Ask not what is the purpose of religion, but what purpose each individual has in practising their religion. The answers will vary widely between individuals. Common answers would be:

- exploring and expressing spiritual feelings
- using rituals to mark and help cope with important life events
- belonging to a community
- tradition
- providing an efficient and supportive framework within which to help others

Some less attractive reasons that some people have, but would mostly not admit to, are:
- so I can feel superior to others
- so I can wield power over others
- so I can validate my dislike for people from cultures different from my own

In the interests of charity, I assume that most people's reasons belong to the first set. Unfortunately, people motivated by the second set are often prevalent amongst those in power at the top echelons of organised religions.

There's a law of distribution in this universe, the name escapes me, where the amount you have determine how much you will get. Obviously there are exceptions but there are always exceptions.

Religions fundamentally are an expression of culture, at least, in their origin. Stories of the brave, the honest, whatever that culture accepts as good. Some stories are passed on more than others; their telling becomes exponential. People hold onto them, cherish them and most importantly follow the lessons they tell.

Religion is the collection of these stories. Each region has different ones that became popular. Some stories are seen across many cultures.

The problem however is when some stories do more harm than good as the world changes. As we gather more information with science the stories are being dropped off one by one. Religion will be either to be turned into a conglomeration or eventually lost entirely.

On modern cults: the mechanism is the same but they are composed, usually by one person, of many borrowed stories combined with a magnetic personality and a sprinkle of altered or new stories. Religions are mostly random, cults are mostly devised.

Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. For the vast majority of human evolution, survival may have depended on being part of a tightknit community, so it would seem natural to have developed a strong desire for meaning, at least once more basic needs (water, food, shelter) were met.

Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.

'“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves 'believers' because they accept metaphors as facts, and others who classify themselves as 'atheists' because they think religious metaphors are lies.” ~ Joseph Campbell

Religion is the appeal to the ineffable for answers to questions not otherwise answered.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

for some - the purpose is your eternal salvation

I think it’s an early attempt at building a metaphysical model of the universe

How do you feel about religion? — MountainDwarf

I feel exhausted by its pretense and doubly exhausted by the fact that most people cater to it on some level because of their emotions.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Religion is an emergent set of behaviors, beliefs, or rituals that first came about in the form of entertaining and question-answering stories told by shaman of forest and jungle dwelling great apes (animism). It invariably takes the form of metaphysical assumption or a fallacy of superstition, and it has become ubiquitous because humans really like to be entertained (we tend to like emotional roller coasters), and also because humans are very curious (so when someone has no grasp of science or the cosmos, they are very vulnerable to being persuaded by any compelling answer placed before them).

Religion's purpose, as such, is to service humans. It does so by making some of us happy, by keeping some of us in line, by giving some of us answers to existential questions, and by assisting with communal organization (in the past various religions have gotten out of control, so to speak, but presumably the secular post-enlightenment governments we have today limit religion for the better).

We interact with religion by participating in it, which is also how and why it changes and evolves.

Personally I prefer not to participate in religion (to not interact with it). I've found answers elsewhere, entertainment elsewhere, and moral foundations elsewhere too.

I think that far too many religious people fail to recognise where the real value in religion lies, and fail to treat it as it ought to be treated. It's real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal, unless it has truly earned its place there, which is open to debate.

What do you think religion's purpose is — MountainDwarf

To address the illusion of division which is a fundamental reality of the human condition.

how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

By finding those aspects of religion which one can personally put to constructive use in their own life, and then putting what one has found in to action.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. — praxis

Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.

But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together".

Ask not what is the purpose of religion, but what purpose each individual has in practising their religion. The answers will vary widely between individuals. — andrewk

Yes. That much I know. That's why I asked in such a way to get more individual responses.

Unfortunately, people motivated by the second set are often prevalent amongst those in power at the top echelons of organised religions. — andrewk

Quite a sad reality. We need more honest spiritual leaders.

Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification. — Grey Vs Gray

Alright. What level of interaction or devotion do you (all) express in regard to spirituality?

Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind. — praxis

So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people. — Relativist

I admire existentialism because it has a mystical feeling along with a feeling of simplicity of mission in life. Love people.

'“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves 'believers' because they accept metaphors as facts, and others who classify themselves as 'atheists' because they think religious metaphors are lies.” ~ Joseph Campbell — Wayfarer

So how does one interpret their faith if meanings are hidden? What are the metaphors symbols of?

Religion is the appeal to the ineffable for answers to questions not otherwise answered. — tim wood

As you can probably tell from my other recent thread, I am a skeptical theist. Nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines.

Religion's purpose, as such, is to service humans. — VagabondSpectre

What I gather from your post here is that is society's or the majority of humanity's purpose for religion and you're dissatisfied with that. I commend you if this is the case. I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham?

I think that far too many religious people fail to recognise where the real value in religion lies, and fail to treat it as it ought to be treated. It's real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal, unless it has truly earned its place there, which is open to debate. — S

So you're not militantly against religion, you just respect all paths?

To address the illusion of division which is a fundamental reality of the human condition. — Jake

The eastern ways are as old time itself. Brahman is in all and is all to that way of thinking. Are you Hindu?

I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham? — MountainDwarf

It's somewhere in between finding answers and sham.

Religion can give people personal reasons to go on living, and in it they can find community that can help them enjoy life. They're almost certainly not going to actually connect with some ultimate creator deity who will impart anything useful, but sometimes, for some people, the illusion of that is a worthwhile placebo.

I do not consider myself one of those people...

My fascination with the ouroboros began when I encountered it as the name of an informal fallacy ("a self defeating argument") and used it as a description for ideologies and worldviews which lead to the subversion of their own founding premises (notably, the brand of intersectional feminism which ultimately advocates for racist/sexist practices, thereby promoting the thing it set out to destroy). I have come to think of it as the ultimate fallacy of self-contradiction and circularity. Also it looks pretty cool...

I chose it as my avatar because it's an intriguing reminder of all things fallacious, but also because it has other interesting symbolism. If it was an unambiguously religious symbol, I would not have chosen it. If I recall correctly it mainly is a representation of creation and destruction, of cycles, of eternity, and of unity (depending on the specific cultural/religious conception/representation).

The eastern ways are as old time itself. Brahman is in all and is all to that way of thinking. Are you Hindu? — MountainDwarf

No, just logical. :smile:

So how does one interpret their faith if meanings are hidden? What are the metaphors symbols of? — MountainDwarf

If religions aren't symbolic, then what are they? Have you ever encountered a Carl Jung book called Man and his Symbols? They are symbolic expressions of all manner of existential and cultural meanings.

Relativist: “The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.”

MountainDwarf: “So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?”

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.

There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin.

Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspiring, or even merely satisfying.

Just sayin. — Rank Amateur

You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum. Paul, after all, was dismissive of philosophy; 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem'? I think what's interesting is 'what does it mean?' and 'how does it realise its goals'?

The point about mainstream Christianity is specifically to exclude those kinds of questions. It's 'believe and be saved'. Asking 'why' is a no-no. This doesn't mean that having such beliefs is wrong, or that the belief is wrong - but it's not particularly amenable to discussion.

thanks, just thought the actual stated purpose was worth a line, along with the various philosophical and psychological conjectures.

That was Tertullian, Paul debated philosophy in Athens. Though he thought that their poets were on to more than their philosophers were.

I know it was Tertullian, although the point stands. The relationship between Platonism and Christianity is actually very interesting; Origen, Clement and Philo, to mention a few. The problem is, they are very well-tilled fields of scholarship, and the texts are arcane, which makes studying them a bit daunting.

And there's a definite tension within Christianity itself between the influence of Platonism and the Gospels. I think that is why evangelical Protestantism has generally tended to reject the Greek influence in an attempt to return to a more purely Biblical stance.

Actually one web author whose works I have learned from is John Uebersax who has an excellent index here.

There is no God but Allah. Islam is the true religion, Allah is our Creator.

How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me.

People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here.

You said that Paul thought something, and then quoted someone else unattributed? Point being (seeing as Tertullian was versed in and influenced by stoicism) that Christianity is a revealed religion, and the ancient Greek philosophers and philosophies that Christian theologians thought to be in accord with Christian doctrine was explained by God having revealed something in part to them, rather than them being the influences or origins of Christian thought.

Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Religion's purpose is to educate and give people methods of expressing themselves to the benefit of the greater 'whole' (family, community, culture, etc) instead of just themselves. One accomplishes service by understanding what is necessary. Purpose is choice aligned to necessity (my take).

Religion as a principle may have a decent purpose and the teachings given by the pioneers of the various sects (especially the really big ones) may be intelligent, ethical and geared towards the individual's progress, however, of the current practitioners (leaders and followers alike) very few seem to understand the purpose of religion and consequently their interactions are flawed.

As an example,

'Archbishop' Gilbert Deya and his 'miracle' babies who developed in less than 9 months from conception to birth:

=> "He (Gilbert Deya) was ordained by the United Evangelical Church of Kenya and styles himself "Archbishop".[3] He was an evangelist in Kenya in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but moved to the UK, establishing Gilbert Deya Ministries in 1997. The ministry now[when?] has churches in Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Reading, and Manchester, Sheffield and in 2006 acquired a building and planning permission in Leeds.[4] The church claims to be 'the fastest growing Ministry in the UK and worldwide'."
"The Gilbert Deya Ministries claim that Deya's powers allow him to be able to cause infertile women to become pregnant. Mr Deya claims that "through the power of prayer and the Lord Jesus" he has helped sterile women give birth. In the UK, one woman is claimed to have had three children in less than a year. The women travelled to Kenya in order to 'give birth'."
"Ten children, none of whom had any genetic connection to the Deya family, were found at Mr Deya's House.[5] Twenty babies have been placed in foster care in Kenya after DNA tests showed they had no connection to their alleged mothers.[8] Rose Atieno Kiserem, a former pastor with Deya's ministry was jailed along with Mrs Deya. Upon her release from jail, Kiserem confessed that the 'miracle babies' were "a hoax created by the Deyas and their accomplices to deceive me and other God-fearing people."

"On 3 August 2017, Deya was extradited from the UK to Kenya to face child trafficking charges. He was immediately arraigned in court for child trafficking offences."

[Extracts from Gilbert Deya's Wikipedia Page]

The sad reality is that most of Deya's congregation chose to believe that the 'miracle-babies' were God's work. The sadder reality is that most religious people are expecting such kind of 'miracles' and, instead of investing their mental capacity to achieving greater reasoning abilities (to better be able to explore life for themselves), they wait and, most often, for a conman to take them for a ride. Worse, they believe it is worth their while in the journey towards 'eternal salvation'.

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. — Relativist

And it might also be good to consider whether what we perceive to be "other" actually exists. Well, consider as a first step, which may evolve in to experiencing the non-existence of "other".

Point being, there are different levels of religion. At one level there are the doctrines and moral teachings etc, at another level there are the experiences the doctrines and moral teachings are attempting to take us to.

Christian doctrine suggests that we "love our neighbor as ourselves". The bottom line goal of such a suggestion isn't just that we be "good", but that we experience a weakening of the boundary between ourselves and everything else. The experience is true religion, the rest of it often devolves in to the chanting of memorized slogans.

So you're not militantly against religion, you just respect all paths? — MountainDwarf

No. It might be right to say that, in some ways, I'm militantly against certain aspects of religion and certain interpretations of religion, in general, as well as of particular religions. I'm highly critical, yet I'll also give credit where credit's due.

And I don't respect all paths. Why would I? I respect only those paths which I judge to be deserving of respect. My point wasn't about equal treatment in terms of respect, but rather equal treatment in terms of how we should think about religion in comparison to philosophies. In other words, I'm against special treatment for religion. All religions, like all philosophies, have their pros and cons. Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions.

Or the folk hereabouts might just ignore you, since you have said nothing philosophically interesting.

Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions. — S

And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be.