tales is silly at best.

Humans are, after all, pretty silly creatures.

Calling theism, something that the vast majority of humans associate with, defines the vast majority of humans as silly.

to be wrong about many things. The vast majority of humans are silly about many things.

And if so, when?

I believed in ghosts and UFOs and God.

At one time I thought Bill Cosby was a great guy and Lance Armstrong a great champion.

For some reason, those 2 names sound familiar.

that there was no way enough Americans would be dumb enough to support Donald Trump to make it a close election.

Wrong about that too.

Never underestimate the ability of the uninformed voter to make bad choices.

He sure does assume a lot. I'm sure he's happy that his world is just the way he wants it.

Some prefer to filter the world through their own cognitive biases.

The same mistake other sociologists make because they want to.

People get together in social groups because that's what people do. Just because they get together in their religious clubs doesn't prove God's existence. The local Star Wars club doesn't prove the existence of Yoda.

Religious sociologists of his stripe start with a conclusion and then try to justify it with anecdotal evidence.

that you are mistaken?

This article deals with the "why" of religion, not the proof that religious feeling is provable or correct.

People band together because it is a literal necessity for mental and physical health.

...if he hadn't died over a hundred years ago.

All arguments about the validity of deities aside, the forms of worship are entreaties, give me something, or take away something. The foundations of religion are answers to the “why” of how things are. When people group together, there is always, first, greater safety.

I’m a feminist so there is something in every single patriarchal religion that I find off putting, offensive, or terrifying. A better question to me is “Why, once we organize into tribes, groups, nations and other group, do we so quickly find enemies within and without?

My favorite quote from Sci-fi author Octavia Butler from one of her books is this one, and in her book, dooms mankind

My view on tribalism is that a tribe defines "the other" as non members of the tribe. In the interest of social cohesion, there must be an "us" and an "other".

Tribalism is also seen among primates. Perhaps it is because tribalism is the figurative air that we breath.

And dominance is, in my view, a part of that tribalism.

When two chimpanzee groups encounter each other, they go to war. When two bonobo groups encounter each other, they make love. Humans seem to do one or the other, depending on the situation.

What is a tribe but an "us"?

At the most basic level, a family group is a tribe. Humans do not personally relate to all humans.

There are different types of human tribes and different types of human interactions. It's a lot more complicated and varied than a simple "us" vs. "them."

but the foundation is "us" versus "them".

Here is a pretty good review by another author

https://www.tor.com/2018/01/18/starting-with-the-womb-octavia-e-butlers-dawn/

I also think, and there is some evidence for this, that humans survived and thrived because of cooperation, in small family groups at first of course. We may have survived because of altruism — how did such a characteristic become not only entrenched, but admired?

is self-interest.

Thank you for the name. I will look for the book.

Organization entails heirarchy, yes. Religious leaders no doubt realize they owe their wealth and power to the widespread belief that what they say is true; that if people start believing something else, they will lose that wealth and power.

But what those who don't materially profit from such organization? They are no less vociferous in their defense of the heirarchy than those at the top. In fact, the system is usually more detremental to them than beneficial, and they're usually the ones to "defend" the heirarchy with violence and atrocity. Look to the Peasant's Crusade of 1096 for a textbook example.

Does organization HAVE to entail hierarchy? In her books, the aliens do not a a hierarchical culture but one of biological assimilation, obviously not something humans can do.

It’s can be an uncomfortable thought, actually, to NOT have the hierarchical standards we are used to. We seem to want a parent, or a boss, or an authority figure. Religion fits this role to a tee, and every religion has some sort of hierarchy, even the ones that claim they don’t.

Too often Revolution has stirred its..proletariat, if you will, and it’s impoverished among the people, manipulated them in order for reward. Not that true grassroots rebellion is any different.

The fights between Protestant and Catholics come to mind though. So much death and destruction.

Another sci-if author I adore is Roger Zelanzy, in his book “Lord of Light”—in this he creates Gods (based on Hindu mythology) that were once people, who deliberately keep humans technologically primitive, and so, easier to manipulate

together, or would we do better to learn how to face the truth and come to terms with reality?

Please link to the post.

Personally, I don't care about religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with people's lives who don't follow it. What anyone believes with regard to such things is completely irrelevant. It is only actions that matter. Actions that attempt to impose religions beliefs on others are wrong. Such actions deny the individual right to believe whatever that individual believes regarding such things. Sadly, such actions are all too common in our society, so there's a need to point that out often.

I don't think there is anyone in this Group who wants to "eradicate religion." I think you have created a strawman to use in your argument.

You have posted a very brief quote from some theologian. Apparently, you think it has some significance. I think Durkheim gets the basic point wrong, but am not going to write an argument against that point of view today. I will simply say that religion reflects society, rather than the other way around. That is my understanding, after studying it for many years.

But, your strawman does not convince. I have not met such a person.

here who advocates the eradication of religion. Now, it's possible that someone might have done that at some point, but I can't remember such a thing.

Maybe our fellow Religion Group subscriber has simply thought he saw someone write something like that, or has projected that onto someone here. Still, it's an incautious thing to say, since it's not accurate.

I have a certain sympathy toward that poster. I see grasping at straws (or strawmen) as an act of quiet desperation. When faith is challenged in one's own mind, it can be frightening in some ways.

Surely you have noticed that.

Self-reflection can be a good thing, but self-awareness is required for it.

Agreed?

ignoring your instructions to me.

religion is a net plus or net negative for human society?

Does any of that show any support for the premise of any religion.

And if there is no basis for the religion, what does that say about the time and effort people put into it. Not to mention the actions taken on it's behalf.

And both sides will insist that the other is incorrect.

about the basis of these religions? ie the deities?

You have provided NONE. So far, it's a FALSE SMEAR.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

Is lying a Christian value?

Not many see tribalism as a good thing.

And its larger equivalent, the tribe?

and that it's incorrect to say that eliminating one entity means eliminating all entities that have a bit of similarity to it.

Indeed, most of humanity doesn't live in tribes any more. Better communication and history-keeping enables different ways of living. Democracies, for instance.

Nationalism is another thing that's dangerous.

By an amazing coincidence, I was wondering if to post these Peter Gabriel lyrics, when my shuffling music chose it anyway, so I will:

Not One Of Us

It's only water
In a stranger's tear
Looks are deceptive
But distinctions are clear
A foreign body
And a foreign mind
Never welcome
In the land of the blind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is
You're not one of us
...
There's safety in numbers
When you learn to divide
How can we be in
If there is no outside
All shades of opinion
Feed an open mind
But your values are twisted
Let us help you unwind

And John Lennon's Imagine made a similar point.

But getting from here to there requires...... what?

and which use supernatural promises, rather than reality, to justify their influence?

My view is that this goal requires a basic restructuring of human behavior.

History is real. It may be imperfectly known, but that's better than "totally made up". The history of a nation can be used to judge it - what's worth continuing, what should change.

Human behaviour does change. We respond to our environment.

And if humans are still behaving as they did 5,000 years ago, that shows the difficulty facing us.