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

[Paulclem]

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?

No, rather the intentions of The Buddha are clear within the teachings. There are multiple schools - Tibetan, Zen, Southern etc - but they are surprisingly consistent in the presentation of the Dharma. The interpretation - or rather the practice adopted by individuals and different schools have a different focus, such as different types of meditation used in different schools. I think the books differ from theological books as they describe the perception of reality, but also provide tools with which to work with it - such as meditation techniques.

Buddhist works are like instruction manuals for achieving Enlightenment. Terms such as holy and blessed etc are used, but there is no sense that they were provided by a divine being rather the emphasis is upon The Buddha as a historical man achieving through his own efforts and leaving instructions for others.

[Freudian Monkey]

No, rather the intentions of The Buddha are clear within the teachings. There are multiple schools - Tibetan, Zen, Southern etc - but they are surprisingly consistent in the presentation of the Dharma. The interpretation - or rather the practice adopted by individuals and different schools have a different focus, such as different types of meditation used in different schools. I think the books differ from theological books as they describe the perception of reality, but also provide tools with which to work with it - such as meditation techniques.

Buddhist works are like instruction manuals for achieving Enlightenment. Terms such as holy and blessed etc are used, but there is no sense that they were provided by a divine being rather the emphasis is upon The Buddha as a historical man achieving through his own efforts and leaving instructions for others.

Does Buddhism have a lesser emphasis on the institutional aspect of religion? Is it safe to say that the religious institution of Buddhism itself doesn't actually offer anything to the society? That it's mainly the practice itself that an individual adopts that may or may not have an impact on his life?

Since Buddhism is more a philosophical viewpoint than a religious dedication, does it actually offer anything that any philosophy wouldn't be able to offer? Plato wrote a lot about "The Well-Ordered Soul" and how people should live to reach their full potential. Is there something that Buddhism offers that Platonic philosophy isn't able to offer? In other words, is there any intrinsic value to the religion or belief in Buddhism in contrast to the Buddhist practice?

[YesNo]

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.

Have you heard of the Khmer Rouge? Is this an example of the kind of ideal state you are promoting?

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.

One can create a sense of identity by becoming part of a community of believers or practitioners. I see nothing wrong with this. We are social creatures.

One can also create a sense of identity by claiming individual superiority to those who choose to become part of such a community. I have more trouble with this position.

[Freudian Monkey]

Have you heard of the Khmer Rouge? Is this an example of the kind of ideal state you are promoting?

You completely misinterpreted my post. I was making a point about the primary function of a society, and I implied that if the primary function of a society is merely to operate as efficiently as possible, then theocracy might be a viable option since it might operate more efficiently than a secular society. I personally don't believe that this is society's primary function. I didn't promote anything. Please read my post more carefully next time.

One can create a sense of identity by becoming part of a community of believers or practitioners. I see nothing wrong with this. We are social creatures.

I never said that becoming a part of social groups or institutionalized organizations that provide individuals with identities would be somehow undesirable. My question is whether religious institutions have any intrinsic value if a well-designed social service/institution of some kind could provide that same sense of identity. I don't know if religions could be replaced by such institutions. That's the reason why I started this thread in the first place.

One can also create a sense of identity by claiming individual superiority to those who choose to become part of such a community. I have more trouble with this position.

I agree, yet this still happens all the time in most social communities. Especially religious communities.

[YesNo]

You completely misinterpreted my post. I was making a point about the primary function of a society, and I implied that if the primary function of a society is merely to operate as efficiently as possible, then theocracy might be a viable option since it might operate more efficiently than a secular society. I personally don't believe that this is society's primary function. I didn't promote anything. Please read my post more carefully next time.

I sense that you are taking a hostile view toward religion or people who practice some religion. Have I interpreted that correctly?

Regarding theocracies or atheocracies, like the Khmer Rouge, I have no problem saying that I promote a society that tolerates different cultures and religions.

I never said that becoming a part of social groups or institutionalized organizations that provide individuals with identities would be somehow undesirable. My question is whether religious institutions have any intrinsic value if a well-designed social service/institution of some kind could provide that same sense of identity. I don't know if religions could be replaced by such institutions. That's the reason why I started this thread in the first place.

One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.

I agree, yet this still happens all the time in most social communities. Especially religious communities.

What is important to realize is that all of the negative issues one can come up with regarding religious communities can be found in atheistic communities as well. I don't think you understand this based on the word "especially".

All of these communities of people have dogmas, including the atheists. They all try to indoctrinate. They all create an "us vs them" identity. What makes most religious communities better than the atheistic communities is that they also take a positive view toward their Gods or practices which has an intrinsic social value in ameliorating hostility toward the outsiders.

[Freudian Monkey]

I sense that you are taking a hostile view toward religion or people who practice some religion. Have I interpreted that correctly?

I don't intend to be hostile toward anyone, we are all here to learn.

Regarding theocracies or atheocracies, like the Khmer Rouge, I have no problem saying that I promote a society that tolerates different cultures and religions.

Unfortunately this goes off-topic. We are discussion whether religion or religious belief have intrinsic value for a society or an individual, not whether we personally support them or not.

One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.

This is an interesting question. I haven't read the book you mentioned so I cannot give a thorough answer on it. Maybe you can summarize it's methodology and findings for us briefly? I read through a review of the book and some basic info about the author. My first impression is that he's research is quite controversial. He's results seem to point to the fact that young children often have an understanding of something transcendental, that could also be interpreted as God or other supernatural force. However to me this is only one interpretation. This experience of transcendental can as well be a result of immature psyche that inserts this transcendental quality to numerous external entities and phenomena, such as his parents, dreams, a thunder storm etc - at least this is how Piaget saw this phenomenon. Also the fact that human beings have a heightened sense of agency might have multiple explanations. But maybe you can specify what part of his argumentation impressed you the most. Maybe you can also list some of the other reasons why well-designed social services/institutions wouldn't be able to replace religious institutions.

All of these communities of people have dogmas, including the atheists. They all try to indoctrinate. They all create an "us vs them" identity. What makes most religious communities better than the atheistic communities is that they also take a positive view toward their Gods or practices which has an intrinsic social value in ameliorating hostility toward the outsiders.

Religious institutions have a pretty terrible track record for suppressing minorities and for invoking conflicts based on ethnicity or belief. Not all institutions have such horrendous records. Religious institutions are rarely based on democratic principles but rather on authoritarian control.

Does religious practice have an intrinsic social value that some irreligious practice wouldn't be able to duplicate?

It's true that one primary function of most all cultural structures is to separate one group of individuals from others, thus giving them a sense of identity. However these cultural structures can be based on a wide variety of principles and not all of these principles are equally valuable for the society. As I mentioned in the OP, a social structure based on common humane values would be rationally more preferable than a religious institution that has been founded on a collection of ancient scriptures that can be interpreted in infinite different (also harmful) ways.

I'm not certain whether a cultural structure that doesn't separate one group from another could actually offer a sense of identity as effectively as a one that does do this separation. It's a tough question since there really hasn't been any global effort for creating this kind of collective, all encompassing identity (or at least I can't think of any). It would be nice to hear your opinion on this as well.

[Tim Aeus]

One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.

The results would invariably differ if the information was pulled from a sample group comprised of individuals not born into a society where god was the answer to all the difficult questions.

To say unequivocally that religion will always find a way to exist is a stretch.

[YesNo]

Maybe you can also list some of the other reasons why well-designed social services/institutions wouldn't be able to replace religious institutions.

Outside of the developmental psychology research on children's religious beliefs that I mentioned earlier, I think one could find today further evidence in neuroscience. That spiritual experiences can be linked to the structures in the human brain imply that they are actual experiences that humans have. They are not the result of cultural conditioning. All that an atheist could now try to claim is that these experiences are delusions, but those who have them would likely disagree.

The crucial idea is that if one really wanted, for whatever absurd reason, to eliminate religion from our cultural environment, one would have to eliminate the human species itself. It is not enough to set up some alternate institution expecting a cultural fix to work for long. If this research is correct, it is a waste of energy to even try.

[YesNo]

The results would invariably differ if the information was pulled from a sample group comprised of individuals not born into a society where god was the answer to all the difficult questions.

To say unequivocally that religion will always find a way to exist is a stretch.

How do you know they would invariably differ?

I realize that the research Barrett describes undermines the idea that religion is purely a cultural invention that can be removed by replacing it with adequate training or indoctrination. However, forget about this science for the moment and ask yourself: Why do we find religion everywhere? Now go back to Barrett. All he does is provide part of the answer to that question by looking at a young child's conception of superhuman intentional agents.

[Freudian Monkey]

Outside of the developmental psychology research on children's religious beliefs that I mentioned earlier, I think one could find today further evidence in neuroscience. That spiritual experiences can be linked to the structures in the human brain imply that they are actual experiences that humans have. They are not the result of cultural conditioning. All that an atheist could now try to claim is that these experiences are delusions, but those who have them would likely disagree.

Neuroscience can certainly tell us that people have these transcendental experiences, but this in no way means that these experiences have a direct correlation with any religious concepts. Antonio Damasio wrote in Self Comes to Mind that transcendental experiences are often a cause of a person losing a sense of self-control or a sense of individual identity. As we all well know, human beings construct their self-image on both mental and physiological (body image) reality - people rely highly on their bodies for their self-image since it the only stable and reliable means for a person to see himself as an individual entity, separate of all other objects that surround him. This is one reason why often after an accident people experience unusual mental states, since his body does not function the way it has always functioned before.

The crucial idea is that if one really wanted, for whatever absurd reason, to eliminate religion from our cultural environment, one would have to eliminate the human species itself.

I don't see why.

It is not enough to set up some alternate institution expecting a cultural fix to work for long. If this research is correct, it is a waste of energy to even try.

Our educational institutions use vast amounts of resources all the time to indoctrinate future citizens with desirable social models. The indoctrination of this identity of common humane values instead of various religious ones wouldn't be anything different.

[YesNo]

Neuroscience can certainly tell us that people have these transcendental experiences, but this in no way means that these experiences have a direct correlation with any religious concepts.

I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the statement you wrote. What neuroscience is showing is that religious cultural concepts and institutions arise not from transcendental ideas, but transcendental experiences.

Those who want to eliminate religion from our culture, need to deal with religion on a physical level, not a cultural level. That raises the question whether it should be done at all. They are ultimately up against changing the human species, not just the culture or the educational system. It might help to see the problem better to rename homo sapiens as homo spiritualis which I think the research is implying would not be inappropriate.

Our educational institutions use vast amounts of resources all the time to indoctrinate future citizens with desirable social models. The indoctrination of this identity of common humane values instead of various religious ones wouldn't be anything different.

Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

[Volya]

Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

Not all of them. Definitely not all of them.

[Freudian Monkey]

I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the statement you wrote. What neuroscience is showing is that religious cultural concepts and institutions arise not from transcendental ideas, but transcendental experiences.

Yea, maybe I shouldn't have called these experiences transcendental but rather ecstatic or hallucinatory experiences. The point was that they're not religious by nature. Excuse my bad English.

Those who want to eliminate religion from our culture, need to deal with religion on a physical level, not a cultural level. That raises the question whether it should be done at all. They are ultimately up against changing the human species, not just the culture or the educational system. It might help to see the problem better to rename homo sapiens as homo spiritualis which I think the research is implying would not be inappropriate.

I don't see why religion would have to be dealt with on a physical level. If people accept the fact that religious institutions are unnecessary, they will wither away without any kind of physical conflict. I don't see any reason to accept your argument that people are inherently religious beings if it's only based on the fact that people are self-aware. People will always keep asking the same questions about the meaning of life, the origin of the universe et cetera but these question don't require religious institutions to explain them. And again, these are not religious question, they're ontological ones.

Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

If religious values would be only based on humane principles, I wouldn't have any problem with them. In some secular religious communities this is actually the case. However as I said before, religious dogmas also endorse unnecessary and even harmful practices and values that are by no means humane or even rational - infant circumcision, discrimination based on sexual orientations or ideological convictions etc.

[YesNo]

Yea, maybe I shouldn't have called these experiences transcendental but rather ecstatic or hallucinatory experiences. The point was that they're not religious by nature.

What I am referring to is neuroscience being able to stimulate the brain in some way and generate experiences such as out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences or shared-death experiences. What this does it validates these as "experiences" and not mere "ideas". My claim is that religions are built upon these sorts of experiences.

I don't see why religion would have to be dealt with on a physical level. If people accept the fact that religious institutions are unnecessary, they will wither away without any kind of physical conflict.

It seems as if you are now assuming what you are trying to show in this thread.

My claim is that some sort of religious institutions are necessary. This is based on Barrett's summary of the science of children's religious belief as well as neuroscience finding a location in the human brain where near-death experiences occur.

But let's forget this science for a moment. Consider that in the west we have had a tradition of a scientific method that is grounded in atheism for over two centuries. If religious institutions could wither away, they would have done so by now.

I don't see any reason to accept your argument that people are inherently religious beings if it's only based on the fact that people are self-aware. People will always keep asking the same questions about the meaning of life, the origin of the universe et cetera but these question don't require religious institutions to explain them. And again, these are not religious question, they're ontological ones.

My argument is not based on the fact that people are self-aware. It is based on two types of evidence:

1) Barrett's science of children's religious belief.
2) Neuroscience finding a physical way to stimulate a religious experience.

If religious values would be only based on humane principles, I wouldn't have any problem with them. In some secular religious communities this is actually the case. However as I said before, religious dogmas also endorse unnecessary and even harmful practices and values that are by no means humane or even rational - infant circumcision, discrimination based on sexual orientations or ideological convictions etc.

I do not favor infant circumcision nor discrimination. However, you focus on the problems of some religious groups. In fairness you need to consider the problems of atheistic communities that have gone bad. I have mentioned the Khmer Rouge as one of those communities. The Khmer Rouge atrocities were far worse than circumcision.

[Freudian Monkey]

What I am referring to is neuroscience being able to stimulate the brain in some way and generate experiences such as out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences or shared-death experiences. What this does it validates these as "experiences" and not mere "ideas". My claim is that religions are built upon these sorts of experiences.

As I already explained, there experiences are not religious by nature. The mere fact that people feel ecstatic or hallucinated experiences does not suggest that people have to have a belief in any god or godlike entity.

But let's forget this science for a moment. Consider that in the west we have had a tradition of a scientific method that is grounded in atheism for over two centuries. If religious institutions could wither away, they would have done so by now.

There is no consensus in the West that religious institutions are unnecessary. There have never been this sort of consensus. Do you follow American politics at all? It's practically impossible to get elected to Congress if you don't claim to believe in god. Only 28 of the 525 members of Congress have openly admitted that they don't believe in any god. Do you expect this Congress to do anything to decrease the influence of religious institutions?

My argument is not based on the fact that people are self-aware. It is based on two types of evidence:

1) Barrett's science of children's religious belief.
2) Neuroscience finding a physical way to stimulate a religious experience.

1) This is based on the fact that people are self-aware. Children ask ontological question because that's what being self-aware means. You still haven't described Berrett's methods or findings to us, therefore it's hard to judge whether his findings even support you point of view.

2) The most well-known neoroscientific research about this was done by Michael Persinger. Test subjects brains were exposed to weak magnetic fields in order to stimulate their temporal lobes. During the tests some test subjects experienced "unexplained feelings of presence". Some of them described this presence as the presence of god.

I don't see how you could possibly use a research of this kind to justify that people are inherently religious beings. It's similar to suggesting that since people can feel ecstatic after seeing a majestic waterfall, that waterfall must be a God. This mode of belief is also known as animism, which was a belief system held by most archaic tribes. Animism is generally referred to as a religion of immature psyche since it's typical for children to see intention and design in objects that are not intentionally designed. The fact that children believe in this sort of fairy tales doesn't mean that they couldn't be educated and made into rationally thinking adults.

If you don't refer to Michael Persinger's research then specify what research you are referring to.

I do not favor infant circumcision nor discrimination. However, you focus on the problems of some religious groups. In fairness you need to consider the problems of atheistic communities that have gone bad. I have mentioned the Khmer Rouge as one of those communities. The Khmer Rouge atrocities were far worse than circumcision.

Hitler didn't commit genocide because he was (according to religious fundamentalists) an atheist. Nor did Stalin. Nor did Mao. Or any other dictator or regime. I'm so sick of hearing people use this argument. There is no book of atheism that endorses you to kill your fellow men in order for atheism to prevail. Harmful religious practices are often directly inspired and justified by religious holy book and religious dogmas that are being upheld by religious institutions.