WHY RELIGION?

[The Grand Nudger]

That religiosity increases as more and more basic needs go unmet seems to suggest that Bels appraisal of religion as providing them might be misframed. If religion actually could provide them, then those increasingly religious people wouldn't be in such a state of want in the first place.

[Yonadav]

"If a person can get so many of his basic human needs met by religion, isn't it reasonable to be religious?"

No, it's not reasonable because it isn't driven by reason. The needs are superficially met by self-deception - there's a higher power looking out for me, I never really die (awful since this can undervalue this real life), the need to feel secure through having answers to everything (I don't know, therefore god - which can interfere with searching for real answers and we can't properly deal with reality if we avoid it)...

It is far better to meet basic human needs with reason, not faith. Even the best illusions can fall apart and prevent us from realizing our own strengths.

You just described you ideology as if it is reason, itself. It's not. If a person is getting many their basic needs met by religion, they are getting many their basic needs met.

You changed the premise to suit your ideology by claiming that they weren't really getting their basic needs met. But the premise was that they are getting their basic needs met. And then you speculated about what those needs were.

Now you can attack the premise, but then it's on you to prove that people aren't getting some of their basic needs met. And that's going to put you in a position where you have to argue that you know more about what other people's basic needs are than they do. 

You are confusing your ideology with reason.

[Belacqua]

"If a person can get so many of his basic human needs met by religion, isn't it reasonable to be religious?"

No, it's not reasonable because it isn't driven by reason. The needs are superficially met by self-deception - there's a higher power looking out for me, I never really die (awful since this can undervalue this real life), the need to feel secure through having answers to everything (I don't know, therefore god - which can interfere with searching for real answers and we can't properly deal with reality if we avoid it)...

It is far better to meet basic human needs with reason, not faith. Even the best illusions can fall apart and prevent us from realizing our own strengths.

I was responding to fredd bear's OP, in which he wrote:

In my opinion, religious faith meets some very basic human needs.

So you might want to argue it with him. Do you feel he's wrong? That religion doesn't in fact meet these needs? 

You're starting from the premise that religion isn't driven by reason and demands self-deception. Are you sure this is true in every case? What I was suggesting is that if it does meet "very basic human needs," as the OP states, then choosing religion may be a reasonable choice. 

I guess you can oppose fredd bear's assertion, and say that it doesn't meet any needs. Or you can argue that it's better to stick to a certain kind of scientific rationality and go without having our very basic human needs met. Or I guess we could think about how life can have its basic needs met in other ways. This would require an analysis of what those basic needs are, how we satisfy them, if it's good to satisfy them, etc.

I'm not sure that it's a simple equation.

[900ft j]

You have a wonderful way of dissecting arguments.

"You're starting from the premise that religion isn't driven by reason and demands self-deception. Are you sure this is true in every case? What I was suggesting is that if it does meet "very basic human needs," as the OP states, then choosing religion may be a reasonable choice. "

I've met people who deliberately choose religion. "I need something to believe in" to "I'm going to be a Mormon because I like structure and they aren't opposed to making lots of money." But after reasoning and choosing religion, they need to set reason aside to embrace beliefs in something that cannot reasonably be proven.

"I guess you can oppose fredd bear's assertion, and say that it doesn't meet any needs. Or you can argue that it's better to stick to a certain kind of scientific rationality and go without having our very basic human needs met. Or I guess we could think about how life can have its basic needs met in other ways. This would require an analysis of what those basic needs are, how we satisfy them, if it's good to satisfy them, etc.

I'm not sure that it's a simple equation."

I don't think it's simple. It may come down in part to what we value. I value discerning reality with a clear mind, free of kind words without substance that might make me feel better, free of wants or prejudices of my own - and that's not always easy.
Maybe it's presumptuous of me to think that people are stronger than they think and if they don't choose balms or filters to face reality, they will find strengths in themselves and grow stronger, more confident, and independent as a result.

And it isn't my place to say what everyone should do, but I can give my opinion on why I think reality and reasoning based on reality is better for me and for our species.

Sort of like the Matrix. Take one pill, all your needs are met because you think they are and you are happy. What's wrong with that? They are happy.

Take the other pill and you face a real world of pain and challenge where you have free will and can fight to make real change.

For me at least, the taste of reality is delicious and rich. Even my small victories are rewarding to me because they are unfiltered.

thanks for your comments and questions. They help me examine my own thinking.

---

"Now you can attack the premise, but then it's on you to prove that people aren't getting some of their basic needs met. And that's going to put you in a position where you have to argue that you know more about what other people's basic needs are than they do. "

The person making the premise must also know more about people basic needs than they do as well. There are many valid studies that break down human needs. Yes, they are general and within those are individual needs. So anyone arguing for or against religion meeting basic human needs  is subject to the same burden of proof.

"Is the premise proven? How does religion meet basic needs?"

That's a better question.  The premise isn't proven.

[Angrboda]

Experience trumps reason every time. People aren't religious because they believe these things are true. People are religious because they know these things are true. It's a form of pragmatism, and like any pragmatism, the how and why of knowing is based upon experience. Once you reach the point of knowing, reasoning becomes superfluous.

[Yonadav]

You have a wonderful way of dissecting arguments.

"You're starting from the premise that religion isn't driven by reason and demands self-deception. Are you sure this is true in every case? What I was suggesting is that if it does meet "very basic human needs," as the OP states, then choosing religion may be a reasonable choice. "

I've met people who deliberately choose religion. "I need something to believe in" to "I'm going to be a Mormon because I like structure and they aren't opposed to making lots of money." But after reasoning and choosing religion, they need to set reason aside to embrace beliefs in something that cannot reasonably be proven.

"I guess you can oppose fredd bear's assertion, and say that it doesn't meet any needs. Or you can argue that it's better to stick to a certain kind of scientific rationality and go without having our very basic human needs met. Or I guess we could think about how life can have its basic needs met in other ways. This would require an analysis of what those basic needs are, how we satisfy them, if it's good to satisfy them, etc.

I'm not sure that it's a simple equation."

I don't think it's simple. It may come down in part to what we value. I value discerning reality with a clear mind, free of kind words without substance that might make me feel better, free of wants or prejudices of my own - and that's not always easy.
Maybe it's presumptuous of me to think that people are stronger than they think and if they don't choose balms or filters to face reality, they will find strengths in themselves and grow stronger, more confident, and independent as a result.

And it isn't my place to say what everyone should do, but I can give my opinion on why I think reality and reasoning based on reality is better for me and for our species.

Sort of like the Matrix. Take one pill, all your needs are met because you think they are and you are happy. What's wrong with that? They are happy.

Take the other pill and you face a real world of pain and challenge where you have free will and can fight to make real change.

For me at least, the taste of reality is delicious and rich. Even my small victories are rewarding to me because they are unfiltered.

thanks for your comments and questions. They help me examine my own thinking.

---

"Now you can attack the premise, but then it's on you to prove that people aren't getting some of their basic needs met. And that's going to put you in a position where you have to argue that you know more about what other people's basic needs are than they do. "

The person making the premise must also know more about people basic needs than they do as well. There are many valid studies that break down human needs. Yes, they are general and within those are individual needs. So anyone arguing for or against religion meeting basic human needs  is subject to the same burden of proof.

"Is the premise proven? How does religion meet basic needs?"

That's a better question.  The premise isn't proven.

The premise isn't proven? No fucking shit. I said as much. One clown after another comes into this forum, thinking that eristic nonsense is what logic is. What else did I say?

[Brian37]

A few posts ago, I made the glib claim that if people really thought about their religious beliefs that there would be a great many more atheists.   I've thought a bit about that. I don't think it's true.

Above all, religious beliefs are based on faith, not reason. The lack of a rational base is reflected by the bewildering variety of religious beliefs on offer, even within a  single belief  system, such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

I am acutely aware that atheists are a very small minority in terms  of beliefs, or lack of them.  

It is my perception  that all human  behaviour has a purpose. This especially true of common behaviours, such as identifying with some religious belief.

In my opinion, religious faith meets some very basic human needs. I'll list the ones I've thought of. This is not meant to be  conclusive.

Coping with the fear of death. Humans are unique in our awareness of our own mortality. This awareness terrifies us. Believing in a some form of afterlife is very appealing and deeply comforting.

The deep human need for order; much more orderly and comforting when instead of  "WTF was THAT?" We can say"Oh, that was just Thor with his hammer" This need is hard wired also. It's why for example we see a bunny rabbit in that cloud, the virgin in a piece of toast, alien visitors and conspiracy theories.

We are able to bargain with/influence  the divine. From gross sacrifices  to  a staggering number of other rituals, from prayer wheels, to dietary laws, to making pilgrimage and prayers, simple and complex.

We are social animals, and  naturally lean towards being part of a group. Pretty sure it's a hard wired survival thing. We feel more comfortable, safer, as part of a group; family, language, community, religion.

Religion has always been used to rationalise behaviour in which an animal would not indulge.

A cynical man might also say there seems to be an element of satisfaction/ schadenfruede from belonging to a 'special' group.Eg cults and some of the smaller, loopier beliefs ,from Mormons, to Scientologists, to Jehovah's Witnesses to Plymouth Brethren.


I suspect some one will be able to add to the list.

 Those more perceptive will have noticed I have not used terms  such as 'truth', 'divine revelation'  'god' or 'the supernatural' . I thought, what with being an atheist and all-------

Religion is a human invented artificial construct, just like political and economic ideology, for humans to make excuses to form groups and control resources. It is nothing more than an artificial reflection of evolution's drive to continue.