Tribal Theism

[Received]

When we say religion is dangerous, what do we mean? That there's something inherent to religion that causes dissension, disagreement, a warlike spirit and even a warlike actuality, etc. etc., to the point where societies are worse off with it given its influence as a slow drain on its survival.

But notice that this isn't religion per se. Religion (the good ones, anyways) advocate very positive principles, and there are plenty of adherents to good religions who are good people, which immediately disproves the idea that religion is inherently dangerous given that, well, they are good people rather than worse off because of religion.

What the first paragraph is describing isn't religion, but rather tribalism that is too often parasitic on religion; I call this tribal theism. This tribalistic part is actually a very deep and successfully helpful evolutionary adaptation; we couldn't even imagine the fraction of a possibility of being here if we didn't have groups that stuck together in preferential and exclusive (even xenophobic) ways.

So the problem with religion isn't religion, but the bad stuff extrinsic to it called tribalism. This tribalism, far from being a terrible thing through and through, has conferred a very positive adaptive advantage, just that in this case it's bad. You might say that all tribalism is bad if it reaches a point, as it does with tribal theism.

Anyways, the big question becomes: if religion in itself is logically not bad (at least the religions that espouse edifying principles which produce positive adherents or at least don't corrupt them), but this badness is due to tribal theism, then the only way you can make an argument that (good or non-corruptive) religion is bad is by proving that religion all by itself leads to tribalism. And I don't think you can make that proof.

 

[bhsmte]

When we say religion is dangerous, what do we mean? That there's something inherent to religion that causes dissension, disagreement, a warlike spirit and even a warlike actuality, etc. etc., to the point where societies are worse off with it given its influence as a slow drain on its survival.

But notice that this isn't religion per se. Religion (the good ones, anyways) advocate very positive principles, and there are plenty of adherents to good religions who are good people, which immediately disproves the idea that religion is inherently dangerous given that, well, they are good people rather than worse off because of religion.

What the first paragraph is describing isn't religion, but rather tribalism that is too often parasitic on religion; I call this tribal theism. This tribalistic part is actually a very deep and successfully helpful evolutionary adaptation; we couldn't even imagine the fraction of a possibility of being here if we didn't have groups that stuck together in preferential and exclusive (even xenophobic) ways.

So the problem with religion isn't religion, but the bad stuff extrinsic to it called tribalism. This tribalism, far from being a terrible thing through and through, has conferred a very positive adaptive advantage, just that in this case it's bad. You might say that all tribalism is bad if it reaches a point, as it does with tribal theism.

Anyways, the big question becomes: if religion in itself is logically not bad (at least the religions that espouse edifying principles which produce positive adherents or at least don't corrupt them), but this badness is due to tribal theism, then the only way you can make an argument that (good or non-corruptive) religion is bad is by proving that religion all by itself leads to tribalism. And I don't think you can make that proof.

It isn't religion that is dangerous, it is the type of people that choose to abuse it, that are dangerous.

 

[Golden Yak]

When we say religion is dangerous, what do we mean? That there's something inherent to religion that causes dissension, disagreement, a warlike spirit and even a warlike actuality, etc. etc., to the point where societies are worse off with it given its influence as a slow drain on its survival.

This at the very least is true of all religion - a religion declares that it is the 'right' way to live and other ways outside from or deviating from that religion are wrong. By its very nature it creates 'tribes'. You're either in the tribe and right, or you're not in the tribe and wrong.

But notice that this isn't religion per se. Religion (the good ones, anyways) advocate very positive principles, and there are plenty of adherents to good religions who are good people, which immediately disproves the idea that religion is inherently dangerous given that, well, they are good people rather than worse off because of religion.

This isn't necessarily true - an extremely good-natured person might simply remain a good-natured person in spite of their religion and its negative impulses. I've yet to see a religion that I would simply apply the blanket label 'good' or 'bad' too - they all have elements of both.

What the first paragraph is describing isn't religion, but rather tribalism that is too often parasitic on religion; I call this tribal theism. This tribalistic part is actually a very deep and successfully helpful evolutionary adaptation; we couldn't even imagine the fraction of a possibility of being here if we didn't have groups that stuck together in preferential and exclusive (even xenophobic) ways.

I agree with your point about ancient survivability.

So the problem with religion isn't religion, but the bad stuff extrinsic to it called tribalism. This tribalism, far from being a terrible thing through and through, has conferred a very positive adaptive advantage, just that in this case it's bad. You might say that all tribalism is bad if it reaches a point, as it does with tribal theism.

Anyways, the big question becomes: if religion in itself is logically not bad (at least the religions that espouse edifying principles which produce positive adherents or at least don't corrupt them), but this badness is due to tribal theism, then the only way you can make an argument that (good or non-corruptive) religion is bad is by proving that religion all by itself leads to tribalism. And I don't think you can make that proof.

I think I've pointed out how it's inevitable at the beginning of this post.

If religion confers from benefit through its principles, then I think the best course of action is to extract those benefits from the fluff about supernatural, gods, afterlives, the 'holy' path to live, etc. and deal with the facts. Good ideas are good ideas because they are good, not because they come from a particular flavor of deity or spirit.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see how it follows that merely because a religion is "tribalistic" that it is harmful. As you point out, a tribal spirit can promote survival. Nor does tribalism automatically promote hostility to those outside the tribe. It just depends on what the tribal values are.

 

[lesliedellow]

The reason it can be potentially dangerous is that it taps into areas of our mind which lie below the level of consciousness, and there are powerful forces at work down there. Whether it is actually dangerous depends upon whether or not the religionist is psychologically reasonably well balanced. Most people are, but there are exceptions like Fred Phelps.