Has religion become obsolete?
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
Thailand
September 26, 2008 1:39am CST
Religion has not become obsolete, but it has lost its way.
What is the original purpose of religion? Religion must have originally developed as a type of social cement. When the human ancestor population left Africa 50,000 years ago there must have already been a religion of sorts. Genomic research has shown us that a group of about 150 people were the first to make this journey. This is a relatively small group, but it is much too large to have been a kin group.
For a society to be cohesive there must be some common values shared. The most persuasive of these values is religion. In any religion there are sacred truths that all members agree to. These truths provide a bond of trust between members of a society. Without this common bond of trust it is very difficult for a society to grow beyond the size of an immediate family.
Somewhere along the line religion came off the tracks. What began as shared values somehow mutated and became a source of division. One religion became many and what was a sacred truth to one suddenly became a lie and a profane to others.
Religion probably worked fairly well as long as it was a shared value and all people participated in it equally. When some people began to see it as a possible source of power, I think it became corrupt. When a priest caste developed they began to manipulate religion in their own self-interest. Religion ceased to be a shared value and became a method of social engineering and control.
Religion lost its way, when it started to serve the interest of the few rather than cement the group together. When that small brave band pushed out of Africa they carried with them a religion that helped them face the uncertainties of a strange new world. It is a shame that that source of good has now become a source of conflict and war.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@tulipstrader (1467)
• India
27 Sep 08
more than a guiding light, religions have become a nuisance to humanity. with outdated belief systems, meaningless rituals they have turned humanity into morons.
1 person likes this
@coffeechat (1961)
• New Zealand
26 Sep 08
Mahatma Gandhi in his book "My experiments with truth" says that all religions are like rivers leading to the same Ocean (god). And then Karl Marx is credited with the quote that "Religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who seek strength in numbers".
I do agree with you that religion has lost its way and sometimes I am not too sure if it has lost its place. Religions arise when a person of great spirituality and persuasion grows in an environment which is ready to accept and adopt the changes a new religion brings.
Jesus of Nazareth, The Buddha, Mohammed undoubtedly exuded spirituality and wisdom. Even as people adopted the philosophies and practices the flip side of the coin, the political element emerged and took control of the religions. And together with its bed-fellow economics it is complete menage a trois.
During my travels I had the opportunity to see Pope John Paul from about 50 feet away. Despite my being neither Catholic nor even Christian, I was quite overwhelmed by the aura of spirituality and intellectual kindness radiating from the man. A few years later, I saw the Dalai Lama from a distance and was equally impressed, even if I am not a Buddhist.
This confirms my view that though many individuals may make great spiritual progress and achieve a level of harmony and bliss collectively religions have become the tool of the powers that be. The ordinary person is just manipulated.
So though I agree with Gandhi that the PHILOSOPHY of all religions lead to a similar higher being, I am more inclined to agree with Karl Marx and you that religion has just become a crutch for the weak and a tool of the powerful.
Cheers.
1 person likes this
@santuccie (3384)
• United States
27 Sep 08
I agree with practically everything you have said here. The only thing I question (and I expect this to be nothing more than a misunderstanding) is when you say that religion began as a social cement. I'm not sure if you're saying that religion began with the aim of providing a social cement, or if it originated as a fad of sorts. I'm assuming from the context you use that it's the former, but if it's the latter, I would contend that religion more likely began with Otto's mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the numinous experience. It began with a sense of wonder.
No doubt, religion has become as much of a divider as it ever was a unifier. I would most likely have opposed (at least in my heart) the Catholic church had I lived in the time of the Crusades; today I find Islam to be the most savage of them all. Kill those who oppose your propaganda and those who convert away, and you will be rewarded with all the virgins you can eat out. While you should know that I am a believer in the Designer, I have no way of knowing whether the human spirit survives the human body. But I am hoping it does, in which case we will all someday know that which we have tried and failed to understand since we began.
Thank you for a civilized discussion. This is much more sophisticated than "Religion is a disease." Faith in and of itself is no cancer; it's the people who choose to exploit it.
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
28 Sep 08
Please insert after social cement: This is not to say that it evolved with that intent. Religion mot likely developed out of a sense of wonder at the world and an attempt to explain just what it all means. It also was a means to try to control natural forces that didn’t respond to physical manipulation. What ever the reasons for its origins its function was to serve as a cohesive bond.
Thank you for your input on this. You are correct that I did not express my self as clearly as I should have.
1 person likes this
@santuccie (3384)
• United States
28 Sep 08
No problem. I was pretty sure you were referring to the aim and not the origin, but I just couldn't be sure.
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
27 Sep 08
I agree with a lot of what you said, regarding the social benefits of religion. But alongside the human need for religion is the human need to identify within a group by selecting an "other". Groups bond more strongly in the face of an enemy, or opposing ideology. If it isn't religion that's causing a divide, it's nationality. If it's not nationality, it's race. If it's not race, it's economic. But groups all function and identify more strongly when they can oppose another.
At least, viewing it that way is less bleak for me!!
1 person likes this
@Abhinavmishra19 (224)
• India
27 Sep 08
[i] Replying to the FIRST COMMENT
Mahatma Gandhi being a Hindu, said all gods exists, while Muslims say only their god exists!
What do you feel like believing?
Muslims say Jesus is a son of god, Christan say Jesus is the only God. If Jesus is the only god, then Allah doesn't exist, i but If Allah doesn't exist, then Jesus doesn't exist, and so, neither do any of us, since he is the soul created of all of us!
Hell lot of contradictions?
The point is, people need to first solve the contradictions amongst themselves, and then go any further.
As far as the book by Gandhi is concerned, you must have noticed, he never questioned the existence of god, ....
Do you happen to have a reason why? [/i]
@coffeechat (1961)
• New Zealand
27 Sep 08
Mr. Mishra,
I am not sure I understand your point? Whatever it may be, it is besides the point in relation to the post that Chiang Mai Boy made.
To me it seems like a bit of a rant.. but do rant on merrily, because it is always better to rant here than in the pulpit!
Cheers.
@Abhinavmishra19 (224)
• India
27 Sep 08
Ms.CoffeeChat, you probably failed to grasp on the fact that the comment was made at your response not his :)
But don't worry, I do not feel angry at all at your frustrated reply, :
This is the usual behavior of the people who take questions at their beliefs as offense!
my point is, before you move on to anything further, first solve the contradictions amongst yourselves!
And WHEW! do i find my answer from you?
NO, why not?
Tell you the truth, the trick of calling something a rant and escaping it, is evidently, OLD. It would rather have been better if you made a relevant answer, and not a personal comment.
Regards.
@Abhinavmishra19 (224)
• India
27 Sep 08
You go out there and make some great points on spirituality, while not being able to show that spirits do exist!
How sanctimoniously preposterous!
