I left my church because they wouldn’t just let me attend. They wanted me to commit to actively proseletyzing outside the church, to bring more people in.
It didn’t feel right. I think if a thing is good enough, nobody else needs to nag you to sell it. You just want to tell people about it because it’s been so good for you.
It is very difficult to accept mortality if you don’t believe in an afterlife. Religion brings comfort, and comfort improves mental health (at the cost of some delusion).
Not really. Altruism is ultimately self-serving whether an afterlife exists or not. People generally don’t want to spend their life being wronged by others or have their life taken altogether, so we have a pretty good incentive to not do those things.
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards, and ignoring the fallacy that “progress” is co-liniar with the passage of time, logic is not in of itself a perfect humanistic process of thought, rather it has been developed by humans over the millennia.
There is great comfort in the process of growing into and exploring one’s faith. Growing up in a theologically liberal Christian church, I was invited to find ways to meld the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man is such a way that I find purpose and vocation within my life. Religion also offers a place for community among people committed to a mission, be it good or bad. These communities preserve and honor cultural traditions, again, the good and the bad. These are just a few reasons I think people are now, and will remain well into the future, religious.
How do you account for tolerance found within religion and religious communities throughout the world and throughout history, then? How can intolerance be inherent to religion if it is not universally observed?
And for clarity, I’m not trying to no-true-scotsman out religious communities that harbor hatred and shut off diversity and the like. They totally exist and they are a problem. But to suggest religiosity itself is the issue, to me at least, is missing a sound foundation.
The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can’t be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.
It’s not that they’re a monolith of bigotry or anything, it’s that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don’t.
But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There’s no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because “that’s the old testament.” The Bible also doesn’t say anything about trans people and it doesn’t oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.
Firstly, I am assuming that “they” is referring to Christians, which the op did not specify, and my subsequent commentary is interpreted to generalizing to all presentations of religion. While I explicitly pointed to Christianity, that was because I was referencing my personal faith journey.
Secondly, we are in agreement that the Pentateuch, in its literal form, calls for and endorses a society which does not privilege equality for all races, genders, or creeds. I would assume we are also in agreement that the epistles of Paul and Timothy and other early Christian writers have some pretty messed up opinions of who God is and what God wants.
But you yourself drew attention to the agency Christians, and all other faithful people, have. There is choice, and people do choose, to interpret scripture as non-literal. By the virtue of this existence, one cannot simply label all religious expressions as backwards or at issue, as I originally posited.
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
Christianity is inherently problematic, or all religions are inherently problematic? You’ve made a case for Christianity (and probably Judaism and Islam), but those are just two (very large) religions. I’m taking about, and I feel the op’s essence was, the idea of religion and people being religious. Not just the Christians. Can you also point to the Taoists, the Universalists, the Zoroastrians (just to name a few) and say that their faiths are all inherently problematic?
Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn’t problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It may not be universal but you’re certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still “problematic” even if the consequences aren’t as blatant.
And I guess this must be closing in on the root of our disagreement: I don’t see that religion requires uncritical belief.
I don’t know what your litmus test is for “standards of evidence.” Can you elaborate on what good standards of evidence looks like to you and how you know they are good?
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality in the backwards-ness and issue of religion, it seems to me you can’t argue for religious thought to have inherit nature to that kind. Rather, there are expressions of it, religiosity, being backwards and bad. The part does not account for the whole.
I don’t think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole “just have faith” thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it’s true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me “I got a pet goldfish” the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc…
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality …
The majority of people who smoke don’t die from it but that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t problematic. I’m not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we’d normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I’d also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Yeah, these things all make sense, again, with the implied idea that “all religions” use fallacious logic like circular reasoning, which I think we both agree is a common feature but not a rule of religion.
And sure, there are plenty of things that I trust on faith, like my Creator and my Savior, or the concept of sin. For me, the faith is critical for my psyche, but I’m of the world and in the world, so I am called to work good in this world now, which grace and guidance.
I would be careful with the smoking analogy. The only control someone really has in their outcome from smoking is deciding heavily limit or to quit early enough to not have a high risk of health complications of death. Religious expression is the interface between the divine and the worldly. It’s socially controlled and always has been. There are so many things people of faith can do to prevent allowing their expressions and works from causing harm, alienate “others,” and ultimately do things incongruent with their proclaimed beliefs.
I think of it more like democracy: a social phenomenon many feel confident in being “the best,” but also one that can fall victim to abuses that prevent it’s ideal in such a way as to disenfranchise and deliver results many, if not most, are unhappy with, if not harmed from. But I don’t think either of us would call for a monarchy or autocracy in order to “prevent the ills of democracy.” We, collectively, have to be better at making democracy better.
And yeah! It has been fun to discuss with you. I appreciate hearing your perspectives on this and allowing me to better understand your line of reasoning.
Indoctrination and ignorance, notice how a big chunk of its members are old people. Younger people are less interested, thankfully. Also, for some people, it is a social club.
I thought about that as well. I’m not religious and i don’t know anyone who is, but i talked to some elderly people of whom i knew they are religious about it. And surprisingly, they pretty much gave up on it. One couple told me how ass their childhood was because they were scarred into believing in fire and brimstone when they don’t behave. The other lady who was very Christian, said that she wished she didn’t basically wasted all theis time with Christianity, even tho she liked the whole community aspect of it and the “tradition.”
And like i said, religion isn’t part of anyone’s life that i know, especially in my age group. But for the last 2 years or so it started popping up on tinder that Christianity somehow is still going. Not strong or anything, but it went from nothing to seeing two or three jesus freaks a month or so.
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people. Assuming there’s no fishy business going on with that particular chapter, they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
Edit: forgot to mentioned, am atheist and give no shit to skyman, but somehow on the internet atheist can’t have opinion that’s not shitting on people with faith.
We don’t need religion, we did at one time. When we didn’t know why or how people got sick, why sometimes crops would be plentiful and other times famine or why the ground shook sometimes or even just figuring out morals
But we know those things now and when we encounter something we don’t we have the knowledge and tools to figure out what’s up.
We don’t need churches for a common social place, we have parks, libraries, community centers and community wide events to invest in. We can socialize and learn other cultures around the world in an instant. We don’t just have random villages and tiny cities any more, we have large and diverse cities so we everyone can have a little of everything they’re interested in.
At this point, all religion does is serve as yet another thing to divide us.
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people.
While this statement is true, its also true even if you’re not religious. I was not raised religious at all but always got together with family/cousins/friends nearly every weekend.
… they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
Kinda. This study [0] of 3,942 19-year-old in Sweden put it best:
… religion and religiousness per se have little impact on happiness. In particular, we find that social networks tend to be positively associated with happiness, and that this effect is driven by co-organizational membership among friends.
So while religious upbringing can force people to socialize, that doesn’t mean the lack of religiosity will have a negative impact as the lack of religion does not dictate that you will not congregate/gather with peers/friends/family and feel the same level of “belonging” to a group - even if its not a well defined group.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
I’d say this claim is unfounded. Why must we turn to religion? There are clubs, groups, meetups, friends, events and niches of never ending categories that easily fulfill the need of “belonging” to a group - it’s actually one thing humans are really good at - forming “in” and “out” groups.
Yes, i do agree on all the thing you said, what i’m saying is it’s not mutually exclusive. Religious people can and will go to religious meetup and all the other non-religious gathering too. I know that because i have some friend that do both. It’s not the case of black and white, this or that, do and don’t.
The issue i have with OP’s question and a lot of atheist is they tend to put religious people as a one dimension entity and think highly of themselves because they “aren’t like that”, that irrationality is what they accuse religious people have. It’s that sort of tribalism that cause a lot of conflict, and i fear tribalism more than i fear religion.
You are dumb so I am going to explain to you so you can understand why this is actually a counterexample that you just gave yourself. Irrationality is what’s the most important problem here. Celebrities can talk about absolute random and insane shit and people will believe them 100% and pretend their words are the words of god. You can prove it’s bullshit 100% and people will still believe it.
Because it can’t truly be proven that there either is or isn’t a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I’m willing to bet you can’t prove that there there isn’t one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have any either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If science can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religion.
Science tests hypothesizes and never claims they’re true until there’s mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
You may not understand science as well as you think you do. There is evidence that supports the theory, but it is untested until it is repeated in a controlled experiment. According to the scientific method, the vast majority of the field of astrophysics remains untested.
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn’t tested? And why do you think we do?
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they’ve failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.
What events? I’ve never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven’t been tested.
They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
If they’re not proven then they’re hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they’re still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.
We’re not saying there is no god. We’re saying we’re not convinced there is a god.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
The big bang isn’t creation ex nihilo, and it’s not a theistic claim. But more importantly, nobody with any scientific credibility claims we know the theory is true with absolute certainty. They don’t even claim it adequately explains 100% of the universe as we observe it. A lot of laymen probably think the big bang is creation ex nihilo and use it to explain the “something from nothing” issue, but that’s not what the theory says.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began
Hypotheses. Which nobody “believes” in like theists do with God.
Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science.
You’re right. They can hypothesize all they want. But they don’t present their claims as hypotheses, they present them as the truth. Scientists don’t claim their hypotheses are the truth, and they especially don’t believe it to be true before doing any testing.
the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that.
The link you gave me doesn’t show him claiming God doesn’t exist, and neither are any of the comments before it.
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
You must live in a very different society than those in Europe or America if your experience with theists has just been “people hypothesizing.” You also must not have read the Bible, Torah, or Quran. Their “beliefs” are presented as facts in all three of those religions, both by their holy texts and their people, and I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t also do that.
If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
And again, nobody is saying they’re wrong. We’re saying they don’t have good reason to believe what they believe. Just look at the link you sent earlier.
And if an atheist genuinely believes their own untested hypothesis about what happened before the big bang is true, whether they’re a scientist or a layman, the same criticisms apply to them, too.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
It doesn’t sound familiar because nobody here is saying God is impossible. We’re saying they don’t have good reason for believing he exists.
I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence.
You wouldn’t have to tell them to stop “believing” in string theory because none of them do. The math happens to work out so a lot of them are interested, but none of them “believe” in it because it hasn’t been tested.
Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
We’re not saying they’re wrong. We’re saying their reasons for believing aren’t good reasons. And in a thread about why people believe, criticism is not only warranted, but expected.
Gnostic atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
Can you point me to even one atheist here making a gnostic claim? The link you already gave is just Communist saying you don’t have evidence, and it seems like you’re translating every other instance of that to “GOD ISN’T REAL”.
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That’s basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can’t just claim there’s a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say “trust me bro”. Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments
repeatable controlled experiments are only one aspect of evidence gathering to falsify a hypothesis. Here are a few other methods:
Observational Astronomy
Modeling and Simulations
Indirect Experiments
Lab Experiments
Historical Data Analysis
By combining these methods we can still falsify a hypothesis, thus allowing “science to happen”.
The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence.
Correct! There is no evidence for what lead to the big bang because we can’t gather any data before it started. But we have mountains of evidence that all point to a “big bang” happening - down to a fraction of a second shortly after it started! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] .
If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Science is willing to discard ideas that lack evidence or aren’t falsifiable. Is religion ready to stop preaching because faith, by definition, is a lack of evidence?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
The difference between string theory and Spinoza’s god is the falsifiable part. String Theory, being a scientific theory, makes predictions that should be able to be tested through experiments (although testing will likely be a challenge much like Astrophysics and will instead depend on other scientific methods to gather evidence for/against it). Spinoza’s God is a philosophical concept and not directly falsifiable through scientific methods. Spinoza’s god is the equivalent of me claiming I’m friends with a telepathic unicorn from another dimension, both useless and irrelevant.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn’t true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren’t convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there’s actual evidence it’s rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They’re both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they’re nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
That’s wholly incorrect. The vast majority of astrophysics is comprised of untested theories. The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena. The evidence we’ve collected is used in creating the theories, but they remain untested.
Religion is referred to as a belief (hypothesis) in god. There is evidence of improvement in the quality of life and personal contentment by believing in god, however the existence of god remains tangibly untested.
I myself am a physicist lol, I assure you that we do not believe in our work in the way you suggest. This is why it has been so outlandish and perplexing for you to continually insist that I “believe” in every science themed idea but irrationally hold religion to some even higher standard. I’m sorry my friend, but I stand by my conclusion that you have simply made some mistakes along the way while learning about all of this. It happens to all of us, the important thing is having a willingness to reexamine.
But yes, many of the hypotheses regarding ‘before’ the big bang etc. are currently on the same level as the hypothesis of a god (or prime mover). As I have continually affirmed over the course of our discussion that is all correct and definitionally compatible with atheism and the scientific method. I think perhaps we have reached the end of what we can discuss, unless you are willing to take into consideration how the scientific community actually thinks, rather than trying to insist they use your personal definitions of their words
You wrote of your understanding, but didn’t share any of it. That’s quite arrogant. Can you explain how what I wrote is not in line with the Scientific Method?
I have already abundantly shared my understanding and specifically addressed your concerns. Now it is clear that you simply like arguing and care little about what is being discussed.
I think we are likely beyond the point of productivity, but the ‘scientific method’ isn’t capitalized btw. This error is perfectly emblematic of the error in your thought process as a whole
I don’t disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?” That doesn’t make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren’t the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I’m fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I say agnostic, that includes “agnostic atheists”. Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed “atheists”) get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I’m tapping out of this thread, didn’t come here to argue about English. Also, please don’t take my last paragraph as an attack - it’s a general observation.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
The language is irrelevant, you’re claiming something that’s just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish “agnostics” from “atheists” isn’t the real issue.
He very clearly spoke against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintained that he himself was agnostic. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator.
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs
Dear (my) god, you folks are irrational. If someone acts a certain way, judge them for it! But judging anyone with faith just because you don’t believe in that!? I can’t prove God exists any more than you can prove they don’t. If a religious person acts kind, fair, and rational, you shouldn’t have anything against them, should you? But this post isn’t about American right-wingers, or extremist Islamic Muslims, is it? It’s about anyone who has any faith at all, just because you don’t believe the same thing. Caring Christians literally building homes for people internationally, Sikhs feeding anyone, no matter their beliefs…
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but that’s literally small-minded.
What would you think of someone who goes door to door trying to convince you a blubbery clown rules the universe from planet zebulon?
Is that a normal person just doing normal person things?
For the non-religious, there is no difference between the person above and a relgious believer.
I think it's reasonable to ask why people still hold unfounded beliefs with the greater interconnectedness of the world making it pretty plain that not all these religions can be divinely inspired truth, so many of them are necessarily imaginary.
Ignores the atrocities and genocide committed in the name of “religion” ✅
You are quite literally the pot calling the kettle black with your “small minded” comment. Nobody here was persecuting religion, but specific implementations that have committed mass murder, or engage in obnoxious displays (screaming at people at events (some events designed to support groups of people), going door to door, shaming vulnerable people trying to get medical procedures, etc etc)
The day you widen your view to see others perspectives and history of abuse is the day you’ll actually be on the right “religious” track. Humanity is the religion.
proceeds to generalize all religious people as the worst of religion
Most religious people do acknowledge all the stuff you’re talking about, and agree with you on how terrible they are. Most of the time when you meet a religious person, you won’t think there’s anything different until you ask them.
It’s a post asking why people believe in religion. People who don’t believe in religion or spirituality really have no reason to comment other than to condemn. The arrogance of atheists on Lemmy is very disappointing.
The social aspect might be underappreciated. My guess is people are mainly introduced by family and friends and it becomes a big part of their identity. It becomes difficult to separate the individual elements.
Because the lowest common denominator is much MUCH lower than you think it is.
This means it’s easy to indoctrinate and easy to maintain that for a massive number of people.
Scientific illiteracy is extremely high, and actual “6th grade reading comprehension” is the highest level of literacy for > 50% of a country like the U.S. and ~20% are low literacy or actually illiterate.
This means that half of everyone in the U.S. can read and understand what they read at or below a 6th grade level. This isn’t “reading big words”, it’s “tell us about what you read”, “what is the relationship between x & y” type questions.
This comment for example, up to this point only, would be difficult to understand & comprehend for > 50% of people in the U.S. (it demands an 11th grade reading comprehension). And may be misread, misunderstood, or not understood at all.
People are driven to religions to cults and alt conspiracy theories when they don’t understand how the world works around them. They latch onto extremely simple often misleading or incorrect ideas of how the world works because they can understand it and it “makes sense” within their sphere of ignorance (we all have one, this isn’t meant to be a disparaging term).
This means that the problem is that humans are just not smart enough to escape religion yet. It’s the simplest answer, and it appears to be correct.
I agree. At the root of it, people want to feel safe. This is a fundamental need. Religion does this for them because they don’t need to make decisions and they’re promised that if they follow it they will indeed be kept safe. Also spiritual bypass is awesome.
Having been raised in a religious household and having escaped it later in life to become an engineer/science nerd, while being ostracized by my, incredibly, incredibly disappointing parents because they refuse to learn new things or acknowledge scientific studies that conflict with their religious views:
This answer is unequivocally, absolutely, a 100% correct take on humanity and their need for the “simplistic” and incorrect answers religion gives about the world around them.
How do you know that the real creator(s) are documented?
You’ve been threatened and Stockholm’d through fear, likely as a child or when vulnerable into seeing 1 alternative, when the alternatives are infinite
I think you missed the point here. To the believer, evidence is not the main concern. Many Christians talk about their connection and relationship with god, which is subjective. To them, god exists because they have faith, not evidence, that it exists. Where’s that faith coming from? As many others explained in this thread, it’s about finding the sense of community and comfort in knowing that somebody higher us knows best in the world of uncertainty.
Gods are literally just a psychological comfort blanket to explain the unexplainable. Most religious people don’t put that much thought into what they believe, challenging concepts are just tucked nicely away in the “Gods will” box and they move on. I think everyone copes with those brain shattering concepts in their own creative way or risk getting buried alive in anxiety.
I think there’s something that always seems to get left out of these conversations and that’s that “when I practice my religion, I feel something that I don’t feel otherwise” is frequently a true statement for the religious.
I’ve often heard self-described atheists say that, often when conversing/debating with religious folks about why they believe, the conversation comes to a point where the religious person will say “I’ve just had a personal experience” and the atheist, unable to relate to that, really has no way to advance the conversation beyond that.
Were I opposite some fundamentalist Christian or something in such a situation, my response would be “yeah, me too! That’s totally normal.”
I think the beligerantly nonreligious either can’t relate to religious experiences or don’t want to admit to having had them for fear of embarassment or maybe rhetorical concessions. And the religious typically haven’t had such experiences outside the context of their religious practices, or if they have they still attribute it to their religious beliefs, and so take it as proof of their beliefs.
And these religious experiences are very real and very normal. Probably some people are more prone to such experiences than others. But despite how the religious tend to interpret them they have little to no relationship to one’s beliefs. One can have experiences of anatta (“no-self” in Theravada Buddhism) or satori (sudden, typically-temporary, enlightenment in Japanese Zen Buddhism) or recollection (a term from Christian mysticism) or kavana (Jewish mysticism) or whatever without accepting any particular belief system. There are secularized mindfulness and meditation practices that can increase one’s chances and frequency of experiencing these states.
But, unfortunately, the history of these experiences has been one of large religious organizations claiming and mostly exercising a monopoly on such experiences.
These experiences feel very deep and profound and can be a very positive (or negative!) thing, even affecting the overall course of one’s life. And they can be kindof addictive in a good way.
All that to say that I think any conversation about why people believe in religions today is incomplete without taking into account that for many people, their religion is their means of connection with some extremely profound and beautiful experiences. Though people only accept beliefs along with those experiences because they don’t know these experiences aren’t actually exclusive to any one religion or any set of beliefs. And those experiences are 100% real and tangible to them. (Whether they correspond to anything real in consensus reality is a whole other conversation, but the experiences themselves are a normal human phenomenon like orgasm or schadenfreude.)
Just some followup thoughts:
Like I alluded to earlier, meditation can be dangerous. Do your research first and know the risks.
If you want to know my personal beliefs, my beliefs are that beliefs don’t matter. Personal experience does. “But do you believe god exists?” Honestly it’d take me a good hour or more to give a proper answer to that question. Let’s go with “neither yes nor no” for the short version.
Every culture has these experiences. Humans likely have had them since humans have existed.
There’s a western meditation guy named “Daniel Ingram” who I have a certain amount of respect for. He readily answers questions about the risks and benefits of meditation-related things as well as the subjective experience of them. But any time he is asked about the “real world” (like, the metaphysical implications of these experiences), he responds that he’s “a pragmatist” and won’t speculate about the nature of reality or the existence/nonexistence of entities or powers.
(That said, there is one and only one story he tells that seems to have made him believe certain supernatural claims about the real world. He was “practicing magic” and drew an amber pentagram in the air and someone who hadn’t been present at the time later walked into the room and said “you just drew an amber pentagram in the air right here.” Or at least that’s roughly how he tells the story. And he does seem to believe there’s something to that beyond the natural.)
I’m not quite the purist he is. I don’t think it’s necessary to straight up refuse to believe anything about the real world or the nature of reality. And I don’t think that there’s nothing that can/should be gleaned about metaphysics from subjective (“religious”) experiences. (My experiences with contemplative practices has definitely changed my mind about some metaphysical things. The nature of conscious and of reality, the existence of capital-G-“God” (though the answer I find most compelling now definitely isn’t “yes” or “no”), etc.)
But it’s also important to keep it in perspective. Some of these experiences can feel like the most important thing every to happen to anyone. (That’s probably how many/most religions start, honestly. Someone has a mind-blowing experience and tells everybody about it and everybody else grossly misinterprets it because these experiences are ineffable – can’t be put into words – and before you know it you have the crusades and witch burnings and abstinance-only sex ed.) But a contemplative practice, done well, will tell you not to hold too closely to, well, anything really (potentially “except god”). Coming to some belief and holding it as the most important thing ever or basing your whole personality on it is absolutely problematic.
My advice is to hold any beliefs you come to from a religious experience (and any other beliefs you have for that matter) “loosely”. And I think this is helped by not restricting yourself to one religious system. Borrow from both western and eastern religious traditions. Monotheistic, pantheistic, pagan, etc. Indigenous spiritual practices. Even left-hand-path stuff. The more you do that, the better you drive home to your reptilian brain the point that nobody has a monopoly on religious experience and often those experiences even contradict each other.
I guess one other thing to mention is that adpting a particular set of religious beliefs can potentially be a boon to one’s contemplative practice. But for the reasons above, it can be dangerous.
Thank you for taking the time to write this out, I probably would’ve been busy for a couple of hours trying to formulate my fairly similar take!
Maybe to add another aspect for - I think that the sheer ability of humans to have religious experiences in all denominations, which are often described as feelings of connectedness, does not necessarily mean that there is a higher being or reality “out there” that is being connected to in those moments.
But it does mean that our brains have religious experience as an in-built function (which, as you described, has been needlessly enshrined in religious institutions), which might mean that being able to have these experiences is an important part of being able to survive, or maybe even to thrive, as a human being, which also means as a community.
But it does mean that our brains have religious experience as an in-built function (which, as you described, has been needlessly enshrined in religious institutions), which might mean that being able to have these experiences is an important part of being able to survive, or maybe even to thrive, as a human being, which also means as a community.
And that’s a take that I couldn’t have put as well as you did, and I wholeheartedly agree with.
I think whatever cognitive faculties separate us from “the animals” (or at least some animals) comes at a cost. Most animals live very in the moment. We’re largely the only creatures that have panic attacks because of some imagined future event, and we worry constantly. The default mode network and the internal monologue let us plan for the future, but also makes us worry for the future, which is definitely maladaptive.
Religious experiences let us greatly mitigate that by showing us, even if only temporarily (and sometimes people can achieve permanence in this), by suspending the DMN and internal monologue.
Suspending worry for the future might be a plausible function for religious experience as an evolved feature of the human mind, yes.
I would also point towards the biological fact that while the existence of a higher being, consciousness or reality, is still ineffable, even after having had an experience that felt like there might be one, there is also an empirically true, measurable interconnectedness for humans that can be tapped into.
We live, and have evolved, in and through ecosystems that highly depend on interconnected species and processes that are so complex and intricate that we are still working on fully grasping them, and still discovering new connections (unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more because we have disrupted the connections by environmental damage, and the ecosystems start to fail due to that, making the connection obvious only after it ceased to exist). Connection between humans in the form of love in its many forms is also the ultimate glue that keeps societies together, and if that capacity diminishes due to circumstances, bad things tend to happen.
The myriad of connections we need to live, and to thrive and to feel like we are whole - all of this fully seen and experienced in their abstracted totality could in my eyes be one of the bases for religious experience.
And if that is true, it gives also another function - then, religious experience is the anchor and has a rebalancing function that makes sure that we don’t get lost in our own heads and human constructs, and keeps reminding us that we are part of the ecosystem, too, and keeps us from using it in a self-destructive manner. There are several deeply spiritual, nature-connected societies that only became so after a local environmental crisis caused by themselves. Tapping into the interconnectedness through religious experience has helped them find another, arguably better way.
(Of course, it doesn’t seem to be a hard, global fail-safe in human history, given the current state of the world, so I don’t know how direct this function would be.)
I’m an effort to get you an answer that isn’t dismissive:
Youth indoctrination, social conformity, and cultural isolation. If your parents, friends, and most of your community tells you something is true, you are unlikely to challenge it for a variety of reasons including trust (most of what they’ve taught you works for your daily life), tribal identity, etc
People naturally fear death, and one coping strategy for the existential fear of death is to convince yourself that the death of your body is not the end of your existence. Science does not provide a pathway to this coping strategy so people will accept or create belief systems that quell that fear, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Relieving the pressure of that fear is a strong motivator.
Release of responsibility. When there is no higher power to dictate moral absolutes, we are left feeling responsible for the complex decisions around what is or isn’t the appropriate course of action. And that shit is complicated and often anxiety inducing. Many people find comfort in offloading that work to a third party.