Why in 2024 do people still believe in religion? (serious)
1y 11mon ago by lemmy.world/u/return2ozma in asklemmy@lemmy.mlMaybe you haven't noticed it, but many people are deeply irrational.
Happy cake day!
Thanks!
They are taught about it from childhood and many of us don't questions stuff we've learnt in our childhood.
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Lack of proper mental health awareness and support.
Even if they do question, it’s not like they are in a safe environment to do so openly. They have to be prepared to give up community, friends, family, potentially their physical safety, and a worldview that says exactly who to be and how to live to be living a good life. That’s a huge step.
I know for a fact there are religious people going through the motions because the alternative is too frightening, just like people stay in bad marriages.
Right. Throughout human history, if someone was cast out of a community, they didn’t survive. We’ve been trained through evolution to go along with the tribe because it’s unsafe to question anything and get cast out.
Survival of the fittest. Evolution does not value truth or mortality, so for example secret rapists are a highly successful adaptation regardless of the morality of the action. If evolution is a correct model of reality, this pesky religion and moral agency will diminish with time. True progress. Maybe we can start counting the years from the big bang instead of that Jesus event or w/e!
I agree. The support aspect is very strong. Can't go against it, unless you are lucky and/or skilled. Or very brave.
They are taught about it from childhood
in one single word >> Indoctrinated
OP this is why people believe in religion, and it's nearly impossible to get them out of it, you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I've never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it's true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It's just because they were told it was true at birth.
If their religion was actually the Truth, why would that be the case...?
...
I wouldn't make it that high. A large amount of Christians I know of are converts.
My search for truth in my early 30's led me to study the world's religions, having grown up secular and feeling like something was missing. But don't let this anecdote or others like it get in the way of your logic. You're doing pretty good for a hairless monkey!
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery. Believing in god have nothing to do with science or math, it's superstition, something that cannot be proven or unproven, it's that irrational thought that make us human.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
People of all religions have contributed to scientific growth.
The average religious person and the person discovering scientific/mathematical stuff are generally different tho.
Universal basic education has gained focus in many parts of the world, only relatively recently.
I think improved scientific temper would obviously clash with many mainstresm religions.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And I'm not saying that non-religious people are safe from similar stuff too. Just that it is easily spread and maintained when you have a community on it.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think most of the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And religions can evolve with this (or die from declining membership), as long as the leaders don’t stick to the “These actually scientifically proven facts are lies sent by the Devil” line.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn't achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn't stand in the way anywhere near as much. Not because religion helped.
Believing in god have nothing to do with science
Not true. They are polar opposites. That's why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn't mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
it's that irrational thought that make us human
No. That's not being human, that's being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
You're right that it's irrational and that irrationality is an inherent part of being human, but the SPECIFIC irrationality of religion is learned and enforced, NOT inherent.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn't achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
No one claiming it is.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn't stand in the way anywhere near as much, not because religion helped.
Not sure how much difference is by changing "Islam" to "Islamic countries", because the fact still remain that Muslim make scientific discovery and excel in mathematics despite being religious. Again, no one claiming Islam benefitted science.
Not true. They are polar opposites.
You just contradicted your last point. Also science are not religion, how can an apple be polar opposite to orange? One can believe in santa clause and ghost while excel in science. It's not mutually exclusive.
That's why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn't mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
Science are a broad subject, unless they purposely went and look for god, which they wouldn't find, there's like a huge load of subject that doesn't have anything to do with god. Also your impression of religion is like, wrong lol. There's more to religion than just praising god.
No. That's not being human, that's being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
See? Human ARE irrational.
Thank you, I think people often overlook how faith and scientific thought can be complimentary. In any case, for questions of religious/spiritual matters, people are basically just running with a hypothesis that works for them. As long as they're capable of being self-critical and aren't pushing their beliefs on people who aren't interested, then it seems fine to me.
Because belief is intrinsic to humanity even if we don't believe in religion.
I believe in a lot of human concepts, including kindness, altruism, democracy and humanism. They are all still effectively made up human ideas.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists but I cannot truly trust my own senses 100% either. So effectively I "believe" what my sensory organs and brain interpretation tell me, but the reality is the brain and its interpretations can be wrong.
Look at the USA, the founders of the nation are often treated with a reverence akin to that of religious figures.
People have all kinds of delusions. People worship all kinds of weird things. Religion is just one of many.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows that a human can have pretty reprehensible and hypocritical beliefs even if they are an atheist. She promoted bullshit "great men" theories of humanity and argued that selfishness could be used for good.
She also died penniless and on government benefits while spending her whole life preaching against things like government benefits.
People are deeply irrational even without religion.
As an atheist who is not anti-religion, I wholeheartedly agree. The religious do not have a monopoly on irrationality, or weaponizing ideology.
I see many atheists on forums proposing the idea that if we could only just get rid of religion, the world would be a harmonious and rational place. As if human beings wouldn't still be perfectly able to come up with new and interesting ways to rationalize conflict and division amongst themselves.
I like to say "Humans aren't rational creatures, humans are rationalizing creatures."
We can rationalize nearly anything and justify it, in our own minds.
Thank you for being honest.
Humans are emotional creatures. We can’t change that. Even when we’re being rational we’re still basing every decision we make on emotions. “I’ve researched this and I feel this is the right decision.”
I like this explanation most
I believe in a lot of human concepts, ...
We believe in those things because they're practices we can observe and measure. The real question is why do theists not have the same standard of evidence for theistic claims.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists ...
Your trust (or "faith") in the chair existing and supporting your weight is because of your experience with chairs in the past. I don't think many people would say they have "absolute certainty" the chair exists and would hold them.
If you had a history of hallucinating you might have a higher standard of evidence, but it's still there to be tested. The problem with religion is it seems like you need a standard of "none at all" to accept theistic claims.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows ...
"They do it too" doesn't really get us to an answer, just another "why" question. She believes her claims with little to no evidence, theists believe their claims with little to no evidence, but like...why?
Here are a few reasons people believe:
-
Meaning and Purpose: Religion can offer a framework for understanding the universe and our place in it. It can provide answers to big questions about life, death, and morality.
-
Community and Belonging: Religious communities can provide social support, a sense of belonging, and shared values. This can be especially important during difficult times.
-
Comfort and Hope: Religion can offer comfort in times of grief or hardship. It can also provide hope for the afterlife or a better future.
-
Tradition and Identity: Religion can be a core part of a person's cultural heritage or family identity. People may feel a connection to their ancestors or cultural background through their faith.
-
Ethics and Morality: Many religions provide a moral code that guides people's behavior. This can be helpful in making decisions about right and wrong.
I don't believe, but I can see why people stick with it and don't look beyond it. You can get all these things without religion, its just not something that's taught/passed down in the same way as religion is. Additionally, deconstructing is very difficult. You're raised to believe something to be real and you're expected to just drop it and step out of Plato's cave? You'd look like a madman to any friends/family who aren't willing and ready to step out and look around.
As a large language model, I cannot endorse any one religion
Come on, this list of reasons was written by an LLM

It makes people feel better, not in general but better than others, most religions are about "this is how I'm better then you heathen"
Also, it can depend on certain other factors.
My partner and I had a difficult conversation recently about how we plan to handle her brother when her mother passes.
Her mother is obviously religious and raised him religiously Christian.
He is a sweet man with a severe developmental disability. Things literally take a very long time for him to learn. He still acts like a teen and he's pushing 40. That's not his fault, that's just life. We love him.
The thing is though...
We don't believe in religion, but we also think that when his mother finally passes, it would not be wise to try to turn him from Christianity.
He struggled and still struggles years later due to the passing of his father. The idea of being able to see his father in heaven is big to him.
At one point, he panicked because he was playing DOOM 2016 on his game console, and he asked my partner (his sister) if he was going to go to hell for playing it. She reminded him that the Doomslayer kills demons and loves bunnies and reminded him the themes of the game say demons are bad, even if the game itself is violent.
We don't think it's worth it to try to break his brain when he's over 40 and his mom finally passes. Hell, she's in good health, he could be over 50 when it happens. He has a learning disability and it would literally be unfair to him to try to force a change in belief on him at such a late stage with such a disability.
It's not worth it to wreck his mental health so we can feel better about being "truthful" with him. We're focusing on trying to relate healthy interpretations of Christianity to him.
The one point I can really agree with is the meaning and purpose part. I’m not religious and the whole what happens after death part really fucks me up quite a bit. It’d be really damn nice if I could just go “I’ll go to Heaven” and be done
Personally I don't see what the afterlife has to do with your purpose or sense of meaning in this life. For me, I figure my purpose is whatever I find fulfilling in life while hopefully helping others do the same. Anything that comes after that is a bonus.
Part of the identity crises that comes with(out) religion is the ultimate question of purpose: why are we suffering, surely it has a reason? Some of us are content to accept that there is no purpose, and therefore we must define our own; others need a purpose greater than themselves and/or to have one defined for them, and look to religion for that purpose. There is no right answer, and the struggle of identity and purpose are well documented in religion, fiction, history, and philosophy.
Serious answer:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in a religion because I've found it to be personally beneficial.
I was a pastor for many years and saw much of the best and worst religion had to offer. I haven't stepped foot inside a church since COVID broke out and don't know that I ever will again.
My personal beliefs are still a significant part of my life, but I understand why someone would ask the question that spawned this discussion.
You find it personally beneficial, but you haven't actually answered the question.
I think that does answer the question - for a lot of people, the reason they're religious is because they find it personally beneficial for one reason or another.
yup, religion has made me mentally stable so I guess it's beneficial to me at least.
I guess I'm putting emphasis on the word "believe" and you seem to be seeing religion as a way to find comfort. This is why I feel you are not actually answering the question that OP posed. Perhaps I'm taking the question too literally.
Adding more to this. The question is why do you believe in religion, not why you are religious. To me, there's a difference between the two of these.
There is a significant difference, but, in my limited experience, many people are religious, but don't actually believe, but they think they do believe. When the rubber hits the road you find it what a person actually thinks is true.
Think of your closest friend or family member. Do you "believe in" them?
Yas queen. COVID's not over! And even so, God and your soul aren't important enough to risk contacting the common cold lol
I'm not religious at all. But in responding to your question OP: we don't have to understand why people believe. Religion just isn't for us, and that's fine. Other people find it has value, and that's fine too. The fact that religion has lasted this long with this many people is proof in itself that there's some value people get out of it. We don't have to get it to understand that.
All the comments here that explain religion solely as dumb or irrational are just as closed minded as the people they're criticising.
In some religions walking away from the church means being excluded from family, social, and business contacts. So cutting ties with everyone you know basically.
So better start believing in some magic men.
You can just like, say you do. I think a lot of people who check “Christian” in the US have little to no involvement in it beyond saying “thank God” occasionally.
I remember reading a story in my Spanish lit class about a guy who wasn’t attending church, and his mother was freaking out, so the family priest went to talk to him. And the priest was like, “I totally get it. After all the evil I’ve seen I don’t really believe either. But I continue in this because it is my life, and I can provide comfort to people. Consider attending because you love your mother and it will help her.”
For the same reasons they always have.
The year has little to do with it. The only things we've really undeniably progressed in over the past century are scientific knowledge and the level of technology. Existential philosophy hasn't exactly made breakthroughs recently, to my knowledge.
Each person still needs to find their own answer to the fundamental questions of "why am I here" and "wtf is death and how do I deal with it".
Our mechanical, scientific understanding of reality provides fairly depressing answers to these questions. Religion? Sunshine and roses.
Also, on a more practical factor: childhood indoctrination and cultural inertia. Most people are raised in religion and they find it "good enough", so religion continues.
In 2024 life is hard and you can't do anything about it in most cases. Religion gives you an excuse for why it must be so, so that you can keep grinding away.
Indoctrination.
- Need psychological support in times of distress
- Gullible
- sense of community and shared experience
You're definitely not gullible right?
Not religious either.
This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by "believe in religion":
-
Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.
-
Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.
-
Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)
1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.
2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.
3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can "tune into" like a radio, then it stands to reason that "consciousness" permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.
Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I'm aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I'd love to consider it.
If you meant something else by "believe in religion", let me know.
Another big reason is reason number 4
- Gives a sense of community and cultural connection that other things don't quite provide.
I've met a not so inconsequential amount of people in my life that when pressed admitted, they don't believe in god, don't believe in the moral teachings, but attend a place of worship because they think there is no replacement for the interwoven community and cultural connection their place of worship provides. Many people simply like the community connection of their root culture. This is especially true in minority groups (black church, synagogue).
This is me and my family right now. Two days ago we had lunch with our pastor to discuss the design of the church's nursery and I came out as atheist and my wife came out as Buddhist. The pastor didn't challenge us on any of that and we ended talking about what drew us to social justice causes. We believe in each other and that is enough.
That's another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it's a stretch to call that belief.
None of the things by themselves fully justify "belief" in a religion yet many people claim they are without a true belief in the entire system. It's the problem with such a vague question. By a narrower definition very few people attending a place of worship are true believers. Someone can believe in god, but not really believe in the rules, and still say they are "religious". Someone can believe in the rules, but not god, and say the same. I think if you are practicing the religion to some extent then you have a right to call yourself religious if that's how you view yourself regardless of your true beliefs on god, rules, etc. Cultural impact matters more than we give it credit for.
It's very rare that you find anyone on Lemmy/Reddit that actually takes more than eight seconds to critically think about the significance of "religion," and not just immediately monkey brain into "religion is for idiots." Alas, I hoped that this particular group think would've stayed behind.
A belief is not a religion, and a religion is not a belief. Any one person can be varying degrees of "religious," and any one person can hold varying levels of belief in a higher power.
I don't have much else to add because your comment was pretty well thought-out.
This 👉🏼 #3 👆🏼

They are raised with it and old habits die hard.
The fact that some people start as atheists and later become religious demonstrates there has to be more reasons than just that.
Your understanding of their reasoning comes from a fundamental assumption that your choice is the correct choice for every person. They willingly made the wrong decision, therefore they must have been manipulated into doing so.
Many people do just become religious without outside influence. On a large scale, every society will create its own version of religion without fail. Clearly, they have something to gain psychologically by doing so.
While religious indoctrination obviously exists and obviously is a problem, it doesn't discount the actual benefits that religion seems to have, and by extension the reasoning with which some people become religious.
We all do.
When I said "start", it was in reference to the process of changing your religious identity, not your life as a whole.
I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.
This I agree with. Looking back, you were more careful than I thought you were to specify you were not talking in absolutes.
I will however double down that you are still making a fundamental assumption that your option is the correct one, and you make it more clear by arguing that all benefits of religion are possible without religion. If all benefits of religion can be attained without risking the detriment, then religion is the worse option by far.
However, thinking of this made me realize I'm just making the opposite assumption. Just like you, I've constructed a strongly held belief about religion based on my life experiences, which are entirely anecdotal and effectively meaningless.
How would you even get evidence that most people are manipulated into becoming religious? How would you get evidence that most people don't? How would you get evidence that religion does or doesn't benefit people? How would you even define benefit in the first place?
This argument is meaningless.
I don't have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods.
The strongly held belief I'm referring to isn't a belief in a god or lack thereof, its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.
I'm surprised you're not aware of this.
To say I'm not aware of this is again to argue in bad faith. I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists, and is a problem.
As for the assessment of benefits, there's a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why.
Yes there is research into how religion affects society, but it isn't very useful for this purpose for multiple reasons. There is no instance of a society without religion, so the difference between a religious and non-religious society can't be studied. There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn't, as morality itself isn't objective.
There is not and there never will be definitive evidence as to whether or not religion is beneficial for society.
There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it,
There is also nothing to suggest the opposite, because this can't really be determined. You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task. Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.
This is why I've come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless, and neither of us know anything beyond our personal experience.
Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one, other than in American evangelical stories, but I've met a few non-religions people who have later in life found religion. Although I live in a quite atheaistic country, so there is a lack of peer pressure or need to talk about such things.
Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one
Well congratulations, now you have. It isn't quite as rare as you might think.
personally
Everyone is everything in the internetz.
What about the internet makes this easier to lie about? I could tell you the same thing to your face and you still couldn't fact check it.
They aren't calling you a liar, they're saying they never met someone like that in person.
They are drawing that distinction for a reason. They literally said everyone is everything on the internet. I don't how else you could possibly read that.
I read "everyone is everything on the internet" meaning you can always find someone who is anything, because the internet is just so big and diverse. Not as calling you a liar. Maybe I'm wrong, don't want to put words in their mouth. But that's how I read it.
Maybe you're right, that sounds possible. I would think if that's their intention they wouldn't have written that "everyone" is everything, and would instead say "someone" or something to that effect. At that point I'm probably just overanalyzing though.
That was more a comment on obfuscation of the net. In internet you can just trow adjectives together and somebody will raise their hand, but you can never be sure if they are just putting on a role.
That makes more sense to me. Although, I would contend that people in real life can also just put on a role to varying degrees of success depending on the exact circumstances. Presumably when you said "personally" though, you meant people you already knew well enough to verify their claims to some extent.
It is very difficult to accept mortality if you don't believe in an afterlife. Religion brings comfort, and comfort improves mental health (at the cost of some delusion).
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people. Assuming there's no fishy business going on with that particular chapter, they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It's this reason religion is so success because it's enforce togetherness and make you feels like you're part of something.
If we're going into a utopian world where human doesn't need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
Edit: forgot to mentioned, am atheist and give no shit to skyman, but somehow on the internet atheist can't have opinion that's not shitting on people with faith.
Nah, I like my community without the side of eternal suffering that so many religions like to threaten you with for varioua reasons.
I'd put my money on huge adoption of D&D in the utopian future before I put it on religion.
I too don't like my community centered around religion, but everywhere i look, religion tend to be the biggest community gathering around the world.
Maybe true, I don't pay much attention. All I know is most studies and censuses I have seen show religious affiliation falling fairly rapidly.
🤷♂️
We don't need religion, we did at one time. When we didn't know why or how people got sick, why sometimes crops would be plentiful and other times famine or why the ground shook sometimes or even just figuring out morals
But we know those things now and when we encounter something we don't we have the knowledge and tools to figure out what's up.
We don't need churches for a common social place, we have parks, libraries, community centers and community wide events to invest in. We can socialize and learn other cultures around the world in an instant. We don't just have random villages and tiny cities any more, we have large and diverse cities so we everyone can have a little of everything they're interested in.
At this point, all religion does is serve as yet another thing to divide us.
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people.
While this statement is true, its also true even if you're not religious. I was not raised religious at all but always got together with family/cousins/friends nearly every weekend.
... they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
Kinda. This study [0] of 3,942 19-year-old in Sweden put it best:
... religion and religiousness per se have little impact on happiness. In particular, we find that social networks tend to be positively associated with happiness, and that this effect is driven by co-organizational membership among friends.
So while religious upbringing can force people to socialize, that doesn't mean the lack of religiosity will have a negative impact as the lack of religion does not dictate that you will not congregate/gather with peers/friends/family and feel the same level of "belonging" to a group - even if its not a well defined group.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
I'd say this claim is unfounded. Why must we turn to religion? There are clubs, groups, meetups, friends, events and niches of never ending categories that easily fulfill the need of "belonging" to a group - it's actually one thing humans are really good at - forming "in" and "out" groups.
Yes, i do agree on all the thing you said, what i'm saying is it's not mutually exclusive. Religious people can and will go to religious meetup and all the other non-religious gathering too. I know that because i have some friend that do both. It's not the case of black and white, this or that, do and don't.
The issue i have with OP's question and a lot of atheist is they tend to put religious people as a one dimension entity and think highly of themselves because they "aren't like that", that irrationality is what they accuse religious people have. It's that sort of tribalism that cause a lot of conflict, and i fear tribalism more than i fear religion.
Based on what evidence lmao
Classic.
What based on what evidence?
Your first sentence. What actual statistical evidence do you have for this.
You need statistic to proof socialising more is better than socialising less?
You’re purposefully dancing around the point.
You’re claiming religious people are more social than anyone else. That’s a ridiculous claim and you know it.
Not going to spend anymore time engaging in your games lol
The difference is we have evidence that celebrities exist
I wasn't even disagreeing with you. But rage on, queen.
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards, and ignoring the fallacy that "progress" is co-liniar with the passage of time, logic is not in of itself a perfect humanistic process of thought, rather it has been developed by humans over the millennia.
There is great comfort in the process of growing into and exploring one's faith. Growing up in a theologically liberal Christian church, I was invited to find ways to meld the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man is such a way that I find purpose and vocation within my life. Religion also offers a place for community among people committed to a mission, be it good or bad. These communities preserve and honor cultural traditions, again, the good and the bad. These are just a few reasons I think people are now, and will remain well into the future, religious.
It's a good coping mechanism.
The social aspect might be underappreciated. My guess is people are mainly introduced by family and friends and it becomes a big part of their identity. It becomes difficult to separate the individual elements.
Indoctrination at a young age.
Gods are literally just a psychological comfort blanket to explain the unexplainable. Most religious people don’t put that much thought into what they believe, challenging concepts are just tucked nicely away in the “Gods will” box and they move on. I think everyone copes with those brain shattering concepts in their own creative way or risk getting buried alive in anxiety.
More comforting than the alternative. Its one reason why when material conditions worsen people faith goes up.
How do you know that the real creator(s) are documented?
You’ve been threatened and Stockholm’d through fear, likely as a child or when vulnerable into seeing 1 alternative, when the alternatives are infinite
I think you missed the point here. To the believer, evidence is not the main concern. Many Christians talk about their connection and relationship with god, which is subjective. To them, god exists because they have faith, not evidence, that it exists. Where's that faith coming from? As many others explained in this thread, it's about finding the sense of community and comfort in knowing that somebody higher us knows best in the world of uncertainty.
Indoctrination and ignorance, notice how a big chunk of its members are old people. Younger people are less interested, thankfully. Also, for some people, it is a social club.
Weirdly I know quite a few people who converted to being religious as adults. As children, they weren't raised with any particular religion.
I think people just want something to do and some encouraging people around them.
I thought about that as well. I'm not religious and i don't know anyone who is, but i talked to some elderly people of whom i knew they are religious about it. And surprisingly, they pretty much gave up on it. One couple told me how ass their childhood was because they were scarred into believing in fire and brimstone when they don't behave. The other lady who was very Christian, said that she wished she didn't basically wasted all theis time with Christianity, even tho she liked the whole community aspect of it and the "tradition."
And like i said, religion isn't part of anyone's life that i know, especially in my age group. But for the last 2 years or so it started popping up on tinder that Christianity somehow is still going. Not strong or anything, but it went from nothing to seeing two or three jesus freaks a month or so.
The alternative is absolutely unfathomable. Like I am an atheist and the fact we exist in any capacity is insane. Where did everything come from? Where will it go? People believe in religion because it's easier.
When I have an existential crisis over it I sometimes wish I was religious.
Because the lowest common denominator is much MUCH lower than you think it is.
This means it's easy to indoctrinate and easy to maintain that for a massive number of people.
Scientific illiteracy is extremely high, and actual "6th grade reading comprehension" is the highest level of literacy for > 50% of a country like the U.S. and ~20% are low literacy or actually illiterate.
This means that half of everyone in the U.S. can read and understand what they read at or below a 6th grade level. This isn't "reading big words", it's "tell us about what you read", "what is the relationship between x & y" type questions.
This comment for example, up to this point only, would be difficult to understand & comprehend for > 50% of people in the U.S. (it demands an 11th grade reading comprehension). And may be misread, misunderstood, or not understood at all.
People are driven to religions to cults and alt conspiracy theories when they don't understand how the world works around them. They latch onto extremely simple often misleading or incorrect ideas of how the world works because they can understand it and it "makes sense" within their sphere of ignorance (we all have one, this isn't meant to be a disparaging term).
This means that the problem is that humans are just not smart enough to escape religion yet. It's the simplest answer, and it appears to be correct.
Cause a lot of people care more about feeling comfortable than feeling statistically probable.
Humans psyche is a meaning inference recursive engine, semiotically I mean, following Charles Sanders Peirce's Theory of Signs, it generates meaning and thus needs a story to explain it, or simply to tell itself.
The story doesn't need to hold sound logic or any objectivity true to reality, it only needs to convey the meaning that it generated so that the mind can believe it more than questioning its validity.
Long story short, humans really likes being told and believing stories, and often they are the ones telling the story right to themselves.
I, for real, want to know if there are any religious/spiritual people here commenting because yikes. I think a lot of people also interpreted your question to be about organized religion, and specifically christianity of the US variety. Please seek out other religious thoughts - I've found much Jewish thought on religion to be of interest. For myself, I'm not christian and not Jewish.
I'm religious because growing up, I adopted the values of the religion I was taught - values of kindness, openness, and inclusion. It's as core a part of my being as my ways of cooking or socializing. To not be religious would feel like hiding parts of myself.
The routine of following the practices, as well as religion/spirituality being able to help us face the unknown we still have in our lives. It can provide internal strength and belief in our ability. I also find the routine a way to connect to my family, my culture, and to my day-to-day. My religious time is more a time of internal reflection on my own actions and if they align with my values. Do folks without a routine religious/spiritual practice do the same?
The community aspect some touched on is huge. I read a book, Palaces for the People, where it mentioned that those with strong social connections fare better in times of crisis. While there are institutions that are getting to the same influence of religious institutions, they are still far less impactful.
I guess this is all less a belief and more why do people still engage with religion. But why do we believe, what is the act of believing? I don't have to believe that the sun will rise every morning, but, I do still believe it will rise every morning. Belief is a whole area of study alone I'm sure.
I'm an effort to get you an answer that isn't dismissive:
-
Youth indoctrination, social conformity, and cultural isolation. If your parents, friends, and most of your community tells you something is true, you are unlikely to challenge it for a variety of reasons including trust (most of what they've taught you works for your daily life), tribal identity, etc
-
People naturally fear death, and one coping strategy for the existential fear of death is to convince yourself that the death of your body is not the end of your existence. Science does not provide a pathway to this coping strategy so people will accept or create belief systems that quell that fear, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Relieving the pressure of that fear is a strong motivator.
-
Release of responsibility. When there is no higher power to dictate moral absolutes, we are left feeling responsible for the complex decisions around what is or isn't the appropriate course of action. And that shit is complicated and often anxiety inducing. Many people find comfort in offloading that work to a third party.
This is likely not the best place to get answers for this question.
Alternative ways of explaining the world have been around for like a century and a half, and religious conversion is slow.
Why we did religion in the first place instead of just "I dunno where stuff came from or why" is a much more interesting question IMO.
I honestly think it’s a coping mechanism that is hard wired into us.
Most if not all ancient civilizations independently had some sort of belief in a higher power.
It’s a way to deal with the death of a loved one and your own mortality.
So what you're saying is that here in 2024 we've got it all figured out?
*Note that: 2024, everything figured out.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -Shakespeare
There's physics. And there's metaphysics. One does not come to Faith the same way one produces a hypothesis.
I disagree with your last line. A hypothesis is a great analogy for faith. It’s a belief that something is true. Science involves testing the hypothesis, just as faith can be tested.
It’s important to remember that science, by definition, does not prove anything either. There are only supported and unsupported theories.
I don't really get why people think it's "science or religion". Although there are some things to consider:
-
If there are laws in the universe, it may be proof that there's a law giver of some kind?
-
The beginning of the universe was a recent discovery in science, previous non Christian belief was that the universe had always existed.
I think what I'm saying there is that faith is more of an on-off switch. You see an astronaut who's returned from space and he's holding a pencil and he lets go of it in the air, goes and does something, and returns to the place where he let it go expecting the pencil to still be there.
It's not there, but he BELIEVED it would be, because he had no doubt. It surprised him that it wasn't there.
Hypothesis is quite a different thing. If I hypothesize there are crackers in the pantry, all I have to do is go and open the pantry and look and see if there's crackers. That's testing the hypothesis.
One does not talk about the existence of things like love, or truth, or God, in the same way one talks about crackers in the pantry. They are metaphysical, and they are different.
Close. You’re comparing a repeatable phenomenon to an unrepeatable one. Unrepeatable phenomena are where science is equal to religion, in that there may only be a hypothesis supporting the theory.
For example, according to the current scientific theory of creation, two masses collided in the Big Bang. The laws of physics state that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. There are scientific theories on how the masses came to exist, and what set them in motion, but there is no way to test an unrepeatable phenomenon. Interference-based creation is just as possible.
Good point. I appreciate your insight
We've got way more figured out than what religious people think.
Faith is the rejection of the possibility of producing a hypothesis.
Science is, among other things, the rejection of metaphysics.
And I love science, embrace evolution, and don't have any beliefs that require me to reject any scientific finding.
Science covers the physical world nicely. Materialistically, it's got the goods.
Fear of the unknowable
I think there's something that always seems to get left out of these conversations and that's that "when I practice my religion, I feel something that I don't feel otherwise" is frequently a true statement for the religious.
I've often heard self-described atheists say that, often when conversing/debating with religious folks about why they believe, the conversation comes to a point where the religious person will say "I've just had a personal experience" and the atheist, unable to relate to that, really has no way to advance the conversation beyond that.
Were I opposite some fundamentalist Christian or something in such a situation, my response would be "yeah, me too! That's totally normal."
I think the beligerantly nonreligious either can't relate to religious experiences or don't want to admit to having had them for fear of embarassment or maybe rhetorical concessions. And the religious typically haven't had such experiences outside the context of their religious practices, or if they have they still attribute it to their religious beliefs, and so take it as proof of their beliefs.
And these religious experiences are very real and very normal. Probably some people are more prone to such experiences than others. But despite how the religious tend to interpret them they have little to no relationship to one's beliefs. One can have experiences of anatta ("no-self" in Theravada Buddhism) or satori (sudden, typically-temporary, enlightenment in Japanese Zen Buddhism) or recollection (a term from Christian mysticism) or kavana (Jewish mysticism) or whatever without accepting any particular belief system. There are secularized mindfulness and meditation practices that can increase one's chances and frequency of experiencing these states.
But, unfortunately, the history of these experiences has been one of large religious organizations claiming and mostly exercising a monopoly on such experiences.
These experiences feel very deep and profound and can be a very positive (or negative!) thing, even affecting the overall course of one's life. And they can be kindof addictive in a good way.
All that to say that I think any conversation about why people believe in religions today is incomplete without taking into account that for many people, their religion is their means of connection with some extremely profound and beautiful experiences. Though people only accept beliefs along with those experiences because they don't know these experiences aren't actually exclusive to any one religion or any set of beliefs. And those experiences are 100% real and tangible to them. (Whether they correspond to anything real in consensus reality is a whole other conversation, but the experiences themselves are a normal human phenomenon like orgasm or schadenfreude.)
Just some followup thoughts:
- Like I alluded to earlier, meditation can be dangerous. Do your research first and know the risks.
- There are a ton of good books on these topics. "Stealing Fire" by Steven Kotler and Jamie Wheal is a good place to start if you're interested in the science of it or The Science of Enlightenment if you want to get a little deeper into the practice.
- If you want to know my personal beliefs, my beliefs are that beliefs don't matter. Personal experience does. "But do you believe god exists?" Honestly it'd take me a good hour or more to give a proper answer to that question. Let's go with "neither yes nor no" for the short version.
- Every culture has these experiences. Humans likely have had them since humans have existed.
Thanks, I had the same hunch but I didn't yet put into proper words and ideas.
Do you think, should we extrapolate those experiences to something beyond or just accept it as part of human nature?
There's a western meditation guy named "Daniel Ingram" who I have a certain amount of respect for. He readily answers questions about the risks and benefits of meditation-related things as well as the subjective experience of them. But any time he is asked about the "real world" (like, the metaphysical implications of these experiences), he responds that he's "a pragmatist" and won't speculate about the nature of reality or the existence/nonexistence of entities or powers.
(That said, there is one and only one story he tells that seems to have made him believe certain supernatural claims about the real world. He was "practicing magic" and drew an amber pentagram in the air and someone who hadn't been present at the time later walked into the room and said "you just drew an amber pentagram in the air right here." Or at least that's roughly how he tells the story. And he does seem to believe there's something to that beyond the natural.)
I'm not quite the purist he is. I don't think it's necessary to straight up refuse to believe anything about the real world or the nature of reality. And I don't think that there's nothing that can/should be gleaned about metaphysics from subjective ("religious") experiences. (My experiences with contemplative practices has definitely changed my mind about some metaphysical things. The nature of conscious and of reality, the existence of capital-G-"God" (though the answer I find most compelling now definitely isn't "yes" or "no"), etc.)
But it's also important to keep it in perspective. Some of these experiences can feel like the most important thing every to happen to anyone. (That's probably how many/most religions start, honestly. Someone has a mind-blowing experience and tells everybody about it and everybody else grossly misinterprets it because these experiences are ineffable -- can't be put into words -- and before you know it you have the crusades and witch burnings and abstinance-only sex ed.) But a contemplative practice, done well, will tell you not to hold too closely to, well, anything really (potentially "except god"). Coming to some belief and holding it as the most important thing ever or basing your whole personality on it is absolutely problematic.
My advice is to hold any beliefs you come to from a religious experience (and any other beliefs you have for that matter) "loosely". And I think this is helped by not restricting yourself to one religious system. Borrow from both western and eastern religious traditions. Monotheistic, pantheistic, pagan, etc. Indigenous spiritual practices. Even left-hand-path stuff. The more you do that, the better you drive home to your reptilian brain the point that nobody has a monopoly on religious experience and often those experiences even contradict each other.
I guess one other thing to mention is that adpting a particular set of religious beliefs can potentially be a boon to one's contemplative practice. But for the reasons above, it can be dangerous.
Thank you for taking the time to write this out, I probably would've been busy for a couple of hours trying to formulate my fairly similar take!
Maybe to add another aspect for - I think that the sheer ability of humans to have religious experiences in all denominations, which are often described as feelings of connectedness, does not necessarily mean that there is a higher being or reality "out there" that is being connected to in those moments.
But it does mean that our brains have religious experience as an in-built function (which, as you described, has been needlessly enshrined in religious institutions), which might mean that being able to have these experiences is an important part of being able to survive, or maybe even to thrive, as a human being, which also means as a community.
But it does mean that our brains have religious experience as an in-built function (which, as you described, has been needlessly enshrined in religious institutions), which might mean that being able to have these experiences is an important part of being able to survive, or maybe even to thrive, as a human being, which also means as a community.
And that's a take that I couldn't have put as well as you did, and I wholeheartedly agree with.
I think whatever cognitive faculties separate us from "the animals" (or at least some animals) comes at a cost. Most animals live very in the moment. We're largely the only creatures that have panic attacks because of some imagined future event, and we worry constantly. The default mode network and the internal monologue let us plan for the future, but also makes us worry for the future, which is definitely maladaptive.
Religious experiences let us greatly mitigate that by showing us, even if only temporarily (and sometimes people can achieve permanence in this), by suspending the DMN and internal monologue.
Suspending worry for the future might be a plausible function for religious experience as an evolved feature of the human mind, yes.
I would also point towards the biological fact that while the existence of a higher being, consciousness or reality, is still ineffable, even after having had an experience that felt like there might be one, there is also an empirically true, measurable interconnectedness for humans that can be tapped into.
We live, and have evolved, in and through ecosystems that highly depend on interconnected species and processes that are so complex and intricate that we are still working on fully grasping them, and still discovering new connections (unfortunately, it's becoming more and more because we have disrupted the connections by environmental damage, and the ecosystems start to fail due to that, making the connection obvious only after it ceased to exist). Connection between humans in the form of love in its many forms is also the ultimate glue that keeps societies together, and if that capacity diminishes due to circumstances, bad things tend to happen.
The myriad of connections we need to live, and to thrive and to feel like we are whole - all of this fully seen and experienced in their abstracted totality could in my eyes be one of the bases for religious experience.
And if that is true, it gives also another function - then, religious experience is the anchor and has a rebalancing function that makes sure that we don't get lost in our own heads and human constructs, and keeps reminding us that we are part of the ecosystem, too, and keeps us from using it in a self-destructive manner. There are several deeply spiritual, nature-connected societies that only became so after a local environmental crisis caused by themselves. Tapping into the interconnectedness through religious experience has helped them find another, arguably better way.
(Of course, it doesn't seem to be a hard, global fail-safe in human history, given the current state of the world, so I don't know how direct this function would be.)
I like how all these answers involving science fail to realize that the scientific method was used exclusively by many scholars and students who had no historical evidence of giving up their religion.
Empirical evidence is as old as humans, and afaik the modern scientific method has been in use since the Islamic golden age if not older.
The key here is that many of these people did not consider religion an empirical issue but a philosophical and ethical one. Particularly with the monotheistic religions, this would make sense because you can easily argue that it would be impractical to test for the existence of God.
I think a better question would be why do people believe in their respective religion if it contains a glaring contradiction(s).
Objective reality doesn't matter to you if you close your eyes, cover your ears and insist on living in a fantasy world.
Let's put it this way, if I went around basing my entire understanding of reality on Greek gods, people would rightly think I was fucking nuts.
Do it with the bible though...
I think that for most people it's nothing more than a social club. I have always been skeptical ever since hearing absurd stories about arks and being eaten by whales, but every once in a while (especially after sobering up) I went into various churches to see if I might have been missing out on something. Invariably I just found a social club of people just looking for excuses to feel better about themselves. Anything good that happens is a direct blessing from a doting god; anything bad is always the devil....personal responsibility is never part of the answer. Many are just uneducated and dont know how to think; they accept whatever Grandpa says as truth without any consideration, and this extends to pastors. I am atheist; my wife is a devout believer...but more and more she sees something horrible happen and can't deny it when I point out that religion did that. She still has her higher power but is starting to see the brainrot and brainwashing in her friends and family and can't understand why they do what they do while calling themselves 'christians'. It's not faith; it's just social self-service.
you can be spiritual and religious without believing in structured religion like the church.
i'm wiccan and spiritual and it means a great deal to me.
Dear (my) god, you folks are irrational. If someone acts a certain way, judge them for it! But judging anyone with faith just because you don't believe in that!? I can't prove God exists any more than you can prove they don't. If a religious person acts kind, fair, and rational, you shouldn't have anything against them, should you? But this post isn't about American right-wingers, or extremist Islamic Muslims, is it? It's about anyone who has any faith at all, just because you don't believe the same thing. Caring Christians literally building homes for people internationally, Sikhs feeding anyone, no matter their beliefs...
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but that's literally small-minded.
It’s a post asking why people believe in religion. People who don’t believe in religion or spirituality really have no reason to comment other than to condemn. The arrogance of atheists on Lemmy is very disappointing.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
What would you think of someone who goes door to door trying to convince you a blubbery clown rules the universe from planet zebulon?
Is that a normal person just doing normal person things?
For the non-religious, there is no difference between the person above and a relgious believer.
I think it's reasonable to ask why people still hold unfounded beliefs with the greater interconnectedness of the world making it pretty plain that not all these religions can be divinely inspired truth, so many of them are necessarily imaginary.
Victimized ✅
Logical fallacy of ignorance ✅
Ignores the atrocities and genocide committed in the name of “religion” ✅
You are quite literally the pot calling the kettle black with your “small minded” comment. Nobody here was persecuting religion, but specific implementations that have committed mass murder, or engage in obnoxious displays (screaming at people at events (some events designed to support groups of people), going door to door, shaming vulnerable people trying to get medical procedures, etc etc)
The day you widen your view to see others perspectives and history of abuse is the day you’ll actually be on the right “religious” track. Humanity is the religion.
nobody here is persecuting religion
proceeds to generalize all religious people as the worst of religion
Most religious people do acknowledge all the stuff you're talking about, and agree with you on how terrible they are. Most of the time when you meet a religious person, you won't think there's anything different until you ask them.
I haven’t generalize anything - I was speaking of this specific instance but see whatever you want to see ig
Religion is an opium for the masses. And everyone loves a little bit of poppy in their life!
Religion dissolves uncertainty. Why does….? Because the sky man said so. How does….? Because the sky man made it that way. What should I do with my life and how should I live it? Here’s a book written by the sky man and it has all the answers. No more thinking… I suppose it’s probably of great comfort to many.
I'd say it's partly to find some comfort with life's many uncertainties, and one of several ways to achieve a sense of purpose when struggling for some.
People are very easy to condition via association.
Religion teaches people to associate all good with god, all evil with mankind. Therefor they think only people who believe in their god can be trusted.
The existence of one or more gods can't be conclusively proven or disproven. So it makes sense to me that some people believe in it and others don't.
Because they keep having experiences they can’t or have no interest in explaining.
Because (Christian) "Faith" is a unique, arguably delusional, cyclical belief system based on feelings. It's similar to the anti-vaccine mentality of "that's just your opinion" when it's not. The biggest difference being that there is no proving or disproving the existence of God.
And Faith is built on this self-referential system of "you gotta have Faith in God because God is real and God is good and strong Faith will help you continue believing in God when you are otherwise challenged, and weak Faith is a sign that you are straying from God and you should strengthen your Faith by believing in God harder because God is real and God is good..."
I used to be more religious and also thought "believe in whatever you want to believe in as long as you don't be a dick about it," but that's really been changing a lot lately.
Christianity has fallen so far and so many self-diagnosed Christians are just the worst type of people that I just couldn't relate to them anymore and felt the need to distance myself.
There have probably been (speculation because I don't feel like looking up details right now) more deaths in the name of Christianity and the Christian God than any other religion and that continues to this day.
I contribute modern day deaths from pregnancy complications deprived of needed health care, general lack of other health care for low income families, LGBTQIA2A+ suicides or other deaths, and more to "traditional Christian values".
Christian Nationalists can go fuck themselves and rot in their own hell they hate so much.
We've proved the popular religions wrong definitively, but the truth's turned out to be unbearably horrifying for most people.
Man believes in stories. Such as religion, or money, or companies.
Ref. Yuval Noah Harari.
It’s useful to do so. It gives a person meaning and purpose in life.
I listened to a great podcast on the subject last week which was super helpful, https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/what-does-it-feel-like-to-believe.
For me, I just do. It's just who I am and what I feel. I don't really talk about it outside of my church friends, but I just believe. I don't think the Bible is terribly accurate and regard it much as I do Arabian Nights, a book of fantastic stories based loosely on events. I also think it has much to offer in teaching you how to treat others and live your life as a good person, and that's what I take away from it. I find Jesus honestly a touch creepy, but I never stop believing in a higher power of sorts.
Also I honestly have made the best friends I've ever made in my church life. Horrible homophobic Christians aside, there's some really excellent people who genuinely love you and do good things to meet there.
I mean... In my life I've gone from a (naive child that took my parents words for fact) theist, to agnostic atheist, all the way to whatever the fuck I am now. It's all a matter of perspective.
You go deep enough into metaphysics you can trip yourself the fuck out.
If anyone wants to humor me, check out this seemingly innocuous video about a comic book villain. Let's debate some metaphysics!
Because we are convinced it is true.
The vast majority of people believe whatever the fuck they're told to believe.
I don't. My religious beliefs are something I came to myself. There is lots of evidence for a very early church, and the core story around Jesus hasn't changed much, unlike other legends that evolve through history. The New Testament is pretty reliable as a historical document and many times atheist critics have been wrong, and their arguments are usually very easy to debunk.
How did you come to your faith?
In short, I evaluated the arguments, then realised that the arguments for Christianity were far better than the arguments against. The main argument for atheism is the standard of proof, but anyone can present them with all of the proof they'd like and they can still say "not enough". There were people around in Jesus' time who still didn't believe yet saw the miracles and His resurrection
When you're brainwashed from birth, it's difficult to recognize you've been brainwashed.
Because they did in 2023
I think it's comfort. That can be if different things for different people and it can be many things at once.
-
Spiritual comfort that your god loves you.
-
Emotional comfort that you can do no wrong.
-
Community comfort that you and the people like you are the chosen people.
-
Life/death comfort for what happens after death.
-
Intellectual comfort to know all the answers.
-
Vindictive comfort to hate the people you want to.
It can just keep going.
Because religion evolved to thrive in us.
It's like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.
Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn't have these beneficial traits went extinct.
Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it's necessary to spread your belief to others, are 'somehow' more spread out than religions who don't convey that need.
This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.
This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It's funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.
I believe in religion. It definitely exists. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. They all exist. Guaranteed.
How can you not believe in them?
I guess a part is that science seems to meticulously avoid the question "why do we live", in a non-technical way, in a way that actually gives people a sense of meaning.
That and mental inertia, i.e. some things change very slowly.
Humans are tribalistic, like leaders who are assertive and charismatic, like simple answers, are easily swayed by emotions, fall victim to logical fallacies, and a plethora of other things that all work just fine if you're operating on a tribal level as we did for most of human history, or rather prehistory. Now that we are in a different phase of technological growth, which has brought with it massive social change, getting rid of all of that superstitious nonsense is very difficult because of aforementioned characteristics. What were beneficial as it tribal species, and arguably even after that, is now a liability. Or at least more of a hindrance to progress.
Because it's been the way it always has been, because people also hate change, are lazy, and tended to prefer both avoiding cognitive dissidents and minimizing effort to achieve desired results, getting rid of religion is a nightmare hassle. Even when the evidence is right there in front of them, people don't care. At least not enough of them. They'd rather listen to their authority figure, or do what all their friends are doing. Which if you're doing what all your friends are doing it just turns into a circle jerk. But since they're in that circle jerk, they tend to just stay in it, and because the people in it are their friends or family, they defend it because it's their tribe. We're kind of hardwired that way.
TLDR, people are dumb monkeys.
Because they're convinced it's true. Given that billions of people in the world ( I strongly expect it's the majority) would claim to be religious - perhaps the better question is: "why does anyone not believe in religion?"
Simple, if any religion was true and objectively based in reality, why the fuck do they need missionaries to spread it?
If any religion was true, it would have measurable, verifiable, and predictable traits that would be discovered in isolated societies. If all of mankind's knowledge was erased, we would eventually rebuild our understandings of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics as they are today. If all knowledge of religions were erased, we would never get the same religions back.
Education is the reason
Religion is an old form of it is what is, hope, direction, tradition, and community.
Can't explain a thing or understand it God's will or only God knows. Can't do anything to help a person because they are in surgery pray or talk to God to wish for good outcomes.
Don't feel loved or know what to do or wanted. God loves you, will show you the way, and wants you.
Most traditions and communities in the west were founded on a religion so you have hundreds of people to connect with at a church and maybe millions world wide that will help. Those raised on books of wisdom or what is right and wrong still tend to keep the values even after they move away from the religion but realize they can have values without divine beings
Lastly control. Just like businesses it is easier to control people under a religion so if you can get people indebted, traditionalized, and ostracized otherwise. You can control people easily. Lots of people don't know what to do and why trust another human being but if a human being says wisely God said this it is easier to accept and gain a direction
I can think of four possible reasons:-
-
It works on my system - We are shaped by our experiences. To someone who had their life turned around by a religious order (or a religious individual), it would make sense to follow their teachings.
-
Opium of the masses - Life is filled with suffering. It is nice to imagine that there is someone looking out for you. An afterlife free of suffering is even better.
-
Just following orders - If you want to do something, but don't think your community will support you, it is easier if you say 'god told me to do it'. It might also make it easier to justify the action to yourself.
-
Church of England - You don't care much either way, but it's too much of a hassle to leave. Plus meeting your friends and neighbours every week is fun.
Because they have enough evidence to satisfy them that they should, if they're rational; because they were taught to and never questioned it through self-examination, if they're not.
Note that evidence is not the same as proof; other users have pointed out examples of evidence such as 'testimony from trusted authorities such as parents' and 'personal spiritual experiences' and since those answers were very detailed I won't repeat them here.
I am not even remotely religious. But I take science pretty seriously.
Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?
There is some decent science that prayer does not work. I am not aware of anything offers anything at all testable concerning God.
And if we are simply pushing our preferences on others, I think a more important question is what makes people that claim to be evidence driven to adopt such strong opinions on things ( without evidence ) that they feel comfortable publicly slamming the preferences and values of others ( again with no evidence at all ).
As a science fan, you can say that absence of evidence means you do not have to believe. Correct. You cannot say that an absence of evidence proves your guess correct such that you can treat people who believe otherwise as stupid. Incorrect.
And “they have to show me the evidence” is a moronic stance. As a fan of the scientific method, evidence is YOUR burden of proof. For people that adhere to a religion, their standard is FAITH. So, they are holding up their end and you are dropping the ball. So what gives you the right to be the abuser?
So, I guess my answer to “why do people believe in religion would be”, “well, people still have faith and tradition and science has not produced any evidence that credibly calls that into question”.
Why are people not arriving at this conclusion on their own in 2024? Why have we failed so badly to explain the scientific method that people can still make wild pronouncements like this one.
I don’t like religion because it makes people easy to manipulate. People that treat science like a religion exhibit the same problems. I am not a fan of that.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I'm glad to answer genuine questions made in good faith (no pun intended), but I won't argue with anyone.
I'm a practicing Hellenic Polytheist and this is my personal experience. I do not only worship deities with names and myths, but also the twinkling of stars, the waves of the ocean, the colors of a sunset, the kindling of a fire on a cold winter day, and the rustling of leaves in the treetops. Sometimes I look at the sky and see stars so far away that we will (probably) never reach them, and that feels divine to me. There's something that can't be described with words that is too great for a human to understand, and I find that something so beautiful that I will worship it.
Got a bit poetic there, but I also think that my relationship with religion has also been influenced by the good old autism a lot. I find the psychology behind religion very fascinating, and I think that for some people, especially those who have been raised in a certain faith, it is a "home" that provides comfort in difficult situations. For some people, the thought that a recently deceased loved one is now in Heaven or has been reincarnated as someone/something else is probably a lot easier to accept than that they don't exist anymore in any shape or form.
That being said, I also want to state that I always try to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism with my beliefs, whether they be religious, moral, or political, because blind belief never leads to anything good. I think that sadly the darker aspects of religion, such as cults and using religion to justify unjust power structures (the patriarchy or the divine right of kings for example) are hard to get rid of.
Because we're more akin to LLMs than we might be comfortable to admit. Or at least parts of us, subsystems of our psyches... Brains are belief engines more than they are objective parsers of reality.
2024 years since what?
Never ever underestimate the amazing dumbness level of humankind.
Because it can't truly be proven that there either is or isn't a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I'm willing to bet you can't prove that there there isn't one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
Atheist here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheism is merely about trusting what's been proven, or has some evidence backing the claim that can be verified without doubt. Being agnostic is being indecisive about everything, even things that are completely made up.
One can argue that agnosticism is more scientific in that what cannot be verified, however improbable, remains possible.
What set the large masses in motion to collide in the Big Bang? What created that matter to begin with? There’s still room for the possibility of interference-based creation without contradicting modern science.
I agree with your second paragraph but take issue with your first.
Atheism is not the belief that God categorically does not exist; it's the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. It's a subtle but important distinction because the first is not logically consistent whereas the latter is.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, tends to either be the view that the likelihood of God existing is more or less equal to that of God not existing, or the view that we will probably never know so we cannot come down on one side or the other.
Technically speaking, there are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone who calls themself agnostic believes in the possibility of a god(s). Self-identified atheists are typically gnostic atheists who believe with certainty that there is no god. They could also just be agnostic, and unaware of the difference in terminology.
There are many gnostic atheists commenting on this post with the “burden of proof” argument, and likening god to an invisible unicorn. They are quite confident in non-existence.
Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I've never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.
Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source
On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes "burden of proof" is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.
This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.
Then why are so many atheists commenting on this post using said arguments against another person’s beliefs, if not to discredit them and convince them their beliefs are impossible? No one here is trying to convince others that “their god” is correct, so it’s clearly not in defense.
That’s the behavior of someone who is trying to convince another of non-existence, therefore, it is safe to consider them gnostic atheists.
It's not so much saying that someone's religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it's generally along the lines of "how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists?", or more impolite words to that effect.
I personally don't browbeat the religious, so I'm not condoning it, but that's why this line of argument generally isn't gnostic atheism.
If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is logically impossible, a priori, then that would be gnostic atheism. But, like I said before, that generally isn't what most atheists believe or argue for.
Thank you for your consideration to the beliefs of others. You’re more of an exception to atheists than you may know. You should read some of the other atheists’ comments on this post. They’re very quick to condemn the possible existence of god. It’s this type of arrogance that caused Einstein to liken them to religious zealots, and why he referred to himself as an agnostic.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have any either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If science can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religion.
Science tests hypothesizes and never claims they're true until there's mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
All religion is untested made up nonsense, no exceptions.
If you make it up without evidence, it can be thrown out without evidence. Athiests make no claims, there's nothing to throw out.
The real answer to these questions is "we have no idea", everything else falls under russel's teapot.
Are you this arrogant in condemning everything you don’t understand?
If you truly believe “you have no idea,” then how can you be sure every religion is wrong without understanding them?
I do understand that it is something people made up without any evidence.
I am this arrogant about anything without evidence, if you present evidence, then I have a reason to believe.
Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
I do not, why would I?
nobody asserts that, they assert that we don't know, which is accurate it is religion that asserts it happened through magic
So you don’t believe in any astrophysics? The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena.
Evidence exists for astrophysics
You may not understand science as well as you think you do. There is evidence that supports the theory, but it is untested until it is repeated in a controlled experiment. According to the scientific method, the vast majority of the field of astrophysics remains untested.
i don't assume the vast majority of astrophysics is true
neither do astrophysicists
I didn’t ask that. I asked if you believe in it. That’s all religion is; a belief.
be·lief noun
- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
\2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
I don't believe in anything without evidence and if I do I seek to correct that
belief without evidence is a failure of the mind
So you don’t believe any of the untested theories of astrophysics?
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn't tested? And why do you think we do?
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they've failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.
What events? I've never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven't been tested.
They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
If they're not proven then they're hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they're still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.
We're not saying there is no god. We're saying we're not convinced there is a god.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
The big bang isn't creation ex nihilo, and it's not a theistic claim. But more importantly, nobody with any scientific credibility claims we know the theory is true with absolute certainty. They don't even claim it adequately explains 100% of the universe as we observe it. A lot of laymen probably think the big bang is creation ex nihilo and use it to explain the "something from nothing" issue, but that's not what the theory says.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began
Hypotheses. Which nobody "believes" in like theists do with God.
Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science.
You're right. They can hypothesize all they want. But they don't present their claims as hypotheses, they present them as the truth. Scientists don't claim their hypotheses are the truth, and they especially don't believe it to be true before doing any testing.
the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that.
The link you gave me doesn't show him claiming God doesn't exist, and neither are any of the comments before it.
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
You must live in a very different society than those in Europe or America if your experience with theists has just been "people hypothesizing." You also must not have read the Bible, Torah, or Quran. Their "beliefs" are presented as facts in all three of those religions, both by their holy texts and their people, and I don't know of any religion that doesn't also do that.
If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
And again, nobody is saying they're wrong. We're saying they don't have good reason to believe what they believe. Just look at the link you sent earlier.
And if an atheist genuinely believes their own untested hypothesis about what happened before the big bang is true, whether they're a scientist or a layman, the same criticisms apply to them, too.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
How can you not see the arrogance in that?
It doesn't sound familiar because nobody here is saying God is impossible. We're saying they don't have good reason for believing he exists.
I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence.
You wouldn't have to tell them to stop "believing" in string theory because none of them do. The math happens to work out so a lot of them are interested, but none of them "believe" in it because it hasn't been tested.
Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
We're not saying they're wrong. We're saying their reasons for believing aren't good reasons. And in a thread about why people believe, criticism is not only warranted, but expected.
Gnostic atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
Can you point me to even one atheist here making a gnostic claim? The link you already gave is just Communist saying you don't have evidence, and it seems like you're translating every other instance of that to "GOD ISN'T REAL".
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
I’m not taking another lap with you.
Good luck always being right.
Take care.
and it seems like you're translating every other instance of that to "GOD ISN'T REAL".
Ah, so I was right
No neither do astrophysicists, they think it might be true with healthy skepticism
or they have proven it true with observation, neither of which applies to religion
are you confident you're not the arrogant one?
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
I never denied the possibility, I denied we should believe in those things
it sounds incredibly arrogant to me to assume you know something without evidence
Arrogance comes into play when one person asserts their beliefs over another’s.
They weren’t stating that you should believe in god.
You were stating that they shouldn’t.
Yes, they shouldn't because they have no evidence and are therefore arrogantly asserting something they have no reason to believe
You see someone holding a belief you don’t agree with as arrogant, but not your unwanted criticism of it? Forget arrogance. You may be a narcissist.
Yes, belief without evidence is peak narcissism in my eyes
it is the definition of delusion
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That's basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can't just claim there's a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say "trust me bro". Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
A hypothesis requires no evidence.
Correct
It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments
repeatable controlled experiments are only one aspect of evidence gathering to falsify a hypothesis. Here are a few other methods:
- Observational Astronomy
- Modeling and Simulations
- Indirect Experiments
- Lab Experiments
- Historical Data Analysis
By combining these methods we can still falsify a hypothesis, thus allowing "science to happen".
The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence.
Correct! There is no evidence for what lead to the big bang because we can't gather any data before it started. But we have mountains of evidence that all point to a "big bang" happening - down to a fraction of a second shortly after it started! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] .
If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Science is willing to discard ideas that lack evidence or aren't falsifiable. Is religion ready to stop preaching because faith, by definition, is a lack of evidence?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
The difference between string theory and Spinoza's god is the falsifiable part. String Theory, being a scientific theory, makes predictions that should be able to be tested through experiments (although testing will likely be a challenge much like Astrophysics and will instead depend on other scientific methods to gather evidence for/against it). Spinoza's God is a philosophical concept and not directly falsifiable through scientific methods. Spinoza's god is the equivalent of me claiming I'm friends with a telepathic unicorn from another dimension, both useless and irrelevant.
[1] Gravitational Waves: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-cosmic-discovery-could-be-closest-weve-come-beginning-time-180950109/
[2] Redshift: https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-a-redshift-give-evidence-to-the-big-bang-theory
[3] Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-microwave-background-proves-big-bang/
[4] Abundance of Light Elements: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
[5] Expansion: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html](https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
[6] Olbers' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox
[7] Quasars Existence: https://www.astronomy.com/science/60-years-of-quasars/
[8] WMAP Survey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wilkinson-Microwave-Anisotropy-Probe
That just leaves you with the conclusion that "there is no current explanation" not that you can make whatever you want up.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
Because science doesn't assert all hypothesis are true
Who says god’s existence is proven? It’s called a belief for a reason. It’s no different than a hypothesis.
be·lief

noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
Which is completely different from a hypothesis, which is that something might be true and we should test it
Okay but here in the real world, those making the claim have the burden of proof.
This is a classic, literally text book example of the logical fallacy of ignorance.
Invisible unicorns exist, and because you can’t disprove it, we should build unicorn fences.
The logic doesn’t follow.
I don't disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?" That doesn't make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren't the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I'm fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"
Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don't know one way or the other.
That's being agnostic, not atheist
Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. Assuming all atheists are gnostic atheists is like assuming all Christians are Catholics.
Gnostic atheists are rare, and if you want evidence look at this thread.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I say agnostic, that includes "agnostic atheists". Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed "atheists") get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I'm tapping out of this thread, didn't come here to argue about English. Also, please don't take my last paragraph as an attack - it's a general observation.
No, this was your misunderstanding:
Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"
The language is irrelevant, you're claiming something that's just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish "agnostics" from "atheists" isn't the real issue.
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Really? They’re all over this thread citing the “burden of proof” argument and likening god to a unicorn.
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn't true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren't convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there's actual evidence it's rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They're both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they're nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/07/26/128769603/the-hidden-dimensions-of-science-vs-religion
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
I’m unconvinced by your claim that science and religion are the same. Can you prove that?
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
That’s wholly incorrect. The vast majority of astrophysics is comprised of untested theories. The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena. The evidence we’ve collected is used in creating the theories, but they remain untested.
Religion is referred to as a belief (hypothesis) in god. There is evidence of improvement in the quality of life and personal contentment by believing in god, however the existence of god remains tangibly untested.
I myself am a physicist lol, I assure you that we do not believe in our work in the way you suggest. This is why it has been so outlandish and perplexing for you to continually insist that I “believe” in every science themed idea but irrationally hold religion to some even higher standard. I’m sorry my friend, but I stand by my conclusion that you have simply made some mistakes along the way while learning about all of this. It happens to all of us, the important thing is having a willingness to reexamine.
But yes, many of the hypotheses regarding ‘before’ the big bang etc. are currently on the same level as the hypothesis of a god (or prime mover). As I have continually affirmed over the course of our discussion that is all correct and definitionally compatible with atheism and the scientific method. I think perhaps we have reached the end of what we can discuss, unless you are willing to take into consideration how the scientific community actually thinks, rather than trying to insist they use your personal definitions of their words
You wrote of your understanding, but didn’t share any of it. That’s quite arrogant. Can you explain how what I wrote is not in line with the Scientific Method?
I have already abundantly shared my understanding and specifically addressed your concerns. Now it is clear that you simply like arguing and care little about what is being discussed.
I think we are likely beyond the point of productivity, but the ‘scientific method’ isn’t capitalized btw. This error is perfectly emblematic of the error in your thought process as a whole
The fact that you have no counterpoint other than syntax correction reaffirms that you have nothing to offer. Take care.
As graceful an exit as any troll can hope for. Cheers to you as well
Reread what he said, you're the one without anything to offer... it's honestly embarrasingly arrogant
I agree with you. For what it’s worth, so did Einstein.
Source?
He very clearly spoke against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintained that he himself was agnostic. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator.
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs
People can have a rich spiritual life and not believe in religion.
Research shows that we have the innate (ie. without being externally influenced) belief that there is a higher power. So we are socialized/influenced into NOT believing in God.
Atheism and secularism are big now but this only started to be so in the recent hundred years.
Personally I find my religion logically making sense more than what atheistic ideologies bring forth and their misuse of science illiteracy.
The scripture is preserved and I had the chance to learn the original language which allows to assess it firsthand.
For me its a combination of learning it since childhood and experiencing minor things that i can't explain differently.
For example once i had a thought in my mind that i should go home that evening when i see the clouds. Later at the bbq i remembered that and looked into the sky and saw some clouds in the distance and just knew that these were the clouds. But it didn't looked like it should rain, and the weather forecast was also clear. So i stayed. Later when i went to the train, a huge number of people from a heavy metal concert that just finished came, and enough people wanted to take the last train that day that some didn't make it inside. If i had gone home when i saw the clouds, i wouldn't have been in that overcrowded train.
Also for me my faith looks consistent internally and with other stuff that i see.
You can't explain a decision having negative consequences without God?
This is one time i know God was involved. Other times things i did had negative consequences just because they were objectively bad decisions from me.
Ignorance and indoctrination. Especially back then people that don't understand science needed an excuse of why certain things worked that way in the world. Is easier to say that everything happens thanks to a big guy above us.
This is a young person's question.
Ah yes, how childish of OP to wonder why the majority of English speaking countries believe in answers to life's greatest questions with little to no evidence. What a naive little question, that one.
You misunderstand. Older people have lost parents, siblings, friends. They don't have to wonder about this question anymore because they've decided.
To each their own, but personally that sounds like a bad reason to stop pursuing life's greatest questions. Plenty of my family has passed away, but that doesn't make faith seem like a reliable pathway to truth.
I'd love to believe they're in an eternal paradise, but I'd also love to believe my next paycheck will be $1,000,000. The time to believe I'm a millionaire is when I have evidence for it, not when I'd be heartbroken otherwise.
Why isn't it possible for a creator to exist?
Because there is no downside. I mean, the only thing that atheist think is appealing is that they can reason themselves out of religion. What makes you think that 'reasoning yourself out of religion' is attractive, desirable or a worthy goal? It just isn't. It leads to existential crisis in most if not all cases. And then atheist take pride in surviving that crisis. Which, sure, admirable... But attractive? Of course not.
You can be religious and do anything in the world. Literally. I know that atheist love to focus on dumb fucks and literalists, and on how religions are being abused. But the truth is that religion is deeply personal and peoples relation with religion is completely their own. It's extremely simple to pick and choose from the myriad of options within religion. Most religious people are not literalists.
And then you get connection with people, see them regularly, participate in rituals, celebration days, rules for engagement with life.
Plus, don't forget, an extremely old and mystic piece of human history. The attempts of people to live in a world that has a God. Their struggles, their victories. In essence a reflection on the human condition. And you get to be part of that. Atheist are often too fast to explain religion as a sort of 'failed science', while it's absolutely not. And of course if you can't figure that out you're going to ask why people want to believe in something like that.
There will never be a rational reason for the human condition. Religion will never ever not be part of humanity. As the only way in which the human condition can be contextualised is in a world that is created, and religions are the keepers of that knowledge.
Since here the answers are split between edgy kids and people repeating a bland, stale narrative about comfort and fear of death, I will try to bring a different perspective.
For context: I grew up in a Catholic country but in a very secular family and in a very secular region. I've had an edgy atheist phase that lasted between 8yo and probably around 30yo.
I studied a STEM discipline and have always been surrounded by mostly atheist or agnostic people.
I was afraid of death up until I was 27/28yo, but the cope was gnostic transhumanism, not Abrahamitic religions. At some point I took acid, my gf at the time told me I was going to die, I cried my eyes out for a few minutes and then I was fine and I'm still fine. I had a near-death experience in the hospital that further consolidated the idea that I'm going to die, and it's chill: if you're sick, you have a bunch of people looking after you, everybody gives you attention, you spend all your day chilling in bed on drugs. Dream life death.
I was still agnostic at that point. I started approaching spirituality later on, not much because of an emotional need, but because further studies both in STEM disciplines and Philosophy highlighted the limit of reason to explain and understand the world. Reason is a tool among others, with its limits. Limits that can be reasoned about using reason itself. You cannot investigate or explain what lies outside though, let alone change it, something for which you need different tools: faith, spirituality, trust. I got closer to what Erik Davis calls "Cyborg Spiritualism", but it doesn't mean much since it's not an organized movement, but more of a shared intuition and meaning-making process to which, in the last 60 years, more and more people arrived. Especially people dealing with disciplines like system theory, cybernetics, system design, and information theory, but also people disillusioned with the New Age movement or other Western Gnostic practices. Mixed in it there's plenty of animism.
Atheists believe that all religions are about speaking to God, and hoping for an answer, while many religions are about listening to God because they are already talking to us all the time.
The origins of the universe have still not being scientifically explained.
Cargo cult atheism has gotten to the point where people now confidently believe we have evidence of things which we do not.
Atheists religiously repeating the word "science" long enough that they trick themselves into believing they have explained the origins of the universe. And thus there is no reason for anyone to believe in God.
Certainly science has achieved a lot. However we are no closer to explaining the origins of the universe as before. As the origin has not been explained why is everyone somehow so confident in the falsehood of a creator?
Agnosticism (not being sure about a creator) is totally fine. However Atheists have a weird obsession about being absolutely certain of something they cannot prove an their alternative for. Atheism runs on pure faith that "science will figure it out in the future". It is a religion in itself.
The "largest minds" of Atheism are all too often based on pure emotion. As we find with Richard Dawkins, the man so smart that he can explain the universe away... and also believes Israel is not committing Genocide in Gaza.
https://raseef22.net/english/article/1095904-et-tu-dawkins-you-refuse-religion-but-support-israel
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
As clearly demonstrated in this thread by people certain of their atheism so much you would be hard pressed to find a religious person so arrogant in their beliefs.
You are free to correct a person in a conversation if you feel so inclined.
So indeed nothing of value as expected.
It's difficult to dismantle an argument that does not exist. I suppose if your explanation is non existent you always win the discussion. Le epic Atheist wins again.
Do explain anything.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don't need to make the claim that God doesn't exist, and most atheists don't.
The only thing we're certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven't met their burden of proof.
That's called Agnosticism.
Atheism means you are certain that god does not exist.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I'm not a theist because they haven't convinced me of any theistic claims. I don't claim no gods exist. I just don't know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
Ask literally any atheist here if they claim "god does not exist"
They seem quite confident as they proclaim their superiority over religious people and cannot comprehend why anyone would be religious.
Sure. And nobody claimed "God doesn't exist." Two people now have told you that you're mistaken, but you insist.
From our perspective it seems like you're imposing a baseless claim onto us so you can feel better about your own baseless claims. Only theists say atheism is a claim.
There is no baseless claim it is the only reasonable claim from our current understanding of physics.
Claiming that the universe magically came out of nothing is not an answer to some. It contradicts all of science especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Nonetheless you are still conflating Atheism and Agnosticism. These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
Correct, and you're still misusing them according to the people who actually identify with these labels. Atheism is the answer to what you believe, and agnosticism is the answer to what you know.
I don't believe God exists and I don't know if God exists, so I'm an agnostic atheist. For you to assume atheists are gnostic by default is like me assuming Christians are Mormons by default. It'd be even more ridiculous for me to go on and argue with Christians that "Christian" means "Mormon."
Pick up a Quran, read a chapter a day. You will have answers to questions you didn't even think to come up with.
It's still not too late for you.
Been religious since I was born, still makes sense to me.
I thought the edgy athiests stayed on reddit, sad to know y’all are here too.