>... I can confirm that whatever philosophers
>have imagined up for themselves as religion's "true" function, it
>definitely is considered by its practitioners to be useful primarily
>on an individual level. Whatever effects it has on society as a
>whole are secondary concerns, compared to one's own family and
>friends....
Yeah, well, a lot of academics (and lay observers) disagree, starting well before Karl Marx. I suppose one can argue that tithing, for example, is primarily useful for the spiritual effect on the tither, but what does "primarily" mean in the face of counterintuitive argument? There are obvious benefits to the religious organization from their prescribed rules of behavior and these rules benefit society as a whole. Moreover, most all religions teach how to get along in society, whether as mainstreamers or a side branch. The Thugees are the only counterexample I can think of, and they got stamped out (except in Indiana Jones movies).
In fact, most all religions teach that one should suppress one's natural inclinations in favor of following religious precepts which look a heck of a lot like social rules ("render unto caesar"). In fact, some people are so ill-developed morally that they do good in hope of heavenly reward and avoid evil in fear of hellish punishment. So, despite what the priests may want to believe, religion causes individuals to follow group norms and thereby advance the group's interests.
Powered by hypermail