As a former Catholic, I can say at least personally, religion did not make me feel good. It made me feel like many thoughts and feelings I had made me a bad person. It made me smug and judgemental.
If you’re really interested in an answer and not only trying to dunk on religious people: I’d suggest reading a few philosophical critics of religion. Like Feuerbach and Marx.
Religion always fulfilled a certain function to people. Way back, it was used to answer questions which have been properly answered by science (where does the sun/thunder and lightning come from, etc.). But that’s not the whole picture of religion’s function in society.
People still have an urge to answer questions science can’t/won’t answer (what is right and wrong? *why are we here? how should we treat each other?). Religion fulfills the function answering a subset of these questions.
what is right and wrong? how should we treat each other?
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He’s a good read on this.
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. Source
Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That’s because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There’s plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.
why are we here?
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer.
I’m not saying that you can reach verdicts about morality without religion. But you’ve left the realm of science which was proposed as the religion killer.
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs.
It’s about as bad as science. Look at all the atrocities which were “justified” by science. E.g.: racism, eugenics, …
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc.
You do realize that religion is a societal construct, right?
That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists).
Yeah… That was my original point…
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head.
What exactly is it you are trying to prove? Why are you trying to dunk on Christianity? I don’t believe in god and I know of all that fucked up shit done in the name of the lord. I wanted to give an explanation of what functional role religion can have for humans.
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence?
No, but try making people stop asking that question.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
I’m not religious myself. But I have dear friends who are very religious and we literally never differ when it comes to questions about religion/morals. They belive, I don’t. I know it’s important to them and I hate it if some edgy atheists reduce the topic down so much. Not as much as I hate radical christians/muslims/jews being hypocritical asswipes. But religion probaply didn’t make them asswiper.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Me: I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
You: Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Well, you know. Maybe I’ve read a bit much between the lines. But I think your last comment just wasn’t completely in the best of faith. I’ve read paragraph per paragraph and once I’ve read a bit further (after formulating an answer to that specific point), I see some sort of excuse of how your really don’t suggest the best stuff. I must say: I felt a little bit like you tried to insult me just a teeensy bit, by taking back some of the things you wrote two paragraphs before. And I feel a bit bullshitted if someone replies to me like that.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Could you please talk like a human being? Who talks like that? Get on with it!
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
Yeah, well it’s less about what you say in the discussion, but more the way how you say it. I feel like you’re a bit … sketchy with how you throw your horrible arguments and excuse them two paragraphs later. Let’s say, I had to jump to conclusions, because you said some seriously bad stuff and I had to stumble a bit during your text. So please talk like a human being? Please remember that english is not my first language and I’m not the best at communicating by text in my second language.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Didn’t feel like “simple conversation”. More like "debate bro says some heinous shit and tries to get away with it " vibes. Maybe I’m not the one at fault here by being illogical, but rather someone in this conversation has said some a bit… right-wing stuff.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
They’re not unfounded. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. You’re seeming a bit like a dick. That’s what I was talking about.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Whoooo boy. Your first actual point it it sure is… a doozy. Where shall I begin?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty.
That’s one hell of a statement you make there. Surely, you can’t mean that in no point in history, science has ever been the justification for carrying out heinous acts. (in the business, we call this…)
Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments
Where are you getting these examples from? Why are you talking like you’ve made any point to disprove any of my statements by naming these random examples? I’m afraid you’re not getting my point? In what way would I have claimed anything about these racist/speciesist practices? And then you claim that…
science was not the means of justification.
Yes, you are correct. The name of science is never to blame for these things… or is it?
Tuskegee, animals, Nazi experiments. Why do you mash two human and one animal examples together? We were talking about humans, were we not? Why would you compare a human to an animal? Except… “Race” scientists have been claiming for centuries that africans (or less aryan peoples) are inferior to the human race. There are science books still used in education today claiming that black people have a higher pain threshold and other stuff in which the “science of the time” justified why some people can be treated like animals… or slaves. Mengele was standing on the shoulders of race science when he thought that it is ok to torture non-aryans. He was not a lunatic. He was a respected physician for the time, contributing to science. … and today we know, he was a monster. But he, as well as the people running the Tuskegee Experiment were raised on the “scientific discovery”, that non-white people are not human, justified for slave trade. You can even go into the origins of science in the west: In ancient rome or greece. They were f-cking slave cultures. You can’t have a slave culture and reach that level of “civilisation” without some sort of scientists trying to justify, why we have to mistrust our intrinsic instict to treat our brothers and sisters with respect and instead bind them as a slave. That was the science of the day, my friend.
So, you were saying that science didn’t justify racism? Like… ever?
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one.
Who are you talking to? Are you answering your own points just after you made them, again?
For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation.
Will this be in the test, professor? /s Who the question that made you answer that?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Yeah… guess, which societal institution used to be the one who almost exclusively was concerned about philosophy and ethics for the last say… about 4 millenia? Starts with an “r”. Historical context is important.
I felt like you argued in bad faith and explained how I came to that conclusion. Please don’t invalidate my perception.
I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults
Way to go proving what I figured: That you’re doing the equivalent of “liking the sound of your own voice”. You’re not engaging in conversation, you’re trying to lecture me. I don’t consider that respectful. When I point that out, you claim that I argue in “bad faith”. Seriously?
Then read the arguments I made and adress them. You’re smart, you’ll figure out which paragraphs contain arguments.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.
Never claimed that it had a tone of voice. But the way written text is structured can still convey the feeling that you’re not being talked with, but rather talked to.
It’s less about tone, but “reading between the lines”.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees
I take issue with the word “respectfully”. Don’t invalidate my perception, please. I also explained why I felt like that.
Religion is founded on belief, and belief allows people to feel certainty about things they’re ultimately uncertain about. As long is there is something that someone doesn’t fully understand, religion and god are a solution to bridge the gap.
When you are that person, the leap to a god is fairly logical and easy to them, since at a base level, it’s born out of a desire for someone to be in charge and in control. You understand some of the world around you. To understand it more fully, you just need a bigger, stronger, smarter version of yourself. That’s why in most religions, a god is not some transcendent, immortal, eternal, all powerful being. They’re just essentially Human+. There are way more religions with gods like Zeus than Allah. Saying that nobody is in charge, and nobody fully understands anything, and that’s all OK makes billions of people uncomfortable. And, screaming at them that they’re wrong and need to be more OK with some existential dread usually just serves to make them more uncomfortable.
human brain just wants patterns and will create it to satisfy itself. religion does not run counter to human knowledge, they’re the same process really.
I really like the holographic theory but again that’s a theory which gives us answers, but then opens up a bunch more questions. The point of my comment was about as long as we have these fundamental questions about reality, we will have religion. I wasn’t trying to say god did it.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of people are just scared by the chaos and meaninglessness of life and death. It is terrifying to know that everyone you know and love is going to die and be forgotten, eventually, including yourself. Everything that has meaning to you has an expiration date, and a lot of people have trouble accepting that. So they hold on to illogical fairy tales of eternal life in paradise to deal with the existential dread.
There are lots of reasons. Some people want answers for questions that we don’t have scientific answers for yet, or that science can’t possibly answer.
Some people want to use a framework to justify their behavior.
Some people are scared or disgusted by the implications of our knowledge, and they want it to be something different.
Some people want to manipulate others.
There are many religions because there are many reason why they exist.
questions that we don’t have scientific answers for yet, or that science can’t possibly answer
I’ll be the Devil’s advocate for this one and say that there are very few questions that science can’t legitimately answer to any degree, like what consciousness is. But for others like why the universe became what it is today and how it works, it’s just not a satisfying answer for someone who has no interest or hasn’t studied physics and chemistry to a reasonable degree. Like, the way that we can partly explain a lot of what goes on from the flow of energy or that life’s purpose is to reproduce in biology, what a let down of an answer that is for someone who was promised a grandiose explanation of everything.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that I can see why people retreat back to religion for these answers. And tangentially, this is why I think we need more people like Carl Sagan who can genuinely paint our understanding of the natural world in a more awe-inspiring way for the average person without becoming a meme themselves like some of these other celebrities.
Science can’t answer any “why.” It can explain how and what, but it can’t give meaning. If someone thinks it does give meaning, they have turned it into a religion.
I’m well aware but I don’t mean why as in “why it is that it is”, but why as in how we got to where we are. “Why is the world round?” (spherical for the pedantics amongst us) is perfectly answerable by Science and it’s not an existential question.
One problem is trying to discern people who have truly religious beliefs, vs. people that are lazy lairs.
I think Trump supporters that talk of him being chosen by God are lazy lairs. They have a racist world view, can’t justify it, so bring God into the argument. They have no real interest into looking deeply at questions or reality; they laugh at those that do.
Is this a problem to my answer? It just seems like another explanation.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter if religious beliefs are truly held or not, the results are the same.
Trump supporters are fucking morons, I’d take 50/50 odds on there being a trump cult in the next 15 years that worship him as a second coming, and that would be valid as a religion.
You’re presupposing there was nothing at one point. We know that is the case for the physical universe because otherwise entropy would have ended actions an eternity ago. An eternal being not subject to the laws of thermodynamics has no logical need for a beginning.
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.
Your young niece sounds a lot like my elderly family. They’re conscious that they “just can’t let go” despite being very progressive and open to new ideas and they’re aware of that.
When I was about the age of 12, I had a new friend who asked me if I believed in God. I said no, and then she told me I was going to burn in hell. That was my first introduction to religion.
I don’t remember ever speaking with her again, but I still remember that interaction crystal clear and where it happened 20+ years later.
I think a big part of the mental blocked on both sides is people generally not understanding the difference between fact and faith.
Knowledge is about fact. It’s the realm of science, empiricism, and logic. If it can be understood and known, it belongs here.
Faith is about the unknowable (not the unknown). It’s a choice to believe something without evidence because that evidence cannot exist.
You can’t both believe something and know it.
Understanding that faith and science don’t intersect allows people to hold spiritual beliefs without rejecting knowledge and science. They don’t conflict because they’re entirely separate.
Some people aren’t wired with the mental flexibility to embrace both spiritually and empiricism. Some reject science, while others reject faith, and neither understand the other.
Im not religious, not in the sense that i follow any particular religion.
But it seems to me, analyzing the history of humanity across multiple cultures, that we humans have fundamentally a “spiritual need”, a need to believe into something that is bigger than us, that lies on a superior level of existence.
Call it buddhism, christianity or whatever, but it seems like we need to believe in something like that.
To an extent, i believe it has to do with us being moral animals and having a natural need for justice. We want to believe that justice exists in this world and a religion and its rules is a way to a just world. Because bad people go to hell, or are victims of karma.
So to answer your question. I think we want the world to be fair, because we are moral animals. And believing in religion is a way to believe in a fair world.
The problem with religions is twofold.
One, that across human history the above core element of all religions has been conflated with other foreign elements that have nothing to do with it, like descriptions about the origin of the universe and humans (which is a question of science, not of religion) and rules about how to live your life which have nothing moral about them (and are probably the temporary result of the existing culture within a society). Like forbidding homosexuality, or the idea that women serve a very limited function in society which is limited to taking care of the home and the children.
Usually people have come to accept this because religion is sold as a “complete package” (particularly enforced with rules that you make a bad religious person if you don’t accept it all and with the people close being incentivized to look down on you for not strictly adhering to the religious teachings). That is also why people believe in religion in general (and not just in its moral teachings which actually make sense) in 2024.
The second problem with religion (and here i’m going on a tangent that doesn’t have much to do with the question at hand) is that it usually makes a validity claim for eternity, i.e. religion asserts that its rules and knowledge are valid forever (literally set in stone). This has done more harm than good to our improving of our set of guiding moral principles.
I think that there is a place in the human brain that is responsible for ‘spirituality’. Attempts at stimulating it can produce deep religious thoughts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Maybe it evolved as a buffer to store random ideas we couldn’t comprehend. Maybe as a social creator we need a section of our brain to produce spiritual ideas, to help with social cohesion?
IMHO, an easier explanation is that complexity, chaos and the unknown are scary, very very scary.
Things are a lot less scary and a lot more simple if all complexity is explained away by Deity, nothing important is random but rather controlled by said Deity and the unknown is replaced by some fable around Deity.
A mother losing her child in an Earthquake is easier to handle at an emotional level if “It was the will of God and that child went to Heaven” (which is pretty much what the typical Catholic Priest will say) than having to face it being merelly random bad luck and that young person she loved so much being gone forever. (It’s not by chance that for example Mormons during the period when they’re supposed to go out and preach their religion around the World will look at obituaries to find people to try to convert).
I heard somewhere that spirituality is the easing of suffering. Maybe that was from Mark Manson (Subtle Art, YT channel, etc.).
Something in that statement works for me. I’m not superstitious nor do I hold beliefs in the supernatural. But I do undertake efforts to ease suffering - whether that’s meditation, readings, or reflection.
I think many have a spiritual need. Anxiety, depression, grief, changing moods, and more reveal that need. There’s an emotional (“spiritual”) suffering that we hope or need to salve.
Then I think we overshoot the mark.
It’s easy to want concrete perspectives when the world is dark, unjust, or foreboding. Attempting to meet those need with concrete answers helps feed the rise of religion.
I can’t fault the feeling of needing certainty, but I’d hope we can find ways to ease suffering without the use of delusion or lies.
Having said all of the above, I’m an Atheist. I think in rejecting religion, we have, also, overshot the mark.
People need each other. We need the things and rituals that help us find or move closer to peace. We are emotional, feeling, social animals and we’ve wrapped ourselves in new certainties and - sometimes - self-righteousness.
We need people. We need respect. We need love. We deserve human rights. We, also, need to learn how to transcend some of our injuries so we can navigate more effectively. That can be family, community, or national politics.
I’m not talking about losing boundaries. I’m talking about using them differently. Yesterday was MLK Jr day. He set boundaries, but he didn’t do it in hate or overt shame and anger.
He just did the work that needed to be done with the clearest eyes he could. I hope we, the materialists, can find a realistic perspective that doesn’t over-celebrate reason, and forgets the rest of our experience.
Reason tells us we feel. We hurt. We hurt others. We need something (reality-based) that reminds us to tend to ourselves and our communities.
We need balance.
I’ve wandered some in my response. It helped me to type, maybe it helps someone else, too. Either way, I liked your comment and it spurred thought.
I have recently come to the conclusion that there are cognitively functional people with a sound mind that believe that it is not possible to know anything for sure. Like, it’s not possible to know if the scientists are telling the truth. We just have to take their word for it. Why not stick to the thousand year old belief system then? It has better apologists, armed with an experience of hundreds of years of demagogy and dogma regarding fending of criticism of said belief system.
That’s just the excuse they use. Sadly it works on a lot of people who think it’s a legitimate question when it’s not, and is in fact easily disproved.
Take away their wallet, phone or medicine and then ask them if they still aren’t sure. Or point a gun at their head and ask them if they’re not sure a bullet will blast through their skull and kill them if they don’t stop talking.
Or just tell them that means their religion is still bupkis because if we can’t be sure, we can’t accept it as true. Hold them to their standards.
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.
Add comment