Human Nature

[Dr Strangelove]

A while ago I came to the conclusion that the main reason religions that have a god and explain the universe exist is due to that fact that by nature, humans can not stand ignorance. The finite human mind can question how or what such things as infinite time, or the origin of all that is are, but it cannot comprehend the true answer. Thus, as I like to put it, when you try to think of an answer your brain "hurts" (for lack of a better term.) Now, humans don't like for their brain to "hurt", so they search and search and search for an answer. This is where religion comes into play.

In my mind religion serves two purposes: to explain the origin of all that is and to provide morals, motivation to live, etc. to humans. So in short, religion provides the much needed answer to the brain, whilst the teachings of that religion are driven (not forcefully, more like the person can't stop thinking about it) into the person's brain and thoughts until the point where the person concludes that this must be the correct answer, for it is the only answer that they have yet to see. (Please note that I am speaking of a person's first contact with a religion. This also explains why most people prefer the religion they were introduced to as a small child.)

But, you say, how do atheists' prevent from going crazy without a religion? It is my personal opinion that atheists have done/are one of three things: first, they accept that they do not know the answer; second, they are convinced that there is no god, and that everything is by chance or something similar; and third, they have completely turned their back on the issue (I would think this is not likely, but possible nonetheless.)

In conclusion, (this is the part you argue with me about) I believe that all religions are myths (unless of course, they happen to be the correct answer by chance), and just convenient ideals created to calm the brains's relentless search for the truth.

(Please note I am not arguing that atheism or similar ideals are correct either.)

(On a side note, one of the major flaws I see, and have experienced, with atheism is the lack of a purpose in life, which can make one easily depressed. Ah, the complexities and woes of the human mind.)

[bernee51]

But isn't atheism the disbelief in any God not just that of a particular religion.

I can only speak for myself...I am an atheist as far any gods that I have, to date, been made aware of. I would have to say that as far as any possible definition of a god is concerned I would be agnostic until I see that definition. That said I have yet to see a definiton of a god which would lead me towards theism

How, if you believe there is no God, can you then automatically accept the qualities attributed to God by a particular religion?

I don't

There are many religions that believe in an impersonal God.

This is true. Hinduism (or more accurately Vedanta) has such a definition. As far as the standard definition of Brahman is concerned, I am atheistic.

The course of study is not necessarily futile - else they would not have embarked on it - this forum is evidence of that. The belief in a deity, however, may be seen as an exercise in futility.

Personally, I do not consider reading religious text sufficient to be classed as real study and find it inconceivable that a God would discriminate on the basis of the level of a person's gullibility.

I would agree wholehearedly with this comment. Huxley (in Perennial Philosophy) uses personal experience in his investigations of the divine, making considerable efforts to steer clear of religiois texts.

Unfortunately gullibility is a very human trait which is oft exploited by those who claim to speak for 'god'

[FreddieFreeloader]

Around these parts, one of the best theories on the origins of religion is that the first humans projected on the heavens the qualities not of humans as themselves but of those numinous animals which they believed had the power to harm them or protect them (e.g. totemic animals)

I find it interesting that the ideas of God or gods that seem to exist in a society reflect what standards of moral that exists. In many religions different attributes of a deity are influenced by what ideas or actions philosophers believe to be right. Aztect deities demanded sacrifice and blood and the beating of enemies over the head with a large stick, just as the Aztect society as a whole valued qualities in people like fearlessness or fierceness in battle.
Whenever philosophers decided that fairness, justice, neighborly love or whatever was fundamentally good, the attributes of any applicable deity started reflecting those exact qualities.

A while ago I came to the conclusion that the main reason religions that have a god and explain the universe exist is due to that fact that by nature, humans can not stand ignorance. The finite human mind can question how or what such things as infinite time, or the origin of all that is are, but it cannot comprehend the true answer.

On some levels religious texts seem to be an attempt to offer explanations to questions of why, as ST88 mentions: Why rain? God's crying. Why thunder? God's bowling. The issue arises, when the knowledge of civilization offer better (or even full) explanations for natural phenomena, and knowledge starts expanding beyond mere observable events. I mean: What happens when we can explain, not what the myths explain, but also the myths themselves. If, in the constant battle against ignorance, religion provides nothing more than a chronicle of the beliefs of cultures of the past, how can we not see religion itself as just another construct of harmful ideas that we must cast aside in order to free the human mind just a little more?

I think that things like knowledge, moral code and purpose are subordinate to the notion of authority because we instinctively look to authority for those things.

You have very valid point. Belief in a higher authority could very well provide a powerful answer to the ever returning question "what's the purpose".

[...] one of the major flaws I see, and have experienced, with atheism is the lack of a purpose in life [...]

It does seem that it is easier to accept an absolute, external answer rather than trying to deal with issues of purpose and morality and the emotional void such issues can cause. Especially when the absolute answers come complete with some form of pseudo-justification. I firmly believe, that any meaning created by oneself is thousand times more satisfying and valuable than any meaning imposed by any external source, no matter how convenient and applicable those answers may seem in times of personal need.

[Cathar1950]

It is so nice to hear the voices of reason. Of course I agree with just about everyone here. It was like listening to myself.
bernee51 wrote:

We come from Nothing, thence we return. With our sense of an individual self (the ego) this is a little to much to bear - we would love to live indefinately - like we imagine the gods do (remember - we were made in their image). Thus we invent the myths.
The function of religion to which most relate is the translative (to which you allude). Religious belief provides meaning and legitimacy to mankind in the face of the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'. In that, it does a good job - many do get solace from their beliefs.

The loss of self is enough but then add the loss of others. Then top it off with the loss of everything. I suppose this loss presupposes some joy. If we are some of the lucky that can enjoy. The sense of loss I think would make this life enough meaning and reason to improve the quality of everyones life.

QED wrote:

I see two things emerging from this that augment the explanation of why we have religion:
1) The notion of god appears inevitably in the minds of the population as the ultimate boss.
2) Those people that most convincingly offer access to god gain vicarious authority by doing so.

This does seem to be the underbelly of organized religion. Yet great things have been accomplished with the power as well as great evil.

Curious wrote:

But isn't atheism the disbelief in any God not just that of a particular religion. How, if you believe there is no God, can you then automatically accept the qualities attributed to God by a particular religion? There are many religions that believe in an impersonal God.

This is a good point and I sympathize. I reject much that is called God and the ideas behind them yet there are things I feel some due to searching and some due to my culture and family.
I personally see God as the memory of the universe and all it's relationships. The future of an illusion that is filled in by the processes of my mind.

Dilettante wrote:

Let's not forget that the word "myth" has more than one meaning. Apart from "a false notion", a myth is also a story used to explain something (such as a worldview or perhaps the origins of the world, etc). In that sense, some myths are illuminating (Plato's "myth of the cave") while others are obscurantist (the Noah myth)....
Around these parts, one of the best theories on the origins of religion is that the first humans projected on the heavens the qualities not of humans as themselves but of those numinous animals which they believed had the power to harm them or protect them (e.g. totemic animals). If you look at the cave paintings you'll see why. When primitive peoples performed their rituals they frequently used masks representing animals, so there could be something to this theory.

I couldn't agree with you more.
FreddieFreeloader wrote:

Whenever philosophers decided that fairness, justice, neighborly love or whatever was fundamentally good, the attributes of any applicable deity started reflecting those exact qualities...
It does seem that it is easier to accept an absolute, external answer rather than trying to deal with issues of purpose and morality and the emotional void such issues can cause. Especially when the absolute answers come complete with some form of pseudo-justification. I firmly believe, that any meaning created by oneself is thousand times more satisfying and valuable than any meaning imposed by any external source, no matter how convenient and applicable those answers may seem in times of personal need.

I agree but it is nice to share.