We’ve read some great posts on various aspects of the Impossibility of God versus No God. The result has always been a theological bun fight of my God says this vs. my God says the other.

“According to David Barrett and team, there are 19 major world religious groupings in the world which are subdivided into a total of about 10,000 distinct religions. Of the latter, there were 270 religions and para-religions which had over a half million adherents in the year 2000 CE. Within Christianity, they have identified 34,000 separate groups (denominations, sects, individual unaffiliated churches, para-church groups, etc) in the world.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

Given this volume of religions, multiplied by the number of different theological interpretations, there is small wonder that neither side can appreciate the perspectives of the other through such astronomical permutations.

I am less interested in the theologies of 10,000 religions than I am in trying to understand why we, as a sapient species, need institutionalized religions?

Spirituality, in the form of “knowledge of self” I can readily understand because our need is self evident, we have created 10,000 religions in the hope that these might help us understand self. Many might say that their needs have been met by their religion, but what are those needs?

Which brings me to the challenge; as they say in the movie, “Your mission, should you chose to accept it” is to explain why our species needs institutionalized religions?

By posing the question this way, we should be able to debate the topic without any reference to any particular religion, no hurling sacred texts at each other, therefore no theology, just a simple reason for the human “need”.

Is anyone up for this?

I don't know that societies need institutionalised religion, but many individuals in a society feel that they need organisations and groups to affirm things that, in the absence of evidence, they would like to be true.

As a child I was aware that things depicted in cartoons, such as Superman flying unaided, were mostly impossible. But I dearly wanted to believe them, so I simply rationalised and inserted my own ideas about why it might be possible.

Religious institutions serve the same purpose. But instead of giving kids license to indulge in fantasies of flying aliens, they allow adults to soothe their fear of death and the anxiety of living in an uncertain world by believeing that complex issues are actually quite simple, that god is looking after them, and that they need only follow a few simple, if bizarre, rules to gain admittance to paradise after they die.

Hello spindoc (Charlie) , this is foxy...

Emile Durkheim, was one of the first sociologists
who according to Ian Robertson, in his text,
"Sociology," tells us and I quote, "...Durkeim was
impressed by the fact that religion is universal
in human society, and he wondered why this should be so.
His answer was that religion has a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole..."

In other words Durkheim believed that, "the origins of
religion were social, not supernatural."
He believed that:

"The rituals enacted in any religion enhance the
solidarity of the community, as well as its faith."

For example:

If you take religious rituals such as Baptism,
Bar Mitzvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christmas Mass,
and even funerals. These rituals all bring people
together; they remind people of the group to which
they belong, they re-affirm their traditional values,
they maintain prohibitions and taboos, and they offer
comfort in times of crisis; and in general they help
pass on the cultural heritage from one generation to
another.

Robertson tells us, "Durkheim argued that, shared
religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them are so
important that every society needs a religion, or at least
some belief system that serves the same functions."

I hope this answers your question.

Spindoc, it's an interesting thread that you've started
here. I'll be very interested to read other takes on this
subject.

Thanks Foxy, good feedback, a long time since I read Durkheim so I revisited his works on the sociological issues of religion, found a great quote in one of his texts. In relation to religion he observed that “consensus, even for the purpose of study, is rarely, if ever achieved”. What incredible insight for the late 1800’s. Poor Emile could never have known that such an explosion in the number of religions might have occurred in the last 200 years.

What is interesting, but not very surprising, is that we have recently seen an incredible outpouring on OLO, on several threads related to the impossibility of various faiths and beliefs, of the “what, where, when and how” of religions. However, when the most powerful question of all is asked, “WHY”, all the previous contributors go into “screen saver mode”.

Is there anybody amongst the very vocal, theological, pro-religion/God OLO’s that can explain why they need their faiths? Where are they now the question has been asked?

What conclusions might we draw from the fact that the question has so many, completely and utterly “stumped”?

I would have thought that such issues as why religion adds value, how that value manifests itself, and perhaps, just perhaps, why religious fervor is so exposed to manipulation and control, might be addressed. Are we to conclude that those who have previously expressed “extreme” justification of their faiths through theology, are not capable, or have not considered why they need institutionalized religion in the first place?

Might I say that the silence is deafening.

Foxy, you are so one the money when you say, “it's an interesting thread that you've started here. I'll be very interested to read other takes on this subject.” I too am interested but don’t hold your breath, there are no other takes. As the Aussie tourism advertisement goes, “where the bloody hell are they”? So vocal one minute, so gone the next.

As at 7.14pm, Thursday, March 5, 2009, the score is: Foxy, Sancho, Spindoc and Emile Durkheim X4, the rest “ZERO”.

Well done Charlie’s Angels.

Yes, I can remember the tribal nature of being a Catholic as a child. It was a way of belonging, not only as a member of a larger family than my own but of an institution that went back 2000 years and the feeling that through our baptism and the sacraments we were people who strived to stay in a state of grace to be better than others.Now looking back it was comforting and the ethics of Christianity were ingrained and they are still the main guide to situations in my life.The habits instilled like confession and communion were followed until my early thirties, gradually as I gained more confidence in my own ability to distinguish right from wrong and an awareness that any rule can be and should be broken having consideration to the intrinsic features of individual circumstances, I have become a lapsed Catholic.Now I feel sorry for those right wing fundmentalist Christians or any faith on the planet that was "brainwashed".