Why Do Religions Exist?

[GrayCat]

I have read several theories.


That Individuals, and sometimes collected groups, are driven by an innate need to find how everything works (that would explain why Scientific practices exist as well)

That having a common Religion is a force that draws people together and people like the shared fellowship

Because people are afraid of death and what happens after

Because people want to feel there is something "bigger" and find there place in it

Also that people want to feel their life is not meaningless and that someone of something is watching over them and they have some safety.


What is your Opinion on why Humans have religions?

What draws you to be Spiritual as opposed to Scientific, or Vice versa, or both as complements to eachother?

 

[Gardenia]

All of the above, and possibly more.

 

[Montalban]

We're drawn by the conviction that there's more to everything than what we can see and measure

 

[Solidlyhere]

I believe that the Main issue is: "Because people want to feel there is something "bigger" and find their place in it."

The BIGGER reason many people ponder is: "people are afraid of death and what happens after."

People would like to think that there is MORE to their lives than just the sum of their actions.
So, having a Religion allows a person to think: I can perform good deeds AND get a good Afterlife.


Part of the reason to help others is: We are all ONE person.
This feeds another OP thought: "having a common Religion is a force that draws people together and people like the shared fellowship."
So, when I help a parishioner, I am helping myself.
When I Love a parishioner, I am Loving myself too.

This feeds nicely into the BIGGER "death" thing: If I perform good works, those benefits will live on after I am gone.

Beyond this, I think many people have the urge to "be related" to others ... a deeper fellowship.
So, Church-mates are easy to do this with.
We believe the same thing; therefore, they are safe to be OPEN with.
A person can build-up an entire circle of Friends, just pal-ing around with Church-mates.

Of course, the down-side is: Some people THEN become fearful of those "non-Believers."
It can (if not watched carefully) turn into an US-and-THEM thing.
But, it is Good to have an "island of safety" in Life.
This way, I can Let Go of my fears, and be REAL with someone.

And, certainly, many people (who have little Spirituality) will go to Church for the fellowship.
While it annoys me (a very little bit) that almost-non-Believers come to Church (for the social aspect), I am happy that they have a chance to interact in the Community.

 

[Arthra]

Gray cat wrote:

What is your Opinion on why Humans have religions?

My reply:

To me the great religions began with divine revelation, an experience of insight and receiving truth along with that is most often a raising of civilization, that is advancements both scientific and social to a new plateau.

What draws you to be Spiritual as opposed to Scientific, or Vice versa, or both as complements to eachother?

My reply:

Science and religion should be inharmony...without science religion can be mere superstition withjout religious ethics or spirituality, science can be misused and misdirected or be mere materialism.

- Art

 

[sunrise0]

First : It makes no sense at all to believe in One God and more than one religion
The Almighty God says in His Book; the Holy Quran :

2: 213. Mankind were one community and Allâh sent Prophets with glad tidings and warnings, and with them He sent the Scripture in truth to judge between people in matters wherein they differed. And only those to whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it after clear proofs had come unto them through hatred, one to another. Then Allâh by His Leave guided those who believed to the truth of that wherein they differed. And Allâh guides whom He wills to a Straight Path.


10: 19. Mankind were but one community (i.e. on one religion - Islâmic Monotheism), then they differed (later), and had not it been for a Word that went forth before from your Lord, it would have been settled between them regarding what they differed.


Second:I need Islam because it supplies me with answers about our Creator,the purpose of our existence, our fate and our rights and duties,

 

[MemeBuster]

What is your Opinion on why Humans have religions?

Here's an excerpt from a March 2007 New York Times article titled Darwin's God which is about this topic (the article is available on www.nytimes.com but requires a free registeration),

-----
Hardships of early human life favored the evolution of certain cognitive tools, among them the ability to infer the presence of organisms that might do harm, to come up with causal narratives for natural events and to recognize that other people have minds of their own with their own beliefs, desires and intentions. Psychologists call these tools, respectively, agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind.

Agent detection evolved because assuming the presence of an agent — which is jargon for any creature with volitional, independent behavior — is more adaptive than assuming its absence. If you are a caveman on the savannah, you are better off presuming that the motion you detect out of the corner of your eye is an agent and something to run from, even if you are wrong. If it turns out to have been just the rustling of leaves, you are still alive; if what you took to be leaves rustling was really a hyena about to pounce, you are dead.

A classic experiment from the 1940s by the psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel suggested that imputing agency is so automatic that people may do it even for geometric shapes. For the experiment, subjects watched a film of triangles and circles moving around. When asked what they had been watching, the subjects used words like “chase” and “capture.” They did not just see the random movement of shapes on a screen; they saw pursuit, planning, escape.

So if there is motion just out of our line of sight, we presume it is caused by an agent, an animal or person with the ability to move independently. This usually operates in one direction only; lots of people mistake a rock for a bear, but almost no one mistakes a bear for a rock.

What does this mean for belief in the supernatural? It means our brains are primed for it, ready to presume the presence of agents even when such presence confounds logic. “The most central concepts in religions are related to agents,” Justin Barrett, a psychologist, wrote in his 2004 summary of the byproduct theory, “Why Would Anyone Believe in God?” Religious agents are often supernatural, he wrote, “people with superpowers, statues that can answer requests or disembodied minds that can act on us and the world.”

A second mental module that primes us for religion is causal reasoning. The human brain has evolved the capacity to impose a narrative, complete with chronology and cause-and-effect logic, on whatever it encounters, no matter how apparently random. “We automatically, and often unconsciously, look for an explanation of why things happen to us,” Barrett wrote, “and ‘stuff just happens’ is no explanation. Gods, by virtue of their strange physical properties and their mysterious superpowers, make fine candidates for causes of many of these unusual events.” The ancient Greeks believed thunder was the sound of Zeus’s thunderbolt. Similarly, a contemporary woman whose cancer treatment works despite 10-to-1 odds might look for a story to explain her survival. It fits better with her causal-reasoning tool for her recovery to be a miracle, or a reward for prayer, than for it to be just a lucky roll of the dice.

A third cognitive trick is a kind of social intuition known as theory of mind. It’s an odd phrase for something so automatic, since the word “theory” suggests formality and self-consciousness. Other terms have been used for the same concept, like intentional stance and social cognition. One good alternative is the term Atran uses: folkpsychology.

Folkpsychology, as Atran and his colleagues see it, is essential to getting along in the contemporary world, just as it has been since prehistoric times. It allows us to anticipate the actions of others and to lead others to believe what we want them to believe; it is at the heart of everything from marriage to office politics to poker. People without this trait, like those with severe autism, are impaired, unable to imagine themselves in other people’s heads.

The process begins with positing the existence of minds, our own and others’, that we cannot see or feel. This leaves us open, almost instinctively, to belief in the separation of the body (the visible) and the mind (the invisible). If you can posit minds in other people that you cannot verify empirically, suggests Paul Bloom, a psychologist and the author of “Descartes’ Baby,” published in 2004, it is a short step to positing minds that do not have to be anchored to a body. And from there, he said, it is another short step to positing an immaterial soul and a transcendent God.
-----

Enjoy,

MB.

 

[2theBone]

When human strength fails, we call on a higher power.

This is our safety net. It is a comfort.

We hope that there is something out there stronger than ourselves......we hope it's friendly.....we hope it is inclined to lend a hand.

This very hope grants us even more hope, strength, will and courage.

Sometimes this gives us the edge we need to prevail.......so that belief is self-reinforcing. We have a friend......a powerful friend.

This can't be bad.

God is good, as they say.

 

[Montalban]

According to Dawkins, we're religious in the same way we can get the flu

 

[TheOutsider]

I wrote this in another thread a couple of weeks ago:

I see religion as having several purposes:

1) To comfort us from the fact that we are limited in our knowledge of the universe.
2) A metaphorical teaching tool.
3) A way to bring us together as a social group.

I don't have any problem with religion as long as it's adherents don't take themselves too seriously.

 

[Montalban]

I don't have any problem with religion as long as it's adherents don't take themselves too seriously.[/FONT]

I feel the same way about atheists; especially when they ascribe functionalist motivations to religion

 

[2theBone]

The only time I have problems with religions is when they try to force their rules and politics on others......like contemporary Christians of the Pat Robertson, James Dobson, James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell variety.

 

[Montalban]

The only time I have problems with religions is when they try to force their rules and politics on others......like contemporary Christians of the Pat Robertson, James Dobson, James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell variety.

Yes, it's terrible when people have convictions then act on them.

Like when Garrison et al who had convictions against slavery and forced slave-owners to give their property up! What right did they have to do this? (Locke, that wonder of laissez-faire liberalism, enshrined slavery in his writing)

 

[2theBone]

Contemporary Christians who try to force legislation to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, jobs and marriage or take away the rights of women, or force mandatory prayer into public schools are trying to IMPOSE slavery ....... and that's a far different thing from being AGAINST slavery.

 

[GrayCat]

How come i see the phrase "Contemporary Christians."?

Did n't some Christians in the past do things also in terms of limiting rights, such as persecutions against other faiths, strict patriarchy in the Church/society, dictating what should be worn, how to speak, etc?


So My question is, If people do these things, and/or limit other opportunities like Abortion, Gay marriage etc. are they "taking their religion too seriously" or being a fanatic? Or just following the Teachings of Christianity?

If the second, is there support for these beliefs (such as in the Bible) that justify influential Christians limiting citizens' rights?


Do you think that in some cases, a Religion may have developed/evolved in certain ways because influential people in the past looked for a reason of some kind to control the Society? And then were able to back it up with "This is what the god wants"?

I think religion can be a dividing force just as much as a unifying force sometimes..

 

[Montalban]

Contemporary Christians who try to force legislation to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, jobs and marriage or take away the rights of women, or force mandatory prayer into public schools are trying to IMPOSE slavery ....... and that's a far different thing from being AGAINST slavery.

So, you pick and choose which things you're against.

They operate on principles. That seems to upset you.

 

[Montalban]

How come i see the phrase "Contemporary Christians."?

Did n't some Christians in the past do things also in terms of limiting rights, such as persecutions against other faiths, strict patriarchy in the Church/society, dictating what should be worn, how to speak, etc?


So My question is, If people do these things, and/or limit other opportunities like Abortion, Gay marriage etc. are they "taking their religion too seriously" or being a fanatic? Or just following the Teachings of Christianity?

If the second, is there support for these beliefs (such as in the Bible) that justify influential Christians limiting citizens' rights?


Do you think that in some cases, a Religion may have developed/evolved in certain ways because influential people in the past looked for a reason of some kind to control the Society? And then were able to back it up with "This is what the god wants"?

I think religion can be a dividing force just as much as a unifying force sometimes..

I agree with your last sentence.

I think the objection to religion isn't that Christians impose their beliefs, but rather the people objecting are saying "Christians impose their beliefs in fields I disagree with"

Christianity gave us consumer protection in law (see the ruling of Lord Atkin)

 

[bellsybop]

Grey... I think religions were invented for control. Especially Christianity in the day of Constantine. I feel the only reason it still exists today is out of fear. Other religions like yours is peaceful and understandably nice. If they all were like that, it would be a kinder world.
Freethinkers like myself, aren't afraid to explore and try to find the answers that are taboo to ask in a religious (Christian) setting. I'm not afraid of hell... for I'm convinced it was made up for control. Therefore, I will spend the rest of my life searching for answers that perhaps might be out there to find. And if we never find the answers to the questions, then what was lost trying? At least I feel I lived a fuller life.

 

[2theBone]

Montalban said:

So, you pick and choose which things you're against.

I'm against having my life and my nation run by inbred, brain-dead, Bible-beating louts who watch NASCAR races and drive pickup trucks with guns in the back window.

Not difficult to pick and choose being against that.

 

[2theBone]

How come i see the phrase "Contemporary Christians."?

Did n't some Christians in the past do things also in terms of limiting rights, such as persecutions against other faiths, strict patriarchy in the Church/society, dictating what should be worn, how to speak, etc?


So My question is, If people do these things, and/or limit other opportunities like Abortion, Gay marriage etc. are they "taking their religion too seriously" or being a fanatic? Or just following the Teachings of Christianity?

If the second, is there support for these beliefs (such as in the Bible) that justify influential Christians limiting citizens' rights?


Do you think that in some cases, a Religion may have developed/evolved in certain ways because influential people in the past looked for a reason of some kind to control the Society? And then were able to back it up with "This is what the god wants"?

I think religion can be a dividing force just as much as a unifying force sometimes..

I refer to "contemporary Christians" because they are more dangerous than past Christians. They are doing bad things even as we speak.

Their actions are the natural result of the "elite vs. unbeliever," "saved vs. unsaved," "saint vs. infidel" mentality that came with the teaching of the "apostle" Paul.

When Paul invented the concept of "Christ" for Jesus and "Christian" for followers of Jesus.....he set up an "us vs. them" attitude that soon turned into a "we can kill them" attitude.

Unbelievers were seen as inferior, unGodly, alien and dangerous to our way of life. They had to be converted or killed.

This homicidal attitude came only after Jesus died.

The religion of Islam came along about 500 years later and took up this same homicidal attitude with great enthusiasm after Muhammad died.

The Muslims clearly copied the Christian ways (partly because it was conquer or be conquered and partly because they saw these violent ways were working effectively for Christians).

Religions started by two great and peaceful men turned into aggressive killing machines.

Both of these religions would impose their own theocracy upon us if they could........Islam is far less dangerous right now because they lack military power, but they are still killing in small localized wars.

Christianity has better weapons and uses them in a more global strategy of economic and military domination (witness the Middle East).

Right now America is overly conscious of the danger from Islam and underestimates the power and danger from the Christians.