patrick.net

michaelsch says

Summarizing Dan's:

#2 is more about comforting people, especially children, than fear.

#3 is about cultural acceptance and the unquestioning trust children have in their parents. If the parents raise their kids in an environment where certain races are considered inferior to others, it's likely the kids will hold this belief even if unconsciously even when they are adults. The same is true for many "fundamental" beliefs and behaviors. What children learn in early life, good or bad, sticks with them and shapes their personalities and world views.

michaelsch says

Anything else?

There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic. Certain genes predispose individuals to accepting supernatural rather than natural explanations for things. Given thousands of years of eradicating heretics, there has been ample artificial selection on our species to promote such genes. Medieval Europe is a prime example.

There was a PBS special many years back in which twins separated from birth and raised by different parents were studied and it was found that both twins in a set would either be very religious or not religious at all regardless of whether either was raised in a religious or secular family.

One particular example in that show was a pair of twins, one raised by Nazis and the other by Jews, an both were very religious (although different religions) and had largely the same interests.

Without getting into the whole nurture vs nature debate, it's clear that genetics does play a role in determining how religious/superstitious a person is, regardless of what religion, if any, that person belongs to.

michaelsch says

Looks like none of the rest even tried to answer my question.

While I would say Dan's answers were more comprehensive than mine, I did post the first answer. Also, nobody's answers were particularly heated except Captain Tonya Harding Shuddup, whose misinformed and misguided rants into self-righteous profanity can strain anyone's patience.

BTW, you mentioned this is a Sunday school class, so presumably these are children of religious parents. That probably explains the paranoia about discussing religion in school. Preachers stoke fear with Faux News, thus sewing mistrust of infidels, while reinforcing the desire to believe in an omnipotent and divine protector. The passive phrase "it is forbidden" does not specify by whom, so perhaps this is one of the polygamous 7th Day Adventist or Mormon groups and the parents don't want the kids blabbing for fear of drawing unwanted attention.

Dan8267 says

Heated? I thought I was talking dispassionately, ...

Well, no offence and thank you.

curious2 says

While I would say Dan's answers were more comprehensive than mine, I did post the first answer.

Maybe I just did not understand it. Frankly, what you wrote looks more like a description of some kind of mind controlling cult, maybe Mormonist to certain extend, I did not think it answered my question. At any rate, my goal is to make sure my pupils make their own informed personal decisions and that as much as I can influence it do not loose any aspect of their personality.

I also believe that this is in the best interests of the Church if it does not want to reduce itself to a cult. So, I did not think your reason was relevant, but now as I reread it I can see one thing there that may be very relevant, i.e. a wish to relieve oneself from any personal responsibility.

Why do you feel that they need to be taught about ANY religion???? If they need to be indoctrinated at such an early and impressionable age to keep the church/religion afloat and continuing, maybe some re-evaluation is in order.

What's wrong with waiting until they're adults so that they can make an informed and intelligent decision without bias and pressure from people that they admire and/or respect?

michaelsch says

Frankly, what you wrote looks more like a description of some kind of mind controlling cult...

I used the example of flying a plane into a building, but I won't dispute your characterization of Islam. Or Romney's cult, for that matter, which enables him to feel good about firing people and shipping their jobs to China so long as he tithes 10%.

People are afraid of dying, thanks to our adaptive reasoning abilities, they/we want to think they/we will live forever, well, duh, the forever never ends/comes so good luck with that.

I think the bible is still a great book, with some good common sense rules and reasons for why people should live life a certain way so thank you for teaching our young ones.

everything says

I think the bible is still a great book, with some good common sense rules and reasons for why people should live life a certain way.

If you read the whole thing, it is more like a fragmented partial transcript of arguments spanning a thousand years. The rules conflict, and most of them have no reasons. Even those with reasons tend to be circular or subjective, for example Paul explained that the reason a woman shouldn't be allowed to cut her hair short is because long hair is "a glory unto her."

everything says

I think the bible is still a great book, with some good common sense rules and reasons for why people should live life a certain way so thank you for teaching our young ones.

Most of the Bible is filled with silliness, or at least it is/was important information to that tribe. You can't find much good, except where you apply mental gymnastics, to the 613 laws in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It's not a code of ethics, per se.

Most people are looking for a way to make sense out of life (with a strong showing from people who want to make sense out of YOUR life. The seeker has found that the meaning of life is telling you how to live).

There are several schools of though where this doesn't have to be though. One could search for meaning and see it in the harmonious way the universe works together, in tension.

Of course, that could be called "science" too, but there is no rule saying that religion be dictated as a moral code, a set of rules, or a way to live forever.

everything says

I think the bible is still a great book, with some good common sense rules and reasons for why people should live life a certain way so thank you for teaching our young ones.

Why would you think that? Most of the morals presented in the Bible are ones we in the modern age would consider abominably evil. And the few morals that are not reprehensible are obvious like don't kill people and be nice.

There are no difficult moral issues or dilemmas addressed in the Bible. Nor are there any stories that enlighten us on how to apply moral principles in real world situations.

This thread seems to be getting a bit off topic. The question of the thread is why people believe in a god, not whether or not a particular religion is correct or morally enlightening. Perhaps someone should get this thread back on track by stating any other reasons people believe in a god.

Look at the believers and their charactoristics or common traits of that same group and it's very self-explanetory.

Anybody have an answer why the believers drop off when IQ levels go up?

upisdown says

Anybody have an answer why the believers drop off when IQ levels go up?

The inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity points to another reason, i.e. if you feel a need to understand something about the world, but you aren't willing or able to figure it out, it's much easier just to say "God did it." Why are there mountains and valleys? Genesis tells us these are God's footprints, which is weird because Genesis also tells us man was created in God's image and the valley's don't look like the footprints of any man I've ever met. Nevermind, on to the next answer, why do earthquakes/lightning/other events happen? All same answer. It's much easier to believe everything results from one benevolent dictator than to figure out a seemingly endless series of interacting but partially independent forces and causal connections.

I feel sorry for the person who "disliked" the Mel Brooks video.

CaptainShuddup says

Both sides of the argument are over baring Zealots in their own right.

BOth sides of what argument ?

Science is science and has little or nothing to do with spiritual beliefs or religion.

marcus says

Science is science and has little or nothing to do with spiritual beliefs or religion.

Other than utterly disproving them all, which is why the religious are so often against science such as evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Why do people want to believe in god ?

I used to agree with some of these reasons, especially in my adolescence.

michaelsch says

1. and 2. Because people are affraid of death; Here I would add another aspect: people do not want to agree to an absolute and final disappearance of things good and beautiful they love.

3. because of conformism;

4. because they feel they need an absolute source of the absolute morality.

Anything else?

How about: because they want a reward they think they deserve but can't get in earthly live? (A variation: because they want their enemies/neighbors punished)

And the classic anti-religious argument: because they are affraid of things they do not understand?

Now I don't see it that way at all.

It might be about programming or indoctrination in youth. But if not indoctrinated as children, many are going to be "seekers" later for reasons that are beyond explanation.

There are people who for reasons mostly other than those you list, simply believe. They just do.

IT may have to do with the way having conscious existence makes them feel. Or maybe it's just where they end up after a long period of coming to terms with the fact that they (their ego, their consciousness, their "intelligence") exist.

It isn't logical. But then it isn't easy to logically explain why you exist (not your body, but your mind - your self) people use terms such as "soul" because it honestly feels like their existence is more than simply that of an intelligent animal.

I'm not arguing that they are or they are not, more than an animal. But then again even the consciousness of an intelligent animal is an amazing thing.

This isn't the argument that it is beyond our comprehension or that believing in God is a short cut to understanding EVERYTHING.

It's about how existing feels to some people.

That's all.

marcus says

it honestly feels like their existence is more than simply that of an intelligent animal.

In a word, ego. Thanks Marcus for completing the circle of the thread by bringing it back to the first word of the first comment. You are the Alpha and Omega. I should have guessed, it was all about you and your feelings, all along. Yet apparently the word ego by itself, even with a paragraph of example, was not clear enough; perhaps "self-indulgence," putting one's own feelings ahead of objective reality, "I feel that 2+2=5 so that answer must be valid." As I recall, Marcus pretends to be a math teacher; evidently, it is a species of "new math" with a lot of validation and chanting (not to be confused with old fashioned prayer, Marcus hates it when people confuse his modern chants with prayers - and remember, it's all about Marcus, because he is the Alpha and Omega).

Naive gullibility & the inability to think critically?

Dan8267 says

There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic.

I studied the weather this morning.
I stuck my head outside and saw it was raining.
Therefore I concluded that the Planet earth is a rain soaked drenched planet, why it must be raining all over the world.

HEY YOU says

Naive gullibility & the inability to think critically?

For fundamentalism, yes.

But there are people who are very intelligent and neither naive nor gullible, who have some form of spiritual beliefs. But that belief would not likely be anything like a belief in an old dude with a beard who lives in the clouds that they have a personal relationship with.

Then again, truth be known, most Catholic Priests or Protestant ministers don't believe that either, if you really pin them down.

There are some people who are never going to be able to believe in something that by definition (at least for an adult and intelligent interpretation) is beyond comprehension or description.

But science is not incompatible with this. For most areas of real life endeavor, I agree with the point of view that accepts as real only what can be understood.

It's not hard to see why holding both views is difficult or impossible for some people.

Captainshuddup says, "I studied the weather this morning.
I stuck my head outside and saw it was raining.
Therefore I concluded that the Planet earth is a rain soaked drenched planet, why it must be raining all over the world."

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Emphasis on little. When people only know a little, yet believe they see the entire picture ...

AS for what people REALLY want to believe, here is some interesting food for thought.

Between highly religious types versus atheist and agnostic types, which group on average would be more likely to appreciate the movie (trilogy) "The Matrix ?"

OBviously it's just highly imaginative fiction. But I'm guessing a lot of those who like it are atheists or agnostics. If you've given much thought to the movie(s), then you may understand why that's kind of interesting.

#1. To gain a sense of identity.

Everything else is secondary.

That's why religious people target the lost and lonely. Those people are most in need of groups to join and are the easiest targets.

#1. To gain a sense of identity.

That's called preying upon weak and/or vulnerable people. Any organized and beaurocratic group that does that should sound some alarms in people.

Then again, religious participation and blind adhereance to it's dogma is greatest among the lower IQ's and poorer folks(the people that can least afford it), also the false claims by religious followers of their 100% devoted participation and finacial support. There's not enough seats in the churches and most churches are running short on money, so is it lying or just exageration?

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic.

I studied the weather this morning.

I stuck my head outside and saw it was raining.

Therefore I concluded that the Planet earth is a rain soaked drenched planet, why it must be raining all over the world.

And that is why you are not a scientist. It's a good thing that real scientists know how to do real science. Just because you can't do something right, doesn't mean that others can't. There are hundreds of millions of scientists making significant discoveries and performing repeatable experiments. I fail to see how your analogy discredits that.

marcus says

For fundamentalism, yes.

Definition of fundamentalism: Whatever I don't like is "fundamentalism", and whatever I do like is not.

When was the last time a radical fundamentalist referred to himself as a radical fundamentalist?

Dan8267 says

When was the last time a radical fundamentalist referred to himself as a radical fundamentalist?

Self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalists believe in Biblical inerrancy, a young earth (7k years old as per the Bible), etc. Actually a majority of Americans believe man & earth were created less than 10k years ago as described in Genesis, but the self-described fundamentalists are a subset. These tend to include recovering addicts looking for a life raft, and others who simply can't navigate in a complicated world. GW Bush was a drunken failure as a mainline Protestant, then he was "born again," got that Texas religion, quit the sauce, and became a two-term POTUS. Worst in American history, but more than 20% of voters supported him all the way through.

curious2 says

These tend to include recovering addicts looking for a life raft, and others who simply can't navigate in a complicated world. GW Bush

I've heard the term "Dry Drunk" used. Certain kinds of addictions destroy certain types of brain functionality, often involving the capacity for nuanced judgement. People with low IQs also fall into "Black/White" thinking.

Dan8267 says

It's a good thing that real scientists know how to do real science.

And I'm sure there's sound scientific reasoning behind...
"There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic."

Because every Preacher's sons(every damn one of them) I ever knew were the biggest Hell raisers in the town. The towns meanest Bad Ass where I grew up, his Dad was a preacher. The town Cop wouldn't even go to his house if he were called out. But hey! There's a study that says otherwise.
I had a room mate when I first moved here in South Florida he was born Jewish his father was a rabbi, and he was persona non gratis at his families house, because he was not an ideal Jew. Ate pork dated non Jewish women, never went to temple ect.

Come to think of it, religious family dynasties are quite rare in America anyway.

CaptainShuddup says

Preacher's sons

You are conflating religious profiteering with religious belief. See the first post in the thread: as Sinead O'Connor observed, the problem with the Vatican is it's run by atheists. The OP was why do people want to believe; reasons for pretending to believe are pretty obvious, with Ratzinger's billions and Robertson's private jet.

marcus says

But if not indoctrinated as children, many are going to be "seekers" later for reasons that are beyond explanation.

OK, but I don't think the reasons are beyond explanation. In what you describe there is quite an obvious explanation: they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism. Many really want a goal in their life, which will not disappear with the end of their physical life or shortly after.

marcus says

There are people who for reasons mostly other than those you list, simply believe. They just do.

May be, but I usually met people, who want to believe, and they usually have a reason for this.

marcus says

IT may have to do with the way having conscious existence makes them feel. Or maybe it's just where they end up after a long period of coming to terms with the fact that they (their ego, their consciousness, their "intelligence") exist.

Chrisians usually call it their Person. BTW, that's another very important reason, why people want to believe in God. Remember that God's name means "existance" in Old Hebrew. People want to have a real existance, rather than just that of a picture on your computer screen built out of a configuration of pixels. It's easy to see that an existential being of those pictures are within their creator rather than the pixels themselves. That (pixels by themselves) is the atheist ontology.

Personally every time I doubt my faith and try to build another ontology I find this lack of real existence completely unacceptable and go back to God the Creator.

michaelsch says

they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism.

That's just silly. Einstein found meaning in learning to understand the universe. Thomas Jefferson found meaning in replacing the evils of kings and priests with a new republic based on natural law. Bill Gates finds meaning in achieving his potential and helping others around the world achieve theirs. To the extent that people buy a religion as a substitute for meaning, it reflects a lack of courage and persistence.

michaelsch says

Personally every time I doubt my faith and try to build another ontology I find this lack of real existence completely unacceptable and go back to God the Creator.

Interesting insight, but very sad result. It reminds me of the childhood story of the choo-choo train, "I think I can." How sad if the train tried to climb the hill, failed, and said "I guess I can't."

I appreciate the politeness of your posts, so please don't take what I'm about to say personally, but Marcus' mental masturbation is no substitute for applied ontology.

Dan8267 says

Definition of fundamentalism: Whatever I don't like is "fundamentalism", and whatever I do like is not.

When was the last time a radical fundamentalist referred to himself as a radical fundamentalist?

Why, fundamentalism is well defind phenomenon. Fundamentalist
A. Have a well defined and finite corpus of texts they consider sacred.
B. Understand every norm in these texts literally.
C. Stricktly follow these norms

Of course, in reality the texts are way too big and if one understand them literally they have too many contradictions. That's why ant organized fundamentalist group selects there own smaller subset of principles and ignore the rest.

All these are equally applicable to any major fundamentalist groups like orthodox Jews (their major text is Shulchan Aruch, rather than Tora, which is more a sacred item);
various Protestant movements with their custom taylored Bible translations;
fundamentalist Muslims, who treat Koran as such a text, while in fact it was a collection of religious poetry.

In addition, there are basicly fundamentalist cults, who add strong mind controlling technics to their fundamentalism, Mormonism seams to be one of these.

michaelsch says

Remember that God's name means "existance" in Old Hebrew

I think it's conventionally considered "I AM". If you take the psychoanalytical approach, it could be the Superego asserting it has a place in your psyche, despite your ego attempting to avoid the moralizing of the Superego.

In other words, "I AM", and you better recognize!

michaelsch says

In what you describe there is quite an obvious explanation: they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism.

I guess maybe. I think an atheist would say their reality is more true and that there is a meaning to their lives but just a different one. I personally don't judge atheists to be "doing it wrong." It works for them. Unfortunately some atheists or maybe many, are very arrogant about it and can't hold their insecure beliefs together without judging believers to be "doing it wrong."

I guess I'm arrogant too though, right ? for feeling superior for not judging them at all for their non belief in God, but only for their judgmental attitude about believers.

How insecure does someone have to be about their non belief, that they can't even do it with out putting down all believers (not just fundamentalists) ? It's like they aren't satisfied without what they think is proof that any and all spiritual belief is wrong, and worthy of being proselytized about.

It's obvious to me that this is an expression of conflict.

THe true atheist has no such judgement about religion. It's like "hey i can't relate to it, but I don't need to judge it." "who am I to judge it ? I just concern myself with my beliefs (or non belief) regarding god."

Back to the question,...I only know my experience. I believe that even when I get to where I do not believe in an after life, and have nothing to benefit from believing, I still choose to see some kind of higher intelligence, some mystery, something beyond description or words, that fits in the 'god place' in my mind. If that place is some sort of residual vestige of where my child beliefs were 50 years ago, that's fine. I don't understand the why of it. It's just sort of in the background of how I interface with the world and how I take in this awesome experience we call human life.

I don't have all that much interest in understanding the reason.

I can't even understand how it's possible that Romney might be elected President. These bigger ontological questions are too much for me .

marcus says

I can't even understand how it's possible that Romney might be elected President.

Romnesia might be elected because he appeals to people on the basis of their religions, even though privately he calls their religions "abomination". He tries to project a reassuring conventional persona, so they will vote their feelings. If they considered evidence, they would vote against him, but many (for example Marcus) don't.

Objective facts don't matter to Marcus, only his own feelings. In his case at least, his religious belief(s) are symptoms arising from that deeper self-indulgence. Marcus pretends to be a math teacher. If one of his imaginary students says she feels that 2+2=5, Marcus is constrained by his "logic" to validate her answer, it must be the right answer for her.

Many voters are the same way. That is why Romnesia might win. They find it much more comfortable to chant along with someone who claims to share their beliefs.

curious2 says

Romnesia might be elected because he appeals to people on the basis of their religions, even though privately he calls their religions "abomination".

Baahhh bahhh the President who is acting more like a Lunchroom class ass clown, than an adult much less the leader of the free world, called his opponent "Romneisa", bahh baaah. I'm a brainless sheep, so I like to throw that name around too... Bahhh bahhh.

I don't think I'm the only one that sees what he did there. It's cool when you're Lumpy from "My three sons" but really cheesy coming from the president.

Has this guy every actually addressed the American public with out asking them to pull his finger?