The Usefulness of Religion

J Hubner · #1 by **J Hubner** » Dec 06, 2011 10:58 pm

Also I do not consider this a debate but a friendly argument, however I will be up for a debate on subjects that are challenged, I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful. I think it would be an interesting debate feel free to suggest other subjects. It is interesting to converse with you guys so far.

Moonwatcher · #2 by **Moonwatcher** » Dec 07, 2011 12:52 am

J Hubner wrote:Also I do not consider this a debate but a friendly argument, however I will be up for a debate on subjects that are challenged, I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful. I think it would be an interesting debate feel free to suggest other subjects. It is interesting to converse with you guys so far.

On the surface, I'd agree with that because then one doesn't have to debate whether the religion is true. However, I suspect that your side of the discussion will hinge on things that are assertions.

Nicko · #3 by **Nicko** » Dec 07, 2011 8:34 am

J Hubner wrote:... I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful.

I really don't care about how useful religions are unless their central claim can be demonstrated to be true: that at least one being that can reasonably be called a god exists. Unless this can be shown, no one should accept religion regardless of any utility that it might have.

LucidFlight · #4 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 07, 2011 8:36 am

Nicko · #5 by **Nicko** » Dec 07, 2011 8:51 am

hackenslash wrote:Religions are about as useful as a marshmallow crash helmet.

It is patently obvious that religion is useful for many things. Parting fools from their money. Deflecting the attention of voters from actual records and policies on to crowd-pleasing soundbites. Protecting barbaric social customs from rational scrutiny. Redirecting violence from in-group targets to out-group targets. Undermining the results of empirical research. Providing a safe haven for child molesters. Need I continue?

OK, Hubner probably meant the good stuff like charities and choirs and Desmond Tutu, but my examples are all well-documented uses to which religion has been put with great success.

Even if someone could demonstrate that religion has been put to more good uses than otherwise, it would be irrelevant. Religion could have nothing but good effects and it would still be unjustified unless we had reason to accept it as true.

LucidFlight · #6 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 07, 2011 9:03 am

hackenslash wrote:Religions are about as useful as a marshmallow crash helmet.

Hmm, I dunno... I've seen some pretty shocking incidents involving marshmallows. If just one of them had been wearing a helmet, it might still be here today.

redwhine · #7 by **redwhine** » Dec 07, 2011 9:05 am

J Hubner wrote: ...I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful.

http://antitheistsopposingreligion.blog ... -good.html

monkeyboy · #8 by **monkeyboy** » Dec 07, 2011 11:17 am

J Hubner wrote:I dont have time to reply these days, but dont go thinking I forgot about or left the discussion. Im preparing something. On the nature of evidence, and on the nature of religion. Wich i think will make my views cristall clear and take care of the few things that are left in mid air, that I did not have time to cover.
For now allow me to step out graciously of the discussion and invite sia, or whoever the original poster is to resume discussing.

I do hope your return will provide answers such as where this knowledge of God of yours comes from. I dearly would hope that you can provide some evidence for your "unpredictable" God which man is incapable of studying though how you will achieve that in a meaningful way which doesn't rely on empty assertion taken at face value or huge reliance on tradition is to be seen. I'm pateint though, I mean, I've been reading for years on the subject and nobody else has managed it so far. Good luck to you.

J Hubner wrote:Also I do not consider this a debate but a friendly argument, however I will be up for a debate on subjects that are challenged, I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful. I think it would be an interesting debate feel free to suggest other subjects. It is interesting to converse with you guys so far.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who put the question, "What idea or good work is it that religion can claim that is unacheivable by a non theist?" or thereabouts, don't have time to dig out the exact quote. Good luck on that one too.

Edit- Found the direct quote from Christopher Hitchens, "Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Spearthrower · #9 by **Spearthrower** » Dec 07, 2011 2:53 pm

Nicko wrote:
J Hubner wrote:... I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful.

I really don't care about how useful religions are unless their central claim can be demonstrated to be true: that at least one being that can reasonably be called a god exists. Unless this can be shown, no one should accept religion regardless of any utility that it might have.

I'm sure heroin is useful if you want to run away from dealing with the world.

chairman bill · **#10** by **chairman bill** » Dec 07, 2011 2:55 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I'm sure heroin is useful if you want to run away from dealing with the world.

And lots of heroin if you want to deal to it ...

Calilasseia · **#11** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 07, 2011 11:46 pm

Nicko wrote:
J Hubner wrote:... I think that the best subject for a debate would be: are religions useful.

I really don't care about how useful religions are unless their central claim can be demonstrated to be true: that at least one being that can reasonably be called a god exists. Unless this can be shown, no one should accept religion regardless of any utility that it might have.

Trouble is, their utility value was tested to destruction in 1348. They were found to be about as much use as a fishnet condom, as far as substantive issues were concerned. That test to destruction also told those of us who pay attention to reality, something about the probable truth value of religious claims, most importantly, about the claim that various magic entities exist. After all, Europeans spent three years kissing the arse of their magic man between 1348 and 1351, and the result was zero success. 25 million Europeans died a horrible death, whilst any magic man that existed sat on his arse and did nothing. All the usual apologetic excuses fail here too: the idea that these people were purportedly 'punished' for not being devout enough fails, because Europeans at the time were pre-scientific, superstitious people, who thought that their magic man actually existed and ran the world, and, thanks to the activities of enforcers of conformity to doctrine, most Europeans at that time were not even aware that an alternative to their mythological magic man existed. How much more devout can you get, than spending three years kissing the arse of this entity whilst millions are dying around you?

As for the "mysterious ways" apologetic evasion, exactly what was achieved on the part of this magic man, by letting 25 million of one's most devout followers die a horrible death? If the aim was to increase religious fervour, it ultimately failed.

Nicko · **#12** by **Nicko** » Dec 08, 2011 3:07 am

@ Cali:

I'm fairly sure that when Hubner says "useful" in regard to religion, he means community groups, a sense of security, the purported stress benefits of prayer, and so on. Not useful in the sense that you or I would mean: describes reality in some meaningful way and provides some reliable method of interacting with it. For that kind of useful, religion would need to be true.

He wants to shift the discussion away from the central issue of whether religion is true, towards the side issues of whether religion makes people feel and be good. The problem with this kind of "useful" is - as Monkeyboy pointed out with his Hitchslap - that if the use of religion is independent of its truth those ends must logically be capable of being achieved without religion.

Calilasseia · **#13** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 08, 2011 9:57 am

Nicko wrote:@ Cali:

I'm fairly sure that when Hubner says "useful" in regard to religion, he means community groups, a sense of security, the purported stress benefits of prayer, and so on. Not useful in the sense that you or I would mean: describes reality in some meaningful way and provides some reliable method of interacting with it. For that kind of useful, religion would need to be true.

He wants to shift the discussion away from the central issue of whether religion is true, towards the side issues of whether religion makes people feel and be good. The problem with this kind of "useful" is - as Monkeyboy pointed out with his Hitchslap - that if the use of religion is independent of its truth those ends must logically be capable of being achieved without religion.

Indeed. There are plenty of activities that make people feel good, but that doesn't in the least make them a basis for a world view. Plus, I'm minded to recall the quote attributed to Seneca the Younger, viz:

"Religion is considered true by the foolish, false by the wise, and useful by the leaders".

Of course, we all know why it's considered 'useful' in this sense, namely, it's a means of controlling the gullible and uneducated, manipulating them so that they will fall in line with the interests of the manipulators, instead of thinking about their own interests, or the interests of the human species in general. For a particularly insidious example, see modern Republican Christofascism, particularly the Dominionist offshoot, which not only promotes a truly fulminating and noxious variant of prosperity theology, but also, behind closed doors with fellow members of the 700 Club's top table, promotes the logical flip side of that particular ideological coin, in the form of neo-serfdom for anyone outside the 'elect'.

stijndeloose · **#14** by **stijndeloose** » Dec 08, 2011 10:28 am

Nicko wrote:@ Cali:

I'm fairly sure that when Hubner says "useful" in regard to religion, he means community groups, a sense of security, the purported stress benefits of prayer, and so on. Not useful in the sense that you or I would mean: describes reality in some meaningful way and provides some reliable method of interacting with it. For that kind of useful, religion would need to be true.

Well, religion does have it uses, it seems. Michael Shermer discusses this, as it happens, in a recent column in Scientific American:

Ever since 2000, when psychologist Michael E. McCullough, now at the University of Miami, and his colleagues published a metaanalysis of more than three dozen studies showing a strong correlation between religiosity and lower mortality, skeptics have been challenged by believers to explain why—as if to say, “See, there is a God, and this is the payoff for believing.”

Stressing that "God did it" is not a scientific hypothesis, he goes on to describe a possible explanation:

Religions offer the ultimate delay of gratification strategy (eternal life), and the authors cite research showing that “religiously devout children were rated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers.”

Now, whether religion is useful or not may be an interesting discussion (I for one think that it would be), but it is totally irrelevant to the question of God's existence, or indeed to any other questions that religions claim to deal with. It doesn't matter. Usefulness has no impact on validity.

Agrippina · **#15** by **Agrippina** » Dec 08, 2011 10:54 am

Would someone please start a thread about that, the usefulness of religion. In my opinion the only value is that it keeps people like Krtzinger in silk dresses and bejewelled headgear. Still it's an interesting topic. I'd like to see what the "true believers" think.

Scot Dutchy · **#16** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 08, 2011 10:58 am

Agrippina wrote:Would someone please start a thread about that, the usefulness of religion. In my opinion the only value is that it keeps people like Krtzinger in silk dresses and bejewelled headgear. Still it's an interesting topic. I'd like to see what the "true believers" think.

I think Aggie if you went to poor Middle, South American countries I think you see a different type of religion.
It is their life. Everything is governed by it. It would be a very hard nut to crack.

chairman bill · **#17** by **chairman bill** » Dec 08, 2011 11:43 am

Calilasseia wrote:... Seneca the Younger, viz ...

Wasn't he in a Fat Slags strip? The son of Mrs Brady, the old lady. Her older son, also named Seneca, was mates with Buster Gonad.

Agrippina · **#18** by **Agrippina** » Dec 08, 2011 12:26 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Would someone please start a thread about that, the usefulness of religion. In my opinion the only value is that it keeps people like Krtzinger in silk dresses and bejewelled headgear. Still it's an interesting topic. I'd like to see what the "true believers" think.

I think Aggie if you went to poor Middle, South American countries I think you see a different type of religion.
It is their life. Everything is governed by it. It would be a very hard nut to crack.

I understand that. The explorers introduced Middle Age Catholicism to people who worshipped their own pagan gods in their own way. I'm sure that their brand of "Christianity" is vastly different to that of the people living in North America. In exactly the same way that the Christianity of Africans is vastly different to that of the ordinary Anglican whose religion is only a small part of their lives. The woman who used to clean my house used to carry a little book around with her, the only one she owned. It was a much-thumbed series of homilies in Zulu. She asked me why I didn't go to church, when I tried to explain to her that I didn't believe in it, she was horrified. But not only does she attend a church service under the trees near her every Sunday, and dress in a uniform that is perfectly maintained, she also subscribes to the ancient rituals of wearing pieces of animal skin to protect her from the curses of "witches" and to retain the goodwill of her ancestors. So they call themselves "Jesus" worshippers but there's more to it than just "Jesus loves me." Zulus also practice virginity-testing which dates back to their pre-Christianity past, and Xhosas still practice ritual circumcision, when young men paint their bodies with mud mixed with lime and have to go through endurance trials before being circumcised by an elder at a circumcision school. This also dates back to pre-Christian times. So yes, I understand that pagan civilizations' Christianity if very different from the sort of belief we discuss here. Imagine trying to discuss not only the idiocy of the flood story but also that a piece of antelope skin wrapped around the wrist doesn't have any special power, in a forum like this.

Calilasseia · **#19** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 08, 2011 7:48 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
Nicko wrote:@ Cali:

I'm fairly sure that when Hubner says "useful" in regard to religion, he means community groups, a sense of security, the purported stress benefits of prayer, and so on. Not useful in the sense that you or I would mean: describes reality in some meaningful way and provides some reliable method of interacting with it. For that kind of useful, religion would need to be true.

Well, religion does have it uses, it seems. Michael Shermer discusses this, as it happens, in a recent column in Scientific American:

Ever since 2000, when psychologist Michael E. McCullough, now at the University of Miami, and his colleagues published a metaanalysis of more than three dozen studies showing a strong correlation between religiosity and lower mortality, skeptics have been challenged by believers to explain why—as if to say, “See, there is a God, and this is the payoff for believing.”

Stressing that "God did it" is not a scientific hypothesis, he goes on to describe a possible explanation:

Religions offer the ultimate delay of gratification strategy (eternal life), and the authors cite research showing that “religiously devout children were rated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers.”

Now, whether religion is useful or not may be an interesting discussion (I for one think that it would be), but it is totally irrelevant to the question of God's existence, or indeed to any other questions that religions claim to deal with. It doesn't matter. Usefulness has no impact on validity.

Well first of all, so-called "studies" claiming that you're better off believing in an imaginary magic man in the USA, have about as much validity as any "studies" from the 1950s claiming you're better off being white, and for much the same reason. Namely, atheists today in the USA are targets of hate and bigotry (sometimes expressed murderously), of a sort that many thought naively had been done away with post-Martin Luther King. Just as African Americans were likely to exhibit a lower life expectancy in an environment where they faced being called "nigger", and being subject to the odd lynching by the KKK, is anyone surprised that atheists are recorded as having a lower life expectancy, in an environment where bigoted Christofascists routinely peddle Streicher-esque hate language toward them, and in some cases, subject them to brutal repression? Try coming out as an atheist in Georgia or Mississippi, and chances are, you'll wind up dead in a ditch when the locals start showing their true colours.

A much more meaningful comparison would be to compare average life expectancies between countries that are under the supernaturalist yoke, and countries in which supernaturalism is increasingly seen as something our species should have grown out of ages ago. I suspect Scandinavia will be ahead of the USA in this respect, and by a statistically significant margin. Indeed, taking a quick check of the CIA World Factbook, we have the following data (male/female life expectancy):

Sweden: 78.78/83.51
Iceland : 78.72/83.17
Norway : 77.53/83.02
Finland : 75.79/82.89
Denmark : 76.25/81.14

USA : 75.92/80.93

Indeed, courtesy of this page, we learn that the USA ranks fiftieth in terms of mean population life expectancy, whilst Sweden ranks 16th, Iceland 18th, Norway 25th, Finland 39th and Denmark 48th. Amongst the developed nations, Japan ranks 5th. The USA ranks below Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Turks and Caicos Islands, South Korea, Jordan and Singapore with respect to this metric, and is only slightly ahead of Cuba, Libya, Albania and the Dominican Republic.

For a purported superpower to be this far down the rankings should be a source of shame. Yet instead of waking up and smelling the roses, quite a few US politicians are dicking around with "prayer gatherings" to pray for rain (and failing to achieve the end result, just as Europeans failed in 1348), trying to destroy science education, whipping up homophobic hatred in order to seek election, and striving to drag the country kicking and screaming back to the 12th century. Indeed, with respect to a number of indicators, the USA is massively dysfunctional amongst the developed nations, and overweening, perniciously insidious religiosity is correlated with all of those dysfunctional indicators - indeed, it generates a good few of them.

So the idea that believing in a magic man contributes to enhanced life expectancy doesn't cut it on a global scale. It might work for rich Republican WASPs who enjoy lots of privileges denied to outsiders, but it doesn't work outside this demographic. Of course, the people peddling full-bore supernaturalist lunacy are, surprise, surprise, part of this very demographic, the people who push, without a hint of shame, the sort of prosperity theology that has not only been roundly demonstrated to be complete hooey, but which quite a few churches around the world (the two big ones, the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, being amongst them) regard as heretical. Not that this bothers the followers of Republican Jesus one little bit.

Nebogipfel · **#20** by **Nebogipfel** » Dec 08, 2011 8:19 pm

LucidFlight wrote:

That's more like it! :lol:

The Usefulness of Religion

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

The Usefulness of Religion

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Re: Dealing with common Atheistic arguments.

Who is online