NationStates Jolt Archive

From a psychological point of view, why?

So people have something to be happy about. With religion, people think that there is some higher power looking over them. With this thought, they are happy. Also, it causes them to not fear death. If you don't have religion, you think that when you die you cease to exist. Not a very comforting thought for many. With religion, you have an afterlife. Very comforting thought for many.

This guy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html) seems to think that our brains are hardwired for religion.

So people have something to be happy about. With religion, people think that there is some higher power looking over them. With this thought, they are happy. Also, it causes them to not fear death. If you don't have religion, you think that when you die you cease to exist. Not a very comforting thought for many. With religion, you have an afterlife. Very comforting thought for many.
I agree with this statement... to quote Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Religion makes people happy.

From the way I look at it, my religion and my faith is a guide and a source of wisdom. It is also a means of dealing with the harshness of life, and is something to fall back on when things get bad.

For me religion isn't about power or fear, and is absolutely not to be used as an excuse for hatred, violence or ignorance, but a means to improve oneself.

From a psychological point of view, why?
For many, it's a simple matter of being afraid.

I second "opiate of the masses".

I Think you'll generally find that religion needs people not the other way round...

i think we are hardwired for religion. our brains seek out explanations and make connections that lead to religious beliefs

but other than that religion provides a community of people who get together to do good rather than just be out for themselves (at least nominally).

it helps with the intense pain of loss. many people cant deal with the idea that they will never see their loved ones again, the belief that they will be reunited in an afterlife is very soothing.

it connects people with the spiritual. its a guide toward that which is greater than ourselves.

it teaches you how to sing

it provides moral guidance and a reason to take that guidance

it can provide physical and monetary help to those in sudden need.

it explains the unexplainable

Two reasons, I think.

1. It's scary to look around and realize that NOTHING is controling things, that this is it. You're born, you die, the end. And in the mean time, should a hurricane come and flatten you, well, you were just SOL.

2. I also think it has to do with humans being a tool using creature. We create things with a purpose, even if the purpose is just to look pretty. We want to feel that we too have a purpose, that we were created by something for a reason and didn't just show up due to random chance.

Two reasons, I think.

1. It's scary to look around and realize that NOTHING is controling things, that this is it. You're born, you die, the end. And in the mean time, should a hurricane come and flatten you, well, you were just SOL.

2. I also think it has to do with humans being a tool using creature. We create things with a purpose, even if the purpose is just to look pretty. We want to feel that we too have a purpose, that we were created by something for a reason and didn't just show up due to random chance.

I've already accepted the fact that I could die and cease to exist, which is why I find people who let religion lead them because of fear or because of some hope that bad things will go away as weak.

It explains the unexplainable, and, hopefully, promotes good morality and civility.

Also, it gives an emotional anchor when things go wrong. Hope is an amazing thing.

i think we are hardwired for religion. our brains seek out explanations and make connections that lead to religious beliefs
I think there was a flaw in my mother board :p
but other than that religion provides a community of people who get together to do good rather than just be out for themselves (at least nominally).
What about boy scouts?
it helps with the intense pain of loss. many people cant deal with the idea that they will never see their loved ones again, the belief that they will be reunited in an afterlife is very soothing.
Damn you Ashmoria you made me agree with you again. Broke your promise :(
it connects people with the spiritual. its a guide toward that which is greater than ourselves.
Meh..
it teaches you how to sing
I'd rather not think that. *points to singer lady* She sings too loud, and about 3 seconds before everyone else.
it provides moral guidance and a reason to take that guidance
Good parenting can do that too.
it can provide physical and monetary help to those in sudden need.
Yet again, agree :mad:
it explains the unexplainable
Like.. is there a God? :D

"It explains the unexplainable, and, hopefully, promotes good morality and civility.

Also, it gives an emotional anchor when things go wrong. Hope is an amazing thing."

Like someone in this forum said, how does it create morality if you're just obeying the rules of a higher power?

Actually the statement quote "Religion is the opiate..." was lifted from Charles Kingsley, a Church of England minister criticizing the religious establishment of his day.

I wonder if those who see religion as an oddity might more usefully ask "What works for me as religion does for those who follow a religious faith?"

1) I'm not sure that political ideologies entirely function that way, but some of them sure have come close.
2) Sex sure has taken on a lot of new "importance" since Freud started talking about it as the root of human psychology.
3) Money works for a lot of people as a purpose in life, at least for a while.
4) The environmental movement might at least be starting to take on some semi-theological importance for people who don't have a transcendental religion functioning in their thoughts and emotional life.
5) And then there is P.E.T.A. ...

I think it's the other way around. I think religion needs people.

Think about it. If no one practiced religion, would people still consider the possibility of there being a god of some sort? Probably not.

I wonder if those who see religion as an oddity might more usefully ask "What works for me as religion does for those who follow a religious faith?

6) Reason, mayhap?

The exsistance of god has very little to do with religion....
The word religion comes from religio the rules by which one lives one life...so technically if you have any kind of regulated life you have a religion...

Damn you Ashmoria you made me agree with you again. Broke your promise :(

im beginning to think its YOUR fault, ruff. maybe you need to stop being quite so thoughtful eh?

for alotta people church is like boyscouts (without the knots). its a nice way to get together with people who almost guaranteed to be on their best behavior. then you get stuff done.

its nice to have some thought of what will happen to you after you die and that there is a better life than this rather sucky one. the rest is just bonus.

most people dont seem to even care that it can't possibly be true. that has to mean something doesnt it?

I think it's the other way around. I think religion needs people.

Think about it. If no one practiced religion, would people still consider the possibility of there being a god of some sort? Probably not.

but people created religion. so that means people need/want religion; not the other way around...

Originally religion was developed in our most primitive stages, I believe, to explain the unknown and offer a sense of comfort. How did we get here? What happens when we die? Even things that were once incomprehensible, but are now common knowledge were once explained by religious ideas. What is that big yellow round thing up there? A god.

Of course religion is also used to encourage a mass concept of morals, either utilising fear tactics or pipe dreams. If you're "bad", you suffer eternally in the afterlife or, if you are "good", you get to pet fluffy clouds when you die.

Eventually religion developed into a means of control.

Tribal Leader: How do I keep my people from conspiring against me?
Advisor: Tell them that you are a supernatural entity incarnate and that, if they anger you, sacrifices will abound.
Tribal Leader: Oh yeah... that's a good one!

Religion is a powerful tool that can be used to promote peace or encourage war depending on the believers of each faith. Encouraging an idea that requires blind faith alone means quite simply that you have a complex structure of brainwashed people who will do anything in the name of religion, if only they believe that it is the will of their god/s.

Originally religion was developed in our most primitive stages, I believe, to explain the unknown and offer a sense of comfort. How did we get here? What happens when we die? Even things that were once incomprehensible, but are now common knowledge were once explained by religious ideas. What is that big yellow round thing up there? A god.

Of course religion is also used to encourage a mass concept of morals, either utilising fear tactics or pipe dreams. If you're "bad", you suffer eternally in the afterlife or, if you are "good", you get to pet fluffy clouds when you die.

Eventually religion developed into a means of control.

Tribal Leader: How do I keep my people from conspiring against me?
Advisor: Tell them that you are a supernatural entity incarnate and that, if they anger you, sacrifices will abound.
Tribal Leader: Oh yeah... that's a good one!

Religion is a powerful tool that can be used to promote peace or encourage war depending on the believers of each faith. Encouraging an idea that requires blind faith alone means quite simply that you have a complex structure of brainwashed people who will do anything in the name of religion, if only they believe that it is the will of their god/s.

national leaders must long for the good old days when god supported the rights of kings to rule. things were so much easier when you could suggest that disloyalty to the head of state could get you sent to hell.

For the people: It serves as a security blanket.

national leaders must long for the good old days when god supported the rights of kings to rule. things were so much easier when you could suggest that disloyalty to the head of state could get you sent to hell.

In God We Trust. ;)

From a psychological point of view, why?
Interesting you would bring up psychology for this question, since the word literally means the study of the soul, and it would seem that any such study would presume some religious or at least spiritual/metaphysical framework. Maybe it's only modern psychology that abdicates the notion of soul, instead to focus on the mind/brain, though if that's the case it would be more accurate to use the word phren instead of psyche.

Anyway, working from the concept of psyche, Man since the ancient Greeks has generally believed that he is animated by some force, call it a soul if you will, and that it's the mixture of soul and body that comprises the human person. Likewise he also believes that if there is such a thing as soul then there are beings that are pure soul and have no body, and these things are often called gods, and he hopes that one day his soul will likewise be purified of the body and be able to exist only as an immortal soul (mainly because the life and death of the body is painful).

These ideas tend to form the basis of Western religion for the last 3000+ years, as well as those Eastern religions that also accept duality of body and soul, as religion becomes the manner in which pure soul is typically understood. Religious concepts that existed before or independent of that can't really be discussed psychologically since they don't account for the soul and are more or less naturalistic.

i think we are hardwired for religion. our brains seek out explanations and make connections that lead to religious beliefs

but other than that religion provides a community of people who get together to do good rather than just be out for themselves (at least nominally).

it helps with the intense pain of loss. many people cant deal with the idea that they will never see their loved ones again, the belief that they will be reunited in an afterlife is very soothing.

it connects people with the spiritual. its a guide toward that which is greater than ourselves.

it teaches you how to sing

it provides moral guidance and a reason to take that guidance

it can provide physical and monetary help to those in sudden need.

it explains the unexplainable

i agree, that's why people have religion, basically to explain incredible things like the beginning of the universe, to have a sense of morality, gives a sense of the afterlife, etc, but also it gives a sense that there is more than just being here, that there is a purpose. the question is whether you need that to be able to live in the world, or can be ok without it and take life as it is, without a greater being watching over you.

i think we are hardwired for religion. our brains seek out explanations and make connections that lead to religious beliefs

but other than that religion provides a community of people who get together to do good rather than just be out for themselves (at least nominally).

it helps with the intense pain of loss. many people cant deal with the idea that they will never see their loved ones again, the belief that they will be reunited in an afterlife is very soothing.

it connects people with the spiritual. its a guide toward that which is greater than ourselves.

it teaches you how to sing

it provides moral guidance and a reason to take that guidance

it can provide physical and monetary help to those in sudden need.

it explains the unexplainable

Let me add to your rosey little list:

It creates a sense of superiority and bolated morality

It drives people to murder those who do not believe the same as they do

It creates invalid and self destructive morality and fills you with guilt for being human

It leads to dillusions of an afterlife

It seperates people and drops them into chastes, confined sexual roles, and leads to inequality

It is used by the corrupt and power hungry to twist the minds of the weak to do their bidding and used to justify their evil

It leads to conflicting ideology against reality and hard scientific facts

It fills you with fear, dead and a sense of overwhelming doom

More people have died in the name of your gods than for any other reason in the world. Religion has been and always will be the root of all evil and is the singular stone around the neck of humanity that holds us back from enlightenment and evolution.

Now, let us pray...:rolleyes:

Let me add to your rosey little list:

It creates a sense of superiority and bolated morality

It drives people to murder those who do not believe the same as they do

It creates invalid and self destructive morality and fills you with guilt for being human

It leads to dillusions of an afterlife

It seperates people and drops them into chastes, confined sexual roles, and leads to inequality

It is used by the corrupt and power hungry to twist the minds of the weak to do their bidding and used to justify their evil

It leads to conflicting ideology against reality and hard scientific facts

It fills you with fear, dead and a sense of overwhelming doom

More people have died in the name of your gods than for any other reason in the world. Religion has been and always will be the root of all evil and is the singular stone around the neck of humanity that holds us back from enlightenment and evolution.

Now, let us pray...:rolleyes:

well ya but no one signs up for it for those reasons. except for maybe that sense of superiority thing, a dismaying number of people seem to be very attracted to that "im going to heaven and you are going to burn in hell" thing.

the rest is annoying side effects like dry mouth and dizzy spells.

Religion answers the one question that no philosopher or scientist would ever dream of trying to answer:

"What is important?"

What the answer is depends on what religion one chooses.

That's a good question. Why do people need something to be sacred? Why do they need something to be bigger and grander than they are? What is at the heart of the sacred, if not them?

O sweet spontaneous
earth how often have
the
doting
figers of
prurient philosophers pinched
and
poked

thee
, has the naughty thumb
of science prodded
thy
beauty . how
often have religions taken
three upon their scraggy knees
squeezing and

buffering thee that thou mightest conceive
gods
(but
true

to the incomparable
couch of death thy
rhythmic
lover

thou answerest
them only with

spring)

~ e e cummings


We have religion because we have consciousness, and that separates us from Nature. From the conscious perspective comes a philosophy that says we are not a part of the world --it is not us, it is what goes on around us. 'Me' (subject) is something else apart from 'it' (the object) --'me' takes in the world, 'me' interacts with the world, 'me' communicates with the world and impacts it with my words and deeds. And 'me' finds meaning in that.

Just look at the language that we developed, this English that we use today that comes from far distant Indo-European roots, and you can see that the structure reflects this philosophy of 'me': subject and object, personal pronoun. The philosophy must have been prevailant from the time the first words were put together to form sentences, uttered from the mouth of proto-man 100's of millennia hence, something like, "I am that I am." (Yes, proto-man was Popeye.)

With consciousness and this separateness of 'me' from the world comes a constant, continuous relationship with the world. 'Me' is in constant relationship with 'it', interacting in this 'dimension' we have come to know as time. Religion stems from that relationship. ...and while the nature of the relationship has changed, the religions, set in stone long ago, have not. But I digress; that's another story for another thread.

With relationship comes duality, in pairs of opposites --me and you. Man and woman. Youth and old age. And a recognition of duality in the other, in 'it' --light and dark. Good and bad. Life and death. The 'me' that is apart from the world, too, has its opposite in a 'me' that belongs to the world. In the relationship that is a personal religion, the 'me' has something to take care of and nurture (the tenuous connection with the world) and something to take of and nurture it.

Over time, we (mankind) came to think of our whole sevles, body and soul, as not natural, extending the metaphysical to the physical and in the process alienating ourselves from the world. It happened when fellow creatures became agriculturalized food, and when trees and rocks became nothing more than building materials. "This process brings with it the corresponding emptying of animate life from nature and the transference of that life into humanity, which is then cast in a relation of opposition to nature."1 We stopped participating in Nature, and instead set ourselves up to be in competition with it. We no longer needed it in order to 'be' who we were, we only needed the self --we were The Man, in charge of ourselves, independent and special. Consciousness incarnate.

With ego comes pride, but also fear of whose metaphorical toes that pride might be stepping on. What would that other, the 'me' of the world, think of us in our self-reliance? So, the backlash of the alienation from Nature that set us in competition with Nature was the to ask its forgiveness for that inevitable folly, for the pride, curiosity and invention that undermined the 'me' of Nature.

This is the origin of rites and ritual, of prayer and myths that align our thinking back in line with the other's, that belongs to that 'me' of the world. Whatever the image of god a religion might hold, whatever the practices and theories, religious ritual attempts to realign us, to reshape us, to regain something we can (and will) stray from.


1 The Myth of the Goddess

People don't need religion. Plenty of people want religion but they don't need it. The problem is that plenty of people have convinced themselves that they need religion. If people went to religious gatherings and prayed and so forth and admitted to themselves that they did these things simply because they wanted to there would probably be much less religiously motivated violence in the world today. Unfortunately many people are convinced that they need religion and that other people need their own particular brand of it whether they want it or not.

So people don't need religion, they just think they do. People need mental stimulation but it doesn't have to be in the form of religion.

.

well ya but no one signs up for it for those reasons. except for maybe that sense of superiority thing, a dismaying number of people seem to be very attracted to that "im going to heaven and you are going to burn in hell" thing.

the rest is annoying side effects like dry mouth and dizzy spells.

Really? What other "side effects" do you think religion has?

How about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the systematic destruction of the Native American and Polynesian cultures, the Salem Witch Trials, almost every European war, shall I go on? :rolleyes:

"Religious" people may not sign up for those things, but the fact that you tolerate it and don't bother to question them is the disturbing thing...

Many people need to belive in somthing right with the world. As the world falls to shables around them they need somthing higher to grasp on to. Also I think it's knowing that when you die there is somwhere elce to go it's not just death and boy rotting away. Then there's also the moral codes by witch to live by. many people need this to function and rules do soud better when there given by a God who at any moment cloud end the world as we know it. For some it's even traditon. It's what there parents belived therefore it's what they belive.

So people don't need religion, they just think they do. People need mental stimulation but it doesn't have to be in the form of religion.

The smartest thing I've read on this thread so far.:cool:

I Think you'll generally find that religion needs people not the other way round...

it provides moral guidance and a reason to take that guidance
More people have died in the name of your gods than for any other reason in the world. Religion has been and always will be the root of all evil and is the singular stone around the neck of humanity that holds us back from enlightenment and evolution.
yes.. without followers, god/ess/es lose power, and eventually fal into the "myth" category. as has happened to those of the ancient greeks, romans, norse, celtics (mostly), etc.

people need a reason to behave so that we don't all destroy each other. gods give us rules to follow to that extent. however, many misinterpret those rules, usually willingly, because they wish to use the religion and the higher power aspect to further their own ambition.

Religion is not really a problem. things are never really problems. people, and attributes of people are problems. the desire for superiority, for control, is a problem. Exessive, hostile ambition is a problem. there is a lot of that in the religious business.

and the fact that it is a business is a problem. because the lust of money is a great root of evil in the world.

while people also generally need religion in one form or another, for means of comfort, guides, etc, the religions really need their followers much more.

the church of the religion also needs the followers, because the followers are what pay for the church to grow, recruit more followers, and so on.

so when the followers no longer follow, the church has no more money to convince people that its god has any power, and more lose faith, and spiral on.

Think about it. If no one practiced religion, would people still consider the possibility of there being a god of some sort? Probably not.

I think definately they would. We are essentially spiritual beings and life is a spiritual experience.

There are many people who are not religious, per se, but believe in God or at least believe that there is more to reality then the material.

most people dont seem to even care that it can't possibly be true.

If you are able to know what can't possibly be true, then tell us what could possibly be true.

Scientists widely accept the big bang theory that states that our universe began some 13 or so billion years ago. If the big bang is true then our universe is finite and logic would dictate that something that is not infinite would require a first cause that transcends it.

So again, if you are able to know what can't possibly be true, then please tell us what could possibly be true?

But everyday when I get up
I see folks trading in their crowns
for all these paper or plastic lives;
An opiate for the masses hounds.

A clever play on Marx from a songwriter I like. You could say "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" are the opiate of the masses just as easily as religion. People are just looking for purpose; looking for something that doesn't just give them a temporary high. For some, choosing religion is looking beyond the opiate of the world and looking for something that lasts. That religion can also be regarded as a high and meaningless is a point that I understand.

From a psychological point of view, why?


so they dont feel alone in the world,and to stave off helplessness and hopelessness.

Religion answers the one question that no philosopher or scientist would ever dream of trying to answer:

"What is important?"



Perhaps that's not a question for science, but you don't think that's a question for philosophy?

I think philosophy is a wide open field. Science is the persuit of knowledge of material reality through the scientific method. Philosophy is the unrestricted persuit of knowledge.

How about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the systematic destruction of the Native American and Polynesian cultures, the Salem Witch Trials, almost every European war, shall I go on? :rolleyes:


That's not a matter of religion, that's a matter of humanity. People will use whatever excuse is handy to justify their evil deeds. The self proclaimed "godless" communists in 20th century Russia, China, Cambodia and elsewhere managed to oppress and kill hundreds of millions without religion.

Because people are so afraid of death and finality that they lie to themselves about life and death to feel a little more comfortable.

:headbang:

Humanity is too arrogent to believe we have no purpose.

Some people like the feeling of comfort they get from the level of certainty that religion provides. Some people like the comfort of having a God they view as a friend. Some people like the feeling that they are not alone, and that there's somebody else out there.

I want to point out that Religion is not the same as God. People often point to organized religion and say, "See, the Catholic Church started the Crusades, therefore there either is no God or he's a genocidal maniac."

Let me add to your rosey little list:

It creates a sense of superiority and bolated morality

It drives people to murder those who do not believe the same as they do

It creates invalid and self destructive morality and fills you with guilt for being human

It leads to dillusions of an afterlife

It seperates people and drops them into chastes, confined sexual roles, and leads to inequality

It is used by the corrupt and power hungry to twist the minds of the weak to do their bidding and used to justify their evil

It leads to conflicting ideology against reality and hard scientific facts

It fills you with fear, dead and a sense of overwhelming doom

More people have died in the name of your gods than for any other reason in the world. Religion has been and always will be the root of all evil and is the singular stone around the neck of humanity that holds us back from enlightenment and evolution.
People have done all those things in the name of God and religion. They use religion as an excuse for those things, but it is their own humanness that does that, not God or religion.

As for an inborn desire for religion: Every single society that has ever existed on Earth has had religion, even in places where it was violently suppressed as an enemy of the State. I would say that that lends some pretty strong evidence towards it.

If we found that the act of smiling, in every single human culture, indicated happiness, would we say that it is an inborn human trait? Of course.

As for an inborn desire for religion: Every single society that has ever existed on Earth has had religion, even in places where it was violently suppressed as an enemy of the State. I would say that that lends some pretty strong evidence towards it.

If we found that the act of smiling, in every single human culture, indicated happiness, would we say that it is an inborn human trait? Of course.

But smiling is truly inborn since even non-civilized cultures do it. See: chimpanzees and other apes.

On the other hand, we're the only apes to come up with religion. Because it's not innate, anymore than the internet is - it's something people invent, more or less pulling it out of their ass like Al Gore.

From a psychological point of view, why?
Is this the part where the hijack begins or am i late? ;)

Religion is an easy way to get confortably numb and to not use the brain.

But smiling is truly inborn since even non-civilized cultures do it. See: chimpanzees and other apes.

On the other hand, we're the only apes to come up with religion. Because it's not innate, anymore than the internet is - it's something people invent, more or less pulling it out of their ass like Al Gore.

Smiling in apes is their fear face. Chimpanzees smiling are afraid, not happy. You will see this grinning behaviour in some school students and the teacher says, "Wipe that smile off your face." The student may be afraid of punishment.

Perhaps that's not a question for science, but you don't think that's a question for philosophy?

I think philosophy is a wide open field. Science is the persuit of knowledge of material reality through the scientific method. Philosophy is the unrestricted persuit of knowledge.

I did think about it for a while, and yes, I suppose you could say that philosophy is the unrestricted persuit of knowledge. It's like persuing money though: money in itself is neither good or bad, but having large quantities of money, or knowledge, doesn't mean you know what to do with it all. That's where religion comes in. Theories with no practical applications are of no use to anyone.

From a psychological point of view, why?

I'm not sure that people NEED religion. More like want. And I guess that the mere fact that you ask this question, and use the words you do, should give you a clue. Not everybody thinks alike, and it is very very very hard to understand the motives of people that do not think as you do.

for alotta people church is like boyscouts (without the knots). its a nice way to get together with people who almost guaranteed to be on their best behavior. then you get stuff done.

its nice to have some thought of what will happen to you after you die and that there is a better life than this rather sucky one. the rest is just bonus.

most people dont seem to even care that it can't possibly be true. that has to mean something doesnt it?
Just so. It means it doesn't matter that it's true.

Yesterday, I had to attend a sodding workshop at school that was all about God (the joys of teaching in a Salvation Army-run school).
One speaker had a tragic life. Everything bad you could think of had happened to him (being cynical, I thought he'd suffered too many tragic events). Yet he was still happy and positive cause he had found God.
I thought religion in this case was really useful as it had given this guy a reason to live.

Yesterday, I had to attend a sodding workshop at school that was all about God (the joys of teaching in a Salvation Army-run school).
One speaker had a tragic life. Everything bad you could think of had happened to him (being cynical, I thought he'd suffered too many tragic events). Yet he was still happy and positive cause he had found God.
I thought religion in this case was really useful as it had given this guy a reason to live.

Of course, the problem with that is - 'a reason to live', becomes a 'way to live', becomes 'THE way to live', becomes 'you have no right to decide how to live', becomes 'you have no right to decide WHETHER to live'.

Faith is no bad thing. Belief is not necessarily bad. But once you INSTITUTIONALISE religion, it becomes a tool - and a tool is as good or bad as the person who wields it.

We have religion because we have consciousness, and that separates us from Nature. From the conscious perspective comes a philosophy that says we are not a part of the world --it is not us, it is what goes on around us. 'Me' (subject) is something else apart from 'it' (the object) --'me' takes in the world, 'me' interacts with the world, 'me' communicates with the world and impacts it with my words and deeds. And 'me' finds meaning in that.

Just look at the language that we developed, this English that we use today that comes from far distant Indo-European roots, and you can see that the structure reflects this philosophy of 'me': subject and object, personal pronoun. The philosophy must have been prevailant from the time the first words were put together to form sentences, uttered from the mouth of proto-man 100's of millennia hence, something like, "I am that I am." (Yes, proto-man was Popeye.)

With consciousness and this separateness of 'me' from the world comes a constant, continuous relationship with the world. 'Me' is in constant relationship with 'it', interacting in this 'dimension' we have come to know as time. Religion stems from that relationship. ...and while the nature of the relationship has changed, the religions, set in stone long ago, have not. But I digress; that's another story for another thread.

With relationship comes duality, in pairs of opposites --me and you. Man and woman. Youth and old age. And a recognition of duality in the other, in 'it' --light and dark. Good and bad. Life and death. The 'me' that is apart from the world, too, has its opposite in a 'me' that belongs to the world. In the relationship that is a personal religion, the 'me' has something to take care of and nurture (the tenuous connection with the world) and something to take of and nurture it.

Over time, we (mankind) came to think of our whole sevles, body and soul, as not natural, extending the metaphysical to the physical and in the process alienating ourselves from the world. It happened when fellow creatures became agriculturalized food, and when trees and rocks became nothing more than building materials. "This process brings with it the corresponding emptying of animate life from nature and the transference of that life into humanity, which is then cast in a relation of opposition to nature."1 We stopped participating in Nature, and instead set ourselves up to be in competition with it. We no longer needed it in order to 'be' who we were, we only needed the self --we were The Man, in charge of ourselves, independent and special. Consciousness incarnate.

With ego comes pride, but also fear of whose metaphorical toes that pride might be stepping on. What would that other, the 'me' of the world, think of us in our self-reliance? So, the backlash of the alienation from Nature that set us in competition with Nature was the to ask its forgiveness for that inevitable folly, for the pride, curiosity and invention that undermined the 'me' of Nature.

This is the origin of rites and ritual, of prayer and myths that align our thinking back in line with the other's, that belongs to that 'me' of the world. Whatever the image of god a religion might hold, whatever the practices and theories, religious ritual attempts to realign us, to reshape us, to regain something we can (and will) stray from.


1 The Myth of the Goddess

Actually, although you do make some good points, dualism is primarily found in the monotheistic religions, which although dominant in much of the developed world today, cannot account for the vast majority of religious traditions throughout history and geography, even today Judaism, Christianity and Islam account for less than a third of religious adherents in the world.

Your very first point about consciousness may be misleading to begin with, science is yet to determine what consciousness is or who has it. There are strong arguments for various other beings that share our world also being self-aware, having the capacity to learn and various other qualities attributed to "consciousness". Assuming we are going in the right direction with these descoveries and theories, it would be incorrect to say that we are separate from nature because of our consciousness. Although, that has been a common thought for a very long time, so linking it to the formation of religion isn't necessarily an error.

We have religion quite simply because when we developed agriculture we noticed the rhythms of the earth and developed practices to attempt to generate successful harvest and hunting. It all went pear shaped from there really. We started to organise those practices. Religious belief does not in itself cause too much trouble, organised religions have lead people into war, have committed genocide, persecuted each other and those of the non-organised variety, the list goes on and on.

If you are able to know what can't possibly be true, then tell us what could possibly be true.

Scientists widely accept the big bang theory that states that our universe began some 13 or so billion years ago. If the big bang is true then our universe is finite and logic would dictate that something that is not infinite would require a first cause that transcends it.

So again, if you are able to know what can't possibly be true, then please tell us what could possibly be true?
just as the big bang does not make charles darwin inevitable, the (implied) existence of a prime creator does not mean that christianity must be correct.

it is extremely possibly true that there is no supreme being in control of the universe, there is nothing about the universe that requires such a being to exist.

We're human.

Really? What other "side effects" do you think religion has?

How about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the systematic destruction of the Native American and Polynesian cultures, the Salem Witch Trials, almost every European war, shall I go on? :rolleyes:

"Religious" people may not sign up for those things, but the fact that you tolerate it and don't bother to question them is the disturbing thing...
well those things are rather more like sudden bleeding ulcer than dry mouth but they are still not the reason that anyone signs up with religion. no one aches for a good excuse to destroy polynesian culture and so becomes a religious missionary.

bad things would have happened without the excuse of religion to back it up. most wars are cultural or power based. the native american cultures would have been destroyed even if no one had wanted to convert them to christianity.

Your very first point about consciousness may be misleading to begin with, science is yet to determine what consciousness is or who has it. There are strong arguments for various other beings that share our world also being self-aware, having the capacity to learn and various other qualities attributed to "consciousness". Assuming we are going in the right direction with these descoveries and theories, it would be incorrect to say that we are separate from nature because of our consciousness. Although, that has been a common thought for a very long time, so linking it to the formation of religion isn't necessarily an error.
Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. It is not undefined, and the indication that things have it is simply them responding to external stimuli. Why does the fact that other life-forms are conscious mean it is incorrect to say that 'we attained a separation from nature because we are conscious'? I don't follow you, there.

Of course, the problem with that is - 'a reason to live', becomes a 'way to live', becomes 'THE way to live', becomes 'you have no right to decide how to live', becomes 'you have no right to decide WHETHER to live'.



It's not that it "becomes" but it "can become".

Religion is evil in the same way that a hammer is evil. A hammer can be used to build a house or it can be used to bash someone's head in. It's all a matter of the human being that uses the hammer.

The central element are the humans who use and misuse things for their own purpose. It's similar to the argument against drugs. Drugs aren't innately bad (or good, they have no moral distinction on their own, they are a thing), but it is bad to abuse drugs. To take the analogy back - religion doesn't oppress people, people oppress people! :p

(Edit: You basically said the same thing I'm saying with the rest of your message, should have read it all more carefully:

"Faith is no bad thing. Belief is not necessarily bad. But once you INSTITUTIONALISE religion, it becomes a tool - and a tool is as good or bad as the person who wields it."

Yep.)

even today Judaism, Christianity and Islam account for less than a third of religious adherents in the world.

Just a quick point on the facts, according to Wikipedia Christianity and Islam account for about 3.4 billion people which is over half the world's population and perhaps 2/3rds of "religious adherents" if you exclude the 1.1 billion "Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" people.

Not sure what the relevance of the numbers are since ultimate reality is not determined by democracy but just wanted to correct that factual point.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Present_day_adherents

Your very first point about consciousness may be misleading to begin with, science is yet to determine what consciousness is or who has it. There are strong arguments for various other beings that share our world also being self-aware, having the capacity to learn and various other qualities attributed to "consciousness". Assuming we are going in the right direction with these descoveries and theories, it would be incorrect to say that we are separate from nature because of our consciousness. Although, that has been a common thought for a very long time, so linking it to the formation of religion isn't necessarily an error.


Science will never have anything to say about consciousness, it is outside the realm of science. As I said before science is persuit of knowledge of material reality...by definition it is limited to what is testable by the scientific method.

Consciousness is not material. The brain is material, the mind is not. Correlations may be discovered between brain states and mind states but there will allways be huge amounts of non-scientific speculation (that leads us into philosophy and theology).

I agree with the poster you are replying to, consciousness is something fundamentally different. We are sepereate from nature because of our consciousness if you define nature as material reality. Consciousness is metaphysical.

So consciousness is immaterial, you cannot get it into a laboratory, you cannot quantify it, you cannot qualify it, you can only experience it from the inside.

"why do people 'need religeon'?"

because the're not smart enough to figgure out for themselves that if they go arround beating everyone over the head, sooner or later the'll get beaten over the head themselves.

since it doesn't seem to be working, maybe they don't.

=^^=
.../\...

Why do people need religion? From a psychological point of view, why?
Because they are weak.

just as the big bang does not make charles darwin inevitable, the (implied) existence of a prime creator does not mean that christianity must be correct.

it is extremely possibly true that there is no supreme being in control of the universe, there is nothing about the universe that requires such a being to exist.

With the logic argument I was makeing the first paragraph you say is true, but following my line of reasoning there must be an infinite transcendant first cause to all things.

If a thing is not infinite then it must have a transcendant cause (for example we see that a car exists, a car is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the car, like a car manufacturer - the earth exists, the earth is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the earth, like the processes of our solar system). Something cannot come from nothing - that's basic logic. An infinite thing does not have to have a cause, it can cause itself.

So there is something about the universe that requires such a being to exist, ultimately, with my line of argument - the finiteness of spacetime. This is why naturalists aggressively argued against the big bang theory when it was first proposed.

If the universe is caused by something finite then that thing, in turn, must have a transcendant cause and, according to my line of thinking, that can go on and on as necessary, but the ultimate first cause must be infinite.

It leads to uncomfortable conclusions for naturalists.

So anyway if you accept that much, whether an infinite transcendant first cause is God or not would just be an argument over semantics IMO.

I personally don't buy the notion that it's genetic. There are millions of atheists out there and while some of them certainly have some dogmatic aspects to them (coughobjectivismandMarxismcough), plenty of people do live without religion. Incidently, if religious faith is in fact genetic, that means that me, and various others such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Emma Goldman, comprise a section of humanity with superior genes. Woot!

So anyway if you accept that much, whether an infinite transcendant first cause is God or not would just be an argument over semantics IMO.

Even if it does indeed exist, there is no proof it handed down the 10 commandments, flooded the Earth, or outlawed homosexuality and masturbation. One could easily argue that this transcendant first is one of many other gods or pantheons proposed by humanity.

We need religion because we recognise the loving (but often wrathful) hand of the Lord in all things.

We need religion because we recognise the loving (but often wrathful) hand of the Lord in all things.

I dont recall any of you other posts so I dont know if your being sarcastic.

Neurotic people often feel a need for the reassurance of religion, as well as the associated ritual behaviour. People also need to explain things they dont understand. and religion explains everything. maybe not correctly but it still explains everything.

With the logic argument I was makeing the first paragraph you say is true, but following my line of reasoning there must be an infinite transcendant first cause to all things.

If a thing is not infinite then it must have a transcendant cause (for example we see that a car exists, a car is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the car, like a car manufacturer - the earth exists, the earth is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the earth, like the processes of our solar system). Something cannot come from nothing - that's basic logic. An infinite thing does not have to have a cause, it can cause itself.

So there is something about the universe that requires such a being to exist, ultimately, with my line of argument - the finiteness of spacetime. This is why naturalists aggressively argued against the big bang theory when it was first proposed.

If the universe is caused by something finite then that thing, in turn, must have a transcendant cause and, according to my line of thinking, that can go on and on as necessary, but the ultimate first cause must be infinite.

It leads to uncomfortable conclusions for naturalists.

So anyway if you accept that much, whether an infinite transcendant first cause is God or not would just be an argument over semantics IMO.

there seems to US that there must be a "first causer". its more than a small paradox since that first causer must have an origin and once you decide that something HAS no first cause you fall into your own trap.

i find that IF there must be a transcendant first cause, that it is irrelevant to anything on earth just as whether or not we have a good understanding of the big bang (science's first cause eh?) is irrelevant to life on earth.

that some conscious being may have started this universe ONLY means that some conscious being started the universe

it doesnt mean that that being must still exist
it doesnt mean that that being must be all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc
it doesnt mean that that being must keep track of all that has happened in "his" universe
it doesnt mean that that being is worthy or desiring of worship
it doesnt mean that that being would notice our worship
it doesnt mean that that being would be flattered by our worship
it doesnt mean that that being needs to be worshipped in a particular way
it doesnt mean that any story by any culture in the history of the world is in any way correct about the life and desire of that being
it doesnt mean that we have any understanding of that being whatsoever

so even if i should accept the mystical notion of a first causer, what difference does that make in the way i would live my life? to me, since im not a physicist, its as non-lifechanging as accepting the idea of the big bang. interesting but ....so what?

Because they are weak.

So pretty much anyone who has beliefs in a higher power is weak? I would disagree with you.

I don't know what's out there. I am of the opinion that not everything can be explained by science, so when I stumble across something that today's world cannot explain, I look to a higher meaning, and make my own decisions.

My faith has allowed me to strive through hard times, divorse, pain, surgery, and has given me something to look towards when things seem bleak. I do not see myself as weak because of that, I see myself as someone who seeks a solution.

just as the big bang does not make charles darwin inevitable, the (implied) existence of a prime creator does not mean that christianity must be correct.

it is extremely possibly true that there is no supreme being in control of the universe, there is nothing about the universe that requires such a being to exist.

Excellent point.

The problem with the 'god of holes' answer, is that just about ANYTHING 'god-shaped' can fit into the holes...

It's not that it "becomes" but it "can become".

Religion is evil in the same way that a hammer is evil. A hammer can be used to build a house or it can be used to bash someone's head in. It's all a matter of the human being that uses the hammer.

The central element are the humans who use and misuse things for their own purpose. It's similar to the argument against drugs. Drugs aren't innately bad (or good, they have no moral distinction on their own, they are a thing), but it is bad to abuse drugs. To take the analogy back - religion doesn't oppress people, people oppress people! :p

(Edit: You basically said the same thing I'm saying with the rest of your message, should have read it all more carefully:

"Faith is no bad thing. Belief is not necessarily bad. But once you INSTITUTIONALISE religion, it becomes a tool - and a tool is as good or bad as the person who wields it."

Yep.)

:) No 'foul'.

I wasn't implying that things MUST degenerate... but they just always do seem to, don't they...?

With the logic argument I was makeing the first paragraph you say is true, but following my line of reasoning there must be an infinite transcendant first cause to all things.

If a thing is not infinite then it must have a transcendant cause (for example we see that a car exists, a car is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the car, like a car manufacturer - the earth exists, the earth is finite, so it must have been caused by something that transcends the earth, like the processes of our solar system). Something cannot come from nothing - that's basic logic. An infinite thing does not have to have a cause, it can cause itself.

So there is something about the universe that requires such a being to exist, ultimately, with my line of argument - the finiteness of spacetime. This is why naturalists aggressively argued against the big bang theory when it was first proposed.

If the universe is caused by something finite then that thing, in turn, must have a transcendant cause and, according to my line of thinking, that can go on and on as necessary, but the ultimate first cause must be infinite.

It leads to uncomfortable conclusions for naturalists.

So anyway if you accept that much, whether an infinite transcendant first cause is God or not would just be an argument over semantics IMO.

If 'god' can be infinite, then the universe can be infinite... just, maye not in the same way.

Example - what if our current 'universe' was caused by the final collision of a previous collapsing universe, and so on, ad infinitum?

The 'gap' at the beginning of creation doesn't HAVE TO BE explained by 'god' or 'gods'... it can be just as easily explained by 'natural' means of which we are just not certain.

And - even if we COULD rule out 'non-god' mechanisms... it still wouldn't lend any special credence to any of the PARTICULAR god 'models' we are offered.

This guy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html) seems to think that our brains are hardwired for religion.
Kind of goes along the lines of,

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
Voltaire

I agree in a way. Notions of something more powerful than our own individual skin probably helped propel us out of the caves. Now, God is mostly there to propel us into wars.

My faith has allowed me to strive through hard times, divorse, pain, surgery, and has given me something to look towards when things seem bleak. I do not see myself as weak because of that, I see myself as someone who seeks a solution.

ANd yet, it COULD be argued that someone WITHOUT 'religious conviction' has to make their way through all those same 'hard times', but without the safety net, or crutch, or feeling of being 'not alone'... which ever wy it might be described.

Example - when my father died, as an Atheist, I had to come to terms with the fact that he is eternally dead, and I will never see him again - in any form... ever.

Social psychology is a heretical, blaphemous, child of the Devil! :p

But I really do think that it's caused more problems than solutions, particurally when discussing religion. It tries to reduce everything down to subconsious desires and bad childhood experiences (note the hyperbole). I think that "psychologically" humans don't need religion. It just gives them some meaning when really we're all just mush-spawn so there is no real purpose. Sorry, you all die.

But for some of us who reject this dogma fed to society by the secular world, religion is the interpretation of myth. Myth is the explanation of the unseen and uncomprehendable (or ought that to be incomprehensible?). So there may be a true myth, right? I believe the true myth to be the Bible. Others may believe the true myth to be the Koran/Qu'ran/whatever spelling is currently kosher. There is the theoretical chance that none of the myths are true.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.

ANd yet, it COULD be argued that someone WITHOUT 'religious conviction' has to make their way through all those same 'hard times', but without the safety net, or crutch, or feeling of being 'not alone'... which ever wy it might be described.

Example - when my father died, as an Atheist, I had to come to terms with the fact that he is eternally dead, and I will never see him again - in any form... ever.

I have no doubt that at one point or another everyone will face hardships, and I have no place to question or critisize how a person deals with it.

In the end it comes down to choice. One can choose to look to God for assistance, or one could look inward, or one can do both. One cannot tell another how to live.

In the immortal words of Jan from "Hellsing"..."Whatever works is cool."

They used to need it as an explaination to certain things.

Now we know the real reason why the sky is blue, and why the sun sets and rises, and all that jazz, so we don't need religion.

So lets get rid of religion. After all, religion is what causes good people to do evil things.

So lets get rid of religion. After all, religion is what causes good people to do evil things.

Religion has caused many wrongs in the past, but to blame it solely upon religion seems dismissive.

And what about civil rights?

Religion has caused many wrongs in the past, but to blame it solely upon religion seems dismissive.

And what about civil rights?
what civil rights?

what civil rights?

To simply remove religion would violate the rights of those who wish to still practice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

(Of course it could be argued that the first amendment has gone into the shitter as of late)

ANd yet, it COULD be argued that someone WITHOUT 'religious conviction' has to make their way through all those same 'hard times', but without the safety net, or crutch, or feeling of being 'not alone'... which ever wy it might be described.

Example - when my father died, as an Atheist, I had to come to terms with the fact that he is eternally dead, and I will never see him again - in any form... ever.
its times like that that i see the real attraction of religion. i can deal with the idea of my own death but there are days when i miss my parents so much--my mother died 10 years ago--that it seems so wrong that i will never again get to share my life with them.

To simply remove religion would violate the rights of those who wish to still practice.



(Of course it could be argued that the first amendment has gone into the shitter as of late)
Thats america. I am from Poland.

Thats america. I am from Poland.

Could be worse. 100% of us could be lemmings, as opposed to only 30% of us (Now at least, I wish it was like that two years ago).

I have no doubt that at one point or another everyone will face hardships, and I have no place to question or critisize how a person deals with it.

In the end it comes down to choice. One can choose to look to God for assistance, or one could look inward, or one can do both. One cannot tell another how to live.

In the immortal words of Jan from "Hellsing"..."Whatever works is cool."

I wasn't making a judgement call - I was just pointing out WHY some might say that religion was 'for the weak'.

its times like that that i see the real attraction of religion. i can deal with the idea of my own death but there are days when i miss my parents so much--my mother died 10 years ago--that it seems so wrong that i will never again get to share my life with them.

That's about how long ago my 'old man' died, I think. I know what you mean about how 'wrong' it is (or seems)... but, in a way, it's good - because it means I'm looking for some kind of 'immortality' - it's an incentive in the things I might, otherwise, put off.

bad things would have happened without the excuse of religion to back it up. most wars are cultural or power based. the native american cultures would have been destroyed even if no one had wanted to convert them to christianity.

Yes, this is true, but the reasoning behind most of the cultural wars are RELIGOUS. Lets use the example of the Native Americans. It was the belief of the Spanish conquistadores, Columbus, and the English settlers that these native peoples were "godless savages" and did not deserve to live as equals. Most times, they were not even given the choice, as with the Taino and Carib indians who were outright slaughtered for their land, gold, and percieved lack of humanity do to the fact they were not Christians.

Yes, this is true, but the reasoning behind most of the cultural wars are RELIGOUS. Lets use the example of the Native Americans. It was the belief of the Spanish conquistadores, Columbus, and the English settlers that these native peoples were "godless savages" and did not deserve to live as equals. Most times, they were not even given the choice, as with the Taino and Carib indians who were outright slaughtered for their land, gold, and percieved lack of humanity do to the fact they were not Christians.
so you think that treasure hungry spaniards, coming to the new world bent in conquest and pillaging, would have recognized the carib indians as fully human (and thus forgo stealing their land, treasures and lives) but for the corrupting influence of religion?

i dont think so.

so you think that treasure hungry spaniards, coming to the new world bent in conquest and pillaging, would have recognized the carib indians as fully human (and thus forgo stealing their land, treasures and lives) but for the corrupting influence of religion?

i dont think so.

I've done some research on this issue, and it's shameful to say the least. The Spaniards would arrive in the New World, issue a proclamation to the native population in Spanish about how this land was under the gaze of God and will be governed by His emisarry, the Queen, and that what was theirs now belongs to Spain.

The rest, as they say, is history.

I've done some research on this issue, and it's shameful to say the least. The Spaniards would arrive in the New World, issue a proclamation to the native population in Spanish about how this land was under the gaze of God and will be governed by His emisarry, the Queen, and that what was theirs now belongs to Spain.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Spanish, +50% attack values against natives.

-Sid Meier, Colonization

for me, politics and philosophy are my religion.
I use it to find hope in the human race and this life, rather than worrying about one that either could or couldn't exist when I die.. I just think if there is an afterlife, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that I am living life now.
It just seems absurd to spend your whole life preparing for a life that may not exist. But whatever makes people happy.

So pretty much anyone who has beliefs in a higher power is weak? I would disagree with you.

I don't know what's out there. I am of the opinion that not everything can be explained by science, so when I stumble across something that today's world cannot explain, I look to a higher meaning, and make my own decisions.

My faith has allowed me to strive through hard times, divorse, pain, surgery, and has given me something to look towards when things seem bleak. I do not see myself as weak because of that, I see myself as someone who seeks a solution.


You are weak BECAUSE you need faith to get through those things. You obviously do not realize that religion and your god have nothing to do with human strength and survival. :rolleyes:

You are weak because you "look to a higher meaning", a lazy and ridiculous notion. Instead of using your brain and trying to explain the unexplainable, you throw up your hands and say "god". Weak.:rolleyes:

so you think that treasure hungry spaniards, coming to the new world bent in conquest and pillaging, would have recognized the carib indians as fully human (and thus forgo stealing their land, treasures and lives) but for the corrupting influence of religion?

i dont think so.


They would not have recognized them either way, and religion was their justification. Because god had blessed them and the heathens had not embraced god, therefore, they were justified in brushing aside the native culture, enslaving and murdering them, and taking their land.