Why do people believe in religion?

[Enos]

Most people are ignorant to an extent. Which is why religion is important. There will always be religion unless someone come up with a unified theory and no more questions go unanswered, even then the theory might become the new religion with god added to its equations. Even the theory alone might not prove the religions wrong and they stay anyway.

 

[Microburst]

Ignorance and religion is even more dangerous... I am all for unified theory ... :)

 

[kcballer21]

Anybody really interested in this topic should read up on their Michael Shermer, he has written extensively about "why people believe weird things."

You take away religion and you take away our nature.

Is that an argument for keeping religion around? Do you mean that religion is necessary for the betterment for the human race? To me it is an imperfect system that served its purpose in helping to develop a human society that can now move on to the next best thing, provisional ethics determined by humans (I would argue that religious morals are actually determined by humans, but without the all important provisionalism. Times change, it's time we all acknowledge that.)

 

[Canute]

Has religion been defined here? I'd like to defend its honour against some of the comments made above, but if it's being defined as blind faith in some dogma or other then I won't. However this definition would exclude many traditions of teaching and practise that are often called religions but which are not based of faith in a dogma. Those are the ones I'd want to defend, not the first kind. Are these two kinds of religion being lumped together here?

 

[Andre]

My two cents.

I believe that religion is about people’s instincts in the first place. We are social creatures and need group bonding for mutual support, increasing the chances of survival. .The word Survival suggests that there is something out there threatening us. So we need that threat to get the forming of the group going. Hence we invent devils & dragons in the darkness disposed to devour us. But if we humans, gather around the deity, enhancing group forming, good fate will be upon us. Survival, the basic instinct.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les Sleeth: I agree with most of what you said, but do religions themselves not introduce conflict and even promote ignorance to an extent?

Yes. I was trying to make a case for those people who've really experienced something deeper, and to say there might be something real at the root of religion. In truth, however, like Kerrie "I am as anti-religious as one can be." I don't want to say I hate religion, but it is almost that bad. On the other hand, I know there are a lot of sincere people involved in religion, and I don't want to be disrespectful to that. Not everybody participates blindly ignorant; some I've personally known have been quite enlightened about it, even going so far as to admit they don't really know what the truth is, but participate in religion because of how it makes them feel to be committed to being and doing good.

As I pointed out earlier, any established human organization is vulnerable to manipulators using its resources and member's trust for selfish purposes. It happens all the time in politics, it happens in universities, it happens in sports, etc. Nothing is immune from that. But religion has a couple of facets to it that can really be used by dishonest and deluded people.

One is the claim to know the "Truth." That is a powerful propaganda tool which fits exceptionally well with a second facet, the level of trust of religious participants. We can say their trust is ignorant blind faith, and I suppose it is. But having grown up around it, I also saw a lot of hope in that faith, the hope that it would give meaning and purpose to life. In that sense, I agree with Greg that human nature is part of the motivation for religion.

Some of us figure out that the "truth," whatever it is, isn't found through blind believing. I don't know if you've ever read Church dogma, but it blows me away to see them say over and over "we believe . . ." It's like, why do you believe something without experiencing it for yourself? To me, this is where the split takes place between those who desire to experience their way to truth, and those who want to believe their way there. (And hey, science "believers" can be just as blindly accepting as religious believers.)

The idea of experience-based belief was where I was coming from when I asked earlier if there is something "real" behind religion, something that at least some individuals at some time have genuinely experienced. If you want to know why I dislike religion so much, it's because it obscures the real thing. Look at all the disdain shown in this thread towards it (and I've seen a lot worse in past threads).

It obscures the real thing from religious believers too. So many times I've debated my religious friends about Jesus and heard nothing but the miracles, dying on the cross, rising from the dead, being the son of God and salvation for the world. :zzz: When I debate them, I love to boldly state I believe Jesus was awesome, but none of the miracles happened, including rising from the dead after three days. They always are outraged and say, if none of that happened, then there is no basis for faith. I say, but what about the conscious experience Jesus was having? What was making him so high?

If you study the history humankind carefully, the experience Jesus was having is not unique. I have found repeated instances of it dating back 3000 years. Now, if it weren't for religion, maybe we could all talk about that experience openly; maybe it has relevance to consciousness studies as a potential of consciousness. But one can never get past all the religion haters who once they hear the name Jesus (I'm not Christian btw), or any hint of "something more" being behind reality, the door is slammed shut.

So there are the reasons for my ambivalence toward religion. That is, on the one hand religion does seem to stem from an experience that really intrigues me , but then there's the nasty irony that religion itself is the biggest obstacle in the way of getting people to check out the experience.

 

[Royce]

I am not religious as I don't practice any religion. In fact I am very against organized religion for many of the reasons that Les pointed out above plus some of my own.
I am, however very spiritual in that I am personally convince beyond faith that there is a higher level of spiritual being that created and is the master of the universe and I believe in Jesus Christ. I don't necessarily believe in all of the stories and myths built up around him or any religion but I believe in him and call myself a christian, notice that the word is not capitalized.
Why? Because I have had personal experiences in which I have experienced that which is greater than me and everyone else here on Earth and experience their, its (?) virtually constant presence. I call that presence God, rightfully or wrongly. I have studied many religions and have found that their basic tenets of ways of living ones life are remarkably consistent and beneficial. Only when such beliefs are distorted manipulated and used as controls, leverage or weapons does religion become harmful and dangerous. Once again that is the workings of people, mankind, and not religions fault or short coming.
There is still much that science does not and cannot explain, as of yet, such as the phenomena of life and consciousness that can be explained by a creator.
The physicalist way of looking at all of reality as the effect of matter and energy leads to many paradoxes and leaves much unexplained. If we look at things fro a different view point such as the spiritual or metaphysical is the cause and the physical universe is the effect then many of these paradoxes and questions can be explained albeit not in a scientific way.

 

[saltydog]

An advantage of Religion

It's a survival strategy for a fragile humanity. I once read a book titled, "The Biology of Religion" which proposed a thesis that Reigion contributed to the survivability and reproducibility of the organism in the same Darwinian sense as any phenotypic advantage.

Works for me.
SD

 

[podpod]

- We (human kind) need a religon because we need an explenation to where we come from, what the meening of life is and what will happened to us after death (etc).

That is the answer from a lot of the comments to this threads question about why religions excist. And yes, I think every human on Earth have thought these questions
and need an explenation to them. But this has nothing to do with if the religions are right or not, which someone here thinks. Beliving there is a God gives you an explenation to the above questions, but it doesn't meen that what they believe in is wrong. God could excist wethever we need to believe in him because of our nature or not. So claiming that religion is used to give ourself a false feeling of being secure etc. would therefore as I see it be wrong.

There are also people that actualy believe in God without just thinking of what will happened to them after death, and other fears. For many people it's just a good explanation of the world and ours excist. But starting a discution if God excists or not would be pointless since that is an eternal question which has nothing to do with science or physics which are based on what we see in this world. The creation of the universe is about how the world came out of nothing, while physics is about how things that are allready created work. That's why also many scientists have a religion.

Of course, not every religion is based on one or many Gods (like the buddism), this was just an example.

However, it's true that religion can be a dangerous thing. That's when people who
do an act in Gods name do something that really is moralistic wrong for that religion.
The church in the old days is a good example of that with the crusade against the
muslims and a lot more. Another example is George Bush, everytime he starts a new war he claims God is on his (and the country's) side and in fact, if we should believe all the people that has used Gods name up the years, God would be quite a warlike guy. Therefore I unsterstand many peoples scepticism against religions. Though I believe the real enemy is not the religion but the real problems about human nature like greediness, hate, jealousy and more. The religions only try to solve these problems with living rules
and more.

 

[cragwolf]

I don't need an explanation for the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. I want one, but I don't need one. I'm a big boy now and I am perfectly comfortable living without answers to these questions. I have never understood metaphysical angst (derived mostly from the apparent meaninglessness of the universe, or so I've been told). I sympathise with its sufferers, but I just don't get it. On the other hand, I understand situational angst (e.g. I'm poor, I'm fat, I'm ugly, I'm alone, woe is me) quite intimately. I see religion and spirituality as a crutch, a security blanket.

 

[KarenLove]

I don't need an explanation for the mysteries of life, the universe and everything.

Is the study of science and mathematics not the search for these things?

 

[cragwolf]

Is the study of science and mathematics not the search for these things?

Some of them, yes.

 

[KarenLove]

Well, it seems to me - and please bear in mind that I'm not taking a side, but merely offering a different opinion - that sciences can be as much a "crutch" or "security blanket" as any religion or spirituality; I know some people who could benefit from a little bit of well-managed belief. One could also argue that if "religion" is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, that sciences are, in fact, a type of religion for some people.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's perfectly true for "some people" that science serves as a crutch. I don't think there's any force in society, positive or negative, that doesn't serve as a crutch for somebody. So the existence of those people isn't a test of the quality of the force; street gangs, the Marines, and the Republican pary are crutches for some.

I have been through religion and out the other side twice, first as a Protestant and later as a Catholic. In between I was an agnostic (of the "don't know yet" variety), and now I have to frankly admit I'm an atheist. I never treated my religions as a crutch, they always demanded more than they gave and that was fine with me. Science is a challenge; here in the last years of my life to really try to understand what it says, not in pop works but in the actual research papers. That's a long road but I'm on it. I can respect anybody who's on a long road with something else. It's the lay back and sneer types that give me the pip.

 

[cragwolf]

Well, it seems to me - and please bear in mind that I'm not taking a side, but merely offering a different opinion - that sciences can be as much a "crutch" or "security blanket" as any religion or spirituality;

Yes, to some extent, but it simply can't compete with religion on that score. Religion offers answers to such important questions as, 1) What is the origin of the universe? 2) What is the purpose of life? 3) How should I live? 4) What is the source of our morality? 5) Why is there suffering? Science does not. So for anyone who is uncomfortable with unanswered questions, religion provides a lot more comfort than science.

I know some people who could benefit from a little bit of well-managed belief.

I don't know what that means. Can you elaborate?

One could also argue that if "religion" is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, that sciences are, in fact, a type of religion for some people.

A word that better fits the definition above is "obsession". Yes, many people are obsessed with science. By the way, I don't go to dictionaries when I look for a comprehensive understanding of a subject.

 

[arildno]

I can respect anybody who's on a long road with something else. It's the lay back and sneer types that give me the pip.

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

 

[Canute]

Yes, to some extent, but it simply can't compete with religion on that score. Religion offers answers to such important questions as, 1) What is the origin of the universe? 2) What is the purpose of life? 3) How should I live? 4) What is the source of our morality? 5) Why is there suffering? Science does not. So for anyone who is uncomfortable with unanswered questions, religion provides a lot more comfort than science.

Do religions offer anwers to these questions? No theistic religion does. They offer dogmatic and formulaic answers which cannot be verified or falsified. Those practices and traditions that do offer proper answers to them I wouldn't call religions.

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

Anyone who claims that they have mystical insights denied to others deserves your sneering imo. 'Mystical insights' into the nature of reality are there for anybody to have, assuming they want them, and regardless of what they think about religion. All mystics say this, and I can't think of one who claims any special privilege. Equivalently, conscious experiences are there for anybody to have regardless of what they think about consciousness.

 

[loseyourname]

I think the idea that there is a genetic basis for the differentiation of people into those who have religious experiences and those that do not should be looked into more. Whether it be temporal lobe epilepsy or some other kind of alternate brain architecture, I get the feeling that these people - the Jesuses and Buddhas that Les is talking about - really do experience something that the rest of us don't. I don't get this from all of the religious people I talk to (many are just dogmatic), but I do with some. There seem to be people - my own girlfriend included - that are not being the least bit disingenuous when they say that they just feel the presence of an unquantifiable something greater than them, whatever they may label it. I've tried many of the techniques in the recent past and have to say I have never felt anything similar, either through the use of those techniques or in my everyday life. It really makes me wonder if there might be a tangible difference between my physical makeup and their's that results in their ability and my inability to feel this supposed presence.

 

[Microburst]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

I concur, I think while a religion might offer some solution for a group of people within its margin, it also pits them against anyone outside it. “Either your with us or your with the enemy” (of GOD that is) type of ideology.


... and according to the big 3 only one can be right, which makes them all wrong.

Now I am not saying that without religions we’ll have a perfect human society, there are always other factors such as geopolitics, race and other biases. But religion doesn’t necessarily solve these problems rather adds to them...

 

[loseyourname]

... and according to the big 3 only one can be right, which makes them all wrong.

Actually, JP II recently declared that non-Catholics can still make it to heaven, provided they live a life free from mortal sin. I suppose he isn't necessarily conceding that their alternate beliefs are correct, but he no longer looks at them as a transgression.

 

[arildno]

Now I am not saying that without religions we’ll have a perfect human society, there are always other factors such as geopolitics, race and other biases. But religion doesn’t necessarily solve these problems rather adds to them...

I agree with this!
Without religion, we would stumble along, trying to establish some personal meaning in our lives, often fail at that, i.e, basically facing the same problems as we do today.
There are enough real problems to concern ourselves with; there's no reason to mess up our brains with idle fancies of gods and devils; that won't help us at all.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

Not everybody religious is like that, not even the majority. As much as I dislike religion, nothing justifies a blanket "sneering" attitude which, btw, you'll be holding toward billions of people.

I could quote some of the science types around here (a few of them prominent) who are exactly the same way you claim "all" the religious are. They behave like the new high priests of Truth. Pathetic little egos trying to act important by treating everybody who isn't up on their particular expertise like idiots. It's no different whether the religious do it or the scientifically trained do it or a manager at MacDonalds does it to his workers.

If you think stupidity is limited to the religious, and it will be avoided by science training, think again. People find ways to be stupid no matter how educated they are. Just because one has the right understanding about the way the physical universe works doesn't make one psychologically healthy, prevent one from being utterly incompentent in other areas of life (like communication, child rearing, or relationships, for example), or from being one of the self-absorbed jerks who are always finding ways to make this planet less comfortable for others to live on.

The problem isn't religion, the biggest problems of humanity are selfishness, being a victim of one's own psychological conditioning, and lack of heart. As far as I can tell, science training hasn't helped those problems one tiny bit. It is just makes the selfish, conditioned, heartless mind better educated and more clever at it.

It's too bad the know-it-all geniuses around here don't do a more thorough study of what is buried in history of the major religions. Who knows about Meister Eckhart here? What about John of the Cross? Joshu? Brother Lawrence? Nanak? The Baal Shem Tov? Shah Nimatullah Wali? Kabir? Namdev? Dogen? Rabia? Julian of Norwich? Benard? Nansen? Ruysbroeck? Sheikh Farid? Cassian? Who comprehends the enlightenment of the Buddha, or of Jesus?

You guys don't understand anything about what's really gone on among the most devoted to the inner way. You are just talking through your backside, absolutely no different than the rest of the world's ignorant except you are doing it in a public forum and pretending to be "scientific" about it.

 

[arildno]

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there.
In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding respect for this personal delusion, that it is a valid view ON PAR WITH scientific investigation of the actual world.


That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

 

[arildno]

If you think stupidity is limited to the religious, and it will be avoided by science training, think again. People find ways to be stupid no matter how educated they are. Just because one has the right understanding about the way the physical universe works doesn't make one psychologically healthy, prevent one from being utterly incompentent in other areas of life (like communication, child rearing, or relationships, for example), or from being one of the self-absorbed jerks who are always finding ways to make this planet less comfortable for others to live on.

Agreed, I don't see where I've made a claim tha science produces happiness or well-adjusted individuals.

The problem isn't religion, the biggest problems of humanity are selfishness, being a victim of one's own psychological conditioning, and lack of heart. As far as I can tell, science training hasn't helped those problems one tiny bit. It is just makes the selfish, conditioned, heartless mind better educated and more clever at it.

Again, agreed.

But, what does this have to do with the insinuating, straight-jacketing influence of religion upon peoples' minds?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Agreed, I don't see where I've made a claim tha science produces happiness or well-adjusted individuals.

No, you said, "just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief." I am saying that has nothing to do with being religious; it has to do with someone who already was complacent, condescending and arrogant adopting a religious stance to justify it. Look aroiund Arildno, the same thing goes on in science circles.

But, what does this have to do with the insinuating, straight-jacketing influence of religion upon peoples' minds?

The problem is, you think scientism isn't straight jacketing anyone, yet speaking as one who loves both science and the inner thing, I see absolutely no difference between religious and scientific blind faith.

The people I debate here who are already convinced that physicalism is true are just as narrow-minded and narrowly educated as dogmatic religious believers. The only difference I can see is the science-minded have a better understanding of how the physical universe works. That's it! Not superior in any way shape or form intellectually overall (besides, plenty of formidable intellectuals are religious). If scientism becomes the new world religion in a hundred years or two, I would expect it to have all the dogmatic trappings of organized religion.

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there. In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding respect for this personal delusion, that it is a valid view ON PAR WITH scientific investigation of the actual world. That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

The physicalist makes an ontological claim: there exists only physical principles and processes. In addition, he has the effrontery of demanding a thoroughly unproven theory, abiogenesis for example, be put in children's textbooks as the "likely" origin of life. In addition, scientism believers demand respect for their unproven theory that the universe is solely physical, and even preach abandoning the venerated inner path for pure science training.

Ignorance, arrogance, and condescension call no belief system home. Don't you see? It isn't religion that's doing it. It is dogmatic belief combined with human psychological problems. It really floors me that you think scientism/physicalism isn't dogmatic and becoming more so every day.

But I still say, everybody ridiculing religion around here doesn't know a damn thing about what is really behind it. You have to study it in depth. Of course, the history of the major religions is huge, and most of it offers little or no insight into anything worthwhile (IMO). So what one really needs is a clue of where to look.

If we were to take all the claims of this world (in any human endeavor), where do you think we would find the highest percentage of credible reports? It is where the most consistantly reported and powerful experiences are. It is disheartening to me to hear all the so-called scholars (even most religious scholars) look everywhere except where those experiences have been in the history of religion.

 

[arildno]

I know quite well where to look in order to judge religion:
Those times and places where a given religion was a dominant world-view.
What I've seen, is uniformly ugly (with the possible exception of buddhism).

As for the abiogenesis case (and other so-called "dogmatic" views in science):
I think it is most rational to search for observable causation patterns prior to postulating unobservable ones.
I don't see any dogmatism in this, rather the opposite.
If, for example, it becomes proven beyond possible doubt, that "consciousness", for example, cannot be explained (or even worse, contradicts) "physical" principles, then the duty of science is to search for other principles in order to understand the phenomenon.
However, we are a long way from such a situation today; neurologists have just begun their work; to demand instant answers (answers which, IMO, won't come at least for a couple of centuries) is not productive.

However, I fully recognize that one shouldn't over-emphasize, or blow out of all proportion the few insights one has gained through a scientific approach.
Nor should we engage in evasion maneuvres (i.e, sweeping problems under the carpet, pretending they don't exist).

Honesty&humility are personal qualities any scientist should aspire to develop, I do agree that, at least on the humility issue, many fail.

 

[Enos]

I read this quote but forget the source. was somthing like As long as there is no proof for or against the existence of God. A wise man will choose to believe in God due to probability. For if he is correct he will die with the reward, if he is wrong there is nothing to lose.

I think that quote pretty much makes a lot of sense.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I know quite well where to look in order to judge religion:
Those times and places where a given religion was a dominant world-view.
What I've seen, is uniformly ugly (with the possible exception of buddhism).

Nope, you like most other religion haters just look at what came later. The originating experience of consciousness that attracted people to the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Nanak, etc. is completely not understood by most people because they don't take time to look strictly at the experience.

A big part of religion the world sees is people hoping to get a taste of what the original experience offered, and trying all sorts of crazy stuff to get it. They also develop theories about why they aren't getting it (like they've sinned too much, or they have to get to Heaven first).

Instead of an inner experience, people come to believe someone like Jesus was giving a philosophy of love or goodness or religious reform , and so they go on in the centuries that follow to construct elaborate cosmologies, moral prescriptions, and so on; local pagan beliefs also get mixed in with what has stemmed from that original experience. But none of that has the slightest thing to do with the conscious experience of Jesus.

Conscious experience is what started the whole thing, so that is what people should be curious about rather than how stupid some people in later centuries became. However, even in later centuries not everyone went the way of most religious. There were a small few who pursued the experience instead of religious behavior and belief. That is what nobody around here seems to know much about.

As for the abiogenesis case (and other so-called "dogmatic" views in science): I think it is most rational to search for observable causation patterns prior to postulating unobservable ones. If, for example, it becomes proven beyond possible doubt, that "consciousness", for example, cannot be explained (or even worse, contradicts) "physical" principles, then the duty of science is to search for other principles in order to understand the phenomenon.

Of course. But what if those people experiencing "something more" found it by developing another aspect of their consciousness? If scientists haven't developed that, then no matter how hard they look they will not find evidence of the "something more." That, in fact, is exactly what every single inner practitioner worth his/her beans has claimed.

And guess how many scientists you hear admitting there just might be an ever so slightest, teeny weeny, itsy bitsy chance they haven't the consciousness skills to grasp something? No way! As a group they think they got it all figured out, that they and they alone are on the path to Truth, and that they KNOW all the past inner stuff is just a bunch of superstition, myth, etc. They are so sure in fact, they don't even need to study the history and nature of the inner experience to speak authoritatively in public forums. Now that's what I'd call true genuis.

 

[loseyourname]

Nope, you like most other religion haters just look at what came later. The originating experience of consciousness that attracted people to the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Nanak, etc. is completely not understood by most people because they don't take time to look strictly at the experience.

A big part of religion the world sees is people hoping to get a taste of what the original experience offered, and trying all sorts of crazy stuff to get it. They also develop theories about why they aren't getting it (like they've sinned too much, or they have to get to Heaven first).

Instead of an inner experience, people come to believe someone like Jesus was giving a philosophy of love or goodness or religious reform , and so they go on in the centuries that follow to construct elaborate cosmologies, moral prescriptions, and so on; local pagan beliefs also get mixed in with what has stemmed from that original experience. But none of that has the slightest thing to do with the conscious experience of Jesus.

Conscious experience is what started the whole thing, so that is what people should be curious about rather than how stupid some people in later centuries became. However, even in later centuries not everyone went the way of most religious. There were a small few who pursued the experience instead of religious behavior and belief. That is what nobody around here seems to know much about.

You guys realize you are talking about two different things, right? Les is talking about inner experiences and Arildno is talking about actual religions. Not the originating spiritual leaders around whom mythologies formed that resulted in religions - the actual religions. The big three presumably, which at this point and for the last thousand years at least have little to do with the teachings of any legitimate spiritual leader. Arildno is correct to say that these dogmatic doctrines that have dominated the western world for millenia have been very destructive. Dogmatic belief of any kind almost always will be, because it is virtually inevitable that just about every belief a human being holds will turn out to be wrong to some extent. Dogma does not recognize this. Dogma would prefer to kill dissenters after dehumanizing and labelling them evil than consider alternative points of view. Neither science nor spiritualism is its purest form is dogmatic. They are both meant to be approached with an open mind and they are both empirical in nature. Religion - at least the big three that people in the west generally mean when they use the word - are not like this. They demand a certain belief in what they deem to be eternal truth, truth that cannot be discovered but only revealed. It is these belief systems that infect and corrode the human spirit.

 

[arildno]

Les Sleeth, please read the previous comment I made:

A religious person makes an ontological claim: There exists a god out there.

That is totally different from a typical "mystical" experience, subjective feelings of harmony&meaning or whatever you'd like to call it.

There is a complete and utter difference between the searching for an inner peace, or focusing your endeavours to develop the best of your humanity, and throwing insupportable claims of gods about, and demanding respect for this type of silliness.
These claims are nothing but the rejection of rational investigation of the world AND of staking out paths of self-enlightenment.
They express the wish to stagnate intellectually and morally, and has nothing whatsoever with either science or the search for a sound philosophy of living, which we will ALWAYS need, regardless of our level of factual knowledge.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You guys realize you are talking about two different things, right? Les is talking about inner experiences and Arildno is talking about actual religions. Not the originating spiritual leaders around whom mythologies formed that resulted in religions - the actual religions. The big three presumably, which at this point and for the last thousand years at least have little to do with the teachings of any legitimate spiritual leader. Arildno is correct to say that these dogmatic doctrines that have dominated the western world for millenia have been very destructive. Dogmatic belief of any kind almost always will be, because it is virtually inevitable that just about every belief a human being holds will turn out to be wrong to some extent. Dogma does not recognize this. Dogma would prefer to kill dissenters after dehumanizing and labelling them evil than consider alternative points of view. Neither science nor spiritualism is its purest form is dogmatic. They are both meant to be approached with an open mind and they are both empirical in nature. Religion - at least the big three that people in the west generally mean when they use the word - are not like this. They demand a certain belief in what they deem to be eternal truth, truth that cannot be discovered but only revealed. It is these belief systems that infect and corrode the human spirit.

You are right about some of that, but I don't like characterizing "religion" with one set of related terms. Would there be any religion without people to participate? NO. So a huge part of what you are calling "religion" is the people who practice it. It isn't just the official dogma of any given system.

A lot of sincere people are involved in religion. Not everybody is in it from ignorance. Also, in the past have been some (monastics mostly) who've achieved something quite extraordinary in terms of conscious development.

I don't like these religion bashing threads (there used to be a lot more of them in the past and I fought them too). Due to my my own bad experiences with religion, I almost despise religion. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to stick up for them when I hear gross generalizations by people who don't know much about what they are bashing. There is a lot more to religion than the stupidity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is a complete and utter difference by searching for an inner peace, or focusing your endeavours to develop the best of your humanity, than throwing insupportable claims of gods about, and demanding respect for this type of silliness.
These claims are nothing but the rejection of rational investigation of the world AND of staking out paths of self-enlightenment.
They express the wish to stagnate intellectually and morally, and has nothing whatsoever with either science or the search for a sound philosophy of living, which we will ALWAYS need, regardless of our level of factual knowledge.

I realize you are most comfortable with sticking to inner peace and such. But the truth is, you don't really know about someone, for instance, like Joshu (a 9th century Chinese Ch'an monk) spending forty years (that's 40!) in a monastery meditating 2 or 3 hours a day just to develop a single consciousness skill.

And you really don't know what someone experiences when their mind becomes perfectly still, and as they sit there enjoying that, suddenly they feel their consciousness being lifted out of their body into some great expanse of light.

And you don't know what you'd come to say about reality, or the possibility of some universal consciousness/God, if that happened to you over many years.

Or do you?

Your words like "silliness' and "stagnate intellectually and morally" are hurtful and disrespectful. You cannot take an inner discipline and subject it to an outer method and expect to find anything.

If you don't want to look inside, fine. But don't be talking about unsupportable claims of God until you have done the inner work necessary to look for yourself and confidently claim nothing is there.

 

[arildno]

You're right:
I'm not intimately familiar with the weird tricks of the imagination you might become fooled by in self-induced trances.
If you want to chase down phantasms and chimaeras, by all means do so.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well, since just about every religious person I've met is characterized by an ugly complacency and a firm belief in their own eminence before others, coupled with an arrogant belief in having access to mystical insights denied others, I think sneering is quite the appropriate attitude towards them.

arildno, when you talk about "religious" people you've met, do you mean simply people who have a religious belief, or are you referring strictly to proselytizing zealots?

There are quite a few theists on this board, and I doubt the majority of them have shown you any of this "arrogance" which you complain about. There are probably many religious people in your life whom you interact with on a daily basis, whose opinions you respect, whose company you enjoy - but it just never occurs to you that they even have religious beliefs because they aren't trying to force their beliefs on you. Not all people who practice a religion are out to convert you. Not all people who practice a religion believe that their religion makes them a better person than you.

Don't take this the wrong way. I think very highly of you, arildno, and I respect your views, but when you say "just about every religious person I've met", I think this claim is highly exaggerated.

 

[reasonmclucus]

What is religion? We need to understand how religion differs from other ways of dealing with information before making an evaluation.

A common misconception is that religion is something that has to do with godlike beings or the so-called "supernatural". As a mathematician, I believe a more accurate definition would look at how information is dealt with.

The common view of mathematicians is that they deal with numbers and shapes. A more accurate view is that mathematicians develop and utilize tools that classify, evaluate and manipulate information. This information might involve numbers and shapes but doesn't have to.

Religion looks at information within a relatively rigid set of beliefs. Concepts are "truths" which should be accepted with little or no question. These concepts may involve some type of diety, but aren't limited to the "supernatural". Concepts may relate to actual observations of the physical world. For example, the old belief that the sun and stars went around the Earth was based on watching them from Earth's surface. Information that contradicts beliefs must be modified to fit those beliefs.

Real science differs from religion in that scientific concepts are open to question and revision. Concepts must be verified through repeated experimentation and observation. Science is pragmatic and adjusts concepts to reflect new information.

How does this relate to the question of whether religion is needed? Many of those who call themselves scientists are treating "science" like it's their religion. They want science to provide concepts that aren't subject to question particularly those dealing with subjects that religion has often dealt with such as the origin of universe/life and whether bad things in the environment are "humans' fault".

The lack of information limits the ability to develop definitive statements about physical events in the distant past. Yet, those "scientists" who speculate about the distant past insist that they can determine exactly what happened and anyone who questions their beliefs is a "heretic" although they don't use that word.

From this it would appear that there is a human need for some set of beliefs that cannot be questioned and thus offer some degree of certainty. Beliefs that are subject to question force people to think and deal with diffferent, particularly new, ideas. For those with established positions, like college professors, new ideas create the possibility that others will know more and threaten their positions.