Coping mechanisms kick ass!

I agree that religion is a necessity for those who already believe.
Not just the private belief, but the feeling of community found at any church gathering, mass, temple, etc...
Humans are social animals and religions have found a way to incorporate that very important part of the human psyche into their practices. This, in turn, helps reinforce the private belief, so religions get a win-win situation out of it. And the people also think they benefit from it.

Could the same feeling of community be achieved through other means? yes.... but it would be different, you wouldn't have that private belief compelling you to attend the gathering, you'd go if you found it fun, at some level.
I see old people gathering in the park to play cards or chess
, but those are always small gatherings with a very limited network reach... it's enough for some people, but frankly lacking for others. There are other activities, but they tend to gather similar-minded, similar-background people.. which is something that religion tends not to do: everyone is welcome, everyone can interact with other people, all only under the umbrella of the same belief in the afterlife... on this life, each can be very different from the next.

(August 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Michael Wrote: Well, I'm not saying all religions are equally just Diablo. But I don't see the atheist/Marxist record as particularly any better than the worst Islamic state; those systems would allow absolutely no dissent.

But even with Islamic states we should perhaps be prepared to look at the wider sweep of history: Islam has not always been intolerant.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that the democracies that you like so much are based on Judeo-Christian values. Not that I personally see modern America as a beacon for justice and peace; far from it. I see modern America as fermenting worldwide violence as it seeks to violently impose its will on other nations; much better were the days when America kept itself to itself. It would be a complete anachronism (not to mention just a huge historical error) to see them as atheistically secular at their foundations. An open question is how they would develop if they moved further away from those foundations.

I wasn't aware that Judeo-Christian values included democracy, equal rights and equality. Maybe you could show me those sections in the bible and the torah. Islam is certainy intolerant now, just ask all the gay men who have been hanged from the lampposts in Tehran, or the christians who are persecuted in Saudi.

Don't slag off America either: the US nuclear umbrella preserved peace in the world. Just ask yourself if you'd prefer China to be the global policeman.

Saying that atheism and marxist are equivalent is just plain wrong; just because marxism has been discredited doesn't mean that atheism is wrong. And I used the term secular.

Quote:While clearly there are thousands of religions with contradicting creeds, to a great degree there is a common thread that runs through them: an uneasiness, that is, there is something wrong about mankind as he naturally stands, and a solution, a sense of being saved from the wrong. People of all faiths and beliefs tend to also commonly share the practice of a "prayerful communion," a powerful connection they feel with some type of an ideal that is infinitely beyond the limits of everyday sense. I do not share any sympathies for theology, but as a psychological exercise, religion seems to me to be something of a survival mechanism not completely discordant with the unique functions of any other given species. Whereas evolution has shaped bodily functions to succeed in certain physical environments, I cannot help but think it has also shaped a kind of psychological disposition to enable creatures with the capacity for rational thought to survive in a world that to many minds often appears irrational. This is religion, and just as all creatures vary in an abundant of ways, some more successful than others, so does religious belief. I find myself drawn to the pragmatic approach: it is not a matter of whether or not our ideas are true so much as they are useful. Is religion useful? For many, this is an indisputable and resounding yes.

Hey there pickup_shonuff, I've only read your thread now, it's interesting. To start off I'd like to ask - Are you implying that evolution has created a sort of psychological predisposition to religion? And if the answer is yes, would that explain why some people remain religious even after tremendous amount of evidence is presented on the contrary?

Religion is certainly useful in a variety of ways, even if based on lies - Religion gives people a sense of purpose and mysticism, may make them happier, helps people have a code of rules to live by, and for some it is a tool of power (politically speaking), it also helps people cope with fear of death and tries to explain mysteries, some that have already been explained, others that remain unexplained.

If evolution does shape some people to be religious/theists, could the next evolutionary stage, from a biological/psychological perspective, be the absence of religion/theism (and therefore atheism)? The age when people do not need religion - It's happening right now.

Quote:This doesn't change the fact that religion can also be dangerous and restrictive, but we should parse between harmful or helpful religious beliefs in the same way we would with more or less tolerable political ideologies or hobbies or what have you. Anyway, those our my initial thoughts and I'd love to explore them further with anyone who's interested.

I do not like to compare religion with politics, hobbies or any other topic - I think each case is an individual one and comparison is useless - Politics isn't comparable because it de facto shapes what happens in society (or at least it shouldn't be religion exercising this function) - And I'm as tolerant of political ideologies I don't like as I am with religion - I'll treat Marxists/communists the same way I treat Christians and Muslims - I accept they have the right to think like this or that but I do not adopt their views, and in some cases I find them reprehensible.

(August 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Michael Wrote: I'm sure I don't need to point out that the democracies that you like so much are based on Judeo-Christian values.

This trope ignores the well documented struggle of Western Civilization extirpating religious influence from its politics. Those that push this canard are simply attempting to defend the desire to legislate their morality without having to provide secular justification.

(August 25, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Cato Wrote:

(August 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Michael Wrote: I'm sure I don't need to point out that the democracies that you like so much are based on Judeo-Christian values.

This trope ignores the well documented struggle of Western Civilization extirpating religious influence from its politics. Those that push this canard are simply attempting to defend the desire to legislate their morality without having to provide secular justification.

Nonsense. You're trying to rewrite history outside of its religious setting, and that is a gross anachronism that has no historical merit. It collapses as soon as we look at the actual history of modern democracy. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you're just indulging in blatant revisionism; reading into the past your preferred philosophy of today. To understand modern democracy we must enter the world and thoughts of very deeply religious men; men willing to die and kill for their understanding of God's Kingdom. The very notion of 'one man one vote' came out of the Putney Debates in 1647, and those were debates held by Puritans who were looking to debate how Christian values should be lived out in society. They were offering a counter-argument to the 'Divine right of Kings' held to firmly by James I and his successor Charles I. The cauldron of modern democracy was, at its heart, a theological debate, with the bible as fuel. These were not, in any sense whatsoever, people fighting against religion. These were people whose very inspiration was their Puritan religion, based on their understanding of a bible recently translated into a language even the plough boy could understand (to echo Tyndale's desire). They, led by Cromwell, would implement parliamentary democracy through the violence of the civil wars of England, Scotland and Ireland. You can't understand Western democracy without understanding Puritanism, the New Model Army, and the huge religious debates and conflicts of the 17th century; conflicts that would drastically reshape ideas of government and leave a world forever changed.

(August 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Michael Wrote:

(August 25, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Cato Wrote: This trope ignores the well documented struggle of Western Civilization extirpating religious influence from its politics. Those that push this canard are simply attempting to defend the desire to legislate their morality without having to provide secular justification.

Nonsense. You're trying to rewrite history outside of its religious setting, and that is a gross anachronism that has no historical merit. It collapses as soon as we look at the actual history of modern democracy. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you're just indulging in blatant revisionism; reading into the past your preferred philosophy of today. To understand modern democracy we must enter the world and thoughts of very deeply religious men; men willing to die and kill for their understanding of God's Kingdom. The very notion of 'one man one vote' came out of the Putney Debates in 1647, and those were debates held by Puritans who were looking to debate how Christian values should be lived out in society. They were offering a counter-argument to the 'Divine right of Kings' held to firmly by James I and his successor Charles I. The cauldron of modern democracy was, at its heart, a theological debate, with the bible as fuel. These were not, in any sense whatsoever, people fighting against religion. These were people whose very inspiration was their Puritan religion, based on their understanding of a bible recently translated into a language even the plough boy could understand (to echo Tyndale's desire). They, led by Cromwell, would implement parliamentary democracy through the violence of the civil wars of England, Scotland and Ireland. You can't understand Western democracy without understanding Puritanism, the New Model Army, and the huge religious debates and conflicts of the 17th century; conflicts that would drastically reshape ideas of government and leave a world forever changed.

You ignore the fact that everyone was religious then, and brought up in that straightjacket. That the ideals of democracy, first developed in ancient Greece, should resurface should come as no surprise, and was in spite of religion, which has held back social change at every point.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where democracy, equal rights and equality figure in the bible: you conveniently ignored that.

(August 25, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Cato Wrote: Pickup,
I agree with much of what you stated in the OP, but will offer that it is the explanatory power of religion that is biologically/psychologically valuable; not religion in and of itself, understanding that there are non-religious explanations that serve the purpose for most inquiries. For me, religion was a primitive means of providing explanation for events that were unpredictable on the scale of a single human life or whose secrets were undetectable with prevailing technology: why does the ground shake, why did the mountain explode, why did my village flood, what moves the sun across the sky, what causes the seasons to change, why did the sun darken, what causes illness, etc.? Supernatural explanations for these events were then packaged into a set of beliefs that we call religion. As we continued to provide more natural explanations for the phenomenon we encountered, the religions dissipated into myth.

We still have a biological/psychological need for causal explanation; however, religion is not required. This is the basis for wanting to make the distinction. Whether or not it is a distinction with a difference I think depends on what we are explaining. A Greek goat herder can live his entire life believing that Helios is driving the sun across the sky and no harm will come of it. If the same goat herder subscribes to a primitive notion of demon caused disease then there could very likely be problems for him and anyone he comes in contact with.

Absolutely Cato, though it does seem to me that even if human beings could explain everything about the Universe through naturalistic explanations, religion would not go away. Why? Because at bottom, I think, it's not about a coherent philosophical system so much as it is about an experience people have, and that experience oftentimes relates directly to the fact that for some minds, materialistic explanations lack hope. To quote James (again), "Design, free-will, the absolute mind, spirit instead of matter, have for their sole meaning a better promise as to this world's outcome" (italics mine). Speaking for myself, I don't think I could believe something on that basis alone, though if I knew I was going to die next week I honestly don't know what my emotional response to such news would be, and that's my point: religion is an emotional, rather than rational, response to the world, but does that negate its aesthetic value? Are humans "designed" (by natural selection, of course) to create religion in the same way we are prone (or rather, need) to create art? And does this actually offer people a solution--through which they are able to survive--where other solutions cannot? If that is even the case for 1% of religious people, that seems to me a profound advantage over materialistic philosophies. Again, to clarify, I'm not saying that I think that makes any religion true in terms of 'reality' outside of our minds--I'm just wondering, speaking only for some people, if that 'reality-outside-the-individual-mind' even ought to actually matter--if the costs of embracing it seem to outweigh the benefits.

(August 25, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(August 25, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Cato Wrote: Pickup,
I agree with much of what you stated in the OP, but will offer that it is the explanatory power of religion that is biologically/psychologically valuable; not religion in and of itself, understanding that there are non-religious explanations that serve the purpose for most inquiries. For me, religion was a primitive means of providing explanation for events that were unpredictable on the scale of a single human life or whose secrets were undetectable with prevailing technology: why does the ground shake, why did the mountain explode, why did my village flood, what moves the sun across the sky, what causes the seasons to change, why did the sun darken, what causes illness, etc.? Supernatural explanations for these events were then packaged into a set of beliefs that we call religion. As we continued to provide more natural explanations for the phenomenon we encountered, the religions dissipated into myth.

We still have a biological/psychological need for causal explanation; however, religion is not required. This is the basis for wanting to make the distinction. Whether or not it is a distinction with a difference I think depends on what we are explaining. A Greek goat herder can live his entire life believing that Helios is driving the sun across the sky and no harm will come of it. If the same goat herder subscribes to a primitive notion of demon caused disease then there could very likely be problems for him and anyone he comes in contact with.

Absolutely Cato, though it does seem to me that even if human beings could explain everything about the Universe through naturalistic explanations, religion would not go away. Why? Because at bottom, I think, it's not about a coherent philosophical system so much as it is about an experience people have, and that experience oftentimes relates directly to the fact that for some minds, materialistic explanations lack hope. To quote James (again), "Design, free-will, the absolute mind, spirit instead of matter, have for their sole meaning a better promise as to this world's outcome" (italics mine). Speaking for myself, I don't think I could believe something on that basis alone, though if I knew I was going to die next week I honestly don't know what my emotional response to such news would be, and that's my point: religion is an emotional, rather than rational, response to the world, but does that negate its aesthetic value? Are humans "designed" (by natural selection, of course) to create religion in the same way we are prone to create art? And does this actually offer people a solution--through they are able to survive--where other solutions cannot? If that is even the case for 1% of religious people, that seems to me a profound advantage over materialistic philosophies. Again, to clarify, I'm not saying that I think that makes any religion true in terms of 'reality' outside of our minds--I'm just wondering if that reality actually matters, if the costs of embracing it outweigh the benefits--speaking only for some people.

I honestly think that you're treating this as some kind of a logical discussion, which it isn't. People believe this stuff because it's been crammed into their heads since before they could think. It's not optional: they believe it, that's all.

(August 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Blackout Wrote: Hey there pickup_shonuff, I've only read your thread now, it's interesting. To start off I'd like to ask - Are you implying that evolution has created a sort of psychological predisposition to religion? And if the answer is yes, would that explain why some people remain religious even after tremendous amount of evidence is presented on the contrary?

Yes, precisely. You said it well. I do think that's an excellent question for 'science of religion' to address, and ties directly into everything else.

Quote:Religion is certainly useful in a variety of ways, even if based on lies - Religion gives people a sense of purpose and mysticism, may make them happier, helps people have a code of rules to live by, and for some it is a tool of power (politically speaking), it also helps people cope with fear of death and tries to explain mysteries, some that have already been explained, others that remain unexplained.

If evolution does shape some people to be religious/theists, could the next evolutionary stage, from a biological/psychological perspective, be the absence of religion/theism (and therefore atheism)? The age when people do not need religion - It's happening right now.

See my above response to Cato. I'm not so sure that will ever be possible--I say that simply as an observation, not really sure if it's a "good" thing one way or another.

Quote:I do not like to compare religion with politics, hobbies or any other topic - I think each case is an individual one and comparison is useless - Politics isn't comparable because it de facto shapes what happens in society (or at least it shouldn't be religion exercising this function) - And I'm as tolerant of political ideologies I don't like as I am with religion - I'll treat Marxists/communists the same way I treat Christians and Muslims - I accept they have the right to think like this or that but I do not adopt their views, and in some cases I find them reprehensible.

True, I was only making the point that I think I'm beginning to grow disenchanted with the way many atheists--and I include myself as one of them until very recently--seem to want to paint all religious people with a broad brush as either stupid, brainwashed, naive, dishonest, or what have you, and I was simply saying perhaps we should treat it in terms of those other things (politics, hobbies) on the singular point that within 'religion' exists great diversity of ideas--some useful, some harmful, some thoughtful, more true, others not, etc.

---

(August 25, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Diablo Wrote: I honestly think that you're treating this as some kind of a logical discussion, which it isn't. People believe this stuff because it's been crammed into their heads since before they could think. It's not optional: they believe it, that's all.

That's certainly the case for many, and believe me, I'm as vehemently opposed to those types of--shall we call--coercive or dogmatic religions, as anyone... but can we paint all believers into that corner? I don't think so. I think a great many do come to belief through their own choice, a prime example being Leo Tolstoy (if you're not familiar with his conversion story, I'd recommend it... heavy stuff).