If you take the most extreme form, they just shelter their children and brainwash them to the point where denial of God’s existence is associated with fear of hell.
For the rest, confirmation bias, especially thanks to the shitty tool like Google search that reinforce it. Or they make their God untouchable by definition through philosophical arguments.
They feel the same way about you not believing considering all the self-evident miracles they see everyday on their feed.
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.
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.
One thing atheists often ignore is that being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group. That alone is reason enough for many people to stick with it.
Sure, the preacher/priest/whatever may be a scammer asshole, but this isn’t about him, it’s about me and the people around me. I belong in here and so do these people.
Remember, humans are social creatures. Being part of a group is a big fucking deal.
Another thing I’ve been giving some thought, religion can be a “lazy shortcut” for the brain to acknowledge some stuff without having to spend too much energy thinking about it. It’s a lot easier to wrap your head around “Because God wants it” than digging deep into the hows and whys of anything. No, it’s not scientific in the least, but humans are lazy. I am lazy, you are lazy, everyone here is lazy, we just opt to save energy in different things.
The funny thing is that that kind of talk of the previous poster is just a bad type of generalization, a lazy shortcut. The existence of bad elements within a large group is a given. There are pedophile priests, just as there are pedophile uncles or teachers. The only difference here is in how accountable they are for their actions, as the Roman Catholic Church is well known for protecting its abusive priests, which isn’t too different from Epstein’s friends having money shields.
As for carpet bombing and general violence, one could say it’s “politics as usual”. When words fail (whether on purpose or not is irrelevant here), violence emerges, because one side wants to impose its will. Religion is just another lazy (and often effective) shortcut to rally people behind a cause, not unlike patriotism
I’ve known atheists who go to church for the community. I’m an atheist, and I have recommended going to a nondenominational church to other atheists who had said they really lacked community support.
Of course, sometimes religious community systems can actually be very hostile and nonsupportive and downright exploitative. Really just depends on the specific church community. Just like there are some great people and some major assholes out there. Churches are no different.
Wonder why atheists often do not value the communal aspect of a community they are often excluded from. It is almost as if they do not value not being included in the group? Also, lazy shortcuts often lead to bad outcomes. Being wary about that is a good thing, in my opinion.
Asking a bunch of non-religious people is nothing but a circle jerk.
People believe in religion for a variety of reasons. I believe in what I believe in because I’ve had personal experiences, and because it gives me a way to be better than I am.
It’s literally their arguments in a nutshell. It’s either Faith or My book says. They can’t have anything else otherwise they’d have produced it over the past 2000 years.
It’s the same people believing in Ghosts. You’re not going to find some Ghost believer Einstein that’ll blow your mind with his reasoning on why he believes in ghosts…
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
I reiterate. If what I’m claiming their reasons are is wrong, give me the reasoning that they are using that I am missing. Stop telling me I’m wrong and show that I am wrong by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
Yea, pretty sure the majority of religious people are going to disagree with you. Religious believers believe in a God and a supernatural realm. What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending. When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
Yeah. I rejected your command and didnt aim to proof anything.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Umm… No, it’s neither? I was explaining how you’re asking the wrong question which religion doesn’t aim to answer.
by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
I can’t. It’s faith. Faith is the reason to believe in a god. Never claimed anything different.
What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
You’re just pulling stuff out of your ass that you can’t possibly have any data to. I’ve had productive discussions with people who studied theology.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
Yeah, didn’t think that you’d get it, tbh. I was trying to explain that you’re making a cathegorical error by demanding proof of a god. Separate your domains of inquire, my dude.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
Bullshit. You’re dunking on abrahamic religions (“stone gays”) and use these to extrapolate to any religion. You have no idea about paganism, buddhism, sikh, shintoism, etc.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending.
What is the “truth” you’re supposedly speaking? That there is no scientific proof that something supernatural exists? Wow. What a well of wisdom you are. Did you know that you can be a secular buddhist?
When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
You’re confusing christianity (and maybe islam) with every other religion again. Judaism doesn’t have missionaries. Neither do hundreds of other religions.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
Having welcomed into my home and talked to quite a number of people preaching door to door (and having even participated in an organised discussion between Physics Degree pupils and a preacher of some Baptist church) I can confirm it’s invariably a logic chain that is either circular or ends up in some supposedly “truth” about which there can be no questioning (aka an axiom) the most basic one being “it says so in the Bible”.
Either that or it’s some poor old ladies who really can’t string much of a logic chain of though (it’s pretty much direct to “it says so in this book”).
And it’s all perfectly acceptable in one’s Personal Sphere. It’s just not an actual argument to justify anything outside the Theological and Personal Spheres, such as, for example, having the Law impose one’s Morality on others or having one’s country managed in one way rather than a different way.
For me Religion is absolutelly fine as long as it stops at the boundary of the religious person’s life and choices, and does not go into shaping other people’s life and choices: believers can feel free to try and convert others so that they shape their own life and choices the same way, just not to force their own morality on others.
You are confusing reasons with proof. Most believe because they choose to. Because believing in God gives them meaning and purpose, and a drive to be better, to do better. And because they have had personal experiences that lead them towards belief.
The proof for them is in the effects that faith has had on them. “By their fruits” and all that. Not far different to the “proofs” of dark matter.
Though it’s very ironic that you stereotype people of faith, and think I’m the one who needs to meet more of them.
Alright, so I was right you have nothing other than “faith”.
I am asking you to provide any evidence for God that I can independently verify.
Faith or how things make you feel are irrelevant. There are people who believe in Goku and like how it makes them feel when they are shooting Kamehamehas… That doesn’t make it real.
You jumped into this conversation train unprepared. I’ve been arguing, reading, discussing and debating religion for decades. I’ve seen it all. God has been shrinking for the past 2000 years.
I’m not even going to touch your dark matter comment because you are also incredibly ignorant on that subject given that you have referenced it in this context.
I never tried to prove God to you. Trying to prove the existence of God is a foolish undertaking. I, quite frankly, don’t care what you believe. I’ve only tried to point out to you that people have plenty of reasons to believe in God that science can’t provide.
You making ignorant ad hominem attacks doesn’t make your bigotry any less transparent. It’s only a comment on you that you’ve ostensibly spent so much time discussing things that are close to people’s hearts without developing a shred of empathy or understanding.
You don’t get to force me into the discussion you want to have by trying to bully me. Your opinion isn’t going to bait me. I’m comfortable with having made the point I wanted to make.
Fair enough, so you also are unable to provide any reason. You seem to think that getting angry and insulting me will somehow magically count as having made a point on the original topic.
No worries, I didn’t expect you to be able to provide anything, because better people than you have tried and failed over the last 2 millenia.
Despite increasing knowledge, there is still a lot we don’t know. People will always use religion to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Especially the questions, “why is there something rather than nothing?” And “what do you experience when you die”, which imo are unknowable (although we’ve got pretty good evidence for the latter answer being “nothing”)
What’s “wrong” in your question is the assumption that a) the only reason religions exist is the lack of knowledge and b) that the knowledge we have answers all the questions that people seek answers to when they turn to religion. I think if you question these assumptions then you’ll easily start to find the answers. Otherwise see all the other comments.
I’ve been looking into a tradition for the last few years that died out nearly 1,500 years ago that has me wondering the opposite.
How in the present day with the clear trajectory of science and technology we are currently working on do we not realize this ancient and relatively well known text isn’t some mystical mumbo jumbo but is straight up dishing on the nature of our reality?
I think there’s a stubbornness of thought that exists among most humans regarding what they think they know about life which blinds both the religious and non-religious.
I mean, in this day and age why isn’t [insert what I know to be true] accepted by [everyone who I perceive to be wrong]. Hegel leads to another Russian smart man who argues a bunch of it might be due to this idea of perezhivanie; how we make sense of what is happening (particularly dramatic events) through our cognition, our emotions and filtered through our needs.
How we make sense of stuff leads to how we behave/believe. This is impacted by our social environment, how we are brought up, our experiences, and our reasoning of those experiences.
It’s why it is argued that information alone will never change someone’s mind about something, it needs to be attached to an emotion and an experience to unpack.
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.
It’s a source of comfort. People want to be in control. If they can’t be in control, they at least want to feel like someone or something is in control. That there is some organizing force or principle to the universe. Religion, astrology, conspiracism etc all flow from that impulse.
Add comment