Role of Religions

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I have written earlier about the role of religions and how they have succeeded in civilizing us over the millennia. Without religions we might never have become united into a global community and become humane, cooperative, charitable, loving and united.

The idea of a Universal Father, common to all humanity, has definitely resulted in a sense of universal brotherhood and kinship, in spite of all the linguistic, racial, geographical and political differences.

Religions may not seem very important today to some groups of people, but they have been largely responsible for uniting large groups of people in different continents, under common religious identities. This has subsequently resulted in tolerance and acceptance of other religious groups as well.   

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Rhiannon]

Sriram, your region is riven with religious conflict. And you know the history of this country, and Europe as a whole, when the Protestant form of Christianity emerged? A sectarianism that was still alive and torturing in the 1970s in NI and still casts a shadow.

Brotherhood of man? Only if you model your relationships on Cane and Abel.

(We could speculate on the fact there’s no sisterhood mentioned on your post, but why bother...)

[Sriram]

Sriram, your region is riven with religious conflict. And you know the history of this country, and Europe as a whole, when the Protestant form of Christianity emerged? A sectarianism that was still alive and torturing in the 1970s in NI and still casts a shadow.

Brotherhood of man? Only if you model your relationships on Cane and Abel.

(We could speculate on the fact there’s no sisterhood mentioned on your post, but why bother...)

The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!   

 

[ProfessorDavey]

The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians

Tell the people of Northern Ireland that.

... 1.5 billion as muslims ...

So no animosity between Sunni and Shia - strange because I thought that many of the conflicts raging in the middle east over recent years have, at their heart, conflict between Sunni and Shia.

And that is just conflicts within religions. Once we start to talk about conflict between religions the list is pretty well endless.

[SusanDoris]

The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!

/"united"? that is such an appallingly  wrong statement that I am quite shocked, even though nothing much shocks me.

I was listening to some of Radio 4's Sunday programme this morning, and the behaviour of so many religious people, because of a personal perversion and who are supposed to believe in God is sickening. How any senior member of any religious faith can say that any god is real or has any existence outside of the human imagination is almost impossible to credit.

[wigginhall]

I don't see how one can say that religions have done anything so grandiose.  How would we know?   By guessing?

[Maeght]

The fact that 2 billion people around the world are united as Christians, 1.5 billion as muslims , 1 billion as Hindus....regardless of their language, race, location....does not seem important to you?!

As others have said, just because people are Christians, Muslims etc doesn't mean they are united.

[Enki]

Sriram,

You are welcome to your rather idealistic notions that religion is such a unifying influence, but I suggest that the facts do not seem to bear this out. It is worth looking, for instance, at this series of graphs by Max Roser:

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace


and, especially the third graph which shows the percentage of years when the 'Great Powers' fought one another, from 1500-2015.

Now no one is saying that these wars were religious wars necessarily, or even that religion was a major component part, but, in much of this time period, religion was hugely more important than it is now. So, as a backcloth to these wars, it didn't quite seem the tolerant and unifying force you seem to suggest.

[Sriram]

I don't think anyone of you is getting the point at all.

Just imagine how communities were, say, two or three thousand years ago.  People largely lived in tribal communities, isolated from one another and usually  at war with one another.  There were probably thousands, if not millions  of such communities all over the world.

What unity was possible between say a village in Africa, a community in Asia and another in Europe?  The only uniting factor was religion. What unites people even today,  in such a large and diverse country like India? It is religion. 

Geography is too limited a factor. So are race and language. What is it that transcends all these limitations to create a sense of kinship? It is religion. Religion was the only 'notional' factor or belief that brought a link, a bond to very different groups of people around the world.

Its a different matter that they manage to fight between themselves sometimes, which according to me is neither here nor there.  Without religions, there would be millions more fighting among themselves. Millions would have never united in the first place.

Today, broadly between 5 billion people out of the 7 billion, we have just about 4 religions. This is a very significant unifying factor. 

Besides this unity, religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people. Without religions not just unity but also the concepts of cooperation, truthfulness, mutual respect, self control, fidelity and so on would not have arisen and been enforced.

Religions have been largely responsible for any kind of social order, law and self discipline.  Religions without doubt, have been the single civilizing factor in the word over thousands of years.

The fact that some religious groups fight among themselves is besides the point.  What the situation would be without them is the point.

[Nearly Sane]

Religion is a manifestation of us as social beings. As such it shows the best and the worst of humanity. It is both uniting and divisive, creates caring and hate, is a joy and a scourge.

[Maeght]

I don't think anyone of you is getting the point at all.

Just imagine how communities were, say, two or three thousand years ago.  People largely lived in tribal communities, isolated from one another and usually  at war with one another.  There were probably thousands, if not millions  of such communities all over the world.

What unity was possible between say a village in Africa, a community in Asia and another in Europe?  The only uniting factor was religion. What unites people even today,  in such a large and diverse country like India? It is religion. 

Geography is too limited a factor. So are race and language. What is it that transcends all these limitations to create a sense of kinship? It is religion. Religion was the only 'notional' factor or belief that brought a link, a bond to very different groups of people around the world.

Its a different matter that they manage to fight between themselves sometimes, which according to me is neither here nor there.  Without religions, there would be millions more fighting among themselves. Millions would have never united in the first place.

Today, broadly between 5 billion people out of the 7 billion, we have just about 4 religions. This is a very significant unifying factor. 

Besides this unity, religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people. Without religions not just unity but also the concepts of cooperation, truthfulness, mutual respect, self control, fidelity and so on would not have arisen and been enforced.

Religions have been largely responsible for any kind of social order, law and self discipline.  Religions without doubt, have been the single civilizing factor in the word over thousands of years.

The fact that some religious groups fight among themselves is besides the point.  What the situation would be without them is the point.

Or religions are a result of the formation of civilised society.

[ippy]

You have said in your post the following:

"religions have also been largely responsible for the humane qualities that we associate with civilized people".


I know that GB was far from blameless but putting that to one side for the purposes of an example of how the various religions believe in team work between each other Sriram, what about the example of your partition over there in India.

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

You say that there are differences between the 1 billion Hindus and the 150 million Muslims. Maybe so. 

But do you realize that 1 billion people spread across thousands of miles with different languages, racial groups, lifestyles, cuisine and so on...consider themselves as one group, Hindus......and likewise the 150 million people consider themselves as one group, Muslims....is a remarkable phenomenon in itself?!  That is what I am talking about.

[Maeght]

Are you just making an observation or drawing a conclusion based on it?

[Sebastian Toe]

You say that there are differences between the 1 billion Hindus and the 150 million Muslims. Maybe so. 

But do you realize that 1 billion people spread across thousands of miles with different languages, racial groups, lifestyles, cuisine and so on...consider themselves as one group, Hindus......and likewise the 150 million people consider themselves as one group, Muslims....is a remarkable phenomenon in itself?!  That is what I am talking about.

Do they all considere themselves as Indian?  Because that is the biggest group if all.
Just saying....

[Sriram]

Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries.  Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable.  Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.

But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.

Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned  areas cannot be denied.  We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.

[torridon]

Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries.  Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable.  Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.

But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.

Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned  areas cannot be denied.  We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.

I'm not sure that 'loyalty' correlates with 'civilised'.  Loyalty derives from tribal instincts.  Maybe people who can see and think outwith the bounds of their cultural origins are the more civilised.

[Sriram]

I'm not sure that 'loyalty' correlates with 'civilised'.  Loyalty derives from tribal instincts.  Maybe people who can see and think outwith the bounds of their cultural origins are the more civilised.

I am not correlating loyalty with being civilized. Where did you get that from?!

But loyalty is certainly a part of civilized behavior. Why are you dismissing it as just a tribal instinct?

I am saying that all our 'civilized' traits have been taught and enforced by religions over the centuries. Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence.

[torridon]

I am not correlating loyalty with being civilized. Where did you get that from?!

But loyalty is certainly a part of civilized behavior. Why are you dismissing it as just a tribal instinct?

I am saying that all our 'civilized' traits have been taught and enforced by religions over the centuries. Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence.

I don't think loyalty is inherently virtuous.  It depends on what you are being loyal  to.  It derives from our tendency to form groups, in groups and out groups, us and them.  Loyalty facilitates things within a group, but it creates division between rival groups that would not be there but for in-group loyalty.  Religions give us one more set of fault lines that separate us.

As for "Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence" I think that is somewhat over the top.  There are other civilising factors at play, commerce and trade, for example; the agricultural revolution leading to peoples living in villages rather than in tribes; curiosity, leading to early forms of science and the democratisation of knowledge, some of which was actively opposed by institutional religion.

[ippy]

Five billion people live in probably more than 100 countries.  Peoples loyalty to their countries is also questionable.  Most people will run away to America for a few dollars.

But there are only four religions for five billion people, and most people will not leave their religion as easily as they leave their countries.

Religions are an extraordinary phenomenon. Dismissing them as irrational is fine...but their role in the above mentioned  areas cannot be denied.  We would not be the civilized world that we are (largely) but for religions.

I thought your there was something wrong when you more or less indicated that Indian religions are all living side by side peacefully, and thought I'm sure we hear via the media something or other about religion based riots taking place in India frequently and there always seems to be large numbers of people being killed in the process every time they take place.

Anyway I thought I'd consult Mr Google I've now done that Sriram and it seem there is an endless stream of religion based riots going on all over the place in your beloved country, more or less all of the time, so many I don't need to list them, so much for differing faiths getting along with each other as you have inferred in previous posts of yours, I wouldn't want to put this regrettable continual riotous behaviour that India suffers at the top of a list of things that would define the various parts of a civilised society

Regards ippy
 

[Sriram]

I don't think loyalty is inherently virtuous.  It depends on what you are being loyal  to.  It derives from our tendency to form groups, in groups and out groups, us and them.  Loyalty facilitates things within a group, but it creates division between rival groups that would not be there but for in-group loyalty.  Religions give us one more set of fault lines that separate us.

As for "Without religions we all might still be disparate tribes leading near animal like existence" I think that is somewhat over the top.  There are other civilising factors at play, commerce and trade, for example; the agricultural revolution leading to peoples living in villages rather than in tribes; curiosity, leading to early forms of science and the democratisation of knowledge, some of which was actively opposed by institutional religion.

There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty. 

You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups.  Thereby you are saying that everyone should be floating around in mid ground somewhere never gravitating towards any group...and this according to you, is somehow a sign of 'unity' with all groups.      

I am saying that loyalty encourages unity....which is obvious.  Loyalty towards any group is a good thing. Loyalty is basically a good personal quality as well because it goes against ego centrism.

IMO, if 5 billion people world wide are loyal and committed to just 4 religions, that is a really good sign of unity among otherwise diverse groups. This is not possible through any other means.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty. 

You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups.

History tells us exactly that though.

Through the ages war after war has, at its heart, tribal loyalty to one group and therefore animosity toward another. The kind of we are right, therefore they are wrong attitude. And that slavish (and deadly) loyalty to 'the cause' isn't just associated with religion (although it is a major force for conflict down the years) but also nationalism and loyalty to political ideologies.

So no, I don't think that loyalty towards a massive group most of which the individual has never met, is a particularly admirable trait. On the other hand respect, and particularly respect for those who aren't from your religion/nationality/political ideology is an admirable trait, but one that is almost diametrically opposed to the kind of tribal loyalty toward millions of people just by virtue that they are the same religion or nationality etc.

The problem with 'tribal' loyalty (regardless of whether that 'tribe' is defined by religion, nationality or political ideology) is that is fosters lack of respect for those that aren't in your 'tribe' and vice versa for people in a different 'tribe'.

[torridon]

There is an inherent contradiction in your statement about loyalty. 

You are saying that loyalty breeds disunity with other groups.  Thereby you are saying that everyone should be floating around in mid ground somewhere never gravitating towards any group...and this according to you, is somehow a sign of 'unity' with all groups.      

I am saying that loyalty encourages unity....which is obvious.  Loyalty towards any group is a good thing. Loyalty is basically a good personal quality as well because it goes against ego centrism.

IMO, if 5 billion people world wide are loyal and committed to just 4 religions, that is a really good sign of unity among otherwise diverse groups. This is not possible through any other means.

A small number of large groupings sets the stage for conflict, as in the 'clash of civilisations'. The politics of identity is crude and it is fuelled by loyalty, loyalty to nation states, loyalty to ethnic groupings, to skin colour, to religion and so on.  In a shrinking world it is a better citizen who can see past the closely defined identities of race and religion and nationality and cultivate an identity of being a global citizen, a human being first and foremost, not a muslim or hindu or christian. In so far as loyalty to our narrow identities inhibits our growing global awareness, loyalty is not a good thing, it is something we need to overcome in order to grow.

[Sriram]

Loyalty arises from a sense of belonging and bonding. This sense of belonging grows and expands over several generations.  It does not happen in one generation. From a tiny village in Africa, a persons sense of belonging cannot grow towards a world community all of a sudden. That is the point I am making, in fact. Please read the link in the OP.

It is religion alone that has made such a sense of kinship possible far removed from ones immediate surroundings or racial or linguistic group.

A global awareness has been made possible today precisely because of this build up of unity and bonding that religion has been able to foster.  Without religions people would never have  developed a kinship with people outside their village or immediate environment. 

The groupings (4 religions) that we see today would have been unimaginable 1000 years ago.  This could further narrow down in coming generations no doubt and maybe we will have just two major religious groups. Maybe this will narrow down to just one group in the future as I have mentioned in the link.

You are seeing only the minor differences and skirmishes between religions today. You aren't seeing the major unifying changes that have happened over the millennia.

[ippy]

Loyalty arises from a sense of belonging and bonding. This sense of belonging grows and expands over several generations.  It does not happen in one generation. From a tiny village in Africa, a persons sense of belonging cannot grow towards a world community all of a sudden. That is the point I am making, in fact. Please read the link in the OP.

It is religion alone that has made such a sense of kinship possible far removed from ones immediate surroundings or racial or linguistic group.

A global awareness has been made possible today precisely because of this build up of unity and bonding that religion has been able to foster.  Without religions people would never have  developed a kinship with people outside their village or immediate environment. 

The groupings (4 religions) that we see today would have been unimaginable 1000 years ago.  This could further narrow down in coming generations no doubt and maybe we will have just two major religious groups. Maybe this will narrow down to just one group in the future as I have mentioned in the link.

You are seeing only the minor differences and skirmishes between religions today. You aren't seeing the major unifying changes that have happened over the millennia.

Have you noticed Sriram, that lately the mostly non-religious nations seem to be getting along swimmingly, other than some interlopers from where we call it the Middle East, with the odd bomb or two plus flying planes into buildings.

Mind you, given time non-religious people will continue to not keep on killing each other, unlike_____

Dream on Sriram.

Regards ippy.