What is Religion for?

[BigApplePi]

I observe there is a "Faith and Spirituality" thread category and a "Philosophy" thread category. I'm not interested for this thread in possessing or obtaining a faith or gaining spirituality. That is another topic. The question is, what are those two things about? I'm calling them philosophical topics because they are values even though they may not be your values.

What are they for? Millions, if not billions of people have some religion. This is not for nothing. This doesn't come out of the blue. There has to be a cause. Not all these people are stupid ... or are they? Region MUST have some value to those multitudes. What is it?

Added: There are people outside of religion; there are those who have doubts or are searching and move in and out of a particular religion. Yet there are those who are stable. They belong to a religion and keep it. How could this be?

 

[Cognisant]

It gives people a sense of meaning, a reassurance that they're not just a fleeting speck of irrelevance, that there's more going on than what's in their mundane lives.

 

[Oblivious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc

 

[own8ge]

To verbalize that what reaches our literal communicative limits?

 

[Architect]

It's a nice distraction from a pesky reality.

 

[Hawkeye]

It is to help cope with that which we do not understand.

It's no different from magic if you think about it.

 

[SLushhYYY]

Its an amazing sensational feeling to actually believe you know it all, and that somebody is looking out for you. Pure self delusion that comes with comfort, happiness etc leaving all the ignorant, societal destroying aspects aside.

 

[BigApplePi]

If religion is for "feeling important rather than a speck of dust", poses explanations we don't have, or helps us feel taken care of, why the hell do people of religion collect themselves in churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or why do they bother trying to recruit others to their way of doing when they could do all that in the privacy of their rooms?

 

[Synthetix]

On an individual level- making sense of what you don't understand.
On an organizational/corporate level- control and influence.

 

[Cognisant]

If religion is for "feeling important rather than a speck of dust", poses explanations we don't have, or helps us feel taken care of, why the hell do people of religion collect themselves in churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or why do they bother trying to recruit others to their way of doing when they could do all that in the privacy of their rooms?

For validation, the same reason we come here to discuss our thoughts and theories.

 

[Bonbonnom]

religion is the realization that we can not exist without being created and thus there must be a creator, which has been corrupted by a lack of understanding of this concept and warped into idolatry, paganism, multi-theistic religions, and a lack of basic reasoning and culturally enforced distaste.

 

[kvothe27]

It provides a social organization and rules/guidelines/commandments that help or are meant to organize patterns of behavior conducive for overall happiness. Community, meditative practice (prayer, mindfulness, etc.), loving your neighbors (helps to dissipate emotions deleterious to mental health), and so on. The more anthropomorphized aspects of religions provide an easy way to order the mind in such a way to continue these practices. For example, they can provide incentives, which can often end up being counter productive (i.e. preaching too much about hellfire) . . .

All of these things can be well and good, but are easily infiltrated by political considerations, which pollute the practices and, in all likelihood or, at least, in some cases, distort the purposes. Tribal behavior, cultural neuroses/traditions, etc., lend a particular flavor to the pattern of behavior, but, nonetheless, the pattern can be abstracted away.

Humans, being who they are, often get stuck on the specifics, get bogged down by tribal mentalities, their neuroses end up mutilating its practices, or try to justify their socially detrimental impulses by using the incentives for such purposes.

Religion is obviously full of contradictions, confusion, and obviously the result of our lack of understanding of human psychology. Obviously, it can be infinitely helpful to someone but can be extremely destructive as well.

It's actually interesting to watch scientists trying to fit religious patterns of behavior into their practices, such as meditating on the grand scale of the universe (its analogue in Buddhism would be feeling a oneness with the universe). Richard Dawkins strikes me very much as being a religious figure, and he's continuing an enduring tradition of preaching to the heathens (the scientifically illiterate, in this case).

As to your last question, I would conjecture that those who are more stable in a religion, have particularized their need satisfaction to that religion, have a certain personality more conducive to stability within some religious organization, and so on. IMO, Buddhism is a better fit, by and large, for introverts, while something like Mormonism is a better fit for extraverts. Then again, it really all depends on how it is practiced. There are so many variables involved (friends, trends, cultural pressures, personality, family relationships, etc.).

 

[gilliatt]

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy. American conservative's claim that religion is the base of capitalism. They think they can have their altruist ethics and capitalism at the same time. Well, Catholicism and communism cooperate pretty damn good, they put off the fight, the power struggle for later. Is there a difference between the encyclical's philosophy & communism? Is that religion is for pushing the Marxism agenda. And Christian Socialism as of the last few decades, is merely a variety of State Socialism. State Socialism & Christian Socialism, it is difficult to draw the line between them, or individual Socialism. One more point, you could not imagine religion as an isolated phenomenon, standing by itself. I mean no one man formed religion, it was the doing of society is a whole. It was not an individual creation but a form of thought by society. Kind of a 'social gathering', man as social. Religion does not answer the based questions of life, for instance, why is one man rich, another poor? War and peace? Violence and justice. No, man has to look elsewhere for these answers.
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind."

 

[BigApplePi]

It provides a social organization and rules/guidelines/commandments that help or are meant to organize patterns of behavior conducive for overall happiness. Community, meditative practice (prayer, mindfulness, etc.), loving your neighbors (helps to dissipate emotions deleterious to mental health), and so on. The more anthropomorphized aspects of religions provide an easy way to order the mind in such a way to continue these practices. For example, they can provide incentives, which can often end up being counter productive (i.e. preaching too much about hellfire) . . .

All of these things can be well and good, but are easily infiltrated by political considerations, which pollute the practices and, in all likelihood or, at least, in some cases, distort the purposes. Tribal behavior, cultural neuroses/traditions, etc., lend a particular flavor to the pattern of behavior, but, nonetheless, the pattern can be abstracted away.

Humans, being who they are, often get stuck on the specifics, get bogged down by tribal mentalities, their neuroses end up mutilating its practices, or try to justify their socially detrimental impulses by using the incentives for such purposes.

Religion is obviously full of contradictions, confusion, and obviously the result of our lack of understanding of human psychology. Obviously, it can be infinitely helpful to someone but can be extremely destructive as well.

It's actually interesting to watch scientists trying to fit religious patterns of behavior into their practices, such as meditating on the grand scale of the universe (its analogue in Buddhism would be feeling a oneness with the universe). Richard Dawkins strikes me very much as being a religious figure, and he's continuing an enduring tradition of preaching to the heathens (the scientifically illiterate, in this case).

As to your last question, I would conjecture that those who are more stable in a religion, have particularized their need satisfaction to that religion, have a certain personality more conducive to stability within some religious organization, and so on. IMO, Buddhism is a better fit, by and large, for introverts, while something like Mormonism is a better fit for extraverts. Then again, it really all depends on how it is practiced. There are so many variables involved (friends, trends, cultural pressures, personality, family relationships, etc.).

This is along the lines of what I was looking for. Well put.

Religion (not the private ones) builds up social relationships. It has within it that it is doing a good thing, although that can be questioned. Try and tear that down and there is going to be great resistance.

All social organizations resist entropy because energy is derived from the individuals who participate. In the case of religion, some of the components can go wrong. This causes individuals to weaken support. This doesn't mean they will condemn the entire religion. It's just that enthusiasm will decrease. One can see this in the case of Catholics where some of their respected officials were found to be immoral.

This can be generalized to government where at first it might be respected and accepted, when leadership fails individuals lose heart.

Notice that each religion has unique characteristics. If one belongs to that religion, they are accepted and help identify one member with another. "We are comrades pulling together." If one doesn't belong, those characteristics may seem peculiar and irrational. That causes outsiders to look askance or make fun or or even condemn members.

A member of a religion may find peace, social contacts, an explanation for the mysteries of life and help to achieve a good life. Questioning the origins isn't necessary unless one is a theologian. In fact part of the religion ritual may be to affirm belief. By "belief" I mean acceptance, not syllogistic rationality.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If religion is for "feeling important rather than a speck of dust", poses explanations we don't have, or helps us feel taken care of, why the hell do people of religion collect themselves in churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or why do they bother trying to recruit others to their way of doing when they could do all that in the privacy of their rooms?

Humans are social creatures, and the idea of letting people live by themselves to think whatever they want in the comfort of their own home is a fairly recent idea.

 

[John_Mann]

Make money, social and political power and satisfy the Fi function regarding death. And in a very peculiar way religion keeps some nuts under control. I think the future will have no space to organized religion as we know it. The religion in future will be something about loose christianity, cheap mysticism and ufology mixed up.

Religion it's a kind of art. It can't be eliminated as long as we remains human beings.

 

[crippli]

I would think it is for different reasons. For some it gives power. For some it gives emotional calm(there is a master). For others it is a search(to have something to do). For others it provides a system to operate by(many need that). And probably more. A well thought out religion comes off to me to have many uses.

 

[kvothe27]

This is along the lines of what I was looking for. Well put.

Thank you. It took me a while to identify the pattern.

Religion (not the private ones) builds up social relationships. It has within it that it is doing a good thing, although that can be questioned. Try and tear that down and there is going to be great resistance.

All social organizations resist entropy because energy is derived from the individuals who participate. In the case of religion, some of the components can go wrong. This causes individuals to weaken support. This doesn't mean they will condemn the entire religion. It's just that enthusiasm will decrease. One can see this in the case of Catholics where some of their respected officials were found to be immoral.

It is interesting to note that among Western nations, religion has had more staying power or seems more energized in the United States. Some have argued that this is due to, not only the lack of a state-established religion, but also the competition among religions that has ensued. This has allowed religion to resist entropy, which, based on my understanding, has been something religion has suffered throughout much of Europe.

Indeed, the religion whose flavor most suits the United States is Mormonism. One only need take note at how it is organized to realize this. It is efficient, extroverted, has salesmen (missionaries), and is, in a lot of ways, run like a business. It's a very competitive religion and is extremely successful because of it.

The competitive nature of religions helps keep them from becoming stagnant. Stories via movies of the bravery and comradery experienced by some missionaries is one way in which Mormonism continues to grow. Members use the religion as an instrument/conduit for their creativity and the resulting success is really interesting.

This can be generalized to government where at first it might be respected and accepted, when leadership fails individuals lose heart.

A good orator and good leadership can keep propaganda moving speedily and can increase the frequency many members feel group ecstasy -- that experience where individual boundaries are blurred and a feeling of oneness is achieved. Think of the fundamentalist orators pretending to heal physical ailments with members of the audience standing enraptured with their arms in the air. Good leadership can also allocate resources effectively to continually expand the religion.

Notice that each religion has unique characteristics. If one belongs to that religion, they are accepted and help identify one member with another. "We are comrades pulling together." If one doesn't belong, those characteristics may seem peculiar and irrational. That causes outsiders to look askance or make fun or or even condemn members.

The religion is meeting their needs, so they become increasingly fond of it. Attempts to contradict that religion can be as futile as separating two people in love or disbanding a close family. The better the religion meets a group member's needs, the stronger the psychological hold. Giving a religious member a hard time can be just as fun/interesting as giving someone in love a hard time.

A member of a religion may find peace, social contacts, an explanation for the mysteries of life and help to achieve a good life. Questioning the origins isn't necessary unless one is a theologian. In fact part of the religion ritual may be to affirm belief. By "belief" I mean acceptance, not syllogistic rationality.

It gives people a place in a community wherein people have specializations. People who like research and theory will be more likely to be theologians, I'd imagine. People who like to organize social activities will do so.

If we assume that humans have ambivalent feelings about many things, I'd say many religious rituals affirm belief. It is meant to ameliorate the doubt many members will have. They can alienate the latent potential for doubt, project it onto others, and try to convert them. Thus, by converting others, they attempt to discard their own doubt. This last part I'm getting from the Adjusted American.

When engaged in prayer and the person praying has an anthropomorphized God in mind, the resulting good feelings that tend to accompany meditation will be attributed to this God. Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). So, instead of realizing that the good feelings are the result of the meditative nature of prayer, they attribute it to some all-loving ruler of the universe, the holy ghost, or something else supernatural.

 

[The Introvert]

I agree with both of Cog's posts:

It gives people a sense of meaning, a reassurance that they're not just a fleeting speck of irrelevance, that there's more going on than what's in their mundane lives.

Simply because if people lose the urge to answer the big questions, we lose the urge to give a shit about anything.

And:

For validation, the same reason we come here to discuss our thoughts and theories.

Although I would also argue that for some (or many), people legitimately believe that incorporating religion into your life will enhance the quality of it (or at least the perception of quality). It definitely does have its uses.

If you would like to combine both of these answers into one, then this would be your best bet. It's the reply by kvothe27, and is close to the best answer you're going to find here.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Ya know, there are a lot of rationalization kinds of replies here (which is no surprise given the overwhelming number of atheists on the thread). But...

Consider the possibility that there's more to, say, God (by which I don't mean the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other God, I just mean this in some somewhat generic "creator of the universe" sense), than any of the particular religions envisions. Consider the possibility that your run-of-the-mill adherent is in fact, just looking for comfort or meaning or whatever, but, there's more going on "behind the scenes" than they (or even most of their leaders) realize.

Suppose that there is in fact some more profound truth behind what those folks think. Also, suppose there is in fact some kind of sentience (whether or not its conscious) that was in some way connected to the universe's coming to be (or coming into the form it began taking on 14.5 billion years ago).

Suppose it's possible that, despite all the physics and logic and all that, that there really is *something* about consciousness or sentience or whatever that permits some kind of transcendent purpose, meaning, or whatever else into the lives of some.

Why not?

(Yep, I'm looking for someone to come to the defense of the non-atheist position.)

 

[The Introvert]

Consider the possibility that there's more to, say, God (by which I don't mean the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other God, I just mean this in some somewhat generic "creator of the universe" sense), than any of the particular religions envisions. Consider the possibility that your run-of-the-mill adherent is in fact, just looking for comfort or meaning or whatever, but, there's more going on "behind the scenes" than they (or even most of their leaders) realize.

You mean that there actually is God, and that God is calling out to humans to understand him and have a relationship with him. Whether or not we as humans understand it is a different story?

Suppose that there is in fact some more profound truth behind what those folks think.

I have no qualms about this. In fact, I even personally lean towards this view. There's a reason that religion/ the belief in a God has been around so long, and it's not because people simply want to believe there is something more. There are characteristics of people and our culture today that are pointed out and explained beautifully by a lot of Scripture. Definitely makes you wonder...

(Yep, I'm looking for someone to come to the defense of the non-atheist position.)

I seem to hold that role regularly here.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: What is Religion for? Theistic View

Also, suppose there is in fact some kind of sentience (whether or not its conscious) that was in some way connected to the universe's coming to be (or coming into the form it began taking on 14.5 billion years ago).


(Yep, I'm looking for someone to come to the defense of the non-atheist position.)

@Vrecknidj. Here is an easy defense.

I assume we know we can't determine how small we can go: atoms, sub-atomic particles, string theory. If we can't go there, how is that different from how big we can go?

14.5 billion years ago is nothing. These time scales are all relative and that COULD be a short interval if things are bigger than that. There is no reason to reject why some intelligent entity couldn't go about playing with big tools and toss out a creation which is claimed as a good thing simply because that's all we see.

Now somebody with foresight could ask, "Where did this entity come from?" Same argument. What if we can go small forever and the Planck constant limit is just arrogance? Then why can't we go big forever? That provides plenty of opportunity for a creative entity to arise.

After all if we forget for awhile about these outrageous scales, humans themselves are creative and have done creative things. We have no trouble speculating on how they did that.

Take THAT you atheists.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why not?

To put it simply; because there's no reason to. I mean, it's a fun thought, but there's no reason to suppose it actually is the case.

 

[Words]

If you look at correlations of HDI(Human dev't) or economic dev't and level of religiosity(in countries or regions), you'll see a negative relationship. Now, I just need to look for an infograph...

Anyways, what this means is that, from a macro point of view(holism), religion or level of religiosity is a function of economic dev't. If we apply this to the micro-level, then it means that individuals choose religion to withstand the reality of the scarcity of their personal resources.

 

[RubberDucky451]

I've never seen religion as a method for learning information about the world. People who view it as such usually compare it against science.

Religion gives meaning and motion to life. Everyone has their own "religion" or meaning, unless they're a nihilist.

 

[AnnaC]

Religion is sometimes born from the imaginations of those trying to reassure themselves that their existence is not futile, and sometimes it is born from philosophy which people impress upon others by threatening them with burning forever after they die. Religion also attempts to explain the existence of the soul (which I myself believe in), and the cause of the world's creation, and of the universe's creation. It is also a means of unifying like-minded individuals to form a single group more capable of achieving larger tasks - for instance, overrunning and converting the world to their cause, or reaching out to help those less fortunate.

That's what I think, anyway.

 

[RaBind]

Religion has been existent for a long time. I think it was Durkheim? who studied aboriginal Australian tribes. He wanted to see what kept society together in early societies. He concluded that rituals and religious/superstitious beliefs helped keep society together.
Another sociologist (cant be bothered to find his name) said that rituals and religious/superstitious beliefs helped people cope with situations, where they faced uncontrollable risks. I.E. tribesmen were happy to fish around the shore, however when they crossed to more dangerous areas to fish, they would perform rituals to protect themselves.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I've never seen religion as a method for learning information about the world. People who view it as such usually compare it against science.

This is usually a problem, too. Unfortunately, comparing empirical to teleological enterprises will often result in problems. Scientific questions should be addressed with scientific answers, religious questions should be addressed with religious answers. The Bible isn't a guidebook on how to get to the Moon or develop antibiotics, or whatever, and people who think that the Bible can answer scientific questions (or vice versa) are making categorical errors.

Religion gives meaning and motion to life. Everyone has their own "religion" or meaning, unless they're a nihilist.

I'm not sure. Religion might be a type of this, but I'm not sure.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: What is Religion Rationally for?

But is that rational?

Religion has been existent for a long time. I think it was Durkheim? who studied aboriginal Australian tribes. He wanted to see what kept society together in early societies. He concluded that rituals and religious/superstitious beliefs helped keep society together.

If keeping together becomes important for well-being, anything that signals that beomes a rational reason. In the western world:
1. A handshake
2. A signed legal contract
3. Wear the same funny hat
"Swear to God and hope to die."

None of those qualifies as proof of sticking together as anyone can rebel. It is a social promise.

Ritual might be self-deceiving if one aspires to be a scientist, but maybe not if one is trying to psyche oneself up.

Another sociologist (cant be bothered to find his name) said that rituals and religious/superstitious beliefs helped people cope with situations, where they faced uncontrollable risks. I.E. tribesmen were happy to fish around the shore, however when they crossed to more dangerous areas to fish, they would perform rituals to protect themselves.

When the ritual is performed, that doesn't constitute proof of protection, but it does reinforce a commitment to be safety oriented by behaving as one of the team. It is rational to seek protection. It's like singing the Nation Anthem of one's country. Do that in public and one has a measure of protection whether one believes or not. That is reasonable.

 

[Vrecknidj]

What is Religion for?

Here's another angle (I didn't want to do both in my previous post).

Teleology is the study of purposes. So, it's the study of what things are for. You asked what religion is for.

This is an interesting question. What is math for? What are clouds for? What are mountains for? What are atoms for? What is time for? What is space for?

If we consider human-made things (chairs, televisions, etc.) we rather quickly notice that their creation aimed at an end, an objective. From a sort of "ideal" or "perfect" perspective, then, that aim is what that thing is for. We may, in fact, use such a tool for something else. I've used a pair of scissors for a paperweight, but that's not what scissors are for in that sense of "what is it for?"

If we consider non-human-made things (hence my string of questions the paragraph before the previous paragraph), things get a lot murkier.

So, if humans created religion (and they might have), then "what is religion for" is rather like "what are scissors for." If humans didn't create religion (and this is at least worth exploring), then "what is religion for" might be more like "what is math for" or "what is the universe for."

Further, even if religion was created by people, it doesn't follow that what some say religion is about was created by people. We may have decided to use "5" or "V" or "IIIII" or some other symbols to represent the idea of five. But, we didn't create five. Similarly, even if we created the religions, it doesn't follow that we created God.

Just something to consider.

 

[h0bby1]

originally, religion is mostly a branch of philosophy, all religion originate from philosophy as much as science

actually it's not really possible to be scientific without being monotheist, and following the basic line of all monotheist religion, viz, that there is a constant eternal and rational organisation at play behind the universe, is that base theory behind science and monotheistic religion

actually if you understand philosopher like plato or philo of alexendria, monotheist religion make sense, it's hard to actually distinguish clearly the origin of monotheism and the origin of rationalism, they are both based on the thesis that the universe is organized with some form of intelligence, it's the basis of what all monotheist religion say, even the tao follow the same line of thoughts

the problem is more all the form of polytheistic religions, and that religion outside of monotheism, in time of the roman or egyptian was always the source of power, and was strongly involved within politics, politics being actually what is told above, to organize the city, the polis, with law, and coherency, before the republican model based on plato and rationalism, there was only the jew who were more or less trying to go in that direction, other than this, all politics was about initiation, and becoming in contact with some god of whose spirit was supposed to inspired the leader of the city

and most religion have been widely manipulated, because religion become more a matter of politics rather than actually about truth seeking, and they are more used to introduce a kind of hierarchy, to give some legitimity to people to establish law and rules, rather than actually involving the deeper inner transformation to become better from the inside throught either dialog or reflection, but more about following a hierachy

it's interesting to see the whole history of the jesuit, and how they influenced a lot the whole christian structure, with their f orm of education based on total abdication of individual will and critical thinking in favor of obeyind the hierarchy, based on some sort of personalisation of 'god' as the most powefull being, very babylonian actually, it has nothing to do with the origin of christianism

even chiristinism in itself, it's mostly bring god to earth, to materialism actually, with a living prophet who is supposed to be the 'son of god', and to represent everything there is to know, it's mostly a very gross misinterpretation of the original philosophy that is behind monotheism

 

[h0bby1]

I've never seen religion as a method for learning information about the world. People who view it as such usually compare it against science.

Religion gives meaning and motion to life. Everyone has their own "religion" or meaning, unless they're a nihilist.

it's because of this same origin of rationalism and monotheism, religion are not about providing information about the world, but providing the only thing you need to know to discover information about the world, which is that the world is organized, and obey some kind of reason or logic ,, if you don't believe this, you don't have any science possible, neither rationalism can hold any validity, and it's mostly what monotheist religion and taoism say, and zen budhism, or at least the way budhism is presented in occident, has also been a lot inspired by taoism and chinese philosophers

 

[RaBind]

Re: What is Religion Rationally for?

But is that rational?If keeping together becomes important for well-being, anything that signals that beomes a rational reason. In the western world:
1. A handshake
2. A signed legal contract
3. Wear the same funny hat
"Swear to God and hope to die."

This is a very primitive society though(before industrialization and the emphasis placed on individuality), where people had to live in societies with social order in order to survive. Even now people who need security and a sense of community are probably (speculation) more likely to be religious.

None of those qualifies as proof of sticking together as anyone can rebel. It is a social promise.

Conformity is not quite as ineffective as you make it seem.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvGh_n3I_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA

Ritual might be self-deceiving if one aspires to be a scientist, but maybe not if one is trying to psyche oneself up.

When the ritual is performed, that doesn't constitute proof of protection, but it does reinforce a commitment to be safety oriented by behaving as one of the team. It is rational to seek protection. It's like singing the Nation Anthem of one's country. Do that in public and one has a measure of protection whether one believes or not. That is reasonable.

Yes, its interesting that the rituals could actually end up working, through the self-fulfilling prophecy changing the risk taking behaviours of the tribesmen. Whether the rituals actually work or not is kinda irrelevant to your question though. What answers your question about what is religion rationally for is that there is a need for those who are insecure, and religion provides that, in situations beyond the control of individuals.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Vrecknidj

Here's another angle ... .

Teleology is the study of purposes. So, it's the study of what things are for. You asked what religion is for.

Just as the past sets things up, we can say there is a future state.

...

So, if humans created religion (and they might have), then "what is religion for" is rather like "what are scissors for." If humans didn't create religion (and this is at least worth exploring), then "what is religion for" might be more like "what is math for" or "what is the universe for."

Further, even if religion was created by people, it doesn't follow that what some say religion is about was created by people. We may have decided to use "5" or "V" or "IIIII" or some other symbols to represent the idea of five. But, we didn't create five. Similarly, even if we created the religions, it doesn't follow that we created God.

Just something to consider.

The way I see it, there is something found in people that finds religion a useful thing. So while scissors might be a deliberate invention, religion probably emerged as a social form gradually. Think of Christianity being formed from Jews. Think of Protestantism being a break off the Catholic church.

 

[h0bby1]

chrisitanism is formed with a mix of stoicism, judaism and platonicism , also is said to have attracted people member of the cult of isis, femine goddess of nurturing, of universal love, charity, who was in complete opposite of the rather phalocratic value of greek and roman politics of the time who had little consideration for the common peoples, it maybe have borrowed a lot from egyptian mythology as well, with horus the judging god, and integrated also many elements of paganism, hermetism along the centuries in the local practice

 

[h0bby1]

christianism emerged in the same kind of environement as socrates, plato, stoics , judaism, etc because there was a very strong need to sanitize politics on all level, the society was using slave, all politics and access to power were conditionned by belonging to mystical initiatic school, linked with a whole lot of god pantheon, priest, high priest, oracles, the whole society was very cruel and unfair , it's how you got socrates, plato, stoics, trying to inject some moral and sanity into politics, which correspond to hellenist current from which jesus was issued

 

[Milo]

Perhaps, originally it had good intentions. Giving people security so that they can do whatever they want and have fun even in the face of their certain death in the future.

Then the system of fear took over and used the fear by stressing the rules in the religions which brought us back not to the fear of death, but then for the fear of certain eternal punishment after so that we couldn't trust God, but only obey him because if we didn't he would betray us. But that was the vengeful God.

It is all an Allegory to tell us we are playing in a game.

The game is life
The objective is fun
Fun can't be won with winning though
Because the fun relies on conquering
Conquering that that opposes one
If one has won already, then who will oppose one?
That is no fun
For when you win you lose, the game that can't be won.
Because don't you see?
The fun is found in adversity
And where can adversity be found?
When one is going against the system


The system is inside of us
It is our instincts
Our logic tries to understand the system
Then when we understand the system we flow with it
In the comfort of being one with the system
But that is not fun, nor is it even free will anymore
Because one has not conquered all, but only joined the one already conquering
There is no fun in that, your knowledge is making you win
But when you win you lose
Your fear and your freedom to choose
Because you feared the fear, you tried to learn
Once you've gotten rid of fear, then there's nothing else left for you

Now if you remember one thing
That you are ignorant of your ignorance
That uncertainty is impossible to make certain
Because you may only see the correlations and not the causations
You can know be certain you know nothing
To let the fear back in
And the adventure begin

If you understand what I am trying to say in the poem/explanation of the Truth then you will see how history keeps repeating itself. Systems defeating systems, then another system defeating that system. It is all a natural selection of systems. And when the winner can not lose he becomes an immortal, a vampire of the earth sucking the energy from the best system because of his ability to adhere with the system like a virus going for a ride inside of all the cells of the body.

Do you guys see it? The systems going into our cultures, the ones that stay strong become the winner and become the norm only because people are afraid to be different, because they are afraid of discomfort. The one's who fear are using the system to prove to you that you should stay in the system because of the safety. But in the safety you get emptiness, and in the emptiness no meaning for your own life. Dare to be different for the sake of the adventure. To not be a slave of any system even though you are a voluntary slave already whether you know it or not to whatever system you choose. If you choose an underdog system you will find adventure in the adversity you get from the other systems fighting you.

The Matrix was trying to tell everyone this
The red pill or the blue pill?


Morpheus: I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice. Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.
Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he's expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Neo: The Matrix?
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?
(Neo nods his head.)
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. (long pause, sighs) Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
(In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.)
Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. (Long pause; Neo begins to reach for the red pill) Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.
(Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water)

 

[h0bby1]

well it's the logic that the roman started of city building, to create big social entities with denser population, civic insitution, law, police, politics to bring more civilisation, with imperalist mentality, to supposedly unify more people under the banner of civilisation and progress

one would say it's even the babylonian model, of the biggest city is the more powerfull, the most in connection with the more powerfull god, with the more insight, the smartest, the more strategical, that make the biggest city linked with more powerfull god, it's same trend in egypt and those model tend toward some form of monotheism where the god start to incorporate all the lesser god into aspect of himself to be the unique ruler of all the other cities/kindgom

but those system are mostly tyranic model, the power of tyran rest on nothing, and he can be overthrown anytime because his power doesn't rest on some wisedom or philosophy that allow him to be respected by large number of people as a good leader who serve the interest of everyone

but there are also other model of politics, like the model of socrates , that advocate that politician should be more like educators, that the role of a leader is to make people better people through the notion of citizenship and activity in political life, most of the big system change after rome stem from thinkers and philosophy, the ones that last at least, like napoleon said, you can take the throne with a sword, but can't sit on it to govern

at some point system that are of tyranic nature always hinder all progress, but the nature of their education mostly based on repression, they don't allow much of the true education that allow for the system to progress, as population grow, need always more progress to accomodate with more population, increasing production and housing capacity, increasing institution efficiency etc , system that are too tyranical are too rigid to allow good smooth flow of adaptation capacity and progress

on many part of the bible actually jesus has a stance that is very close to the one of socrates, when he say i will undo the wise etc, and when he say come to me the poor etc, it's very similar to socrates who pretend he can teach geometry to slaves, much also in line with stoics who always made a point of honnor to hold that even poor people having simple life can have good sense of morality, even if they can live as hermit with very simple life style and being far away for the oligarchical elite of power, going as far as not being scared to die for accomplishing what they see as moral, having a very strong moral value that come from the inside of them, rather than because of getting some sort of glory or authority because being part of some institution or temple

now i don't know why it is jesus who sort of won the jackpot, why it's him who stayed in history, why it's to christianism that roman emperor converted, and why it's the catholic model who ruled most of the europe for the next centuries, and why it needed about 2000 more year for that the original idea of the republic that has been put in place centuries before jesus have been applied, whereas there was many great mind before jesus, who also been killed like socrates, who had much smarted system than what has been installed as the catholic church, maybe because he mannaged to create good popular support for his idea, and the roman empire was already vacillating and he came at the right time with the idea

but originally, the idea being christianism and monotheist religion are not the one of tyrannical politics, it's more the one of educating the mass, and trying to rebalance the authority and value of individual toward more consideration for people regardless of their social origin, or position in society

 

[h0bby1]

after about the fun, maybe it's also on a wider scope the expression of joy, bliss, like plato idea of good that anyone aspire to, everyone always aspire to some kind of betterment of himself, of society, even if the concept of good is very abstract, you can find this concept in most if no all civilsiation and languages, everyone aspire to something, toward some form of idealism, of utopia

the feeling of joy and bliss is often reported as the goal of most spiritual and religious or mystical practice, with plato rational idea are what can bring this feeling of beauty and joy through utopia and idealism everyone apsire to this to a degree, and it cannot be entierly triggered by force but more come by itself in the good circumstances

you can't force yourself to be happy or joyfull entierly arbitrarily, other than by some form of lobotomy, like ablation of some part of the brain like frontal lobe or something, but it's not like the whole dynamic of the mind that trigger the feeling of joy and fun is completly under conscious control

the whole goal of religion and spirituality is to understand more of human dynamic in order to create more joy and happyness, city building is supposed to garantee that optimum condition are met in the city with law and police for that maximum of people can be happy

it's not very clear if one is really happier being totally in isolation in the wild rather than being part of an organised society, it's still subject to debate if human are good naturally and it's society who is the evil, or if human are bad naturally and it's society who improve them through education, citizenship, being active in political life of the city, being exposed to some form of justice, law, and institution with supposedly some moral objective somewhere =)

 

[addictedartist]

Traditionalism, moralism , dogmatism

 

[Milo]

You may even rebel the system only in your mind to find the adventure. Or perhaps even create your own system to fight against as the underdog.

The allegory shows the causation, the fire. The cave dwellers who cast the shadows are the influencers of us--which can be anyone or anything that causes us to have an idea. The cave dweller is the common man that has not realized his ignorance--that he actually knows nothing at all. And the shadows on the wall, his own assessment of the correlations he sees. No one can actually see the fire. But they can understand that is is their own mind configuring the outside world into chemical and mechanical actions and reactions to form the world in our own image. Our eyes do not see, our mind sees what our eyes see and we see what our mind sees and from that we can predict our environment. But it is always our minds playing tricks on us, no matter how right we may think we are, we are infinitely ignorant of the ultimate causation--the "Sun." But we can get close to the "sun" by realizing our ignorance, that our minds are always playing tricks on us. Then we may escape the binds and know finally that our knowledge is all an illusion, even if it proves useful in the illusion itself.

EDIT: And yes I agree that it is education that will save people from suffering.

Also, once one has realized it fully and can practice enlightenment and/or their creativity without the dogmatism that can cage their minds, they can find happiness everywhere they go for the most part. Unless of course they are on fire or something, but even then--monks did set themselves on fire in protest. Wouldn't know what they felt though.

 

[BigApplePi]

What is Religion for? Morals, Tradition, Convenience

Traditionalism, moralism , dogmatism

Perhaps religion sets one up for living the proper life as well as coming to terms with death. Unlike worldly governments with their worldly rules and worldly punishments, religion has spiritual rules which are guidelines taken with various degrees of seriousness. When they get taken too seriously, they clash with reason. When they are taken as suggestive guidelines, they help us reasonably get along and bring us peace.

While this can be striven toward without religion, religion provides a story which presents a convenient framework.

While this can be striven toward with good leadership, good leadership can't always be found. Religion fills the gap.

 

[TimeAsylums]

pretty much agree with some anthropologists/Jung...essentially its symbolism, modernly used as a crutch...etc...uninterested.

 

[h0bby1]

You may even rebel the system only in your mind to find the adventure. Or perhaps even create your own system to fight against as the underdog.

The allegory shows the causation, the fire. The cave dwellers who cast the shadows are the influencers of us--which can be anyone or anything that causes us to have an idea. The cave dweller is the common man that has not realized his ignorance--that he actually knows nothing at all. And the shadows on the wall, his own assessment of the correlations he sees. No one can actually see the fire. But they can understand that is is their own mind configuring the outside world into chemical and mechanical actions and reactions to form the world in our own image. Our eyes do not see, our mind sees what our eyes see and we see what our mind sees and from that we can predict our environment. But it is always our minds playing tricks on us, no matter how right we may think we are, we are infinitely ignorant of the ultimate causation--the "Sun." But we can get close to the "sun" by realizing our ignorance, that our minds are always playing tricks on us. Then we may escape the binds and know finally that our knowledge is all an illusion, even if it proves useful in the illusion itself.

EDIT: And yes I agree that it is education that will save people from suffering.

Also, once one has realized it fully and can practice enlightenment and/or their creativity without the dogmatism that can cage their minds, they can find happiness everywhere they go for the most part. Unless of course they are on fire or something, but even then--monks did set themselves on fire in protest. Wouldn't know what they felt though.

socrates said 'i know one thing, is that i know nothing' . it needs great deal of knowledge to know that you know nothing

 

[BigApplePi]

socrates said 'i know one thing, is that i know nothing' . it needs great deal of knowledge to know that you know nothing

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", so Socrates watch out.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope

 

[h0bby1]

if you stop questioning, then you stop learning =)

 

[ApostateAbe]

I observe there is a "Faith and Spirituality" thread category and a "Philosophy" thread category. I'm not interested for this thread in possessing or obtaining a faith or gaining spirituality. That is another topic. The question is, what are those two things about? I'm calling them philosophical topics because they are values even though they may not be your values.

What are they for? Millions, if not billions of people have some religion. This is not for nothing. This doesn't come out of the blue. There has to be a cause. Not all these people are stupid ... or are they? Region MUST have some value to those multitudes. What is it?

Added: There are people outside of religion; there are those who have doubts or are searching and move in and out of a particular religion. Yet there are those who are stable. They belong to a religion and keep it. How could this be?

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher of religion, and he came up with an answer to this question. He said ideologies are analogous to lancet flukes, which are parasitic organisms that influence the behavior of the host in order to help themselves reproduce, like making a host ant crawl up to the top of grass in order to be eaten by sheep. It is actually not an unusual behavior. The common cold does the same, causing us to cough and sneeze in order to spread the virus. Religions are the same. They are systems of ideas that spread from person to person adapting according to whatever causes someone to recruit someone else and persuade someone else. There is no reason that religions exists, any more than there are reasons viruses exist. That isn't necessarily to denigrate religion. Not all viruses are bad. That is only to make sense of it.

 

[BigApplePi]

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher of religion, and he came up with an answer to this question. He said ideologies are analogous to lancet flukes, which are parasitic organisms ...

There is a difference between this "parasite" idea and what religion is. A parasite has a life physically separate from its host. A religion is not an organism with organic life though it has behavioral life.

Religious practice is a characteristic of an individual or group. It's like playing tennis. You wouldn't call tennis "a parasite on its host."

 

[ApostateAbe]

There is a difference between this "parasite" idea and what religion is. A parasite has a life physically separate from its host. A religion is not an organism with organic life though it has behavioral life.

Religious practice is a characteristic of an individual or group. It's like playing tennis. You wouldn't call tennis "a parasite on its host."

Thats right. I dont quite count memes as parasites, as much as the analogy to the lancet fluke may help. The best analogy would be a computer virus, because, like ideologies, they exist only as information, only computer viruses do not potentially mutate and adapt with each reproduction, so the analogy to biological viruses is still better. Religions would be most like computer viruses that somehow evolve by natural selection.

 

[BigApplePi]

What is Religion for: Meme Me

Thats right. I dont quite count memes as parasites, as much as the analogy to the lancet fluke may help. The best analogy would be a computer virus, because, like ideologies, they exist only as information, only computer viruses do not potentially mutate and adapt with each reproduction, so the analogy to biological viruses is still better. Religions would be most like computer viruses that somehow evolve by natural selection.

This is interesting. My personal belief is any religion is okay as long as it is not too destructive and if it benefits the owner. Let religions evolve to fit the times. Yet this is difficult because this evolution best happens unconsciously. If the change is too conscious, that defeats a purpose of religion which is to believe in something convenient where one can relax and not be torn apart by divided loyalties.

Think of the Catholic doctrine of natural sex confined within narrow channels where no artificial birth control is allowed. Catholics will violate this requirement under the covers. By keeping quiet, the Catholic hierarchy is happy, but Catholic members will feel either defiant or guilty. This is a tough one to evolve. The corruption is there but it's hard to say whether the doctrine is overall good or evil.