Imagine the world, thousands of years ago when rainforests still covered most of South America, when oil reserves remained untouched, when subsistence farming maintained your standard of living and not corporate profits; life was a harsh, but simpler existence. Imagine an individual (let us call him Fred); his brain is as complex as the human brain today, and it is curious about the wonders that surround him.
Suppose Fred were to question how the world works; why he is able to walk without falling over? why it rains sometimes and not others? He observes that the land is level as far as he can see and reasonably concludes the world is flat, and that is why he can walk without falling. However, he cannot understand why rainfall is inconsistant, because his senses and knowledge (or lack thereof) prohibit him from identifying a terrestrial cause.
Would it be unreasonable then, for him to take a leap of faith? To believe that the cause is something he cannot comprehend? And that something to be a superbeing; a god. Fred tells his community about his beliefs and they agree, feeling the need to belong and seeing no viable alternative. Remember, consensus is an inaccurate measure of truth.
Now imagine this scenario played out over and over, in a different location isolated from the first, with a different race of people, in a different period of history, with a different Fred. Essentially, each community, faced with the same cunundrum of how does the world work, "finds god" and creates a religion to explain everything that they do not understand. The solution is fundamentally identical yet entirely different because inevitably, the finer details will vary.
This explains why there are so many different religions in the world; they are individually the easy answer to everything for a particular group of people. So could any religion be the correct answer? And failing that, is religion a "good" answer? The former is entirely possible, but highly improbable. Even if we treat the existence of a superbeing as given, there are so many variables to consider, that the possible accuracy of any one religion is infinitely minute.
The latter question is a far more complex and inconclusive affair. If we define "good" as "relatively productive for society", then religious behaviour brings various positives and negatives. Many people readily accept religion for reasons beyond lack of understanding; primarily, it offers comfort in the form of social acceptence by at least a proportion of their peers, and it offers hope. These factors serve to increase private happiness and a happy person is more likely to be a productive person. Undeniably, religions have ecouraged integration both within and across demographics.
However, there is damning historical evidence that supports the exact opposite. The Christian Crusades, the Holocaust and the current Middle East Crisis all testify to the horrors when one sect acts upon their differences to another. This is reflective of inate defensive human behaviour and explains why there are not more religions; some communities were converted, others destroyed/died out and sometimes, similar ideas merged. Therefore, on a local scale (only one exists), religion is productive for society, but on a global scale (with more than one), it has proven to be destructive.
So what conclusions can we now draw about religion? It is certainly an easy option for a substantial proportion of the global population, as an answer to any question that people do not understand or know. There is virtually zero probability of any one religion being correct, and all of them are likely to be rubbish. This does not mean that they are "bad" for society. Indeed, if people can only set aside their differences, religion would benefit not only the religious, but everyone.
Suppose Fred were to question how the world works; why he is able to walk without falling over? why it rains sometimes and not others? He observes that the land is level as far as he can see and reasonably concludes the world is flat, and that is why he can walk without falling. However, he cannot understand why rainfall is inconsistant, because his senses and knowledge (or lack thereof) prohibit him from identifying a terrestrial cause.
Would it be unreasonable then, for him to take a leap of faith? To believe that the cause is something he cannot comprehend? And that something to be a superbeing; a god. Fred tells his community about his beliefs and they agree, feeling the need to belong and seeing no viable alternative. Remember, consensus is an inaccurate measure of truth.
Now imagine this scenario played out over and over, in a different location isolated from the first, with a different race of people, in a different period of history, with a different Fred. Essentially, each community, faced with the same cunundrum of how does the world work, "finds god" and creates a religion to explain everything that they do not understand. The solution is fundamentally identical yet entirely different because inevitably, the finer details will vary.
This explains why there are so many different religions in the world; they are individually the easy answer to everything for a particular group of people. So could any religion be the correct answer? And failing that, is religion a "good" answer? The former is entirely possible, but highly improbable. Even if we treat the existence of a superbeing as given, there are so many variables to consider, that the possible accuracy of any one religion is infinitely minute.
The latter question is a far more complex and inconclusive affair. If we define "good" as "relatively productive for society", then religious behaviour brings various positives and negatives. Many people readily accept religion for reasons beyond lack of understanding; primarily, it offers comfort in the form of social acceptence by at least a proportion of their peers, and it offers hope. These factors serve to increase private happiness and a happy person is more likely to be a productive person. Undeniably, religions have ecouraged integration both within and across demographics.
However, there is damning historical evidence that supports the exact opposite. The Christian Crusades, the Holocaust and the current Middle East Crisis all testify to the horrors when one sect acts upon their differences to another. This is reflective of inate defensive human behaviour and explains why there are not more religions; some communities were converted, others destroyed/died out and sometimes, similar ideas merged. Therefore, on a local scale (only one exists), religion is productive for society, but on a global scale (with more than one), it has proven to be destructive.
So what conclusions can we now draw about religion? It is certainly an easy option for a substantial proportion of the global population, as an answer to any question that people do not understand or know. There is virtually zero probability of any one religion being correct, and all of them are likely to be rubbish. This does not mean that they are "bad" for society. Indeed, if people can only set aside their differences, religion would benefit not only the religious, but everyone.
