|
Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-25 18:01:59 (edited 2007-02-25 22:24:25)
|
|
It's always bothered me why we have so many diffrent religions, I mean there are the big ones like Christianity, Muslim, and Judisim. Which can all trace their roots to the Old testament of the bible. Then there were thoes that came later and branched off other religions, Scientoligy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints[Mormon}(Christianity can even be seen as sort of a branch off of Judisim). Also there were beliefs that were many gods instead of just one, the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks. What I think is after so long some people will join a religion to feel part of something and not left out, like a giant "click" if you will. What do you guys think?  |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by S-a-c-h-i-e-l
on 2007-02-25 20:24:05
|
|
Well, I've heard about people using religion as an excuse to control people, that religion was made to use it for war, and tons of other reasons. Personally, my belief (among others) is that religion is bad if people use it for their own gain; Most religions teach peace, love, harmony, and such from what I've seen... So if the jerks would stop going nuts with power and using it for their own good (the crusades, anyone?), then it might get a better reputation :D  |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by MiCHiYo μ
on 2007-02-25 21:31:06 (edited 2007-02-25 23:44:27)
|
|
I think that we need a religion just for the sake of being satisfied as to where all begining and end is and for the sake of believing and having faith in something. The most proabable reason why we have different religions is because people would want to have a respectable religion that they know can bring the good. You're right in saying that all religions are somewhat similar, some way. Well, it IS hard to believe, especially when you think about Catholicism and Islam. But the thing is, religion is also a reflection of our culture. Or I think it's the other way around. I'm not sure. But anyway, it's something that also changes us as individuals and as part of a group. Tell me if you've ever heard of a religion that only one person exists, and I will believe you when you say that it is not a means of satisfying one's need of conformity. People just believe in so many different things that a religion is made so that others who believe the same thing will not feel left out. Don't get me wrong, though. I have faith in my religion, which is Catholicism. The hard part is when we question it. The harder part? It's when we don't get answers... and science explains. -michiyo- 
 beware. the QueeN oF SiGGieS is here. kill that mr. scrolly or your siggy goes BAI BAI. it's solidarity month! let's be united! +[-- GeNDouNiaNS: i am half-back! visit my blog by clicking on the siggie banner! updated: 12.07.07 --]+
~*..:: i'm never going to give up... if i do, then it wasn't worth trying. ::..*~
|
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
 
on 2007-02-25 22:40:26 |
|
Woww...I was actually reading a book in my Anthropology class which explains why religion exists...and basically one of the reasons was because people has the necessity of feeling part of something. It also works as a way of letting people feel less stressed, and to relieve out from their problems...This is what I found in my book. "Painful drives are anxieties concerning infantile and primitive fears (fear of destruction). Painful motives are culturally forbidden, feelings of shame, inadequacy, and moral anxierty. Because of the pain these create in an individual, these drives and motives are usually relegated to the unconscious where, in the absence of other, or of more efficient means, religion becomes the vehicle by which, symbolically, they can be handled and expressed." I have also read that a lot of psychologist (e.g.Freud) believe that people believe in religion to supress their fear and anxiety, just what the book tried to say too. Others said that it is a way of social solidarity and collective beliefs, like to integrate cultures. Just like Michi Mihi said...religion set you as a part of a group of individuals who share the same beliefs as you. Basically that's one of the purposes of religion, to give you peace of mind and soul. To make you feel good with yourself...There were times when religion was use as a way to control people, like during the times of the Inquisition, and yes a lot of wars just to get lands and money, sad but true... I'm a catholic, and yes there is a lot of weaknesses in my religion, but I still have my faith untouched. |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by ghatanothoa
on 2007-02-25 22:48:20
|
|
I think another reason religion might exist is because we generalize human traits onto nature. For example, people notice that it is possible to use words and speech to talk people into doing things for them, so they assume that it is possible to talk the natural world into doing things for them. They assume that the natural world has minds of its own (calling the minds gods or spirits) and then try to talk them into helping out. If you closely read the text of a lot of prayers and spells they basically are attempts to persuade God(s) to do something for you or to not do something to you. |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
|
|
To me, there are 2 reasons why religion exists. 1. Unexplainable things in life. Since humans can't explain it no matter what, people decided that there's a supreme being that can explain everything the human's can't. That is God. There are many religions because each people think differently. 2. Politics. Religion leaders have quite an influence you see... |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-27 10:00:45 |
|
Sai...that was a really simple and great way to explain it ^-^ I agree with you |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-27 10:20:57 |
|
read this i say no more. 
|
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
|
|
@Gendou Upon seeing that book, I have to read it! I question religion  |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-27 11:41:19 (edited 2007-02-27 12:17:52)
|
|
i don't dare question religion. i do, however, question the religious! in my personal experience, most people who claim to be religious are really best described as "church-going pantheists". @mars: i am shocked you left out the two coolest religions of all: shinto and buddhism! (both can be seen as polytheistic) well, you really haven't told us WHY it bothers you? why should it bother you that there are plenty of options to choose from? are you overwhelmed? need you even choose one? who is to say they are mutually exclusive? shinto and buddhism get along quite nicely in japan, you know! why shouldn't one be able to read the koran and the hebrew bible in the same building? is it a sin? will the baby jesus cry if you hail more than one desert Messiah? @sachi: "religious beliefs" and "the institution of organized religion" are NOT THE SAME THING! either can exist without the other. "how can a religious institution exist without religious beliefs?" you ask? remember the pantheists i mentioned earlier in this post? yeah. also, most japanese people (survey says) don't believe in any religion. they do, however, attend shinto and buddhist practices and holy sites, and contribute money (you know those boxes with the holes in them?!) to the religious establishment. in thailand, many children work as monks (see here). would you call those children religious people? or, are they just doing their job? do you think they worry about reincarnation? maybe. maybe not. my point is that, religious power is NOT THE SAME THING as religious feelings. religious power is often good. dare i say quite often. it is no different from military power, and often times the two are thought as one in the same (see medieval japan). religious beliefs, are they, in their own right, good or bad -- now there's an interesting question! @michiyo: i don't need religion to feel satisfied. everyone needs food to be satisfied. without it, you die (a very dissatisfactory event). religion is the specific belief that supernatural events explain part of the universe. this is by DEFINITION an unnatural conclusion (given that any natural conclusion would be found in NATURE and not SUPER-natural). yes, dear, i propose that you are one of my pantheist friends! we can get our conformity satisfaction through school, or even a place called "church", but we need not be "religious" or have a "religion" to do so. "oh my god, did gendou just say church without religion?" um, yea? why the heck not? ever been to a quaker meeting? XD @pame: i would like to help correct a subtle overstatement you used. the need to belong is not a "reason" that religions to spring up. it is a force that helps perpetuate them. it is a vector for their propagation, to use the medical terminology used to describe the spread of infectious disease. religion may travel like a virus, but i do not claim it is as devastating as one, although i have heard such an argument before and it was somewhat convincing. once again, i think this "purpose" for religion is actually a "side-effect". the whole concept of a sense of "purpose" is a philosophical precipice that i dare not approach! you see, religion gives people a sense of belonging. so does family! maybe people turn to religion when they don't get enough sense of belonging at home. i do not believe this to be the ONLY reason someone might turn to religion. it is doubtless a more complex matter. but, the point is clearly illustrated that, just because religion offers a sense of belonging, does not mean it is necessary for a sense of belonging. @ghatanothoa: yes! people seem to LOVE Anthropomorphism. in our everyday lives, things that are orderly, delicate, and complex were designed (example: a watch). however, it takes some imagination to realize not all things need be designed. a well-ordered crystal grows on it's own. celestial bodies form round spheroids due to gravity, not a grand cosmic ice-cream scoop. living organisms descend from ancient basic replicators, growing in complexity and adapting to their environment. anyone without this imagination would be left with little sensible alternative but to imagine a giant ice-cream scoop in the sky, and a giant woman (Mrs. God. why would Mr. Celestial Deity be scooping ice-cream?) wielding it. @saikyou: 1. given a sufficiently long breath, i can explain ANYTHING in life in one breath. try me, i dare you. the fact that religions disagree on almost every detail of creation and the thereafter points to only one possibility: they are all wrong on most accounts or mostly all wrong on all accounts. if you are looking for answers, you would be best to turn to math and science. any good carpenter, jesus included, knows this. try measuring a 2x4 using your faith. then, go buy a measuring tape and learn to add and subtract. 2. can't argue with that! XD
|
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
|
|
That is a good point. Religion fills ,in my observation, a valuable personal and social/state value. First is the personal. A person want's to be in control most of the time and worship is (in a way) to influence some greater devine being. My explination is admitily crude but I don't wish to dive into it. The real intrest for me is the in the state or social value. Religion sets a standard for "norms" or accepted behavior. "Thou shall not kill." "Think proper thoughts" are example of behaivors that are being encuraged through Christ & Budda respectfully. There are people who hjack the church/temple to carry out government fuctions. The Holy Roman Empire, Iran and other groups have done simliar things. I hope that some of this half-hazard argument makes sence to someone. |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-27 16:16:59 |
|
As far as Religion is concerned it was "created" to explain the unexplainable, little more after that. Many of our "ancient" faiths that populate this world are polytheistic. The reason for that is quite simple, it’s easier to say that there are specific deities that govern rain, profit margins, and how quickly your hairline recedes. It also makes it easier for someone to say that the drought is because of such-and-such deity and you’re profits have increased at the same time because of another. Monotheism wasn’t too popular back then because people have trouble seeing just one uber-god sitting on his golden throne and commanding everything at once, that’s something you have to be conditioned for. It only takes one to set the ball rolling however and Judaism got that one started. In continuation there were the many fractures and splits of nearly every religion since then. Look at the most prevalent religions today, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, ect. All of these religions experienced fracturing sects and divisions, none quite so adept at this than Christianity (great schism, protestant reform). This leads to question of why. Why would these religions separate? That question is easily remedied, people will believe what, and how they want. If you were to boil down every religion on the face of this world you would find that they are more the same than different. Islam, Christianity, Judaism are all derived from one central belief, Judaism. The two most followed religions are all based in the same ideology, why is that? It is because when you are a nation it is easier to convert followers and effectively take over lands if your culture resembles the other. It is inherent in human behavior to group with others like you. Meaning that if you believe in a certain way of thinking then you will find others who think as you do and follow them. There is no better example than the Roman Empire. Their conversion to Christianity was purely political. The masses had already converted; so the government, in order to stave off rebellion, changed its official religion. This is but one of the many states that converted to stay popular in the eyes of the people. A few centuries later you had the HRE (Holy Roman Empire, essentially the catholic church) and their attempts to preserve their followers, why? because they wanted the money. Think about it, if you say that people need to give 10% of what they earn you'll get more money the more people you attract. This is also why many of the strongest advocates of Catholicism, early on, were the rich nobles of Europe. The church had attracted theses people with things such as annulments, or ways to reduce time in purgatory. The Catholic Church in those times was basically a monetary faith, or money based. In some ways still is, in some ways not all. I am not singling out Christianity or any other religion I know the horrible pasts that many religions would like you to forget. The fact that Judaism was actually used more as a way for people to vindicate their zealous behavior against Rome is testament to that. The Islamic faith being a backboard for the persecution of thousands of Jews for pretty much all time, not to mention the internal conflicts. Most religions have some form of holy text. Everything from the Torah to the writings of Confucius, most have something. The thing is very few if any of them should be taken word-for-word. The simple truth is that most of them are translations, in the case of the bible a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of stone tablets that we’re written from a verbal history passed down through 40 generations. A memo can’t make it through three copies and half a translation before you turn “Tuesday’s coffee meeting at 3 in the board room†into “No work on all week with a major party Saturday at Jim’s, bring your own drinks.†How can you take something like that seriously, let alone base your life completely off of it. That doesn’t mean you can’t live your life in a generally “good†way, or that you can’t have faith that maybe there is some truth behind what’s being said. So maybe he didn’t walk on water, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t try to help people as he went. It’s all open to interpretation, but if you’re killing people because of how you interpreted that translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of stone tablets that we’re written from a verbal history passed down through 40 generations you’ve missed the point. Although you don’t have to believe every word literally to have faith, because faith is in many ways separate from religion. Religion is how you control people; faith is what keeps us going. I have faith, but I don’t necessarily agree with my religion on all points. I don’t just blindly follow my religion to the letter, because very few things work out to the letter. Nor do I simply say that am of a religion; I actively pursue the values that I believe to be important. All these things are based off my faith not my religion. I can have faith without religion, religion without faith, faith based on religion, or religion based on my faith (yes there is a difference). I choose the latter of those choices. The question of faith brings up valid points. As I have above stated, religion has been used for things other than "religious" behavior. To have religion does not necessarily mean that you have faith. A 30-year-old man who lives in South Carolina, devotes himself to the pursuit of his religion and actually does what his particular religion says to do does not mean that he has faith. The truth is can anyone say that they have faith. The definition of faith is as follows: complete confidence in a person or plan. Can anyone really say that they have complete faith in anything? I have faith in that I will wake up tomorrow. I plan to but does faith alone make me wake up, no. I could die tonight and never wake up tomorrow. That possibility is always present so I cannot honestly say that I whole-heartedly believe that I will. That does not mean there is no faith, it is there it’s just a matter of how much. Faith is a common idea. Your interpretation of it may be different but everyone has it. From atheists to devout Muslims, they all have faith in what they believe. Why is this? This question harkens to a quote I read not too long ago: "god did not create man, man created god." Life is finite, and we see death everyday. We fear things we do not understand, and we do not understand death. We, as humans, create faith in a belief that we feel comfortable about dieing. Whether it is 72 virgins, or nothing at all, we all come to our own ideas of what things will be like when we die. It's the security blanket we all snuggle up to at night, our own little comfort zone. We're fine as long as someone doesn't have a better blanket. That's why religious wars start; people see other religions as a threat to their comfort zone. If you hand a nice fleece blanket, but someone else hand a seeming better one, many people would instinctively envy that other person. This is a classic "the grass is greener" scenario. Wars and/or conflicts are spawned by cultural differences, or basic differences in faiths. It would be nearly impossible to have any hatred towards one another if there was no separation in culture. The facts are simple; it is much easier to "hate" someone of a different ethnicity than yours. If all cultures were the same there could be no wars. You would have to hate yourself to establish a foundation to attack others. Good luck convincing others, and the fact that the act of doing this would create a sub-culture thus shattering the one culture ideal, rending the above statement pointless. Why is it that all these religions that "hate" each other have codes and rules that tell the followers of that religion to live non-violent lives? Why tell your followers to not steal, murder, ect. Rules and/or commandments of most any religion are based off control of the people for better management by governments. Think for a few seconds even if you don't believe me. What is easier to control, a group of "sinners"(in the biblical sense), or a group of devout followers of a nations "primary" religion. Christianity happens to be one of the forerunners of this, if you doubt me name the 4 richest countries in the world and how many of those countries has Christianity as a major religion. The fact of the matter is religion is used to assist governments. Yet having a national religion is bad for business, it leads to internal conflicts and what if that state sponsored religion fails? Look at what happened to the first Roman Empire and the HRE; they fell apart because their religions began to experience conflict. Hence why also most of the leading nations have secular societies, let the people choose how we control them. |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
|
|
@Gendou Well, If you're confident you can answer everything in life, you might thank the present level of information and education for all your knowledges. But most religions were formed way in the past, and i'm pretty sure, by then people's knowledge weren't as advanced as now, and thus, they seek god for answers. Then, if there are new religions popping up in the present day, my second point might just be the reason... |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-02-28 10:15:25 |
|
As far back as human history goes, people have searched for answers without resulting to supernatural explanations (herein defined as "unexplainable" phenomena not typically perceivable by the senses). I am arguably no more privileged today than Aristotle (322 BC), Galileo (1564), Newton (1643), Darwin (1809), Einstein (1879), or Feynman (1918). I wish I could say I was arguably as good at answering all of life's questions, but I dare say in all humility that I would be found a Philosophical (and in many cases mathematical) infant in a room with any of them. I don't thank the facts I learned in school for my ability to reason. I thank my parents, for their genetic and social contribution, as well as my school teachers and significant life mentors. Were it not for computers, I would not be a computer scientist, but I like to think I would still be some manner of scientist. Consider the girl stranded on a desert island from young infancy. Never encountering any civilization, he creates is own understanding of the world without any language or other form of arbitrary influence. His entire understanding of the world is based on his own personal observations. Would he be an imbecile, incapable of the simplest rational though? Or, assuming he survives well into adulthood, wouldn't he be, by definition, a clever, resourceful, bright, knowledgeable, wise, experienced, well-trained, emotionally capable woman? She would not be able to talk to you about this. But, if you pointed up at the moon she might be able to point at where it would rise tomorrow. Something you maybe have never even thought about. What is knowledge? I fear I stray from topic, but this is very important to understanding the role religion plays in society. Religion replaces knowledge with faith. Take any nun and place them on the desert island. Imagine what would happen to them?
|
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-03-04 09:03:04 |
|
Is there a sneaky reason why you refer to the girl as "he"? ._.; well i guess if there are no males on the island there is no difference between "she" and "he" to her. My point of view is that despite all arguments about the superiority of reason and logic over faith, the utility value of religion cannot be doubted, for the simple reason that faith brings some form of satisfaction. A faithfully religious person can starve himself willingly without complaint (or apparent dissatisfaction) and probably die for his faith, in which death would not feel as something dissatisfying. Oh no, he could be quite satisfied indeed. Oh, peaceful death. Not that i comprehend such an emotion. My reasoning here is that the conciousness of illogical people are nevertheless valid, even if steeped in lies. One must (or should, at least) consider the happiness value of such people. On the other hand, one could use religion to control them, (listen to your leaders, for God has placed them there!) and they would be utterly happy serving others and increasing the total happiness value of society. They would be laughing at our plight while we laugh at theirs. See? EVERYONES happy.   |
|
Re: Religion = A way to feel part of something?
Link |
by
on 2007-03-04 11:26:28 |
|
Oh, no, I just got my gendered pronouns mixed up because i changed it from a he to a she midway. I challenge outright the notion that one can only attain fulfillment from religion. There is no good reason why this should be true, and ample evidence it is not. For example, myself, my mother, Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking, Richard Feynman, to name a few. Do you dare imply that a man of science like myself is not capable of having a peaceful death? How outright laughable! My problem with the delusion of an afterlife is that it allows for the thought process of a suicide bomber. I need not say more on this topic. I completely fail to comprehend the point of your second paragraph. Any time you have a person who's mind is steeped in lies, they will be less able to make informed decisions, and therefore have been robbed of their right to free will. If we all took heavy doses of morphine and sat indoors watching TV, our sum total happiness would be dramatically increased, but nothing interesting would happen. Given the choice, I think it is clear that people would rather be informed than blissfully ignorant.
|