Are we evolving away from religion?

[SkyWriting]

We all have a path, which is defined by who we are (genetically and from our life's experiences).

For me, it was the opposite of you. In my teen years, I prayed every day and leaned on that support for many years after. It gave me comfort and it was what I needed at that time and I believed, truly.

Much later in life, certain circumstances caused me to dig in deep to the scriptures and by accident, not by plan, I started to learn so much about the historicity of the bible that I obviously never knew and I don't believe the majority of christians know, or I should say want to know.

From that point, it was taking the reality of what a thorough investigation of the bible taught me and comparing that to the reality of what we know about the world we live in and my belief came tumbling down, because it got to a point where I knew the story made absolutely zero sense, didn't line up with reality and was clearly (to me) a man made proposition.

That was my journey when it came to the personal God of the bible and it was actually an experience that was uplifting in the sense, that I knew I was being honest with myself and I couldn't pretend.

People never stop pretending. Its how the mind works. As illustrated by
your last sentence, we must continually fool ourselves that we are
always in-the-know and never wrong. That's the nature of man.

Not that it's a bad thing. We also tell ourselves we can accomplish
something long before we have any proof that we can. We tell ourselves
that there is ground under our feet even without checking each step.
We tell ourselves that everybody will stay in their own lane, even though
traffic doesn't always do so. It's how we cope with not being one with God.

 

[bhsmte]

People never stop pretending. Its how the mind works. As illustrated by
your last sentence, we must continually fool ourselves that we are
always in-the-know and never wrong. That's the nature of man.

I would word it differently.

We all hold steady (some more than others) to our beliefs, whether that is belief in a God or non-belief in a God. The difference is the mechanism in how we got there and what we base our belief or lack of belief on. Some of that is determined by how we think (analytical vs intuitive) and much is based on personal psychological needs.

We all seek comfort in different ways. Some do with a belief in God, some do by a route that takes them a different path. We all also have defense mechanisms to help protect our belief (similar to what you call pretending), which can entail; denial, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and so on. How strongly each of us utilizes these defense mechanisms is unique to each of us and is related to how strong our psychological needs are, what they are and other complex psychological phenomenon.

All of this is really fascinating stuff (IMO).

 

[Michael]

We all have a path, which is defined by who we are (genetically and from our life's experiences).

For me, it was the opposite of you. In my teen years, I prayed every day and leaned on that support for many years after. It gave me comfort and it was what I needed at that time and I believed, truly.

Much later in life, certain circumstances caused me to dig in deep to the scriptures and by accident, not by plan, I started to learn so much about the historicity of the bible that I obviously never knew and I don't believe the majority of christians know, or I should say want to know.

From that point, it was taking the reality of what a thorough investigation of the bible taught me and comparing that to the reality of what we know about the world we live in and my belief came tumbling down, because it got to a point where I knew the story made absolutely zero sense, didn't line up with reality and was clearly (to me) a man made proposition.

That was my journey when it came to the personal God of the bible and it was actually an experience that was uplifting in the sense, that I knew I was being honest with myself and I couldn't pretend.

Keep in mind that virtually everything except the universe itself is a "man made proposition", including the "scientific method", "psychology", computers, etc. That by itself doesn't scientifically tell you that much.

One of the things that brought me back to Christ (after embracing theism generically again), was realizing that whatever "Christianity" might be, it's actually defined by the teachings and actions of Jesus the man, not the entire contents of that book.

Some "Christians" might try to insist that Jesus is God, and God wrote the Bible, but...

If you read Matthew 5 you'll note where Jesus says: You have heard 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say.......love your enemy...turn the other cheek....and be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. The "eye for an eye' revenge concept comes from Moses, but Jesus is clearly teaching a nonviolent message about forgiveness rather than revenge. Be careful about what kind of OT baggage you try to blame on Jesus the man. Christianity is defined by Christ, by Jesus the man, not the OT.

 

[bhsmte]

Keep in mind that virtually everything except the universe itself is a "man made proposition", including the "scientific method", "psychology", etc. That by itself doesn't scientifically tell you that much.

One of the things that brought me back to Christ (after embracing theism generically again), was realizing that whatever "Christianity" might be, it's actually defined by the teachings and actions of Jesus the man, not the entire contents of that book.

Some "Christians" might try to insist that Jesus is God, and God wrote the bible, but...

If you read Matthew 5 you'll note where Jesus says: You have heard 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say.......love your enemy...turn the other cheek....and be perfect as you Father in heaven is perfect. The "eye for an eye' revenge concept comes from Moses, but Jesus is clearly teaching a nonviolent message about forgiveness rather than revenge. Be careful about what kind of OT baggage you try to blame on Jesus the man. Christianity is defined by Christ, by Jesus the man, not the OT.

By the descriptions, Jesus was clearly a good dude and someone to follow in regards to most of what was attributed to him.

But let me say this, whether someone believes Jesus was God or he wasn't, did it really take a rocket scientist or some divine intervention to come up with the words that are attributed to him, or could any decent caring man have come up with the same?

With that said, why the 180 reversal from the tone of the OT to the NT? Did God himself change his mind, or did the men who wrote the NT recognize they may have got out over the skies a bit and needed to tame things down a bit and move away from intimidation and threats? It should also be remembered, that Jesus was quoted as stating the OT should be followed and he didn't throw it in the trash heap.

For all sorts of reasons, I don't put a whole lot of faith into taking much of anything from the bible, without several grains of salt.

Sure, most everything is man made and some of those things have better checks and balances (verifiability) than others. We all choose what we put the most weight to, when we form our opinions.

 

[Michael]

By the descriptions, Jesus was clearly a good dude and someone to follow in regards to most of what was attributed to him.

But let me say this, whether someone believes Jesus was God or he wasn't, did it really take a rocket scientist or some divine intervention to come up with the words that are attributed to him, or could any decent caring man have come up with the same?

There have been a lot of decent caring men and women throughout history, but only one is recognized by a large segment of the planet as the Messiah of Judaism. It's hard to say. How many good decent men would allow themselves to be nailed to a cross to change a "religion"?

With that said, why the 180 reversal from the tone of the OT to the NT?

Apparently it was warranted.

Did God himself change his mind,

Seems highly unlikely.

or did the men who wrote the NT recognize they may have got out over the skies a bit and needed to tame things down a bit and move away from intimidation and threats?

Apparently a more enlightened human interaction was warranted, but exactly how far have we come as a species? We still kill each other. We still go to "war". We still do things that exist in the NT, but you won't find them in Christ's teachings in those red letters of the NT.

Christ died for his beliefs, but he never killed for them.

It should also be remembered, that Jesus was quoted as stating the OT should be followed and he didn't throw it in the trash heap.

He didn't follow the precepts of Moses however. Did he have the adulteress woman stoned to death as proscribed by Mosiac tradition? It sure sounds like he tossed out the bad stuff he didn't much care for.

For all sorts of reasons, I don't put a whole lot of faith into taking much of anything from the bible, without several grains of salt.

We probably only differ as we interpret the red letter parts of the four gospels. Those are more important to me personally than the rest of the book.

Sure, most everything is man made and some of those things have better checks and balances (verifiability) than others. We all choose what we put the most weight to, when we form our opinions.

Depending on the topics, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

 

[bhsmte]

There have been a lot of decent caring men and women throughout history, but only one is recognized by a large segment of the planet as the Messiah of Judaism. It's hard to say. How many good decent men would allow themselves to be nailed to a cross to change a "religion"?

Apparently it was warranted.

Seems highly unlikely.

Apparently a more enlightened human interaction was warranted, but exactly how far have we come as a species? We still kill each other. We still go to "war". We still do things that exist in the NT, but you won't find them in Christ's teachings in those red letters of the NT.

Christ died for his beliefs, but he never killed for them.

He didn't follow the precepts of Moses however. Did he have the adulteress woman stoned to death as proscribed by Mosiac tradition? It sure sounds like he tossed out the bad stuff he didn't much care for.

We probably only differ as we interpret the red letter parts of the four gospels. Those are more important to me personally than the rest of the book.

Depending on the topics, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I can't resist.

The adulteress women story was a later addition to the NT, centuries after the fact. The story is no where to be found in the oldest (numerous) copies of the gospels. Even christian scholars agree, this was one of the stories that was simply added much later (hundreds of years later) because it described a Jesus they wanted to portray.

I don't doubt Jesus was real and a good man, but I am highly skeptical of what the bible states his words or actions truly were.

Jesus certainly wasn't the only person crucified during those times and he also wasn't the only messiah that all had similar stories that were created by man.

 

[Michael]

I don't doubt Jesus was real and a good man, but I am highly skeptical of what the bible states his words or actions truly were.

To each their own. The words themselves have little or no meaning without being applied inwardly. That's where they had a real effect on me.

 

[bhsmte]

To each their own. The words themselves have little or no meaning without being applied inwardly. That's where they had a real effect on me.

No problem.

Just as you have issues with the opinions or credibility of certain parts of science, I have serious credibility issues with the bible.

 

[Michael]

No problem.

Just as you have issues with the opinions or credibility of certain parts of science, I have serious credibility issues with the bible.

You'll notice however that I didn't toss out GR theory along with Lambda-CDM.

 

[Clairvoyance]

From reading these testimonies it seems to me like religion fills a much needed void in our brains. Perhaps it's our species' first attempt to fill the needs of understanding, comfort, and closure.

One of the by-products of being conscience is that our brains can perform calculations about the future and imagine different scenarios. We are one of the only animals that can do this. Maybe religion is a mechanism by which our brains can cope with all this.

Without religion, maybe our species would have succumb to some form of existential psychosis from pondering our own demise! (and just dealing with the day to day stress of life.)

With this in mind, now that our species has matured, perhaps it's time we "put away childish things" and embrace reality.

However I can't help but feel that religiosity is deeply genetic... How can I grow up in the same situation, environment, culture as so many of my friends but turn out so different? I'm the only one I know from my hometown that escaped my fundamentalist baptist upbringing!

When I was really young, I really believed! However, I never had these "spiritual experiences" that everyone keeps talking about. Maybe the genes that cause people to hallucinate or engage in delusional wish-thinking aren't present in my DNA...

Or more accurately, they might be present, but somehow I'm a mutant with a rival allele that made me a skeptic... I've always been a skeptic of everything... But it seems like none of my friends are. They don't care about the truth. They are perfectly content just believing whatever makes them feel good... I physically can NOT do that...

I can only conclude that there is something genetically different in me.

 

[bhsmte]

From reading these testimonies it seems to me like religion fills a much needed void in our brains. Perhaps it's our species' first attempt to fill the needs of understanding, comfort, and closure.

One of the by-products of being conscience is that our brains can perform calculations about the future and imagine different scenarios. We are one of the only animals that can do this. Maybe religion is a mechanism by which our brains can cope with all this.

Without religion, maybe our species would have succumb to some form of existential psychosis from pondering our own demise! (and just dealing with the day to day stress of life.)

With this in mind, now that our species has matured, perhaps it's time we "put away childish things" and embrace reality.

However I can't help but feel that religiosity is deeply genetic... How can I grow up in the same situation, environment, culture as so many of my friends but turn out so different? I'm the only one I know from my hometown that escaped my fundamentalist baptist upbringing!

When I was really young, I really believed! However, I never had these "spiritual experiences" that everyone keeps talking about. Maybe the genes that cause people to hallucinate or engage in delusional wish-thinking aren't present in my DNA...

Or more accurately, they might be present, but somehow I'm a mutant with a rival allele that made me a skeptic... I've always been a skeptic of everything... But it seems like none of my friends are. They don't care about the truth. They are perfectly content just believing whatever makes them feel good... I physically can NOT do that...

I can only conclude that there is something genetically different in me.

I don't know if it is a genetic difference in non-believers or not, but there is certainly a large difference when it comes to psychological makeup and needs.

 

[Michael]

From reading these testimonies it seems to me like religion fills a much needed void in our brains. Perhaps it's our species' first attempt to fill the needs of understanding, comfort, and closure.

I tend to agree. I believe that religion was a precursor to science, and religion was mankind's first attempt at "makes sense" of their experiences. It was the primary vessel that humans first tried to use to make sense of 'reality' as they perceived it.

One of the by-products of being conscience is that our brains can perform calculations about the future and imagine different scenarios. We are one of the only animals that can do this. Maybe religion is a mechanism by which our brains can cope with all this.

FYI, every time that someone says that humans were the only animals that can do it, I cringe. They used to say that about our use of tools. It turns out that many other animals use tools, including crows.

Without religion, maybe our species would have succumb to some form of existential psychosis from pondering our own demise! (and just dealing with the day to day stress of life.)

With this in mind, now that our species has matured, perhaps it's time we "put away childish things" and embrace reality.

So how do you know that "reality" actually excludes God?

However I can't help but feel that religiously is deeply genetic... How can I grow up in the same situation, environment, culture as so many of my friends but turn out so different? I'm the only one I know from my hometown that escaped my fundamentalist baptist upbringing!

When I was really young, I really believed! However, I never had these "spiritual experiences" that everyone keeps talking about. Maybe the genes that cause people to hallucinate or engage in delusional wish-thinking aren't present in my DNA...

Maybe. Then again, maybe that particular circuitry just hasn't been used yet?

Or more accurately, they might be present, but somehow I'm a mutate with a rival allele that made me a skeptic... I've always been a skeptic of everything... But it seems like none of my friends are. They don't care about the truth. They are perfectly content just believing whatever makes them feel good... I physically can NOT do that...

I certainly know that feeling. Just wait till you start applying that same skepticism towards various scientific claims.

I can only conclude that there is something genetically different in me.

I suppose that is possible, but I'd personally guess that it's mostly an environmental influence (or lack thereof).

 

[Clairvoyance]

I don't know if it is a genetic difference in non-believers or not, but there is certainly a large difference when it comes to psychological makeup and needs.

Reminds me of a joke...

The boy says to the pastor: "Do you believe God created everything for a purpose?"

The pastor answers: "Yes, God created everything for a purpose."

The boy asks: "Then why did God create atheists?"

 

[bhsmte]

Reminds me of a joke...

The boy says to the pastor: "Do you believe God created everything for a purpose?"

The pastor answers: "Yes, God created everything for a purpose."

The boy asks: "Then why did God create atheists?"

Good one!

Daniel Dennent has some great stuff on youtube in regards to; "psychology of belief".

 

[Michael]

Reminds me of a joke...

The boy says to the pastor: "Do you believe God created everything for a purpose?"

The pastor answers: "Yes, God created everything for a purpose."

The boy asks: "Then why did God create atheists?"

He did that because they're fun to talk to and convert.

 

[Clairvoyance]

FYI, every time that someone says that humans were the only animals that can do it, I cringe. They used to say that about our use of tools. It turns out that many other animals use tools, including crows.

That's why I said ONE of the only ^_~

So how do you know that "reality" actually excludes God?

Define God... I don't exclude anything. But if God is "the entity/force that created everything that exists" then I can say that we should put away that silly belief because it has no explanatory power. We now have science which does a much better job helping us explain reality.

 

[Michael]

That's why I said ONE of the only ^_~

True enough. FYI, I've seen movies of Elephants grieving for their young. Many types of animals might be keenly aware of their mortality for all I know.

Define God... I don't exclude anything.

Great. Skim through this thread for an empirical definition of God:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

But if God is "the entity/force that created everything that exists" then I can say that we should put away that silly belief because it has no explanatory power. We now have science which does a much better job helping us explain reality.

Pffft. Particularly after the Planck data fiasco, please, by all means, I'd be happy to do a side by side comparison between what passes for "science" today, and the predictions of panentheism in the appropriate thread which is still active. Please, by all means explain to me in that thread how "science" is somehow "superior" to panetheism in terms of "explaining" how we got here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-40/

 

[Clairvoyance]

Pffft. Particularly after the Planck data fiasco, please, by all means, I'd be happy to do a side by side comparison between what passes for "science" today, and the predictions of panentheism in the appropriate thread which is still active. Please, by all means explain to me in that thread how "science" is somehow "superior" to panetheism in terms of "explaining" how we got here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-40/

I can't explain what you are asking... It doesn't make sense to me. Science is a method. Pantheism is a belief. They aren't related.
What I mean by science is "the systematic investigation of the natural world to explain observed phenomena."

Pantheism isn't a method. It's a claim. A claim which, in my opinion, needs to show evidence before it can seriously be considered.

Even crazy sounding stuff like "dark energy" at least has some observations behind it. We don't have any idea what it is but we see it's effects on the natural world.

If you can show that the universe behaves in such a way that it appears to somehow be an intelligent, omnipotent being (or whatever kind of pantheist you are) then it would be considered part of science.

 

[Michael]

I can't explain what you are asking... It doesn't make sense to me. Science is a method. Pantheism is a belief. They aren't related.
What I mean by science is "the systematic investigation of the natural world to explain observed phenomena."

Pantheism isn't a method. It's a claim. A claim which, in my opinion, needs to show evidence before it can seriously be considered.

Even crazy sounding stuff like "dark energy" at least has some observations behind it. We don't have any idea what it is but we see it's effects on the natural world.

If you can show that the universe behaves in such a way that it appears to somehow be an intelligent, omnipotent being (or whatever kind of pantheist you are) then it would be considered part of science.

In an effort to try to keep the three topics separate, I responded in the appropriate thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-40/#post64215526

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I personally think that religion is like the genes that cause sickle cell anemia. They used to be advantageous because they give an immunity to malaria but in modern, civilized societies they do more harm than good.

Eventually all major religions will disappear under a wave of globalism...

In Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash make the case that a post-modern epic is unfolding at the grassroots: the people in the world who make up the majority of the population, have never been a part of modernity, have suffered from the worst effects of globalization, and have resisted the encroachment of modernity into their communities are moving beyond modernity and regenerating their local cultural and natural spaces.

In other words, the demise of the conditions that have favored traditional religion is far from inevitable. If the authors of Grassroots Post-Modernism are correct, as more and more people become discouraged by modernity they will recognize that they are a group with solidarity and recognize that it is in their best interests to embrace non-modernist political styles and virtues and non-modernist economic practices. With respect to the topic of this thread, I would say that that means that the cultural and natural conditions favorable to religious behavior will not only be preserved, they will be strengthened.