What accounts for the religious faith of intelligent people?

[Robert]

Assuming you have ever encountered a genuinely religious person who seemed manifestly more intelligent than you, to what if anything did you ascribe the religious side of his nature?

This thread's title originally asked if religious people were "insane" It was not a good question, I admit, especially as phrased.

[Lynx]

Faith, positive thinking, humility.

[Random Precision]

The religious: are they intelligent? Studies show that they might be after all! :rolleyes:

[Robert]

Studies show that they might be after all!

If you say so.

What about my question?

[Killfacer]

The archibishop strikes me as a pretty intelligent bloke and i recall him having a "debate" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqCUM26lq8) with Richard Dawkins. Some people just have an inexplicable faith that god exists.

[spice756]

Well religion is faith not science or logic.If there is a invisible man in the room science cannot debunk it , has I can claim it does not govern the laws of physics so they cannot debunk .

All science cannot prove or disprove god has there is no information.If there was a god that appeared there is no proof to prove he is god or prove what is claim is true.Well we could just be living in a computer simulator or the matrix and you cannot prove or disprove that.The human race may be was created by aliens for emotion research and you cannot prove or disprove the claim.


The problem with religions is it faith not logic that is problem.

[Demogorgon]

Of course not.

[Jazzratt]

Yes. Many very intelligent people have had stupid beliefs and this can really only be adequately explained as a mental deficiency (or "insanity").

"A man who claims to talk to god is considered holy. A man who claims to talk to god through his hairdryer is considered insane - why should the addition of a hairdryer make any difference?"

[spice756]

"A man who claims to talk to god is considered holy. A man who claims to talk to god through his hairdryer is considered insane - why should the addition of a hairdryer make any difference?"


Well religion is very culturally exceptable that is why.Has for the church leaders it is hard to say if they believe it it.

And intelligent or not has nothing to do with belief in god.On less you a science guy or girl or questions every thing.

[Raúl Duke]

Assuming you have ever encountered a genuinely religious person who seemed manifestly more intelligent than you, to what if anything did you ascribe the religious side of his nature?

I don't want to sound arrogant but I never met a religious person who I considered more intelligent then me...unless you mean more intelligent in math.

Basically...religion is similar to delusion. So, in a sense, they could be called to be insane. However, the definition of insanity is pretty difficult because usually it's assume that the "insane" are a minority compared to the "mentally healthy" when it comes to religion this is not the case (right now).

The only time we may finally declare that the "religious are insane" with any weight will be the time when religiosity has declined to a large extent (at least we can be happy that it seems, the decline, to be occurring in developed countries).


Well religion is faith not science or logicActually, faith itself runs into a logical problem. Faith is based on an appeal/argument of/to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium) since it asks us to believe/accept as true without evidence (like the philosophical a priori knowledge). The logical conclusion, at least for a generic god (i.e. for example, the deist god), is to be an agnostic-atheist (I'm using agnostic in it's classical sense: as an epistemological instead of a theological position). However, since most/all religions are "revealed" (i.e. based on revelations, like holy texts or divinly-inspired sayings) one can use their "revelations" as evidence against these religions by testing it against reality.

[Jazzratt]

Well religion is very culturally exceptable that is why.Has for the church leaders it is hard to say if they believe it it.

If I claimed to speak to God through my hairdryer but declared it part of my "religion" would that, then, make it acceptable. If so, then you must consider 1) What madness cannot be defended by claiming faith and 2) Is social acceptability a part of the definition of madness? If it is not the case that I can call my hairdryer communications a "religion" and avoid being carted off to the nuthouse then how does one decide where the line is drawn between delusional lunatics and the devoutly religious? Is it simply the age and popularity of the insane belief?


And intelligent or not has nothing to do with belief in god.

Perhaps not, but those people with the education and life expereince to harness their intelligence tend to reach a conclusion of athiesm or agnoscepticism.


On less you a science guy or girl or questions every thing.

I'm sorry but what do you mean by this?

[Elliot_R]

beliving in something does not make a person insane. It's natural to wonder how the world began, something that is unexplainable, even by science. So what if they choice to believe that God exists and we were created by him. To reject it is to claim that you know everything, which is not possible. Atheists seem incredibly arrogant (from whom I've met).

[spice756]

Alot has to do with culture like after the 30's was the UFO and ET culture .Now we got EVP ,ghosts ,huttings it has become fad.

We even got out of body experience and orbs and the list of supernatural goes on and on.It is on TV in the movies :eek: In games on talk radio it has becaome a culture .




beliving in something does not make a person insane. It's natural to wonder how the world began



And what is to say we are all in a computer simulator and being studied or hook up to pods and some one feeding off are energy.The reason religion is culturally exceptable it is is norm.

[spice756]

If I claimed to speak to God through my hairdryer but declared it part of my "religion" would that, then, make it acceptable

No if some one claims they can talk to god or see him they would be send to jail.




Perhaps not, but those people with the education and life expereince to harness their intelligence tend to reach a conclusion of athiesm or agnoscepticism.


Most athiesm are in astrophysics



I'm sorry but what do you mean by this


Being if you a scientist you question every thing even very strange things and question what is matter , how did matter form/take place.What is god is god real.What cause the big bang.What is nothing and can there be nothing.What is evile and who made evile.What is point of good and bad .What is the point of life.Who made god and will the Universe go on for xx time.


Who made life and what is life so on and so on.I cannot debunk my entire life is a dream or I'm in the matrix.

But I can say if there is a god he did a terrible job of making life:tt1: it is so crude.That is why I dis-god.The world is nothing but hell /evile and are human bodies are terrible .It was not long ago before medicine people if you lucky live to 30 and that was it.

If it was not for medicine smallpx ,yellow fever ,TB would kill most US people.All the greed ,war and genocide,suffering so on.

How nice of god.

[Raúl Duke]

To reject it is to claim that you know everything

so is the opposite...at least according to the rules of logic.

most atheists, at least rationally minded ones, are agnostic-atheists in terms of generic god (i.e. deism's concept of a god) but they tend to state knowledge that a specific religion's god is wrong because of examination of said religion's "revealed" claims against reality.

[Demogorgon]

Most athiesm are in astrophysics

In terms of atheists in academia, most atheists are in social sciences or arts like philosophy. This is because the question of God is not one relevant to science and indeed the wonders of the universe often provoke a belief in God. Rather it is understanding of the social workings of religion and how it forms that leads best to conclusions about God.

It can be easily proven that full acceptance of science does not have any baring on religious belief. Most of the population are at least somewhat religious and most fully accept science.

Idiots like Jazzratt who know next to nothing about religion might very well tell you that it is insane, but then again, given that religion is not about direct communication with God, his arguments are somewhat irrelevant. (Incidentally I find it ironic that he talks about intelligence and life experience as being what leads to religion given he has neither).

Most of my life the question of God has been one that causes conflict within me. On the one hand I am almost certain that there is not a God, but on the other hand there is an emotional pull towards such a thing, a desire for there to be some justice in the Universe and for there to be a power that loves us. Like I say I am next to certain that there is not such a power (even if there is a God, I see no reason to presume that it is anything other than ambivalent and morally neutral), but I fully understand the desire to believe in such a thing.

Anybody with the slightest understanding of historical materialism knows that religion essentially reflects the desires of those who follow it. To claim that it is mental illness to have desires and to follow the most common cognitive path to wishing to realise them is the real lunacy.

[Vanguard1917]

No. A materialist analysis acknowledges that religion has social, economic and political causes; it's not caused by mental illness.

'Anti-theists' like Dawkins think they're super bright for rejecting religion (and the masses super stupid) but in the God Delusion Dawkins endorses the immensely nonsensical 'anti-speciest' views of Peter Singer.

Rubbishing religion and then advocating another form of irrationalism - not much progress has been made at all, has it?

Like Marx said, 'religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself'. Today's rising secular eco-religions are no less irrational and no less anti-humanist than the obscurantism of the past which they have come to replace.

[jasmine]

In terms of atheists in academia, most atheists are in social sciences or arts like philosophy. This is because the question of God is not one relevant to science and indeed the wonders of the universe often provoke a belief in God. Rather it is understanding of the social workings of religion and how it forms that leads best to conclusions about God.

It can be easily proven that full acceptance of science does not have any baring on religious belief. Most of the population are at least somewhat religious and most fully accept science.

Idiots like Jazzratt who know next to nothing about religion might very well tell you that it is insane, but then again, given that religion is not about direct communication with God, his arguments are somewhat irrelevant. (Incidentally I find it ironic that he talks about intelligence and life experience as being what leads to religion given he has neither).

Most of my life the question of God has been one that causes conflict within me. On the one hand I am almost certain that there is not a God, but on the other hand there is an emotional pull towards such a thing, a desire for there to be some justice in the Universe and for there to be a power that loves us. Like I say I am next to certain that there is not such a power (even if there is a God, I see no reason to presume that it is anything other than ambivalent and morally neutral), but I fully understand the desire to believe in such a thing.

Anybody with the slightest understanding of historical materialism knows that religion essentially reflects the desires of those who follow it. To claim that it is mental illness to have desires and to follow the most common cognitive path to wishing to realise them is the real lunacy.

This is an extremely interesting and reflective post. I would add that the point is not, is there a God? The point is, do we transcend physical death? You do not need God, Buddha or anyone/thing to do this.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

This is an extremely interesting and reflective post. I would add that the point is not, is there a God? The point is, do we transcend physical death? You do not need God, Buddha or anyone/thing to do this.

Your memory or influence might. (For a while) but personaly you will not be in a conscious state so you really wont be able to give a toss.

(your post reminds me of the spartan attitude to getting recored in history and "living forever" that way)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Is social acceptability a part of the definition of madness?
Actually, yes, it is. Someone is defined as "insane" or "mad" if his mind works in such a way as to make it impossible for him to function normally in society.

Therefore, the definition of madness depends entirely on what is considered normal social behaviour.

How else could you possibly define madness? There is no external archetype of the perfect healthy mind that we can use to measure people, and call them "mad" if they deviate too much from this standard. There is no objective standard of the healthy mind. We can only compare person A to person B, and we can only call person A mad if his mind is sufficiently different from the minds of most other people.

[Socialist18]

Some religious people are insane for sure, the ones that believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and the flat earthers...ever heard of the flat earth society?:rolleyes:

[Robert]

(even if there is a God, I see no reason to presume that it is anything other than ambivalent and morally neutral)

That's about where I come down. News reports about abuses and cruelties reconfirm it daily. Even if there is a god, I don't like him.

As for the question I posed, my guess is that the genuinely, honestly religious, if so constituted, are so in the sense of the Buddhist, believing in positive life forces, karma, what goes around comes around, etc. (Not to oversimplify your religion if you're Buddhist.) They honestly believe in this. On a social level, so do I. On a metaphysical level, I just don't. The reincarnation stuff is really nuts.

The very intelligent Christians I know do not, I suspect, genuinely believe in the miracles, no matter what they say, especially a dead man rising from the grave, resuscitating other dead men (Lazarus and others), walking on water, water into wine, 10,000 fish from 2 fish. I've had some who practically admit it, but they are either afraid to face it for what it will do to their own psyche, or feel they can't go broadcasting it for fear of social/family consequences. It's a big deal to sit your children down and tell them "look, I'm sorry dad was wrong (or lying) all these years."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The very intelligent Christians I know do not, I suspect, genuinely believe in the miracles, no matter what they say, especially a dead man rising from the grave, resuscitating other dead men (Lazarus and others), walking on water, water into wine, 10,000 fish from 2 fish. I've had some who practically admit it, but they are either afraid to face it for what it will do to their own psyche, or feel they can't go broadcasting it for fear of social/family consequences. It's a big deal to sit your children down and tell them "look, I'm sorry dad was wrong (or lying) all these years."
Huh? Of all Christian dogma, the miracles are by far the most plausible part. You don't even need to be an omnipotent God to do stuff like that. With the exception of resurrecting the dead, all the other miracles should be well within the powers of a technologically advanced alien species. In fact, nanotech alone would be able to replicate at least half of them.

[Dean]

Assuming you have ever encountered a genuinely religious person who seemed manifestly more intelligent than you, to what if anything did you ascribe the religious side of his nature?
First off, this is two distinct questions. The title deals with whether or not religious people have unsound mental order. The body of the post is asking why an intelligent theist would be compelled to be religious. I assume that by "religious" you mean "theist" as in they believe in god. The question is silly otherwise.

The answer to the second question is that theology is a cultural norm. It can be seen as both a part of the "collective unconscious" and mass hysteria, depending on context and character. The development of religious traditions is a long process, and the character of intelligent theists has little to do with the vitality of the belief. As I've mentioned in the past, one of my best friends is religious, and he is studying advanced physics and molecular sciences. Your intelligence has little to do with religious and political beliefs, sinc ethey are so tied up in your social personality character.


Are all believers insane?
This question is nonsensical, even if we replace "religious" with "theist." Firstly, belief in a god has little to do with your overall mental health. If that is your main deficiency, thne you probably have a very stable mind.

Secondly, such a belief cannot and should not be considered insanity. It could be considered a pathology at worst. I think what you mean is, "does a theist attitude indicate mental deficiency?" The answer would be, "only in regards to that specific issue." Religion has a radicaly different character for each practitioner. The only real standard you can apply here is the belief in god, and subsequently it is only rational to discuss that one idea.

[Socialist18]

A good forum to discus this kind of thing is IIDB. (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/index.php)
Its a pretty cool forum.

[Demogorgon]

The very intelligent Christians I know do not, I suspect, genuinely believe in the miracles, no matter what they say, especially a dead man rising from the grave, resuscitating other dead men (Lazarus and others), walking on water, water into wine, 10,000 fish from 2 fish. I've had some who practically admit it, but they are either afraid to face it for what it will do to their own psyche, or feel they can't go broadcasting it for fear of social/family consequences. It's a big deal to sit your children down and tell them "look, I'm sorry dad was wrong (or lying) all these years."
My Grandfather always said that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was easily explained if you factored in a small boy :lol:

Seriously, I suspect the biblical writers included a lot of the miracles for poetic and metaphorical reasons. The authors of the Bible were not living in the modern era and should not be treated as if they were.

I think a lot of miracles, that is the ones that may actually have happened rather than simply included for metaphorical reasons, are not that hard to explain. When people don't understand what is happening they often ascribe it fantastical meaning. Disentangle what happened from the beliefs of the time and you will often find quite mundane phenomena.

[jasmine]

A big problem with this discussion is that religion = institutionalised religion (christianity, islam etc.) Of course this is how most people express their religious feelings but it's not the only possibility.

Religion is the belief, feeling, hope or knowing that we are more than what we seem. What you see is not what you get - this is religion.

You are entitled to the belief that you live for 60, 70 or 80 years or more and then disappear. This is a valid belief but how many people live as if they believe, feel, this to be true? In this paradigm every second counts because it's all you have - how many people live this way? When you die there's nothing, not even darkness, so make the most of the blink of the cosmic eye you have.

It would be insane to behave any other way if you really felt your existence could be snuffed out at any moment.

Atheism and the acceptance of the mortgage payment is true madness.

[jasmine]

To which I would add - some time later - that there seems to be some idea that intelligence and knowing the truth are somehow connected. This is a more than tenuous connection, the truth on this website of course being atheism in its diverse forms.

[Robert]

there seems to be some idea that intelligence and knowing the truth are somehow connected.

I agree that there is no clear connection when we're talking about the cosmos and its origins. What I was trying to get at in this thread is to suggest that if believers are not insane, and if they are intelligent, then maybe, just maybe, they are right even if they can't prove it. I need to change the title of the thread.

But again, every putative believer I have cross examined, if intelligent enough to see where I am going, basically concedes that god is something he takes on faith alone. That's a thin reed to rely on, but unlike many here, I say live and let live. If marijuana, alcohol, or belief in the tooth fairy keeps you from going really nuts, then knock yourself out.

I know, I know, so long as they don't force their beliefs on others or convert them into public policy.

[jasmine]

But again, every putative believer I have cross examined, if intelligent enough to see where I am going, basically concedes that god is something he takes on faith alone. That's a thin reed to rely on, but unlike many here, I say live and let live. If marijuana, alcohol, or belief in the tooth fairy keeps you from going really nuts, then knock yourself out.


But this begs the question - what does going nuts mean? Here you are, a completely rational being (whatever that is). You reason that you have a maximum life span of say 80 or 90 years as long as you are not hit by the proverbial bus. What do you do with your brief life? You get a "good" job, marry someone, have kids, buy a house, retire for a while. Ideally, I mean. Life can be much harder than this.

And then you die.

This I believe is pretty crazy as an ideal form of behaviour but it's the template by which both religious and non-religious people live. Most bizarre is that belief plays almost no role in how anybody actually conducts their lives.

Either way we just keep on paying the mortgage/rent.

[Robert]

what does going nuts mean?

What I mean by "going nuts" (do you say "nuts" in the UK?) is descending into a mental state so profoundly psychotic that you not only hear voices and see visions of things for which there is no physical evidence (like "god," ha ha), but you are also socially estranged that you can not -- as opposed to "choose to not" -- function at all in society. You know, wandering around in the park talking to figments of your imagination and oblivious to your surroundings.

Jeanne d'Arc pretty clearly had ecstatic visions of something, or someone, but she was also able to ride her horse and convince a lot of big tough hairy men to purposefully follow her around on their horses too. She also, if some accounts are to be believed, defended herself intelligently at her trial. I don't consider her "nuts."

[Robert]

I think a lot of miracles, that is the ones that may actually have happened rather than simply included for metaphorical reasons, are not that hard to explain.

Like this?

Jesus then went to the tomb of Lazarus with Mary, Martha and the rest of the mourners. There he asked them to remove the stone that covered the hillside burial place. Jesus looked up to heaven and prayed to his Father, closing with these words: "Lazarus, come out!" When Lazarus came out of the tomb, Jesus told the people to remove his grave clothes.

I don't think that's a metaphor. And Lazarus was either dead or he wasn't. If he wasn't, I hope the family asked the mortician for a refund.

[Demogorgon]

Like this?

Jesus then went to the tomb of Lazarus with Mary, Martha and the rest of the mourners. There he asked them to remove the stone that covered the hillside burial place. Jesus looked up to heaven and prayed to his Father, closing with these words: "Lazarus, come out!" When Lazarus came out of the tomb, Jesus told the people to remove his grave clothes.

I don't think that's a metaphor. And Lazarus was either dead or he wasn't. If he wasn't, I hope the family asked the mortician for a refund.

I don't know, however the story is only recounted in the Gospel of John and John was not so much interested in recounting Jesus' life and deeds as he was in presenting a theological account of Christ as mankind's saviour. With that in mind, it could very well be intended as metaphor, not least because if it was an account that was widely believed to have happened amongst the followers of Jesus it would presumably have had mention in other Gospels.

So as metaphor it would certainly work and would certainly fit. But I am not prepared to state with certainty that that is what John intended.

[Robert]

Just for the record, I tried to change the thread name to this: for some reason, it doesn't appear in the thread title, but only in the subject line of the first post.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif What accounts for the religious faith of intelligent people?

[Comrade B]

Religion has no negative effect when it is in a non-physical sense. When people actually start to believe that God takes part in daily events is when the problems come along.

Religion gives some people a reason to try to succeed, it helps them through rough times to see a light at the end of the tunnel. I have no problem with people that use religion to motivate themselves, but when people start claiming that God wills something, such as the death of Iraqis, then the problems arise.

[Socialist18]

Religion has no negative effect when it is in a non-physical sense. When people actually start to believe that God takes part in daily events is when the problems come along.

Religion gives some people a reason to try to succeed, it helps them through rough times to see a light at the end of the tunnel. I have no problem with people that use religion to motivate themselves, but when people start claiming that God wills something, such as the death of Iraqis, then the problems arise. But don't most religious people believe God plays a direct part in their physical existence? I've always thought so.

[JimmyJazz]

It is basically all social pressure. Anyone who comes from a religious background and doesn't want to disown their family has pressure to be religious. Anyone whose spouse is (or becomes) religious has pressure to be religious. Anyone who has done something bad and wants to redeem themselves to society becomes religious. Eventually these beliefs do become at least partially internalized, because (1) it's hard to live a completely hypocritical existence, and (2) if you are outwardly religious you're probably being frequently exposed to arguments in favor of religion, but almost never encountering arguments against it. But the root cause is still the social pressure. No one is born believing a bunch of detailed, dogmatic religious bullshit, and on their own, no two people would come to the same religious ideas beyond some shared beliefs in a generic 'god' or 'force'.

[Comrade B]

But don't most religious people believe God plays a direct part in their physical existence? I've always thought so.

Do you think that God, whatever you will, ended the New England Patriot's undefeated season? If so, you are insane.
Do you think that God, not men, has ever been responsible for the creation of a war?
Do you take the story of Noah literally?
Do you think that God gives people cancer, crashes your car, and damns the people of Haiti to poverty?
If so, you are insane.

[Socialist18]

Do you think that God, whatever you will, ended the New England Patriot's undefeated season? If so, you are insane.
Do you think that God, not men, has ever been responsible for the creation of a war?
Do you take the story of Noah literally?
Do you think that God gives people cancer, crashes your car, and damns the people of Haiti to poverty?
If so, you are insane.You misunderstand me, I've always thought that the religious believe this, not me personally.:D

[jasmine]

What accounts for the religious faith of intelligent people?

What accounts for the belief that capitalism is a good and just economic way to run society - when you take into account the history (colonialism, slavery, world wars, economic collapse etc.) Yet this madness is the sanity of our times.

Belief is a very complex matter - scientology is gibberish but there are some very intelligent scientologists.

Belief is emotional. We are emotional and not rational beings, we need to belong, to feel of value, to be liked. We need to have hope. All these things and more dictate what "truth" we will or will not accept.

[jasmine]

But again, every putative believer I have cross examined, if intelligent enough to see where I am going, basically concedes that god is something he takes on faith alone. That's a thin reed to rely on, but unlike many here, I say live and let live. If marijuana, alcohol, or belief in the tooth fairy keeps you from going really nuts, then knock yourself out.


What keeps you from going nuts? Hopefully you won't use the term "scientific evidence" in the reply.

[communard resolution]

I apologize if this has been said before (I haven't got the time to read all the posts right now), but I think religiousness is more of a psychological tendency/problem rather than having anything to do with intelligence.

I also blame upbringing and the poisoning of children's minds with religions and other superstitions at a very early age. It's very hard for grown-ups to ever completely get rid of their superstitions because they will always lurk in their subconscious no matter how much they have rationally rejected their religion.

I would compare it to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: you do things that don't make any rational sense, but even though you're aware of that, you still do them; your subconscious is telling you something very bad will happen if you don't.

I wouldn't necessarily ban religion, but I would do everything to prevent children from being exposed to it. I believe it is harmful to one's psyche.

[Robert]

What keeps you from going nuts?

Nothing

[Robert]

I think religiousness is more of a psychological tendency/problem rather than having anything to do with intelligence.

Agreed


I also blame upbringing and the poisoning of children's minds with religions and other superstitions at a very early age.

I think that's a bit harsh starting at "poisoning." I understand what you mean, and the fear that some adults live in continuously as a result of indoctrination by neurotic priests is terrible, but ...

I have no problem with charities, for example, invoking the name of Jesus or some dead saint as the raison d'etre of their mission.

That's religion, isn't it?

[pusher robot]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Likewise, humans abhor ambiguity. Thus religion started as a way of explaining the otherwise utterly unexplainable. For whatever psychological reasons, humans seem predisposed to preferring to make something up that they can understand rather than live with the fact that an observable phenomenon is totally, completely unexplainable. Seems silly, but it holds true as far back as we can tell.

The problem became even more acute when delving into issues of philosophy and ethics. The deeper men probed, the further down they started asking "Why?" of all their assumptions and axioms, the more difficult it became to understand really why we have the morals we have. Most inconveniently, when one finally reached the bottom, the base level of the pyramid of ethics and morals, it seemed for all the world that there was nothing there. The foundation of the edifice of civilization was - a bottomless abyss? This seemed to mean only one of two things: Either (a) right and wrong do not, in fact, exist, or (b) there was something holding up that foundation beyond human ability to perceive or even conceive, something incorporeal that held it up. The former option was, for most people, either so alien or so terrifying that the only choice was to accept the latter, and fill that bottomless abyss with the will of a "higher power."

Those are the two reasons I think religion has been so widespread through most of human history.

[communard resolution]

I think that's a bit harsh starting at "poisoning." I understand what you mean, and the fear that some adults live in continuously as a result of indoctrination by neurotic priests is terrible, but ...Sorry, but I think "poisoning" is not even harsh enough. A poisoning is usually only temporary while religious indoctrination is likely to stay with you for the rest of your life - no matter how much you want to reject it.

I imagine this is something that is hard to put this into practice, but I think in a better society it would be our duty to do everything in our power to keep children away from religion. Later on, when their personalities are developed enough to make choices as grown-ups, they may choose to worship whatever phantoms take their fancy.


I have no problem with charities, for example, invoking the name of Jesus or some dead saint as the raison d'etre of their mission.I have no problem with the act of charity as such, but do you really need some dead saint to tell you that the poor need your help? I'm pretty sure people would arrive at this conclusion without religion.

[Robert]

do you really need some dead saint to tell you that the poor need your help? I'm pretty sure people would arrive at this conclusion without religion.

No, I don't, but that isn't the question. The question is whether there is anything objectionable about a charity bearing the name of a charitable person who inspires others, and invoking his example. And I claim, if no one else will, that religious charities raise a lot of money and provide a lot of food and medical care around the world. Would it have been provided anyway? I don't think so. Do they do enough? I don't know. Do you do more?

I find most anti-religionists to be scarred up survivors of some nun who used to whack them on the knuckles for messing up their arithmetic assignment. If you've been actually abused by a priest, you have my sincere sympathies.

The only other thing I got to say to you, Nero the Emperor, is that I am some kind of PISSED that you have a more grandiose name than I. While I am merely great, you are emperor.

All hail!

[communard resolution]

You're probably right on this one


The question is whether there is anything objectionable about a charity bearing the name of a charitable person who inspires others, and invoking his example. And I claim, if no one else will, that religious charities raise a lot of money and provide a lot of food and medical care around the world.and no, I find nothing wrong with it.

But I was talking about religious indoctrination of children, and since cases like this


scarred up survivors of some nun who used to whack them on the knuckles for messing up their arithmetic assignment.and similar are aplenty, the scarred up survivors are one example to support my view that religion should be kept away from children. Is there one good reason why it shouldn't?


The only other thing I got to say to you, Nero the Emperor, is that I am some kind of PISSED that you have a more grandiose name than I. While I am merely great, you are emperor. To top my title, you would have to go beyond the secular.

[Bud Struggle]

William Barrett the NYU Philosophher in his book, The Illusion of Technique summarized a lifetime of philosophical thinking in one sentence: "Amid all the definitions proposed for man the most truthful would in fact be that he is the religious animal." (Wiki) So it may be the "nature" of man to believe in something higher. Anyway:


Nature abhors a vacuum.

Likewise, humans abhor ambiguity. Thus religion started as a way of explaining the otherwise utterly unexplainable. For whatever psychological reasons, humans seem predisposed to preferring to make something up that they can understand rather than live with the fact that an observable phenomenon is totally, completely unexplainable. Seems silly, but it holds true as far back as we can tell. You could also make the point that there IS something that is somehow unexplainable--like consciousness, that for reasons sometimes touch us. It's a big universe and the sum total of what can be gleaned from our five senses may not be all there is.


The problem became even more acute when delving into issues of philosophy and ethics. The deeper men probed, the further down they started asking "Why?" of all their assumptions and axioms, the more difficult it became to understand really why we have the morals we have. Most inconveniently, when one finally reached the bottom, the base level of the pyramid of ethics and morals, it seemed for all the world that there was nothing there. The foundation of the edifice of civilization was - a bottomless abyss? This seemed to mean only one of two things: Either (a) right and wrong do not, in fact, exist, or (b) there was something holding up that foundation beyond human ability to perceive or even conceive, something incorporeal that held it up. The former option was, for most people, either so alien or so terrifying that the only choice was to accept the latter, and fill that bottomless abyss with the will of a "higher power." It isn't an answer, but there is an ethical dilemma that one reaches if there is no God--as Dostoevsky mentioned--everything is permitted. There is no absolute right and wrong. And my right is just as good as your right. But my right may have a bit more ammunition behind it--so I win if it comes to hat. There's a total destruction of any morality that isn't completely arbitrary. Without a God to make the rules--everyone can have their own private morality. Now there is the law, but if I can circumvent the law and no one catches me--maybe it's worth the risk?

You might not like the idea of snuffing out a human life or two for profit--but if it makes me a couple of dollars, and I see no problem with it and I'm big and strong...

There's the slippery slope.


Those are the two reasons I think religion has been so widespread through most of human history.

Good post.

[Jazzratt]

A desire for comfort? Societal pressure? The fact that even "intellectual giants" are never going to be infallible - they are not the secular equivalent of popes and deities after all.

[Dean]

William Barrett the NYU Philosophher in his book, The Illusion of Technique summarized a lifetime of philosophical thinking in one sentence: "Amid all the definitions proposed for man the most truthful would in fact be that he is the religious animal." (Wiki) So it may be the "nature" of man to believe in something higher.

Please read Ludwig Feuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity."