
Originally Posted by
Bellc
Is having a religion really important is / is it something you really need ??? :(
It depends. I have a religion. That is, I have religious faith. In my own life this provides an anchor, a focus, and a direction, as well as helping me understand the purpose of life in general and the purposes of my own life in particular. Because of these, my religion is extremely beneficial to me.
There are, of course, alternate views to mine about the need for religion, some of which are:
E.B. Tylor and James Frazer who determine that religion is nothing more than systemised animism and magic.
Sigmund Freud believed that religion is a mass neurosis and exists as a response to deep emotional conflicts and weaknesses, an this nothing more than a defence mechanism brought on by psychological distress
French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, saw religion as nothing more than a means of social organisation.
Karl Marx, who declared "
Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" saw it as a social institution dependent upon material and economic realities in a given society. Although he did say that when stripped of independent history, then religion is a creature of productive forces. Marx wrote. He saw it as being formulated as the feflexion of the real world, an illusion whose chief purpose is to provide reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is.
Mircea Eliade's understanding of religion lies in two concepts: the sacred and the profane. Religion he argues, is mostly about believing in the supernatural which lies at the very heart of all that is sacred.
Stewart Guthrie argues that religion is “systematic anthropomorphism” that has gone badly wrong.
E.E. Evans-Pritchard rejected most anthropological, psychological, and sociological explanations of religion, seeking instead a comprehensive explanation of it that took intellectual and social aspects into account. He didn't't reach any final answers, but did argue that religion should be regarded as a vital aspect of society, as a “construct of the heart.”
Clifford Geertz was an anthropologist who described all forms of social culture as systems of "symbols and actions which convey meaning." He treated religion as a vital component of cultural meanings, arguing that religion carries symbols which establish especially powerful moods or feelings that help explain human existence by giving it an overarching, or ultimate, meaning, and which connects us to a reality that is “more real” than what we see every day.
These theorists expound some of the ways in which the question of why religion exists has been explained.
Which of these is the “right” explanation? Maybe we shouldn't try to argue that any one of them is “right” and instead recognize that religion is a complex human institution. Why assume that religion is any less complex and even contradictory than culture in general? Because religion has such complex origins and motivations, all of the above could serve as a valid response to the question “Why does religion exist?” None, however, can serve as an exhaustive and complete answer to that question. [?]
One thing is certain, with so many 'experts' disagreeing, we ought not to plump for a simplistic explanation of religion, religious beliefs, and religious impulses, because these explanation, whether byu believers or atheists, are not likely to be adequate even in very individual and specific circumstances, and they are certainly inadequate when addressing religion generally. However, they do all offer some insights which might be able to help us understand what religion is about.
Most important of all, is the value to believing individuals of his or her own faith system, and the qualities with which it endows their daily lives, in the short and long terms.
So, the answer to your question: "Do you really have to have a religion?" is "It depends." It depends largely on accidents of birth, on individual needs, and on individual experiences. My faith is vital to me. Atheists do not understand why. Then there is 'the middle way' in which religion plays no part in the thinking of individuals, and who are neither for or against it. It simply does not appear on their horizons.
M:)RGANITE