Because religion provides comfort, community and a meaning to people’s existence that goes beyond “we were born of chance on an insignificant rock somewhere in the universe”.
(I’m not religious BTW)
It also exists to control people, and it still works.
Organised religion is always about power and money.
Both talking about capitalism here, right ?
Existence is meaningless and we just wobble around here for a little while and then we die. There’s nothing to it. Everything that happens is just a logical consequence; beauty is nothing but a tiny chemical reaction in your brain. Once you rot it’s all worthless.
Science is great at giving explanations, but not so good at providing meaning. For a lot of people, meaning is probably more helpful in order to facilitate a happy life.
Nietzsche writes at length about this stuff, most famously in the anecdote about the madman coming down from the mountain to inform the villagers that God is dead and that we have killed him. Everybody knows the three words “God is dead”, but I think it’s worth reading at length:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Nietzsche, whose father was a priest, recognizes that “God has become unbelievable”, but he does not celebrate it as the progress of science. Rather, we lost something that was fundamentally important to humans, and which science cannot easily replace.
Here one could start talking about the Free Masons, who attempted learning from religious rituals without the added layer of religion. Or one could dig deeper into the works of Nietzsche, and the contrast between Apollonian and Dionysian. It’s all fascinating stuff.
In short though, spirituality used to offer people a sense of meaning that is not so easily replaced by science alone. How do we bury our dead now that we know our rituals are pointless?
Thank you for your insightful perspective.
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”-Voltaire
Childhood indoctrination is a big part of it. I have been told by my 8-year old niece that she’d like to save me from drowning in a lake of fire. She was genuinely scared for me. It’s literal child abuse followed by Stockholm syndrome.
That part.
Have you heard of the fireplace delusion? Burning wood is horrible for our health and the environment, but most of us have fond memories of sitting by a fire. Religion is the same. Holiday traditions with family, organized events marking important life events, it’s hard to break away.
Great perspective
Religion has certain self-reinforcing properties. Kind of like genes that make it more likely to propagate against other forms of information.
- Believing without question is better than questioning
- Not believing will be punished
- Virtue will be rewarded
- Spreading the belief is a virtue
- You should obey your parents
Combine that with young human brains being malleable, and religion tends to continue against all odds.
Besides the fear of death that many mentioned already, its also a need to find an answer to how the world works and the need to find purpose in life.
Without these we suffer: Without understanding our environment, we feel our circumstances are out of our control and become anxious. Without purpose we become depressed (there is an excellent book called “from death camp to existentialism” about this subject).
Our brains are asking us for an urgent answer and the best quick answer most people can come with is religion. This is why it exists in every culture in history.
Might be a bit shocking but it wasn’t knowledge that deconverted me.
Religions are sort of like mind viruses. The ones that have survived have done so because they are very good at taking root and multiplying in the human mind. Sort of a natural selection of ideas. They develop the necessary features like a way to ignore contrary evidence and severe consequences for not believing
Richard Dawkins coined a word for exactly that - a meme.
This is such a complicated question because it gets into the origins of religion and belief systems in general, but also power and class struggles, economics, social psychology and propaganda, and more.
Lots of people haven’t been properly educated Lots of people have been indoctrinated Lots of people have a reason to exploit the beliefs of others Lots of people value comfort and community above scientific accuracy or consistency
Can you refine your question a bit?
Do millions just want to ignore science?
I have to imagine you’re not an American, because yeah, millions of Americans legitimately want to ignore science completely. They’re pretty loud about it too.
I’m an American. The religious people here are terrifying.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist? Just because you think our limited knowledge of the universe implies the inexistence of the god, doesn’t mean it is the absolute truth or everyone should be coming to the same conclusion as you.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist?
The burden of proof lies solely on the ones making the claim that god DOES exist.
Has there ever been irrefutable evidence, provided by any of the religious leaders over the last many thousands of years, which proves that god exists?
Science doesn’t concern itself with the existence of God so I’m not sure what knowledge you’re referring to.
The vast majority of religions do make explicit falsifiable claims about the natural universe that go far beyond the existence of a god.
A random Jewish preacher coming back to life, for instance, or a random Arab religious reformer casually taking a midnight flight to Jerusalem.
A random Jewish preacher coming back to life, for instance, or a random Arab religious reformer casually taking a midnight flight to Jerusalem.
I mean, these claims are only falsifiable if you assume the religions are false. It’s circular reasoning. For example going “God doesn’t exist so there’s no way Muhammed could’ve went to Jerusalem” doesn’t do much to disprove that God exists. Taking this particular event as an example, you’d need to, independently from the existence of God, find evidence that Muhammed didn’t go to Jerusalem. Especially since Islam provides evidence for its claim that he did go there.
No, that’s not what I mean by ‘falsifiable’.
That there exists some external force or entity that is completely outside the realm of anything observable is not a falsifiable claim, because there is absolutely nothing we could ever observe that would absolutely contradict it. It is, quite simply, not a statement about the observable universe, so it’s definitionally outside the domain of science. Science will never disprove the existence of Heaven, because Heaven is by definition not observable.
That’s a very different kind of claim from “If you’d sneakily observed Jesus’ crucifixion and followed him as he was buried, you’d eventually see him come back to life, move a stone away from his tomb, and wander up into Heaven after having a few chats with friends”.
To be clear, I’m not saying that those religious claims have been absolutely proven false, only that they hypothetically could be proven false. Of course, there are other religious claims that have been proven false, like young earth creationism, but those have a funny habit of being either abandoned or significantly re-interpreted after conflicting facts come about. It’s also probably just a coincidence that the more fantastical claims all tend to be from long enough ago that gaps in the historical record provide a significant amount of fuzziness. Why God got tired of performing miracles after the invention of the camera is just one of those mysteries.
It needs to be emphasized that I am not making the absolute positive claim that Muhammad never flew to Jerusalem. What I’m saying is that someone with sufficient information could possibly make a clear determination of the truth. Muhammad himself, for instance, presumably knew the truth of the matter. It’s falsifiable in that it could be falsified given sufficient observed information, unlike the existence of Heaven, which categorically cannot be.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the Qur’an itself actually contains only the slightest and briefest mention of the Night Journey; the story is greatly expanded upon in the hadiths, which he himself did not directly write but are rather traditionally attributed to him).
Oh I see. I thought you were listing examples of claims that were falsified, like reasons one would dismiss these religions as false.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the Qur’an itself actually contains only the slightest and briefest mention of the Night Journey; the story is greatly expanded upon in the hadiths, which he himself did not directly write but are rather traditionally attributed to him).
That’s true, but Sahih Hadith can basically be taken with the same degree of trust as the Quran (aka “this is the capital T Truth” if you’re a Muslim, “Muhammed said/did this” if you’re not) so the distinction doesn’t really exist.
Belief is social. If you’re surrounded by people that all believe a thing, you’re more likely to also believe. If challenged on something that threatens group membership, your brain reacts like it’s a physical threat. Group membership is that important. Facts matter far less.
This happens to everyone.
There’s basically a 100% chance that OP believes something equally as unprovable as religion.
This happens to everyone.
Yeah, they said that in their comment. Did you not read all 5 sentences?
Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood your post.
Why not? It makes sense to me, it carried me through some very difficult times and is a good way to think about how I interact with the world and my moral framework.
Religion has two purposes.
-
Coping mechanism for those who can’t fathom death
-
How to not be a dick for those who don’t have empathy
In either case a mental health structure for the damaged
How to not be a dick for those who don’t have empathy
To put it charitably it has room for improvement here.
-
One thing atheists often ignore is that being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group. That alone is reason enough for many people to stick with it.
Sure, the preacher/priest/whatever may be a scammer asshole, but this isn’t about him, it’s about me and the people around me. I belong in here and so do these people.
Remember, humans are social creatures. Being part of a group is a big fucking deal.
Another thing I’ve been giving some thought, religion can be a “lazy shortcut” for the brain to acknowledge some stuff without having to spend too much energy thinking about it. It’s a lot easier to wrap your head around “Because God wants it” than digging deep into the hows and whys of anything. No, it’s not scientific in the least, but humans are lazy. I am lazy, you are lazy, everyone here is lazy, we just opt to save energy in different things.
being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group.
The local crafting circle doesn’t endanger children and carpet bomb the neighbours, though.
