What is the Psychology/Mechanics of Religious Belief?

[The Hammer]

From what I have observed, many theists use their religion as a coping strategy to deal with the problems of life.

Which seems pretty healthy if done correctly to me.

 

[KWED]

I find it sad that most atheists see nothing in theism but superstition and wishful thinking. And then just blindly presume these to be 'bad'. It shows a lot of arrogance and narrow-mindedness on the atheist's part. And seems to do nothing more for them than stroke their egos.

I find it sad that you continually misrepresent what atheists say and think, despite having been shown repeatedly how wrong you are.
It shows a lot of arrogance and narrow-mindedness on your part. And seems to do nothing more for you than stroke your ego.

 

[KWED]

I think in many cases, God is the ideal parent.

If god were a real parent, social services would have been round long ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Materialists need to explain EVERYTHING in terms of physical processes. Otherwise their whole worldview unravels. *chuckling*

1. I'm not a "materialist" - far to dogmatic a position for my taste

2. Read the post I actually wrote. I literally stated "at least, that's how I understood the question". So all I'm doing is answering the question as I understood it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even people not brought up religious will still have religious ideas and forms of magical thinking. It's human nature

Agreed.

Just like I said in my OP response, humans are prone to engage in superstitious beliefs.
They have a tendency of engaging in cognition errors and to infuse agency in otherwise random events.
It's pretty much an evolutionary survival mechanism, which is why we see such behavior in most other animals - especially those that are the preferred prey of some predator.

 

[PureX]

I find it sad that you continually misrepresent what atheists say and think, despite having been shown repeatedly how wrong you are.
It shows a lot of arrogance and narrow-mindedness on your part. And seems to do nothing more for you than stroke your ego.

Actually, several atheists posted right after I did expressing exactly the sentiment that I referred to.

 

[KWED]

Even people not brought up religious will still have religious ideas and forms of magical thinking. It's human nature

Not no nearly the same extent, and they probably appreciate that it is merely wishful thinking or irrational. It isn't a "belief" in any sense.

 

[KWED]

Actually, several atheists posted right after I did expressing exactly the sentiment that I referred to.

Or so you tell yourself.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, does anyone have any thoughts about this?

The same religion is not the same to different people. The same words mean different things to different people. That is why you cannot take religious talk seriously, not so seriously that you exclude others on the basis of how they understand things. If you do then you elevate yourself above them, presuming you should be between others and God. Yet people do this and often.

Few religions preach not to do such a thing. Canonized Christian scriptures do condemn it, yet Christianity is rife with this kind of behavior. This confuses people such as yourself who are trying to look into the matter.

What you are seeing at work is a principle that is titled 'Antichrist'. It is the tendency of people to oppose the unification of Christ. We make excuses for why we don't have to deal with people that annoy us, and sometimes we aren't consciously aware that we are merely making excuses. Other times we are and do not care.

There is another force which attempts to impede the unity of Christ, and that is political. Political forces wish to use Christian unity as a tool. Often political people seek to use it, but to do so they foment fear, concern, love and anger. They are not the real problem, and if Christians were properly fighting antichrist then the politicians would not be able to find a crack into which to stick levers to control Christians. Therefore political forces only appear to alter Christianity. Actually they are mostly ineffective but succeed when Christianity has already begun to fall apart. For example in Russia Putin's government would not have been able to manipulate the church against Ukraine's church if the two churches were not already at odds. They should not have been at odds and should have been in perfect fellowship despite disagreeing on various matters, but they were not vigilant. They did not allow the God of Peace to crush Satan beneath their feet.

 

[The Hammer]

Not no nearly the same extent, and they probably appreciate that it is merely wishful thinking or irrational. It isn't a "belief" in any sense.

Having talked with religious practitioners of various stripes, I disagree with your assumptions.

 

[The Hammer]

Agreed.

Just like I said in my OP response, humans are prone to engage in superstitious beliefs.
They have a tendency of engaging in cognition errors and to infuse agency in otherwise random events.
It's pretty much an evolutionary survival mechanism, which is why we see such behavior in most other animals - especially those that are the preferred prey of some predator.

Right which means it serves an evolutionary advantage and probably isn't going away anytime.soon. so we may as well embrace our inherent religiousity and use it to our benefit.

 

[ppp]

Right which means it serves an evolutionary advantage and probably isn't going away anytime.soon. so we may as well embrace our inherent religiousity and use it to our benefit.

Do s that mean that we should return to slavery, infanticide, and rape, too? Just because they serve an evolutionary purpose?


Personally, I am against all of those. You?

 

[David Davidovich]

Do you really? Your OP only mentions Christianity not other religions and partially focuses on scriptural differences which can be unimportant to believer.

Well, yes... I was primarily talking about Christianity. Plus, I don't know that much about other religions where I really wouldn't be able to comment on them.

Do you know the rich variety of Hindu beliefs which include atheists, monotheists and polytheists who often share a core set of beliefs?

No, not at all.

And your OP focuses on a non-believers perspective and assumes that believers are motivated to some degree if not primarily from that perspective.

Well, I would think that there would be a little bit of bias with the believers point of view.

 

[David Davidovich]

Are we only talking Religious belief from the Christian/God perspective?

Yes.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes.

That's a lot of exclusion.

 

[David Davidovich]

We haven't yet found a culture on Earth that doesn't have some supernatural beliefs. From that I conclude that supernatural beliefs are something that humans do, that gods (&c) are human artifacts.

I think the factors are twofold. First, it's human nature ─ it has a higher survival value ─ to ascribe a cause to an unknown phenomenon, and respond accordingly eg to assume that an unknown noise in the dark is a threat. But this covers a wide range of human experiences that call for explanation ─ luck, good and bad, at hunting, fishing and gathering, in love, with combat, with fertility, with childbirth, with weather and the seasons, with thunder and lightning, flood, famine, meteors, on and on.

One of the uses of an imagined being in these cases is not only explanation, but a sense of partial control by pleasing, appeasing, sacrificing to, such a being. The role of the shaman is found very widely, and the role of the professional priest is at least as old as civilization.

The second factor is tribal solidarity and the survival value of coherence and cooperation. Tribal identity is still important to the individual, and may involve the group having in common language, customs, stories, heroes, and beliefs. As Trump will tell you, Us v Them can be very successful politics at the primitive level.

I won't be able to respond to every reply, but I will respond to the ones where I have something to say. But, thank you for you reply, blü 2. Also, the points that you covered seemed to be spot on. Especially, what you said about a sense of partial control.

 

[David Davidovich]

Personally I prefer to have believers explain why they believe, as that seems to make the most sense. At least I would prefer people asking me why im an atheist, rather than having a religious person guessing why

But with believers, there seems to be a lot of bias that comes along with their beliefs. Also, for a lot of believers (perhaps even most of them?), I have observed that there is a lot of emotion involved. And along with that, there is an unreasonableness and an unwillingness to objectively examine or question their beliefs. Plus, it's something that I try to stay away from with family and friends.

 

[David Davidovich]

As a believer in a God, i have to say your queztion is truly a good one.

Thank you, Seeker of White Light.

I would say you will find as many answers to your question as there are people. Because no human being believe exactly the same way. This is due to how we understand the teaching, what part of the teaching one put most importance on. Some will only worship because it is expected of them. Others will study for years.

But I have found that what blü 2 said in his post, kind of hit on what I was specifically asking about.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Thank you, Seeker of White Light.



But I have found that what blü 2 said in his post, kind of hit on what I was specifically asking about.

That is a nice answer

 

[David Davidovich]

Why would you address this to atheists? It seems a question hat would be more aptly addressed by theists surely? They know why they believe what they do one assumes.

You've probably seen this answer that I gave to others asking the same question: but it's simply because of religious bias. I'm looking for more of an objective answer.