Is Religion an Illusion?

[Aloysium]

Atheism is a religion. It is a belief or set of beliefs that cannot be proven, that are used to determine how to operate in this world, i.e. what is right and what is wrong. Atheism strongly contradicts theism (the words even demonstrate that, one being the opposite of the other). This is the extreme case, but there are plenty of other, less extreme contradictions.

I don’t include Atheism in my (idiosyncratic?) category of religion, which is a way of life (that includes beliefs, rituals, and norms of behaviour) dedicated to a relationship with the divine Ground of Being.

Atheism, communism, consumerism, Zionism, all the weird, xenophobic muslim approaches masking hate, these and others, I would not classify as religions because one does not recognize God in them. I should qualify by saying I don’t see God in them. I do in most Buddhist, Hindu, Bahai, Muslim, Zaroastrian,and other traditions. So I suppose it is a circular argument: different religions do not contradict each other if they are merely different relationships with the same God. You love your wife and understand how others see her in different ways - same wife, different relationships.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So I suppose it is a circular argument: different religions do not contradict each other if they are merely different relationships with the same God. You love your wife and understand how others see her in different ways - same wife, different relationships.

Yes, if you define religions in such a way as to preclude contradictions between them, then what meets that definition will not contradict. Using contemporary definitions of religion however, contradictions between them remain.

Our relationship by God is defined by our love for, and therefore our service to, Him. What amounts to service to God can be a source of great contradiction between recognized religions. Is it service to God to remove murderers from our midst? Is it service to God to terminate an unborn human being because their mother does not desire to accept them? It is service to God to poison our reproductive systems such that they do not work by His design, but by our desires? Different ‘religions’ have different answers. So, so many contradictions. And has been stated previously, not all can be right. And so begins the search for what is really true; what is really right.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If ‘experience of religion’ is a euphemism for ‘appearing to love God but not really’ then I can understand that. . .

I don’t use that term but reading it, I would assume the person meant that they were contemplating what another person said about their relationship with God.
Someone being called by God would not likely describe themselves as having a religious experience in reading the Catechism, let’s say. I might, marvelling at their growing interest in the Divine. They would most likely describe it more along the lines of experiencing what religion is like.

 

[Aloysium]

Yes, if you define religions in such a way as to preclude contradictions between them, then what meets that definition will not contradict. Using contemporary definitions of religion however, contradictions between them remain. . .

There is one God; I think you would agree.
We are all called to Him? I think (“know” actually, but this sounds arrogant) so, regardless of the culture in which we are raised.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

There is one God; I think you would agree.
We are all called to Him? I think (“know” actually, but this sounds arrogant) so, regardless of the culture in which we are raised.

Absolutely in agreement with you on those statements!

Religion is a human understanding of that one God. If there were only one religion (one understanding), then there would be no contradictions. Since we have used the term “religions”, we must acknowledge at least that there are differences. It is pretty easy to see that many of these differences between understandings cannot all be true. Therefore contradictions exist.

“God has given me free will, I may make my own choices.”
“God has predestined by future with Him. I am powerless to change the destiny he has for me.”

These are contradictory. They both cannot be true. But they are both held as tenants of separate and specific religions. Religions that profess to believe in One, omnipotent, all-knowing and all loving God.

Dan

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We are commanded to Love. Love God. Love our Neighbor. We can’t Love God until we know Him. We know Him first by what we know about us and our world, and then by Revelation. Without natural theology, which includes both the compelling evidence that our world provides that there is a loving Creator as well as our innate desire to know, no one makes the jump to knowing God. Why know God when there is no reason or desire to know God? Reason and desire are the only motivators.

Your statement about the apostles is obviously wrong. Long before they ever met Jesus, they knew that God existed. How did they know? Through both reason and Revelation that had occurred up to that time. And these things were necessary for them to continue their journey of knowing God (a journey that never ends on this earth, no matter how far one is along it).

Dan

I cannot agree with most of this. In some areas you are spot on, in other areas you seem to be more combative than reasoning. I wish I knew which with respect to the above.

Natural theology does not provide compelling evidence of the existence of God unless your heart is already open to God (O.K. “loving,” if that’s what you prefer). Pascal and Kant put an end to that kind of nonsense. No atheist finds any of the "so-called “proofs” the least bit compelling. If they were compelling, there would be no atheists.

That we have a natural desire to know God is not an axiom of natural theology. It is simply an aspect of our nature as human beings that can be affirmed or denied, and in the modern world seems to be as much denied (especially by intellectuals) as affirmed.

We don’t really know how the Jews acquired their religion. But I believe it was certainly by tradition after it had been acquired that most Jews learned to believe. The Jews had no so-called proofs for the existence of God that I am aware of, not even the First Cause of Aristotle, though it is obvious they believe God created the universe. But the account of Creation in Genesis seems to come more from inspiration of the prophets than from the ramblings of a Spinoza or a Paley.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Yes, I may be combative at times. Please accept my apology for that and forgive me, and focus on the content rather than my combativeness, and I will work more diligently to refrain from combativeness.

Natural theology does not provide compelling evidence of the existence of God unless your heart is already open to God (O.K. “loving,” if that’s what you prefer). Pascal and Kant put an end to that kind of nonsense. No atheist finds any of the "so-called “proofs” the least bit compelling. If they were compelling, there would be no atheists…

I disagree. The natural world and our natural tendencies provide compelling evidence of the existence of God. And, many people have accepted the existence of God without a heart open to God. What IS required, is an openness to truth. God is the source of all truth, so those that are truly open to the truth are by definition open to God. To begin the discovery of who God is does not require loving God either. It is impossible to love something you do not know. That is why our duties to God are first to know Him. Knowing Him, we can THEN love Him. Not before.

You use the term proof, and I use the term compelling evidence. If we stick with compelling evidence, then I stand by my assertion that there is compelling evidence for the existence of God. Many have found it, IF they have had the courage (and humility) to look for it and IF they are willing to submit to a higher power over their lives. ANYBODY can reject compelling evidence, that is not unusual. We see it all the time, it is a very common human condition, one that does not spare atheists. Why do people reject compelling evidence? Because they do not WANT to believe. Not because the evidence is uncompelling. Having spoken to many atheists (weeding out the truly agnostic) my observation is that almost every one of them had a level of pride that precluded accepting any evidence that there was a God. For when you find a God over you, you are no longer top dog. When you don’t search, you won’t find.

That we have a natural desire to know God is not an axiom of natural theology. It is simply an aspect of our nature as human beings that can be affirmed or denied, and in the modern world seems to be as much denied (especially by intellectuals) as affirmed.

I would classify a NATURAL desire to know God as an element of NATURAL theology. Why? I guess because it is natural. Being a tendency, I then agree with your statement that it can be affirmed or denied, or more appropriately, encouraged or discouraged. Just because it is a tendency and not a compulsion, does not diminish its ‘naturalness’.

We don’t really know how the Jews acquired their religion.

I understand the Old Testament to be a very complete story of how the Jews acquired their religion. There is account after account of the continued discovery of God the Father. Genesis was accepted as scripture, in part, because of an understanding of the compelling evidence the universe’s sheer existence provides. Like other religions, the Jews had many false prophets. They accepted what smelled like truth, and rejected what did not. Genesis, a story of the First Mover, was accepted in part because of this compelling evidence for God.

Thank you for the discourse.

Dan

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I understand the Old Testament to be a very complete story of how the Jews acquired their religion. There is account after account of the continued discovery of God the Father. Genesis was accepted as scripture, in part, because of an understanding of the compelling evidence the universe’s sheer existence provides. Like other religions, the Jews had many false prophets. They accepted what smelled like truth, and rejected what did not. Genesis, a story of the First Mover, was accepted in part because of this compelling evidence for God.

Dan

No, Genesis was not evidence. It was revelation. It was the genius of the Jews that they did feel bound to prove the existence of what they naturally desired and hoped to be true.

Again, I don’t want us to get hung up on and debating something that may be turning into a semantical, rather than a logical, difficulty. The desire for God is natural, and yes, can be suppressed by pride. This is where you and I certainly agree.

Where we don’t seem to agree is whether that desire to know God and being drawn toward God is going to have to be decided by natural theology before it can be decided by revealed theology and the natural desire to know God. I just don’t think that we have to start by reasoning our way toward God without first giving in to the natural desire for God planted in our hearts. I think many good people of all faiths have lived and died knowing God connaturally, without benefit of a Thomistic or Kantian textbook analyses of metaphysics and natural theology.

I do agree that natural theology has a place in our heads, but more so as a confirmation of what we already know to be evidently true in our hearts. What you and I are talking about right now is an example of talking heads who are trying to sort out what is already in our hearts, no? But what you and I are talking about right now is not essential to our salvation.

The problem with natural theology, without supernatural theology (revelation) is that it is proud of itself and would love to supplant supernatural theology. That was the sin of Spinoza and all the deists, pantheists, pan-entheists, etc who universally reject revelation except for what has been revealed by themselves to themselves.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sigmund Freud said that religion is an illusion that has no future. How did he, being an atheist, know religion is an illusion if he never had the religious experience himself?

Freud thought a lot of things. Some of which we now regard as nonsense. I would suggest evaluating what he said on a case by case basis to first see how it has stood up to time.

How do people who have the religious experience know they are having one and are not deluding themselves they are having one? What are the authentic signs of an authentic religious experience? What are the signs of a fake religious experience?

People believe they are having a religious experience. Whether or not this experience is an interaction with a supernatural realm may be believed with confidence but doesn’t seem verifiable. What comes to mind is a culture in which the leaders use opium to have experiences with the super natural. I don’t think any one could prove these experiences are disconnected from the supernatural.

Side note: as a child I remember a neighbor locking herself in our house to cast out a demon. She claimed God told her to do this. There is no way of which I know to show her claim as untrue.

 

[Nihilist]

My response to those who say religion is an illusion- SO WHAT?

The thing about life is getting through it in as painless a way as possible. Religion helps to do that. The only way life can be justified is on religious ground- science gives life no meaning, humanity gives life no meaning. Nothing. Except the possibility of eternal joy, or of escaping eternal pain. And if these things turn out to be untrue- since we will only be dust after our death- what does anything (truth, life, meaning, happiness or joy) matter?

Is the happiness from music, poetry or alcohol an illusion? Of course. But this is no reason to abstain from these things. To live without illusions is impossible. Success, love, creativity- all are illusions.

In this context, it behooves us to select those ‘illusions’ which help, and which might be ‘true’ (whatever that means).

Objectively, we can’t be certain of anything. In this context, we should go with whatever works for us. There is a deep emptiness at the heart of being, which we fill with whatever we chose. To see this, is to believe in God.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Since we have used the term “religions”, we must acknowledge at least that there are differences. It is pretty easy to see that many of these differences between understandings cannot all be true. Therefore contradictions exist.

“God has given me free will, I may make my own choices.”
“God has predestined by future with Him. I am powerless to change the destiny he has for me.”

These are contradictory. They both cannot be true. But they are both held as tenants of separate and specific religions. Religions that profess to believe in One, omnipotent, all-knowing and all loving God.

Dan

Why must we acknowledge that these differences are anything but limited understandings?
There is one God, He has revealed what is important for us to know in scripture, and I understand it to the best of my abilities.
Even the magisterium does not pronounce itself on an issue except after the fact, when a heresy has been introduced.
Individually and as one humanity, we are all limited and growing towards a fuller, more loving relationship with God.
It is not a matter of contradictions but the ability to understand the truth.
The most saintly person I have met was Hindu.
That’s where I am coming from, thinking of religion not so much as theology but rather as having to do with the nature of the relationship we have with/our closeness to God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Side note: as a child I remember a neighbor locking herself in our house to cast out a demon. She claimed God told her to do this. There is no way of which I know to show her claim as untrue.

This reminds me of a book titled* People of the Lie* by Scott Peck, a psychiatrist more famous for his book The Road Less Traveled.

Peck recounts an experience he had attending two exorcisms. He was asked to observe as a psychiatrist in order to study whether his talents would be useful during the exorcism. At first he didn’t think much of the idea of demonic possession, but after the two exorcisms he attended, he believed he had had an irreligious experience … meeting the devil. His description of the encounters makes for fascinating reading. Again, not a an experience that is falsifiable, but certainly a real life experience that might be proof enough for anyone who had it that there is a supernatural realm at work for evil as well as good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My response to those who say religion is an illusion- SO WHAT?

The thing about life is getting through it in as painless a way as possible. Religion helps to do that. The only way life can be justified is on religious ground- science gives life no meaning, humanity gives life no meaning. Nothing. Except the possibility of eternal joy, or of escaping eternal pain. And if these things turn out to be untrue- since we will only be dust after our death- what does anything (truth, life, meaning, happiness or joy) matter?

Is the happiness from music, poetry or alcohol an illusion? Of course. But this is no reason to abstain from these things. To live without illusions is impossible. Success, love, creativity- all are illusions.

In this context, it behooves us to select those ‘illusions’ which help, and which might be ‘true’ (whatever that means).

Objectively, we can’t be certain of anything. In this context, we should go with whatever works for us. There is a deep emptiness at the heart of being, which we fill with whatever we chose. To see this, is to believe in God.

Very pragmatic. Have you been reading William James?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is the concluding paragraph of Archbishop William Temple’s book on Nature, Man, and God, which touches on the question of natural theology.

“How is the Supreme Good to be my apparent good in such wise as to win from me the submission of my conscience, the subjection of my will, the adoration of my heart—in one word, my worship? Not by argument, for my mind must be critical towards that, and even when convinced could not control my heart; not by force, for my conscience must resist that; not by bribery, for my will cannot be bound by that. The Supreme Good can only be my apparent good and so dominate my Self if it both is, and, in a form quickening my sympathy, manifestly displays itself as, utterly selfless love. In order to evoke the full sympathy of human personalities, the form of its self-manifestation must be a human personality, subject to all human limitations, yet never yielding to the temptation arising from its finitude to prefer its own interests to that universal good which is the will of God—in other words, a finite self whose apparent good is the real good. Moreover, this manifestation must not be a single episode, but the opening of a way to communion with the eternal God, so that as we nourish our minds with the story of the manifestation they are in fact becoming increasingly possessed by the universal and eternal Spirit. Granted that divine self-revelation, the world may be intelligible; without that, the arch falls for lack of its keystone and the gulf between mind and the universe in which it appears remains unbridged. The fear lest that be so is the burden with which mankind is heavy laden; the task of lifting themselves from their own self-centredness is that whereat men vainly labour on pain of else becoming lower than the brutes. Natural Theology ends in a hunger for that Divine Revelation which it began by excluding from its purview. Rightly sifting with relentless criticism every argument, it knows what manner of Voice that must be which shall promise relief to mankind; but the Voice is not its own, nor can it judge the message that is spoken. “Come unto me … and I will give you rest”; it is not Philosophy that can estimate the right of the Speaker to issue that invitation or to make that promise; that right can be proved or disproved only by the experiment of life.”

 

[oldcelt]

I agree with the bolded lines.

 

[Bahman]

Sigmund Freud said that religion is an illusion that has no future. How did he, being an atheist, know religion is an illusion if he never had the religious experience himself?

How do people who have the religious experience know they are having one and are not deluding themselves they are having one? What are the authentic signs of an authentic religious experience? What are the signs of a fake religious experience?

Although the experience of religion is nearly universal, it does not take a universal form. This means that since there are religions contradicting each other, they cannot all be true, though all may contain some authentic religious truths in them. How do we know the religious experiences of some religions are authentic and the religious experiences of other religions are not authentic?

Or discuss any variations of the above? Thank you.

The only door to reality is experience, isn’t it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The only door to reality is experience, isn’t it?

You would think so!

Elton Trueblood in his book The Trustworthiness of Religious Experience points to saintliness as a sign of authentic religious experience, and this can apply to authentic religious experiences by anyone who holds to any religion. That is to say, there are Protestant and Buddhist saints possible if they recognize in themselves the spirit of God at work. Trueblood is not speaking here of ordinary goodness in people’s lives, but of the extraordinary signs of goodness that are manifested in people who are more deeply conscious of themselves having an authentic religious experience.

It’s true that some of these do-gooders may be charlatans or hucksters into good works for fame or money, but these people almost always sooner or later give themselves away as disciples of the devil rather than of the Lord.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is C.S. Lewis weighing in on the authentic religious experience.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Here Lewis gives testimony to the fact that by his religious experience everything else makes more sense than it would make without the religious experience. I have also had this thought around the time I left atheism behind and returned to the Church. Atheism is meaningless because it regards the totality of our universe and all our experience of life as meaningless.

When that finally dawn on anyone, it becomes a good deal more feasible to look for meaning in other places. Some find it in Buddhism. Others find it Hinduism or Islam. Of them all I think Christianity makes the most sense as an authentic religious experience. There are of course fake or irrational versions of the Christian experience to be found everywhere.

As Martin Luther said, reason is a whore. When she sells herself to Christianity she has been converted, but her conversion began in her heart before it began in her head.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Fire. “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,”
Not of philosophers and scholars,
Certainty, Joy, Certainty, Feeling, Light, Joy,
God of Jesus Christ, …
Forgetting of the world and of all save God,
He is only to be found in the ways taught in the Gospel.

Blaise Pascal, Pensees

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A common objection to the validity of the religious experience is that it is not universal.

That is, many who define themselves as religious have never sensed the presence of God in their lives. If the religious experience was true, why wouldn’t everyone have it who wanted it?