Because religion provides comfort, community and a meaning to people’s existence that goes beyond “we were born of chance on an insignificant rock somewhere in the universe”.
(I’m not religious BTW)
It also exists to control people, and it still works.
Organised religion is always about power and money.
Not always, but the ones that aren’t about that are much smaller. E.g. I know a little community of christ church that is very simple and they rotate through the sermon and then have a friendly morning tea after. I’m not religious but it’s the only church I’ve been to where I kinda enjoyed it and I think it does just bring community and no harm. That being said, it’s a fringe denomination and isn’t really growing, because it’s not trying to force itself on others
Both talking about capitalism here, right ?
Existence is meaningless and we just wobble around here for a little while and then we die. There’s nothing to it. Everything that happens is just a logical consequence; beauty is nothing but a tiny chemical reaction in your brain. Once you rot it’s all worthless.
Science is great at giving explanations, but not so good at providing meaning. For a lot of people, meaning is probably more helpful in order to facilitate a happy life.
Nietzsche writes at length about this stuff, most famously in the anecdote about the madman coming down from the mountain to inform the villagers that God is dead and that we have killed him. Everybody knows the three words “God is dead”, but I think it’s worth reading at length:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Nietzsche, whose father was a priest, recognizes that “God has become unbelievable”, but he does not celebrate it as the progress of science. Rather, we lost something that was fundamentally important to humans, and which science cannot easily replace.
Here one could start talking about the Free Masons, who attempted learning from religious rituals without the added layer of religion. Or one could dig deeper into the works of Nietzsche, and the contrast between Apollonian and Dionysian. It’s all fascinating stuff.
In short though, spirituality used to offer people a sense of meaning that is not so easily replaced by science alone. How do we bury our dead now that we know our rituals are pointless?
Very well written, and insightful. Thanks for sharing this perspective in the discussion as I personally found it very valuable. You articulated my own perspective on this much better than I could have, and gave some great philosophical background to boot. 10/10 👍
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”-Voltaire
Says the man who rigged the lottery. We don’t need god anymore than we need cancer
Thank you for your insightful perspective.
Childhood indoctrination is a big part of it. I have been told by my 8-year old niece that she’d like to save me from drowning in a lake of fire. She was genuinely scared for me. It’s literal child abuse followed by Stockholm syndrome.
That part.
When I was about the age of 12, I had a new friend who asked me if I believed in God. I said no, and then she told me I was going to burn in hell. That was my first introduction to religion.
I don’t remember ever speaking with her again, but I still remember that interaction crystal clear and where it happened 20+ years later.
Your young niece sounds a lot like my elderly family. They’re conscious that they “just can’t let go” despite being very progressive and open to new ideas and they’re aware of that.
Have you heard of the fireplace delusion? Burning wood is horrible for our health and the environment, but most of us have fond memories of sitting by a fire. Religion is the same. Holiday traditions with family, organized events marking important life events, it’s hard to break away.
Great perspective
Belief is social. If you’re surrounded by people that all believe a thing, you’re more likely to also believe. If challenged on something that threatens group membership, your brain reacts like it’s a physical threat. Group membership is that important. Facts matter far less.
This happens to everyone.
There’s basically a 100% chance that OP believes something equally as unprovable as religion.
This happens to everyone.
Yeah, they said that in their comment. Did you not read all 5 sentences?
Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood your post.
I wasn’t disagreeing with them
I think a big part of the mental blocked on both sides is people generally not understanding the difference between fact and faith.
Knowledge is about fact. It’s the realm of science, empiricism, and logic. If it can be understood and known, it belongs here.
Faith is about the unknowable (not the unknown). It’s a choice to believe something without evidence because that evidence cannot exist.
You can’t both believe something and know it.
Understanding that faith and science don’t intersect allows people to hold spiritual beliefs without rejecting knowledge and science. They don’t conflict because they’re entirely separate.
Some people aren’t wired with the mental flexibility to embrace both spiritually and empiricism. Some reject science, while others reject faith, and neither understand the other.
Great synopsis.
Religion works on emotions, which are easy. Knowledge works on thinking, which is hard.
One thing atheists often ignore is that being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group. That alone is reason enough for many people to stick with it.
Sure, the preacher/priest/whatever may be a scammer asshole, but this isn’t about him, it’s about me and the people around me. I belong in here and so do these people.
Remember, humans are social creatures. Being part of a group is a big fucking deal.
Another thing I’ve been giving some thought, religion can be a “lazy shortcut” for the brain to acknowledge some stuff without having to spend too much energy thinking about it. It’s a lot easier to wrap your head around “Because God wants it” than digging deep into the hows and whys of anything. No, it’s not scientific in the least, but humans are lazy. I am lazy, you are lazy, everyone here is lazy, we just opt to save energy in different things.
I’ve known atheists who go to church for the community. I’m an atheist, and I have recommended going to a nondenominational church to other atheists who had said they really lacked community support.
Of course, sometimes religious community systems can actually be very hostile and nonsupportive and downright exploitative. Really just depends on the specific church community. Just like there are some great people and some major assholes out there. Churches are no different.
being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group.
The local crafting circle doesn’t endanger children and carpet bomb the neighbours, though.
Don’t be silly, neither does the local church.
The funny thing is that that kind of talk of the previous poster is just a bad type of generalization, a lazy shortcut. The existence of bad elements within a large group is a given. There are pedophile priests, just as there are pedophile uncles or teachers. The only difference here is in how accountable they are for their actions, as the Roman Catholic Church is well known for protecting its abusive priests, which isn’t too different from Epstein’s friends having money shields.
As for carpet bombing and general violence, one could say it’s “politics as usual”. When words fail (whether on purpose or not is irrelevant here), violence emerges, because one side wants to impose its will. Religion is just another lazy (and often effective) shortcut to rally people behind a cause, not unlike patriotism
When words fail
George Bush said god spoke to him in a dream and told him to invade Iraq to usher in the apocalypse.
No, but they enable those that do.
Wonder why atheists often do not value the communal aspect of a community they are often excluded from. It is almost as if they do not value not being included in the group? Also, lazy shortcuts often lead to bad outcomes. Being wary about that is a good thing, in my opinion.
Hey, who are you calling lazy. I,m not lazy, I just choose to do nothing at all. ;)
Religion has certain self-reinforcing properties. Kind of like genes that make it more likely to propagate against other forms of information.
- Believing without question is better than questioning
- Not believing will be punished
- Virtue will be rewarded
- Spreading the belief is a virtue
- You should obey your parents
Combine that with young human brains being malleable, and religion tends to continue against all odds.
Also, depending on the sect, you may burn in eternal, unquenchable fire in utter darkness if you don’t accept it, so…
You’re right and I think it helps to remember certain traits which make religion “fit” from an evolutionary perspective can be beneficial to its followers: believing that the most powerful being in the universe is on your side instills confidence and a sense of well-being. Having community members who believe that God has mandated they should help each other means people may receive assistance when they experience difficulty.
I would argue in the long term having beliefs which are more and more consistent with observed reality is more sustainable. The further your beliefs are from reality and the longer they’re held the more likely something will go wrong. Still, if we (whoever that is) want to encourage people to move away from religion we should think about how we can replace the positive aspects of the religious experience.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist? Just because you think our limited knowledge of the universe implies the inexistence of the god, doesn’t mean it is the absolute truth or everyone should be coming to the same conclusion as you.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist?
The burden of proof lies solely on the ones making the claim that god DOES exist.
Has there ever been irrefutable evidence, provided by any of the religious leaders over the last many thousands of years, which proves that god exists?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them. We can quickly exercise some critical thinking and realize that, while there might be a teapot in space someone brought with them and left, it’s not going to be beyond the asteroid belt.
Now do every belief system with empirical evidence. You can’t, primarily because belief in the logic used to prove that empirical evidence is the best evidence is itself a belief system. Changing any one of the axioms that underpin your methodology completely changes the methodology (eg parallel lines meet at infinity turns geometry into hyperbolic geometry). Furthermore, we can extend Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to any formal system, like you’re attempting to employ, and show that they can’t prove themselves.
In other words, we must take things on faith if we want to use logic and pull out statement related to logic like “burden of proof is on the positive.” You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.
If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them.
Disagreeing with the first claim doesn’t put the burden of proof on you. It merely keeps the ball in the first claimant’s hands.
You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.
Again, nobody is expected to disprove metaphysical claims. Claims for the metaphysical should be proven by whoever is making them.
Trying to disprove something that hasn’t been proven to exist could be as easy as saying “It doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist”, and that would be logically and factually sound.
The person who is holding the belief in god(s), ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, Men in Black, a flat earth, a young earth, and anything else you can dream up is the only person who has to justify those beliefs.
This is why I wish we had more people like James Randi around, who put up real money to anyone who could prove their claims of paranormal, magical, psychic, or other metaphysical claims to be true. In over 50 years, nobody could prove what they claimed. Randi didn’t have to disprove anything.
Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
Give me an example of a metaphysical claim, and I will tell you whether it can be proven or disproven. Simply talking about broad subjects doesn’t help to clarify the discussion.
In the context of religion, some claims made would be pretty easy to prove if they were true.
For example, many Christians believe that the earth is approx. 6000 years old. This would be very easy to prove, but we’ve already disproven it 1000x over.
Another claim, for example, is proving whether prayer works. When actually tested, we know that it doesn’t (at least, not in the spiritual/“direct connection with god” sense).
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
I’m not saying that AT ALL. I’m pretty agnostic about most claims.
If someone makes a claim, be it metaphysical, paranormal, or otherwise, then that claim needs to have been formed on some basis of evidence. If that evidence cannot be presented and/or observed and/or tested and/or repeated, then it doesn’t support the claim.
People who KNOW that heaven exists have never proven that it does. Neuroscientists can give a dozen reasons why someone might have a near-death experience where a person claims to have “visited heaven”, yet someone steeped in religion will never accept those explanations.
Really, that’s part of what makes religion so awful. It causes people to believe things that are so illogical, that you’d have to suspend reality in order for it to make any sense. And even then, it’s 99% crazy.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound.
I disagree. If I were to hold out my empty hand and say that “the ball in my hand does not exist because it does not exist”, that would be true, would it not?
Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic.
Circular logic is a strategy used in religious debates almost as a means to deadlock the debate (which is to their advantage, since they can’t prove anything otherwise).
That’s why the rebuttal, in the context of a religious claim, “It doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” is as lazy and unhelpful as saying “god exists because god exists”.
I’ve spent too many hours watching “debates” where the religious side will simply spiral into a black hole of laziness as to render the entire debate a complete waste of time. They’ll say “you can’t know that god doesn’t exist because you don’t know everything”, yet they’ll turn around and say that they are 100% certain that god exists because they know god exists. I mean, where can you go from there?
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
not saying that … pretty agnostic
Cool, we’re on the same page.
If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence
This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.
This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic
You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
Religion is quite literally the topic that the OP brought forth. And there is no logic when it comes to religion, so why bother sidelining the thread with discussion about logic rather than region?
If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidenceThis is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value.
I think you’re overcomplicating things.
If someone says that a character named Noah put two of every species of animal on a boat, can that be verified? Is it even possible mathematically, knowing what we know about how many species of animals exist, and the volume that two of every species would take up? Yes, and mathematically, the story is BS.
What about the age of the earth? We know that it’s older than 6000 years, so that’s another religious belief thrown out the window.
What about the age of humans? The bible has people 400+ years old. Can this be proven? We know that there are no humans alive or ever alive, that could be that old.
It gets even worse when you think about the miracles of saints. Why is it, at a time when we could absolutely be able to verify whether something is a miracle or not, we don’t get miracles.
God was doing all sorts of things merely two thousand years ago. Crazy thing like turning people into salt and raining fire down from the sky.
These things don’t happen any more, conveniently.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
I’m asking them to prove what they believe in to be true. It’s as simple as that.
People devote their entire lives believing. They ruin their kids lives through their beliefs. They also ruin the lives of others through the stripping away of basic rights, all based on their own beliefs.
It really isn’t too much to ask for their beliefs to be challenged.
The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
And yet I can claim that there is a god, without producing evidence of that god, and everyone is to believe that the god exists? Because that’s what religious folks are doing.
At least with the ball example, I proved that it doesn’t exist by showing you that there is no ball. Why is there no ball? Because it was made up. It never existed. See how that works?
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
Yes. Courts, scientists, and insurance companies do it all the time.
Do you have an example of a claim that we can test this out on?
No one is trying to make you or anyone else believe, they are just believing and doing their own thing therefore no need to prove anything considering both parties are approaching respectfully to eachother. OP was asking why people haven’t dropped religion. Since there is no proof of inexistence of the god, there is also no reason for people in 2024 to stop believing.
No one is trying to make you or anyone else believe, they are just believing and doing their own thing
Unfortunately, that’s not true at all. Religions are designed to spread, like a virus.
They go door-to-door, stand on corners (with loudspeakers or just to give you flyers), they visit underdeveloped countries in missions to convert others, they use their power to influence laws related to reproduction and sexuality, they harm children (i.e. protect pedophiles within their congregation), they demonize and persecute gay people, and so on.
Organized religion, for several thousands of years, have started wars and killed countless people “in the name of god”.
And that’s only the major religions. If you get into smaller religions, then you’re talking about anything from harassment to mass suicide to child wives and beyond. Anything goes when “god is with you”.
OP was asking why people haven’t dropped religion. Since there is no proof of inexistence of the god, there is also no reason for people in 2024 to stop believing.
You can’t prove the non-existence of something… and it’s nobody’s job to prove that something does not exist.
To the OP: There’s a small book called “Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith Paperback” by J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer, which would be of interest. You can probably read it in an afternoon, but it’s insightful.
You can in fact prove the non existence of a thing that is logically incoherent. Obviously the default position to be is agnostic, but you can actually disprove the existence of specifically a tri omni God via the problem of evil.
If an all knowing, all powerful, all loving being existed, we would not observe evil in the world as it would be knowledgeable enough, powerful enough, and care enough to get rid of it. We observe evil, so this being does not exist.
Of course, a lot of behaviour of God in the bible suggests that he is not all loving, which would trivially resolve the paradox, but a lot of Christians believe in a tri omni being anyway, which makes my prior argument non entirely irrelevant.
You can’t prove the non-existence of the god(s) that today’s religions worship, because their goalpost is always moving and logic isn’t in their belief system. That’s because religiosity allows someone to suspend logic and rational thought. This leads to someone believing in illogical things as fact, even if fact hasn’t been established.
Yes, the fact that evil exists would prove that an all-powerful, loving god who will do anything to protect “his children” doesn’t exist.
But then the religious folk would say, “evil things happen as part of God’s plan.” and that shuts down your evidence. It’s always like this, because faith is quite literally “believing in the absence of evidence”.
It’s super easy to disprove, for example, the “power of prayer”, but the person claiming that prayers are answered should be the one to prove this, in a way that can be tested and verified.
Prove the FSM doesn’t exist, otherwise I want to see “touched by his noodly appendage” on all my money.
Religion has never been about god. Religion is about control and unlike more intelligent mechanisms we created to assign positions of power, religion (by design) assigns power to the worst kind of scum.
So proof of non existence of god is not required to wonder why species calling itself intelligent still believes in vile shit that historically and factually demonstrated itself to cause nothing but grief, suffering and incessant delays to progress.
Alright cool, lets assume religion is ALL about control, all the religious people are being controlled by “religious” people in power. Without the existence of the god (or a similar omnipotent being) how are they going to control the people? Its always about so called god’s will and providence.
There is no way any sort of control is going to stay if the inexistence of god is irrefutably proven. Saying religion not being about god is comical at best.
You’re describing religion as a theoretical concept, but unfortunately it is part of our reality with all the inconvenient facts you’re choosing to ignore.
It is able to survive because gullible or often evil parents and vile predators in the form priests, imams and rabbis continue to peddle various versions of this bullshit to unfortunate children thus sustaining the wicked concept. God has nothing to do with it since it has never presented itself to humans so saying organized religion cannot be sustained without God is nonsense at best.
If god exists or doesnt, the control is there and has been. You cant prove a negative so irrefutable proof of nonexistence of anything isnt going to work. I’m sure you’ve heard of the teapot orbiting past saturn? It’s highly unlikely to exist, but cant be proven to not exist.
The non existence of a tri omni God at least has been proven, it doesn’t affect people because ‘faith’.
Indoctrination! 😁
The only inheritance for many, the poorest Americans especially.
Because recent AI and cloud development proves that genesis was right, god trained multi model transformer neutral network to simulate earth in 6 days on the cloud. God (the lead developer and co-owner of company) created earth branch and he was working in agile environment because the tasks are clearly explained in the genesis book sprint with day numbers so everything was estimated during planning.
At the end of sprint god deployed earth to development environment to test if everything works ok so he can continue with his changes next week. Adam and Eve were naked subprocesses without firewall and edge case errors but it was fine because whole thing was just a draft PR and god wanted to see what happens during weekend.
When god went home for weekend from now on everything got fucked up, eden was unstable and satan junior developer and son of co-owner uncle was on hot call during weekend. On Sunday satan was having barbecue and got a call that he need to redeploy eden. He was so drunk that not only he deployed god’s branch to production but also he merged this branch into main tree. Unfortunately the Snake was online that day, he broke into eden and changed all the code on main branch introducing many errors and exploits, stole all the data from gods company.
When god got back on monday he god fucking mad. He said fuck you satan from now on you will be working on earth alone despite you don’t know programming at all I can’t fire you because me and your uncle are best friends. What I will do I will push main with earth into dev and let you fix it and I will rollback eden to where it was. Untill all the bugs from earth branch are resolved don’t fucking dare to make a single voice about merging earth into production branch.
So here we are satan knows nothing about programming so he causes more evil than good to this day. Couple thousands earth years later god’s kid went into intership for couple of months and tried to fix earth branch but fucking exploits grow so big they manipulated humans and killed his fix patch, now we wait until he finish his masters and come back to fix all the bugs.
Once per day god runs Holy Spirit CI/CD that automatically merges eden into earth and validates if earth passes all eden unit tests if it’s not it rolls back and marks all people that pass the tests on green and all those are not to red. That fucking simple because dev development cloud have unlimited computing power.
Recent studies in AI shows that merge with eden will happen sooner than later despite all the errors because Jesus said that when he will be back all dead will come back to life and now you need only couple pictures, couple seconds of voice and chat history to clone anyone and deploy this person to cloud (see AI Girlfriend) without their constent. Probably what will happend is that all the people will be put in freeze ( there was test freeze during covid - no get out from home rule) so all of us can be patched when we are in front of computers. So we’re waiting for those patches and we can go back to eden.
If you don’t believe me go work as a developer for a year
Yeah, but who is Satan’s uncle?
Tim.
Grooming from a young, impressionable age
What’s “wrong” in your question is the assumption that a) the only reason religions exist is the lack of knowledge and b) that the knowledge we have answers all the questions that people seek answers to when they turn to religion. I think if you question these assumptions then you’ll easily start to find the answers. Otherwise see all the other comments.
Because humans are animals, ruled by emotion and superstition.
