What is the purpose of religion?

[Mnemosyne]

I would like to know your opinion: What is the purpose of religion?

Do different religions have different purposes?

[openeyes]

In general, to stabilize a society, and perhaps help it grow.

[magickmystik]

It is believe that the exposure to religion is important for fundamental spiritual education. Religion exhorts and develops a moral sense

encourages a spirit of goodwill and cooperation

promotes charity and acts of kindness towards the oppresses, needy and infirm

develops a rudimentary communion with God through faith, invocation, worship rituals, singing, and prayer

The form of the Divine people learn to love, worship and invoke through prayer and meditation is learned through religion. Since the religions of the world are anchored on different bands of the Great Continuum of Consciousness, what their adherents experience within depends on where they tap into this great inner sea of Spirit.

When adherents of religion begin to have inner spiritual experiences, they pass beyond the boundaries of conventional religion into the realm of mysticism.

[jpfieber]

On the surface, most religions seem to want to promote the goodness in people. In reality though, most seem to end up making its followers hate those not in the same religion, which is at the root of most wars throughout history. For many I suspect it is a way to answer those hard questions and to comfort those that would like to believe that their is some guiding force in their life. I'm not religious myself, but it seems that a religion like Buddhism, which I believe focuses more on finding your own internal strengths is 'healthier' than those that encourage you to follow a deity. It would tend to make you less reliant on others, and less likely to hate others because of differences in belief. I'm sure that some that would read this would consider it 'flamebait', and become upset, but if this is the case, ask yourself why you're upset, because that in my mind is the problem with religion in general.

[Mnemosyne]

That leads to my next question, which is why do people become so defensive about their religion?

I always thought that the purpose of religion was to promote truth, love, forgiveness, etc.

But I must be missing something, because if what I thought was actually correct, then there wouldn't be a need to become so defensive about one's religion.

I think that's what I'm really trying to figure out.

Durring some research I read an article that described Hinduism. The article acknowledged that there are many branches of faith within the Hindu religion. According to the article, the particular branch of faith a Hindu subscribes to isn't important. What's important is that they are faithful, because all paths lead to the same destination.

That's what I thought about religion in general. If all paths lead to the same destination, what difference does it make if a person believed in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc...? If all paths lead to the same destination, why would some people want to convert others to their religion? If all paths lead to the same destination, why do some people consider their religion superior to other religions?

[sept]

People are defensive about their religion because they are taught that their religion is the only "true religion". Also, I think maybe it is the only outlet for their ego that they feel safe with since their religion teaches them to withhold the ego.

It all comes down to dogma and training. Humans can be trained just as easily as animals and it takes a special spark of human creativity and will power to break free of that training.

I was raised christian and was made to go to church every sunday with the parents. When I realized it was not for me, I spent alot of time disliking all religions. Now I realize that my parents just did what they thought was best. They have a totally different mindset about so many things including religion.

"god" is everywhere. within and without. everywhere you look and in all you perceive...

[magickmystik]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

That leads to my next question, which is why do people become so defensive about their religion?

If all paths lead to the same destination, why would some people want to convert others to their religion? If all paths lead to the same destination, why do some people consider their religion superior to other religions?

That's just the way things are with people... they like to share their stories / beliefs / opinions of that supposed to be 'good' for them. If they think / believe that it might be 'good' for them, they are just 'spreading the good news'. And of course they are defensive sometimes, they think their ways are right and the other people's ways are wrong.
not just with religion, with all other areas in life. Like, what type of foods to eat (destination = stomach full), what types of ways to earn income (destination = earning money), bla bla bla n on n on

Imposing opinions / beliefs are just a stage.

People are just doing the best they can at their current time....

[maverickstruth]

The idea of "one true religion" versus "all paths lead to the same place" seems to really be a difference of regional origins, but who knows why that is. Stick with me here...

In so-called Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), there is more of an emphasis on "one true religion" -- this isn't true of all adherents to these religions, and it's not the same across the board, but it's a trend that can be seen.

In so-called Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Jainism, etc, etc, etc), there is more of an emphasis on the journey is just a journey, a tool to get you to your destination.

Now, to be honest, I'm not sure why there is this "regional" difference. And, I do confess, the distinction isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as this. For example, there are many who would argue that only certain sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam subscribe to the "turn or burn" mentality of one true religion. There are others who make room for non-adherants within their belief system. In the "Eastern" traditions, there seems to have been a lot more syncretism between traditions -- for example, it's not uncommon to be Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist all at the same time! So it's a different approach.

There is no simple answer, because it's not universal, by any stretch. But at the same time... we could ask why some people are such staunch defenders of one political party over another, or one sports team over another, or... whatever. When it comes to religion, this is all magnified, because one's religion influences how he or she sees the world. If you see the world through the lens of "Christianity is the only way not to burn in Hell forever" then of course you will be a staunch defender. If you don't, then you probably have a hard time understanding where they're coming from. It's all a matter of perspective.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

That leads to my next question, which is why do people become so defensive about their religion?

To respond just to this one part, even though the rest of your points deserve acknowledgment as well, the main reason why people get defensive when their religion is challenged is because religion is based on faith. To a large extent, most people do not have a very firm belief in their religion, despite the amount of work that they put into it. For those people, they are building their self worth on a foundation of sand. (I find this a bit ironic, because many religious texts tell you to build upon a foundation of rock, while conveniently labeling their religion as just such a rock...)

If a person is working purely from faith, then they do not have evidence to support their claims, which means that they do not have a constructive way to debate and refute people who challenge those claims. If they can not support their perspective, they begin to see that what they have been doing in regards to their religion may have been for nothing, which is a direct attack against the ego.

Once you bring the ego into the picture, there is little chance of having a constructive debate. Instead, you see all of the defensiveness and closed-mindedness that goes along with the religious arguments that we have seen raging for centuries.

If people say that they believe simply because that is what they have chosen to believe, then there is no logical way to refute it. If the 'attacker' wants justification, then saying that the religion has brought peace and happiness into their lives is more than enough justification. If a person continues to challenge the religion after that, then it is safe to ignore them, because they just want you to be miserable.

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Adam

If a person is working purely from faith, then they do not have evidence to support their claims, which means that they do not have a constructive way to debate and refute people who challenge those claims. If they can not support their perspective, they begin to see that what they have been doing in regards to their religion may have been for nothing, which is a direct attack against the ego.

Of course I can't justify it. That's the entire concept of "faith", isn't it? If I had evidence it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

Normally I just don't discuss it with people. But I think one of the reasons people tend to get defensive about it is that very few people (percentage-wise) actually want to discuss religion. They either want you to listen to them talk about theirs, or they want you to tell them what you believe so they can point out all of the problems with what you believe (the latter come in both atheist and missionary varieties). So, all else being equal, experience has led me to assume that "What do you think about God?" or "What do you believe?" are opening salvos in an attack. This may cause me to get more defensive than the question would usually justify.

[jkmuller]

I think that the purpose of religion is to comfort. Perhaps people have their own reasons for joining a particular religion, but I feel that the comfort of belief is the true reason. Often the reason for believing in a given religion seems to be family or peer ties, but at a basic level religion serves to comfort its believers.

Some people derive comfort from the existence of an afterlife, some from having someone to pray/talk to, some from simply having the ability to believe in something all-powerful. Religion seems to rely on the fact that it cannot be proven or disproven, and for many people that is enough to allow them to believe. While you don't have to be religious to believe in something, any given religion comes with a large amount of traditions and more importantly organizations of people that reinforce its beliefs. This is a powerful incentive to join a religion.

Maybe people become defensive about their religion for the same reasons that they get defensive about any other belief. Most people have an enormous resistance to any ideas which seem to contradict their way of perceiving the world. I've certainly noticed this in myself, although I try to stop it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by jkmuller

I think that the purpose of religion is to comfort.

That's certainly something people derive from religion, but it's not the initiating and driving purpose of most religion.

[maverickstruth]

I've heard theories that religions began as a way for people to cope with death and (by extension) the "meaning of life"... of course, this was in a course on "death and the afterlife in religion" so take from it what you will!

I've also heard it suggested that it comes from a desire to understand the "other" ... be that other supernatural, subnatural, outerworld, inner self, afterlife, before life, or even things like weather phenomenon.

If you look at a lot of aboriginal religions (African, N. American, Australian, S. American are some that I'm familiar with), both death and the Other seem to be central concerns. Things like Greco-Roman, Egyptian, etc. religion also have similar tendencies. *Shrugs*

Then again... the question really comes down to "what is religion anyways?" Hm... second time I've posted that in a thread today... maybe I should start a new thread, so as not to derail this one.

[skydust]

"Religion exists to limit your experiences and for you to surrender your power to an external being while keeping you ignorant of your higher self and true nature."

from here.

[Aphrodite]

Well said skydust I would have to agree. I am full of contradictions on this matter. I have my children educated and raised in the catholic system, however I believe that organised religion was/is in existence to control the population from remembering or seeing what they truely are. Once humans 'in control' stop being afraid of loosing 'stuff' then i feel individual freedoms will happen.

[Michael Chui]

I have a theory.

Religion, near as I can tell, is about social control. Not necessarily by some Pope over the laymen, but control by a society of the society. Remember that, in the beginning, it was extremely different. You didn't have government in the usual sense; you didn't have laws or such. But these things grew quickly.

In a human society, you need two things: you need rules, like "when the leaves start to fall, it's harvest time" or "no one crosses that bridge" (that way lies dragons!); and you need explanations (because human beings are curious by nature).

Rules, over time, become laws. What might once have been, "it's hard for people to work every single day", becomes "this day is reserved for not working".

Explanations evolve into stories of culture heroes, where persons of mythical to godlike status go on a journey and do some amazing feat, which explains why such is so. An example is Noah and the Ark, which is also seen in Iroquois mythology as The Great Flood, and in Babylonian as Gilgamesh. (link)

When these are balanced, you achieve what I would call a Mythology, a belief system in which stories are as important as laws. Based on what little I know of Catholicism, this is one. A belief system that favors stories over laws I would call Folk Tales, whereas one that favors laws over stories I would call a Religion. Protestantism is, essentially, a religion.

If you'll notice, most people who interpret the Bible will disregard all literal depictions. Everything is merely fodder to derive laws from; people love stories, so it's unsurprising that some of it survived, but I think the Christian stories survive more because of a persistent Catholic influence. Apologists have been taking cues from them.

So, what is the purpose of a religion? To justify law. What is law? A set of social agreements about behavior, including penalties for breaking these agreements. For instance, everyone agrees that they won't "covet their neighbor's wife". If you do, everyone also agrees that rocks will be thrown at your head until it's a messy red stain on the ground.

And why do people get defensive about it? Because it's theirs. Sometimes, the laws a religion includes into its tradition becomes outdated. But they're part of the religion whether you like it or not: people have a hard time taking it piecemeal, because that requires a lot of analysis and consideration. It's easier to say, "It's all true," especially when saying, "This part is true, but this part is false," gets very messy very quickly. And who wants to deal with that? Much easier to stick up your nose and call them an infidel, heretic, blasphemer, whatever.

And the fact is... we don't need religion anymore. With a secular governmental system in place, religion as a set of laws becomes unnecessary. We still need folk tales and mythologies, though, because stories are important. And the legal system we have today... it's not so good, still. But it's better than divine fiat, where the legal authority is a little hard to have a chat with.

[Andrew Brunelle]

It's all about controlling the masses. Coping with death. We make up these stories, most of them unvelievable in the sense that they make no sense, and we're expected to take these things at face value like everyone else in an attempt to control us and have us accept what everyone else does. It's this heirarchical system where there is always some distant authority figure judging everything you do, rather than encouraging you to enjoy the world as it is and not putting labels on everything. When you start placing values and labels on things, you start to go awry from the natural way. If something is good and something else is bad, who makes the distinction and who backs it up? We tend to think that certain things are right and wrong, but in reality, they just are. They are nothing but what they are. There is no extrapalation as to what kind of social value they have, they just exist in time and space. Don't worry, in eighty years maximum, it will all be over as you'll get to go home. I'll see you there.

[elainevdw]

Well, from the Christmas service I almost had to attend this season, I'd say the purpose of religion is to let people gather together in a big social clique, exclude everybody else, and feel morally superior to them.

And as bitter as that sounds, how many folks go to church to see who's there, with whom, doing what? To sing songs, then hang out at a potluck afterwards? To go on "missions" to foreign countries where they bang a few nails in a few houses and spend the rest of the time goofing off? To have "inside knowledge" and their own lingo relating to their beliefs? Inside jokes about the differences between this sect or that?

How many people can interact in their religion without getting buried in the social facade? And is it even possibe to separate the social culture from the core religious teachings?

[Eternal Wayfarer]

Hahaha, part of entertainment. They all express the same thing in different ways, the ego just like to mingle around and when an individual or mass individuals, groups, becomes the fan of ego; look at the world.

All I am aware of is that the masters and teachers did not create the different religions that the worshippers associate them with.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by elainevdw

How many people can interact in their religion without getting buried in the social facade? And is it even possibe to separate the social culture from the core religious teachings?

It's possible to separate it. When this happens, you either become an apostate or a revolutionary/leading thinker.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's possible to separate it. When this happens, you either become an apostate or a revolutionary/leading thinker.

But in this case, are you so much separating it, or are you adjusting your perception of it? I don't think religion can be extracted from its social context; when one becomes an apostate or (religious) revolutionary, I would tend to think that s/he is making adjustments to a (perceived) religious/social discontinuity, whether this is a conscious choice or not. To me, religion is very much a social construct, and so it requires the social framework for it to function. By the same token, I don't think one can necessarily just "remove" religious aspects from culture -- they may cease to call it religion, but it is still there (then again, I'm one of those types who thinks that atheism is as much a religion as theism, so ... ) Religion is defined as much by its (attempted) "absence" as it is by its presence in a cultural context.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

But in this case, are you so much separating it, or are you adjusting your perception of it?

I don't find a distinction between those two things: imagine, if you will, a pair of discs joined together at their centers by a pole. If you look along the axis the pole is on, you see but a circle: they are the same thing. But if you adjust your perception by shifting your position ninety degrees relative to the center of the pole, you see that the discs are distinct.

Is not perception reality? :P

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

I don't think religion can be extracted from its social context

Yet is a religion the same religion in a different social context? I don't ask this rhetorically, since I can see a decent argument for both answers. For instance, the Christianity of 1st cent. AD might be compared to the Christianity of 21st cent. AD; yet the Christianity of California might be contrasted with the Christianity of Texas, to be a touch Americentric; and the Christianity of Protestants might be distinguished from the Christianity of Catholics. Heck, is mainstream Christianity the same as the Church of Latter-Day Saints?

The decision sounds to me to be a bit arbitrary, in the end: they are the same if we choose to view them as the same.

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

To me, religion is very much a social construct, and so it requires the social framework for it to function.

It does require a social framework (or, possibly, it is the social framework), but that can easily be one person imposing a framework onto either a hypothetical society or a real one. Thus, you can disassociate the religion from its society by replacing the actual society with an imagined one. Perhaps it would begin with, "I wish they would..."

[maverickstruth]

Ah, I think perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were arguing that religion could somehow be taken out of a social context and somehow exist without it, not that it would change as social context changed. Given how you've explained things now, I agree with where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Yet is a religion the same religion in a different social context? I don't ask this rhetorically, since I can see a decent argument for both answers. For instance, the Christianity of 1st cent. AD might be compared to the Christianity of 21st cent. AD; yet the Christianity of California might be contrasted with the Christianity of Texas, to be a touch Americentric; and the Christianity of Protestants might be distinguished from the Christianity of Catholics. Heck, is mainstream Christianity the same as the Church of Latter-Day Saints?

It depends on who you ask :P Seriously, though, I am of the opinion that religions are shaped by their social context, and thus, when social context changes, the religion is necessarily going to adjust. Not to say that there aren't threads and roots that are common, but that the expression of the religion within the social structure will be evidenced differently.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Not to say that there aren't threads and roots that are common, but that the expression of the religion within the social structure will be evidenced differently.

Then we go back to asking what religion is: its roots? its unchanging beliefs? its expression? Is it dependent on who you ask? (Well, of course it is, but that's not my fault. :P)

[sourceofmiracles]

Religion has been under attack lately by both the "spiritual" and the new (now more agressive) athiests'.

“This final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue death blow to religion and other juvenile superstitions.” guardian uk

For science and the new spiritual movement, religion is like the abusive parent that is now an old shell of a person whose kids are now completely unsympathetic (and even mean) to.

The fact is that most of humanity is still deeply involved with religion. Like it or not it is the primary means of psychological human evolution (as far as man made systems go). How many people will say that 'science' got them through a difficult time in their lives? My point is that most people turn to religion when times are rough, not science.

So religion is still a "primary means of transporation" for most people [Religion is the 'Great Conveyor Belt' according to Integral Spirituality - Ken Wilber].
That being said, it is probably best to improve the engine than to buy a whole new car. Because most people don't have the cognitive ability and/or open mindedness to accept either science or a more spiritual/mystical type path (i.e Personal Development FOR SMART PEOPLE... most people are not as open minded or smart as the folks on this forum).

So all we can do is make it so that religion can play nicely with others. Some Atheists find it necessary to destroy religion, but I think that is neither possible or smart. If it dies, it will do so by collapsing under its own weight (which seems to be happening slowly now).

Religion is good for people until they grow out of it. And honestly, I don't believe science and mystical/spiritual alone have all the answers by themselves, they do make a great team though.

[Michael Chui]

I read this piece today and thought it'd be of interest:

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2006 — Page 2

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Then we go back to asking what religion is: its roots? its unchanging beliefs? its expression? Is it dependent on who you ask? (Well, of course it is, but that's not my fault. :P)

To quote from Shakespeare: "Ay, there's the rub". What is religion? Who knows!

And so as to get somewhat back on topic, I think that's ultimately where the question of "what is the purpose of religion" becomes difficult -- if not impossible -- to answer. It seems (in my experience) that many people define religion based on what they percieve its purpose is; by the same token, many people define the purpose of religion based on what they understand religion to be. And ultimately, it becomes a circular argument -- if religion is X, then its purpose is Y. If it's purpose is Y, then religion is Z (which may, or may not, be X). So one's answer will always be relative to his/her experience / understanding of what is and isn't included in religion. For some, the experience of social control may define religion, and so they see that as its purpose. For others, it might be more based on questions of "what happens when I die" or "where did we come from" or the always popular "why are we here?" And I don't think any one of those answers would be wrong -- because they all reflect different aspects and perceptions of religion.

All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that my answer to the original question is, and will remain, a firm "it depends."

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by sourceofmiracles

If it dies, it will do so by collapsing under its own weight (which seems to be happening slowly now).

I don't know if I buy that religion is dying / collapsing. Personally, I see it more as changing, adjusting, taking on new forms and expressions -- anything but dying. Then again, I also happen to think that atheism, as well as various forms of spiritualism, are all just as much religions, and exhibit just as many religious characteristics, as do more "traditional" religions. But that's just my $0.02 (Canadian money, so whatever that's worth these days!)