  

[Pete]

I know that Marx described religion as the opiate of the people and the sigh of the oppressed. He dismissed religion as nothing more than the coping mechanism to deal with a cruel world.

However James Connolly who got a catholic upbringing said he was not against religion. He just based his reasoning on the provable rather than the unknowable. I kinda like that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:52 PM, Pete said:

I know that Marx described religion as the opiate of the people and the sigh of the oppressed. He dismissed religion as nothing more than the coping mechanism to deal with a cruel world.

However James Connolly who got a catholic upbringing said he was not against religion. He just based his reasoning on the provable rather than the unknowable. I kinda like that.

 

Huxley invented the word AGNOSTIC.   He said that God was unknown and unknowable.   The opposite of provable.  

 

The meaning of Agnostic has degraded in common usage to being undecided.  I think it's still a good word.  That God cannot be proved or disproved. 

 

 

[Pete]

Connolly was an atheist. When he was describing the provable he was differing his thoughts from those of faith or belief based reasoning.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Connolly was an atheist. When he was describing the provable he was differing his thoughts from those of faith or belief based reasoning.

 

I don't know his work.  

 

I understand  provable to mean information that is objective, verifiable and empirical.  

 

[Pete]

Jung described psychological conflict as the work of resolving two opposing ideas. He described religion as the need to resolve the fact we have life and the opposing fact we die. This leaves the mind needing to add purpose to the fact we have a temporary existence. He believed religion was born out of that internal struggle. Lang went further in suggesting religion was a socially accepted delusion in order to cope with the conflict of life and death.

Marx also described religion as the sigh of the oppressed spirit and the opiate of the people. Opiate suppress the pain of life and makes it's hardships as more acceptable.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Religion as comforting illusion?  That makes sense.  I have long since decided that it wasn't  worth arguing about God.  Even if some version of God possibly exists, it doesn't actually matter. 

[cuchulain]

On 8/29/2023 at 11:05 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Religion as comforting illusion?  That makes sense.  I have long since decided that it wasn't  worth arguing about God.  Even if some version of God possibly exists, it doesn't actually matter. 

Spot on.  Either God is a myth, and doesn't affect us.  Or he's real, and we don't affect him.  Anything beyond our control isn't worth worrying about.

 

Been a minute.  Thought I'd say hi 😊

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

30 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Spot on.  Either God is a myth, and doesn't affect us.  Or he's real, and we don't affect him.  Anything beyond our control isn't worth worrying about.

 

Been a minute.  Thought I'd say hi 😊

 

It's good to see that you're still around.

 

For the rest, I have embraced Agnostic Apatheism.   

 

Despite the complete lack of evidence, Some  version of God could possibly exist.   I don't know and I don't worry about it.  It's not important and it's not worth arguing about. 

 

Jonathan  

[RabbiO]

If organized religion is shelved what would replace it? Even if I were an atheist - which I am not - my answer would be the same. Eventually organized religion(s) would once again appear. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RabbiO said:

If organized religion is shelved what would replace it? Even if I were an atheist - which I am not - my answer would be the same. Eventually organized religion(s) would once again appear. 

 

First, a quibble.  We are not talking about organized religion.  We are talking about institutional religion.

 

What would replace institutional religion?  At the risk of being unfair, that is like asking what would replace cancer.

 

We would still be social creatures with mutual interests.  I think that we could manage to get by without the supernatural.

 

If all religious texts were lost, what would we really lose?  Atheism would be reborn with every independent mind, no matter what it was called.

 

 

[Coolhand]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If all religious texts were lost, what would we really lose?  Atheism would be reborn with every independent mind, no matter what it was called.

 

 

 

 

Is that what is seen in tribal and other social constructs where there are no religious texts?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Coolhand said:

 

 

Is that what is seen in tribal and other social constructs where there are no religious texts?

 

All tribal?  I don't know.  If I did it would still be over generalizing.

[Key]

Some form of religion is always inevitable. The human need to want more than what they can conceive or to fathom what they can not imagine to experience, compels mythology or unifying belief to cope. It is of comfort to believe that this life, is not all there is to exist. That existence does continue in some form.