The Practical Side of Religion


“Men accept or reject philosophies… according to their needs, and their temperaments, not according to ‘objective truth’…,” says Will Durant (while discussing William James’s pragmatism) in The Story of Philosophy.  Religion is one such need, a temperament, as I have learnt from a long observation of people who apparently place much trust in religion.

The other day I asked a question to a lady which was a bit inconvenient for her personal comfort.  A question that struck at the roots of her apparently religious temperament, a temperament which made her preach big ideals.  My question laid an axe at the root of those ideals.  My question implied that she seldom put into practice what she preached vehemently.  The lady ended the conversation asking me whether I was drunk.  She later told others that I ask foolish questions when I’m drunk. 

I had a friend who never believed in gods or religion, apparently.  I used to go for evening walks with him for years.  One evening he stopped at a temple, which we hitherto used to ignore totally, and joined his palms in prayer.  He offered a donation to the priest who came out wearing skimpy and shabby clothes and gave us prasad.  A few days later my friend became a big-time player in the villainous political game in the institution where we both worked.  Our friendship ended.  My friend had become too ‘religious’ for me to understand.  He continues to be as religious as he is villainous, as far as I know.  

Is religion a mask? 

Freud, the father of psychology, listed quite a few “ego-defence mechanisms” one of which is ‘compensation’.  In simple words, compensation is masking perceived weaknesses or developing certain positive traits to make up for limitations. My friend found a good mask in religion for his villainy.  If you scratch many of the apparently religious people you may find villainy of various degrees bleeding out.

Religion is a good ego-defence mechanism.  That’s one practical value of religion, as far as I have learnt so far from my observations.  Unlike other ego-defence mechanisms, religion is socially accepted and valued.  The worst of persons can become heroes riding the chariot of religion.  The best of persons can be given the worst of labels by using religion effectively.  These are some of the practical values of religion.


There are other practical values too and many persons make use of them effectively and thus be good human beings.  But that’s a different story.  The story of Mother Teresa, for example.



About matheikal

My more regular blog can be accessed at
This entry was posted in religion. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Practical Side of Religion

  1. hemantarora44 says:

    Good thought sirji…..I have become a fan of your reading..
    You quoted the practical side of religion…which is ‘somewhat’ true…
    Gautam Budhha quoted once – ‘Once society matures, there wont be any need for society (religion, cast..etc)

    • matheikal says:

      Thanks, Hemant. Both you and Raghuram have quoted the Buddha whom I too admire for his refusal to bring in god to support his philosophy. Sadly, the society never seems to mature, isn’t it?

  2. hemantarora44 says:

    correction: I have become a fan of your writing***..

  3. bennyec says:

    Well, this is certainly a good piece of writing.I really enjoyed its content. It is a very balanced view of people who practice relgion. I must tell you that whenever you go on rediculing a person’s belief I felt the hurt. But this really tell me that you can thimk why people really go for their faith. By the way I am neither in the beginning or in the end of your essay. And I keep the faith for no apparent means.

    • matheikal says:

      Benny, do you belong to the group of Dag Hammarskjold, former NU Gen Secretary, who said that he went to his religious places as a sign of “loyalty to the tribe”? Sometimes I do that too. Perhaps, religion means more to you – like giving certain consolation?

      • bennyec says:

        Neither. I strongly feel that the destiny of a human is controlled by a supreme being.I will owe my allegiance solely to Him. And I want all beings to keep that allegiance.

  4. Raghuram Ekambaram says:

    Matheikal, you say, “Religion is a good ego-defence mechanism. ” But, what goes unsaid is this: Is defence of ego good? As I had mentioned earlier I somehow have never fancied psychology. Buddha, the way I understand, denied the logic of ego and then came down hard on “Self”. By the way, I do not think he intended a”religion”, anyway meaningful in the context of those times, to emerge out of his lines of thinking! But, that is irony, of the supreme kind.


    • matheikal says:

      Raghuram, the answer to your question about the ego is implied in my mention of Freud. Freud did not support the defence mechanisms. He sought to take people out of having to resort to such strategies. Aren’t I too trying to take people out of religion? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s