I am (to go against a modern trend) “religious but not spiritual”. I think religion without gods can be a good idea. People gathering to do good things and maybe have lunch, with a shared sense of purpose. Even with songs and dramatic rituals to make our weird little subconscious minds happy, because life is better with that than without. I do what I can to follow the parts of what Jesus said that are compatible with the obvious non-existence of gods, and the parts of the Bible that seem valuable to me - and I ignore the rest. I guess I should join the Humanist Society, but there’s a church near me and it works out OK. Cognitive dissonance is fun.
I wonder how many religious people are actually like me, attending a church because it is somewhere to belong and somewhere where humans matter to each other, and who actually would drop the ridiculous claims if they didn’t feel under pressure to conform.
And I think Humanist Societies (etc) often ignore the psychological reasons that humans get together in groups, or perhaps are embarrassed that we want to believe something, that we want a special shared experience, that we want rituals and ceremonies and other subconscious gobbledygook, and that we do not stop wanting them after we discover that the big man in the sky was a hoax. Sometimes I think they see “psychological” and try to chop it down to just “logical” - but every time you separate the word like that, you’re leaving a lonely “psycho” to fend for himself.
I think “God” is nothing but a subtopic of psychology, and I think in that sense it can sometimes turn out to be a good thing. It obviously can be a very bad thing too, even if viewed as only a feature of psychology. (For example, as already mentioned, some of the dangerous psychological problems involve God.)
If I say I’m religious (which I obviously am), many religious people get the wrong idea. And if I say I’m a hardcore atheist (which I also am), pretty much everyone else gets the wrong idea.
I reject your hypothesis. I don’t believe all, or even most, or even many, religions require one to believe blindly, with no evidence. Trust in God, sure. Believe while avoiding any evidence? Heck no. I’m not even sure where you get that idea from.
I reject this hypothesis, too. I have run into devout people trying to use science to prove God exists, but I think that’s a very small fraction of the devout. So, why do some people do that? Lots of reasons that have already been given, but also, people are diverse. If you look at enough people, you’ll find some doing most anything.
To be fair, it is possible that the OP lives in an area where the most sickening and egregious forms of so-called “Christianity” are common. A lot of harm is done in the name of God, and it’s irresponsible to minimize it. But there’s also a distinct possibility of some straw-man stuff going on.
When I was in college, in the 1980s, I was a big fan of various Marvel comic books, particularly the X-Men.
One summer afternoon, I was the only person at home in the house that I was renting, along with several friends. There was a knock at the door – I opened the door, and saw a woman on the porch, wearing a conservative dress, with a little boy (maybe 5 or 6 years old) with her. She looked at me, very hurriedly mumbled something about Jesus, shoved a pamphlet in my hand, grabbed the boy’s hand, and practically ran down the stairs.
I was pretty bewildered, until I realized that I was wearing an X-Men t-shirt – specifically, a shirt with a picture of Nightcrawler on it. I’m pretty certain that she thought it was a picture of the Devil. (And, ironically enough, Nightcrawler was one of the few Marvel superheroes who was overtly depicted as being Christian.)
I got married in the Ethical Culture Society (with no mention of any god) so I understand where you are coming from. I don’t belong to any of these since I wouldn’t join any church which would have me for a member. [/Groucho]
Aren’t there any UU churches around you? If I was a joiner I might join something like this (though I’d prefer truly secular clubs) but I’d feel bad about being in a normal temple and to be expected to sing thing about God which I didn’t believe.
Sam lives in Western Canada - Manitoba or some such. (I know, but I forget.) East of BC, west of Ontario. I don’t know what religion is like there, but it ain’t the Bible Belt.
There might be pockets of crazy here and there, but you’re right, nothing like the congregational numbers or proportional prevalence (or numbers of child abusers or wife beaters or gay bashers or assorted others) of the Evil Belt.
I’m not dividing by infinity. I’m saying that many ideas as compared to few ideas vs. one sole single idea vs. zero makes the latter idea more powerful. No division, simply a comparison of a finite gap and an infinite one.
I’m sure that’s true for some Christians. But I don’t see it as necessary to form those opinions.
Whether it came from a pastor is relevant when we’re talking about what happens when someone loses faith, since that might be, or might not be, one of the factors involved. If a large portion of your faith came from your pastor, and it’s them you’re questioning or information from them, then it can have a wider effect in determining where you go from there afterwards than if it’s a problem arising from just one source.
Actually, it was Voyager who first brought up the “ad or something that looked appealing” idea. I don’t know how true it is, but it certainly seems possible.
Is it proof of the total inadequacy of that method of analysis? I think the answer is contained within your next question; it depends on what the objective is. In the situation **Voyager **brought up, the objective was “to find answers that satisfy”. If the answers don’t satisfy, that seems to be about the most excellent analysis possible. Fundamentally no other form of analysis can so readily get to the source; we can read history books or religious texts, and misinterpret them, or ask questions of others and be misled. But we have ready access to our own selves to investigate whether we’re satisfied with the answers we have. It’s always possible to misunderstand even ourselves, but that’s a factor that goes into every analysis.
In terms of if you want to move towards truth… the “any kind” part is tricky. Personal truth, by which I’m meaning not some kind of personal facts but understanding oneself, seems to me to be about being honest about the effect the world has on you and comprehending it. Seeing an ad, reacting to it, but rejecting it because it’s a facile response, doesn’t get you towards the truth about yourself. There’s no use in poring over texts to discover truth if the tool being used to judge, oneself, isn’t honest.
It is, but compared to the Evil Belt in the US, Canada’s is more of a Bible Twine. Much thinner, much looser, and with much less overall influence (or influence on the overalls, to continue with belts :)). But (also like twine) not pretty when you take a closer look, and nasty to get tangled up in.
Religion makes no predictions. Science does. You can dispute that, but in order to do so, you would have to use religion to make a prediction. “By definition” means “it is defined by”.
If something is defined by a characteristic, then I most certainly can.
It doesn’t need to “lead” to analysis, though it might; it’s already the result of it. Dissatisfaction would not exist without analysis; it makes no sense to say that any kind of reaction isn’t analysis of some kind. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that angst was necessarily deep, but certainly i’d call it self examination, and it could be deep.
Exactly, though I still disagree with you on the putting brains in idle bit, which I think you’re using too liberally. This is why I object in part to the whole “Atheists just lack belief in on religion more” idea. Losing your faith doesn’t mean losing every aspect of whatever notion of spirituality you may have, and so instead there’s the possibility of a more qualified lack of belief. It’s superseded by the faith believed in, not nonexistant.
(And, ironically enough, Nightcrawler was one of the few Marvel superheroes who was overtly depicted as being Christian.)