Agnostic.com

10 10

LINK Can Religion Without Belief “Make Perfect Sense”? | Mind Matters

Yes, this article touches on something I've been aware of for some time: people who know their religion isn't literally true - Christians especially -- and aren't really believers, but manage to convince themselves, and me if they can, that it's somehow inspirational or good. My historian brain simply can't do that. I do think a lot of people are like this these days: they aren't really believers but count themselves as religious. I also think that they turn the blind eye to the horrors of religion. Finally, I think believing in some of big vague incomprehensible god is just a new age fetish that many subscribe to without serious thought.

David1955 8 Sep 5
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Pascal's Wager in action.

2

Seems to me that many people just treat the religion of their family/community as the rules by which they have to play to survive, succeed and be accepted within. Doesn't matter if they believe the rules are right or just, or even if they cheat on the rules, it's just the standard that is guiding them, right or wrong.

Few people actually take a step back and question whether what they are being taught is good or bad, but those of us who do aren't all that much better off I guess. I personally like to think for myself, and am happier for it, because I don't care whether "I belong" with the followers of the prevalent religious or spiritual views. Others are more comfortable keeping their own doubts and thoughts to themselves and adopt a believing attitude to not make waves in their community, because they care more about how they are viewed by others.

1

I'm an ignostic Episcopalian. It works for me, not sure I have anything to prove to anyone.

3

I think many are not really believers but count themselves as religious. Often this is done to keep peace within a family and the person just goes with the flow.

5

One common claim made by religious apologists is that, all of the harm coming from religion stems from a literal interpretation of it, and that it can be easily be redeemed by treating it as a metaphor.

But sadly, whether religion is metaphorical or literal, is completely beside the point as to whether it is a good thing or not.

When your holy book tells you that you should smash the brains of your enemies children out against the rocks. It does not matter if you read it literally, or read the word "children" metaphorically as arts, science, and culture. It is still a nasty idea. Religion without a literal god, does not stop the worship of fake authority, it just moves that fake authority to things like tradition, the sayings of gurus or writings in holy books, making those things into pseudo-gods.

Science is not a replacement for religion, as anti rationalists like to say. Nor should it ever pretend to be, but it is a replacement for some of religion's functions, and it is not alone, we now have, nation states, the rule of law, secular morality, philosophy, democracy, socialism, environmentalism, trade networks, humanism, the idea of social justice, public welfare, international law, and secular education at least. Religion was only ever a primitive substitute for all of those, and if only because those many ideas, offer more nuance, and more honest mission statements, religion is now obsolete, lets get over it.

Even if god/theism is a metaphor, that does not make it a good metaphor. There are good and bad metaphors as well as many pointless and trivial ones.
Humans are not only metaphor forming animals, they are also eating animals. Made by natural evolution to have hungers, but that does not mean that all diets are good for you. Yet you can choose a healthy diet, and are more likely to do so if you receive good education and are protected against those who wish to gain, ruthlessly and without conscience, by pushing unhealthy foods.
You can also choose your metaphors.
The fake assumption made here is that, if it is natural for humans to create, metaphor and culture, then all metaphors and cultures are either good and of equal value, or even more, that one, the theist metaphor, is proven superior. It is a giant leap (Well several actually.) from, it is natural for humans to make metaphors, to, all metaphors are good, and my favoured one is the best of all.

To a degree I do have some sympathy with the fundamentalist. They look at moderate religion, especially cults, like the metaphorical view, and they see rightly, that it is, shallow, narcissistic, dishonest cherry picking, manipulative, self serving, and corrupt, and their moral instincts give them a visceral disgust at the very thought of it. Their only mistake is in thinking that more religion, not less, is a better answer.

Yes, Fundamentalists are actually right about their religion -- crazy, delusional, regressive and stupid -- but right. Their religions do believe in horrible things at heart. It's moderates who are the hypocrites, maybe well meaning, but hypocrites nevertheless, pretending otherwise.

Yes,this approach to religion without true belief is too silly and shallow for words. As discussed in the comments, a lot of it is Pascal's Wagering.

@David1955 I always define religion as. A synonym for the Proof By Authority fallacy. It matters not if that authority come from a god, or only from tradition, excessive respect for texts, institutions or teachers, it is still the same. And what you really have to ask is, who really needs to use proof by authority, good people with good ideas which are well supported by evidence and logic, or bad people with bad ideas which they can find no good justifications for if pressed ?

5

Think in terms of indoctrination, as all religions insist followers adhere to their doctrine.
People react differently to indoctrination and are also exposed to that indoctrination in varying degrees.
Some will fully accept the doctrine and are what we call extremist fundamentalists.
Some will reject the doctrine completely and are what we call atheist.
But the vast majority will naturally resist as their logical brain has trouble accepting much of the doctrine verbatim. These are your people with religion without belief. They do however, accept the doctrine publicly as they wish to be part of that group for whatever reasons. They are your agnostics, your Pascal's wager types.
Indoctrination works best on weak minds, which is why children are targeted as well as the majority of born agains seem to be (in my experience) people who can't handle their drugs and are reaching out for help.

puff Level 8 Sep 6, 2022

Yes, as I read this I had a similar thought, that a lot of this religion without belief is thinly disguised Pascal's Wagering, as some agnostics do as well.

@David1955 The #1 doctrine of the Abrahamic religions "There is a God" is by far the hardest to dismiss, for me anyway. I put it down to the subtle societal indoctrination where the idea of "god" is totally accepted by politicians, the courts (swearing on a bible) etc.
It took me a long time to shift from "what if" pondering about a god to totally rejecting the concept of god altogether. After all, can human societies have been this wrong regarding belief in a god for 100's of years? The sad answer for humanity, as atheists know, is "yes". One of the greatest ironies in life for us humans (because all other life does not care about gods, which should tell us something).

Could say, personally God religions is like a drug, they want to worship.The covid vaccines is part of the drug cult and one third of tha US economy. Keeping the public dumb down.

4

I see an alarming lack of analytical thinking in that article.

6

A nonreligious sense of community? An atheist "church"? No thanks.

2

Most people I know, say they are spiritual rather than religious. Yet they can not define what spiritual is. Spiritual for me is simply the 99% unknowns until it’s manifest into the ego self. Nature is the only religion that I can handle or comprehend. I translate the word love to God, as everyone is God because the universe is glued together by love. Using words and trying to understand religion, mediphorically is where my imagination can not grasp, or understand in my lifetime. I say, what ever works for anyone as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Leading with my heart and shortly following with my mind alway works for me personally, in the long run.

1

Do historians prepare testable hypotheses and then test them?

They separate mythology from sources- based history, applying the historical method, in search of an accurate account of history as possible. It is an ongoing study, supplemented by new evidence and sources, but real history is about the search for the truth. Religion is the very opposite of all that, peddling myth as bad history, supernaturalised, fraudulent -- bad history in fact.

@David1955
Religious literalists do that, but they don’t comprise the whole of “religion”. Serious historical and philosophical arguments can be made that most creation stories have evolved in human culture more as allegorical narratives than as primitive efforts at science or history. It’s capacity for metaphor is Human’s superpower. It’s how we build societies that can function as a coordinated whole.

I think most of us could do that better today with stories that also happened to be scientifically and historically true. But it would be harder to teach, and harder to remember.

What has worked in the past, for the majority, is a story that is memorable, and emotionally relatable to educated and uneducated alike.
The values symbolized in those myths are accessible to all people, regardless of education level. It is a shared identity that facilitates the productive coherence of a society, more than their broad awareness of history or science, at least until we get better at educating our population.

@skado you are too kind to religion, sir, in my view. Just too darned kind.

@David1955
Thanks. I wouldn’t mind erring on the side of kindness, but I can’t claim such a lofty motivation. I have arrived at my view simply by following the relevant science.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:685204
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.