Thread: The Purpose of Religion

Hmm. That's an interesting thought, but I don't know if I completely agree. I just think that the only reason religion ever came into existence and the only reason it still exists today is simply because there are still things that science cannot (yet) explain (like you mentioned in your post). "Oh, so the theory of evolution is not (yet) perfected... hmm, that must mean that God created us all" type of thinking.

I think that's it's just the unknown around us that drives people to believe in god(s). Humans don't like the unknown.

safety and comfort

While science has advanced, there are more questions today than there were x years ago, simply because new discoveries make it more complicated. When it was just Newtonian physics all around, science was pretty damn simple... Now, we've got quantum theory and beyond. I'm sure there was a time when Newtonian mechanics felt just as bleeding edge as what's out there today, but at the same time, there was way less stuff to learn to get a good idea of how we model the world (or maybe way more of the earlier stuff).

That being said, I like to think of religion as one of the many ways of coming to terms with the unknowable.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Hmm. That's an interesting thought, but I don't know if I completely agree. I just think that the only reason religion ever came into existence and the only reason it still exists today is simply because there are still things that science cannot (yet) explain (like you mentioned in your post). "Oh, so the theory of evolution is not (yet) perfected... hmm, that must mean that God created us all" type of thinking.

I think that's it's just the unknown around us that drives people to believe in god(s). Humans don't like the unknown.

Why doesn't the unknown drive us to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters? The explanations we come up with are adopted because of their emotional appeal. Of all the infinite explanations for what we don't know about the world we have consistently chosen to believe that personal forces(gods) are behind it. The only reason we'd choose to believe in gods is for their emotional appeal.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Why doesn't the unknown drive us to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters? The explanations we come up with are adopted because of their emotional appeal. Of all the infinite explanations for what we don't know about the world we have consistently chosen to believe that personal forces(gods) are behind it. The only reason we'd choose to believe in gods is for their emotional appeal.

I think I see what you're saying. In that case, I'd like to propose that gods "exist" because there are a lot of unknowns around us, but these gods are made personable because we as emotional beings would like a higher force than can be related to (instead of just say an inanimate piece of wood or something in the sky controlling all of our fates). How about that?

The reason why we don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because the Grand Idiot who will one day believe in It has not been born yet. The FSM was introduced simply to point out the ridiculousness and the lack of any sort of logic that comes along with pretty much every religion out there.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I think I see what you're saying. In that case, I'd like to propose that gods "exist" because there are a lot of unknowns around us, but these gods are made personable because we as emotional beings would like a higher force than can be related to (instead of just say an inanimate piece of wood or something in the sky controlling all of our fates). How about that?

The reason why we don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because the Grand Idiot who will one day believe in It has not been born yet. The FSM was introduced simply to point out the ridiculousness and the lack of any sort of logic that comes along with pretty much every religion out there.

I don't find the Flying Spaghetti monster any less believable than the Judeao-Christian God. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I don't find the Flying Spaghetti monster any less believable than the Judeao-Christian God. Seriously.

I don't either. But no one is going to openly beleive in it because it was created to ridicule religion. If someone came forth with a book that looked nice and holy and claimed that it was written long ago by some prophet.. it'd be different.

But yeah. There's absolutely no logical reason to believe in it more or less than in Jesus.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

The people I know who are most religious are very emotional and most of the very emotional people I know are very religious. Maybe we need to find a new religion, one that takes into account the emotional pressures of modern life and gives our emotional selves a sense of purpose and direction.

We have one already--Scientology.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I don't either. But no one is going to openly beleive in it because it was created to ridicule religion.

That doesn't seem to be a problem.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That doesn't seem to be a problem.

You know people who believe in the FSM?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

You know people who believe in the FSM?

No, I meant not a problem because Scientology was a religion made up for a bet; kind of the same thing.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, I meant not a problem because Scientology was a religion made up for a bet; kind of the same thing.

Ahh yes. I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone takes a joke seriously (again).

Big bang is pretty creationist, if you ask me. That's one reason people can hang onto Genesis.

In my opinion, some aspects of religion are not aoubt explaining stuff. It's about giving order to society. The Ten Commandments, so to speak. "If you do this, you burn in hell." It's a way of keeping the people in order. If people don't know what controls thunder and what makes animals different, they'll believe and follow these laws, despite their self-serving ways.

Today, it still exists because of the afterlife. We can't explain what happens after death. The Ten Commandments are still as spellbinding as ever, for that reason alone.

In the olden days, religion=order. Today, religion=comfort. In politics religion=bogus controversy.

Originally Posted by Abra

Big bang is pretty creationist, if you ask me. That's one reason people can hang onto Genesis.

In my opinion, some aspects of religion are not aoubt explaining stuff. It's about giving order to society. The Ten Commandments, so to speak. "If you do this, you burn in hell." It's a way of keeping the people in order. If people don't know what controls thunder and what makes animals different, they'll believe and follow these laws, despite their self-serving ways.

Today, it still exists because of the afterlife. We can't explain what happens after death. The Ten Commandments are still as spellbinding as ever, for that reason alone.

In the olden days, religion=order. Today, religion=comfort. In politics religion=bogus controversy.

I can agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I wouldn't write religion off as simply fairy tales and mechanisms of control. Religious symbols provide people with handholds on the human condition, including but not limited to mortality. Religions, and some symbol sets or belief systems we may not view as religions, serve as a UI for engaging life, the universe and everything. I don't see them as something to be shaken off or supplanted so much as refined.

Does a recently made-up religion give us "hand-hold on the human condition"? (Whatever that means.) Or does it have to be one made up a long time ago?

That is a rhetorical question. Everything you say is so meaningless. You might as well get a random word generator to write your posts, they would make as much sense.

No offense.

For religious institutions, religion is a means of control over the masses. For the individual, it exists only because of fear of the unknown, and more specifically, fear of death.

Originally Posted by skysaw

For religious institutions, religion is a means of control over the masses. For the individual, it exists only because of fear of the unknown, and more specifically, fear of death.

Why do atheists speak in such blatantly misinformed absolutes? Your assertions only require one contradiction to completely prove you wrong. I am a religious person. I study science because I have a love for the unknown and I am excited about (albeit patient for) death to see what it is like. I do not fear the unknown or death, therefore you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why do atheists speak in such blatantly misinformed absolutes? Your assertions only require one contradiction to completely prove you wrong. I am a religious person. I study science because I have a love for the unknown and I am excited about (albeit patient for) death to see what it is like. I do not fear the unknown or death, therefore you are wrong.

Your example does nothing to prove my theory wrong. I explained why religion exists not why you picked it up.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Your example does nothing to prove my theory wrong. I explained why religion exists not why you picked it up.

You claimed reasons why it exists for the individual, which didn't apply to why it exists for me, as an individual. I'm not sure how I could "pick it up" without adhering to its reasons for existence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You claimed reasons why it exists for the individual, which didn't apply to why it exists for me, as an individual. I'm not sure how I could "pick it up" without adhering to its reasons for existence.

Everybody knows that there are always exceptions. You are one of the exceptions. Just because one person (i.e. you) is religious for other reasons really doesn't prove anything wrong. It is apparent that you are clearly not a man of science, because if you were, this would not need explaining.

Out of curiosity, why does religion exist for you? Please post something coherent - I am genuinely interested.

He who denies evolution obviously hasn't seen the history of religion:

Polytyheistic, super strict -> Polytheistic, leanient -> monotheistic, strict -> monotheistic, leanient

Guess what the next phase is.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

He who denies evolution obviously hasn't seen the history of religion:

Polytyheistic, super strict -> Polytheistic, leanient -> monotheistic, strict -> monotheistic, leanient

Guess what the next phase is.

Strict Atheism?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Strict Atheism?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Everybody knows that there are always exceptions. You are one of the exceptions. Just because one person (i.e. you) is religious for other reasons really doesn't prove anything wrong. It is apparent that you are clearly not a man of science, because if you were, this would not need explaining.

Out of curiosity, why does religion exist for you? Please post something coherent - I am genuinely interested.

Honestly, I feel no strong desire to respond to any question you may have. You have proven yourself extremely bigoted, narrow minded, offensive, intolerant, and shamelessly ignorant in many threads and I do not feel compelled to explain myself to a person such as you, nor carry on any sort of conversation with you at all. Out of all of the bigoted atheists on this forum, you are one that I have never seen contributing anything new, beyond insults, to conversations regarding religion. I'm posting this so you know there is a specific reason why I ignore everything you say from this point on. Feel free to apply whatever smug, "I knew it. I'm right and you are wrong." statement to a response, with plenty of your misinformed egotistical insults tacked on for good measure; I won't be paying any attention to you anyway.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I won't be paying any attention to you anyway.

Don't you think that "pay attention to you" attitude gets that "learn about the other perspective and respond to it" ball rolling?