• Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, and also: one need not be a ‘believer’ to perceive, comprehend, and accept the utility functions that religious behaviors have accommodated (albeit inefficiently and with a significant amount of superfluous baggage) throughout history and within the human psyche.

    As a tribal species, we function better when we have some kind of overarching organizational structure to inform individuals of their own (psychological and social) position relative to the community to which they belong, so as to better focus individual efforts toward cooperative goals. It’s the heart of skill specialization that enabled us to become more than generalist hunter-gatherers, after all! Some kinds of cult-shaped collective gestalt entities will always emerge whenever the constituent humans of a community begin to specialize their expertise.

    One of the elements that separate us from our ancestors is that we have an opportunity to synthesize an organizing system that features fewer of the maladaptive, exploitative, abusive traits of naturally arising cult entities.

    (and by ‘cult’ I don’t just mean religious - I also mean political, commercial, and recreational memetic entities too! Even fandoms are an example of this phenomenon!)

    • dsco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you’re right if talking about heroin, but religion can calcify a worldview that is not representative of objective reality. Maybe 1000 years ago its pros outweighed its cons, but we should not make any room in this world for other-ness, and especially not things like genital mutilation and child marriage.

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, yeah, you’re right that the present paradigm has outlived its usefulness, for sure.

        But like any technology, not everybody has access to the latest developments.

        It’s unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that there are many places on earth where people have no other means of social support than the meager and dubious amenities provided by religious orders.

        I’m sure there are those who might successfully litigate the argument that having no hospital at all could be construed as somehow better than having a hospital founded via religious means, and the imperialistic, colonizing aspects of missionary work, which directly damage cultures and societies on a generational scale, may indeed have caused more harm than the acute disease and occurrences of injury which they can treat on an individual basis - but that’s not an argument I would personally back.

        The corrupting mimetic contagion of religiosity can be inoculated-against while a society continues to benefit from the medical or nutritional support… although only if the society in question either learns how on its own, or is taught. Like most things in life, not quite so simply cut-and-dried, alas.