[gyardley]

I didn't downvote you -- but perhaps you were downvoted because while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence.

An attribute of a thing is not necessarily the purpose of a thing; just because my cat has fur doesn't mean my cat's purpose is 'fur'.

You may have also been downvoted because your comment seemed disrespectful or simplistic in its attitude towards organized religion. When I go to my synagogue for Shabbat services, 'influence' has nothing to do with it.

[hga]

Although it's worth pointing out that Google should care very much about the "influence" of the parts of society it openly favors or [ insert antonym here, it's too early in the morning ].

Google has gained a lot of enemies for a variety of reasons, size and success in particular. It's going to need the favor and good will of as much of the nation as possible to survive the increasingly vicious attacks on it from competitors or those who simply like to attack the big (envy, or just big pockets).

There's long been a correct (I believe) perception that Google leans strongly to the Left, and in a country where "the Left" is outnumbered 2-1 by "the Right" I can't see that being wise. This action of theirs as of yesterday was gaining a lot of attention on the Right, and even agnostics like myself are not pleased (because I know churches do a lot of good, something very strongly reinforced this summer after a tornado ripped through the middle of my city, Joplin, Missouri).

I'm not saying Google should favor the Right, but at least it should not go out of its way to piss it off. It simply can't afford that sort of thing given its status today.

[mikegreenberg]

"while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence."

Really? I call bullshit. The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others. If I couldn't convince you that my religion was right or someone else's religion was wrong is the primary (if not entire) reason a particular religion continues to exist.

(EDIT: I'm happy to entertain reasoning to the contrary rather than your downvotes.)

[gyardley]

This is simply incorrect.

My religion doesn't believe at all that your religion is wrong. Clergy in my religion will actively discourage you from converting, if they'll permit you to convert at all. We believe that it's far easier to live a righteous life when you're not a member of my religion, since there's far fewer obligations imposed upon you. No one in my religion particularly wants to convince you that my religion is right.

I don't think you understand religion all that well. You do know that they vary widely, yes?

[mikegreenberg]

Ignoring your condescending reply, I didn't say YOUR religion specifically believes that other's religion is wrong (You DO know that they vary widely, yes?). So while my statement may be incorrect for your particular case in your immediate environment, I think it's pretty short-sighted to think that isn't the case on a scale that's worldwide.

First, I see your allusions to atheism. And while I agree with your position above if, in fact, you were defending atheism. However, my statement takes the idea of atheism to the very meaning of the word (that god/religion doesn't exist). In other words, I don't consider atheism to be a religion. We agree on that point and you need not read further. (As an aside: If you weren't describing atheism above, then I think the irony that your religion and atheism shares common characteristics is interesting.)

If, however, you still disagree with the point that "The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others"; then let me slightly qualify my statement for clarity's sake. _Traditional_ religion has relied on influence to propagate itself through generations. Whether that's parent's influence over their children or the physical community's influence over its members, influence is the primary means of maintaining the ideological consensus of religion.

You have such a better understanding about religion than I. If not by influence, then please offer a counter-example that has allowed traditional religion to permeate our history for centuries.

[gyardley]

An atheist? Hardly. I belong to a synagogue, and it's hard to get more traditional than Judaism, which has been around for thousands of years.

The only reason why you think there's irony in what I said about Judaism is your ignorance of Judaism. Judaism has always stressed ritual observance, not articles of faith. It's perfectly possible to be a practicing Jew while having serious questions about the nature of God. And what I said about my religion and proselytizing above is absolutely correct. (Seriously, try to become a Jew. We probably won't take you - unless, of course, you're already ethnically Jewish.)

For that matter, since you used the word ideology, there's no ideological consensus in Judaism. There is a organized community and there are rituals. It's a thinking person's religion. We argue a lot. We're not much for dogma.

Naturally parents raise their children how they prefer, but that's parental influence, not organized religion's influence. They're quite distinct.

Our religion has traditionally had minimal to no influence in the broader society. For centuries there were very real incentives to convert away from my religion once you were free of parental influence. We've been the subject of discrimination, pogroms, and genocide. And yet here we are, having somehow 'permeated' successfully, and we're doing just fine. How does that tie into your theories about influence and the propagation of religion - since, for many centuries, our organized religion had zero influence? Perhaps there might be something more to it, hmmm?

Of course I'm being condescending to you. I get tired of listening to people who have no knowledge or experience of my religion spout off about it. You can't really talk about religion online without having some ignoramus come along and do the 'religion is dumb hurr hurr hurr' routine.

Anyhow, there's your counter-example.

[buff-a]

What is their purpose?

[gyardley]

I suspect replying to you is a waste of time. That said, on the off-chance that you actually will think about what I'm saying, here goes:

* The organized religious group I'm a member of, through ceremony, gives certain major life events and certain times of the week more importance and significance than they would otherwise have. I'm not sure you'd understand the word 'sacred' - so let me describe it as a peaceful, calm feeling, where your mind is clear and the concerns of everyday life are simply not present. These ceremonies require an organization.

* The organized religious group I'm a member of helps and supports each other. In an atomizing society where we often don't know our neighbors, I belong to a community that is there for me when I'm in need. Obviously this requires some organization.

* The organized religious group I'm a member of emphasizes scholarship and pushes me to learn new things. We think deeply about the meaning of texts; we study languages. Because we do this in an organized fashion, we push and support each other, and we get new insights that we wouldn't get as individuals. Obviously, we can't do this without an organization.

* The organized religious group that I'm a member of pushes me to be a better, more moral person. We frequently discuss and debate values and morality, and challenge ourselves to do better. Without others in the community acting as role-models, I doubt I would be the person I am - still highly-flawed, but better than I would be.

* The organized religious group I'm a part of conveys a culture that I very much want my (not-yet-existing) children and future descendants to have. We value scholarship and learning and entrepreneurship, and we've done very well over the centuries despite persecution. The reason for this success isn't 100% genetic - and the one common cultural constant, no matter where you are in the world, is our religion. By immersing myself and my family in my religion, I hope to inculcate in my family and descendants a culture that demonstrably works well.

That's just a handful, but you get the idea. If you were to chat with my rabbi, you might get a slightly different set - I'm going to ask him about this the next time I see him. But I guarantee 'influence' wouldn't come up - that's not at all why we have our shul.

[buff-a]

Thanks. I put it to you, however, that the activities you have listed:

  a) you do because your organization told you to do them.

  b) are effective at maintaining your membership of the organization.

That is, these activities, rituals, etc, exist because they make your religion more successful. Your religion is a meme. All its actions are memes. Even the memes that cause you to go out and learn other memes.

Saatchi and Saatchi has nothing on Organized Religion at generating memes.

[gyardley]

Well, point b) is correct. I get a lot of benefit from my synagogue membership, so of course I stay a member. That's common sense.

Point a) is just insulting. I do them because I choose to do them. Same with everyone who's a member of any voluntary organization. We do have free will, you know.

I'm going to pass on discussing memetics, but if you're interested, Mary Midgely is the author to read.

[buff-a]

Clearly you have free will. You have chosen to give the meme influence. Still a meme. Still influence.

EDIT: And in fact, you may not have free will in this case. If you have free will, why is it that most Christian children have Christian parents? Why do most Muslim children have Muslim parents? Jewish children have Jewish parents?

[mentat]

And the meme you're executing that all religions are merely about influence, what makes it different from his meme?