Why are there religious people?

[GoldenBoy89]

You do not understand death? I thought atheists do understand death very well.

So, you are not an atheist?

It is very very critical. Once you start to suspect there might still be something going on after death, then, logically, you DO mean that the existence of God is possible.

The only thing that happens after death, for the dead, is decay and decomposition, unless they were cremated. If you can show that more happens to a person after they die, I'm all ears.

I understand death, itself just fine. Or about as good as I probably ever will, or even want to understand it. If I have to die to understand death better, then I'd rather not know.

As far as I know, it is the termination of all mental, biological and metabolic functions in a living organism. Pretty basic explanation that I think most of us can agree with. The problem is when some people feel that there must be something more. They, for whatever reason are not satisfied with the definition I gave above and so, they must create an entire narrative to support their idea of what death is and how to deal with it. They see death as a problem that has a solution. Personally, I'm not so selfish to want to live forever.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Oh...I suppose its the one that has been granted power to do so.

Good answer. I'll stick with the one that delivers in this plane of existence. I'll deal with the afterlife when I know I'm living it.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You do not understand death? I thought atheists do understand death very well.

So, you are not an atheist?

It is very very critical. Once you start to suspect there might still be something going on after death, then, logically, you DO mean that the existence of God is possible.

HE'S ON TO US! RUN TO THE HILLS!

Oh, wait. No. You couldn't be more wrong if you were a tea party member at the million man march.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good answer. I'll stick with the one that delivers in this plane of existence. I'll deal with the afterlife when I know I'm living it.

I understand what you're saying, Golden, and that's quite a conundrum to be stuck in, I know. Just keep in mind, there is the possibility that any of us can get more than we bargained for, both here and there....

 

[TillICollapse]

Generalizing, I think there is something to be said for the idea that a person's identity is very important to them, and so they tend to imprint on others/things/concepts/etc in order to find identity. Many religions help to offer a packaged identity.

I also think there is something to be said for *fear*, and the way people respond to what they fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of what is able to overpower you, fear of a threat, fear of loss, fear of harm, fear of injury. I'm guessing the majority of versions of Christianity have these elements, and/or attempt to address these types of fear and often speak directly to them in some manner. The "religious" in such a context often have what they believe are answers or beliefs to address these fears, a way out, even ways to avoid taking responsibility for oneself, etc.

In contrast ... and I'm not saying all non-religious people are like this whatsoever ... but in contrast, consider the type of individual who finds their identity in their own life by embracing their own life, as free as possible, taking accountability and responsibility for their own choices and actions while still considering others. They do not try to become something they are not, or what they think another wishes them to be. They do not need to be told to value life, or freedom.

I would probably say, that a person should live their life in such a way that regardless of which parts of which "religion" are true or not, there would be relatively little they would change about who they are should they find out any different. They will hopefully be able to stand confidently and say, "I am who I am," without the need to run and hide, explain themselves, blame others, put on a facade, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

Because death is scary, and not fully understood.

Not sure if that's the answer, but that's my answer.

I am not sure you understand death by reading the above. Are you sure you understand death?

 

[Davian]

Many intellectuals of yesteryear used to predict that as western culture became more educated and more intelligent that religion would die off - especially Christianity.

You can't blame them for being optimistic.

The assumption was that there were religious people because of a lack of education and low intelligence.

But they were wrong. All of these predictions have always been wrong.

There are equally brilliant, educated, and intelligent people who are both atheists and religious.

There will always be exceptions, and the ability for the human mind to compartmentalize is well documented.

"Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states."

Compartmentalization (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference doesn't seem to be one of education or intelligence. So what is the difference?

Where are you getting your information?

"Religious belief is associated with less knowledge as well as lower intelligence"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...201401/more-knowledge-less-belief-in-religion

Why are there religious people? Christianity has an answer, but what's the secular answer?

I would expect that the evolutionary basis for religion will always be with us; there is no selection pressure to weed it out of the gene pool. The belief in gods, real or imagined, is not a primary pressure on our ability to procreate.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Davian]

So what separates the men from the boys then? Why are atheists willing to accept reality and religious people are not?

Belief is not a conscious choice.

Subconsciously, it may be that religion provides a comfort blanket of sorts for those that need to fill those gaps in human knowledge or understandings.

 

[Davian]

All I'm hearing is that "atheists are atheists because they're atheists." Is that a fair assessment?

Atheists are atheists because they disbelieve.

Do you still consider them to be lying?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Belief is not a conscious choice.

Subconsciously, it may be that religion provides a comfort blanket of sorts for those that need to fill those gaps in human knowledge or understandings.

Religion provides easy answers to many hard questions, helping to ease the discomfort of uncertainty at least temporarily. That's not to say that all religious people are religious simply to avoid this feeling of discomfort.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Cognitive Science of Religion

Tl;dr? Here is a summary:

Rather than being an adaptation; most cognitive scientists prefer to describe religion as a byproduct of the evolution of several cognitive mechanisms. These include a HADD, an intrigue for MCI objects, a theory of mind, a distaste for uncertainty and anxiety, a fear of death, a propensity for ritual behavior, a use for moral and pro-social behavior, and a need to form cooperative groups. None of these cognitive biases and motivations require religious ideas, but each has found a place for them.

The mechanisms listed above have proper functions, such as detecting danger or understanding the intentions of other minds, but they've been co-opted or `hijacked' by the super-stimuli that copiously appear in religious narratives (gods and spirits). Whether this hijacking was driven by selection pressures, human motivation, or a cultural happenstance is unclear. At the very least, the evidence suggests that religion has come to fulfill a social and palliative role. For this reason, we could describe religion as an exaptation, because the cognitive mechanisms that define it appear to have acquired an additional, adaptive role to that which they were originally selected for.

 

[Colter]

Many intellectuals of yesteryear used to predict that as western culture became more educated and more intelligent that religion would die off - especially Christianity. The assumption was that there were religious people because of a lack of education and low intelligence.

But they were wrong. All of these predictions have always been wrong.

There are equally brilliant, educated, and intelligent people who are both atheists and religious. The difference doesn't seem to be one of education or intelligence. So what is the difference?

Why are there religious people? Christianity has an answer, but what's the secular answer?

* The spirit of worship stimulated religious activity in the mind of evolving man, the result was evolutionary religions. This is by design, evolved religion provides the foundation for revealed religion.

* Religion isn't going away, it's evolving.

* Just like the stock market is in a bubble and will pop, society is in a reckless secular revolt against spirituality, a willful disobedience which contains the seeds of its own destruction.

* After mankind is once again brought to its knees due to its own ignorance, it will turn in humiliation back to the creator.

 

[Ana the Ist]

* Just like the stock market is in a bubble and will pop, society is in a reckless secular revolt against spirituality, a willful disobedience which contains the seeds of its own destruction.

* After mankind is once again brought to its knees due to its own ignorance, it will turn in humiliation back to the creator.

Has this ever happened? Or do religions just die out?

 

[Colter]

Some do die out, merge with or are overrun by other movments, some experience revivals. We are in a terbulant age where the scientific elimination of superstician is speading up the mortality of false Gods, it will make way for the discovery of the living God of true love.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Has this ever happened? Or do religions just die out?

Christianity had it's beginnings at the dawn of human (written) history, and is still hanging around.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Christianity had it's beginnings at the dawn of human (written) history, and is still hanging around.

It has also evolved quite a bit. Amazing how much something can change and yet still claim to be "the absolute truth".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It has also evolved quite a bit. Amazing how much something can change and yet still claim to be "the absolute truth".

The words/original language of the book haven't changed (except where sneaky-snake got to it with spurious additions and changes). It is the translation that has evolved, bringing better interpretations and understanding. For example the KJV, was translated with a rather puritanical attitude toward sex and other bodily functions in an effort to avoid what was considered vulgarity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Has this ever happened? Or do religions just die out?

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Christianity had it's beginnings at the dawn of human (written) history, and is still hanging around.

Written history began around 3500BC if I remember correctly... so you're only off by a few millennia.

 

[TillICollapse]

Christianity had it's beginnings at the dawn of human (written) history, and is still hanging around.

You mean as a newer variation of ancient mythology ?