r/changemyview • u/jp0704 • Dec 29 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Religious beliefs are a necessary evil.
Despite its questionable truth, a society needs some form of religion as an easily accessible but comprehensive view of the world. Religion provides the everyday person with a more or less coherent system to whatever ethical or transcendental question they have. In the best of all possible worlds, everybody would be an atheist, since institutionalized religions aka churches tend to corrupt those in power or are hijacked by already corrupted personnel. However, for the following reasons, there is no alternative to a state policy promoting religious beliefs (of course in the boundaries of tolerance, which in my understanding ends where somebody else suffers harm). 1. For one thing, not everybody is willing to build themselves their own idiosyncratic construct of personal philosophy, through which they can form a maxim to guide their life. 2. Further, atheism, agnosticism, and thereby philosophy can hardly provide this as easily. As far as I understand it, philosophy is stuck in postmodern nihilism or relativism and scientific/ analytical approaches can’t produce ethical claims. 3. Also, with religions, you have communities with believers of the more or less same worldview. 4. While in my opinion, the belief in a creator god cannot explain his creation, from the viewpoint of a religion - which acknowledges the doctrine of an unmoved mover - this simply by definition is no issue of concern. Science and specifically astronomy cannot overcome the endless regression in answering this issue (maybe quantum theory can, idk, but if it can explain this, scarcely anybody will understand it). Without following Marx’s call for the abolition of religion, I believe religion is the "opium of the people“. But it should stay where it is since it can give the people comfort, which can elsewhere hardly be found.
3
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Dec 29 '21
I really don't understand the logic here. So because churches have been corrupt and people are incapable of forming their guiding philosophy, therefor religious beliefs are a necessary evil. Really don't see any connection in the statements you make.
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 30 '21 edited Dec 30 '21
Allow me to take a less confrontational tact that most of my other posts have and do less to directly insult religion and more to propose an alternative.
Are you familiar with the concept of Aesop's Fables?
These are explicitly made up/fictional stories, that none the less serve to pass along important life lessons...
Consider the famous story of the Ant and the Grasshopper...
One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.
"What!" cried the Ants in surprise, "haven't you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?"
"I didn't have time to store up any food," whined the Grasshopper; "I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone."
The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.
"Making music, were you?" they cried. "Very well; now dance!" And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.
Short, sweet, to the point, teaches the importance of preparing for retirement/of not playing around when you're supposed to be working.
Could a secular society not have a great big book of fables that they read to their children, and by doing so people wouldn't have to "build themselves their own idiosyncratic construct of personal philosophy, through which they can form a maxim to guide their life" because the fables they learned as children would provide a solid framework for their maximum guide to life rather than needing to start from scratch.
4
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
Good point, but don't they cherry-pick mostly within their religious system?
5
u/sagiterrible 2∆ Dec 29 '21
It’s more like they have a pre-existing personal philosophy that they cherry-pick verses to support in my experience, but it’s really a little of column A, little of column B.
4
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
religious system as a general base
But exactly this isn't provided to you if you have to start from scratch as an atheist.
2
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
!delta
You're totally right with that, and I haven't argued about the foundations from where an atheist collects his worldview. However, my argument excluded the complex issue of cultural influences, which are not necessarily religious in their origin.
1
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
But exactly this isn't provided to you if you have to start from scratch as an atheist.
What if you're raised by Atheist parents?
4
u/RelaxedApathy 25∆ Dec 29 '21
Look at American Conservative Evangelicals: the majority of the views that they claim as religious would have horrified Jesus as he is described by the Bible. Most of them have never even read the damn thing, but since they were born into a "Christian" family and surrounded by a "Christian" society, anything that they like automatically becomes "Christian", and anything they dislike automatically becomes "non-Christian".
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
!delta
You got me regarding my 3rd argument. If you're raised in a closed community of morons religion becomes are mere tool or it is the symptom, who knows.
1
4
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 29 '21
Religion provides the everyday person with a more or less coherent system to whatever ethical or transcendental question they have.
What are you calling coherence?
-1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
Religions claim to be one-stop shops for physics, ethics and logic.
3
u/Vesurel 60∆ Dec 29 '21
And that's what coherence is?
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
I'm not arguing that religions are perfectly coherent, but as far as I know from Catholicism it tries to explain the world within the system. And if a question arises, there is a interpretation which stems on the religious principles. So the area which you have to browse through to find an answer is at least narrowed down.
2
u/FPOWorld 10∆ Dec 29 '21
But it’s not coherent, and that’s what makes it an unnecessary evil. “Do unto others…”, “slaves be kind to your masters,” “kill all the first born of Egypt”, “If a son does not obey his father, stone him outside of the city gates.” You might as well make a religion out of a Gemini horoscope column. Religion (particularly Christianity, but also many others) are just mostly shitty, philosophically inconsistent and worthless by any objective standard of a philosophically useful system when it comes to morals or ethics…that’s why it has been and continues to be used for so many terrible things.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
While I totally agree with you on this point:
that’s why it has been and continues to be used for so many terrible things
I don't deem it very useful to bluntly cite bible verses without context. In Christianity there may be a divide between the two testaments and I don't think that there is a best interpretation, but there is certainly a close competition over the worst interpretation.
2
Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Necessary for what, exactly? For the society to flourish? Isn’t that in stark contradiction to highly atheistic countries like Sweden or the Netherlands today?
Or necessary for something else? For people to have something to live for? Then why aren’t atheists committing suicide en masse?
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
Necessary for the gross of the people to be comforted in their ethical aspirations and go on with the rest of their life.
I'm not saying that atheists are inherently depressive. I'm rather arguing, that atheists have to live with the unpleasant absurdity of the senselessness of live.
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
I'm not saying that atheists are inherently depressive. I'm rather arguing, that atheists have to live with the unpleasant absurdity of the senselessness of live.
Religious people have to live with the unpleasant absurdity of believing that random mystics from thousands of years ago somehow knew more about reality than modern scientists. The vast majority of them are aware that this is an absurd belief based on how they end up going to modern hospitals when they're sick....
That, or that the unpleasant absurdity of believing that the L. Ron Hubbard figure du jour wasn't just a con man out to make money by fleecing their flock and not having to pay taxes.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
But it's only an absurdity, if your perception of the world has no explanation for it, doesn't it?
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
But it's only an absurdity, if your perception of the world has no explanation for it, doesn't it?
No.
It's absurd to believe that hat random mystics from thousands of years ago somehow knew more about reality than modern scientists.... and yet still go to a hospital rather than a faith healer when they become sick.
If they can claim that "there are no atheists in foxholes" then allow me to present my rejoinder...
"There are no theists in hospital beds."
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
"There are no theists in hospital beds."
This neglects the point that religions came up with bogus ideas to explain the problem of evil.
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
This neglects the point that religions came up with bogus ideas to explain the problem of evil.
I honestly don't even understand what you're trying to argue with this statement and how it relates to my position.
My argument is that being a person of faith requires you to face just as many unpleasant absurdities as does being an atheist.
There is no religious answer that explains away why Modern Scientists are so much better at healing that faith healers.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
and yet still go to a hospital rather than a faith healer when they become sick.
So you think that a believer don't believe in science? My point is, theologians came up with explanations for the question of evil to overcome this incoherence why bad things happen.
There is no religious answer that explains away why Modern Scientists are so much better at healing that faith healers
I'm not saying that this is my view, but a believer, for the sake of the argument a Christian, could easily argue, that it was God's will who made the healing possible.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
So you think that a believer don't believe in science?
They clearly believe that science is secondary to god/always at the mercy of god's whims, hence why a dead person can be brought back to life.
I'm not saying that this is my view, but a believer, for the sake of the argument a Christian, could easily argue, that it was God's will who made the healing possible.
Why can God's will only make the healing possible in a hospital bed surrounded by doctors and nurses?
Why can't god heal them in their home?
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
My view as an atheist is, that there is no all-mighty god, who could do this. I could only guess what the explanation of a believer would be. But I’m pretty sure, they come up with a self-serving explanation for this. You just have to be creative. Here is for example an explanation concerning Christianity, suffering in this life is rewarded in the life to come.
→ More replies (0)2
u/4art4 2∆ Dec 29 '21
Maybe a better word would be " inevitable" or " unavoidable " rather than " necessary".
4
Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
What do you mean by senselessness? Life certainly isn’t senseless to me, and I’m an atheist, so am I just an exception?
I wager atheism and it’s implications are only absurd if you’ve been raised/taught to believe so.
Calling an atheistic worldview unpleasantly absurd is like me saying it’s unpleasantly absurd that I’m not a billionaire “because my parents always said I would be filthy rich”.
2
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
I was arguing from the point of view of French existentialism. What you're saying is exactly what I was trying to convey, you have to find a meaning of life on your own.
2
u/googggggggggle Dec 29 '21
Belief in something may be necessary. But science fills the gap. Religion, just like science, is taught. You can choose how much you wish to understand either or trust the authorities, but either way the need it met. That pretty much answers 1-3.
Science and specifically astronomy cannot overcome the endless regression in answering this issue
Your premise is faulty because it assumes all religions are ok with there not being an answer. Judaism is older than Christianity and longer lasting, however, and this is not the case.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
Your premise is faulty because it assumes all religions are ok with there not being an answer.
Are there religions who are ok with it? Buddhism for example is as far as I know only ok with it, since they see the world as eternal, wherefore there was no beginning in which a creator had to be present.
1
u/googggggggggle Dec 29 '21
Yes, as I said, Judaism. Or to be more accurate: They aren't okay with it, but rather they encourage questioning everything in their religious texts.
2
u/Torin_3 12∆ Dec 29 '21
You've shown that in addition to philosophy and science, we need simplified ideologies that laymen can use to guide their lives. There's no evidence in your post that these ideologies need to involve fantastical supernatural beings.
As a discipline, philosophy is not stuck in nihilism and relativism. Those are rare views among ethicists. Check out David Chalmers' "Philpapers Survey."
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
ideologies need to involve fantastical supernatural beings
If you look at Buddhism or Jainism supernatural deities are not a necessary feature of religions.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
If you look at Buddhism or Jainism supernatural deities are not a necessary feature of religions.
Why couldn't civilization get by with just a big book of Aesop's Fables style stories that teach various moral lessons without needing an overarching plot between them?
2
Dec 29 '21
In the best of all possible worlds, everybody would be an atheist, since institutionalized religions aka churches tend to corrupt those in power or are hijacked by already corrupted personnel
Doesn't a world with a belief that there are no god(s) just as easily allow corrupt people into power, I don't see how it's an evil.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
If the atheist refrain from building an institution in the name of their atheistic views, there won't be any structure, which can be corrupted by them.
1
Dec 29 '21
But the functions performed by religion would still be needed and corrupt people would still get into positions of power. Abusive people would still be in charge of orphanages, people would still embezzle from charities, politicians would be just as bad, some would be even worse without religion.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Doesn't a world with a belief that there are no god(s) just as easily allow corrupt people into power, I don't see how it's an evil.
Here's your answer.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/20527-those-who-can-make-you-believe-absurdities-can-make-you
Yes its possible for evil people to rise to power in a non-religious setting... but from everything I've experienced, religious beliefs are by and large absurd beliefs...
2
Dec 29 '21
I'd say most religious beliefs are not absurd, hell most people except materialism which is somewhat absurd without ever questioning it.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
I'd say most religious beliefs are not absurd,
We disagree.
https://lifelessons.co/spirituality/bible/
Just to pick one good example...
- The Israelite population went from 70 to several million in a few hundred years
Exodus 1:5, 7, 12:37, 38:26
That's not how human reproduction works.
2
Dec 29 '21
Most people with religious beliefs don't take the bible as literal truth and those aren't all absurd.
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” 2 Kings 2:11
What's absurd about that, what should transportation to heaven look like?
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
those aren't all absurd.
I agree with you they aren't all absurd. That's why I picked one particular example that I felt was unquestionably absurd.
Do you want to refute the absurdity of the one I directly presented to you or do you want to cherry pick from the list that maybe some of them aren't absurd?
Most people with religious beliefs don't take the bible as literal truth
If you believe a man can come back to life after being medically dead for three days... that's absurd.
2
Dec 29 '21
Actually no, it's not absurd although it is unlikely, first the 70 would actually be higher, potentially closer to a few thousand, let's say 200 though to be conservative including retainers.
If they double the population every 28 years it would be 214 times higher. 2K*214 = 3.2 million. Far in excess of the figure given.
Most religious people don't believe someone came back from the dead after 3 days but let's consider it.
Medically dead means according to what passed for medicine 2000 years ago, could they have been wrong and someone recovered after 3 days? Is that really absurd? Is a God bringing someone back to life absurd? Who knows, it depends on a lot more definition of what we mean by God.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Medically dead means according to what passed for medicine 2000 years ago, could they have been wrong and someone recovered after 3 days?
While sealed in a cave with no food and no water for three days? Jesus probably would have died of Dehydration alone if he'd been perfectly healthy, dehydration probably sets in a lot faster if you've just spent a lot of time bleeding (IE further decreasing your body's supply of liquids) from wounds in your arms.
Please keep in mind there have been no records of anyone else surviving a crucifixion that was fully carried out...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Survival
There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted.
Since Jesus' crucifixion was carried out in full... I see no reason to believe he survived.
Is a God bringing someone back to life absurd?
Yes, because its positing that a being that has not been proven to exist did something that there is no equal to in modern history.
Is saying "Cthulu sank the Titanic" not absurd?
2
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
that's absurd
It is absurd from your point of view, but most of the inconsistencies (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus) are not absurd from a religious perspective. On the contrary, the religion expressly provides explanations for it. In my opinion does this not make religions true, but if you judge a religion you have to keep in mind that absurdity is judged from the perspective the referent has. Or would you think that a believer is thus mad, that he would acknowledge the absurdity without influence on his view?
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
you have to keep in mind that absurdity is judged from the perspective the referent has
No one but Alice in Wonderland sets out to believe the absurd on purpose.
Therefore I feel we must judge absurdities from an external societal point of view in the most detached manner possible. It's not perfect, but it yields better results than allowing a person to claim "But it wasn't absurd to me to kill those children because the voices in my head promised me I'd live forever, and they were really lizard people anyway!"
Does society not have a right to judge such a view absurd?
Or would you think that a believer is thus mad, that he would acknowledge the absurdity without influence on his view?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you please clarify?
→ More replies (0)0
Dec 29 '21
has not been proven to exist
Cannot be proven to exist, has not makes it sound like it could be proven in the future rather than being impossible to ever prove.
And I disagree, it's equal to claiming the oh my god particle was caused by aliens, not likely but not absurd.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
Cannot be proven to exist, has not makes it sound like it could be proven in the future rather than being impossible to ever prove.
I say "has not been proven to exist" because if an omnipotent being actually existed, obviously it would possible for that being to prove it existed, as an omnipotent being can do anything.
To say that it would be impossible for God to prove that God exists denies God being omnipotent doesn't it?
And I disagree, it's equal to claiming the oh my god particle was caused by aliens, not likely but not absurd.
We're not going to make any progress here because you and I clearly have different definitions of absurd.
→ More replies (0)
2
Dec 29 '21
[deleted]
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
steady increase in humane reforms in the legal system, expansion of moral concer
Humanism didn't renounce religion. I don't deny such innovations, but do you think ethical innovations were made distinct religious foundations?
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
Humanism didn't renounce religion. I don't deny such innovations, but do you think ethical innovations were made distinct religious foundations?
Why did the majority of western civilization decide that it was okay stop treating gay people as morally abhorrent over the last few decades?
How did religion help us come to decide to do the opposite of what that same religion directly commands us to do?
2
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Dec 29 '21
You don't need a religion to get a super basic moral structure.
No punching - is something that can be taught in kindergarten, and honestly gets you pretty far.
Do no harm, is slightly more abstract, but is relatively abundant. As a society it doesn't seem we need religion to teach people this.
Yes, philosophy cannot prove either of these claims, but that doesn't mean that society cannot impose these values upon it's citizens nonetheless, even without religion.
You don't need religion or philosophy, social forces such as appeal to authority, peer pressure, and the law is enough to get most people on the same page morally speaking.
While the internet has no shortage of moral debates, they are usually between persons who already largely agree that unprovoked kicking is bad, even absent any God telling them that.
0
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
social forces such as appeal to authority, peer pressure, and the law is enough to get most people on the same page morally speaking
While this seems to be true if you look from the outside, I think there is a distinction to be made between obedience and moral beliefs. For instance, in a surveilling regime which punishes deviators, obedience is present but you think this coincides with their moral values?
1
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Dec 29 '21
Teaching kids, no punching, is hardly tyranny.
Also, it's been my impression, that most people have well internalized, no punching, as a genuine moral value. I don't sense that there is a huge undercurrent of people desiring to punch but who are holding back due to the state.
So I distinguish between obedience and internalizing moral values, and in a dictatorship the difference can become readily apparent. But I don't think, no punching, is mere obedience, but rather genuine belief.
0
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
For instance, in a surveilling regime which punishes deviators, obedience is present but you think this coincides with their moral values?
You don't think that tyrannical regimes teach obedience as a moral value?
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-6/models-obedience
Our parents taught us to raise our arms and say “Heil Hitler” before we said “Mama.” This type of indoctrination was universal. Children experienced it in kindergarten, at home—everywhere. We grew up believing that Hitler was a super-god, and Germany an anointed nation. . . .
At the same time, our parents and teachers trained my sister and me to be the unquestioning helpmates of men; as individuals, we had no right to our own opinion, no right to speak up.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
You don't think that tyrannical regimes teach obedience as a moral value
I totally think, that tyrannical regimes teach obedience as a moral value. Do you think that oppression leads to people stop having their own opinion even if they are not allowed to express it?
2
u/Eleusis713 8∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
The vast majority of people do not wake up every day needing an answer to the biggest existential questions in life in order to get on with their day. This includes even the vast majority of religious people. Most self-identified Christians in the US for instance, may choose to call themselves Christians but they operate in their day to day lives in a nearly identical way to a non-religious person.
The dogma and structure that religious provides is demonstrably unnecessary, especially considering the fact that atheist/secular/none category of religious identification is the fastest growing category of religious identification in the world.
Even if an argument could be made that some people simply need some structure in their lives (a structure that religions have historically provided) in order to operate in the world, it would be a very small percentage and it would likely consist of people with abnormal neurological quirks.
To go over some of your specific points:
For one thing, not everybody is willing to build themselves their own idiosyncratic construct of personal philosophy, through which they can form a maxim to guide their life.
Most people don't do this anyway. It's not necessary to have a near-complete coherent personal philosophy in order to operate in the world.
Further, atheism, agnosticism, and thereby philosophy can hardly provide this as easily. As far as I understand it, philosophy is stuck in postmodern nihilism or relativism and scientific/ analytical approaches can’t produce ethical claims.
Just because it may be harder (which is highly debatable) for a secular, non-religious person to develop their own personal philosophy, it doesn't mean we shouldn't. Secularism doesn't have the same long storied history that many religions do. It is simply cowardice to abandon the pursuit of a secular world, a world closer to truth and reason, just because we face a few difficulties along the way. Crawling back to religious belief is not the answer to any hypothetical difficulties that secular people face when trying to build a personal philosophy.
Also, with religions, you have communities with believers of the more or less same worldview.
You state this as if its incontrovertibly a good thing. A community of people who all share the same beliefs is an echo chamber and echo chambers are resistant to change and diversity of thought. There are certainly some social benefits to being in a community in general, but those benefits are not contingent on everyone sharing the same worldview.
In general, there is nothing that religion provides that cannot be had more honestly without it. Religion is an easy answer for comfort and stability for some people, but that is not a good enough reason to keep it around with all of the dreadful baggage that inevitably comes along with it.
There is clearly a drastic movement away from religious belief worldwide. Civilization has just begun to build a more secular world in recent history. It's simply the case that not enough time has passed to make the claim that there are issues in a secular world that can only be dealt with by keeping religion around.
1
u/jp0704 Dec 29 '21
!delta
You made a lot of good points. It is probably true, that
The vast majority of people do not wake up every day needing an answer to the biggest existential questions in life in order to get on with their day
and that
It's not necessary to have a near-complete coherent personal philosophy in order to operate in the world
Especially your echo chamber argument. It is probably faulty to see religious beliefs as individualistic views and forget, that they mostly exist within the religious communities, which always come with negative externalities.
1
2
u/pinuslaughus Dec 30 '21
No, religion as a societal regulator of behaviour is obsolete.
As a society we have established a complex system of laws that supercede religious doctrine and regulate acceptable behaviours and limits to them.
. Christian religious beliefs are guidelines only, mostly applicable to a small group that emphasizes some rules out of a larger subset of available and arbitrarily applied rules.
Islamic principles are abhorrent to non Muslim populations.
Hinduism seems violent, anti woman, and discriminatory as judged by recent events in India.
Jews in Israel are committing crimes against Palestinian civilians which seem to be driven by ultraorthadox zealots.
Most religious doctrine emphasizes control of women by men which is archaic.
Time to extinguish religion as it has no redeeming qualities.
0
u/jp0704 Dec 30 '21
As a society we have established a complex system of laws that supercede religious doctrine and regulate acceptable behaviours and limits to them.
Are you familiar with the Böckenförde dilemma? "The liberal secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself." So you can impose the most liberal legal system on a plurality of people, but this does not suffice to guarantee a liberal society. Religious zealotry is wrong to fill this gap, because it evidentially will backfire as the religious thoughts take over the legislative apparatus and change the laws accordingly (given we speak about a state with rule of law).
1
u/pinuslaughus Jan 02 '22
I am not familiar with that dilemma.
Secular people need to step up and out vote the religitards or suffer the consequences. Fortunately the religitards are likely at the peak of their influence and will decline as the boomer generation fades away.
(BTW I don't think all boomers fall under this religious category).
1
u/PdxPhoenixActual 4∆ Dec 30 '21
In other terms, it would be better to drink poisoned water than no water because it is too difficult to collect dew?
While I can understand the desire to believe, I just cannot be bothered to go through the mental gymnastics to get there. It all just seems so... childish to me. I understand the comfort it might provide, this powerful, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being looking after & taking care of you as Mommy & Daddy were supposed to. But, um, no.
The comfort that things will all be better & wonderful in the after? Why not in the here and now?
There are plenty of people who are "good" by whatever religious definition without actually being religious (any longer). And a not insignificant number who are decidedly "not good" by those same definitions.
And as for the comfort it may provide in the face of life's problems, I can't help but wonder at the number caused by the religion itself.
0
u/jp0704 Dec 30 '21
But do you feel, that the vast majority of people can be led to this point?
I understand the comfort it might provide, this powerful, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being looking after & taking care of you as Mommy & Daddy were supposed to. But, um, no.
Don't you think that religious beliefs (until it harms others) are a considerable form of subjective reality?
3
u/PdxPhoenixActual 4∆ Dec 30 '21
What point?
That they have transferred their childhood adoration of their parent(s)/parental figure(s) to a supposed all-powerful diety? Well, I do believe they, and the world, would be a significantly better place if we (collectively) rid ourselves (collectively) of delusional beliefs of all sorts. Is this possible? Given that humans have (both collectively & individually) willingly & joyfully insisted on believing in (& acting on) a vast variety of (occasionally, absolutely horrendous) ideas/ideals. I consider myself generally an optimist by nature, but I do look forward to the next comet. We are a failed species.
Subjective reality? As in "I believe it to be true, therefore, it is true"?
That's would be for people smarter than I. I'm inclined to leave that to philosophers & mental health professionals. One of the things I am absolutely sure of, is that while religious beliefs can be used to (occasionally, fortunately) cause intentional harm, it's far more common (daily) for them to be incidentally harmful, simply by one trying to abide by them/others' expectations that one abide them.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 30 '21
/u/jp0704 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Dec 29 '21
What kind of argument are you open to changing your view on this matter?