The intrinsic value of religious institutions and the belief in religious dogmas

[Freudian Monkey]

This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas. This thread is not about whether God exists or not. Instead, we will start with the presumption that God does not exist and then venture on to find whether the religious belief itself or the religious institutions have any value for an individual or a society. Religion's transcendental value is based on the presumption that a religious belief is based on the true state of affairs, which this thread denies. So if you want to discuss about your personal religious belief, please start another thread. This thread is primarily about philosophy, not theology.

Do people live better lives because they have a religious belief? Is the society itself better because it has been founded on (supposedly) christian or other religious values? Is a society destined to collapse without objective moral values that religions offer?

I will begin the discussion with two thesis that ought to spark discussion.

Thesis I

Question: Does religion provide a sense of identity?

It certainly does, but why does one need religion if it is just a social construction that integrates social groups and enables other forms of social cohesion? Why can't these social constructs be upheld by humane values and principles instead? If one's sense of purpose and meaning derives primarily from family, friends and other loved ones anyway, then why does one need religion? Personally I don't like to see people receive their meanings and values directly from religious dogmas since they almost always offer just a very narrow and limiting perspective. General humane values on the other hand do not create artificial boundaries between ethnic groups and they give us sense of identity as sensible and tolerant people that have certain guiding principles.

Thesis II

Question: I often hear people argue that all religions hold at their core a similar set of humane values and by indoctrinating these values into peoples minds religions have a positive effect on the society. Is this true?

It is highly debatable whether in every religion's core there's a message of tolerance and mutual respect. My personal view is that this is most certainly not the case, but I know that from every holy book scholars have been able to find this message by making clever interpretations.

Religious dogmas are primarily based on interpretations of various written sources. These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation. In modern literary theory the author is not seen as the source behind the meaning of a text - the meaning is been brought into the text by the reader. In other words, people of every race and every color share the same basic humane values and they read these values into their holy books - that's why these values have been found in each and every one of them. People often see meaning in places where there is no meaning and structure in places where the is no structure to be seen. I bet that if James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake would somehow become a religious holy book, scholars would find those same themes of mutual respect and tolerance from that book as well.

I welcome everyone to join the discussion.

[Tim Aeus]

This went unnoticed. It's a shame, because I think this is quite interesting. I've actually spent quite a bit of time over the last few years thinking these things over in my head as well.

I'd rather skip over the first of your theses, it seems trivial, of course all things help provide us with our identity. The second interests me though. I think to begin, we should determine whether or not religion improves the individual. Because society is a a sum of individuals working together, it makes sense that the efficiency of a society will be determined by the efficiency of its parts and their ability to work cooperatively.

Now that we've established that, the question is does religion create an individual that is intrinsically driven to be part of a functional society? I think that to answer this question fully, it must be asked of each religion separately. So, what religion would you like to look at first?

[Volya]

It is my opinion that although most religions, originally start of as being useful things. They teach us values, morality, etc. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, any religion you care to think of, they are all inherently good.

However it's when you organize the religion, and have human figureheads to direct it(e.g the catholic church, or, islamic extremists), that the religion turns sour.

[Tim Aeus]

Please stay on topic, we're discussing society here. It would be easy for this thread to deteriorate into bantering about religion and its inherent nature.

[Volya]

Please stay on topic, we're discussing society here. It would be easy for this thread to deteriorate into bantering about religion and its inherent nature.

I thought I was on-topic (effects of religious institutions on society), sorry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You were on topic. For ****s sake, the TITLE of this thread designates religious institution as the topic. If Tim wants to discuss society and the individual, he can make his own thread, or at the least discuss it here but not complain when someone goes in a direction he doesn't want to.

As to my thoughts on religious institutions, Thomas Paine said it best: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

[Tim Aeus]

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

[Volya]

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

Ok, time to see if I can prove you wrong...

Religion, as itself, is a fine organization. It benefits the society by bringing the community together, and instilling good moral values.

However, religions can be corrupted when they are under the control of one person (e.g, the catholic church). This would mean that they no longer benefit the society as this one leader can subtly change the religion to suit his or her own purposes.

One could also argue that religious organizations on the whole do not benefit society, as although they can instill moral values, these could simply be taught by the parents, or the rest of the society. Religious organizations can also lead to people blindly following their leaders/scriptures without really considering the implication of what they are doing.

[cacian]

Firstly I would like to try and ask what a religious dogma is.
Is one saying religious dogma means that causes problems rather then offer solutions.
I always understood dogma to mean unclear or that comes with issues.

And to answer the first question I do not believe religion gives a sense of identity to the individual but what it deos however is load the person with rules and laws about a higher being that he or she never met.
Religion limits the mind to explore other venues of life and makes the world revolve around it in a way that is restrictive punishing self conflicting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Dogmas are like the theses of religions. It's what religions want people to believe.

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

It's quite easy to prove you wrong . . . by quoting the first sentence of the OP (and you're not even the OP, so I don't really see how you think you have the right to dictate who says what):

"This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas."

That's exactly what Volya was discussing.

You were wrong, get over it, move on. To move on, you could ask him to explain what he means by the word "sour" rather than just *****ing about it.

[Volya]

Dogmas are like the theses of religions. It's what religions want people to believe.


It's quite easy to prove you wrong . . . by quoting the first sentence of the OP (and you're not even the OP, so I don't really see how you think you have the right to dictate who says what):

"This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas."

That's exactly what Volya was discussing.

You were wrong, get over it, move on. To move on, you could ask him to explain what he means by the word "sour" rather than just *****ing about it.

It's cool man, i wasn't offended or anything. Tim just didn't get what I was saying, that's all.

[Paulclem]

These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation.

I can see this in relation to the bible. I took comparative religion at uni, and in the ethics lectures, the vicar/ Lecturer was always at pains to explain the meaning of verses and apply the Christian interpretation to the ethical problem. It clearly works for some people, but I felt that it was often contrived. Interestingly, a friend of mine suggested that such difficulties arise becaus Jesus' ministry was so short that he was unable to fully lay forth his theology.

In contrast The Buddha was teaching for 40 years or so, and had time to teach the monks and pass on the Dharma.

Hinduism isn't focused around one founder, but the writings in the Upanishads stretch back over a few thousand years. It may be why there is such variety in Hinduism.

[Tim Aeus]

And to answer the first question I do not believe religion gives a sense of identity to the individual but what it deos however is load the person with rules and laws about a higher being that he or she never met.
Religion limits the mind to explore other venues of life and makes the world revolve around it in a way that is restrictive punishing self conflicting.

This is a problem. Does a person "loaded with rules and laws about a higher being" not have a sense of identity?

"Religion limits the mind." What is the mind? In what respect is it limited by religion? What impact on society does this limitation have?

[Freudian Monkey]

Nice to see this thread coming to life. I'd also like to hear your opinions on the question about objective moral authority that religions often claim for themselves. So, to repeat my earlier question, is a society destined to collapse without objective moral values that religions offer? Many theologians see this point as one of the strongest arguments that support the value of religious belief (William Lane Craig for instance).

Do we need objective moral values anyway?

[Freudian Monkey]

Sorry for double posting, but these two replies deal with completely different subjects, so maybe it's easier for the readers when they're presented as two clearly distinct posts.

I'd rather skip over the first of your theses, it seems trivial, of course all things help provide us with our identity. The second interests me though. I think to begin, we should determine whether or not religion improves the individual. Because society is a a sum of individuals working together, it makes sense that the efficiency of a society will be determined by the efficiency of its parts and their ability to work cooperatively.

Now that we've established that, the question is does religion create an individual that is intrinsically driven to be part of a functional society? I think that to answer this question fully, it must be asked of each religion separately. So, what religion would you like to look at first?

You bring up an interesting point here. Does religion improve an individual? This question is a tough one, since we have to determine so many confusing variables to make sense of it. First of all we have to determine the primary function of a state - is it to function as efficiently as possible or is it first and foremost to serve it's citizens? A theocratic state could ideally work more efficiently than a state built on secular principles, but I think it's safe to say that theocracies don't aim to serve their citizens, but rather to control them and dictate their behavior. Then again, can this state control be justified as a means for creating a better environment for all citizens?

Another variable that we have to determine the nature of the supposed improvement that a religious upbringing or a other forms of religious practice might give. One improvement might be that working class might be more obedient and maybe their work morals might improve since they would also work to please their deity. These are admittedly very crude and simplistic examples, but they give at least the idea of which kind of improvements we are dealing with.

However, most of these improvements are in my opinion improvements that could be achieved by any form of successful process of social integration. I believe that the essential power of religious belief has to do with individuals sense of identity - religious belief essentially offers him a new family. It doesn't matter what kind of theological dogmas the religion endorses as long as the individual feels like he's part of something greater than himself. This is why my I aimed my first thesis to inspect the nature of this sense of identity.

These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation.

I can see this in relation to the bible. I took comparative religion at uni, and in the ethics lectures, the vicar/ Lecturer was always at pains to explain the meaning of verses and apply the Christian interpretation to the ethical problem. It clearly works for some people, but I felt that it was often contrived. Interestingly, a friend of mine suggested that such difficulties arise becaus Jesus' ministry was so short that he was unable to fully lay forth his theology.

In contrast The Buddha was teaching for 40 years or so, and had time to teach the monks and pass on the Dharma.

Hinduism isn't focused around one founder, but the writings in the Upanishads stretch back over a few thousand years. It may be why there is such variety in Hinduism.

Do you mean that the Buddhist teachings form a more coherent picture and that it can't be interpreted in a multitude of ways? I don't know much about Buddhism but I believe there exists multiple theological branches. How would you differentiate the Buddhist theology from Christian theology here?