If religion is a placebo...

[JustGeorge]

It has negative effect on people.

Bible tells people should love others, treat them well and it gives hope. Atheism tells, don't believe in God, it takes away hope and doesn't offer anything constructive.

I've met some for whom atheism had a negative affect on. I'm met some that the Bible had a negative effect on, too, though.

I'd say the problem is more likely with the person's character, and not their worldview.

As to whether or not atheism is a placebo, I would say only in the case where a person is using it to try to squash beliefs they hold because they find them inconvenient. But, a person who genuinely does not believe in God wouldn't be using atheism as a placebo, they'd just be being honest with themselves.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

True in what regard? But here's the dilemma I believe is expressed in the OP. If someone has a religious belief that, let's say this one person is supposed to the prophet of the age, and they discover through rational inquiry that a lot of that is just smoke and mirrors to inspire people to believe in them, what then happens?

If the religion isn't actually "true" in the sense of the way they were told to believe in it, then how can the placebo effect work for them? How can they still believe, without being asked to sacrifice their rational minds in order to do so for the benefit of faith?

I can tell you this is the same thing for anyone who has deconstructed the Christian religion, such as I have. No longer do I believe in a literal 6 day creation. No longer do I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God without error. I see the construction of it as a human work, full of both faith, and flaws.

So the question is, once you see that the Great Wizard of Oz, is a religious production, and the faith you had that Oz was that image projected on the screen, now has the knowledge of the person behind that image controlling the levers, what happens? How do you rescue the baby of faith or belief, the benefit from that placebo effect, once you realize Oz is a created mythology, and not literally a reality in the ways in which the mind imagined is as?

What happens to faith, once belief is so confronted?

That's the true quandary. Do we just go into denial and try to defend the beliefs? Try to prove science is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old? Do we try to support the idea that our chosen prophet is the true prophet? Do we become defensive and build up our apologetics to protect that image of Oz and deny that there is a man behind the curtain?

How long can that be maintained? What happens when we can no longer be dishonest with ourselves about that? That is exactly the place I found myself. But how can faith be held, when the structures of belief are not longer strong enough to support the mind? How could I still have faith, without being asked to commit intellectual suicide for its gains?

With Jesus the Christ we can be 100% assured that it was a Gid given Message.

The issues you state in your reply is what happens to a religion after humans have inserted their opinions and thoughts into the Writings. The meanings become less clear.

This is why Jesus said he had much more to tell us and that he would return to guide us into that truth. Jesus the Christ would not say that if the Christians were to fully understand the Message given.

In fact Jesus warned us very few would make it to the end of ages bathed in the truth. I am sure you are aware of those passages.

We need to balance both science with religion and religion with science. Science is a gift for this age so we can acheive just that.

Happy to chat. Also remember Jesus gave us the signs as to how to tell between true and false prophets, Jesus did that as there would be a True Prophet amongst all the false.

Regards Tony

 

[PearlSeeker]

If it is a placebo, then it is not much of a religion. Personally, I don't think it is very proper, clarifying nor useful to treat belief in the supernatural or in deities as having much to do with religiosity.

Religion is an actual activity, which real people engage in. It is supposed to make some real difference and to be course-corrected when necessary, so that this difference is made positive at least in the overall balance.

(Yes, I know that many people use entirely different understandings. I don't see the point, so I am not following their lead.)

Therefore, the OP is effectively asking what, in my terminology, would characterize a proper, legit, functional, well-cared religious practice.

There may be (and probably are) entirely different yet legit answers. Mine is that religion is supposed to be about language, personal development and a conscious effort at nurturing some form of desirable qualities, circunstances and/or virtues. Often but not always in some sort of social environment.

There are those who claim that the desirable qualities have a lot to do with some form of acceptance or submission to some form of all-creator and/or its avatars or prophets.

Again, I just don't see the point. It is truly weird to call those attitudes "religious".

Yes the OP is about religion at its best - most beneficial and benevolent form.

I don't understand. Since when myths, miracles and deities have nothing to do with religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes the OP is about religion at its best - most beneficial and benevolent form.

I don't understand. Since when myths, miracles and deities have nothing to do with religion?

They have a lot indeed.

Belief in the literal existence of deities, not so much. Reliance on those god-figures as a replacement for discernment and moral virtue is even worse.

 

[Twilight Hue]

... what is the real medicine?

What do you think?

Realizing you don't own the universe.

The universe owns you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Belief in the literal existence of deities, not so much. Reliance on those god-figures as a replacement for discernment and moral virtue is even worse.

Religious people believe in real existence of superhuman or realized human beings. And the reliance is not meant as a replacement. It's usually help/power/grace to do good (more successfully).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Realizing you don't own the universe.

The universe owns you.

Yes, but I can think, ask questions, gain knowledge, be aware, sense and feel ... Does the universe?

Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this. (B. Pascal) ​

 

[LuisDantas]

Religious people believe in real existence of superhuman or realized human beings.

For certain people, in certain times and under certain circunstances, sure, that has been known to happen.

Is that however representative of religious practice? Is it even helpful?

Those are not questions with immediately clear answers. One can however observe a lot of evidence that strongly suggests answers that may perhaps surprise die-hard theists.

And the reliance is not meant as a replacement. It's usually help/power/grace to do good (more successfully).

Perhaps. My personal experience and observations strongly suggest otherwise.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Is that however representative of religious practice? Is it even helpful?

Double yes. Yes for five major world religions. And it is helpful - to believe that we are not on our own - it gives hope, comfort, meaning...

 

[LuisDantas]

Double yes. Yes for five major world religions. And it is helpful - to believe that we are not on our own - it gives hope, comfort, meaning...

I will have to present my most emphatic disagreement. To the point of doubting that all those five qualify as religions.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I will have to present my most emphatic disagreement. To the point of doubting that all those five qualify as religions.

Do you doubt that Canada is a hockey playing country?

 

[1213]

Do you believe that atheists don't love other people?

It depends on what is meant with love.

 

[Windwalker]

It depends on what is meant with love.

What you meant by it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you doubt that Canada is a hockey playing country?

Of course not. That is plenty obvious.

Quite unlike your previous claim, I have to say.

I will go so far as to say that any movement that relies much on god-belief is far more likely than not to fail to be a (functional) religion.

That is just how the dice roll.

 

[1213]

What you meant by it.

Bible tells God is love. And atheist says God doesn't exist. How could atheist then have love?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love......and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1. John 4:7-8,16

 

[PearlSeeker]

Bible tells God is love. And atheist says God doesn't exist. How could atheist then have love?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love......and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1. John 4:7-8,16

Atheist doesn't say love doesn't exist. Therefore atheists can love other people.

 

[Windwalker]

Bible tells God is love. And atheist says God doesn't exist. How could atheist then have love?

That is a dilemma for some Christians to try to answer. How are they to understand it when they meet an atheist who loves others with the same kind of love that they see other Christians do, and even more so in many cases? How do they reconcile this discrepancy? Is it fake love? Is it love coming from the devil?

You see for me I understand that there is a difference between the nature of the Divine, that "God is Love" nature that is in all of creation itself, and all people, and our beliefs and ideas we have about a God. I see most atheists as simply not accepting the "idea" of God, but yet accepting that love they have within themselves and find in others.

I look at it like this. Jesus said, "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother". It's not how people conceptualize the existence of God, or even reject others ideas of God. It has nothing to do with theology. It has everything to do with the hearts of people. Those who love, are the children of God, regardless of how they conceptualize God. It's not about God's ego, in other words, that you must be doctrinally correct in order to be doing God's will.

Make sense?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love......and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1. John 4:7-8,16

Exactly. And add to this "By their fruits you shall know them". Not by their ideas about God, even whether he exists or doesn't exist. It's easy to reject people's ideas about God, and yet still embrace Love.

 

[1213]

Atheist doesn't say love doesn't exist. Therefore atheists can love other people.

But then they should not say God doesn't exist, if they are logical.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But then they should not say God doesn't exist, if they are logical.

No, you just have a supernatural explanation for the same thing. By your logic you should believe in god of thunder, godess of earth, god of Sun...

 

[1213]

No, you just have a supernatural explanation for the same thing. By your logic you should believe in god of thunder, godess of earth, god of Sun...

In that case you don't understand my logic.

The starting point in this is to first look at what is the definition of the god. For example what is "god of thunder". After that one can start to answer, is it real, does it exist.

If Bible God is defined as love, and love exists, then Bible God exists also. If "god of thunder" is defined as bearded guy on the edge of a cloud, then we can look in the sky and check is there such guy. If not, then it may be that he doesn't exist. But this all depends on what is the definition. And I am sure you can come up with a definition that is impossible to prove non existent and in that case. If it is not possible to confirm is the matter true or not, we can think, does it matter?

Also, If you claim to me that "god of thunder" is real, it is irrelevant to me, because I wouldn't keep him as my God anyway.