I tend to view religion through a functionalist lens. Historically, religion served as a way to codify successful behaviors before we had the empirical tools to understand why those behaviors worked. Take the prohibition of pork in Abrahamic traditions for example. In the Bronze Age, there was no germ theory or concept of parasites like trichinosis. You could not explain to a population why eating undercooked pork might kill them, so the survival heuristic got wrapped in metaphysics. It became a rule not to eat it because it is forbidden by God rather than because of biology. It was an epistemological shortcut that encoded necessary knowledge into custom because the science was unavailable to explain the mechanism.
Beyond just physical survival, religion also serves a structural function by creating social cohesion. In feudal and capitalist structures, the economic engine does not inherently unite people. Capitalism in particular is fundamentally individualistic. It atomizes society by reducing the human experience to individual ambition and competition. The society risks fragmentation when the system is atomizes people into isolated units. An external cohesive force is needed to act as social glue for people to have a collective identity. Religion provides that external superstructure by offering a common worldview and shared narrative that allows people to transcend the self. It acts as an artificial collective because the economic system refuses to provide a real one.
On the other hand, a socialist society does not require a crutch like religious to function. Socialism provides an inherent collective purpose that unites people toward a common goal. The idea of collective ownership and democratic control over the economy allows people to see themselves as part of a material whole. If a society is truly united by a common material goal, the external glue of religion becomes redundant. You no longer need a divine mandate to bind people together because the social relations of production are doing that work automatically. At the same time, material dialectics allow us to understand the world directly without needing to hide knowledge inside arcane traditions.
The main reason that I go to church is so that I can socialize with others; most of my experiences with other suburbanites have been extremely negative, so I don’t seek them for social interaction anymore.
In contrast, the Presbyterians whom I know are much friendlier and more hospitable, but they are under the impression that I am a monotheist, albeit a pessimistic one who believes that G-d merely puts up with me and won’t answers my prayers because I’ll probably just get stuck in a very long waiting list. (My current waiting time is between ten to fifteen years.)
At least you have the presbys! I’m surrounded by southern Baptist and Baptist, the main difference being the skin tone of attendees. But I’ll attend Baptist first, and they’re good people, but most ignore the bigger rules (the big 10) in favor of the small ones, lol. I blame capitalism, epigenetics, memes (in the Dawkins/Blackmore sense) and multigenerational trauma.
A side note here, I’ve been reading up on Jung’s troubled history, and I see why he’s problemati; and I think he was onto something about the collective unconscious and religious archetypes because of memes, multigenerational trauma (religious and other abuse where religion excuses or justifies it, “spoil the rod, spare the child, etc,” “wives obey your husbands,” etc). So the opiate of the masses may need weaning, rather than sudden withdrawal, and that’s doable. But I still don’t want to live in a world where there are no Raphael’s cherubs, Da Vinci’s Vetruvian man, or Handle’s Messiah. I think they can be explained easily by pointing out the primitive understanding of psychological archetypes, just as artwork and tales of the other myths, such as Medusa being punished for her own brutal rape, which wasn’t her fault, but also ended up protecting her from other unscrupulous men who would have abused or conned her. But I also think that would go hard -in- hand with: but now we’ve mostly eliminated conditions that caused such behaviors, and have medicine, therapy, and supervision, or humane segregation for the mind that can not be successfully rehabilitated, otherwise.
I tend to view religion through a functionalist lens. Historically, religion served as a way to codify successful behaviors before we had the empirical tools to understand why those behaviors worked. Take the prohibition of pork in Abrahamic traditions for example. In the Bronze Age, there was no germ theory or concept of parasites like trichinosis. You could not explain to a population why eating undercooked pork might kill them, so the survival heuristic got wrapped in metaphysics. It became a rule not to eat it because it is forbidden by God rather than because of biology. It was an epistemological shortcut that encoded necessary knowledge into custom because the science was unavailable to explain the mechanism.
Beyond just physical survival, religion also serves a structural function by creating social cohesion. In feudal and capitalist structures, the economic engine does not inherently unite people. Capitalism in particular is fundamentally individualistic. It atomizes society by reducing the human experience to individual ambition and competition. The society risks fragmentation when the system is atomizes people into isolated units. An external cohesive force is needed to act as social glue for people to have a collective identity. Religion provides that external superstructure by offering a common worldview and shared narrative that allows people to transcend the self. It acts as an artificial collective because the economic system refuses to provide a real one.
On the other hand, a socialist society does not require a crutch like religious to function. Socialism provides an inherent collective purpose that unites people toward a common goal. The idea of collective ownership and democratic control over the economy allows people to see themselves as part of a material whole. If a society is truly united by a common material goal, the external glue of religion becomes redundant. You no longer need a divine mandate to bind people together because the social relations of production are doing that work automatically. At the same time, material dialectics allow us to understand the world directly without needing to hide knowledge inside arcane traditions.
The main reason that I go to church is so that I can socialize with others; most of my experiences with other suburbanites have been extremely negative, so I don’t seek them for social interaction anymore.
In contrast, the Presbyterians whom I know are much friendlier and more hospitable, but they are under the impression that I am a monotheist, albeit a pessimistic one who believes that G-d merely puts up with me and won’t answers my prayers because I’ll probably just get stuck in a very long waiting list. (My current waiting time is between ten to fifteen years.)
Right, it’s one of the few places left that are communal and aren’t trying to monetize you.
At least you have the presbys! I’m surrounded by southern Baptist and Baptist, the main difference being the skin tone of attendees. But I’ll attend Baptist first, and they’re good people, but most ignore the bigger rules (the big 10) in favor of the small ones, lol. I blame capitalism, epigenetics, memes (in the Dawkins/Blackmore sense) and multigenerational trauma.
A side note here, I’ve been reading up on Jung’s troubled history, and I see why he’s problemati; and I think he was onto something about the collective unconscious and religious archetypes because of memes, multigenerational trauma (religious and other abuse where religion excuses or justifies it, “spoil the rod, spare the child, etc,” “wives obey your husbands,” etc). So the opiate of the masses may need weaning, rather than sudden withdrawal, and that’s doable. But I still don’t want to live in a world where there are no Raphael’s cherubs, Da Vinci’s Vetruvian man, or Handle’s Messiah. I think they can be explained easily by pointing out the primitive understanding of psychological archetypes, just as artwork and tales of the other myths, such as Medusa being punished for her own brutal rape, which wasn’t her fault, but also ended up protecting her from other unscrupulous men who would have abused or conned her. But I also think that would go hard -in- hand with: but now we’ve mostly eliminated conditions that caused such behaviors, and have medicine, therapy, and supervision, or humane segregation for the mind that can not be successfully rehabilitated, otherwise.
I’ve been thinking along those lines as well. I can go to local church but it gets wearisome after a minute. Also they’re garrulous af.