Frank,

If any social institution of society "... were free of prejudice and bigotry and served society without bloodshed and tribalism...." that would be a fine and wonderful thing. But any review of the sociological and anthropological literature of societies and the institutions of society will make clear that none of the 5 social institutions common to all societies (political, economic, educational, religious - and I'm blanking on the 5th right now), are free of those negative attributes you listed.

All of our social institutions reflect human behavior - all that is 'good', and all that is 'bad.' In addition, what is 'good' in one context, setting, situation, etc., is 'bad' in another. That is because we are both individual and social. From an evolutionary and biological perspective, tribalism has functional value, for example.

Don, I continue to find myself nodding in agreement as I read your posts.

China and the Soviet Union did eliminate the social institution of religion. I see no indication their societies improved as the result, nor have I read anything to lead me to believe they were able to irradicate religious or spiritual beliefs of some sort from much of their population in the process. Nor were they able to educate people out of existential questions and concerns. These questions and concerns go with the big brain of the human being.   What was quite apparent, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, (think Serbia for only one example) was that through rigid and totalitarian methods of social control some of the more atrocious aspects of tribalism were contained. So which is rationally better? The totalitarian, repressive regime of the Soviet Union, or the freedom to exercise tribalism? (And I haven't really been able to decide this one, myself,) Tribalism seems to be inherent in the human being. Religion functions to reinforce and constrain human behavior in equal measure.

Religion fills many psychological and sociological functions.   Riginslinger, what social institutions would you design to fill those functions when religion is eliminated? Rationalism? Problem is, humans are not inherently and exclusively rational. Not designed to be. Emotions are not rational. Instinctive behaviors are not rational.

Here is something I ponder: I think it likely that if the human species is going to be able to survive (And I mean survive) the results of our own expansion and impact on the earth by the collective choices we have made (I'm excluding otherwise naturally occurring evolutionary changes such as the sun burning out, or the next major asteroid impact,) it is going to require very serious and rapid changes in human behavior across the globe. It will require a rapid reduction in human population. It will require radical reduction in the use of natural resources. It will mean that some must die so that others might live. My rational mind tells me that the best chances of the human race surviving is going to be if a radical and totalitarian world government with a fixed ideological focus on human survival is in control and stripping you and me of many of our choices and freedoms. Left to our own devices, there is no indication that as individuals or as 'tribes' we are going to make the choices in interest of the species as a whole that threaten us individually or in smaller social units such as tribe or country, or world region. This would be much more possible, and much more psychologically palatable if it were backed up by strong, religious belief (including and reinforced by the social institution of religion) that would make and reinforce reverence for the earth which sustains us such a compelling part of humankind's belief system as to make the terrible individual and smaller social unit sacrifices meaningful, and therefore tolerable to the majority of humans on earth.   With globalization, we now, in many respects, have a world-wide society. Only not quite. The larger the social unit, the less cohesion the unit has.

Who, metaphorically speaking, are the sacrificial lambs? What criteria gets chosen? Who gets to decide? And how much am I willing to sacrifice? In terms of my life style, my material well-being, my ability to provide the best possible launching into adulthood of my son? The survival of my species? The survival of my culture? The survival of my tribe? The survival of my family?

My life? My son's life? The potential future generations of my line?   How do I value possibilities of the survival of myself, my family, my tribe, vs. the possibilities of survival of other lines, other tribes? The realization that some must live, and some must die is rational. But when it get down to who we put our first foot down into the realm of the irrational.

Whether it be by virtue of a God, a transcendent consciousness, or the laws of nature, including evolution, we humans are endowed with the capacity to choose, to consider choice, and to ponder the possible implications of choice well beyond any other species on this earth. We are, however, sans crystal balls. Before a choice is made, there are many, many choices; Sometimes infinite choices. But once a choice is made, as Philip Pullman notes a number of times in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy (The Golden Compass, referred to by Frank, is the first book,) all the other choices slam shut like doors. Sans that Crystal Ball, few of those choices are ever completely rational, and if they are, their effect can not be guaranteed. There is room, and there is human need, for we humans to make meaning out of choices, rational and irrational, and the unforeseen effects of those choices. Religious beliefs and the social institution of religion are often central to meeting that essential individual and social need.

Suggest you read some Durkheim for more on the function of the social institution of religion.

Janie