Why do you need to believe?

[brandx1138]

Why do people feel that they need to believe in something greater than themselves to give their lives a purpose that they can be satisfied with?

Is believing in a "reality" (God/Heaven) for which you have absolutely NO PROOF OF, really all that better than realizing that there is no ULTIMATE purpose to existence? Is tricking yourself to overcome some kind of irrational fear, better than realizing it's irrational and enjoying life for what it actually does offer?

Why do people need an ULTIMATE purpose to life anyway? What does it matter if you are not really the special twinkle in the eye of a magical super-man? Isn't realizing that your purpose is whatever you want it to be better and more honest and more noble and more humbling than believing that you are the special interest of a supernatural father figure in the sky?

[brandx1138]

From all that I have seen and from all that I have heard, I cannot believe that one's answers to the Big Questions and one's morality are in any way related. An outright criminal may be a God-fearing Christian. An atheist may be sanctimonious. A Buddhist may believe in profiteering. A Jew may desire genocide (of others). So many conflicting moralities stem from Christianity because so many cultures count it as their religion. But do you know what we all share in common? We all believe that we are right. Christians know that what they believe is right. Taoists know that what they believe is right. Atheists know that refusing to just believe is right. Even Agnostics know that not knowing, not deciding, is right. I know that everyone is both right and wrong. And I know that I am right.

But at some point we have to come to a consensus about what we can consider to be "right" with regard to a productive society, wouldn't you agree? This is why the Founding Fathers (who got a lot of their ideas from the Greek politician Solon) were able to construct the best form of government thus far (which is obviously not without its problems). When I say the "best" I mean that it tries to serve everyone as equally as possible -- it's the best from all sides of the argument, which is usually trying to find the common ground and remaining neutral when necessary. And that speaks to your point. I agree that we all think that we are right, but there are some inherent truths that have yet to be "debunked". At the heart of a productive society is the Golden Rule, wouldn't you agree? We have the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, but if we aren't forced to do so or we can find a way to avoid it and think selfishly, we will. It is in our nature. So realizing our nature, we can find ways to temper it, to reduce chaos and misery and increase peace and happiness.

All that I am saying is that there should be no public enforcement or assenting of religion, because history has proven its divisiveness and self-centeredness. What I am in favor of is the democratic thought of separation of church and state. Now i think that prospect is the "right" choice. Yes, it's subjective -- all of reality can be argued to be subjective -- but which reality lends itself to the most consistent form of social stability, productive results, and the least amount of harm for everyone? Wouldn't you agree that no matter what, that is the most beneficial -- and therefore "right" -- situation for life? I agree with you that it should be a neutral environment on the "Big questions", but the only reason I call myself an atheist is because I am in the minority opposition to a majority which seeks to tip the balance of neutrality on those issues. I would not be voicing my "debunking" opinions if it were not for a society that is in danger of not being neutral on those issues.

I am on this forum therefore as a protest to what I think is "wrong" with our society, but more so as a test to challenge my opinions.

[Assent]

What I wish to tell you is that there is a difference between organized religion and the religious.

Organized religion is, at its core, an association based on certain moral and ethical beliefs that wishes to impose its beliefs upon as many others as possible; how far the organization will go depends primarily upon who is in charge. This organization does not have to be religious; any idea will do. Communism. Fascism. Democracy. Christianity. Islam. Universal Suffrage. Civil Rights. The Black Panthers. If religion leaves, it will be replaced with something else. Whether it is good or bad depends on you, and also on who is in charge of the new movement.

The fact that such an organization also tries to answer the Big Questions is what distinguishes it, and makes it organized religion instead of something else. Such a distinction does not make it better or worse than its companions, though it does usually act as a great enticement for many.

I guess what I'm saying is that all of humanity cannot, will not, and perhaps should not agree to a single set of morals or ethics. It causes wars, hatred, spite, and general disagreement as it stands, but this can be seen as a good thing. If our morals were homogenous, they would stagnate. Perhaps slavery would still be considered good, or the debasement of women. Perhaps something we do now will be considered distasteful in the future.

Our disagreement here seems to come from our differing uses of the if/then clause. You see the answers to the Big Questions that some get as leading to the morals you object to. I say, however, that the morals that some have make them alter their answers to the Big Questions, and that by providing these answers they entice others to share their morals.

[brandx1138]

What I wish to tell you is that there is a difference between organized religion and the religious.

Organized religion is, at its core, an association based on certain moral and ethical beliefs that wishes to impose its beliefs upon as many others as possible; how far the organization will go depends primarily upon who is in charge. This organization does not have to be religious; any idea will do. Communism. Fascism. Democracy. Christianity. Islam. Universal Suffrage. Civil Rights. The Black Panthers. If religion leaves, it will be replaced with something else. Whether it is good or bad depends on you, and also on who is in charge of the new movement.

The fact that such an organization also tries to answer the Big Questions is what distinguishes it, and makes it organized religion instead of something else. Such a distinction does not make it better or worse than its companions, though it does usually act as a great enticement for many.

I guess what I'm saying is that all of humanity cannot, will not, and perhaps should not agree to a single set of morals or ethics. It causes wars, hatred, spite, and general disagreement as it stands, but this can be seen as a good thing. If our morals were homogenous, they would stagnate. Perhaps slavery would still be considered good, or the debasement of women. Perhaps something we do now will be considered distasteful in the future.

Our disagreement here seems to come from our differing uses of the if/then clause. You see the answers to the Big Questions that some get as leading to the morals you object to. I say, however, that the morals that some have make them alter their answers to the Big Questions, and that by providing these answers they entice others to share their morals.

I agree that morals are not set in stone. There is a constantly changing zeitgeist in that respect. I do not think that we as a society should agree to a set of morals or ethics and NOT have the ability to revise them as needed, but we should have an open discussion and debate about what laws to impose based on the zeitgeist of the time.

Yes, there is a difference between the religious and the organized religion. You can have religious people without organized religion, but you cannot have organized religion without the religious. So I feel that my argument should be with the foundation (the religious) of what I see to be the problem (organized religion). Now, am I pointing fingers before looking in the mirror? No, I know that I do not have all the answers, but I feel that one of the greatest answers is debate, not silence.

I think "dogma" is a better word to describe what you mean by the "organization". As long as an organization is not transparent and humble, not willing to allow itself to be criticized and debated, it ceases to be "right". But am I dogmatic in that statement? No, I am certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise on that statement as well.

I agree that morals precede religious doctrine, not the other way around. However, religion offers a cover and a free pass to those who think their religion gives them their morals, because they believe their religion is inherently correct. You seem to define "religion" as any set of principles or beliefs. If that's what you want to use the term as, that's fine. But when I speak of religion and the religious, I'm talking about ideas that are borne out of faith and devotion to the supernatural. And I define the "supernatural" as that which has no empirical data to support it and can not even be falsified as a claim, therefore it has no importance on the reality shared by all. It is a personal matter, and therefore should remain as such.

My effort here is to understand that mindset further than I have already discovered it. I have an opinionated stance, and I'm here to see if I am wrong in my assessment. I would also like to say that I am quite enjoying this discussion, because it's forcing me to think, so thank you.

Can you name me some benefits of being religious as opposed to not being? Let's bring it back to the OP. Do you see the impetus for religious thinking as being a way to give meaning to life and to overcome our fears such as death and helplessness? Would a world without supernatural, superstitious, uncritical thinking be such a bad thing?

[Assent]

I too, enjoy a good debate. It helps me feel out my beliefs, and express them in the best fashion.

Can you name me some benefits of being religious as opposed to not being?

My point here is that there are no benefits to being religious or not religious. Nor are there penalties. They both simply are, and if the choice were made without organized groups interfering one way or another, then there would be no distinction.

Let's bring it back to the OP. Do you see the impetus for religious thinking as being a way to give meaning to life and to overcome our fears such as death and helplessness?

I see the questions of life, death, and relative importance as needing answers. Your answers determine what, if any, religion you belong to. And just like how refusing to make a choice is still a choice, refusing to answer these questions is still an answer. If you took that option, you would most likely be labeled as non-religious.

Would a world without supernatural, superstitious, uncritical thinking be such a bad thing?

Good luck finding such a place.
Superstition does have a cause, however, and one that should not be removed: it is an early form of the scientific method.
Example: I, a hunter-gatherer, stub my toe on my way back to the village. I curse the gods for my troubles. Suddenly, lightning strikes the tree five paces away. Since I have no understanding of what lightning is, what ions are, or why lightning strikes, I must assume that my cursing of the gods has led to them threatening me with death.

The problem with superstition comes when it is held to after a better explanation is given. The older and larger an organization is, the longer it will hold to its old explanations, because it fears losing its core membership. But do not despair; it always changes in the end. Have "faith."

Uncritical thinking, on the other hand, comes from a difference in priority. If you don't truly care about something, you don't think about it. Most members of a religion are simply members by way of inertia; they can't be bothered to think about why they believe the way they do, they have better things to worry about! A possible exception may be Islam; having to pray five times every day is a great way to force someone to think about something.

Oh, and

However, religion offers a cover and a free pass to those who think their religion gives them their morals, because they believe their religion is inherently correct.

that's what I meant by "good enticement." Nothing like certain and specific answers to the unanswerable to get the membership to believe you about moral values.

[QED]

I'm enjoying the conversation you've got going on here Assent and brandx1138. Doesn't it demonstrate just how much of religion is "memetic engineering" to use Dennett's terminology? Superstitions can crop-up anywhere -- and but for the fact that I've experienced them forming in my own mind from time to time and have understood why, they can seem very real; as though they truly were the product of "higher forces" operating outside the confines of our minds. If not all superstition is "real" then how do we know, for example, that it isn't all "fake"?

Put another way, if we had no examples of faux superstition (like my pair of unlucky socks!), we might be left with no other choice than to conclude that the world is full of supernatural intervention. Dennett calls these free-floating rationales -- ideas that can't be disproved through their particular construction rather than because of their merit. Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in God (as fisherking appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge.

[Fisherking]

Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in God (as fisherking appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge

"Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Goat]

Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in God (as fisherking appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge

"Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Of course, there is a HUGE difference between what QED would claim and what you claim. That is.. of course.. the what QED claims can be put to a repeatable test. Your claims can not. Therein lies the entire difference. One viewpoint relies on being able to have repeatable tests. The other relies on not being able to be tested at all.

[Fisherking]

Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in God (as fisherking appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge

"Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Of course, there is a HUGE difference between what QED would claim and what you claim. That is.. of course.. the what QED claims can be put to a repeatable test. Your claims can not. Therein lies the entire difference. One viewpoint relies on being able to have repeatable tests. The other relies on not being able to be tested at all.

What test might that be?

[Goat]

Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in God (as fisherking appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge

"Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales that we nonetheless know to be false should be reason enough to reject anyone else's -- but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly.

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Of course, there is a HUGE difference between what QED would claim and what you claim. That is.. of course.. the what QED claims can be put to a repeatable test. Your claims can not. Therein lies the entire difference. One viewpoint relies on being able to have repeatable tests. The other relies on not being able to be tested at all.

What test might that be?

For just about anything. For example... why the wind blows, the rain falls, why evolution happens (despite your rejection of the evidence). How the world works at a matter of fact.

[QED]

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

A free-floating rationale is one which is not subject to disconfirmation. Is evolution of this nature? Of course not. Evidence that would refute evolution and support biblical genesis has already been predicted but not found. Can this be turned around? No, after all, what concievable evidence could there be that God did not create whatever it is that ultimately gives rise to methodological naturalism? Several notable physicists are currently leading a campaign to depreciate string theory on the basis that it has become a free-floating rationale -- something that is unthinkable in your imaginary mirror-image world of religious beliefs.

The asymmetry is unmistakable. It's difficult (but not impossible) to imagine a theist who doesn't want to believe in the existence of God. But anyone properly employing the scientific method is forced to questioning their beliefs (because if they don't, others will to further their standing and to keep scientists in continued employment). This puts all inherent bias at totally opposite ends of the extremes as per the essential characterisation and distinction of (and between) science and religion.