I mean, in this day and age why isn’t [insert what I know to be true] accepted by [everyone who I perceive to be wrong]. Hegel leads to another Russian smart man who argues a bunch of it might be due to this idea of perezhivanie; how we make sense of what is happening (particularly dramatic events) through our cognition, our emotions and filtered through our needs.
How we make sense of stuff leads to how we behave/believe. This is impacted by our social environment, how we are brought up, our experiences, and our reasoning of those experiences.
It’s why it is argued that information alone will never change someone’s mind about something, it needs to be attached to an emotion and an experience to unpack.
‘Knowledge’ is still so very much overrated.
One thing only I know, and that is that I (meaning a thing, not necessarily what I observe as me) exist.
there is a large correlation between atheism and IQ
stupid people are unable to discern whether science or The Bible is correct. This applies to other religious books as well.
One the one hand, 99.9 percent of scientists say the earth is round, on the other hand this really old book says it’s flat. If you are surrounded by believers and are stupid, you may actually lack the intellectual ability to discern which information is more likely to be true.
on occasion, intelligent people may be choosing to be delusional, letting these delusions protect them from the harsh realities of nature.
Tradition and support in major life events. A lot of people who only go to churches for weddings, baptisms and funerals.
It also exists to control people, and it still works.
Organised religion is always about power and money.
Both talking about capitalism here, right ?
Not always, but the ones that aren’t about that are much smaller. E.g. I know a little community of christ church that is very simple and they rotate through the sermon and then have a friendly morning tea after. I’m not religious but it’s the only church I’ve been to where I kinda enjoyed it and I think it does just bring community and no harm. That being said, it’s a fringe denomination and isn’t really growing, because it’s not trying to force itself on others
I think part of it has to do with how we cope with death. Almost all religions are centered around what happens when we die. Whether it’s reincarnation or an afterlife, most believe that there’s something beyond. I think that to a certain extent we’re predisposed to have this mindset.
Because humans are animals, ruled by emotion and superstition.
Existence is meaningless and we just wobble around here for a little while and then we die. There’s nothing to it. Everything that happens is just a logical consequence; beauty is nothing but a tiny chemical reaction in your brain. Once you rot it’s all worthless.
Science is great at giving explanations, but not so good at providing meaning. For a lot of people, meaning is probably more helpful in order to facilitate a happy life.
Nietzsche writes at length about this stuff, most famously in the anecdote about the madman coming down from the mountain to inform the villagers that God is dead and that we have killed him. Everybody knows the three words “God is dead”, but I think it’s worth reading at length:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Nietzsche, whose father was a priest, recognizes that “God has become unbelievable”, but he does not celebrate it as the progress of science. Rather, we lost something that was fundamentally important to humans, and which science cannot easily replace.
Here one could start talking about the Free Masons, who attempted learning from religious rituals without the added layer of religion. Or one could dig deeper into the works of Nietzsche, and the contrast between Apollonian and Dionysian. It’s all fascinating stuff.
In short though, spirituality used to offer people a sense of meaning that is not so easily replaced by science alone. How do we bury our dead now that we know our rituals are pointless?
Very well written, and insightful. Thanks for sharing this perspective in the discussion as I personally found it very valuable. You articulated my own perspective on this much better than I could have, and gave some great philosophical background to boot. 10/10 👍
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”-Voltaire
Says the man who rigged the lottery. We don’t need god anymore than we need cancer
Thank you for your insightful perspective.
Im not religious, not in the sense that i follow any particular religion.
But it seems to me, analyzing the history of humanity across multiple cultures, that we humans have fundamentally a “spiritual need”, a need to believe into something that is bigger than us, that lies on a superior level of existence.
Call it buddhism, christianity or whatever, but it seems like we need to believe in something like that.
To an extent, i believe it has to do with us being moral animals and having a natural need for justice. We want to believe that justice exists in this world and a religion and its rules is a way to a just world. Because bad people go to hell, or are victims of karma.
So to answer your question. I think we want the world to be fair, because we are moral animals. And believing in religion is a way to believe in a fair world.
The problem with religions is twofold.
One, that across human history the above core element of all religions has been conflated with other foreign elements that have nothing to do with it, like descriptions about the origin of the universe and humans (which is a question of science, not of religion) and rules about how to live your life which have nothing moral about them (and are probably the temporary result of the existing culture within a society). Like forbidding homosexuality, or the idea that women serve a very limited function in society which is limited to taking care of the home and the children.
Usually people have come to accept this because religion is sold as a “complete package” (particularly enforced with rules that you make a bad religious person if you don’t accept it all and with the people close being incentivized to look down on you for not strictly adhering to the religious teachings). That is also why people believe in religion in general (and not just in its moral teachings which actually make sense) in 2024.
The second problem with religion (and here i’m going on a tangent that doesn’t have much to do with the question at hand) is that it usually makes a validity claim for eternity, i.e. religion asserts that its rules and knowledge are valid forever (literally set in stone). This has done more harm than good to our improving of our set of guiding moral principles.
Sorry if this comment is a bit of a mess.
Blind faith is just a socially acceptable mental illness.
I think that there is a place in the human brain that is responsible for ‘spirituality’. Attempts at stimulating it can produce deep religious thoughts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Maybe it evolved as a buffer to store random ideas we couldn’t comprehend. Maybe as a social creator we need a section of our brain to produce spiritual ideas, to help with social cohesion?
I heard somewhere that spirituality is the easing of suffering. Maybe that was from Mark Manson (Subtle Art, YT channel, etc.).
Something in that statement works for me. I’m not superstitious nor do I hold beliefs in the supernatural. But I do undertake efforts to ease suffering - whether that’s meditation, readings, or reflection.
I think many have a spiritual need. Anxiety, depression, grief, changing moods, and more reveal that need. There’s an emotional (“spiritual”) suffering that we hope or need to salve.
Then I think we overshoot the mark.
It’s easy to want concrete perspectives when the world is dark, unjust, or foreboding. Attempting to meet those need with concrete answers helps feed the rise of religion.
I can’t fault the feeling of needing certainty, but I’d hope we can find ways to ease suffering without the use of delusion or lies.
Having said all of the above, I’m an Atheist. I think in rejecting religion, we have, also, overshot the mark.
People need each other. We need the things and rituals that help us find or move closer to peace. We are emotional, feeling, social animals and we’ve wrapped ourselves in new certainties and - sometimes - self-righteousness.
We need people. We need respect. We need love. We deserve human rights. We, also, need to learn how to transcend some of our injuries so we can navigate more effectively. That can be family, community, or national politics.
I’m not talking about losing boundaries. I’m talking about using them differently. Yesterday was MLK Jr day. He set boundaries, but he didn’t do it in hate or overt shame and anger.
He just did the work that needed to be done with the clearest eyes he could. I hope we, the materialists, can find a realistic perspective that doesn’t over-celebrate reason, and forgets the rest of our experience.
Reason tells us we feel. We hurt. We hurt others. We need something (reality-based) that reminds us to tend to ourselves and our communities.
We need balance.
I’ve wandered some in my response. It helped me to type, maybe it helps someone else, too. Either way, I liked your comment and it spurred thought.
Thank you.
IMHO, an easier explanation is that complexity, chaos and the unknown are scary, very very scary.
Things are a lot less scary and a lot more simple if all complexity is explained away by Deity, nothing important is random but rather controlled by said Deity and the unknown is replaced by some fable around Deity.
A mother losing her child in an Earthquake is easier to handle at an emotional level if “It was the will of God and that child went to Heaven” (which is pretty much what the typical Catholic Priest will say) than having to face it being merelly random bad luck and that young person she loved so much being gone forever. (It’s not by chance that for example Mormons during the period when they’re supposed to go out and preach their religion around the World will look at obituaries to find people to try to convert).
Before ignorance, before community, before any of the “behavior” we typically associate with religious people, comes hubris. Only man thinks he is important enough to be chosen by the almighty God to receive the knowledge that he is special and worthy of an afterlife. Doesn’t make people bad, or even stupid, just so preoccupied with philosophical and scientific questions they didn’t think to seek out the people that actually have the answers.
deleted by creator
If you take the most extreme form, they just shelter their children and brainwash them to the point where denial of God’s existence is associated with fear of hell.
For the rest, confirmation bias, especially thanks to the shitty tool like Google search that reinforce it. Or they make their God untouchable by definition through philosophical arguments.
They feel the same way about you not believing considering all the self-evident miracles they see everyday on their feed.
Indoctrination! 😁
The only inheritance for many, the poorest Americans especially.
It’s a source of comfort. People want to be in control. If they can’t be in control, they at least want to feel like someone or something is in control. That there is some organizing force or principle to the universe. Religion, astrology, conspiracism etc all flow from that impulse.
If you’re really interested in an answer and not only trying to dunk on religious people: I’d suggest reading a few philosophical critics of religion. Like Feuerbach and Marx.
Religion always fulfilled a certain function to people. Way back, it was used to answer questions which have been properly answered by science (where does the sun/thunder and lightning come from, etc.). But that’s not the whole picture of religion’s function in society.
People still have an urge to answer questions science can’t/won’t answer (what is right and wrong? *why are we here? how should we treat each other?). Religion fulfills the function answering a subset of these questions.
what is right and wrong? how should we treat each other?
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He’s a good read on this.
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. Source
Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That’s because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There’s plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.
why are we here?
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer.
I’m not saying that you can reach verdicts about morality without religion. But you’ve left the realm of science which was proposed as the religion killer.
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs.
It’s about as bad as science. Look at all the atrocities which were “justified” by science. E.g.: racism, eugenics, …
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc.
You do realize that religion is a societal construct, right?
That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists).
Yeah… That was my original point…
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head.
What exactly is it you are trying to prove? Why are you trying to dunk on Christianity? I don’t believe in god and I know of all that fucked up shit done in the name of the lord. I wanted to give an explanation of what functional role religion can have for humans.
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence?
No, but try making people stop asking that question.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
I’m not religious myself. But I have dear friends who are very religious and we literally never differ when it comes to questions about religion/morals. They belive, I don’t. I know it’s important to them and I hate it if some edgy atheists reduce the topic down so much. Not as much as I hate radical christians/muslims/jews being hypocritical asswipes. But religion probaply didn’t make them asswiper.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Me: I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
You: Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Well, you know. Maybe I’ve read a bit much between the lines. But I think your last comment just wasn’t completely in the best of faith. I’ve read paragraph per paragraph and once I’ve read a bit further (after formulating an answer to that specific point), I see some sort of excuse of how your really don’t suggest the best stuff. I must say: I felt a little bit like you tried to insult me just a teeensy bit, by taking back some of the things you wrote two paragraphs before. And I feel a bit bullshitted if someone replies to me like that.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Could you please talk like a human being? Who talks like that? Get on with it!
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
Yeah, well it’s less about what you say in the discussion, but more the way how you say it. I feel like you’re a bit … sketchy with how you throw your horrible arguments and excuse them two paragraphs later. Let’s say, I had to jump to conclusions, because you said some seriously bad stuff and I had to stumble a bit during your text. So please talk like a human being? Please remember that english is not my first language and I’m not the best at communicating by text in my second language.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Didn’t feel like “simple conversation”. More like "debate bro says some heinous shit and tries to get away with it " vibes. Maybe I’m not the one at fault here by being illogical, but rather someone in this conversation has said some a bit… right-wing stuff.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
They’re not unfounded. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. You’re seeming a bit like a dick. That’s what I was talking about.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Whoooo boy. Your first actual point it it sure is… a doozy. Where shall I begin?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty.
That’s one hell of a statement you make there. Surely, you can’t mean that in no point in history, science has ever been the justification for carrying out heinous acts. (in the business, we call this…)
Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments
Where are you getting these examples from? Why are you talking like you’ve made any point to disprove any of my statements by naming these random examples? I’m afraid you’re not getting my point? In what way would I have claimed anything about these racist/speciesist practices? And then you claim that…
science was not the means of justification.
Yes, you are correct. The name of science is never to blame for these things… or is it?
Tuskegee, animals, Nazi experiments. Why do you mash two human and one animal examples together? We were talking about humans, were we not? Why would you compare a human to an animal? Except… “Race” scientists have been claiming for centuries that africans (or less aryan peoples) are inferior to the human race. There are science books still used in education today claiming that black people have a higher pain threshold and other stuff in which the “science of the time” justified why some people can be treated like animals… or slaves. Mengele was standing on the shoulders of race science when he thought that it is ok to torture non-aryans. He was not a lunatic. He was a respected physician for the time, contributing to science. … and today we know, he was a monster. But he, as well as the people running the Tuskegee Experiment were raised on the “scientific discovery”, that non-white people are not human, justified for slave trade. You can even go into the origins of science in the west: In ancient rome or greece. They were f-cking slave cultures. You can’t have a slave culture and reach that level of “civilisation” without some sort of scientists trying to justify, why we have to mistrust our intrinsic instict to treat our brothers and sisters with respect and instead bind them as a slave. That was the science of the day, my friend.
So, you were saying that science didn’t justify racism? Like… ever?
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one.
Who are you talking to? Are you answering your own points just after you made them, again?
For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation.
Will this be in the test, professor? /s Who the question that made you answer that?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Yeah… guess, which societal institution used to be the one who almost exclusively was concerned about philosophy and ethics for the last say… about 4 millenia? Starts with an “r”. Historical context is important.
Edit: Sent too soon… still editing… Edit2: Done
Since you’re arguing in bad faith and treating me like I’m an asshole, I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults.
The truth is that I had no animosity. I thought we could have an intellectual discussion.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees, it doesn’t mean it’s some emotionally charged interaction. Grow up.
Since you’re arguing in bad faith
That’s like… Your opinion, man.
and treating me like an asshole,
I felt like you argued in bad faith and explained how I came to that conclusion. Please don’t invalidate my perception.
I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults
Way to go proving what I figured: That you’re doing the equivalent of “liking the sound of your own voice”. You’re not engaging in conversation, you’re trying to lecture me. I don’t consider that respectful. When I point that out, you claim that I argue in “bad faith”. Seriously?
Then read the arguments I made and adress them. You’re smart, you’ll figure out which paragraphs contain arguments.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.
Never claimed that it had a tone of voice. But the way written text is structured can still convey the feeling that you’re not being talked with, but rather talked to.
It’s less about tone, but “reading between the lines”.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees
I take issue with the word “respectfully”. Don’t invalidate my perception, please. I also explained why I felt like that.
