"Universal need of religion" still in affect?

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, ok, one response, because it’s the attitude of ateista in his postings on the rest of the forum that got me thinking about this stuff in the first place.

“Desire”? I’m not talking about desire, I’m talking about the inability to even discuss external reality because of a fundamental difference between two ways of thinking: the questions “matter,” or they “don’t matter.”

Oh, wow, haven’t heard that one before. Despite your disclaimers, you are, in fact, implying that “religious = undereducated,” and nothing more. To get rid of religion, let’s just make sure everyone is “educated,” whatever that means.

Well, here’s a thought for you ateista: education does not guarantee wisdom. I’m asking about wisdom in this thread, not knowledge. I’m an electrical engineer by trade, studying German language and partikel-measurement technologies in Germany right now; I think I’m more than qualified in that regard. But quite frankly, it’s not enough. I’m interested in things outside the mundane, and this interest affects my life personally, and yours as well.

Are they taking over? Perhaps not. But yes, the growth in the number of people who simply say that these questions do not matter is “scary” to me, because I’d like my children to grow up in a human community that is strong enough to say what’s right and what’s wrong, and to not give a false impression to my children that “anything goes” in terms of thinking about non-materialist matters. Why this matters is not the topic of this thread, so I’m not interested in your opinions on it.

---

Whatever. At this point, I kindly request the convinced atheists, agnostics (“convinced agnostic” probably an oxymoron), and otherwise “non-believers” (or “free-thinkers,” or whatever you like to call yourselves) to sit on their hands and not clutter up this post unless they have thoughts on the following question: do the questions of “where does existence come from,” “where is it going,” “why do we exist,” etc., matter? I’m looking for a yes or a no answer, why or why not, and what are the implications. You can wax philosophical in the other threads. I’m looking for insight here into a concreate idea, not your personal (ir)religious opinions.

Thanks a bunch,
Telemachus

EDIT: No more talk of “zombies.” We’re human beings, and I’d like that term to stop being used.

I see you have 9 whopping posts under your belt here. Good luck with trying to control this thread. That’s not exactly how it works here generally.

 

[ateista]

Why does anything that needs faith have to be unreasonable?

Minor misunderstanding. If something needs epistemological faith, then it cannot be substantiated through reason. It does not make this “something” unreasonable (or stupid!) it simply means that it is not reasonable. There is a subtle difference between “unreasonable” and “not reasonable”.

The most basic faith that believers start with is that we are here for a reason, that there must be an answer to “why are we here, what is the meaning of life”.

I am sure that such questions arise for many people. For me these are trivial questions. We are here because our parents had sex. The “meaning” of life is whatever we do with it. And these answers need no faith whatsoever. Sure, these answers may sound “shallow”, but not everything is “deep”.

The fault isn’t just lack of sufficient faith, it can be the fault of asking for the wrong things.

Certainly. But asking for one’s “daily bread” can hardly be construed as a “wrong thing” to ask for. Still there are millions of people who go hungry every night, because God did not send rain to their fields and so they starve to death.

Though Jesus did not set “preconditions” when he promised that whatever you ask for, will be fulfilled - even moving mountains. He did not say: “ask and if it is what I want, it will be fulfilled”.

You set the bar so high that it’s made it hard for you to begin to have a relationship with God.

I am not sure that the “bar” is too high. I don’t want anything special, most of all nothing for myself. My life is most satisfactory and utterly happy. Every day I wake up with a smile, and look forward to have another great day.

When I ask questions it is for others.

I will pray for you, since you seem very sincere.

Thank you. That is most kind of you.

 

[rinnie]

To the universal need of religion, i think thats what the problem is with this world for sure. If you think about it why does everyone want to go back to how it was. Because there was God. Trust in him, for him. Today to many people are working against him. They think you can buy him, sell him… and its not working. You can be happy in this world rich or poor if you have God as the center. Its just to easy and free. God doesnt sell. Not the true God because he cant be bought. His love is free. FREE the world cant make money of that. Without God this world is hopeless, and what is worse its getting to be more hopeless every day. Why because people want it GODLESS. And if they get rid of him the devil takes over. God back to our Baptism promise. Do we reject satan and all of his empty promises? Do we believe in the Father SOn Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church, back to the Apostles Creed. But the devil wants rid of the Creed. Which we all have lived by forever. He gets rid of God he wins and we all destroy ourselves and eachother. ITs happening everyday.

 

[Telemachus]

Just a friendly advice: don’t try to prescribe what should or should not the posters address. It is not our job and it is explicitly forbidden in the rules.

I was not prescribing, I was trying to keep the conversation focused on… what you are adressing now, here:

Now to the meat of your post. They do not matter to me. I understand that such questions “matter” to many people. I can say one thing about those people: they are well-fed, live in comforable conditions and have quite a bit of free time on their hands. Hungry, sick, desperate people don’t care. They care about their survival. They have no time to ponder such questions.

To this, I submit as a first thought Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, something I read about a while back: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs. Essentially, once the basic needs of a human being are met, where do they go from there? The answers are myriad. We do not remain hungry, sick, and desperate for the entirety of our lives.

Second, I would also contend that these questions have mattered to some of the most hungry, sick, and desperate people who ever lived on God’s green earth. One can’t help but wonder about “the Beyond” when close to death, no? How much more interesting then to wonder about it well before then.

So you say that these questions do not matter to you personally. Why is that? Do you not wonder, or do you avoid the questions? These are not rhetorical questions, I’m honestly looking for some insight into how you think about your existence, and how you act on your thoughts.

Such outright hostility against reason… etc.

I think we disagree on what “reason” actually is. You seem to limit it to “interacting with the world through the scientific method,” whereas I think most would take a much broader view, such that reason is not an external interaction with the world around us, but an internal process of comprehending the world around us.

Read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, for instance. He has the correct understanding of human reason. I also recommend highly “Voltaire’s Bastards” by John Ralston Saul. This book really helped me understand how a misunderstanding of what human reason is has led to a lot of confusion.

Faith relies on authority, trust in authority. Its findings are not subject to proof, they are “revealed”.

This is actually something we can agree on, my good fellow. We can disagree on the degree of trust that is necessary for cohesive living with fellow human beings, but I think in general you would agree with me that trust, in and of itself, is not wrong.

More specifically, “trust in authority.” Interesting. Would you say you are against the idea of “authority” then? If not, what is a proper authority? I would imagine you are against “unquestionable authority,” at the very least. What are the opinions of scientific authorities to you? You do not know them, yet you apparently take what they have to say as truth, or at least the temporary conception of truth until they come up with something “more true” later. When do you, ateista, begin trusting?

No matter how strongly one would believe in walking on water, one test is enough to show the futility of this belief… etc.

It is clearer and clearer to me that, in your world-view, “reason = scientific method.” Why that is, I don’t understand. Reason is comprised of thought processes, while the scientific method is a tool for testing hypotheses concerning the perceptible material world. The scientific method is the best form of obtaining data about the material world, and reason is necessary to translate this data into correct conclusions. If one does not have good reasoning, then his conclusions will be erroneous no matter how well he applied the scientific method. Do you disagree with this statement?

Certainly. But asking for one’s “daily bread” can hardly be construed as a “wrong thing” to ask for. Still there are millions of people who go hungry every night, because God did not send rain to their fields and so they starve to death.

But see, this is something I can’t understand from fellows who reject the ideas contained in the Bible. In one breath you will criticize the fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible must be taken to be literally true, yet in the next reject everything in the Bible because it’s not literally true. Make up your mind. Is the book meant to be taken literally, or not literally? Which parts? The Bible is meant to be studied, not just simply read and applied.

I don’t want anything special, most of all nothing for myself. My life is most satisfactory and utterly happy. Every day I wake up with a smile, and look forward to have another great day. When I ask questions it is for others.

I believe it. All evidence points to you literally not having a care in the world, and questioning everything but yourself.

 

[ateista]

Second, I would also contend that these questions have mattered to some of the most hungry, sick, and desperate people who ever lived on God’s green earth. One can’t help but wonder about “the Beyond” when close to death, no? How much more interesting then to wonder about it well before then.

I am sure it comes up for them, too. Especially since they need to believe that there will be some “justice”, that there will be some “reward”. Any hope - even false hope - is better than no hope. Though it is more of a desire for them, than quiet, philosophical contemplation.

So you say that these questions do not matter to you personally. Why is that? Do you not wonder, or do you avoid the questions? These are not rhetorical questions, I’m honestly looking for some insight into how you think about your existence, and how you act on your thoughts.

Sure, I can try to answer. One of your questions was “where did all this come from”? My answer is: “the Universe simply exists”. Your answer is: “God created the universe. God simply exists”. I use Occam’s razor and cut out the unnecessary assumption of God.

We don’t need “faith” to accept the existence of the Universe. We experience it every second of our life. The “where did it come from” is not a question that needs an answer. Just like: “why does the Universe exist?”

As an example: a valid question would be: “what are the properties of water that lead to its transparency?”. An invalid question: “why is water transparent?” - the “why” being in the teleological sense.

Does that clarify my position? If not, tell me what else ae you interested in, and I will answer.

I think we disagree on what “reason” actually is. You seem to limit it to “interacting with the world through the scientific method,” whereas I think most would take a much broader view, such that reason is not an external interaction with the world around us, but an internal process of comprehending the world around us.

In other words, you call “reason” the thought process we employ to comprehend the world. Yes, I certainly disagree. This thought process can be rational or it can be irrational.

I certainly differentiate between the two, if not for anything else, but for the sake of clarity.

This is actually something we can agree on, my good fellow. We can disagree on the degree of trust that is necessary for cohesive living with fellow human beings, but I think in general you would agree with me that trust, in and of itself, is not wrong.

Yes, I agree. It would be foolish not to trust certain things.

More specifically, “trust in authority.” Interesting. Would you say you are against the idea of “authority” then? If not, what is a proper authority? I would imagine you are against “unquestionable authority,” at the very least. When do you, ateista, begin trusting?

Now we are getting somewhere. The definition of “proper authority” for me is simple: “someone who can establish his assertions to a skeptic via repeatable, observable experiments (in the case of reality) - or employing logic based upon mutually agreed axioms (in the case of abstract sciences)”. Whose word is not based on his reputation, rather the ability to “step back”, and the facts speak for themselves.

The skeptic is not required to give a-priori credence to the authority’s claims. He is actually encouraged to question each and every claim, corollary and method. That is the authority I trust.

The ones who require my a-priori acceptance of their claim are not to be trusted. They are akin to the snake-oil peddlers.

To be precise: “trust must be earned”. It is not the default position.

It is clearer and clearer to me that, in your world-view, “reason = scientific method.” Why that is, I don’t understand. Reason is comprised of thought processes, while the scientific method is a tool for testing hypotheses concerning the perceptible material world. Do you disagree with this statement?

I agree with it as a general assessment.

But see, this is something I can’t understand from fellows who reject the ideas contained in the Bible. In one breath you will criticize the fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible must be taken to be literally true, yet in the next reject everything in the Bible because it’s not literally true.

Hold it. It is not that simple at all. I criticize the fundamentalist’s position because it is clearly incorrect. The value of “pi” is definitely not “3”. That does not mean that everything in the Bible is incorrect.

Make up your mind. Is the book meant to be taken literally, or not literally? Which parts? The Bible is meant to be studied, not just simply read and applied.

Well, it should be. If it is our “guiding line” or “instruction manual” for a life that is pleasing to God, then it should be absolutely unambiguous and clear as a whistle. There should be nothing in it that can be misunderstood. There should be no scientific absurdities in it to cast a doubt on its “divine” origin.

The question, “which parts are literal” and “which parts are allegorical” opens up a whole can of worms, it opens up the door to subjective assessments. You simply do not give a confusing, self-contraditory instruction booklet to your creation and then blame them for not following it precisely.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

The universal need for religion still an evident characteristic in our world, and intrinstic to our “humanity.” I think a good argument could be made that if the people of the world were 99.9 atheistic/agnostic/ignostic; religion would still be a driving force in human relations. I say this because the word religion at its origin is from the verb to fasten/to tie/to restrict. Everyone is bound to something, restricts and defines themselves through something. Look at secular pop culture, it functions as a religion- some people define themselves consciously or unconsciously around the lives of the "rich&famous. They define their asthetics, sense of place in the world, (in some cases) ethical behavior, what causes appropriate to be in association. People crave to be bound to things, and define themselves in certain manners. That is why there is an adolescent period afterall- the child begins to state their independence and selfhood from their parents, and hopefully it leads to them finding their place in society.

I believe the problem you are more concerned with is why people don’t seem to be so interested in being bound to Theistic pursuits. It is a complicated question, with an equally complicated answer. Some factors that I think play a role would be:

• There is much less of a stigma (and no threat of physical recourse) to frankly speak about one’s doubts with theological topics.
• The success of terminology to dissuade theological practices. This I think gets really complicated because the factors are numerous; but let me take one. Organized religion. How many times do people use this phrase in communicating? All the time, and it provokes a myraid amount of responses. However, if you think about it, the phrase is meaningless in any objective manner. Religion is naturally organized with certain agreed upon practices and mores, it is impossible to disorganize religion. The term is nothing but slang to denote established and communal faiths. It is like ‘cool’ though, it might have been slang with some value and/or message to convey at one point; but it has become so largely disassociated with the cause that it was essembled for in the first place, it is a more of a phatic response than tool for discourse.

Now organized religion is used, and it is used most sucessfully (and has been established for the most part) in a pejorative manner. Several generations have grown up with it as such, and people shy from pejoratives. So then the question becomes why is it a pejorative- well, I personally assess it is so because of the Age of Enlightenment, the centuries of religious wars (more precisely the fatigue of those wars,) the misuse of “tolerance” and other terms, and with apologies to our Protestant brethren, the lack of belief in supererogative actions… Now mix this with the English speaking empire that has largely governed/influenced world view for 500 years, and you have a big stew on your hands that makes it harder to reason for theistic religion. (And as an aside, obviously the factors are much more nuanced and greater than the few I mentioned here, things get messy.)

Perhaps most importantly, the lack of cultivation of those existing systems…It took the critic Rousseau to point out the beauty of the Alps- and it was fitting because only someone frustrated with the society around them would point to the wild and untamed for a source of goodness and beauty. What I mean is people like to be involved in the “building” process. Take a look at Christianity, the biblical canon was formally closed during Trent. Most of the arguments used between Catholics and Protestants have been the exact same ones used 500 years ago, besides the Second Vatican Council, the Church seems (appearance wise) to have spent the time between Trent and Vatican II preserving and not growing. And this isn’t a criticism of tradition per se, because I am certainly not saying that people “have to get with the times” but the Church has been unable to market reasonable change or proper growth (though it has done both) in such a way as to interest people in participating. And what had made this so damaging is that people have become Rousseau-ian, looking into the wild because they don’t feel the cultivated fields can feed them anymore. Nietzsche may not have been much of a philosopher; but he too was an excellent critic- and unfortunately his infamous “God is dead” statement has rung true. People aren’t convinced they need to look to God as a moral barometer anymore, and we have seen in the last century people experiencing this and waking up to a world that they think no longer has consequences (which if I remember correctly is how he worded it the second time he used this, not in the Gay Science.) There is a lot to do to correct these views- and it would take a LOT of work; but because the need for religion is still very much present, it isn’t an impossible task. And when it is pulled off, it would probably leave things on stronger grounds.

Sorry for rambling…

 

[Nullasalus]

The existence of such an apathy throws into doubt the “universal need of religion,” such that one of the key things that distinguishes human beings from other animals is disappearing. And if it’s disappearing, how can religion go on? Religion is founded upon a search, and if one can comfortably say “What search?”, how can Belief go on.

Am I perceiving things wrongly? I’m really hoping I am and that this so-called “universal need of religion” is still in affect, because if it isn’t, I’m very doubtful about the future of humanity, myself included. If it was so easily lost somehow, how does one protect it? Can one get it back? I feel like I’ve lost it to a certain respect, and I don’t know how.

The problem isn’t that religion is disappearing, but that ideology is being relied on as a substitute for religion (and, compared to the fullness of what is offered in Christianity, a weak substitute at that).

ALotLessThumb has some good points as well. I think a large part of the problem rests on poor communication.

 

[deb1]

I refer to either, or none as the case may be. Fundamentalism is a psychological state not tied to any particular faith. We are most aware of two types at the moment, radical islam which is fundamentalist in nature and a segment of Christianity which also is. There is a small segment of Catholicism also driven by this mental arrangement.

Fundamentalists are those who cannot handle life with uncertainty. They seek assurance in concrete facts on which they can base their lives. Thus, it is insufficient to believe in God, one must construe sacred texts as infallible truth, correct in every respect, rather than the work of fallible humans. The world is largely black and white to the fundamentalist. There is but one singular way to salvation. Others must be taught they are wrong, violently if necessary. In any case, the world must be changed to conform to the norms they profess. Others will be required to adhere minimally to their laws and rules. What is of paramount importance is stability. God is and never can be anything else. The sacred text is perfect, any proof to the contrary must be rejected. Science is rejected insofar as it impinges on the accuracy of sacred writings. Theocracy is of course the ultimate goal, for there is really no other way to obey the perceived command to correct the sinner.

Fundamentalism is so strong that people are willing to appear totally ignorant and foolish rather than release ideas they need to protect their world view. Obviously some are willing to kill themselves to further the aims of the faith. Others are more than willing to kill those who stand against them. We see evidence of both in both Islam and Christianity. Elements exist in Judaism, and I am told in some parts of Hinduism and even Buddhism.

Of course there is not proof for the things they deemed “proved”. Deep down, they know this, but this just makes them more vehement and strident in their claims. They do all this in pursuit of some magical secure ground upon which to stand. As the great Pima Chodron said, we must learn to live in the instability. In that we will find the peace we desire.

My point is that we all suffer from this desire. Most of us accept that there is no secure ground. Some of us cannot, and become willing to basically discard rational thought to exist in a “safe” place. Atheists as I said, find the entire exercise proof that there is no God and no point. They are no more secure of course, but they essentially have concluded that God is not a way of finding it either.

SpiritMeadow, what a good definition of fundamentalism!!

 

[brandymmiller]

I feel exactly the same way. I even wonder if these people have souls. Perhaps they are soul-less zombies operating purely under mechanistic biological instinct. (I’m serious)

They are not souless zombies operating purely under mechanistic biological instinct. They seek God too, they just don’t realize that’s what they’re doing. Some seek Him in science, and become slaves to their reason. Some seek Him in food, and become slaves to their hunger. Some seek Him in drugs, and become slaves to the drugs. Some seek Him in sex, and become slaves to it. The reality of it is that we do have souls, even if we don’t acknowledge that we have them and even if we seek to subvert them. If we won’t worship God, we will find something to worship and that something will always end up destroying us because it doesn’t care about us.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

They are not souless zombies operating purely under mechanistic biological instinct. They seek God too, they just don’t realize that’s what they’re doing. Some seek Him in science, and become slaves to their reason. Some seek Him in food, and become slaves to their hunger. Some seek Him in drugs, and become slaves to the drugs. Some seek Him in sex, and become slaves to it. The reality of it is that we do have souls, even if we don’t acknowledge that we have them and even if we seek to subvert them. If we won’t worship God, we will find something to worship and that something will always end up destroying us because it doesn’t care about us.

Thank you for correcting me. What I said before was a strange theory I dreamed up that isn’t compatible with Catholic doctrine about humans being made in God’s image.

 

[Sarpedon]

Hungry, sick, desperate people don’t care. They care about their survival. They have no time to ponder such questions.

I can see why they wouldn’t care so much about philosophy, but that’s not the same as them not caring about God. Philosophy is not the only way to know God.

Sometimes it seems like the most downtrodden and unfortunate individuals have the strongest faith in God.

 

[fhansen]

Humans have always looked for excuses to avoid God. It’s called pride and especially if life is going relatively well and we seem to be in some sort of control then we easily fall into a faith in ourselves and the false promises which many make about mans’ ability to answer questions and solve his problems and control his own destiny-which seems kind of dumb to me as his destiny is death.

But man nonetheless opposes humility whenever he can while the gospel says that God exalts the humble and opposes the proud so that the proud end up foolish and the humble gain wisdom. So whether or not modern man is losing his “universal need for religion” is pretty much irrelevant. Our faith is based on truth or it has no value at all and we probably should be prepared to face more persecution for it in the future. What we really have is a “universal need for God”, whether or not we know it or like admitting it.

 

[spauline]

Hi, Telemachus,

I sympathize totally.

I only have time to be brief.

In short, you might try what is called, the “levels of happiness.” Various ways are gotten at, but here is a common way, the four levels of happiness:

I. Material Pleasures and Possessions
II. Egotistical Accomplishments
III. Intimate relationships of LOVE with other human beings
IV. Intimate relationship of LOVE with God.

The first two levels are clearly superficial, and cannot ultimately fulfill the human person. For if i have won the Nobel Prize in Physics, and become a heavy metal guitar hero, another Michael Jordan in the NBA, and done everything possible, and I have unlimited access to pizza, beer, and all other material pleasures, and seven mansions, and two Porshes, a Lamborguine, etc, …

but if, after all this, when I come home, to one of my mansions, I have no friends or family to share it with, no personal relationships, what good is it?

Hence, without love, the human person is lacking. Love is the thing that all tends toward.

But what IS love? Is love merely natural affection? Is “knowing” someone merely knowing their favorite music and movies? their favorite foods, or that you have degrees in math or biology?

Which raises other questions: do you really love me for who I AM, or only what I can DO for you, that I am productive?

Do you love me, if I am a woman, becaues I am thin and pretty in my face? What if I got sick and gained a lot of weight, and an accident disfigured my face. Would you still love me?

And if I am a man, do you love me only because I can throw footballs, or because i have quick sarcasm? What if I drop the football and cause a major loss and ruin my football career? What if i become mentally ill and can no longer be the life of the party? WIll you still love me?

Hence, authentic love transcends mere natural characteristics. Here is beauty found in Catholicism alone: the sick and dying elderly have a treasure, their sufferings can be united to Christ and merit graces for sinners. Hence, although society would say they are worthless because they only “drain resources”, for God, and people of faith, their sufferings have meaning, WORTH, just as Christ’s sufferings had worth, they redeemed humanity.

And we are also little christs, hence, the Apostle proclaims to the Collossian church, “I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.”

In part, it is the dragon who has progressed humanity’s depravity to the point that it feels that “religious questions do not matter.”

First, he said to the Muslims, “Has it been claimed that God is Triune and Incarnate? That is not true!”

Then he said to schismatics, “Has it been claimed that Peter is the supreme father? That is a lie!”

Then, he said to heretics, “Has it been claimed that even bishops in general preserve the Oral Words of God? That is a lie!”

And after heretics confounded the living hell out of the understanding of the Writings, the devil says to deists and rationalists, “Has it been claimed that the Scriptures reveal God, or even that there is Divine Revelation or Redemption at all? It is a lie!”

And, now, telemacheus, we are in the final stage, in which even reason is beleived to show that faith in any supernatural sense is irrelevant. This is the worst darkness of all the preceding ones, which were only partial until now.

Can it be healed? The mystics surely believe it can, but that, most likely it shall be painful. Which is to say, when man finally says to himself, “We need not God, faith is irrelevant”, the only thing God can do is say, “Then you must find out the hard way. You must experience the fruits of your darkness, so that you can see the darkness for what it truly is, that is, darkness, and not the light you think it is.”

That is the Minor Chastisement, which is coming, even perhaps, “the annihilation of entire nations,” the final woe of Fatima that has yet to be fulfilled. But in the end, She has promised that “My Immaculate Heart shall Triumph.”

Hope this helps, telemacheus. And God Bless your pondering of these realities.

 

[brandymmiller]

I can see why they wouldn’t care so much about philosophy, but that’s not the same as them not caring about God. Philosophy is not the only way to know God.

Sometimes it seems like the most downtrodden and unfortunate individuals have the strongest faith in God.

It is when you are broken in body that you have the greatest need of being healed in soul, and when God’s greatest mercy is found. This is actually why God allows sickness, homelessness, and pain - they are tools that develop the humility necessary for us to admit that we do need Him.