Why do people believe in religion?

[selfAdjoint]

We cannot add or delete any thing from the Quran. It is presented as is. This is the exact translation of the verses which were revealed more than 1400years ago and since then no interpretation has been done in it.

Nobody said you were modifying the text. What you were doing was offering a strained and implausable interpretation of what the text means.

 

[Flexor]

While observation of past societies can explain the creation of religions and/or belief systems as an answer to fear, need of control, or other factors, the reason for a specific individual to turn to, or to turn away from faith, may be explained through incident of birth.

Children of Christian parents will almost inevitably be Christians, while children of Muslim parents will almost inevitably be Muslim. Americans love america, and Canadians love Canada. You won't often find an American who prefers Canada over America, or vice-versa.

Young children are very easily impressed, and having parents who adhere to certain beliefs and practice certain traditions changes the atmosphere in which the child learns and grows, creating a sort of involontary brainwash. In a way, it's no different than Santa Claus. Children will believe in Santa Claus, until they reach a certain age, where they will either be told by their parents that Santa Claus is nonexistant, or will realize it for themselves. However, their parents won't tell them that God is nonexistant. In fact, society, being generally religious, has thought them to accept that it's ok to believe in God, and everybody else around them already does so.

If you could isolate a few hundred children from their birth to the age of maturity, and then reintroduce them into a religious society, each and every one of them would almost certainly be atheist.

 

[Icebreaker]

Assuming the children themselves don't develop their own system of deity or deities.

 

[Qyamat]

Then how did this man (who evolved from a monkey as darwin claimed) started even thinking of a deity or God and started worshipping it. The monkeys don't do this.

 

[Qyamat]

I think religion is like a mirror. Some get the pic and some don't. And the right religion will be the one with the most satisfied followers. We should think why Islam has the least deviators.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then how did this man (who evolved from a monkey as darwin claimed) started even thinking of a deity or God and started worshipping it. The monkeys don't do this.

Once and for all time:

To those who, for a century, have insisted on living in ignorance - knocking Darwin when they have no idea what they're talking about:

DARWIN DID NOT CLAIM WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS.

His ignorant detractors, and all those ignorant enough to follow, have mangled Darwinism. By not bothering to understand it, they shot themselves - and their fundamentalist credibility - in the foot, a crippling blow that lames them to this day.


(*No personal offense, Qyamat, I'm sure you're intelligent and well-educated. It's your teachers that are ignorant.)

 

[Icebreaker]

And the right religion will be the one with the most satisfied followers. We should think why Islam has the least deviators.

I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" religion. And the religion with the most satisfied followers is meaningless. A few hundre years ago, everyone thought the Earth was flat.

The monkeys don't do this.

Says who? Monkeys have an advanced culture that is passed down from generation to generation.

On the contrary, if monkeys aren't bound by religion, it makes them superior.

 

[PIT2]

Religions may be useful for showing people how to live, but they do not answer anything(which probably isn't the point of religions).

It gives u words that make u think u have answers to life, but they are just words with no meaning.

These words cause people to stop thinking.

How did the universe start?

"Allah"

What is the purpose of life?

"to test the soul"

For what?

"Allah knows"

But how do heaven and hell work?

"Allah knows"

So i think religion gives people the illusion that they have answers to philosophical questions, therefor satisfying their natural curiousity.

Basicly its philosophy for people who do not want to think about things.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's pretty arrogant to think that considering oneself a scientist means you think for yourself.

What is the origin of the universe?
"The Big Bang."

I'll bet you're satisfied enough with that answer that you don't go out and do the experiments yourself. You trust those you look up to.

Really. Any of those questions you quoted. Do you really think your answer is automatically superior?

Why is religion always singled out as the source of those who don't think for themselves? Religion certainly hasn't cornered the market on that!

 

[loseyourname]

It's pretty arrogant to think that considering oneself a scientist means you think for yourself.

What is the origin of the universe?
"The Big Bang."

Does the delusion of scientists who think they have all the answers excuse the delusion of the religious who think they have all the answers?

 

[Icebreaker]

I don't think any scientist would pretend that they have all the answers. If they do, they wouldn't be much of a scientist anyway. More like a "scientician".

 

[Flexor]

No scientific mind believes adamantly in anyone thing. Science is about adhering to the most likely theory until it is either disproven, or a more logical theory is thought of.

Religion, on the other hand, is about adamantly adhering to one of the least likely theories while rejecting hundreds, if not thousands of far more logical concepts. That is why it's said that religion makes you stop thinking. Once you reach an answer, you reject all others.

 

[Icebreaker]

Arbitrary preference of a single value while rejecting all others is called "fanatism". Any religious person is one to some degree.

 

[DaveC426913]

"I don't think any scientist would pretend that they have all the answers."

Nor do believers. Ask them.


"Arbitrary preference of a single value while rejecting all others is called "fanatism". Any religious person is one to some degree."

(Well, it's "fanaticism", but who's counting.)

This is a huge oversimplification. You have no business judging how arbitrary their preference is.



"Religion, on the other hand, is about adamantly adhering to one of the least likely theories while rejecting hundreds, if not thousands of far more logical concepts."

"Least likely" and "more logical" according to whom? You?


"Does the delusion of scientists who think they have all the answers excuse the delusion of the religious who think they have all the answers?"

No, but that is a candid response.



I'm not saying religious believers are right, nor am I saying scientists are full of it. (Not at all, in fact. I am a nonreligious scientist myself). What I'm saying is, no one who purports to have scientific principles has any business judging a label or a broad demographic or a whopping generalization.

Talking about the behaviour of "religious people" (as if they are all stamped from an identical mold) is like talking about "whites" or "Americans". I've met many Americans, and they are very patriotic to the point of arrogance. I can now confidently point at any American I see and claim without further examination that they are an arrogant nationalist. Nor do I need to hear their individual viewpoints, since I have heard them all before, all I am all-knowing on the subject.


If you're scientists, then act in the spirit of your discipline. Embrace unlikely ideas. No scientist would reject outright an idea that hasn't been conclusively disproven.

 

[Icebreaker]

There is a fundamental difference between "religious people" and "organized religion". My posts were referring to the latter.

(for the record, fanatism is also correct)

 

[DaveC426913]

There is a fundamental difference between "religious people" and "organized religion". My posts were referring to the latter.

So ,when you say "...any religious person is one..." you don't really mean 'religious person', you mean ... something else.

And when you say "fanatism", you don't mean a person being a fanatic, you mean an organized religion as-a-conceptual-system, as distinct from the people in it, is a fanatic.

(for the record, fanatism is also correct)

I stand corrected.

 

[Flexor]

"Least likely" and "more logical" according to whom? You?

According to anyone with enough intelligence to see it. Logic isn't an opinion, logic is how the universe is. 1 + 1 = 2 because it's logical. You can't argue that.

You have a room with two doors. One of those doors has a hungry lion on the other side, but you don't know which. The other door leads to freedom. You hear a sharp growl coming from door one. The logical assumption is that the lion is behind door one, therefore, door two leads to freedom. The lion may in fact be behind door 2, and opening that door will lead to your death, but even so, you would have made the most logical choice.

In this example, religion is choosing door one. That's why religion is a faith based system.

faith P Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

That said, a Christian may be right or wrong. An Atheist is always right.

If you're scientists, then act in the spirit of your discipline. Embrace unlikely ideas. No scientist would reject outright an idea that hasn't been conclusively disproven.

That's besides the point. I don't reject the idea of a god or somesort of guiding power, no matter how ridiculousely unlikely, because there is no absolute proof to the contrary. However, I do reject the concept of faith, as any intelligent being should, because it is illogical.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, I do reject the concept of faith, as any intelligent being should, because it is illogical.

I didn't realize that humans had been reduced to the level of a mindless computer. Funny...I never noticed.

 

[Math Is Hard]

That said, a Christian may be right or wrong. An Atheist is always right.

So you're saying if a person always makes the most logical choice, he will always be right? In my experience that does not seem to be the case, but maybe I am misinterpreting you.

 

[Flexor]

So you're saying if a person always makes the most logical choice, he will always be right? In my experience that does not seem to be the case, but maybe I am misinterpreting you.

My point was that you'd be right if your objective was to make the most logical decision.

Let me put it this way;

You have three people (let's call them A, B and C).

A says that it's illogical to play the lottery, because the odds are grossly against you. Therefore, A doesn't play the lottery.

B is a more spiritual person, and, believing chance to be on his side, he plays the lottery, and wins.

C is much similar to B. C decides to play the lottery as well, but loses.


B picked a series of numbers that he thought would win, and in the end, he was right. C picked a different series of numbers, also thinking they would win, and he was wrong. A's decision was that playing was against his odds. Wether he'd have won or not, A will always be right in this decision.

 

[Math Is Hard]

My point was that you'd be right if your objective was to make the most logical decision.

Thanks for that clarification. That make sense. But only if we're talking strictly about that objective and not extending that to mean that the atheist is right about the non-existence of god, based on the fact that he is right about making the most-logical decision about the matter.

B picked a series of numbers that he thought would win, and in the end, he was right. C picked a different series of numbers, also thinking they would win, and he was wrong. A's decision was that playing was against his odds. Wether he'd have won or not, A will always be right in this decision.

A's decision may have been the logical one, but it has nothing to do with the truth of whether or not he would have won the lottery if he had actually played.

 

[Flexor]

But winning or losing is irrelevant to A.

Suppose that upon my death I find out that one of the major religions, say Christianity was right all along. Presented with a concrete proof, I would believe God exists, but I still wouldn't have changed my mind about wether or not it was right to believe in him before I died.

 

[DaveC426913]

According to anyone with enough intelligence to see it. Logic isn't an opinion, logic is how the universe is. 1 + 1 = 2 because it's logical. You can't argue that.

Really? Where I come from, 1 + 1 = 10 (guess what I do).
Being logical doesn't mean you reach the correct answer every time.

The most basic tenets you hold so dear (such as logic will always get you the correct answer) too easily come crashing down when you get arrogant. Once you get a variety of people involved, you begin to see your own blindspots (such as what base counting system you use).

Too many people think they have all the answers. (Hey, that sounds familiar!)

 

[loseyourname]

Really? Where I come from, 1 + 1 = 10 (guess what I do).

10 in your number system is 2 in his. You haven't presented a different conclusion, just the same conclusion in a different language. I take it you're a computer scientist?

 

[DaveC426913]

The argument stands as is. Flexor claimed that 1 + 1 = 2 and that there was no argument with that. Yet, it was trival to point out an alternative answer that was perfectly logical, yet had a completely different outcome. The answer I've presented is 10 - not 2. Your understanding of my answer is a matter of how well you understand where I'm coming from.

That should stop you in your tracks.

I now claim that 1 + 1 = 3. Am I bonkers? Your conclusion would be drawn from your own myopic (no insult intended) view of the world, not mine. Or are you open enough to accept that I may know some things you don't?

Now reapply this to the religion argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

Getting back the main thread: 'why do people believe in religion?'

I rephrase the question as 'why do people believe in something so fervently that they are dismissive of and even actively hostile towards others with alternate beliefs?'

Note that this is inclusive of religious believers, atheists and even scientists.

Note also that you are not your label. Principles, belief systems and philosophies are not intolerant, it is individuals that are intolerant.

 

[BicycleTree]

10 base 2 = 2 base 10. There is no difference.

 

[Icebreaker]

So ,when you say "...any religious person is one..." you don't really mean 'religious person', you mean ... something else.

And when you say "fanatism", you don't mean a person being a fanatic, you mean an organized religion as-a-conceptual-system, as distinct from the people in it, is a fanatic.

No, my error is purely semantics and the incorrect choice of words. Organized religion, as a conceptual system, is a form of fanatism.

 

[Flexor]

The argument stands as is. Flexor claimed that 1 + 1 = 2 and that there was no argument with that. Yet, it was trival to point out an alternative answer that was perfectly logical, yet had a completely different outcome.

You haven't presented a different answer. You've expressed the exact same answer in a different system. In attempting to prove me wrong, you've only proved me right.

 

[Flexor]

The most basic tenets you hold so dear (such as logic will always get you the correct answer) too easily come crashing down when you get arrogant. Once you get a variety of people involved, you begin to see your own blindspots (such as what base counting system you use).

Too many people think they have all the answers. (Hey, that sounds familiar!)

I seem to have skipped over this part earlier, so let me adress it now.

You completely misunderstood my point.

Logic won't always provide the true answer, but it will always provide the most logical answer. When in doubt, choosing the most logical answer is always the most intelligent thing to do, and faith is always the least.