-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people believe in religion?
- Thread starter Diederick
- Start date
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
I would say none. Mental illness is a term used by those who have a need for reality to be according to the order that they think exists. "Illness" suggests a problem. So in essence, you wonder what role mental problems have in religiosity. Considering the number of religious people in the world, I doubt that "mental problem" is accurate terminology to describe the mentality that goes into being religious.
What is the psychology of the religious? Is it similar? Are the non-religious the same way? Etc etc etc.
I think you're naive. About 20% of the American population is mentally ill -- according to the Surgeon General of the United States. To claim what you claim, none of those mentally ill people could be involved in religion. None of them. But that claim is crazy (pun intended).
Last edited:
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
Eh, it happens. It's always easier to think the person you're debating is naive. It makes their claims seem less legitimate.
I just edited my post to explain my reasoning.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
Correlation does not imply Causation. The fact that 20% of the American population is mentally ill does not mean that this illness is the cause of religiosity. It doesn't even mean that it is a factor. How do we know? Because much more than 20% of the American population is religious.
Besides, my claim is not that mentally ill people do not get involved with religion, but that mental illness is not the cause of religiosity. If anything, it is only a factor in a minority of people.
I disagree. I think some people's religiosity too closely resembles a psychosis.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
All sorts of non-psychotic things can resemble psychosis (IE obsession with a sports team).
True, but to assert on those grounds that psychosis plays no part in anyone's religiosity would be weak at best.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
If I said that it plays no part in anyone's religiosity then I made a mistake. But I doubt that it plays a part in everyone's religiosity. Or in the majority's religiosity. Unless psychosis is more common than non-psychosis. And if that is the case, then how do we know that psychosis is the mental illness?
I have never claimed that psychosis plays a part in the majority of religiosity. Most people are mentally healthy even though about one in five people are not.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
I know.
Diederick
Active Member
Different than me.
Perhaps so. And I did in fact for a moment consider posting this in the general religious debate forum, but I didn't, for two reasons. First of all, as you've read through the opening post, you've found that I am rather negative toward religion. That would be uncomfortable to religious people. And secondly, by posting it in the secular forum, I aimed at gaining input from people who've also debated religious people and perhaps can share their conclusion with me. Religious people will give me answers I can't use, like "my heart tells me this is right" or "I've felt the hand of God" and such. That is not helpful to me.
Well, "small" is perhaps a hard concept to lay a finger on. Let's say one in a million that God exists. We're not really going to debate this are we? :sarcastic
I never said my view of reality was correct, but I'd like it to be. And in order for that I am in fact willing to change it - unlike some group of people I know.
Name one.
So to you it doesn't matter whether the interpretations you make are actually right, as long as they are right for you?
I'm sorry that you think this. It's true that I am rather passionate about the position of religion in this world, but whether I am or not; what matters is what is true. As I said before, if I am wrong, then prove it to me. I've seen religious people explain their way out of a cornered position, I don't think I'll degrade myself to that.
I'm gay. And seen the context of this question, I think I have to go a little further than just that simple answer. Yes, I am gay, but I have not had a negative experience with religious people concerning that. In fact, the only negative experiences I have are when reading up about other people's negative experiences with religion on the internet.
Fortunato
Honest
I've also wondered about this same topic and have the following views:
1) People are predisposed to believe in a bad answer rather than no answer at all (to the question where did we all come from, an improbable answer like god is better than the answer we don't, and probably can't, know).
2) Even prominent atheist share a wonder and spiritual sense about the world (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris come to mind), which the more religious among us just take a bit further and attribute towards god and faith.
3) From an evolutionary view point, a shared belief in the supernatural allows for better group cohesion and teamwork, while having some of the population be more critically thinking also helps keep the group from going too far astray.
4) People believe in religion because it's easy to do. It provides people solace in difficult times of their lives. It feeds their ego and sense of need, by making them players in a bigger, cosmic story between good and evil. And it's the socially acceptable thing to do in most societies.
I think the contention that all or most people who believe in religion are ignorant is wrong. After weighing all of their options, they have just decided it makes more sense for them to believe in god. They may be wrong in their belief, but then again, so might we all. Once something is accepted as true, it's rather hard to change peoples idea about it. When confronted with evidence that attacks a cherished belief, most people either discredit or ignore the evidence rather than accept that their belief is wrong. I myself believe that G.W. Bush is a smart man, but I must admit, I have to explain away quite a lot of contradicting evidence at times to keep up that belief. For now I find that easier than changing my axiom that a person cannot be elected to the Presidency if they're flat out stupid.
The example of the observers viewing a passing car from opposite angles doesn't really fit here. The original post mentioned that with the debate between an atheist and deist, they can't both be true. Either there is a god or there isn't. In the car example the truth is that the car was moving forward and that both viewers saw and interpreted the directions of the car's wheels correctly from their point of view. In that example, both observers were correct.
1) People are predisposed to believe in a bad answer rather than no answer at all (to the question where did we all come from, an improbable answer like god is better than the answer we don't, and probably can't, know).
2) Even prominent atheist share a wonder and spiritual sense about the world (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris come to mind), which the more religious among us just take a bit further and attribute towards god and faith.
3) From an evolutionary view point, a shared belief in the supernatural allows for better group cohesion and teamwork, while having some of the population be more critically thinking also helps keep the group from going too far astray.
4) People believe in religion because it's easy to do. It provides people solace in difficult times of their lives. It feeds their ego and sense of need, by making them players in a bigger, cosmic story between good and evil. And it's the socially acceptable thing to do in most societies.
I think the contention that all or most people who believe in religion are ignorant is wrong. After weighing all of their options, they have just decided it makes more sense for them to believe in god. They may be wrong in their belief, but then again, so might we all. Once something is accepted as true, it's rather hard to change peoples idea about it. When confronted with evidence that attacks a cherished belief, most people either discredit or ignore the evidence rather than accept that their belief is wrong. I myself believe that G.W. Bush is a smart man, but I must admit, I have to explain away quite a lot of contradicting evidence at times to keep up that belief. For now I find that easier than changing my axiom that a person cannot be elected to the Presidency if they're flat out stupid.
The example of the observers viewing a passing car from opposite angles doesn't really fit here. The original post mentioned that with the debate between an atheist and deist, they can't both be true. Either there is a god or there isn't. In the car example the truth is that the car was moving forward and that both viewers saw and interpreted the directions of the car's wheels correctly from their point of view. In that example, both observers were correct.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Moved to response thread.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
From the OP in my own thread, Motives For Belief:
I want to make something clear. I do not have some deep psychological need for God to exist. It's not a crutch. I wouldn't turn into a depraved serial killer without God. I wouldn't be terrified of death. I wouldn't lose all hope. I'd be just fine as an atheist.
I believe what I do because it makes the most sense to me. No more, no less.
That's it.I believe what I do because it makes the most sense to me. No more, no less.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
No. We're not. I just find it astonishing that you think the chances are small.
If you're not claiming that your view of reality is correct, than how can you say that the religious do not "simply accept reality and face it as one would expect of grown-ups"?
Such a statement isn't valid if you yourself don't know what reality is.
Name one what? My point was not that there is evidence. My point was that in our lives, we make all sorts of decisions based upon what we have experienced in the past. Even if that decision is illogical later on. If it has worked before, we will most likely make the same decision. That being said, a person decides to follow a religion based upon the experiences that they have had in their lives.
A person is not denying reality if their entire life experience points them to believe that a particular religion is true.
Why must something be actually right? If I my interpretations of reality work for me, and allow me to act in such a way that my life is enhanced and optimal, than what does it matter to you that I interpreted my reality in such a way? Because you think that you're "actually right"? Sometimes, a person must realize that it's not about being right or being wrong, but about doing what works practically.
If I were to attempt to "prove you wrong" then I would be making a mistake. I don't see it as being right or being wrong. It's simply a matter of different people having different perspectives.
Thank you. I was simply curious (mostly because of your avatar).
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
Because it is one of many possible ways to view the world.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
That is not how pyschology defines mental illness. However, by that definition you've put forward, this would ineed qualify those who believe in religion as mentally ill.
linwood
Well-Known Member
It`s just you.