NationStates Jolt Archive

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

Agreed. It's a tool of state designed to keep people in line, and it is best replaced with an artificial 'Big Brother' God. The explaination of existence part was just there to strengthen the idea of God. Shame that Creationists can't understand that.

What would you then propose that modern religion is here to do?
I'd say that it's here for morals. But that's just me.

Yet a lot of religious debates on this forum are about how this environment came into existence - evolution vs creationism...

That aside: I agree with the sentiment. Religions like Christianity and Islam are more concerned with defining a moral standard, a life style and providing guidance than with explaining everything. But the explaining part *is* still present.

What would you then propose that modern religion is here to do?
I'd say that it's here for morals. But that's just me.


I'd say it's lost it's way, started wandering around believing in itself, and started trying to compete with state for control and power. Which is bad.

What would you then propose that modern religion is here to do?
I'd say that it's here for morals. But that's just me.

It is not here to "do" anything. In the sense that it is not any of the following

- A social control (the opium of the masses)
- A means of explaining the enviroment
- A way of making yourself feel better about death

Religion does not have a "Task". The only one with the task is the religious believer. To live their life as close to their discipline as possible, and to develop a relationship with their God (The latter is more Christian)

It is not here to "do" anything. In the sense that it is not any of the following

- A social control (the opium of the masses)
- A means of explaining the enviroment
- A way of making yourself feel better about death

Religion does not have a "Task". The only one with the task is the religious believer. To live their life as close to their discipline as possible, and to develop a relationship with their God (The latter is more Christian)

Surely the discipline you mention is, in fact, just a convoluted evolution of the social control? And, incidently, it includes the other two, but is not focused on them.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

What do you know of tribal religions? Can't it be said that major religions are just as rational and irrational as minor ones?

...Perhaps not "Thunder is God shouting," but "God is everywhere, God burns the heathens, sinners go to Hell, the Chosen People will go to heaven, the first to humans were created by God, etc.."... I tried to explain these fundamental qualities (obviously in a better way) to a friend in eastern Africa, he found it all to be very silly....

...And I agree with Nasopotomia, very conflicted argument, I will admit...

Surely the discipline you mention is, in fact, just a convoluted evolution of the social control? And, incidently, it includes the other two, but is not focused on them.

Not when you consider that social control applies to all (all being part of society) where as religion is a choice.

Oh, it's, at least for the sensible ones, a way to get in touch with a higher meaning, higher purpose, etc. They're nothing to be bothered about and are usually pretty cool as long as they're having a good time and don't act like cretins; they're kind of like UFO nuts that way. There are more who believe in some sort of Cosmic Bellhop or moral policeman; now that's pretty dumb, but as long as they don't annoy me, eh. There are, however, more than most of them would like to admit who believe in the really stupid things. You know, like the evolution deniers, people who live in a total fantasy world and act like Richard Craniums. That last group is the only one that I have a problem with.

Not when you consider that social control applies to all (all being part of society) where as religion is a choice.

That just means religion doesn't work properly any more. Which makes it entirely useless.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

This is precisely why I have always felt that "creationism" is not only bad science, but also runs counter to Christianity and is bad religion. Religion is about faith, not scientific proof.

This would not be an issue of discussion if certain fundamentalists would stop trying to force the teaching of Christianity into schools by trying to pass it off as science.

Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.
I would argue with you, but Neo Cannen has already unwittingly provided me with the bulk of my argument:


- A social control (the opium of the masses)
- A means of explaining the enviroment
- A way of making yourself feel better about death
This is precisely what religion is, though Neo Cannen doesn't think so. Religion is about an explanation of why things are the way they are. Any Judeo-Christian creationist proves that religion is still a tool of explanation, which has indeed become obsolete with the advent of modern science. Now that we've surpassed the apothecaries and alchemists of earlier times, we no longer have need of creation myths. I would like people to note that people still believe in miracles from God. What Chrsitian here believes that Christ was ressurected? That is obviously contrary to science, since medicine certainly was not at the point that Jesus could have been resuscitated. Next is that it is comfort in death. People are afraid of obvlivion, and don't want to face it. So they come up with things such as the afterlife to make themselves feel better. Reincarnation is better, but still the same fundamental principle. Religion is indeed the opium of the masses. Yes, Chinese, you could've just become more religious. Lastly, many leaders in organised religion do indeed do it as a form of power. That's why Protestantism exists at all, because those in the Catholic church had become less religious and more corporate.

I would argue with you, but Neo Cannen has already unwittingly provided me with the bulk of my argument:


This is precisely what religion is, though Neo Cannen doesn't think so. Religion is about an explanation of why things are the way they are. Any Judeo-Christian creationist proves that religion is still a tool of explanation, which has indeed become obsolete with the advent of modern science. Now that we've surpassed the apothecaries and alchemists of earlier times, we no longer have need of creation myths. I would like people to note that people still believe in miracles from God. What Chrsitian here believes that Christ was ressurected? That is obviously contrary to science, since medicine certainly was not at the point that Jesus could have been resuscitated. Next is that it is comfort in death. People are afraid of obvlivion, and don't want to face it. So they come up with things such as the afterlife to make themselves feel better. Reincarnation is better, but still the same fundamental principle. Religion is indeed the opium of the masses. Yes, Chinese, you could've just become more religious. Lastly, many leaders in organised religion do indeed do it as a form of power. That's why Protestantism exists at all, because those in the Catholic church had become less religious and more corporate.

I agree on most aspects. But, here is a question for Neo: Why do we fear death? If a baby dies the moment it's born, and it fears death (as all things do) well, it must go to heaven, seeing as how it never sinned. Why shouldn't all babies die right after they were born? They could just grow up in heaven and everything would be perfectly fine, right?

*shrug*

how many christian ministers preached that the tsunami was some lesson or threat or whatever from god? a substantial number.

Religion is not any means of "explaining the enviroment." The purpose of religion is to further understanding of one's self by putting oneself in relationship to divinity.

Religion is not any means of "explaining the enviroment." The purpose of religion is to further understanding of one's self by putting oneself in relationship to divinity.

Depends on your religion, Will. And depends on your point of view within it. Plenty of Catholic Priests in the middle ages saw religion as a nice cushy way to avoid doing any real work, and an easily-exploited road to power.

religion is belif sytem for running our lifes things we should and shouldnt do and somthing to fall back on in hard times

This is precisely what religion is, though Neo Cannen doesn't think so. Religion is about an explanation of why things are the way they are. Any Judeo-Christian creationist proves that religion is still a tool of explanation, which has indeed become obsolete with the advent of modern science. Now that we've surpassed the apothecaries and alchemists of earlier times, we no longer have need of creation myths. I would like people to note that people still believe in miracles from God. What Chrsitian here believes that Christ was ressurected? That is obviously contrary to science, since medicine certainly was not at the point that Jesus could have been resuscitated. Next is that it is comfort in death. People are afraid of obvlivion, and don't want to face it. So they come up with things such as the afterlife to make themselves feel better. Reincarnation is better, but still the same fundamental principle. Religion is indeed the opium of the masses. Yes, Chinese, you could've just become more religious. Lastly, many leaders in organised religion do indeed do it as a form of power. That's why Protestantism exists at all, because those in the Catholic church had become less religious and more corporate.
Today, at a time when people have abandoned not only the old myths but the reasons for, and methods of, creating the myths, is when we need them the most. We need myth now more than ever.

Participation in mythology was a whole different mind-set from those found in modern Western civilization, one that involves a process of becoming. It is the being that we have thrown away, in favour of the viewpoint of the objective observer. With it, we have lost a piece of humanity, a piece of what it is to be a whole human.

Heracles' tasks are the tasks of every soul who becomes Heracles. Noah's Arc will go on resucing souls long after Bibles have crumbled to dust. Christ's resurrection is the resurrection of every soul who becomes Christ ('comes to Christ' in their parlance). Buddha consciousness is not for Buddha, alone.

Depends on your religion, Will. And depends on your point of view within it. Plenty of Catholic Priests in the middle ages saw religion as a nice cushy way to avoid doing any real work, and an easily-exploited road to power.
Granted, I haven't looked at more than a handful of religions, but for the most popular ones, those I have seen, my definition of religion holds true.

Today, at a time when people have abandoned not only the old myths but the reasons for, and methods of, creating the myths, is when we need them the most. We need myth now more than ever.

But surely if we could just get the moral of the myth, the myth itself becomes useless? The myth imparts a good logic (Thou shalt not kill), but it lies to enforce it (Or thou shalt be struck down). Why do we need a frankly unsupported mythology to hold these laws true? And what about when the myth is wrong, like when it speaks against abortion or contraception?

Yet a lot of religious debates on this forum are about how this environment came into existence - evolution vs creationism...

I get pretty tired of having to explain that not all Christians are fundamentalists. There are many, many Christians who do not subscribe to "Creationism," and who realize that the book of Genesis in the Bible is to be taken as allegory or myth. :headbang:

I get pretty tired of having to explain that not all Christians are fundamentalists. There are many, many Christians who do not subscribe to "Creationism," and who realize that the book of Genesis in the Bible is to be taken as allegory or myth. :headbang:


This is completely irrelevant to what Alma Mater said. An awful lot of the religion discussions on here are just science verses creationism, just as many others are "Why are atheists so wrong?". Even the Catholic church now accepts the theory of Evolution. Start explaining to Creationists that they're being very silly, and stop telling people that you don't have to be an idiot to be a Christian.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.
whether or not a religion teaches that rain is angel tears or the sun is a firey chariot racing across the sky or that goodness lies in pleasing an invisible parent figure who solves problems by murdering his offspring, it's all the same. religion is about providing quick and easy answers to people who cannot come to terms with the limitations of human understanding. faith is only considered a virtue by those who do not have the strength necessary to commit themselves to their own lives. religion seeks to simplify that which is infinitely complex, and, in so doing, reduces human existence to useless absurdity.

personally, i think the belief that thunder is God shouting is far more reasonable and rational a belief than the idea that an all-powerful diety needed to impregnate a little girl and murder the resulting child in order to allow human kind to escape from the Hell that God created for them in the first place.

Not when you consider that social control applies to all (all being part of society) where as religion is a choice.
Religion is as much a choice as your social environment during your childhood is. Like all other basic values, it is taught to children at a young age, and that is irrevertable.

Of course, people change, and their views gradually change too, but not in a fundamental way. Noone raised in a Mormon family will just stand up and say "scrap all this idiocy, I'm becoming an atheist", and neithr will someone raised in a family of atheist communists ever become a true believer.

Today, at a time when people have abandoned not only the old myths but the reasons for, and methods of, creating the myths, is when we need them the most. We need myth now more than ever. (...) It is the being that we have thrown away, in favour of the viewpoint of the objective observer. With it, we have lost a piece of humanity, a piece of what it is to be a whole human.
So you'd like to go back to the bad old days where superstition made people do hideous things to each other? Well, lucky you, a great deal of the world still hasn't forgotten that. Maybe you want to move there. Like, for example, into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Plenty of spirituality for everyone there.

What is religion all about? Well, it depends on the faith at hand, but most cover this:

- providing a set of morals that more or less makes large numbers of people able to coexist without killing each other
- providing explanations for thinsg that cannot be directly observed (What happens when one dies? Where did the world come from? What made that nut fal off the coconut tree and hit my head?)
- providing the masses with somewhat of a caretaker institution (like priests giving out free meals to the desperate, free education to the poor, someone whom you can come to and seek comfort from when all your family has died in a tsunami)
- providing the ruling class with tools to control their subjects (like using the above to provide their subjects with propaganda)

Now, there's really nothing bad about that, and - provided religion is willing to concede some matters to scientific explanation (as a substantial part of American christianity is not when it comes to biology) - there isn't a conflict between religion and science either. Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, as it is a philosophy that concerns itself only with the material, not philosophy ot theology.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

For once, Neo - it looks like you may be correct.

Modern religion isn't SOLELY about explaining the environment.

However, as long as fundamentalists continue to insist that Genesis (for example) is the REAL explanation of where everything came from... religion is just going to have to live with that label.

I think that the social control elements of religion are far MORE of what it is about, in our modern time.

By the way, why are there rainbows, Neo? Where do they 'come from'?

Heracles' tasks are the tasks of every soul who becomes Heracles. Noah's Arc will go on resucing souls long after Bibles have crumbled to dust. Christ's resurrection is the resurrection of every soul who becomes Christ ('comes to Christ' in their parlance). Buddha consciousness is not for Buddha, alone.

The problem is that the Hebrew spawned religions are the McDonalds, or Microsoft, of myth. They steal a good idea from here, or there - and repackage it, and sell it as their own.

The average christian is so ignorant of the roots of his/her religion, that they actually believe that the Noah version was the earliest (and ONLY) version of the flood myth... or that Jesus was the first (and ONLY) child born of gods interacting with humans, etc.

But surely if we could just get the moral of the myth, the myth itself becomes useless? The myth imparts a good logic (Thou shalt not kill), but it lies to enforce it (Or thou shalt be struck down). Why do we need a frankly unsupported mythology to hold these laws true? And what about when the myth is wrong, like when it speaks against abortion or contraception?
Mythic stories are not parables; they don't have a moral that you can jump to the end and "get it". They are metaphors of spiritual concepts, spiritual journies. They impart modes of being. To know what the myth is about, one must participate in it, experience it. The hero, "son of the sun", conqueror of dragons and serpents, is a metaphor for man's consciousness overcoming fears, evil and death. Demetre, the mother mouning the loss of her daughter, personifies winter's death-like state and the "long winter" of the soul who loses a loved one. Actaeon, the hunter killed by an arrow from Artemis, is the fallen lover of the goddess; the sacrificial victim of the sacred marriage who would fertilize the earth, not with his actual blood but with the spirit contained within.

"The story of the sacred marriage of goddess and god dramatizes the relation between infinite and finite life, and so between the divine and human portion of the psyche, in such a way that the conflicting forces within may be more profoundly understood." -Anne Baring and Jules Cashford

You are right about one thing: what has made the myths useless is logic and reason. Neither are necessary to experience participation in the myth, yet both have been exalted above all other modes of thinking as the bastion or pinacle of man's intellect. And neither is any way of understanding god.

"Man can apprehend and know his own being only in so far as he can make it visible in the image of his gods." -Ernst Cassirer

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.
I respectfully dissent. Religion ist pretty much about explaining how the world has come into being and how it works. And that is why religion must be able to give accounts for all that happens in the real world. If (some) god acts in this world there must be evidence for a manifestation. If religion fails to provide explanations it becomes dispensable. So I am still waiting for the different religion's authorities to explain quantum mechanics on the one hand and virgin pregnancy or flights through the heavens on the other ;-)

The problem is that the Hebrew spawned religions are the McDonalds, or Microsoft, of myth. They steal a good idea from here, or there - and repackage it, and sell it as their own.
Mainly Microsoft, who are not a hardware or software company, but a marketing company. I know Microsoft has pretty much come up with nothing actually original (woudl you believe that Xerox invented Windows?), but I wasn't aware that McDonald's was also like that.

The average christian is so ignorant of the roots of his/her religion, that they actually believe that the Noah version was the earliest (and ONLY) version of the flood myth... or that Jesus was the first (and ONLY) child born of gods interacting with humans, etc.
The thing is that to do that would be to admit that their religion has not always been around. They are in denial.

Religion serves to give people a feeling that there is more to life than just what they are experiencing. It helped the Jews through the holocaust. In fact, the reason Judaism and Islam are both much more hidebound than Christianity is because they both have been under attack for so long. For modern Christians religion offers less a set of beliefs, moral standards, etc, and more an exclusive community to allow them to feel like they're part of something. These days those Christians that aren't fundamentalists live their lives the same way secular humanists do.

Religion serves to give people a feeling that there is more to life than just what they are experiencing. It helped the Jews through the holocaust. In fact, the reason Judaism and Islam are both much more hidebound than Christianity is because they both have been under attack for so long. For modern Christians religion offers less a set of beliefs, moral standards, etc, and more an exclusive community to allow them to feel like they're part of something.
EXACTLY. people turn to religion out of need. they turn to religion because they are lonely, or frightened, or helpless, or abused. they turn to religion because they have no alternative. that's why i strive to help create a world where they will not need to use religion to find meaning and strength. i try to educate people so they won't need myths to explain the universe. i try to help people who are in trouble, and show them how to help themselves, so they won't resort to God out of desperation. i strive to prevent horrible injustices like the Holocaust so that no people will be placed in situations where the only good in the world is found in myths.

EXACTLY. people turn to religion out of need. they turn to religion because they are lonely, or frightened, or helpless, or abused. they turn to religion because they have no alternative. that's why i strive to help create a world where they will not need to use religion to find meaning and strength. i try to educate people so they won't need myths to explain the universe. i try to help people who are in trouble, and show them how to help themselves, so they won't resort to God out of desperation. i strive to prevent horrible injustices like the Holocaust so that no people will be placed in situations where the only good in the world is found in myths.

What kind of horrible person are you? You mean you want to make people happy?

whether or not a religion teaches that rain is angel tears or the sun is a firey chariot racing across the sky or that goodness lies in pleasing an invisible parent figure who solves problems by murdering his offspring, it's all the same. religion is about providing quick and easy answers to people who cannot come to terms with the limitations of human understanding. faith is only considered a virtue by those who do not have the strength necessary to commit themselves to their own lives. religion seeks to simplify that which is infinitely complex, and, in so doing, reduces human existence to useless absurdity.

personally, i think the belief that thunder is God shouting is far more reasonable and rational a belief than the idea that an all-powerful diety needed to impregnate a little girl and murder the resulting child in order to allow human kind to escape from the Hell that God created for them in the first place.


Mister Bible says:

http://img172.exs.cx/img172/2600/bible4jn.jpg

"THANK YOU BOTTLE. Finally, someone understands how shitty I am. Really you guys, you weren't supposed to take me serious. Try to tell a joke, and suddenly everyone's out killing each other. Oy."

EXACTLY. people turn to religion out of need. they turn to religion because they are lonely, or frightened, or helpless, or abused. they turn to religion because they have no alternative. that's why i strive to help create a world where they will not need to use religion to find meaning and strength. i try to educate people so they won't need myths to explain the universe. i try to help people who are in trouble, and show them how to help themselves, so they won't resort to God out of desperation. i strive to prevent horrible injustices like the Holocaust so that no people will be placed in situations where the only good in the world is found in myths.

People do not turn to religon out of need. That is a horid oversimplification. I certianly didn't and none of the Christians I know did.

What Chrsitian here believes that Christ was ressurected? That is obviously contrary to science, since medicine certainly was not at the point that Jesus could have been resuscitated.

It may be contary to sciene as we understand it, but if we could fully understand God, we would be better than God. Certianly the blood and water point is medical proof that he was dead. And no matter how hard you try, it is very difficult to explain away the accounts of Jesus after the reseruction as being halucinations or shared brainwave experiances.

It may be contary to sciene as we understand it, but if we could fully understand God, we would be better than God. Certianly the blood and water point is medical proof that he was dead. And no matter how hard you try, it is very difficult to explain away the accounts of Jesus after the reseruction as being halucinations or shared brainwave experiances.

Well.. maybe Jesus WASN'T the one crucified - it was his twin brother Brian.

(no, I don't seriously believe that - but it *is* a possibility. There is no proof that Jesus had no brothers - not necessarily twins - that looked like him. Or even a collection of non-related doubles, like Saddam ..)

People do not turn to religon out of need. That is a horid oversimplification. I certianly didn't and none of the Christians I know did.
lol, forgive me, but i cannot simply take your word on that one :). most drug addicts i have worked with don't admit they use out of need until they are prepared to quit.

(no, I don't seriously believe that - but it *is* a possibility. There is no proof that Jesus had no brothers - not necessarily twins - that looked like him. Or even a collection of non-related doubles, like Saddam ..)

Well the fact that everyone who saw him after his death agreed that it was him. Even Thomas who would not be convinced untill he saw him.

It may be contary to sciene as we understand it, but if we could fully understand God, we would be better than God.

that's not true in the slightest. just because you understand something doesn't mean you are "better" than that thing. i fully understand how Mozart composed his brilliant works of music, even to the level of his probable brain physiology, but that doesn't mean i am better than Mozart. i fully understand how my best friend designed and constructed the home that his family lives in, but i am not better than him. just because i understand how a person makes something does not mean i am better than them. God could very easily allow humans to understand the design of the universe without ceding superiority to us, particularly if He is actually an all-powerful being.


And no matter how hard you try, it is very difficult to explain away the accounts of Jesus after the reseruction as being halucinations or shared brainwave experiances.
difficult? how so? the accounts are contradictory, most are second or third hand reported, and the records of these experiences have been re-translated and modified so many times as to be virtually useless. indeed, the only well-substantiated non-Biblical proof that we have of Jesus' existence is his CRIMINAL RECORD...and that certainly doesn't support the theory of his divinity.

lol, forgive me, but i cannot simply take your word on that one :). most drug addicts i have worked with don't admit they use out of need until they are prepared to quit.

I think you are just oversimplyfying things. People come to religions for any number of reasons. The same thing is true of drugs. Durg addicts do have a physical addiction so yes they do have a need. But the same cannot be said of religion. I will agree that many people come to religion as a result of some personal need (But I believe that we all need faith for salvation, but there you go) but to say that everyone who is religious has a need is a gross oversimplication.

It may be contary to sciene as we understand it, but if we could fully understand God, we would be better than God. Certianly the blood and water point is medical proof that he was dead. And no matter how hard you try, it is very difficult to explain away the accounts of Jesus after the reseruction as being halucinations or shared brainwave experiances.

Is it not possible that the stories of Jesus are explainable away as being... well... stories of Jesus? There's no scientific evidence that old women can survive for significant periods in a wolf's stomach (assuming that they can survive the process of getting there, intact), nor that their release can be effected with the surgical precision of a woodman's axe, yet we all know about Little Red Riding Hood and (with minor variations) can relate to, imagine, even envision the tale, despite the fact that explaining that tale in is somewhere in the realm of equally difficult to scientifically explain away...

I'm not suggesting they are at the same level of 'reality', but is the difference only that the one with the wolf is accepted as fairy-tale and the other is taken on faith as true? Even the "with minor variations" bit applies equally to both stories...

[Edit: This strays from the original subject at hand, which I agree with the central premise of.]

I think you are just oversimplyfying things. People come to religions for any number of reasons. The same thing is true of drugs.

people may TRY drugs or religion for a variety of reasons, but they don't become addicts or religious people for any reason other than that the drugs or the faith satisfy a need that is not being met by anything else in their life.

EDIT: should clarify, refering to psychological rather than physiological addiction. though it is still true that a biologically addicted user would be using to answer a need, it would be a need of the body rather than the mind and therefore is less relavent to this discussion.

Durg addicts do have a physical addiction so yes they do have a need. But the same cannot be said of religion.

many drugs that people become addicted to are not physically addicting. cocaine, for example, is not physiologically addictive, while heroine is. yet you can find cocaine addicts even more readily than heroine addicts in most major US cities.


I will agree that many people come to religion as a result of some personal need (But I believe that we all need faith for salvation, but there you go) but to say that everyone who is religious has a need is a gross oversimplication.
i don't believe something is a gross oversimplification if it is a true and accurate description of a very basic situation. you may disagree with me, but please be aware that you are not providing me with any reason to alter my impression...i don't really know why you would continue to argue this point without providing such reason(s), since you can't possibly accomplish anything by stating and re-stating an opinion you know i don't agree with.

Well the fact that everyone who saw him after his death agreed that it was him. Even Thomas who would not be convinced untill he saw him....and, to extend my previous analogy, which you won't have read by the time you wrote the above, there were apparently witnesses to Cinderella's foot being a perfect match for the slipper.

All I'm saying is that there's not much in the way of proof that's admissible in the court of law (though there may also be repurcussions w.r.t. the 'swearing in on the Bible' part in such a case :)) or scientifically.

Mists of time, you see. And if you believe in the Bible, then you believe in the bible and you might as well believe in the crucification as well as the witness statements, as mentioned. If you do not believe in the Bible in the first place then the fact that the supporting evidence for one event in it is further writings a few pages on means absolutely nothing, in the whole scheme of things.

(Again, off-topic. My apologies.)

...and, to extend my previous analogy, which you won't have read by the time you wrote the above, there were apparently witnesses to Cinderella's foot being a perfect match for the slipper.

All I'm saying is that there's not much in the way of proof that's admissible in the court of law (though there may also be repurcussions w.r.t. the 'swearing in on the Bible' part in such a case :)) or scientifically.

Mists of time, you see. And if you believe in the Bible, then you believe in the bible and you might as well believe in the crucification as well as the witness statements, as mentioned. If you do not believe in the Bible in the first place then the fact that the supporting evidence for one event in it is further writings a few pages on means absolutely nothing, in the whole scheme of things.

(Again, off-topic. My apologies.)

that's not as off-topic as one might think at first glance. after all, the basic point is that religious material is only useful for explanations if one already assumes belief in the religion; the "evidence" for anything, environmental or otherwise, that a religion provides will never be able to stand on its own.

EXACTLY. people turn to religion out of need. they turn to religion because they are lonely, or frightened, or helpless, or abused. they turn to religion because they have no alternative. that's why i strive to help create a world where they will not need to use religion to find meaning and strength. i try to educate people so they won't need myths to explain the universe. i try to help people who are in trouble, and show them how to help themselves, so they won't resort to God out of desperation. i strive to prevent horrible injustices like the Holocaust so that no people will be placed in situations where the only good in the world is found in myths.

I'm going to have to agree with NeoCannen here, this is a bit too much of a generalisation. My husband chose to become Christian one day when it just became clear to him that there was too much good and beautiful in the world for it to have just happened by chance (he explains it better, though!) He was not under any particular duress at the time and was not raised in a religious environment to have been 'brainwashed' or 'indoctrinated' in any way (I know you didn't mention this, but I think this is true for a lot of people: they believe, for a while at least, what they were taught to believe. It certainly was that way for me.) Another friend of mine from university was not raised with any sort of religion at all; one parent was Jewish and one was Christian, but both had stopped practising before they left Russia. At 21, this girl was studying religion courses in order to try to figure out for herself what, if anything, she believed; she eventually decided to officially convert to Judaism. Again, she did not make this choice because she was desperate, she made it quite rationally.

Modern religion (and some of ancient religion) is more than just creation myths. That side of thing comes into it because religion aims to answer the 'Big Questions' about who we are, where we come from, where we're going, what is the best way to get there and why things are the way they are. Thus things like 'how did humanity start?' is a part of it, but doesn't tell the whole story of religion.

I'm also wondering where those people who believe in God or a divine or supernatural being or force of some kind, but do not subscribe to any particular religious tenets fit into this picture. What about people like me? As of yesterday and for the first time, believe there is a God because I believe and not because I was told to. I can't explain how or why or give any empirical evidence; I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me or believe me, and I don't pity, condescend towards or in any way dislike people who don't feel the way I do: I think everyone has to figure things out for themself, and it's fine and natural for not everyone to come to the same conclusion. That said, I no longer have any preconceived notions as to the precise nature of God or divinity, or exactly what the impact of the existence of God has on right and wrong, or how, if at all, God would wish me to 'worship' or acknowledge him/her. I have a very skeptical bent and personally feel that evolution and the big bang, among other things, are completely sound and valid theories with substantial evidence to back them up; I believe there is a place for both science and spirituality in this world, and that while it is true that things not yet understood are often ascribed to 'magic' or the supernatural before human knowledge expands and they are explained, it is also ok for some things not to make sense, for there to be more that is inexplicable. There's no particular reason for me to suddenly believe in God; but as of last night I just knew, and I think it's ok for me, or anyone else, to accept this without proof, only faith.

Finally, and please don't take this as a flame, but your tone is extraordinarily arrogant and somewhat self-aggrandising, and your obvious disdain for anyone 'foolish' and 'misguided' enough to have spiritual beliefs doesn't particularly help your argument. I'm sure everyone 'strives to prevent the Holocaust' but do you honestly think that you're going to save the world from religion through sheer force of conviction? Funnily enough even some religious people have striven to educate others, assist those in trouble and in need and prevent injustice and atrocity in the world, so you doing these things to save people from God doesn't make you as noble and superior as you might think - not everyone who has ever believed in God, not even the majority, I should think, has sat round plotting ways to make the world a more hateful, ugly and ignorant place, although it is true that organised religion has had an influence in some awful events. But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be unwilling or unable to see any benefits to spirituality whatsoever; and having seen firsthand the love, generosity, peace and truly enviable contentment I have seen in some spiritual people I think that there is an upside, too. I'm sure you're aware of this and are tilting at windmills on principle, which is fine, but I just felt it needed to be said.

In the Bible, among other things, Christians are reminded not to worship nature, or those things which God created, but to worship God. What is religion? From my perspective, it's similar to philosophy. It is a way of doing things. I have faith that the way to get to heaven, for instance, is to be a Christian. Accept Jesus as your Savior. Try to live without sin, while recognizing that you are human and will sin. Understand that sin is anything that separates you from God. Repent from your sin, and accept that Jesus died to reconcile you with God. As you go through your day, pray to God. As you live during each day, do so as you understand He wants you to live. Love all other people, even your "enemies." Forgive people when you think they have done something against you. Try to help other people come to God. Go in peace, and may God be with you 'til we meet again.

I'm going to have to agree with NeoCannen here, this is a bit too much of a generalisation. My husband chose to become Christian one day when it just became clear to him that there was too much good and beautiful in the world for it to have just happened by chance (he explains it better, though!) He was not under any particular duress at the time and was not raised in a religious environment to have been 'brainwashed' or 'indoctrinated' in any way (I know you didn't mention this, but I think this is true for a lot of people: they believe, for a while at least, what they were taught to believe. It certainly was that way for me.) Another friend of mine from university was not raised with any sort of religion at all; one parent was Jewish and one was Christian, but both had stopped practising before they left Russia. At 21, this girl was studying religion courses in order to try to figure out for herself what, if anything, she believed; she eventually decided to officially convert to Judaism. Again, she did not make this choice because she was desperate, she made it quite rationally.

i never claimed that it was "desperation," or that there was this perceived sense of urgency to the decision, simply that it was based on need. your husband felt there was "too much good in the world to have just happened by chance" and felt that he was unable to resolve that with his understanding of science (which is clearly a poor one, since science does not claim the world's beauty is a result of random chance, but rather is founded on the idea that there are constant forces which dictate the outcomes of physical situations). he felt a need to understand something, and was unable to acheive that without religion. he felt a need to have a known reason for the existence of beauty in the world, and felt he could not find it elsewhere, so he chose religion.

as for your friend, the level of rationality in her decision is not under attack. if a person is unable to meet a given need by any other means, it is perfectly rational for them to choose the only avenue open to them. i never claimed the choice to believe in religion was crazy...far from it! my entire point is that religious people are making a decision based on unmet needs, not because they are stupid or crazy or inherently irrational people.


Modern religion (and some of ancient religion) is more than just creation myths. That side of thing comes into it because religion aims to answer the 'Big Questions' about who we are, where we come from, where we're going, what is the best way to get there and why things are the way they are. Thus things like 'how did humanity start?' is a part of it, but doesn't tell the whole story of religion.

no argument here, though i feel that religion utterly fails to actually provide answers to Big Questions; it provides stories, possible explanations, but provides no reason why any person should believe one set of such stories over any other. this leaves everybody at exactly the same point they started, and expects that people will be content to arbitrarily choose the set of explanations they like the best.


I'm also wondering where those people who believe in God or a divine or supernatural being or force of some kind, but do not subscribe to any particular religious tenets fit into this picture.

same place as any other person who chooses to believe in unprovable beings/events. i don't see any reason to draw a line between those who belong to major religions and those who invent their own.


What about people like me? As of yesterday and for the first time, believe there is a God because I believe and not because I was told to. I can't explain how or why or give any empirical evidence; I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me or believe me, and I don't pity, condescend towards or in any way dislike people who don't feel the way I do: I think everyone has to figure things out for themself, and it's fine and natural for not everyone to come to the same conclusion.

it's good that you don't expect other people to embrace your subjective beliefs, but i hope you aren't expecting any applause for that...that's just basic common courtesy, and i don't usually make a point of rewarding people for doing the bare minimum.


That said, I no longer have any preconceived notions as to the precise nature of God or divinity, or exactly what the impact of the existence of God has on right and wrong, or how, if at all, God would wish me to 'worship' or acknowledge him/her. I have a very skeptical bent and personally feel that evolution and the big bang, among other things, are completely sound and valid theories with substantial evidence to back them up; I believe there is a place for both science and spirituality in this world, and that while it is true that things not yet understood are often ascribed to 'magic' or the supernatural before human knowledge expands and they are explained, it is also ok for some things not to make sense, for there to be more that is inexplicable. There's no particular reason for me to suddenly believe in God; but as of last night I just knew, and I think it's ok for me, or anyone else, to accept this without proof, only faith.

if you believe it is possible for you to "know" if there is or isn't a God, then you are in the same boat as any other believer, in my opinion.


Finally, and please don't take this as a flame, but your tone is extraordinarily arrogant and somewhat self-aggrandising, and your obvious disdain for anyone 'foolish' and 'misguided' enough to have spiritual beliefs doesn't particularly help your argument.

nobody criticizes this attitude when i direct it toward drug addicts. nobody criticizes me for having the same opinion of racists. don't you think it's just a teeny bit foolish to get righteously indignant when somebody directs a given attitude at you, but to totally excuse or even support it when they direct the exact same attitude at another person or group?

I'm sure everyone 'strives to prevent the Holocaust' but do you honestly think that you're going to save the world from religion through sheer force of conviction?

no, i don't believe my personal convictions have the power to alter reality. i believe my actions, and the actions of those i help, can change the world. it's not like i, as a single person, can prevent the next Holocaust, but i most certainly can do many things that will help move the world away from such cruelties. just because i am not able to wave problems away with my magic wand doesn't mean i can't work to better my small corner of the universe to the best of my abilities.

not all goals must be reached to have power and value.


Funnily enough even some religious people have striven to educate others, assist those in trouble and in need and prevent injustice and atrocity in the world, so you doing these things to save people from God doesn't make you as noble and superior as you might think

i do not believe i am noble or superior.


- not everyone who has ever believed in God, not even the majority, I should think, has sat round plotting ways to make the world a more hateful, ugly and ignorant place, although it is true that organised religion has had an influence in some awful events.

i never claimed religion was the sole, or even the primary, source of the world's evils. again, i can draw a parallel to drug addiction: i believe religion is unhealthy, and that no person who succumbs to it can fully experience their life, but i don't blame religion for all the world's ills. indeed, in many ways i blame the world's ills for religion, and that has been my whole point...i believe that reducing the ills of the world will reduce the number of people turning to religion to salve their wounds, because i believe religion is a symptom of the greater problem.


But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be unwilling or unable to see any benefits to spirituality whatsoever; and having seen firsthand the love, generosity, peace and truly enviable contentment I have seen in some spiritual people I think that there is an upside, too.

i am fully aware of the good feelings that religiosity can provide for believers, just as i am aware of the benefits addicts find in their drug habit. ecstacy gives an overwhelming feeling of love, generosity, peace, and contentment to a user, as does a significant dose of an opiate, but that alone does not mean it is healthy to use those drugs continually to prolong these feelings.

additionally, i have nothing but pity for people who need religion to find love, generosity, peace, and contentment. i don't think i could physically endure feeling any more love than i do for my love ones already, nor do i have the time to be more generous if i want to be able to pay my bills. it is sad for me to think there are people who need myths to find such love and generosity within themselves. i don't believe it is possible to find maximal contentment with one's life until one comes to terms with life's finite nature, so i believe that any person who subscribes to a religious vision of afterlife is giving up any chance at full contentment.


I'm sure you're aware of this and are tilting at windmills on principle, which is fine, but I just felt it needed to be said.
tilting at windmills? well, i am aware of all the points you made, but my awareness of those points has not changed my opinion of the situation. perhaps it is fruitless to try to help people, perhaps my inability to completely fix the world renders all my efforts worthless, and perhaps the desire to fully experience one's life and help others do the same is just a way of "tilting at windmills." perhaps that is why i have Picaso's "Don Quixote" hanging above my bed.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

This is true. Of course, it would help if fundamentalists would stop treating it that way.

I'm also wondering where those people who believe in God or a divine or supernatural being or force of some kind, but do not subscribe to any particular religious tenets fit into this picture. What about people like me? As of yesterday and for the first time, believe there is a God because I believe and not because I was told to. I can't explain how or why or give any empirical evidence; I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me or believe me, and I don't pity, condescend towards or in any way dislike people who don't feel the way I do: I think everyone has to figure things out for themself, and it's fine and natural for not everyone to come to the same conclusion. That said, I no longer have any preconceived notions as to the precise nature of God or divinity, or exactly what the impact of the existence of God has on right and wrong, or how, if at all, God would wish me to 'worship' or acknowledge him/her. I have a very skeptical bent and personally feel that evolution and the big bang, among other things, are completely sound and valid theories with substantial evidence to back them up; I believe there is a place for both science and spirituality in this world, and that while it is true that things not yet understood are often ascribed to 'magic' or the supernatural before human knowledge expands and they are explained, it is also ok for some things not to make sense, for there to be more that is inexplicable. There's no particular reason for me to suddenly believe in God; but as of last night I just knew, and I think it's ok for me, or anyone else, to accept this without proof, only faith.
I came from athieism to an understanding of god in a similar way, a realisation that it's always been there. You just have to open your heart to knowing it.

I am getting rather fed up with rather arrogent people who seem to have this idea that all religion is and was ever for was a method of explaining the enviroment in which we live and it has now been made obsolete by science. If you knew anything about the two largest religions in the world today (Christianity and Islam) you would know that neither one is very concerned with the enviroment at large, they dont go around saying things like "Thunder is God shouting". Whilst this arguement may have been true of anchient tribal religions, it is not true any more. So I would just ask those who continously say this to stop, as it is not true. Religion is not primarily a way of expliaining the enviroment away.

You are correct. A goodly portion of religion ( read belief/faith/works, not grand buildings and regular attendance at services ) arises either out of a felt need to connect with a higher purpose or out of a heart filled with joy and gratitude.

i never claimed that it was "desperation," or that there was this perceived sense of urgency to the decision, simply that it was based on need. your husband felt there was "too much good in the world to have just happened by chance" and felt that he was unable to resolve that with his understanding of science (which is clearly a poor one, since science does not claim the world's beauty is a result of random chance, but rather is founded on the idea that there are constant forces which dictate the outcomes of physical situations). he felt a need to understand something, and was unable to acheive that without religion. he felt a need to have a known reason for the existence of beauty in the world, and felt he could not find it elsewhere, so he chose religion.

I will have to disagree with you here I'm afraid...he didn't feel a 'need' for religion, he felt quite complete before he believed in God. Neither does he have a particularly poor understanding of science, as he is an extraordinarily intelligent man. Science does not have any proof either of the existence or non-existence of God, and to my mind has little bearing on it, since the very nature of a supernatural being would be to be above and apart from what we can experience and perceive with our senses, which is exactly what science deals with. It's philosophy that deals with the other abstract stuff. :)

as for your friend, the level of rationality in her decision is not under attack. if a person is unable to meet a given need by any other means, it is perfectly rational for them to choose the only avenue open to them. i never claimed the choice to believe in religion was crazy...far from it! my entire point is that religious people are making a decision based on unmet needs, not because they are stupid or crazy or inherently irrational people.

Fair enough. In your original post, it sounded to me as though your point was that people only turned to religion in times of stress or crisis when they felt vulnerable, during which times it's fair to say most people can be more irrational, emotional or illogical than when one is perfectly calm.

no argument here, though i feel that religion utterly fails to actually provide answers to Big Questions; it provides stories, possible explanations, but provides no reason why any person should believe one set of such stories over any other. this leaves everybody at exactly the same point they started, and expects that people will be content to arbitrarily choose the set of explanations they like the best.

I guess the only reason is faith, which some people have and some people don't. I don't mean this to sound harsh, as if the people who have faith are more gifted, or conversely that they are more gullible; it's just a fact of life, I guess, that some people believe in things and others don't.

it's good that you don't expect other people to embrace your subjective beliefs, but i hope you aren't expecting any applause for that...that's just basic common courtesy, and i don't usually make a point of rewarding people for doing the bare minimum.

I don't, believe me. I just wanted to be clear that I neither intend nor expect everyone in the world to feel the way I do.

if you believe it is possible for you to "know" if there is or isn't a God, then you are in the same boat as any other believer, in my opinion.

Even if, going back to the original topic, my belief has no particular connection to stories of how the world came to be?

nobody criticizes this attitude when i direct it toward drug addicts. nobody criticizes me for having the same opinion of racists. don't you think it's just a teeny bit foolish to get righteously indignant when somebody directs a given attitude at you, but to totally excuse or even support it when they direct the exact same attitude at another person or group?

No - I would criticise the attitude no matter whom it was directed at. Racists and drug addicts are people too, as are the mentally ill, war criminals, and anyone else who could be named. I make a strong conscious effort not to get a big head and think I'm somehow inherently a better person than junkie fundamentalist nazi murdererous paedophiles because no matter how evil or horrid we think anyone is, they're still as equally human as I am. See my ancient post on why the prisoners in Gitmo deserve a trial, for starters. Everyone has a dark side, everyone makes mistakes, everyone does things they probably shouldn't, so no one, no matter how righteous or holy or upstanding or noble, can justifiably look down on anyone else. There are no "good people" or "bad people" in the world, just people, so it's daft to feel either superior or inferior to anyone else in terms of worth.

no, i don't believe my personal convictions have the power to alter reality. i believe my actions, and the actions of those i help, can change the world. it's not like i, as a single person, can prevent the next Holocaust, but i most certainly can do many things that will help move the world away from such cruelties. just because i am not able to wave problems away with my magic wand doesn't mean i can't work to better my small corner of the universe to the best of my abilities.

That's basically what I meant when I said 'tilting at windmills', then, and that in and of itself is a noble goal. I just personally don't think anyone changes the world very much.

i am fully aware of the good feelings that religiosity can provide for believers, just as i am aware of the benefits addicts find in their drug habit. ecstacy gives an overwhelming feeling of love, generosity, peace, and contentment to a user, as does a significant dose of an opiate, but that alone does not mean it is healthy to use those drugs continually to prolong these feelings.

Er...with the exception that believing in God doesn't physically harm people or destroy their internal organs; nor does it (from my experience anyway) have a hallucinogenic effect. People who are on drugs are often not lucid or in their right state of mind; people who believe in God frequently are. Further, I don't know that I've ever met anyone with a physical dependence on religion; I've never seen someone get the shakes because they haven't been to church in a few days. Nor do I think most people follow religion because it makes them feel good; they follow it because they believe it.

additionally, i have nothing but pity for people who need religion to find love, generosity, peace, and contentment. i don't think i could physically endure feeling any more love than i do for my love ones already, nor do i have the time to be more generous if i want to be able to pay my bills. it is sad for me to think there are people who need myths to find such love and generosity within themselves. i don't believe it is possible to find maximal contentment with one's life until one comes to terms with life's finite nature, so i believe that any person who subscribes to a religious vision of afterlife is giving up any chance at full contentment.

I did not say that people "needed" religion to feel love, etc. I loved my family very much when I did not believe in God. I am saying that good things do come from religion, which was not indicated in your original post - it was entirely negative towards spirituality of any kind. As for finding life's maximal contentment through contemplation of the finity of life, that is your belief, and that's fine, but that can't be proved or disproved anymore than belief in God can. Therefore I think you must respect that for some people, not believing in an afterlife would be giving up a chance at full contentment - their best way to happiness may be through belief in God. Is that not equally valid?

tilting at windmills? well, i am aware of all the points you made, but my awareness of those points has not changed my opinion of the situation. perhaps it is fruitless to try to help people, perhaps my inability to completely fix the world renders all my efforts worthless, and perhaps the desire to fully experience one's life and help others do the same is just a way of "tilting at windmills." perhaps that is why i have Picaso's "Don Quixote" hanging above my bed.

Neither was that my point, as I stated above: I am something of an idealist myself but I am fully aware that I will never live in my ideal world, and frankly I'm not sure I'd really want to - my ideal world could potentially be someone else's idea of hell. If you believe that you are helping people by trying to steer them from religion and/or convert them to atheism, then more power to you for following that up with actions rather than just spouting empty words like most people do. Personally, though, I don't see how that's any less insidious than any other form of evanglisation - would it not be better to educate, assist, etc. with no agenda, and let people follow their own path?

Basically, I would resent an atheist looking down their nose at me (or anyone else) for being somehow unenlightened, blind, foolish, unfulfilled or what have you as much as I would resent a fundementalist theist looking down on me for not seeing the truth of their faith or lacking some kind of spiritual gift or grace. Neither atheists, nor the religious, nor those of us somewhere in between, is any more "right" in any concrete way, and none has the right to hold themselves over the others. At the end of the day we're all just equal human beings trying to muddle through as best we can.

Don't forget fear. It's also a method of soothing fears about mortality. It replaces them with fear of damnation and hellfire. In this respect, it's also a method of social control.

Don't forget fear. It's also a method of soothing fears about mortality. It replaces them with fear of damnation and hellfire. In this respect, it's also a method of social control.

You clearly dont know any Christians. I know loads and not a single one I know became a Christian because of fear of hell.

Don't forget fear. It's also a method of soothing fears about mortality. It replaces them with fear of damnation and hellfire. In this respect, it's also a method of social control.
Not all religion is about an after-life. I think it is more about what you do here and now than whatever "reward" or "punishment" may be awaiting (except, of course, for the literalists).

"Now" is the only reality.

Don't forget fear. It's also a method of soothing fears about mortality. It replaces them with fear of damnation and hellfire. In this respect, it's also a method of social control.

But not everyone who believes in a god/gods believes in hellfire and damnation. Some believe in reincarnation, some believe there is a hell but God is too kind to send anyone there, some don't believe in an afterlife at all, probably, etc. Large organised religions do often have a social control element (cults or 'fringe religions' often don't, simply because they don't have the power), but belief in 'something more' in and of itself doesn't necessitate this aspect of fear and control. I don't know what's going to happen when I die, if my 'soul' or whatever will go somewhere or come back or if I'll just cease to be. It would be nice to have some kind of one-ness with the divine, or perfection, or pure happiness or something once this life is over though.

Science tries to explain how. Religion and philosophy try to explain why. For some reason, humans seem to need (or at least really, really want) to know why as well as how. Do we need it because God wants us to find him/her/it, because we have some kind of soul or spiritual element, or is the need just a byproduct of developing a certain level of intelligence, which humans needed to compete with other animals since we can't fly, breathe underwater, change colours, shed our skin, grow body parts back or live without food for months at a time? Is it both, that spirituality and the divine are 'created' upon anything gaining a certain degree of self-awareness? I have no idea.