How much of a draw into religious groups is predictability?

[LuisDantas]

This is a doubt that I have sometimes, and a recent event raised it again.

Most people are simply not very interested in doctrine and theology, even when they claim to follow a specific religious path or group. It is not at all unusual to meet people who actively dislike discussing what exactly they believe in and even find it unproper to make much of a point of trying.

There are in fact so many of those people that I suspect that a main draw of religious groups is in the environment itself, the expectation of having a certain predictability of subject and a sort of safety for certain stances and challenges.

Which, I hasten to add, is not a flaw or something to be criticized in and of itself. Environment matters, and the human need for confort and predictability is all too real and legitimate.

I do however wish it were more often acknowledged as the draw it is.

Opinions?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I do not believe predictability, comfort zone, would be a factor in choosing religion over a-religious. But given the paradigm of religion, i.e. the need or social expectation to belong to one of the religions or denominations, it would be among the factors for choosing which religion.

For most I imagine the comfort zone would center around the natal religion/denomination. For those that have somehow found themselves in/out of the church, comfort and predictability would certainly play a larger role.

But is predictability of subject always congruent with comfort zone. For some comfort may be in avoiding the details and believing all they have to do is be a good person and go to church and the preacher's job is to keep them in good with god. For others the comfort zone may be answering some nagging question/doubt they have that takes them further into doctrine.

For most, it appears to me as well, they would just like to be told what to do to get to heaven and leave the details to more 'godly' types.

But again, I think this only kicks in for those that need to choose between denominations/regions, rather than those choosing between religion or no religion.

Also, I seldom know if I'm going anywhere near the direction you intended.

 

[idav]

Predictably people will fall into a cultural norm one way or another. Divergence would be the exception but the more rare event. However even if someone is able to bring a paradigm shift, the culture they're in must allow for it and even nurture the growth of the ideas. Religious idealogies have a tendency to keep their hold because of their authoritive power, which is based on fallacy, yet works.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is a doubt that I have sometimes, and a recent event raised it again.

Most people are simply not very interested in doctrine and theology, even when they claim to follow a specific religious path or group. It is not at all unusual to meet people who actively dislike discussing what exactly they believe in and even find it unproper to make much of a point of trying.

Yes. I've been around a lot of these sort of people of late. They seem to be very common, and quickly retreat into a 'my beliefs are my own' shell.

There are in fact so many of those people that I suspect that a main draw of religious groups is in the environment itself, the expectation of having a certain predictability of subject and a sort of safety for certain stances and challenges.

I've never thought of it in quite those terms, but my working assumption is that a majority of people still see an element of religiousness as the 'norm'. Catholic kids go to Catholic schools and/or attend Catholic weddings, and/or Catholic funerals, so Catholic religiousness is normal to them.

(Obviously working loose and fast with the truth here, just trying to illustrate my thoughts)

It's the stepping outside the norm which generally requires introspection, or a driver of some sort (eg. rejection of a key message).
I suspect people keep their religiousness at arm's length so they can avoid both having to defend all it's messages, or having to reject all it's messages.

They are, in short, avoiding cognitive dissonance.

This doesn't apply to all religious people, I'm specifically talking about those who identify with a religion but understand little of it, and tend to become agitated if questioned on said religion.

Which, I hasten to add, is not a flaw or something to be criticized in and of itself. Environment matters, and the human need for confort and predictability is all too real and legitimate.

Mostly I agree. People are entitled to their opinions, and unless those opinions directly effect me or mine unfairly, I am happy to leave them be. I tend to get a little frustrated by people who hold opinions without reason. Just say you don't know, if you don't know.

But this isn't specific to religion. I find this more commonly and more annoyingly with politics in a country where people are forced to vote...

I do however wish it were more often acknowledged as the draw it is.
Opinions?

Yeah...I agree. I've been attending Christenings the last couple of weeks. I don't like Christenings.
When the parents are making promises they have no intention of keeping, when I live my life closer to half the tenets they're spouting than the people within the room who are all happily denouncing Satan...*shudders*

I managed to avoid making my frustration visible to my kids, since I am trying very hard to let them find their own paths. But I'd love for some of the people in the room to have a crack at answering my daughters very simple questions. Heck, I wouldn't even care if they answered from a scriptual point of view, as long as there was some consistency and coherence to their answers.

Errr...I'm starting to rant, aren't I?

*winces*

 

[LuisDantas]

To dream of the day when we can simply state plainly that we are atheists instead of having to hide it like it was some sort of crime...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To dream of the day when we can simply state plainly that we are atheists instead of having to hide it like it was some sort of crime...

You're just in the wrong country. Everyone who knows me knows I'm an atheist, although religion is a very rare topic of conversation.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

To dream of the day when we can simply state plainly that we are atheists instead of having to hide it like it was some sort of crime...

LOL, it's difficult. Either we are poor ******** that they will pray for, or we are arrogant and think we know more than them.

These are the choices we have; I choose to be an arrogant ******* rather than a poor ******* that needs their prayers.

 

[Sees]

Meh...I could care less about you guys being atheists

People often do find comfort, friendship, security, etc. in groups and all the more so when they have certain things shared in common. Certainly it's a part of "seekers" looking for established groups...same as with people involved in various hobbies and what not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meh...I could care less about you guys being atheists

Somehow I'm not surprised. You seem far too balanced to worry about us not believing one thing or another.
Plus, I suspect you're quite used to people not having the same religious beliefs as you, so atheists are just another group with different beliefs. Or non-beliefs. Or whatever.

Aussies (I've mentioned) seem far less interested our vocal about religion than Americans. FAR less. But I work with a lot of Scandanavians, and they seem even less bothered by it.

I think it's like homosexuality. You need people to fly the flag, and to lead the way if it's being oppressed, but ultimately the best result is for no-one to really give a rat's tossbag. That's when you've really made it...lol

 

[LuisDantas]

Scandinavians, it seems to me, tend to hold comparatively very few delusions when contrasted with us people from "big countries".

Reflecting on that gave me a lot of admiration for the virtues of ready accessibility.

As for you, Sees, I assume that whatever your exact beliefs are (and they are not particularly clear to me, which is probably ok) you have a healthy understanding that they are your responsibility, not anyone else's.

A good argument can be made that it is perhaps not even possible for other people to truly share our own religious beliefs.

As I see it, people have both a need for integration and acceptance and a need for authentic, unrestricted expression. Many so-called "mainstream" religious movements tend to over-emphasize the first at the expense of the second. That often makes them demographically succesfull, but perhaps at a price that is not altogether acceptable.

That has grown so out of proportion that many people have trouble even accepting that religion does not have to be at odds with individuality.

 

[Cureus]

I think its tough to disagree with what you write, because its all rather reasonable. Besides the delusional Scandinavian thing, I suppose thats only opinion. The Scandinavians Ive known are quite open to persuasion which is admirable, but initially quite silly and can continue to be.

 

[Desert Snake]

Northern Scotland is sometimes considered as part of 'Scandinavia'.
Personally I feel that Iceland is 'different' from the other Scandinavian countries in traditional zeitgeist, but that would be variable individual to individual.


Oh, also, Norway and Sweden disagree on stuff.

 

[mystic64]

To dream of the day when we can simply state plainly that we are atheists instead of having to hide it like it was some sort of crime...

Lord Buddha was an atheist and a large part of today's world follow one or more versions of his message. He taught a path to "enlightenment" that was based on self understanding that had nothing to do with God or the gods. Worshipping God or the gods was just another form of ignorance and ignorance was the cause of all suffering. Remove the ignorance and suffering goes away and one has then achieved "englightenment". The "Hard" part is removing the ignorance from one's own mind . No gods are involved and no heaven is involved and no divine, what so ever. Of course the oriental approach to Buddhism made him God, but that was not his original message. Lord Buddha was also anti mystic and anti metaphysics, he said that you do not need that stuff either . He taught the perfect atheist approach to freedom from the trap that is this world.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think its tough to disagree with what you write, because its all rather reasonable. Besides the delusional Scandinavian thing, I suppose thats only opinion. The Scandinavians Ive known are quite open to persuasion which is admirable, but initially quite silly and can continue to be.

Did I imply that I find Scandianavians deluded people? The opposite is true.

 

[Sees]

Scandinavians, it seems to me, tend to hold comparatively very few delusions when contrasted with us people from "big countries".

Reflecting on that gave me a lot of admiration for the virtues of ready accessibility.

As for you, Sees, I assume that whatever your exact beliefs are (and they are not particularly clear to me, which is probably ok) you have a healthy understanding that they are your responsibility, not anyone else's.

A good argument can be made that it is perhaps not even possible for other people to truly share our own religious beliefs.

As I see it, people have both a need for integration and acceptance and a need for authentic, unrestricted expression. Many so-called "mainstream" religious movements tend to over-emphasize the first at the expense of the second. That often makes them demographically succesfull, but perhaps at a price that is not altogether acceptable.

That has grown so out of proportion that many people have trouble even accepting that religion does not have to be at odds with individuality.

Decent intro from a brasileiro website Ásatrú - Norse Religious Traditionalism - Tradicionalismo Religioso Nordico

"Não somos cordeiros de um deus que nos é estranho
Somos os Lobos do Lord Wotan"

Almost forgot there are some groups/organizations down there.

In general, multiplicity and plurality are very big...what we do and how we live are much more important than what we believe, think, etc. - let alone what other people believe, think, etc. People who live traditions and paths like these are anti-exclusivism and anti-compulsion to a very high degree and consistency.

Sanity, intelligence, wisdom, awareness, reflection and so on, teaches us some people will have a life fascinated, infused, focused on theism, mysterious things, the supernatural, the subtle...with real or imagined experiences...some won't. It's OK and it's natural.

I think this type of religiosity will keep gaining more and more ground in the near and far future. At least in part do to necessity. Exclusivism and/or compulsion, secular or religious, is an endless cycle of destruction and ignorance with hardly any exceptions.

 

[Cureus]

Did I imply that I find Scandianavians deluded people? The opposite is true.

You implied what you think you did. However the word delusion is only ever a matter of opinion. The one Brazilian I met before was very lively but accurate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Brazilians. It is practically a supernatural occurrence that we turned out as we did...

 

[Secret Chief]

The Nordic countries are big on secularity.

 

[Secret Chief]

I dislike discussing religion in 3D Land but it has nothing to do with safe predictability. When I'm advised what Buddhism is, by someone who knows the Buddha was a fat man from China who believed in reincarnation and karmic retribution... I can't even be bothered....

 

[mystic64]

I think this type of religiosity will keep gaining more and more ground in the near and far future. At least in part do to necessity. Exclusivism and/or compulsion, secular or religious, is an endless cycle of destruction and ignorance with hardly any exceptions.

Sees, you present the message of Lord Buddha in a nut shell .

Scandinavians, it seems to me, tend to hold comparatively very few delusions when contrasted with us people from "big countries".

Reflecting on that gave me a lot of admiration for the virtues of ready accessibility.

As for you, Sees, I assume that whatever your exact beliefs are (and they are not particularly clear to me, which is probably ok) you have a healthy understanding that they are your responsibility, not anyone else's.

A good argument can be made that it is perhaps not even possible for other people to truly share our own religious beliefs.

As I see it, people have both a need for integration and acceptance and a need for authentic, unrestricted expression. Many so-called "mainstream" religious movements tend to over-emphasize the first at the expense of the second. That often makes them demographically succesfull, but perhaps at a price that is not altogether acceptable.

That has grown so out of proportion that many people have trouble even accepting that religion does not have to be at odds with individuality.

quote LuisDantas:
As I see it, people have both a need for integration and acceptance and a need for authentic, unrestricted expression.

The question Luis is, "Why?' Those things do not mean anything. They are much ado about nothing. And what you have stated answers the topic question, "How much of a draw into religious groups is predictable?" In the mind of an atheist all psychological needs that are expressed as religion are delusional. In the mind of Lord Buddha as well as in the field of psychoanalysis, all psychological needs that "are expressed" are delusional . All of them. And the need for the expression of psychological needs is what makes everybody predictable and in a state of suffering. Which is why psychoanalysis leads to "enlightenment" and the "rational" that is the atheist mind that is not expressing or attempting to express any psychological need.

Maybe ?