Maybe you haven’t noticed it, but many people are deeply irrational.
Happy cake day!
Thanks!
They are taught about it from childhood and many of us don’t questions stuff we’ve learnt in our childhood.
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Lack of proper mental health and support.
Even if they do question, it’s not like they are in a safe environment to do so openly. They have to be prepared to give up community, friends, family, potentially their physical safety, and a worldview that says exactly who to be and how to live to be living a good life. That’s a huge step.
I know for a fact there are religious people going through the motions because the alternative is too frightening, just like people stay in bad marriages.
Right. Throughout human history, if someone was cast out of a community, they didn’t survive. We’ve been trained through evolution to go along with the tribe because it’s unsafe to question anything and get cast out.
Survival of the fittest. Evolution does not value truth or mortality, so for example secret rapists are a highly successful adaptation regardless of the morality of the action. If evolution is a correct model of reality, this pesky religion and moral agency will diminish with time. True progress. Maybe we can start counting the years from the big bang instead of that Jesus event or w/e!
I agree. The support aspect is very strong. Can’t go against it, unless you are lucky and/or skilled. Or very brave.
They are taught about it from childhood
in one single word >> Indoctrinated
OP this is why people believe in religion in the first place, and it’s nearly impossible to get them out of it, you can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
If their religion was actually the Truth, why would that be the case…?
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
because they don’t see it that way, they have their own understanding of free will, religion sells itself as test ( for the most part ), if you pass the test ( temptation or whatever you wanna call it ) you’re qualified to enter heaven, so in a way even if you’re born christian or a Muslim you still going to get tested, so in their view it doesn’t change anything, but from our perspective, it changes everything because we bet that if their parents didn’t make them that way, they would never go that route on their own…
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
That’s why we must address the root cause of all this, which is religion, in Islam for example “Prophet” Mohammed piss be upon him, said
“Every child is born in a state of fitrah, then his parents make him into a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.” (Agreed upon)
As you can see, Mohammed doesn’t apply his own observation on his beliefs and because people glorify him, they will never dare to question his reasoning, which is also their own reasoning now…
You can tell a religious person to criticise everything and everyone, and they can, tell them to redirect their critism to their own belief, and suddenly they’ll become intellectually handicapped
I wouldn’t make it that high. A large amount of Christians I know of are converts.
My search for truth in my early 30’s led me to study the world’s religions, having grown up secular and feeling like something was missing. But don’t let this anecdote or others like it get in the way of your logic. You’re doing pretty good for a hairless monkey!
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery. Believing in god have nothing to do with science or math, it’s superstition, something that cannot be proven or unproven, it’s that irrational thought that make us human.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
People of all religions have contributed to scientific growth.
The average religious person and the person discovering scientific/mathematical stuff are generally different tho.
Universal basic education has gained focus in many parts of the world, only relatively recently.I think improved scientific temper would obviously clash with many mainstresm religions.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And I’m not saying that non-religious people are safe from similar stuff too. Just that it is easily spread and maintained when you have a community on it.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think most of the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And religions can evolve with this (or die from declining membership), as long as the leaders don’t stick to the “These actually scientifically proven facts are lies sent by the Devil” line.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much. Not because religion helped.
Believing in god have nothing to do with science
Not true. They are polar opposites. That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
it’s that irrational thought that make us human
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
You’re right that it’s irrational and that irrationality is an inherent part of being human, but the SPECIFIC irrationality of religion is learned and enforced, NOT inherent.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
No one claiming it is.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much, not because religion helped.
Not sure how much difference is by changing “Islam” to “Islamic countries”, because the fact still remain that Muslim make scientific discovery and excel in mathematics despite being religious. Again, no one claiming Islam benefitted science.
Not true. They are polar opposites.
You just contradicted your last point. Also science are not religion, how can an apple be polar opposite to orange? One can believe in santa clause and ghost while excel in science. It’s not mutually exclusive.
That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
Science are a broad subject, unless they purposely went and look for god, which they wouldn’t find, there’s like a huge load of subject that doesn’t have anything to do with god. Also your impression of religion is like, wrong lol. There’s more to religion than just praising god.
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
See? Human ARE irrational.
Thank you, I think people often overlook how faith and scientific thought can be complimentary. In any case, for questions of religious/spiritual matters, people are basically just running with a hypothesis that works for them. As long as they’re capable of being self-critical and aren’t pushing their beliefs on people who aren’t interested, then it seems fine to me.
Because belief is intrinsic to humanity even if we don’t believe in religion.
I believe in a lot of human concepts, including kindness, altruism, democracy and humanism. They are all still effectively made up human ideas.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists but I cannot truly trust my own senses 100% either. So effectively I “believe” what my sensory organs and brain interpretation tell me, but the reality is the brain and its interpretations can be wrong.
Look at the USA, the founders of the nation are often treated with a reverence akin to that of religious figures.
People have all kinds of delusions. People worship all kinds of weird things. Religion is just one of many.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows that a human can have pretty reprehensible and hypocritical beliefs even if they are an atheist. She promoted bullshit “great men” theories of humanity and argued that selfishness could be used for good.
She also died penniless and on government benefits while spending her whole life preaching against things like government benefits.
People are deeply irrational even without religion.
As an atheist who is not anti-religion, I wholeheartedly agree. The religious do not have a monopoly on irrationality, or weaponizing ideology.
I see many atheists on forums proposing the idea that if we could only just get rid of religion, the world would be a harmonious and rational place. As if human beings wouldn’t still be perfectly able to come up with new and interesting ways to rationalize conflict and division amongst themselves.
I like to say “Humans aren’t rational creatures, humans are rationalizing creatures.”
We can rationalize nearly anything and justify it, in our own minds.
Thank you for being honest.
Humans are emotional creatures. We can’t change that. Even when we’re being rational we’re still basing every decision we make on emotions. “I’ve researched this and I feel this is the right decision.”
I like this explanation most
I believe in a lot of human concepts, …
We believe in those things because they’re practices we can observe and measure. The real question is why do theists not have the same standard of evidence for theistic claims.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists …
Your trust (or “faith”) in the chair existing and supporting your weight is because of your experience with chairs in the past. I don’t think many people would say they have “absolute certainty” the chair exists and would hold them.
If you had a history of hallucinating you might have a higher standard of evidence, but it’s still there to be tested. The problem with religion is it seems like you need a standard of “none at all” to accept theistic claims.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows …
“They do it too” doesn’t really get us to an answer, just another “why” question. She believes her claims with little to no evidence, theists believe their claims with little to no evidence, but like…why?
Here are a few reasons people believe:
-
Meaning and Purpose: Religion can offer a framework for understanding the universe and our place in it. It can provide answers to big questions about life, death, and morality.
-
Community and Belonging: Religious communities can provide social support, a sense of belonging, and shared values. This can be especially important during difficult times.
-
Comfort and Hope: Religion can offer comfort in times of grief or hardship. It can also provide hope for the afterlife or a better future.
-
Tradition and Identity: Religion can be a core part of a person’s cultural heritage or family identity. People may feel a connection to their ancestors or cultural background through their faith.
-
Ethics and Morality: Many religions provide a moral code that guides people’s behavior. This can be helpful in making decisions about right and wrong.
I don’t believe, but I can see why people stick with it and don’t look beyond it. You can get all these things without religion, its just not something that’s taught/passed down in the same way as religion is. Additionally, deconstructing is very difficult. You’re raised to believe something to be real and you’re expected to just drop it and step out of Plato’s cave? You’d look like a madman to any friends/family who aren’t willing and ready to step out and look around.
As a large language model, I cannot endorse any one religion
Come on, this list of reasons was written by an LLM
It makes people feel better, not in general but better than others, most religions are about “this is how I’m better then you heathen”
Also, it can depend on certain other factors.
My partner and I had a difficult conversation recently about how we plan to handle her brother when her mother passes.
Her mother is obviously religious and raised him religiously Christian.
He is a sweet man with a severe developmental disability. Things literally take a very long time for him to learn. He still acts like a teen and he’s pushing 40. That’s not his fault, that’s just life. We love him.
The thing is though…
We don’t believe in religion, but we also think that when his mother finally passes, it would not be wise to try to turn him from Christianity.
He struggled and still struggles years later due to the passing of his father. The idea of being able to see his father in heaven is big to him.
At one point, he panicked because he was playing DOOM 2016 on his game console, and he asked my partner (his sister) if he was going to go to hell for playing it. She reminded him that the Doomslayer kills demons and loves bunnies and reminded him the themes of the game say demons are bad, even if the game itself is violent.
We don’t think it’s worth it to try to break his brain when he’s over 40 and his mom finally passes. Hell, she’s in good health, he could be over 50 when it happens. He has a learning disability and it would literally be unfair to him to try to force a change in belief on him at such a late stage with such a disability.
It’s not worth it to wreck his mental health so we can feel better about being “truthful” with him. We’re focusing on trying to relate healthy interpretations of Christianity to him.
The one point I can really agree with is the meaning and purpose part. I’m not religious and the whole what happens after death part really fucks me up quite a bit. It’d be really damn nice if I could just go “I’ll go to Heaven” and be done
Personally I don’t see what the afterlife has to do with your purpose or sense of meaning in this life. For me, I figure my purpose is whatever I find fulfilling in life while hopefully helping others do the same. Anything that comes after that is a bonus.
Part of the identity crises that comes with(out) religion is the ultimate question of purpose: why are we suffering, surely it has a reason? Some of us are content to accept that there is no purpose, and therefore we must define our own; others need a purpose greater than themselves and/or to have one defined for them, and look to religion for that purpose. There is no right answer, and the struggle of identity and purpose are well documented in religion, fiction, history, and philosophy.
-
Serious answer:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believe in a religion because I’ve found it to be personally beneficial.
I was a pastor for many years and saw much of the best and worst religion had to offer. I haven’t stepped foot inside a church since COVID broke out and don’t know that I ever will again.
My personal beliefs are still a significant part of my life, but I understand why someone would ask the question that spawned this discussion.
You find it personally beneficial, but you haven’t actually answered the question.
I think that does answer the question - for a lot of people, the reason they’re religious is because they find it personally beneficial for one reason or another.
yup, religion has made me mentally stable so I guess it’s beneficial to me at least.
I guess I’m putting emphasis on the word “believe” and you seem to be seeing religion as a way to find comfort. This is why I feel you are not actually answering the question that OP posed. Perhaps I’m taking the question too literally.
Adding more to this. The question is why do you believe in religion, not why you are religious. To me, there’s a difference between the two of these.
There is a significant difference, but, in my limited experience, many people are religious, but don’t actually believe, but they think they do believe. When the rubber hits the road you find it what a person actually thinks is true.
Think of your closest friend or family member. Do you “believe in” them?
Yas queen. COVID’s not over! And even so, God and your soul aren’t important enough to risk contacting the common cold lol
In some religions walking away from the church means being excluded from family, social, and business contacts. So cutting ties with everyone you know basically.
So better start believing in some magic men.
You can just like, say you do. I think a lot of people who check “Christian” in the US have little to no involvement in it beyond saying “thank God” occasionally.
I remember reading a story in my Spanish lit class about a guy who wasn’t attending church, and his mother was freaking out, so the family priest went to talk to him. And the priest was like, “I totally get it. After all the evil I’ve seen I don’t really believe either. But I continue in this because it is my life, and I can provide comfort to people. Consider attending because you love your mother and it will help her.”
I’m not religious at all. But in responding to your question OP: we don’t have to understand why people believe. Religion just isn’t for us, and that’s fine. Other people find it has value, and that’s fine too. The fact that religion has lasted this long with this many people is proof in itself that there’s some value people get out of it. We don’t have to get it to understand that.
All the comments here that explain religion solely as dumb or irrational are just as closed minded as the people they’re criticising.
For the same reasons they always have.
The year has little to do with it. The only things we’ve really undeniably progressed in over the past century are scientific knowledge and the level of technology. Existential philosophy hasn’t exactly made breakthroughs recently, to my knowledge.
Each person still needs to find their own answer to the fundamental questions of “why am I here” and “wtf is death and how do I deal with it”.
Our mechanical, scientific understanding of reality provides fairly depressing answers to these questions. Religion? Sunshine and roses.
Also, on a more practical factor: childhood indoctrination and cultural inertia. Most people are raised in religion and they find it “good enough”, so religion continues.
I find it more depressing that there is a God that decides what is good and what isn’t and gives us “free will” just so He can torture us for eternity if we dont do what He wants… kinda fucked up ngl
Fortunately I don’t need any more reasons to live than enjoying my day to day, being with the people I love, doing my little projects etc.
Oh, continuing down that line of thinking leads to far worse then “kinda fucked up.” If the judeo christian deity exists and is accurately described by their books than it is a total monster not worthy of praise or devotion…
What I understand about the judeo christian god is that they are believed to have created everything that has ever been or will ever be. They have total knowledge of everything past present and future, and they “knew me” prior to them creating me, knew what kind of person I would be, and knew without doubt that I wouldn’t believe in or worship them… so they created me with full knowledge that I’ll spend eternity being tortured in hell. What kind of benevolent deity brings a creature into existence just so they can be tortured? If that’s not full blown fucked up, then I don’t know what is.
You’ve basically touched on one of the core logical issues at play in Abrahamic religions (and others). God is omnipotent and omniscient, or people have free will. It can’t be both.
Here is a nice visualisation of the logical paradox:
God knowing what you will do does not remove your responsibility of the decision you made.
God existing would absolutely place all responsibility upon God, not on its creation for doing only what it was created and constrained to do by that God. Every “decision” would require that God to allow it, making that God responsible.
This isn’t about responsibility, it’s about preventing suffering. If you could prevent a genocidal leader from being born, which you knew would save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, why wouldn’t you? Because it’s that person’s “responsibility” that all of those innocent people died after all?
So is God powerless to stop people from committing evil?
Here is the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VoX-IkHVTE
That is not an answer, it’s a man avoiding the question entirely.
Three year has little to do with it
The irony. Why exactly does the entire world accept the current year as being 2024? What are we 2024 years away from?
For the same sort of reasons there are (generally) 12 months in a year and there are 7 days on a calendar, and for the same reason that “John” is a name, and why London is placed where it is, and etc?
Because some dudes decided some stuff, and some other dudes decided some stuff influenced like that, and so on. And some stuff got changed, and some stuff was inconvenient to change or there was no real reason to change it.
The year is ironic in the exact context you quoted I guess. But the days of the week and many months were named for other mythologies.
What I was actually saying is that the same reasons for belief apply whether it’s 2000 BCE or 4000 CE. Humans remain human, and religion fills an inherent need.
There’s other religions than Christianity - large ones - that do not consider the birth of Christ as particularly meaningful. The fact that we’re using it as a point of reference is meaningful - the Christian religion has been very influential - but it is hardly some grand irony you seem to imply.
In 2024 life is hard and you can’t do anything about it in most cases. Religion gives you an excuse for why it must be so, so that you can keep grinding away.
This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by “believe in religion”:
-
Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.
-
Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.
-
Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)
1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.
2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.
3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can “tune into” like a radio, then it stands to reason that “consciousness” permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.
Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I’m aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I’d love to consider it.
If you meant something else by “believe in religion”, let me know.
Another big reason is reason number 4
- Gives a sense of community and cultural connection that other things don’t quite provide.
I’ve met a not so inconsequential amount of people in my life that when pressed admitted, they don’t believe in god, don’t believe in the moral teachings, but attend a place of worship because they think there is no replacement for the interwoven community and cultural connection their place of worship provides. Many people simply like the community connection of their root culture. This is especially true in minority groups (black church, synagogue).
That’s another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it’s a stretch to call that belief.
None of the things by themselves fully justify “belief” in a religion yet many people claim they are without a true belief in the entire system. It’s the problem with such a vague question. By a narrower definition very few people attending a place of worship are true believers. Someone can believe in god, but not really believe in the rules, and still say they are “religious”. Someone can believe in the rules, but not god, and say the same. I think if you are practicing the religion to some extent then you have a right to call yourself religious if that’s how you view yourself regardless of your true beliefs on god, rules, etc. Cultural impact matters more than we give it credit for.
This is me and my family right now. Two days ago we had lunch with our pastor to discuss the design of the church’s nursery and I came out as atheist and my wife came out as Buddhist. The pastor didn’t challenge us on any of that and we ended talking about what drew us to social justice causes. We believe in each other and that is enough.
It’s very rare that you find anyone on Lemmy/Reddit that actually takes more than eight seconds to critically think about the significance of “religion,” and not just immediately monkey brain into “religion is for idiots.” Alas, I hoped that this particular group think would’ve stayed behind.
A belief is not a religion, and a religion is not a belief. Any one person can be varying degrees of “religious,” and any one person can hold varying levels of belief in a higher power.
I don’t have much else to add because your comment was pretty well thought-out.
This 👉🏼 #3 👆🏼
-
Because people grow up in religious environments which result in many of there friends and beliefs being tied to that religion. People only stop believing when they are faced with undeniable evidence (which for most is impossible because religious teachings are unfalsifiable) or more often when there is an emotionally charged conflict between there religion and another part of a persons’s life.
For an example of the latter, I once knew someone who started questioning (and eventually became agnostic) because the church they had always went to had started preaching homophobic messages which was irreconcilable with there closest friend being gay.
I left my church because they wouldn’t just let me attend. They wanted me to commit to actively proseletyzing outside the church, to bring more people in.
It didn’t feel right. I think if a thing is good enough, nobody else needs to nag you to sell it. You just want to tell people about it because it’s been so good for you.
- Need psychological support in times of distress
- Gullible
- sense of community and shared experience
You’re definitely not gullible right?
Not religious either.
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people. Assuming there’s no fishy business going on with that particular chapter, they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
Edit: forgot to mentioned, am atheist and give no shit to skyman, but somehow on the internet atheist can’t have opinion that’s not shitting on people with faith.
Nah, I like my community without the side of eternal suffering that so many religions like to threaten you with for varioua reasons.
I’d put my money on huge adoption of D&D in the utopian future before I put it on religion.
I too don’t like my community centered around religion, but everywhere i look, religion tend to be the biggest community gathering around the world.
Maybe true, I don’t pay much attention. All I know is most studies and censuses I have seen show religious affiliation falling fairly rapidly.
🤷♂️
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people.
While this statement is true, its also true even if you’re not religious. I was not raised religious at all but always got together with family/cousins/friends nearly every weekend.
… they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
Kinda. This study [0] of 3,942 19-year-old in Sweden put it best:
… religion and religiousness per se have little impact on happiness. In particular, we find that social networks tend to be positively associated with happiness, and that this effect is driven by co-organizational membership among friends.
So while religious upbringing can force people to socialize, that doesn’t mean the lack of religiosity will have a negative impact as the lack of religion does not dictate that you will not congregate/gather with peers/friends/family and feel the same level of “belonging” to a group - even if its not a well defined group.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
I’d say this claim is unfounded. Why must we turn to religion? There are clubs, groups, meetups, friends, events and niches of never ending categories that easily fulfill the need of “belonging” to a group - it’s actually one thing humans are really good at - forming “in” and “out” groups.
Yes, i do agree on all the thing you said, what i’m saying is it’s not mutually exclusive. Religious people can and will go to religious meetup and all the other non-religious gathering too. I know that because i have some friend that do both. It’s not the case of black and white, this or that, do and don’t.
The issue i have with OP’s question and a lot of atheist is they tend to put religious people as a one dimension entity and think highly of themselves because they “aren’t like that”, that irrationality is what they accuse religious people have. It’s that sort of tribalism that cause a lot of conflict, and i fear tribalism more than i fear religion.
We don’t need religion, we did at one time. When we didn’t know why or how people got sick, why sometimes crops would be plentiful and other times famine or why the ground shook sometimes or even just figuring out morals
But we know those things now and when we encounter something we don’t we have the knowledge and tools to figure out what’s up.
We don’t need churches for a common social place, we have parks, libraries, community centers and community wide events to invest in. We can socialize and learn other cultures around the world in an instant. We don’t just have random villages and tiny cities any more, we have large and diverse cities so we everyone can have a little of everything they’re interested in.
At this point, all religion does is serve as yet another thing to divide us.
Based on what evidence lmao
Classic.
What based on what evidence?
Your first sentence. What actual statistical evidence do you have for this.
You need statistic to proof socialising more is better than socialising less?
You’re purposefully dancing around the point.
You’re claiming religious people are more social than anyone else. That’s a ridiculous claim and you know it.
Not going to spend anymore time engaging in your games lol
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards, and ignoring the fallacy that “progress” is co-liniar with the passage of time, logic is not in of itself a perfect humanistic process of thought, rather it has been developed by humans over the millennia.
There is great comfort in the process of growing into and exploring one’s faith. Growing up in a theologically liberal Christian church, I was invited to find ways to meld the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man is such a way that I find purpose and vocation within my life. Religion also offers a place for community among people committed to a mission, be it good or bad. These communities preserve and honor cultural traditions, again, the good and the bad. These are just a few reasons I think people are now, and will remain well into the future, religious.
I definitely get the sense of community aspect of religion.
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards
When it’s overwhelmingly the cause of intolerance of LGBTQ rights and opposition of minorities, it arguably is.
Is religiosity the cause of an overwhelming intolerance, or is it, religiosity, the overwhelming citation of the pious bigot?
Both lol
How do you account for tolerance found within religion and religious communities throughout the world and throughout history, then? How can intolerance be inherent to religion if it is not universally observed?
And for clarity, I’m not trying to no-true-scotsman out religious communities that harbor hatred and shut off diversity and the like. They totally exist and they are a problem. But to suggest religiosity itself is the issue, to me at least, is missing a sound foundation.
The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can’t be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.
It’s not that they’re a monolith of bigotry or anything, it’s that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don’t.
But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There’s no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because “that’s the old testament.” The Bible also doesn’t say anything about trans people and it doesn’t oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.
Firstly, I am assuming that “they” is referring to Christians, which the op did not specify, and my subsequent commentary is interpreted to generalizing to all presentations of religion. While I explicitly pointed to Christianity, that was because I was referencing my personal faith journey.
Secondly, we are in agreement that the Pentateuch, in its literal form, calls for and endorses a society which does not privilege equality for all races, genders, or creeds. I would assume we are also in agreement that the epistles of Paul and Timothy and other early Christian writers have some pretty messed up opinions of who God is and what God wants.
But you yourself drew attention to the agency Christians, and all other faithful people, have. There is choice, and people do choose, to interpret scripture as non-literal. By the virtue of this existence, one cannot simply label all religious expressions as backwards or at issue, as I originally posited.
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
They are raised with it and old habits die hard.
The fact that some people start as atheists and later become religious demonstrates there has to be more reasons than just that.
You are correct. However, relatively there are a tiny amount of them and their reasons are not good reasons.
Almost always, they are in a vulnerable state and at that time have also been exposed to some kind of religious indoctrination specifically tailored to take advantage of that.
It’s easy to see this from the perspective of brainwashing techniques used by cults. Religion just has more developed techniques for longevity.
some people start as atheists
We all do. It takes effort to instill beliefs and usually greater effort to change them. Education is the most common inoculation.
Your understanding of their reasoning comes from a fundamental assumption that your choice is the correct choice for every person. They willingly made the wrong decision, therefore they must have been manipulated into doing so.
Many people do just become religious without outside influence. On a large scale, every society will create its own version of religion without fail. Clearly, they have something to gain psychologically by doing so.
While religious indoctrination obviously exists and obviously is a problem, it doesn’t discount the actual benefits that religion seems to have, and by extension the reasoning with which some people become religious.
We all do.
When I said “start”, it was in reference to the process of changing your religious identity, not your life as a whole.
My understanding comes from many years of direct study and experience. As such, you’ll find that I don’t apply what I say to all people, or “every person.” I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.
When it comes to beliefs which are very important to people, we aren’t usually going out of our way to believe things that aren’t true. What’s different with the religious is that they tend not to be rigorous in adjusting their beliefs when there is little to no evidence to support them.
While this is common with humans over all sorts of things, it’s particularly common with deeply held beliefs. There’s many reasons for this, but religion is a very refined method of influencing human belief. Much of it is designed to steer away from questioning it, and also to reinforce it.
With this in mind, it’s easy to see why it’s not so much a choice, but for those few we are discussing, we could say that it’s just something that happened.
As for the benefits, psychological or social, etc. I don’t discount them at all. What I do say, however, is that none of them require religion. Any and all benefits attributed to religion can be achieved without it, and very often they are.
When humans are born, they only acquire a religious identity if it is impressed on them. If they acquire it after childhood, it’s usually due to the reasons I’ve outlined.
I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.
This I agree with. Looking back, you were more careful than I thought you were to specify you were not talking in absolutes.
I will however double down that you are still making a fundamental assumption that your option is the correct one, and you make it more clear by arguing that all benefits of religion are possible without religion. If all benefits of religion can be attained without risking the detriment, then religion is the worse option by far.
However, thinking of this made me realize I’m just making the opposite assumption. Just like you, I’ve constructed a strongly held belief about religion based on my life experiences, which are entirely anecdotal and effectively meaningless.
How would you even get evidence that most people are manipulated into becoming religious? How would you get evidence that most people don’t? How would you get evidence that religion does or doesn’t benefit people? How would you even define benefit in the first place?
This argument is meaningless.
Well, thank you for that.
However, I’m not making an assumption. I’m merely pointing out that if religion isn’t necessary for the implied benefits, then why use that method? The fact is that no one uses blind faith as the basis for anything else important to them.
I don’t have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods. When presented with the assertion that they do exist, the lack of good evidence means that I remain unconvinced. I’m open to good evidence.
In the case of manipulation, as you call it, religious indoctrination from birth by family, community and peers is well documented. I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.
As for the assessment of benefits, there’s a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why. We know a lot about these motivations and there are clear lines to known conclusions. It’s largely psychology.
There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it, or that they demonstrate through their actions.
I hope this makes things clear but feel free to ask if not.
I don’t have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods.
The strongly held belief I’m referring to isn’t a belief in a god or lack thereof, its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.
I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.
To say I’m not aware of this is again to argue in bad faith. I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists, and is a problem.
As for the assessment of benefits, there’s a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why.
Yes there is research into how religion affects society, but it isn’t very useful for this purpose for multiple reasons. There is no instance of a society without religion, so the difference between a religious and non-religious society can’t be studied. There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn’t, as morality itself isn’t objective.
There is not and there never will be definitive evidence as to whether or not religion is beneficial for society.
There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it,
There is also nothing to suggest the opposite, because this can’t really be determined. You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task. Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.
This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless, and neither of us know anything beyond our personal experience.
Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one, other than in American evangelical stories, but I’ve met a few non-religions people who have later in life found religion. Although I live in a quite atheaistic country, so there is a lack of peer pressure or need to talk about such things.
Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one
Well congratulations, now you have. It isn’t quite as rare as you might think.
personally
Everyone is everything in the internetz.
What about the internet makes this easier to lie about? I could tell you the same thing to your face and you still couldn’t fact check it.
They aren’t calling you a liar, they’re saying they never met someone like that in person.
They are drawing that distinction for a reason. They literally said everyone is everything on the internet. I don’t how else you could possibly read that.
