[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 214 KB, 746x718, 1399372388429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5014763 No.5014763[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

People have the option to not be religious, yet they choose to be. Why is this so?

>> No.5014764

>implying this is literature

>> No.5014765

>>5014763
they have not yet heard of buddhism
/thread

>> No.5014772
File: 588 KB, 1000x1333, Chagall_windows_Reims_Cathedral.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5014772

I think I'd choose to be religious if I could.

>> No.5014776

>>5014772
Being religious, beliving that this universe has sense and order, that's the most comfortable thing there is

>> No.5014779

1. If your brought up with it, it will be very hard to remove the idea from your head. It's just evolutionary psychology. "Believe everything your parents tell you". Works well for avoiding being eaten. But it also works for religion. Someone moving away from religion would have to admit their parents were wrong which is not at all easy.

2. It's comforting. It's preferable, it's more convenient. If someone you love dies, its all ok they still exist. When you die, you get to go and meet them and live happily. All bad in the world will eventually become good. Every evil person will eventually be punished. Sounds pretty damn good. The fact it's not based in reality doesn't concern most people. And most non-believers would accept it doesn't matter either way if you believe or not, so there are very few disadvantages. Pascals wager etc

>> No.5014785

Has anyone authored a redux of Utopia free from the religious element? I couldn't get hard for a week after the inclusion of theism in a man-made paradise

>> No.5014792

Cognitive impairment is not a choice.

>> No.5014828

>>5014763
I believe Jesus died for my sins, that just happens to be my unsupported faith-based belief. I will probably be comforted by this belief when I am close to death. I have faith that I'll go to heaven after that, but that's all; faith.

There is no moral code I need to follow as a result of this. Tell me what I'm missing out on.

>> No.5014830

Because most people need a set of rules to satisfy their herd instinct.

>> No.5014834

>>5014828
The possibility that the human species can achieve enlightenment without a crutch. Do you believe the layman to be morally corrupt by default?

>> No.5014840

>>5014763
people are stupid

>> No.5014843

>>5014834
I'm an egoist

>> No.5014872

>>5014828
>I believe Jesus died for my sins
>I have faith that I'll go to heaven
>There is no moral code I need to follow as a result of this
I'm confus

>> No.5014876

>>5014872
I believe that all I need to be accepted is my faith in Jesus. I don't believe in a bean counter of 'good/bad' actions.

Did I miss your point?

>> No.5014889

>>5014876
but you are objectively wrong in that case

>> No.5014896

>>5014889
Enlighten me

>> No.5014914

People have the option not to shitpost, yet they choose to. Why is this so?

>> No.5014986

>>5014828
This is what Protestantism has to Christianity. A sad day indeed.

You want all of the benefits and none of the responsibilities. You are basically Diet Christianity. Your pastor has lied to you.

>> No.5014988

>>5014986
Ok

>> No.5014994

death is scary

>> No.5014999

People don't have a choice. Go read some Jung, Eliade, or Schopdog, you pitiful creature.

>> No.5015034

>>5014779

>referring unironically to evolutionary psychology
>Summer 2012

>> No.5015039

>>5014779
>evolutionary psychology
Stopped reading there.

>> No.5015048

>>5015034
Yeah just dismiss an entire field because it's no longer "cool". It may not explain all human behavior but it certainly has merit as a logical basis to understanding many aspects of it. But of course, all you'll get on this board is "tips fedora's" Absolutely dynamite refutations contained there

>> No.5015052

>>5015039
Oh yeah I forgot that we completely abandoned all our animal nature as soon as we planted a few crops. Damn, my mistake. Didn't realise the transition was that quick and clean. I guess all of science was wrong and a bunch of romantic books were right.

>> No.5015053

>>5015048
no, we're dismissing it because it's not a hard science yet it tries to pose as one
psychologists gonna psych

>> No.5015073

>>5015053
Great argument m8. So because evolutionary psychology isn't in hard science, it's wrong. But modern philosophy (despite not being a hard science either) is better. There probably will never be an objective basis for human behavior, but the question is whether to look at in a practical point of view (as evolved animals) or as a romantic point of view (as above animals and only explainable using complete unique and abstract reasoning). To me the more humble point of view is probably closer to the truth considering the sheer arrogance of most people

>> No.5015090

>>5015073
>comparing modern philosophy and evolutionary psychology as if they were fields of the same kind
>implying better equals right/wrong
>implying there is such a thing as absolutely, well-defined right/wrong in philosophy
>implying actual neuroscience doesn't give actual insights into human behaviour with a RIGOROUS point of view
>implying "psychologists" know anything about evolutionary GENETICS
>implying I think humans are above animals (as opposed to evolutionary psychology being below science)
why can't I hold these implications? don't you have a 0.2 correlation to validate or something?

>> No.5015092
File: 370 KB, 480x360, busey_clapping.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5015092

>>5015090

>> No.5015109

>>5015090
>>5015092
Holy samefag, that's really sad

And you seem to be agreeing with me. The most scientifically based a theory, the more likely it is to be an accurate reflection of reality. Certainly neuroscience is far above any sort of psychology (and 'philosophers of mind' for that matter), but you'd have to be fucking stupid to deny the animal nature of humans given GENETICS and RIGOROUS biological evidence that suggests very close similarities. Drop your arrogance mate and you might start understanding things more clearly

>> No.5015118

>>5015109
Look at this guy and his persecution complex

>implying different sciences can be "higher" than others

Don't you have to study for your Intro to Java exam or something?

>> No.5015143

>>5014779
I admit my parents were wrong on many, many things. I left home, I left church. I'm still religious, anon.

>> No.5015146

>>5015109
you didn't get my point at all, which is
evolutionary psychology isn't rigorous
psychology isn't a hard science
evolutionary psychologists aren't scientists
evolutionary psychology based reasonings are thus brosciency as best

also what >>5015118 said, sciences aren't "higher" than others, it's simply a matter of rigor
genetics, chemistry, physics, neuroscience are rigorous
psychology isn't

>> No.5015153

>>5015146
There's nothing brosciency about evo psych. You're confusing its popular understanding with its practice.

>> No.5015157

>>5015143
Yeah if you grew up in a different country with Hindu parents you'd 'still be Hindu, anon'. Ok so what. I don't care what you believe. But the fact that there are competing ideologies, mutually exclusive, equally believed in by billions of people is pretty damning evidence. If it doesn't affect you, good job, your mind is now set concrete. and my point was proven. There is nothing I can say that will do anything. Raindrops on a cement brick

>> No.5015173

>>5015157
No, maybe I wouldn't. Maybe in a Hindu country, I'd still be Christian or have converted, because people like that exist everywhere.
Other religions existing being "damning evidence" is a fucking retarded concept, anon, I expected better from you. There are competing scientific theories on heaps of things, and only one can be correct.

My mind is not set in stone, but there is no "damning evidence" against nearly all religions worldwide, otherwise religion as a whole would have the same following as the "the world is flat" club.

>> No.5015177

>>5015157
Also, your original argument was that I can't ignore religion because I can't admit my parents are wrong. Please don't move the goalposts.

>> No.5015402

>>5015157
You're an idiot.

>> No.5015590

>>5015173
>There are competing scientific theories on heaps of things, and only one can be correct.

Well, yeah. That's his point, no? The overwhelming majority of religious believers are, therefore, wrong. It's true that this can't directly persuade you, obviously - but then what could? Nothing that can be brought about through demonstration, which is where the analogy with science fails.

>> No.5015635

>>5015590
>The overwhelming majority of religious believers are, therefore, wrong.

What do atheists imagine this argument proves?
There are a plethora of economic theories, philosophies about life, and political theories. That doesn't mean you quit voting, quit interacting with the people, quit buying anything, and lock yourself up in your room for fear that you might be wrong.

>> No.5015671

>>5015635

Yeah, instead you reason out what you think the best possible answer is now.

>> No.5015689

“We are not our own any more than what we possess is our own. We did not make ourselves, we cannot be supreme over ourselves. We are not our own masters.”

>> No.5015743

>>5015635
>What do atheists imagine this argument proves?

It doesn't 'prove' anything. What it's mostly useful for is reminding uppity theists that they don't get to invoke a 'Generic Theism' and that they are in fact squarely in the minority - most people on earth believe the god they worship doesn't exist.

I mean ALLEGEDLY the idea is to shock you into some kind of epistemic humility, but I dunno. People arguing on the internet don't seem like great prospects that way.

>> No.5015779

op has the choice to not be dumb but why is this thread here

>> No.5015789

>>5015635
>There are a plethora of economic theories, philosophies about life, and political theories.

None of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, treating any single theory/philosophy as absolute (ex:Marxism) is commonly seen as irrational.

>> No.5015802

>>5014772
>>5014776

this, anon. believing in 'nothing' is far less comforting than believing in something. My life was a lot easier when I believe it had a sense of genuine purpose. It took me a long time to accept that my time here, in the grand scheme of things, means relatively nothing.

>> No.5015824

>>5014896

not the same anon, and im only speculating, but if you believe in jesus enough to make it so that you hold your faith in such high regard as to allot you a spot in heaven, why would you disregard all other things concerning the christian/catholic/whatever faith? if he truly spoke the word of the lord, wouldnt all else he stated need to be held with equal respect/regard? you can't simply pick and choose at random and support your choosings by simply stating it's what you believe. that's a load of religious bs that extremists have been relying on for years.

>> No.5015841

>>5014896

>What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled,” without giving them those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit?

>Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe — and tremble.

>But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:14-20

>> No.5015864

Another layer of collective identity. This is a good thing.

>> No.5015920

>>5015841

this ^

I see it like this, the way you know you have faith is not just by thinking it or praying about it-- but in how you LIVE and how you engage with the world and others. You know your faith by your own works.

>> No.5015924

>>5015743
>What it's mostly useful for is reminding uppity theists that they don't get to invoke a 'Generic Theism'

I can think of no better example of "uppity" than claiming to know more about what other people believe than they do. Spinozism, interfaith dialogue, the belief that god has many faces, and good old fashioned heathen polytheism all have long traditions.

>the idea is to shock you into some kind of epistemic humility

You can't shock people with something they already know. Interfaith dialogue, beliefs that god has multiple faces or is the ground of Being, and so on have long traditions.
And it still comes back to what I said about different philosophical theories. Does the fact that there are people who claim that the pursuit of Truth is the highest end, and others seek positive hedonism, and still others who seek negative hedonism, and still others who seek some abstract freedom, and so on, shock you into nihilism? Probably not, since I can't imagine being an atheist without finding some value in being right.

>>5015789
>treating any single theory/philosophy as absolute (ex:Marxism) is commonly seen as irrational

You obviously have never opened a newspaper or read a single work on economic theory. Either that or your so drenched in neoliberal ideology that you can't see it.

>> No.5015950

>>5015924
>I can think of no better example of "uppity" than claiming to know more about what other people believe than they do.

How about ascribing an obviously unreasonable action to someone innocent of it, in order to gussy up a sense of moral outrage? Uppity, Y/N?

>Interfaith dialogue, beliefs that god has multiple faces or is the ground of Being, and so on

...are all completely irrelevant. Tell some shitkicking Bible-thumper or the Shah of Iran that god has many faces etc and see how far you get. Most people on earth believe that you - you specifically - are wrong. Some of them are atheists or agnostics and some of them are theists and deists and so forth, but they are the majority of people on the planet and they believe you are objectively wrong. End of story.

>I can't imagine being an atheist without finding some value in being right.

The poverty of your imagination is no concern of mine.

>> No.5015960

Because they like the way it sounds.

>> No.5016036

>>5015950
>How about ascribing an obviously unreasonable action to someone innocent of it, in order to gussy up a sense of moral outrage?

If it is obviously unreasonable than why are you doing exactly that?

>Most people on earth believe that you - you specifically - are wrong. Some of them are atheists or agnostics and some of them are theists and deists and so forth, but they are the majority of people on the planet and they believe you are objectively wrong. End of story

Then it is an incredible uninteresting story that everyone has already known and you have accomplished absolutely nothing by telling it. It isn't even applicable to the discussion of religion, since if you hold even one value, consider even one objective, make even one valuation, then you have entered yourself into a minority of one. Every child learns this when he starts trying to assert and develop his own opinions.

>The poverty of your imagination is no concern of mine.

I'm sorry for assuming something favorable about you. I won't make that mistake again.

>> No.5016047

>>5016036
>If it is obviously unreasonable than why are you doing exactly that?

Stopped reading here. Have fun.

>> No.5016090

if I could I'd choose to be realigious to get over my existential crisis thats killing me

>> No.5016093

They were raised that way.

>> No.5016121

>>5015924
>You obviously have never opened a newspaper or read a single work on economic theory. Either that or your so drenched in neoliberal ideology that you can't see it.

Care to enlighten me then? As far as I can see, the other ideologies you are bringing up are primarily questions of what kind of life or socioeconomic structures is preferable. They doesn't need to include mutually exclusive claims about the nature of the universe.

If you're claiming all religions are sort of true and no single religion has a monopoly on the nature of the universe then clearly my point is irrelevant. However, this makes adherence to any particular religion either arbitrary or a purely aesthetic/hedonistic consideration.

>> No.5016131

>>5014763

There's not a way not to be religious, at least at some level

It's human nature

>> No.5016141

>>5015841

the idea there though, just to clarify, is not that you need to do good works to have faith. the idea is faith is in part defined by good works. you will know them by their fruit etc becoming christian is like a complete overhaul of the persona, you are supposed to become almost literally christ (you do have the indwelling of the holy spirit as a believer), be perfect as he commanded you to be. it's a warning like the other similar warning not all those who cry lord lord etc etc

>> No.5016161

>>5016131
On what level is a person who does not believe to a higher meaning or deity religious

And dont say not believing into one is a belief itself.

>> No.5016228

>>5016141
No. The idea is that faith without works is dead. Period. Sola Fide is heresy. You don't have to be a christian to know it.

>> No.5016319

>>5016141
>the idea there though, just to clarify, is not that you need to do good works to have faith. the idea is faith is in part defined by good works.

I feel like this is just a bit of syntactical shuffling around the arrow of causation (which, obviously, means that I think we are in substantive agreement). Good works will not generate faith and genuine faith will inevitably generate good works, true.

>>5016228

Most Christians accept SF, IIRC. Catholics went over ~15 years ago. And the idea of SF isn't incompatible with the James verse - it's just a doctrine establishing the criteria for salvation which holds that faith is salvific and works are not. Once you think about the concept of grace it becomes a lot more palatable.

Obviously, you inevitably get idiots like >>5014876, but so what? You inevitably get idiots full stop, no?

>tfw having this discussion as an atheist

Feels good man.

>> No.5016360

>>5016319
>Most Christians accept SF, IIRC. Catholics went over ~15 years ago.
WHAT??

Catholics accept SF? Check your sources man. That's ridiculous. And BTW, together with the Orthodox Church, who does not accept SF either they are like what... 70% of christians in the world?

There's a reason why the church never teached SF before Luther. Only isolated heretics accepted it.

It might be that God is a Lutheran. But leaving theology aside, it's a historical fact that SF was never held as an orthodox teaching until the reformation, and it until now it has always been held by a minority of christians, since protestants have always been a minority.

BTW I'm not an atheist.

>> No.5016392

>>5014763
Religion confers many social benefits, including trust, solidarity, and contacts.

>> No.5016421

>>5016360
>Catholics accept SF? Check your sources man. That's ridiculous.

>We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

-JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Maybe I'm confused.

>> No.5016478

>>5016421
Ah, that declaration. I remember studying it like 14 years ago. It's more about the common ground, and that's why it seems it has a protestant bias.

Justification is not salvation for catholics. Initial justification for catholics comes from faith alone, and that's an agreement. But that's the start of the process of salvation that must continue with good works. That's why the Catholic Church puts more importance in participating in the sacraments for example.

Can't put the link bue google "initial justificaction" and the "cor ad cor loquitur" blog for an explanation.

>> No.5016569

>>5016478

Yeah, but Sola Fide is all about justification, isn't it? This guy seems to agree with me, at least:

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/11/20/do-catholics-affirm-justification-by-faith-alone/

>Kreeft explained that in 1999 the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation jointly issued a declaration on the doctrine of justification, the central issue of the Reformation. In 2006, the World Methodist Council also voted to affirm this declaration.

>In this declaration, the Catholic Church agreed that justification is by faith alone and it withdrew the condemnations of the Council of Trent toward those Protestants that affirmed justification by faith alone. Kreeft explained that the Council of Trent was condemning the idea that works are not part of the totality of salvation, which is composed of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Luther, on the other hand, was specifically speaking of justification, not sanctification and glorification, when he said works were not involved in salvation. So the Council of Trent misunderstood Luther, according to Kreeft. It took 400 years to figure this out, but better late than never.