Has religion served its purpose?

"Religion has served its purpose of uniting people, setting up structures in society, developing trust and cooperation."

~ Syed Saleem Ali

"What we need now are morality and spirituality. Morality is about reducing suffering in the world. And spirituality is about questioning and looking for answers. Religions provide us just with answers and no scope of questions.”

~ Yuval Noah Harari

While I agree with the sentiment that "...morality is [or should be] about reducing suffering in the world.... and spirituality is [or should be] about questioning and looking for answers"... I am inclined to think that religion continues to have a cohesive and meaning-creating purpose for most people in most cultures and societies.

I am not saying that every citizen needs to have religious faith, but many plainly do.

Where I live, I'd say the six religions enshrined in the constitution still serve a purpose in uniting people, supporting structures in society, and developing trust and cooperation.

Thoughts?

@fmf said
"Religion has served its purpose of uniting people, setting up structures in society, developing trust and cooperation."

~ Syed Saleem Ali

"What we need now are morality and spirituality. Morality is about reducing suffering in the world. And spirituality is about questioning and looking for answers. Religions provide us just with answers and no scope of questions.”

~ Y ...[text shortened]... uniting people, supporting structures in society, and developing trust and cooperation.

Thoughts?

My first thought is, I wish I were as articulate as you in expressing ideas and concepts.

So, first of all, allow me to tell you that your "idea or concept" of "religion" is fundamentally flawed.

In a sense.

You see "religion", and rightly so, as the out working of human effort with regards to the supernatural.

And so it is.

That doesn't work with God. All human effort to connect with God is in vain.

Think about it.

Carefully.

@josephw said
So, first of all, allow me to tell you that your "idea or concept" of "religion" is fundamentally flawed.In a sense.You see "religion", and rightly so, as the out working of human effort with regards to the supernatural.And so it is.

Just to be clear, Christianity is a religion. You are a religionist. Every claim you make about supernatural beings and phenomena stems from your religious beliefs. You talking about "the outworking of human effort" etc. is neither here nor there.

When I referred to the six religions in the Indonesian constitution, I was talking about Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism [I find it odd that they are explicitly itemized rather than referred to collectively as Christianity], Hinduism, and then Buddhism and Confucianism. Personally, I am not convinced those last two are "religions" per see, but billions would disagree with me.

@josephw said
My first thought is, I wish I were as articulate as you in expressing ideas and concepts.

One person's articulate expression of ideas is another person's "public masturbation", apparently.

@fmf said
Just to be clear, Christianity is a religion. You are a religionist. Every claim you make about supernatural beings and phenomena stems from your religious beliefs. You talking about "the outworking of human effort" etc. is neither here nor there.

When I referred to the six religions in the Indonesian constitution, I was talking about Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism [I find ...[text shortened]... lly, I am not convinced those last two are "religions" per see, but billions would disagree with me.

You are profoundly mistaken. I am not "religious", nor are my "claims" regarding the supernatural derived from any "religious beliefs".

You are blindsiding your self concerning this matter.

Forget about the billions that disagree with you. That will never change. Billions more will never know the difference.

"Religion" is nothing less than the effort of man to connect with his creator.

God doesn't NEED you or me to do anything for Him.

Logic dictates it. Does God lack anything that man can provide?

@fmf said
One person's articulate expression of ideas is another person's "public masturbation", apparently.

Sorry, but I am clueless as to what you mean by the above.

Believe it or not I am guileless. Even though it may "appear" otherwise.

@josephw said
You are profoundly mistaken. I am not "religious", nor are my "claims" regarding the supernatural derived from any "religious beliefs".

I am not mistaken at all. You espouse Christian beliefs. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." The superhuman controlling power you believe in and worship is the Christian God figure.

@josephw said
"Religion" is nothing less than the effort of man to connect with his creator.God doesn't NEED you or me to do anything for Him. Logic dictates it. Does God lack anything that man can provide?

Your claims about what "God" does or doesn't "need". or what he does or doesn't "lack", are an expression of your religious beliefs.

@fmf said
I am not mistaken at all. You espouse Christian beliefs. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." The superhuman controlling power you believe in and worship is the Christian God figure.

No. "Religion" is the effort of man based on man's performance.

Your logic is flawed. If God were "controlling", then there would be no need for "religion".

@fmf said
Your claims about what "God" does or doesn't "need". or what he does or doesn't "lack", are an expression of your religious beliefs.

No. It is pure logic.

"Religious beliefs" notwithstanding.

@josephw said
"Religion" is the effort of man based on man's performance.

You are mistaken. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Your views on how "effort of man based on man's performance" should or should not be part of your own particular religion ~ or anyone else's religion, for that matter ~ is not relevant to the definition of "religion".

@fmf said
You are mistaken. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Your views on how "effort of man based on man's performance" should or should not be part of your own particular religion ~ or anyone else's religion, for that matter ~ is not relevant to the definition of "religion".

You are mistaken.

"Religion" is the effort of man, by the observance of the practice of rites and rituals, to connect with God.

It doesn't work.

@josephw said
You are mistaken.

"Religion" is the effort of man, by the observance of the practice of rites and rituals, to connect with God.

It doesn't work.

Religion is about belief and worship. The tenets of these beliefs, the rites and rituals, or lack thereof, vary from religion to religion. Your religion is Christianity

@fmf said
Religion is about belief and worship. The tenets of these beliefs, the rites and rituals, or lack thereof, vary from religion to religion. Your religion is Christianity

That's right. My "religion" is Christianity.

Remember when Jesus said, while on the cross, after the three hours of darkness?

Jesus said "it is finished".

My "religion" is based on that. I did nothing.

My "relationship" with the living God is based on what Jesus did on the cross to secure my eternal destination without any help from me.

"Religion" is the obstacle. "Relationship" is the key.

All the "religious" activity in the world won't produce what Jesus procured on behalf of all who believe when He said "it is finished".

That's the thing you don't get in spite of everything you think you know.

@josephw said
That's right. My "religion" is Christianity.

Remember when Jesus said, while on the cross, after the three hours of darkness?

Jesus said "it is finished".

My "religion" is based on that. I did nothing.

My "relationship" with the living God is based on what Jesus did on the cross to secure my eternal destination without any help from me.

"Religion" is the obs ...[text shortened]... said "it is finished".

That's the thing you don't get in spite of everything you think you know.

You are using, rather clumsily, a No True Scotsman informal fallacy.