@Matias In your statement you mention "those who are opposed to it, even hate it". It is this part where I would like to see any scientific evidence. You do not seriously believe that serious scientists would make such statements officially, do you?

@Matias
He actually got your point.

His point is that you have provided no evidence to back your assertion that all scientist who study religion don’t hate religion. Where are you getting that impression? If there are clergy who became atheist and don’t like religion you can certainly assume that there are religious scientists who are atheist and don’t like religion.

You initial assertion is flawed. Probably backed by your ancedotal experience. However your experience is not everyone’s experience. I say that just because you don’t know these people doesn’t mean they don’t exists

@Matias "No scientist (!) who tries to understand religion ever said that religions are detrimental or harmful or even dangerous."

Prove it. Where is your evidence? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

@Matias Then you are pushing the notion that the only way to validly conclude that religion is harmful is not to be a scholar of religion (and, inversely, that the only way to conclude that it's not harmful is to be such a scholar). Which has nothing to do with the [in]validity of the conclusion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

A scholar of religion, by nature, is generally open to religious presuppositionalism a priori, has an income that is paid by religion, usually in an academic setting with religious requirements, and exists pretty much as a creature of religion, so in fact, that would make such a person less likely to be objective about it, and therefore less credible, in the general case.

If a deep knowledge of the faux discipline of theology is needed to understand why religion isn't harmful, then perhaps that is just dismissive hand-waving and not an actual argument.

I can see value in a deep knowledge of the history / sociology of religion, which would not require a person to subscribe to religion to be a credible expert. However, as in many things, it doesn't take a lifetime of study, but simply critical thinking, to mount arguments for or against a thing. I don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know that it's not desirable to detonate nukes in wars. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to have a supportable view about space exploration priorities. I don't need to be a paleontologist to have supportable view about the theory of evolution.

In short .. this is an argument from authority, thinly disguised.

@Matias Read up on what an argument from authority its. It's not merely citing an authority, it's citing it inappropriately. The misuse of science to suggest that no one can have a valid observation on a topic unless they have a high level of scientific expertise is an expression of overdetermined scientISM. I gave several clear examples.

I don't know what other atheists do about science but my attitude toward it is that it's a wonderful thing but not always applied holistically. Science provides us with medicine for example, but doesn't do much for a doctor who is a lousy diagnostician and thinks everything can be treated without addressing root causes and by focusing on understanding disease processes without understanding health itself. Science builds nuclear weapons but provides minimal insight into whether one SHOULD. For things like that you need ... religion? No, philosophy based on a systematic observation of human affairs as they actually are, not on rigid presuppositionalist dogma. That's another false dichotomy; it's not a question of science and religion, but of science and philosophy, of which religion is, generally, one of several failed pretenders -- lacking, as it does, a working epistemology. Thankfully some precincts of religion are drifting away from religious faith and toward a working epistemology, but then it becomes a question of whether that actually IS religion anymore.

@Matias if you were in a certain group of study, wouldn’t you be expected to report on that ‘specific’ thing...not a broader (new) discovery on that matter? I am thinking about odd discoveries that are made during the research of something else, and never allow to be reported? Only later...they are revealed and were important discoveries!

@Matias I can't give you a name, but that doesn't lessen the fact that I find it hard to believe.

@Matias the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. It's a pretty big jump from 'none of them have spoken out' to 'none of them have an opinion'.

@Matias What do you mean by "research?"

@Matias And when I'm at work I avoid talking about Nazis. But when I'm at home, fuck Nazis. People who have a job to keep are usually a bit less direct. Again, that doesn't mean they don't have such an opinion, it just means that most don't express it outright, probably over concerns about keeping their job. But you still haven't explained how you have come to the conclusion that no religious researchers disapprove of religion. The best you can say is that you have yet to see one.

@TheMiddleWay, @Matias
Maybe I'm way off, but I see the situation as though "religion" is a giant forest or a network of forests. A nice walk in the forest may do no harm at all, in fact, it might be beneficial; relaxing, clearing the mind, take in some fresh air, enjoy the sounds and sights of nature... However, there are parts of the forest, or aspects of it, that may be dangerous; poison ivy, predatory animals, poisonous spiders or snakes, tangled roots you might trip over and crack your head on a rock, a cliff you might fall off... you may even just get lost in the forest.
I don't think any of these points can be said to be an accurate assessment of every forest everywhere, or even every part of the same forest.
I think it's the same with religion... or almost anything else in the world.
Some aspects of some religions are fairly benign, other very toxic. I don't think it would be fair to paint all aspects of all religions using the same brush.
What would be wise to do, is to be aware of the hazards, learn and be cautious.
Maybe I've over simplified...

the Dalai Lama considers religion positive and important despite being secular himself

@kauva that really doesn't answer the question

@Matias No I don't. But I don't know any anthropologist who would state the contrary either. Actually if any anthropologist made such a blanket statement, I would suggest s/he should get a job in marketing or politics. I would expect anthropologists to identify religious elements. Religions come in a variety of packages. I would not classify anthropology amongst thepureest of sciences.

@Matias You make a very ample claim regarding "such a simplistic view of religion". What about atheist anthropologists versus those who come from a religion infused background? Some anthropologists are merely glorified travel writers.

I agree this post is rather obscure.

@Matias Anthropologists aren't in the business of making value judgements on religion because that simply isn't our job. It doesn't mean we don't see the problematic aspects of religion. Anyone in the social sciences who wants to describe anything as a maladaptive trait has to defend their position to a slightly higher standard than someone who writes pop books and argue on talk shows.

@Matias are you trying to claim that religion is not, in fact, harmful?