[jlos]

> Religion ticks all these boxes

Regular participation in religious services is of the most beneficial activities a person can do for their mental health. I'm not saying this as a platitude, but as a well documented observed phenomenom [0][1]. To the point, I regularly see studies on benefits to those who regularly attend religious services and have never seen a study showing any adverse affects from it.

That is not to say religion is an unalloyed good, far from it. But human communities are built around shared values and beliefs - and religions provide community, cohesion, and existential value that is not replicable in any other way.

This kinda knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment is something I'd personally label a luxury belief that is largely damaging to the population as a whole. If you are sufficiently wealthy, you can probably fill some of the voids left by a lack of religion. But irreligiosity does not scale

[0] https://psyche.co/ideas/why-religious-belief-provides-a-real... [1] https://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/religion-good-you

[XajniN]

> But irreligiosity does not scale

It does scale, only ~13% of the population of the Czech Republic are religious (affiliated) [1], and additional ~10% are not affiliated but consider themselves as believers [2].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220121163456/https://www.czso....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Czech_Republic...

[derivative7]

Correlation does not imply causation

[tenacious_tuna]

I broadly agree with your statements that in general religion brings better mental health to a population and that there's a void of community in populations that aren't centered around religion. That's something I've personally felt, growing up in the Christian church and existing outside of it as an adult. I feel like saying there's never adverse effects or that "irreligiosity does not scale" misses the point in a few ways.

First, there's pretty obvious harmful effects of religion: on the minor end, feeling ostracized if you happen to be different than what the stated beliefs say are correct, i.e. being queer in the Christian church and ostracized or driven to suicide for it. (Or even more fundamental issues, like taking issue with men being the head of households.) On the extreme end, you have crusades, pogroms, wars that engulf nations. Obviously relatively harmful. Or even on the individual scale, ritual killings of those who defy the religious order.

I'd also posit that, again from the Christian faith, believing there's an all-powerful god who will sort out justice in the afterlife leads to negative outcomes here on Earth: believing you'll have everlasting life in heaven is of course going to limit your investment in systems here on Earth. I've had religious people cite (paraphrased) that "god will sort it all out" when I ask why they don't push to directly address more of the problems in the world. There's an abdication of responsibility I've found relatively common amongst my religious family on such issues. (Not universally, notably, but still.)

Regardless, for those who have "lost faith" on epistemological grounds, what is the alternative to irreligiosity? I don't "choose" not to believe in the Christian (or any other) god, I'm unconvinced by the evidence put forward by their evangelists. I have no philosophically sound alternative to atheism unless and until I encounter convincing evidence to the contrary.

I also worry about people "giving up" some of their philosophical beliefs just to belong to that kind of community. I've talked before [0] about how other more extreme communities (e.g. flat earth) aren't so much comprised of people who believe the premise of the group so much as people who _want to belong somewhere_.

> But irreligiosity does not scale

What's the alternative? The atheist segment of the population giving up portions of their ethical and philosophical autonomy to churches in exchange for a sense of community? Continuing to enable the hold of said autonomy over those who believe largely because they aren't exposed to other epistemologies because their community center discourages it?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37068007

[jlos]

> I feel like saying there's never adverse effects or that "irreligiosity does not scale" misses the point in a few ways.

I just mean irreligiosity doesn't scale as a way to provide existential value and social cohesion. This is what Henderson is getting at with Luxury Beliefs. They are beliefs that you can hold in the top, lets say, 10% of the wealth distribution. But those luxury beliefs actually damage people lower down the socio-economic ladder.

> feel like saying there's never adverse effects There's definitely adverse effects! But its opposite side of the coin of having meaningful, cohesive communities. Your own examples are perfect. Belonging to a community does a lot, but at the same time it means you have to conform to the community or lose its benefits.

Also, the examples of crusades, etc are just human nature expressed through religion. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, is that you don't need religion to have murderous ideologies. In fact, I'd take the Spanish Inquisition to the horrors of 20th century dictators any day!

> What's the alternative I mean, that's problem we're facing isn't it? Maybe there is some way to replace the social and existential value provided by religion, but I don't see it.