NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that a great deal of religious people hold by their religions not because they, if they thought them fully through, would actually accept the tenets, but because it comforts them for some reason - say, because it is what they grew up with, or because it helps them deal with the difficulties of life.

Indeed, there are some people who are willing to admit that they do not care if their beliefs are absurd, or if their religion conflicts with what they believe in other realms; they will hold by them anyway, because they think they are happier with them than they would be without them. A few times I have seen this justification offered on NS as well, though never quite so explicitly.

My position has tended to be that this position is unacceptable; it is dishonest and irrational, and just like the happiness that might be gained from ignorance, it is ultimately not satisfying. Yet I could see a reasonable argument being advanced in the opposite direction.

Edit: I will grant in a second that there are plenty of religious people who believe for other reasons. I am not talking about them, and do not seek to disparage them or their belief systems.

Completely and totally.

If something internal makes someone feel good, then it's legit.

I'm from the other side of the issue. I can't think of a reason to belong to a religion other than to receive some manner of comfort from it. That's all it's got going for it, in my opinion.

I pick "other" a question so loaded as to be absurd.

Completely and totally.

If something internal makes someone feel good, then it's legit.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.

I pick "other" a question so loaded as to be absurd.

What is "loaded" about it?

What is "loaded" about it?
Everything. You first of all set up what is tantamount to a straw man-- claiming that there are people who are religious solely for comfort. There may be, but I want some examples before you start arguing based on their existence.

Second of all, you tilt the question in such a manner as to make it quite obvious which position you think to be acceptable and which you think to be ludicrous.

In addition to that, you have neglected an alternate explanation of the phenomenon you describe, which is faith.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.Well, that's you, and I'm actually with you on a personal level--I don't belong to a religion for precisely that reason. But that's not everyone, and there are people who want the comfort and the community and they're willing to put up with the dogma in order to get that, and I don't begrudge them that desire.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.


Perhaps you are incapable of picking a religion out of your hat to make yourself happy. You've shown through your words that you would NOT be made happy by following a religion you did not believe in. So what this really tells us is that you CAN'T be your own guinea pig for this question, so to speak, because you can't 'test' the results of being happy when trying it.

How would a person be happy? Because their spouse is happy that they come with them to services? Because the community they live in is very devout and they are more successful at work because they attend the services also. Because they like the community and friendships within the congregation?

How is your specimen made happy by attending a religious congregation he does not believe in? You need to define that so we can answer the question realistically.

Everything. You first of all set up what is tantamount to a straw man-- claiming that there are people who are religious solely for comfort. There may be, but I want some examples before you start arguing based on their existence.

I am actually speaking from personal experience - people who have told me that this is why they keep to their religions.

I could name them, but that would be useless, since you wouldn't know who I'm talking about.

And this is actually a position some religious thinkers have taken - ever heard of Miguel de Unanumo?

Second of all, you tilt the question in such a manner as to make it quite obvious which position you think to be acceptable and which you think to be ludicrous.

I did? Honestly, I had trouble expressing why I rejected it; I frankly think the people who say it's fine have a convincing case, and I'm trying to figure out why I can't accept it.

In addition to that, you have neglected an alternate explanation of the phenomenon you describe, which is faith.

Faith is faith. Comfort is comfort. I am not talking about all kinds of faith, merely faith motivated by comfort.

I am aware that there are people who believe in their religions for reasons other than comfort. I was one for a long time.

Perhaps you are incapable of picking a religion out of your hat to make yourself happy. You've shown through your words that you would NOT be made happy by following a religion you did not believe in. So what this really tells us is that you CAN'T be your own guinea pig for this question, so to speak, because you can't 'test' the results of being happy when trying it.

How would a person be happy? Because their spouse is happy that they come with them to services? Because the community they live in is very devout and they are more successful at work because they attend the services also. Because they like the community and friendships within the congregation?

How is your specimen made happy by attending a religious congregation he does not believe in? You need to define that so we can answer the question realistically.

Who said anything about being happy by following a religion in which you do not believe? That is not following a religion at all.

I am talking about believing in a religion you cannot rationally accept - perhaps because it contradicts other beliefs of yours, perhaps because you see some of its tenets as plain irrational.

Who said anything about being happy by following a religion in which you do not believe? That is not following a religion at all.

I am talking about believing in a religion you cannot rationally accept - perhaps because it contradicts other beliefs of yours, perhaps because you see some of its tenets as plain irrational.


I equated 'happy' with comforted. How then are you comforted in that circumstance? How are they comforted to follow a faith they do not believe in? Social reasons, personal reasons, community acceptance etc.,. its the same question really, comfort or happy.

But perhaps you mean, believing in a thing we cannot rationally understand but we know works, like particle accelerators and quantum mechanics. We can't relationally explain 'why' it works but we know it does, so we accept it and move on. IF that is what you were asking then I completely missed your point...

I equated 'happy' with comforted. How then are you comforted in that circumstance? How are they comforted to follow a faith they do not believe in? Social reasons, personal reasons, community acceptence etc.,. its the same question really, comfort or happy.

I equated "happiness" with "comfort" back in my OP. The distinction I was making in my reply to you was between following a religion in which you don't believe and believing in a religion that you cannot rationally accept. It is the latter that I am talking about.

To use the metaphor of the brilliant Sam Harris:

Suppose I am of the belief that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard. I tell you this- that there is such a diamond. You are surprised, and ask me, "well, how do you know?"

I tell you that you shouldn't question my belief, because I draw comfort from it. At this point, you probably understand that I am completely off my rocker, but thus far, innocent.

Then I take my beliefs into the neighborhood, and pretty soon, everyone believes that there is a diamond in their back yard. Again, not that harmful to you, right?

Now you see us all out in our yards digging for this diamond, an hour a day. Curious, you ask us what we are doing, and we say "if we dig enough, the diamond will come to us and then we will all have giant diamonds. This is what we believe." Still harmless.

But then we take our message to the town government.

Before you know it, children in public schools are pledging allegiance to our "diamond-riddled" town, and are allowed to take time out of their classes to think about how best to serve the diamond.

Then, strange stickers start appearing in your child's science textbook. They go something like this: "The geological theory that like conditions yield relatively homogenous geological structures is just that; a theory, nothing more. We encourage our children to keep open minds." And pretty soon, theories that make room for the allowance for giant diamonds in the middle of geologically homogenous back yards start working their way into the minds of your children.

Scientific societies dedicated to geology find their federal funding slowly tapering away as the fight against what the media labels the "diamond-in-the-yard" controversy, even though no such controversy exists within the scientific community, only between the lay public and the scientific community.

Soon, diamond-believers are holding rallies in the streets against "non-carbon-propogating-marriage." They argue that, since certain sectors of society do not produce children, which will in the future not decay, become pressurized into carbon, and eventually possibly become diamonds underneath the great geological upheavals that will accompany the Return of the Cosmic Jeweler, they should not be able to have certain civil rights. They try to offer up secular reasons- that non-childbearers are ugly or that they all have HIV, even though the sector of the population that has the highest rate of HIV infection is Asian women.

So all the non-carbon-propogaters lose access to the first and fourteenth Amendments. You're not a non-carbon-propogater, but you are sort of getting weirded out.

Before you know it, your town is mired in wars with other towns that all just happen to be non-diamond-in-backyard-believing towns. The Constitution is being re-written to place Diamondology as the national faith, with mandated national prayer time, Church of Diamond attendance, donation to the Great Excavation in the form of tithes is mandatory. Intellectuals who openly question the existence of giant under-yard diamonds find themselves deprived of grants and tenure, religious moderates who suggest that diamonds in every yard may just be a metaphor for the diamond within us find themselves excommunicated.



No, it is not OK.

But perhaps you mean, believing in a thing we cannot rationally understand but we know works, like particle accelerators and quantum mechanics. We can't relationally explain 'why' it works but we know it does, so we accept it and move on. IF that is what you were asking then I completely missed your point...

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Is this really all that esoteric?

Something empirically demonstrable can be rationally accepted; I can rationally accept the conclusions of quantum mechanics without fully understanding the processes involved, because I know they lead to accurate predictions about reality.

What I am talking about is also not, on the other side of things, the mere willingness to believe without rational basis. That is simply faith.

What I am talking about is the willingness to believe despite rationality, to believe even though your own reason leads you to contradictory conclusions, because your belief makes you happy.

*snip*

Hmm, perhaps that is it - it is a genuine slippery slope.

If you are willing to accept certain beliefs because they are convenient, then what is to stop you from accepting certain other beliefs because they are convenient? If you suspend your rationality, in a way you are suspending the regulatory function of your mind; you begin indulging in thoughts, and perhaps eventually in behaviors, that do not make sense and cannot be rationally dealt with.

...
What I am talking about is the willingness to believe despite rationality, to believe even though your own reason leads you to contradictory conclusions, because your belief makes you happy.

IF you think the religious leaders are lying to you and are intentionally deceiving you and other followers, meaning you don't think the religious leaders believe in it themselves, then you won't be comforted by following them, not when you think they think they are making a fool of you.

IF you think the religious leaders really do believe what they are saying, AND you think you can't explain how the miracle or divine spirit works with them, then you might choose to believe simply because you can’t disprove it either, hoping to catch a better understanding of it later.

If you can disprove a thing, and they want you to follow it anyway, then I think you probably can’t be happy/comforted there, and you shouldn’t do it.

If you simply choose to believe a thing you can’t explain, you could equate it with an intangible thing, like the love of a parent for a child… You can’t measure it, you can’t explain it, but you know it’s there even though you can’t prove it and other people say they can prove it’s nothing but chemical reactions inside your brain… One is comforting the other much less so. One connects you with your child and helps make you a better parent, the other makes you doubt your own love for your own child.

One is better than the other, you don’t have to be able to explain it to know it’s better.

Its not just comfort, its also community.

When a person belongs to a church, and becomes an accepted member of thier social group, they gain a sense of community.
When a person takes ill, and needs help, casseroles and flowers come knocking at the door.
These people help each other and lend a hand when in need.

Ideally, thats the best thing Christianity has going for it.

Perhaps an example will clarify my meaning.

Say I believe strongly in Judaism. I go to synagogue daily, study the Bible with regularity, and behave as I believe a traditional Jew should.

I have a friend who's an atheist, and one day he presents to me the argument from evil. My friend's an intelligent person, and he incorporates rebuttals to the traditional answers in his argument, thus leaving me bereft.

There may be real answers to this argument. But let us say that I am convinced. I accept that his position is correct - it is absurd to believe in a deity who is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, when there is suffering and evil in the world. Yet I continue believing anyway, because I have always believed, and am sure that I will be less happy and comfortable as an atheist. I refuse to bring my beliefs into sync with what I rationally accept to be true, because if I do so, the comfort I gain from my faith would be eliminated.

Is this intellectual contradiction legitimate?

If you can disprove a thing, and they want you to follow it anyway, then I think you probably can’t be happy/comforted there, and you shouldn’t do it.

No, I think you can be. The possibility lies in refusing to let this rational disproving affect your belief - either by refusing even to consider the question, or by ignoring any conclusions you come to.

Is this intellectual contradiction legitimate?

No, it is not.

You would have two conflicting beliefs.

1. . But let us say that I am convinced. I accept that his position is correct - it is absurd to believe in a deity who is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, when there is suffering and evil in the world.

You now do not believe in God, thus making you an atheist.



Yet I continue believing anyway, because I have always believed, and am sure that I will be less happy and comfortable as an atheist. I refuse to bring my beliefs into sync with what I rationally accept to be true, because if I do so, the comfort I gain from my faith would be eliminated.

Now you do believe.

If the atheist friend truly convinced you, you couldnt go on believing in God, becuase you suddenly realized there is no God to believe in.

You could go on being a practicing Jew, I suppose, and observe the holidays and attend Synagogue, and whatnot, but if you really dont believe in it anymore, it suddenly becomes a little pointless.

You cannot rationalize two polar opposite views.
You cannot both believe, and not believe in God.

You do, or you dont, or you arent sure.

Not being sure, isnt the same as the other two.

If the atheist friend truly convinced you, you couldnt go on believing in God, becuase you suddenly realized there is no God to believe in.

But he merely convinced me of his argument, not that God doesn't exist. He convinced me that it is irrational to believe in God - but that does not mean that he has convinced me that God doesn't exist, just that it is irrational to believe otherwise.

You cannot rationalize two polar opposite views.

The whole point is that you do not rationalize them.

But he merely convinced me of his argument, not that God doesn't exist. He convinced me that it is irrational to believe in God - but that does not mean that he has convinced me that God doesn't exist, just that it is irrational to believe otherwise.



The whole point is that you do not rationalize them.


Is it rational then, to willingly do asburd things, especially when it concerns something so important?

Would you jump off a cliff to see if God can make you fly?

Then why would you follow that particular absurdity?

Is it rational then, to willingly do asburd things, especially when it concerns something so important?

No, it isn't. So?

Would you jump off a cliff to see if God can make you fly?

Then why would you follow that particular absurdity?

Because it makes me happy.

No, it isn't. So?

So, do you often do things that seem illogical?
If you have convinced yourself that the concept is absurd, then surely it must be untrue.
If it isnt true.....then why bother?


Because it makes me happy.

What is it about it that makes you happy?
Could you find it anywhere else?

If its something not found anywhere else, then by all means continue, as your harming no one.
However, as for me, I try to always make logical choices, or at least, ones that feel right.

I cant worship that wich doesnt feel right.

I've thought about this alot. A person in my family for instance, who is disturbed by my atheistic tendancies, when we were talking about armed conflict and such told me something like this:

"Parents who's children are killed, and believe, they have an easier time. They are able to carry on because of their faith."

Basically, her argument for religion was based on the fact that it makes life easier, therefore, it must be good. Clearly this is an irrational argument, if you're looking for some representation of truth, but one that hightlights the very function and purpose of religion - these being comfort and community and motivation and social frameworks. It is only at a later stage that those practical things had to be ascribed and justified by reclassification as the worship of a god.

Anyway, my point is that faith for comfort (any comfort, not just physical or social) is at the root of all faith, (which is the reason faith exists), and all faith is irrational. There is nothing less authentic about the faith of those who recognize this and those who don't - they just operate on different levels or self-awareness. I voted for the first option because I'm not quite cavalier enough to reject faith as illigitimate, seeing as how so many people go for it, though in fact, I am convinced that it is.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.

Rationality is overrated.

Rationality is overrated.I dunno, but it's defiantely under-employed by people of faith, regardless of what they think their reasoning is.

I dunno, but it's defiantely under-employed by people of faith, regardless of what they think their reasoning is.

True, but it's not the be-all, end-all that people seem to think it is.

It certainly hasn't given me any comfort or happiness or really done much good at all for me recently.

Interesting question Soh, my answer:

Life is life in the end. you can throw in complicated logic, condradicting senses of honor and courage, ambiguous definitions of humanity, and even hate or love if you're in the mood. After all is said and done, life is a short but brilliant burst, wherein all edifices constructed are lost forever to the builder. Why is it that you object to someone finding comfort (and nothing else) in religion? I understand you feel they are being contradictory, but is that actually "wrong". If they have found comfort in anything, they have done more than some. Im just trying to understand what part of them you are judging.

Would you "make" them see the error of their ways if you had the oppurtunity?

“Because man’s existence is perforated with puzzles, the pieces of which he can never assemble, his only recourse is to attain a posture of faith toward his life under the sun and to live it to the hilt knowing that someday the puzzle will be assembled by the One who created it and who will judge every deed.” (Howard Baker, “Theology of Ecclesiastes”)

Comfort? Religion does nothing but stress people out.

True, but it's not the be-all, end-all that people seem to think it is.

It certainly hasn't given me any comfort or happiness or really done much good at all for me recently.Rationality makes no such promises.

Rationality makes no such promises.

Then what good is it? It's sure no help in coping with the death of a loved one.

An it harm none, do what thou wilt, dude.

That's one of the ways I could justify religion.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.
That makes sense, and in any case for the first part someones got a chance of being punished for it later on, it all evens out.;)
Now if you replace religion with being in the SS and commiting murder, then saying...
"I only didn't because it made me feel good not because i believed it or anything."
....

The position described by the OP does remind me a lot of my mother.
She's a very intelligent person, very conscious and reflective of her own life and that of others. She has read a good deal on psychology and theology, as ahe was brought up a devout Chrisitian and still is one today. She'll attend service regularly, and she works for the Catholic chruch.

Talking to her not about her own believes but the world in general, it becomes very obvious very soon that she realises that her religion contradcits observable reality in quite a few instances, that it is neither coherent nor rational. Yet, when asked about her religion directly, it is soon similarly apparent that she will not give it up, that she will cling to her faith no matter what. She cannot live without the idea that there could be no god, the thought that her own actions will not be rewarded and honoured.

Faith is nothing rational, it's an emotional thing. And people can cling to it despite realising that from an intellectual point of view it might be impossible.

On the religious people's defense, there are several planes of reality we cannot see.

Like the path of an excited electron (it goes to the outer shell (and back in) through some other plane of reality (basically, it disappears and reappears, somehow interacting with antimatter in the process)) or the dimensions of pure gravity...

If you join a religion out of a desire for comfort, do you really and truly believe in that religion or are you just pretending you do in order to get that sense of comfort? In my (somewhat cynical) opinion, the chances are you do not actually have faith in the religion as you have entered the religion to fulfill a self-centred desire.

As an atheist, I think the most beautiful part of Christianity is the emphasis it places on divine forgiveness. What a relief it must be to have that closure. On occasions of personal weakness, I have desired that divine forgiveness and almost gone to church in order to obtain it. But each time I have stopped myself with the thought that I would not be becoming a Christian because I had faith in their God and His Word: I would be becoming a Christian merely out of a desire for forgiveness.

I think that religion comforts many people and that this is why many people, especially the poor, are involved. However I don't think that many of them are only in it for the social scene without believing in God.

I think people have a right to believe anything they like for any reason they like.

I do not think people have a right to force others to conform to their beliefs.

Unfortunately, some people believe they do have that right.

So, even though I would fight for their right to believe that, I will fight against them expressing their belief through action.

Is this an intellectual contradiction, and how would you all reconcile it?

I think it is legitimate to accept a religion for the sake of comfort, although it'd be nice if that is not the only reason to join it.

I always thought that comfort is one of the big things that religion has going for it. I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with it in the first place, it's hard to have a strong belief.

I can't help but see it as unacceptably dishonest, though; it's abandoning your rationality for your own convenience, a sort of lying to yourself to make you feel better.

I, personally, wouldn't be able to handle it; it would keep me awake at nights, as similar unresolved problems have. Perhaps that is why I have a negative attitude towards it.

That may be because you are a rational person. You are not an intellectual follower. You cannot simply "do as you are told" about something so inherently personal and important. I'm the same way. I just don't understand people who just accept things without question and just ignore contradictions without trying to resolve them.

Hmm, perhaps that is it - it is a genuine slippery slope.

If you are willing to accept certain beliefs because they are convenient, then what is to stop you from accepting certain other beliefs because they are convenient? If you suspend your rationality, in a way you are suspending the regulatory function of your mind; you begin indulging in thoughts, and perhaps eventually in behaviors, that do not make sense and cannot be rationally dealt with.

This is the danger with all unquestioned beliefs, religious, political, or philosophical. It how entire nations end up trying to justify genocidal wars, and why their leaders always end up looking so shocked at their own war crimes trials.

Perhaps an example will clarify my meaning.

Say I believe strongly in Judaism. I go to synagogue daily, study the Bible with regularity, and behave as I believe a traditional Jew should.

I have a friend who's an atheist, and one day he presents to me the argument from evil. My friend's an intelligent person, and he incorporates rebuttals to the traditional answers in his argument, thus leaving me bereft.

There may be real answers to this argument. But let us say that I am convinced. I accept that his position is correct - it is absurd to believe in a deity who is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, when there is suffering and evil in the world. Yet I continue believing anyway, because I have always believed, and am sure that I will be less happy and comfortable as an atheist. I refuse to bring my beliefs into sync with what I rationally accept to be true, because if I do so, the comfort I gain from my faith would be eliminated.

Is this intellectual contradiction legitimate?

The intellectual contradiction is a fact, neither legitimate nor illegitimate. It exists in your mind.

The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

You and I would probably not be able to go forward with a peaceful mind until we had wrestled with the contradiction and resolved it, one way or another. And if that resolution meant that we felt moved to give up the religion we had believed in all our lives, then that is what we would do, regardless of the unhappiness it may cause us. For us, it would be the beginning of a new intellectual quest for a set of answers to whatever internal questions we thought the religion was answering.

But that is because that's the kind of intellectuals we are. It's like that rhetorical question, "Would you rather be right or happy?" I would always rather be right. By "right" I mean that my beliefs are based on honest assessments and a rational understanding of the truth. If I did not follow that path, as tough as it can be, I could not be happy.

Possibly it's also because such people who are religious come to religion for different reasons. We are seeking something other than comfort or happiness.

Maybe this is why we cannot understand people who value happiness over truth.

Is it rational then, to willingly do asburd things, especially when it concerns something so important?

Would you jump off a cliff to see if God can make you fly?

Then why would you follow that particular absurdity?

People have done so.

My whole career as an artist is based on trying to get inside other people's minds and figure out how they think and why they think the way they do. I don't think anyone can understand "irrational" thought processes unless they can visualize being that "irrational" person.

I have tried and so far failed to hold irrational thoughts in my mind. So far, I can only conclude that, in the person's mind, the thought process in NOT irrational. If you could parse it out, you would see a perfectly rational and logical construct to the theory that God will make him fly if his faith is strong enough. He attempts to prove his theory by jumping off the cliff, and his theory is proved to be incorrect. It doesn't seem all that irrational to me. Scientists do that all the time. They construct a theoretical model of what they think will happen, and then they test that model in reality. How many scientists go into their experiments with absolute certainty that it will yield the expected results, and how many are completely upset, even enraged, when it does not?

The difference between scientists and religious extremists is that other religious extremists, watching the guy plummet to his death, will not assume that God does not make people fly without airplanes. They will just assume that the first guy didn't believe hard enough.

When the thing you are trying to prove is inherently unprovable -- i.e., the nature of a god or the intensity of one's belief in him -- then there is no point at which you will say that your otherwise rationally constructed theories have been shown to be wrong. You will always keep trying, and if necessary you will keep ratcheting up the intensity of your efforts.

And there we are, back at the slippery slope.

The position described by the OP does remind me a lot of my mother.
She's a very intelligent person, very conscious and reflective of her own life and that of others. She has read a good deal on psychology and theology, as ahe was brought up a devout Chrisitian and still is one today. She'll attend service regularly, and she works for the Catholic chruch.

Talking to her not about her own believes but the world in general, it becomes very obvious very soon that she realises that her religion contradcits observable reality in quite a few instances, that it is neither coherent nor rational. Yet, when asked about her religion directly, it is soon similarly apparent that she will not give it up, that she will cling to her faith no matter what. She cannot live without the idea that there could be no god, the thought that her own actions will not be rewarded and honoured.

Faith is nothing rational, it's an emotional thing. And people can cling to it despite realising that from an intellectual point of view it might be impossible.

I don't know about that. I see a rational construct in your description. She expects that her actions in this life will be "rewarded and honoured." That sounds like a simple quid pro quo arrangement. Although she is aware that much of what her religion tells her does not jibe with observable reality, she nevertheless continues to buy into it because she values the promised pay-off in the next life. If we accept the construct of a "next life" as being simply a point in the future, then I don't see anything irrational in that. I personally would not screw up my today because someone else promised me something tomorrow, but maybe that's just because I don't want what the Catholic church is offering.

By the way, even the disconnect between church teachings and observable reality can be reconciled -- or at least explained away -- by accepting the basic premise of the existence of a spiritual reality. Then, what parts of the religion that do not fit physical reality can either be shown to fit or presumed to fit spiritual reality. So, as long as the rational mind is willing to work with assumptions, even this can fit into a rational thought process.

One more comment before going off to shop for furniture:

I think we cannot resolve this question without addressing the idea of "comfort." We have been saying, somewhat blithely, "They believe an impossible thing just because it gives them comfort."

"Giving comfort" is actually a rather weighty notion. People don't seek comfort unless they are already experiencing some kind of discomfort or unhappiness.

It's been my experience that many people fear life and the world. They feel anxiety about forces they cannot control. They fear death, almost to a crippling degree. I have seen people get terribly depressed at the mere idea of people dying. They have expressed deep horror at the idea of their own death. Such people tend to cling to anything which promises them that they will not simply cease to exist at some point.

Their fear is so strong that they cannot bring themselves to think about dying long enough to wrestle with it and resolve their own fear. So they cling to the religion that promises life after death, and nothing -- nothing that anyone can show them or tell them -- is going to shake their grip on it, because to them, the alternative of facing death without that assurance is more than they can handle.

Of all the religions, I think only Buddhism addresses this fundamental fear directly. I have read that some Buddhist sects require novice monks and nuns to meditate on their own fears and visualize these things in the form of demons which they must fight with and subdue until every single one is wiped out. This is an effective construct with superstitious kids from Himalayan villages, who have grown up believing in evil spirits. The last demon they must face is always Yama, the Lord of Death.

But this intellectual exercise is for novice monks and nuns. Even the Buddhists don't require everyone to face such fears.

No, it isn't legitimate. The sensible thing to do is face your fears and deal with discomfort, not hide from it with unproven claims.

i think its illegitimate to have a test to determine if a person is religious for the right reasons.

people come to religion, morality, philosophy of life, whatever from different angles. some are very emotional, some are very rational some are just accepting of what they are told. as long as religion is a positive force in your life, that is all that matters.

It's certainly legitimate.
An analogy here:
For all rational reasons, the purpose of sex is reproduction.
People who cannot reproduce still do have sex.
Why?
Because it feels good.
I think most people on this forum would realize that that is a perfectly good reason to have sex, even though all it is is a relic of evolution.
So it is with religon.

Completely and totally.

If something internal makes someone feel good, then it's legit.

Agreed. That goes for religion, drugs, sex, and everything else, provided it's legit and not hurting anyone else.

It certainly hasn't given me any comfort or happiness or really done much good at all for me recently.

That is precisely why I asked this question. It really doesn't.

But I am not (completely) a hedonist; honesty to me is more important in some ways. Not to other people necessarily, but to myself.

Why is it that you object to someone finding comfort (and nothing else) in religion? I understand you feel they are being contradictory, but is that actually "wrong". If they have found comfort in anything, they have done more than some. Im just trying to understand what part of them you are judging.

Well, it's kind of a... surrender, if you will. A rejection of your own rational faculties because you don't like their conclusions. It's a manipulation of truth to serve your own ends.

Ignorance may be bliss, but do we really want people to be ignorant, just because it may be blissful? Is it not be better to face reality, and find some way to deal with it?

Perhaps it is that I value rationality for its own sake, and I cannot explain why.

Would you "make" them see the error of their ways if you had the oppurtunity?

Of course not, I have no right to do so.

An it harm none, do what thou wilt, dude.

I am not saying it should be banned, nor that it is immoral in the same sense that murder and rape are immoral. Merely that it is wrong on some level.

If you join a religion out of a desire for comfort, do you really and truly believe in that religion or are you just pretending you do in order to get that sense of comfort? In my (somewhat cynical) opinion, the chances are you do not actually have faith in the religion as you have entered the religion to fulfill a self-centred desire.

No, the human mind is quite capable of holding on to faith for a self-centered desire.

As an atheist, I think the most beautiful part of Christianity is the emphasis it places on divine forgiveness. What a relief it must be to have that closure. On occasions of personal weakness, I have desired that divine forgiveness and almost gone to church in order to obtain it. But each time I have stopped myself with the thought that I would not be becoming a Christian because I had faith in their God and His Word: I would be becoming a Christian merely out of a desire for forgiveness.

And I have refused to do that not because I felt I would not be a "true Jew," but because I would not be rational.

I think people have a right to believe anything they like for any reason they like.

I agree.

I do not think people have a right to force others to conform to their beliefs.

Unfortunately, some people believe they do have that right.

So, even though I would fight for their right to believe that, I will fight against them expressing their belief through action.

Is this an intellectual contradiction, and how would you all reconcile it?

Not an intellectual contradiction at all. It is wrong to control thoughts, but it is not wrong to control actions. The fact that they have a right to believe something does not mean that their belief is justified.

Why is it that we permit them to think as they will? I can think of two major reasons - we are reluctant to restrict freedom when no one is harmed by its presence, and we do not wish to restrain the field of debate in case we are wrong.

Neither reason applies to restricting behavior.

Possibly it's also because such people who are religious come to religion for different reasons. We are seeking something other than comfort or happiness.

Maybe this is why we cannot understand people who value happiness over truth.

No, I think I have always sought comfort in religion. I never had any illusions that my faith was based on rationality; instead, it was emotional, seeking God as a source of comfort and strength.

That said, it was not irrational, either; it did not contradict my rational conclusions (not then, it does now). It merely was not among them.

It's certainly legitimate.
An analogy here:
For all rational reasons, the purpose of sex is reproduction.
People who cannot reproduce still do have sex.
Why?
Because it feels good.
I think most people on this forum would realize that that is a perfectly good reason to have sex, even though all it is is a relic of evolution.
So it is with religon.

Not a good analogy at all. There is no "purpose" to sex on the purely rational level, there has never been. There is indeed an evolutionary reason for the existence of sex - but there is no rational reason we should not have sex for other reasons.

Of course its ok to accept a religion for comfort. Isn't that pretty much what religion is anyway?

It's certainly legitimate.
An analogy here:
For all rational reasons, the purpose of sex is reproduction.


Actually, for all rational reason sex has no prescribed "purpose" because nature does not have intent. Reproduction is one function of sex.

If you have faith in something and it gives you comfort then you misunderstand what faith is. Faith is a leap in the dark so it should cause a kind of fear and faith inherently leads to absurdities which you have to confront and accept. The only faith that gives comfort is faith that comes from ignorance. Thats not a good thing.

I think if a person is at least honest enough with himself or herself as to admit that they go with the flow for the sake of comfort, that's fine.. but they have to be careful.

I've seen such people argue down actual believers of other religions, for the sole purpose of preserving their little comfort bubble. That's intellectually dishonest and cruel.

An example... I've seen Evangelical Christians debate Mormons. I've participated in such debates... but once I saw someone who really had no real understanding of his own belief (Evangelical Christianity) trying desperately to shatter the Mormon guy's belief. Why? Because it's a lot less scary to stick with your comfort belief than to actually open up to the possibility of one that really DOES make sense to somebody.

Alas, 99some% of religions are that way...

Or at least, the followers are.

It seems to me that a great deal of religious people hold by their religions not because they, if they thought them fully through, would actually accept the tenets, but because it comforts them for some reason - say, because it is what they grew up with, or because it helps them deal with the difficulties of life.

Indeed, there are some people who are willing to admit that they do not care if their beliefs are absurd, or if their religion conflicts with what they believe in other realms; they will hold by them anyway, because they think they are happier with them than they would be without them. A few times I have seen this justification offered on NS as well, though never quite so explicitly.

My position has tended to be that this position is unacceptable; it is dishonest and irrational, and just like the happiness that might be gained from ignorance, it is ultimately not satisfying. Yet I could see a reasonable argument being advanced in the opposite direction.

Edit: I will grant in a second that there are plenty of religious people who believe for other reasons. I am not talking about them, and do not seek to disparage them or their belief systems.

And yet we have every right to believe whatever we want for whatever reason. You believe that this position is unacceptable, if that works for you, good. I also believe that it's unacceptable - for me, but if someone else needs to believe for comfort, that's his/her right and, as long as they don't try to force it on me, it's none of my business.

It's a false dichotomy; religion developed partly for comfort (amongst other factors, human or divine as they may be). Suggesting it's illegitimate because it does its job doesn't make sense.

It's a false dichotomy; religion developed partly for comfort (amongst other factors, human or divine as they may be). Suggesting it's illegitimate because it does its job doesn't make sense.

I never said that religion is illegitimate.

I think it is legitimate to accept a religion for the sake of comfort, although it'd be nice if that is not the only reason to join it.

I always thought that comfort is one of the big things that religion has going for it. I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with it in the first place, it's hard to have a strong belief.

I think it is legitimate to accept comfort through a religion - but not to accept a religion merely for the sake of comfort. It seems to me a comfortable religion is a very hollow thing... a faith that does not stand up to challenges and tests is a straw man religion, and will not, on a rainy day, be any comfort, but merely a quicksand of despair.

I never said that religion is illegitimate.

I...don't think I said you did, did I? I said it didn't make sense to take the position 'no, it's _not_ legitimate' given the importance of 'giving comfort' in religion.

I...don't think I said you did, did I? I said it didn't make sense to take the position 'no, it's _not_ legitimate' given the importance of 'giving comfort' in religion.

I see, I misunderstood you.

Yes, giving comfort is important; it is not the function of giving comfort that bothers me, but the cessation of rationality so that one may achieve that comfort.

I see, I misunderstood you.

Yes, giving comfort is important; it is not the function of giving comfort that bothers me, but the cessation of rationality so that one may achieve that comfort.

NP :)

Religion and rationality are absolutes tough, aren't they? Except in a few sad cases, people tend to be eclectic, living their lifes according to a mix of myths and truths. Accepting the 'irrationality' of religion into some areas of your life for the benefits it gives (to say _nothing_ about the divine aspects - that's another debate) can be very healthy and helpful. The trick is to avoid subsuming yourself in it, subscribing to a particular point of view in all situations, regardless of context.

That danger's not limited to religion, though, and the same holds true of blithely going along with any way-of-thinking.

Most people are a mix of credulity and show-me-ism. Get the balance approximately right and you're laughing. Religion is just one example of the little credulities (again, leaving possible divine aspects on one side) we need as humans to live as individuals and in groups.

Completely and totally.

If something internal makes someone feel good, then it's legit.

Like marijuana. :D

I am not a historian but I am fairly well trained at the craft.

Historians view religion as a coping mechanism. A way to put order into chaos. A way to help what they cannot control. (This, of course, does not include YOUR religion, as it is always right!)

So, thereby, in a sense, of course it is OK. If you look at it from a scientific (and thereby atheist/agnostic) view.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me PERSONALLY (not the above), I am not one to stop you, but I dislike the idea.

I see, I misunderstood you.

Yes, giving comfort is important; it is not the function of giving comfort that bothers me, but the cessation of rationality so that one may achieve that comfort.

The thing is, most of us use our rationality to make our comfort fit.

Read any article by an athiest philosopher preaching athiesm. They almost always say that they find more comfort in the idea of "living on" in their good works than and eternal discorporate consiousness, or an endless series of having to live a whole life, begining to end, over and over again.

You'll find the same thing with people arguing any form of afterlife, or lack thereof.

We all believe in the afterlives that give us the most comfort. It's just that some of us need evidence to feel comfortable.

I am not a historian but I am fairly well trained at the craft.

Historians view religion as a coping mechanism. A way to put order into chaos. A way to help what they cannot control. (This, of course, does not include YOUR religion, as it is always right!)

So, thereby, in a sense, of course it is OK. If you look at it from a scientific (and thereby atheist/agnostic) view.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me PERSONALLY (not the above), I am not one to stop you, but I dislike the idea.

Historians view religion all sorts of ways. Historiography is a field of academic inquiry in its own right.

There's a humanist historiography which views religion as an expression of the concerns of the people of the time.

There's the largely discredited Marxist historiography which views history as an "evolution" from less advanced states to more advanced, and so views religion as an evolution from primative nature-worship through polytheism and monotheism to eventually the highest and most enlightend state of atheism.

Geographical historiography views events as functions of environment, and religions as such as well. Which would be why christians at various points likened christians to fish in a net, sheep in a flock, or wheat stalks in a field.

As far as I know there is no historiographical model that looks at religion as ancient wisdom handed to us from an extra-dimensional spirit-being.

I see, I misunderstood you.

Yes, giving comfort is important; it is not the function of giving comfort that bothers me, but the cessation of rationality so that one may achieve that comfort.

A cessation of rationality is not necessary to achieve or sustain comfort. In your "orthodox jew confronted with atheist friend of evil argument" example, the theist may well decide that (s)he has simply not thought enough about the situation. Or the theist may simply decide that god is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent, yet still is able to provide comfort. Or the theist could simply be completely aware of the rational contradiction, maintain his\her faith and comfort, and believe that new information or a new theory must be found that will resolve the contradiction.

My daughter just said she was sick. Gotta go.

there are some people who are willing to admit that they do not care if their beliefs are absurd
These people are demonstrably insane, and should not be permitted to do things like vote or hold public office.