Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

A Billionaires Charter! I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

I agree, it’s certainly not the whole story by any means. Humans have always created and invested authority into all kinds of institutions to support their communities. And the individuals entrusted with those powers, do sometimes give in to the temptation to abuse them in service of their own egos and ambitions rather than the communities for which they were intended. That’s true whether we’re talking about government or business or any organization really, so we can't reasonably expect religious institutions to be any different. But I think it’s a mistake to think that because the powers are sometimes abused implies there’s no value to religion at all. We don’t simply eliminate government, for example, just because it’s sometimes subject to corruption.

I think that if we call ourselves philosophers, purportedly 'lovers of wisdom' and seekers of truth, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss religion or belief in God as solely superstition and nonsense. In some specific cases there might be truth to that, but the world’s faiths are varied and rich wisdom traditions that have given countless people meaning and purpose for thousands of years and defy broad generalization. In my experience, much of value can been learned for those who are willing to invest the time and energy to seek it out and look beyond the surface with an open mind. Not that any one set of beliefs should be imposed or will be a fit for everyone. But whatever our own faith, if any, we have more to learn from those who think differently from ourselves than we do from those who agree with us about everything.

I hold in high regard the attitude of Gandhi who, although being a devout Hindu, advocated the importance of studying and learning from others’ beliefs:

Let no one even for a moment entertain the fear that a reverent study of other religions is likely to weaken or shake one's faith in one's own. The Hindu system of philosophy regards all religions as containing the elements of truth in them and enjoins an attitude of respect and reverence towards them all. This of course presupposes regard for one's own religion. Study and appreciation of other religions need not cause a weakening of that regard; it should mean extension of that regard to other religions.

I came to the conclusion long ago that all religions were true and that also that all had some error in them, and while I hold by my own religion, I should hold other religions as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we were Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu; but our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should become a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, and a Christian a better Christian.

Oh, I'm not insinuating that because the origin story of religions (and thus gods) contain more mundane, self serving and practical motivaions, that therefore religions don't contain an upside. Far from it. Just as current professional sports teams are economic drains on the localities that host them, doesn't imply that local fans don't derive some personal psychological positives from buying tickets and merch and attending games. No entity is all positive or all negative.

[Pattern-chaser]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

Nope, not the whole story, but a major component of the origin story. Later after the religion was established, it's easy to add this or that philosophical "meaning" in a post hoc manner (and make it appear to be the driving force of the concept).

In fairness, it's very typically human to act without (conscious) reason, and then to create a justification, after the fact, when asked to do so. So adding later explanations, and often claiming that they were there before we acted (which they weren't), is not remarkable.

Textbooks and academic thought definitely has a Western bias. Surprising no-one (with an ounce of life experience).

Yes, Western "textbooks" and Western "academic thought". I imagine some Chinese thinkers (for example) might be able to offer a contrasting perspective?

[LuckyR]

One of the main reasons religions (and thus gods) were invented by the power structure was to keep the rabble from rebelling against the wealthy because the meek were going to get their reward (inheriting the Earth) in heaven, so be patient (and docile) here on Earth with no material wealth, you'll get eternal life and infinite joy after you die.

I agree, but would comment that this is not the *whole* story of religion/belief.

Nope, not the whole story, but a major component of the origin story. Later after the religion was established, it's easy to add this or that philosophical "meaning" in a post hoc manner (and make it appear to be the driving force of the concept).

In fairness, it's very typically human to act without (conscious) reason, and then to create a justification, after the fact, when asked to do so. So adding later explanations, and often claiming that they were there before we acted (which they weren't), is not remarkable.

Textbooks and academic thought definitely has a Western bias. Surprising no-one (with an ounce of life experience).

Yes, Western "textbooks" and Western "academic thought". I imagine some Chinese thinkers (for example) might be able to offer a contrasting perspective?

Yes, we're in complete agreement that humans perform such ego boosting tricks so frequently that we end up fooling even ourselves.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, we're in complete agreement that humans perform such ego boosting tricks so frequently that we end up fooling even ourselves.

Yes, indeed. So, back on topic, "What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?" For me, the answer is almost a cop-out, it's *faith*. There are no conclusive deductive arguments for the existence (or not) of God, so faith is all that's left. We can call it "feeling", "intuition", or something similar, but in the end it comes down to nothing more or less than faith, I think?

[LuckyR]

Yes, we're in complete agreement that humans perform such ego boosting tricks so frequently that we end up fooling even ourselves.

Yes, indeed. So, back on topic, "What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?" For me, the answer is almost a cop-out, it's *faith*. There are no conclusive deductive arguments for the existence (or not) of God, so faith is all that's left. We can call it "feeling", "intuition", or something similar, but in the end it comes down to nothing more or less than faith, I think?

Exactly. Anyone who cités "proof" or a logical argument for the existence of gods is either fooling themselves or has been fooled. However, that's not a "bad" thing, in the sense that metaphysical entities don't leave physical proof. In Real Life, though the vast majority of the religious belive in their gods out of tradition, habit or social pressure. The proof of that is the fact that the vast majority of religious folk are members of the religion they were born into and never change (due to critical evaluation of the relative merits of the various religions).

[Pattern-chaser]

Exactly. Anyone who cités "proof" or a logical argument for the existence of gods is either fooling themselves or has been fooled. However, that's not a "bad" thing, in the sense that metaphysical entities don't leave physical proof. In Real Life, though the vast majority of the religious belive in their gods out of tradition, habit or social pressure. The proof of that is the fact that the vast majority of religious folk are members of the religion they were born into and never change (due to critical evaluation of the relative merits of the various religions).

Yes, many so-called believers only belong to their churches (etc) for social reasons. My sentiments apply to those who are committed to their beliefs, not to the church or organisation that promotes them. As a very young cultist (Roman Catholic), I remember feeling contempt for those who, quite obviously, attended the church for social reasons. I grew up enough to realise that contempt is inappropriate and unkind, but the basic observation remains true; many of the worshippers I saw in church every week were there out of habit, and nothing more.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, we're in complete agreement that humans perform such ego boosting tricks so frequently that we end up fooling even ourselves.

Yes, indeed. So, back on topic, "What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?" For me, the answer is almost a cop-out, it's *faith*. There are no conclusive deductive arguments for the existence (or not) of God, so faith is all that's left. We can call it "feeling", "intuition", or something similar, but in the end it comes down to nothing more or less than faith, I think?

Exactly. Anyone who cités "proof" or a logical argument for the existence of gods is either fooling themselves or has been fooled. However, that's not a "bad" thing, in the sense that metaphysical entities don't leave physical proof. In Real Life, though the vast majority of the religious belive in their gods out of tradition, habit or social pressure. The proof of that is the fact that the vast majority of religious folk are members of the religion they were born into and never change (due to critical evaluation of the relative merits of the various religions).

.
I was raised in the church and on its doctrines. I left it the day I left home. My memories of the church bring me no joy.

Some of the reasons for that I will not go into here. What I will say is that most of the congregation were there not because they had done any intellectual work to arrive at their beliefs, but because they were indoctrinated into it as kids and, very importantly, they were there to demonstrate their own piety and vaunt their own haughty self-righteousness. I loathed them all, especially the hypocritical priests and sour nuns who, despite all their hail Mary's and Our Father's were mostly tyrannical crones who were colder than a witches tit.

So, my answer to the question of the OP is that most people believe in the gods of their religions because they were indoctrinated into those beliefs, and because they have been too lazy to do a bit of intellectual work, and because in the church they get to show off their piety and thereby get reward points from priests and other congregants in the mistaken belief that this will get them into their imaginary heaven.

[LuckyR]

Yes, we're in complete agreement that humans perform such ego boosting tricks so frequently that we end up fooling even ourselves.

Yes, indeed. So, back on topic, "What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?" For me, the answer is almost a cop-out, it's *faith*. There are no conclusive deductive arguments for the existence (or not) of God, so faith is all that's left. We can call it "feeling", "intuition", or something similar, but in the end it comes down to nothing more or less than faith, I think?

Exactly. Anyone who cités "proof" or a logical argument for the existence of gods is either fooling themselves or has been fooled. However, that's not a "bad" thing, in the sense that metaphysical entities don't leave physical proof. In Real Life, though the vast majority of the religious belive in their gods out of tradition, habit or social pressure. The proof of that is the fact that the vast majority of religious folk are members of the religion they were born into and never change (due to critical evaluation of the relative merits of the various religions).

.
I was raised in the church and on its doctrines. I left it the day I left home. My memories of the church bring me no joy.

Some of the reasons for that I will not go into here. What I will say is that most of the congregation were there not because they had done any intellectual work to arrive at their beliefs, but because they were indoctrinated into it as kids and, very importantly, they were there to demonstrate their own piety and vaunt their own haughty self-righteousness. I loathed them all, especially the hypocritical priests and sour nuns who, despite all their hail Mary's and Our Father's were mostly tyrannical crones who were colder than a witches tit.

So, my answer to the question of the OP is that most people believe in the gods of their religions because they were indoctrinated into those beliefs, and because they have been too lazy to do a bit of intellectual work, and because in the church they get to show off their piety and thereby get reward points from priests and other congregants in the mistaken belief that this will get them into their imaginary heaven.

True. I hope none of your unspoken reasons were truly toxic. Yes, the behavior of humans as pertains to brand loyalty is a well described and understood subject in the Marketing literature. It's not impossible, of course, for a consumer to dispassionately evaluate the relative weaknesses and strengths of various options and make an informed selection, but in the case of religion consumers, most do not.

[Lagayascienza]

I hope none of your unspoken reasons were truly toxic.

Well, let's just say it was traumatic and that my experiences as a kid in the church have never left me. But, hey, folks have suffered worse and survived. So how bad could it be? Well, some were so traumatized they ended up unable to form close relationships and were unable to undertake successful careers. Some of those became criminals. In which case, they didn't really survive. My heart goes out to them. I hope my work as a lawyer has been of some help to some of them.

Yes, the behavior of humans as pertains to brand loyalty is a well described and understood subject in the Marketing literature. It's not impossible, of course, for a consumer to dispassionately evaluate the relative weaknesses and strengths of various options and make an informed selection, but in the case of religion consumers, most do not.

I agree. In particular, kids are no position to "dispassionately evaluate the relative weaknesses and strengths of various options and make an informed selection". And after religious indoctrination, few ever do.

[Thomyum2]

I hear what you all are saying, and I've had these kinds of experiences with churches and their followers as well. But should we cut ourselves off from something because we don't like the people who are involved? Should we argue for the elimination of government because some politicians are corrupt? Or stop listening to music because we had a bad music teacher? It doesn't make for good philosophy, does it - it's akin to the ad populum fallacy to form our own beliefs based on how others believe or act.

In my youth I was subjective to pressure to convert to certain beliefs and the experience turned me off of religion for many years, so I completely understand that. And I was similarly turned off of literature because of an abusive English teacher in high school and avoided reading whenever I could manage it. In retrospect, I only hurt myself by doing this. Many years later I realized how much I'd missed in both of these because I allowed my own distaste of the individuals involved to close my mind to the topic itself. Today I love reading the great books more than almost anything and I regret have lost so many years that I could have spent exploring the world of literature. And similarly with religion, I now derive great value from the serious study and practice of religion, and I don't mean that it just provides some kind of transient 'psychological benefit' that helps me through my daily life. Rather, I've found that in conjunction with philosophy it really does provide a different way to look at and understand our reality and existence. I don't expect that anyone will necessarily adopt or share my religion by any means, but I do get discouraged when it seems that many philosophers refuse give it a serious look and simply dismiss belief in God as a delusion or a purely subjective phenomenon. But I guess we all have to choose our battles.

[Lagayascienza]

Well, Thomyum, if you can look at the world and believe that religion has been predominantly a force for good, and that it still is predominantly a force for good, then I, and many others of a philosophical bent, will disagree.

What the world needs now is not religion. We've had enough of that. What the world needs now is common sense. It needs to get over the sort of magical thinking that pits us against each other. Look at the Inquisition. Look at how the church enable Hitler. Look at what happened in N Ireland. Look at Communism which was really just religion by another name. And today, look at Sudan. Look at the Middle East. Look at North Korea where the "dear leader" is worshiped as a god-like figure. Look at Russia where Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church have combined to draw the county into an ever tightening and more evil embrace that threatens to tip the world into a new global conflict. Look at religious fundamentalism in America and elsewhere.

Religion is a plague on the human mind which we should have said goodbye to long ago.

It is wrong to think that ditching religion is just a matter of cutting ourselves off from the people involved. People in many countries cannot do that because religion controls every aspect of their lives. Try saying you don't believe in allah in Iran or Afghanistan and you're likely to lose you head. If you are a woman, try not wearing your hijab properly and you are likely to be arrested and even killed by the morality police, as happened recently.

Even in secular countries such as my own, religions are still tax-exempt and their schools, which refuse to teach proper science, are subsidized by taxpayers which allows them to perpetuate the poisoning of young minds and which continues to put children at risk of predation by priests and preachers. Hardly a day goes by when a new sex abuse scandal involving religious organisations does not appear in the media.

If we cannot outlaw it, religion's sick, monumental edifice needs to be at least curtailed to render it less harmful. There is much work to do before even that becomes a reality. Marx may have got a lot wrong economically, but what he said about religion was true. It is both the opium of the people and the evil that keeps them in ignorance and thereby perpetuates their suffering.

[Belinda]

Insofar as I do believe there is a deity, I believe he exists because I have met good people who trusted their deity. As for religion, the last sect I attended meetings of was a Unitarian church . I understand that Unitarian church asks only that you use your reason , respect others' right to trust in a deity if they so desire, and I suppose try not to be a criminal.

[Sy Borg]

Insofar as I do believe there is a deity, I believe he exists because I have met good people who trusted their deity. As for religion, the last sect I attended meetings of was a Unitarian church . I understand that Unitarian church asks only that you use your reason , respect others' right to trust in a deity if they so desire, and I suppose try not to be a criminal.

That's a turnabout for you to believe there is deity. Have you abandoned Spinoza?

Also, are you saying that the only good people, or the best people, you have encountered believed in a deity? Do you think there are no good atheists?

[Sy Borg]

Well, Thomyum, if you can look at the world and believe that religion has been predominantly a force for good, and that it still is predominantly a force for good, then I, and many others of a philosophical bent, will disagree.

What the world needs now is not religion. We've had enough of that. What the world needs now is common sense. It needs to get over the sort of magical thinking that pits us against each other. Look at the Inquisition. Look at how the church enable Hitler. Look at what happened in N Ireland. Look at Communism which was really just religion by another name. And today, look at Sudan. Look at the Middle East. Look at North Korea where the "dear leader" is worshiped as a god-like figure. Look at Russia where Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church have combined to draw the county into an ever tightening and more evil embrace that threatens to tip the world into a new global conflict. Look at religious fundamentalism in America and elsewhere.

Religion is a plague on the human mind which we should have said goodbye to long ago.

Disagree. As soon as you take away religion, cults of personality emerge. You pointed to Communism, but that's just one example. You can take humanity out of religion but you can't take the religion out of humanity.

As I keep saying, our brains have been conditioned by our superstitious ancestors over millennia. Epigenetics can be surprisingly adaptive, but it will surely take more than a few generations for humans to shake off superstitious patterns of thought, if they ever do. Maybe life will continue being so difficult that humans will continue to need a "buffering" superstitious belief to blunten life's sharper edges. Religious belief makes suffering seem worthwhile and takes away the fear of annihilation in death.

[LuckyR]

I hear what you all are saying, and I've had these kinds of experiences with churches and their followers as well. But should we cut ourselves off from something because we don't like the people who are involved? Should we argue for the elimination of government because some politicians are corrupt? Or stop listening to music because we had a bad music teacher? It doesn't make for good philosophy, does it - it's akin to the ad populum fallacy to form our own beliefs based on how others believe or act.

In my youth I was subjective to pressure to convert to certain beliefs and the experience turned me off of religion for many years, so I completely understand that. And I was similarly turned off of literature because of an abusive English teacher in high school and avoided reading whenever I could manage it. In retrospect, I only hurt myself by doing this. Many years later I realized how much I'd missed in both of these because I allowed my own distaste of the individuals involved to close my mind to the topic itself. Today I love reading the great books more than almost anything and I regret have lost so many years that I could have spent exploring the world of literature. And similarly with religion, I now derive great value from the serious study and practice of religion, and I don't mean that it just provides some kind of transient 'psychological benefit' that helps me through my daily life. Rather, I've found that in conjunction with philosophy it really does provide a different way to look at and understand our reality and existence. I don't expect that anyone will necessarily adopt or share my religion by any means, but I do get discouraged when it seems that many philosophers refuse give it a serious look and simply dismiss belief in God as a delusion or a purely subjective phenomenon. But I guess we all have to choose our battles.

I don't "dislike" folks who are religious. Lets face it, I'd be disliking >90% of all people right off the bat. No, I view the religious like I view opera devotees, they enjoy something that I dont care for and have no use for. Though I understand they claim to get a lot out of it, and I have no reason to not believe them. Good for them. Just don't inundate me with opera, try to convert me to opera, try to pass legislation mandating opera or an opera-centric viewpoint.