What is religion good for?

I'll tell you what religion is not good for, according to scientific research: society. No webpage found at provided URL: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

quote:

---

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

​

A First Look

​

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

---

They actually go into considerably more detail than that. Very intersting article that I'm surprised hasn't turned up; it turns the creationist view that "evolution is bad for society" right on its head - its the highly creationist parts of America that are strongly correlated with various societal ills.

Got where?The human experience doesn't change; not until the fundamental biological constraints of being human change. Technology progresses but so long as we need to eat, sleep, eliminate wastes, and mate for reproduction, being human is the same no matter what. That's why we can appreciate Shakespeare and Beowulf centuries after the societies that produced those stories are gone; that's why stories are never invented, only retold.If we don't need religion now, then we never needed it. If its a dangerous influence now, it always has been. Historical considerations are beyond the scope of the paper. Religion serves to divide the world into believers and unbelievers. In that sense, I would describe it as an influence against cohesion, a divisive influence. Chicken or egg problem, I guess. Does religion impoverish society, or do impoverished societies turn to religion? Or both? Not within the scope of the paper, as far as I can tell. It simply rebuts the notion that religion is a "civilizing" or enmoraling influence.

You mean in Soviet Russia, or in China?Those movements weren't atheist or humanist; they deified the state and the party. Looks like you have some issues with your memory.

No, I don't. The words change but the music is always the same. And I think I made a pretty good case for that, which you didn't even address. I don't see the relevance. The pilgrims you refer to were kicked out of England for their religion, and you're trying to portray religion as a cohesive influence? You've just proved my point. And I don't think nationalism had that effect. It was a divisive force immediately after 9/11; it's a divisive force now. There isn't a religion in the world that claims universal appeal; one of the built-in protections of every religion is a rationale (and a suggestion for disposal) for people who simply won't convert to it no matter what."Everybody's a believer"? Under what condition do you think that's possible? If the only situation in which religion is cohesive is a situation that cannot possibly occur, you've just proved my point again. I think it's clear from history that neither of these things have ever been true. Earlier you gave an example of believers who couldn't co-exist with non-believers and so founded our country. Or maybe religion divides large cultures until they're about tribal-sized, and is thus a divisive influence. What scenario? "Unknown factor X"? Fill in the blanks, and maybe you have a point. Unknown factors are beyond the scope of the article, and my point. And neither I nor the authors of the paper are required to rebut the influence of "unknown factor X." You can always say there's an "unknown factor." Such claims should not be taken seriously.

And we're "officially" a federal republic. In practice, we're not. And in practice, those nations were theocracies - governments that mandated worship of the state and the leader of the party. They did, after all, outlaw religion. Why would an atheist state do that?

No generalization necessary. In those countries the state explicity took the place of church. It was to be worshipped, literally; appealed to for intercession; and held to be both inerrant and supernaturally eternal.Now, they certainly attacked what they considered "superstitions", so there were components of the supernatural that they explicitly denied. But other elements of the state apparatus took on a supernatural character - i.e. televisions and radios that could "transmit back", spies who could listen to any conversation or even read minds.The USSR had a program to train "remote viewers", Robin. (That's why we had one, too.) And you claim that they denied the supernatural? Ludicrous.Those governments were theocracies, Robin. Religion doesn't have to simply be the worship of a god. (Otherwise Scientology could not be considered a religion.) Worshipping a state believed to hold supernatural powers of influence, survelliance, and literally power over life and death, certainly constitutes a religion to anybody, presuming that person is not like you - an ideologue slavishly determined to tar all atheists with the brush of socialist atrocity.

That's a funny, if erroneous, assertion.Now, why don't you try addressing my points. Or is it your intention then to simply abandon the discussion? Don't blame you.

Fascinating, but completely irrelevant to my point. I've never asserted that communism is a religion.On the other hand, worshipping a deified state held to be eternal, all-knowing, and inerrant is definately religion. But I challenge you to find any post of mine where communism is said to be a religion.

No, just your gross misunderstanding, and now your spurious and insulting allegation.Don't worry, nmr, I'm pretty sure we're done with this.