What's the importance of religion?

[Someone here]

Even after the technological revolution in the last 100 years .. And after the internet era where information about whatever subject is now available under your fingertips.. And with the rise of the atheist wave in tandem with this scientific revolution.. There is is still basically billions and billions of people around the world who subscribe to various kinds of religions. And they Believe in all sorts of myths and "unscientific" matters regardless of lack of evidence and the contradiction with scientific evidence.

Faith in God.. Or whatever else supernatural and meta-physical aspects of reality seems to fill the existential void in people's lives.  It does work for religious people. If it didn't.. They would have left their beliefs. Which should perhaps make it surprising that scientists have found.. again and again.. That those with a spiritual practice or who follow religious beliefs tend to be happier than those who don’t. Study after study has found that religious people tend to be less depressed and less anxious than nonbelievers.. better able to handle the vicissitudes of life than nonbelievers. 

What's your take on religion? Do you follow any specific scripture or organized religion? What are the keys that distinguish between religion and science and philosophy in that some ( a lot) of people seem to actually lean toward beliefs than evidence-based or logic-based knowledge about the world? 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Someone here

[NK13]

Obviously there is an infinite set of beliefs one can believe in, but most would be nearly as useless as having no belief system at all. As belief systems grow in complexity, beyond simple common sense generalizations, these systems attempt to also explain and understand. Belief systems can be classified into two basic flavors: science and religion.

What are the distinctions between a science and a religion? At first glance one might be inclined to state that a science is a system where beliefs are derived from objective methodologies and that a religion is a system of beliefs based on faith. However, a conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which musty be taken entirely on faith.

       1) There exists an external objective reality
       2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
       So, the universe has a structure also predictions and generalizations are possible.

Even though these assumptions exist in science it should be noted that as stated before, there is no way around them if we are to attempt to function without difficulty in this universe. Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith. Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system based completely on faith.

It is worth noting that all of humankinds myriad diverged lines of inquiry in Science and Theology are really asking after the same mystery and all the seemingly separate puzzles are really different aspects of the same puzzle. So that one answer contains all the answers and one key unlocks all the doors. Science long seen as the antagonist and adversary of Religion, all along was its friend and helper; encouraging the abandonment of nonsensical doctrines and leading Religion closer to the truth about God. The full unification of Science and Religion will produce better Religion and a more complete Science. True Religion is completely reasonable and it was always the destiny of Science to be made Sacred.

I believe that the ultimate destiny of all the Worlds Religions is for them to be finally reconciled with one another and unified into a single whole. The necessary key for the realization of this difficult process is the propogation and wide spread acceptance of the original truth behind all Religion, namely the eternally recurring idea that Everyone is God. or let's hope so.

[Tim R]

Oh man that's one hell of a question. There's so much to say about it I don't even know wehere to start.

Religion had and still has a multitude of functions. Those functions are (or are not) required depending on ones situation in life regarding various aspects such as psychological development/maturity, philosophical (i.e. metaphysical, epistemological and ontological) sophistication and perspective, morality (which is 1. probably the largest chunk of them all and 2. not only a distinction between good and bad but mostly a directive for action(which itself depends on many factors)), but also potential for abuse in order to gain power or money and so forth...  All these functions and motivations are intricately connected and interdependent. 

Many people today say that religion is outdated, but that's waaay to simplistic. People who say such things a) don't know very much about religion and b) are in most cases dogmatic about their own philosophy (which is funny and ironic because their behavior basically resembles religious behavior structurally). 

So to answer your question - you're gonna have to look into it yourself. There's so much to learn about religion, really, it's such an enormous field of study. 

Check out the Biblical Series on YouTube, it's about the psychological significance of some of the stories from the bible, it's quite eyeopening. That can give you a hint of how deep this can go. And of course Peterson doesn't go as deep as he would have to go because he doesn't understand nonduality or mysticism. Alan Watts was a priest so he has also a lot of content on religion, but he of course understood nonduality and mysticism. 

Have fun going down the rabbit hole

[Bodhitree]

The Buddha once said, you should test the teachings, and if you find them to be false, discard them. I’ve long held that as a core belief, to approaching books on self help, religion, guru’s, all sorts. Religion isn’t really necessary anymore, but being a good man or woman is. Invite compassion in your life, and don’t be fooled into thinking anything at all is of great importance. 

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, NK13 said:

What are the distinctions between a science and a religion? At first glance one might be inclined to state that a science is a system where beliefs are derived from objective methodologies and that a religion is a system of beliefs based on faith. However, a conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which musty be taken entirely on faith.

       1) There exists an external objective reality
       2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
       So, the universe has a structure also predictions and generalizations are possible.

 

3 hours ago, Tim R said:

Religion had and still has a multitude of functions. Those functions are (or are not) required depending on ones situation in life regarding various aspects such as psychological development/maturity, philosophical (i.e. metaphysical, epistemological and ontological) sophistication and perspective, morality (which is 1. probably the largest chunk of them all and 2. not only a distinction between good and bad but mostly a directive for action(which itself depends on many factors)), but also potential for abuse in order to gain power or money and so forth...  All these functions and motivations are intricately connected and interdependent. 

Many people today say that religion is outdated, but that's waaay to simplistic. People who say such things a) don't know very much about religion and b) are in most cases dogmatic about their own philosophy (which is funny and ironic because their behavior basically resembles religious behavior structurally). 

It's interesting because when I contemplate the epistemic foundations of science vs religion... It turns out that faith is essential even in science. A lot of atheists simply don't believe in God because they (naively put) don't see him. Or simply have no experience of God. While they might 'believe' evolution is true when they never themselves verified any of it. They just take the words of scientists on blind faith. So what different are they than a religious person who takes the word of his scholars on blind faith? 

I'm not saying that's a valid epistemic position.. It's flat out wrong.. But I'm interested in how could they (religious people) not see that it's wrong? Or perhaps they don't care about objective facts but only how they feel (faith feels good and comfy)

...and they don't bother with epistemological questions from a religious perspective.. or attempts to understand the epistemological issues that come from religious belief. The questions which epistemologists may ask about any particular belief also apply to religious beliefs and propositions: whether they seem rational..justified.. warranted.. reasonable.. based on evidence and so on. They basically don't give value to that.. And they value feeling better and feeling protected by God.. Even if God turns out to be a myth in their head. 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Someone here

[Gesundheit]

Religion is not a something that exists out there in the world. Rather, it's a state of mind projected out onto the world. Most people are stuck at the Conformist/Blue stage of cognitive development cuz that's where they're actually at. They can't help being dogmatic, authoritative, and conformist. That includes religious people, science freaks, and amateur philosophers who think they're academics. Meta thinking and truth seeking are the most irrelevant things to these people, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they all fall in the same category. In fact, it's absolutely safe to say that modern science is a form of religion in the way that it's being practiced, since it was really born out of religion in the first place.

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Religion is not a something that exists out there in the world. Rather, it's a state of mind projected out onto the world. Most people are stuck at the Conformist/Blue stage of cognitive development cuz that's where they're actually at. They can't help being dogmatic, authoritative, and conformist. That includes religious people, science freaks, and amateur philosophers who think they're academics. Meta thinking and truth seeking are the most irrelevant things to these people, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they all fall in the same category. In fact, it's absolutely safe to say that modern science is a form of religion in the way that it's being practiced, since it was really born out of religion in the first place.

Isn't the scientific method more credible and reliable than blind religious faith and dogmas?  The strange loop of course is that you should have faith in empirical evidence for it to be credited by you.. Otherwise we could ask "how do you know that empiricism itself is a vaild way of arriving at truth"? So it turns out there is interesting intersections and similarities between the religious method and the scientific method. Faith is almost inescapable. 

Of course.. According to the common view scientific belief (belief in scientific hypotheses or theories) has nothing to do with religious belief (belief in the creed of some religion). Though this common view is very widespread..it is usually not reflected upon or analyzed in some detail. One of the reasons that on a closer look and deeper analysis it will turn out that there are a number of interesting similarities between the two. And also the differences show interesting and important characteristics. But to show that there are similarities and that there are differences is only one important task. It will become clearer on a more detailed analysis that both “similarity” and “difference” should not be taken too literally. Since in many cases a particular similarity will show some new differences in special details and a particular difference will show some new similarities on a deeper level.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Someone here

[Gesundheit]

30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Otherwise we could ask "how do you know that empiricism itself is a vaild way of arriving at truth"?

This question itself is invalid.

Leave absolute truth out of the equation, cuz absolute truth does not obey validity, rather it's the other way around. Truth in this context means relative truth. In absolute truth, all relative truths are valid, at least to some degree. So, blind faith and empiricism are not really that much different. They're both partial truths that have pros and cons. The value we get from blind faith cannot be gotten out of empiricism, and vice-versa. Each has its own unique variety of values, which are not to say they're necessarily mutually exclusive, cuz they can intersect. But like you said, the similarities and differences kinda collapse.

The important thing to remember here is that whatever humans do or subscribe to, it's always because it provides certain survival value to them. And most survival value is determined by the ego-mind, and the ego is maintained by fear. So, if you want to really understand why people behave the way they do, it's most accurate to study them according to values and then relate that to fear. What survival values does religion provide for people that they cling to it so much? That's a good question to contemplate.

[Someone here]

@Gesundheit let's simplify this whole thing.. The differences between the scientific method (testability.. Evidence based.. Falsifiability etc) and religious dogma are well clear. The similarities are what's not so obvious. The main concern is what's the epistemological value of 'belief'.. How can you trust something as true or valid knowledge about the world when all you have is just a belief in it because it's written in some book (scripture)??? Do you think billions of Christians and Muslims and Hindus etc are fools that they don't understand that this doesn't count as a strong evidence? Yet they seem to disregard that and emotionally lean towards being dogmatic about their beliefs that they know well it's not justified enough. 

[Yahya]

@Someone hereI think religion stem from an enlightened person. All of religion stem from enlightened people trying to communicate their teachings to an unenlightened person who cannot grasp it. I am a Muslim and I follow the Holy Quran as a scripture. I think Science is about verifying and testing while religion is sort of like blind faith.

[Gesundheit]

@Someone here Nothing is ever justified enough. Science is actually BS, but people think otherwise because they're stuck at the materialist paradigm. There's no way to prove that science is actually true, no fucking way. Evidence/testability is just a belief, no matter how you slice it. All mind constructs are beliefs about and projections onto reality. Even if you do the same experiment with 100% success rate, you can't possibly know if it will still work in the next minute. So you just take it on faith that it will. We don't fucking know, but we like to think that we do.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Someone here]

@Yahya cool. 'few' questions for ya.. 

1. Why do you believe Islam is true? After all its all based on a story in the past.. Have you actually personally verified any of the Islamic beliefs (heaven and hell..day of judgement etc). 

2. how do you know that Quran is true? After all its a random old book that no one knows who's the author of it. And it's filled with scientific errors and myths. How is it that you can trust blindly whatever is written In Quran to be true? 

3.if you are aware of that.. But you just chose to emotionally lean towards believing.. Is it just the simple fact that faith feels good and gives you a sense of security and peace.. Meaning and purpose etc? 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Someone here

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Science is actually BS

That's a naive generalization that I don't agree with. It's one thing to outline possible limitations of science and to say entire science is BS is going a bit too far. After all you are using a scientific product rn to type that science is BS lol. Then stop using all the technology produced by science. 

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

There's no way to prove that science is actually true, no fucking way. Evidence/testability is just a belief, no matter how you slice it. All mind constructs are beliefs about and projections onto reality. Even if you do the same experiment with 100% success rate, you can't possibly know if it will still work in the next minute. So you just take it on faith that it will. We don't fucking know, but we like to think that we do.

I get what you're saying. And that's actually what I said above in my first reply to you. That even empirical investigating must be supplied by a leap of faith. Even faith in the scientific method. However.. Testability +leap of faith in that testability (because it's based on direct experience and direct information) is far better then just mere faith based on nothing but a fucking holy book. Don't you think so? 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Someone here

[Vibroverse]

Science does not exist. Nothing exists. You're gonna say yeah yeah ?

[Someone here]

Yeah yeah 

[Vibroverse]

It is so frickin simple that mind, in that sense, literally has no way to grasp it. It is trying to stay "alive" by still asking questions to "others" ? But it, in a sense, is like solidifying its understanding. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Vibroverse

[The Buddha]

All religions are like a river full of shit were gold ingots are floating. Don't be discouraged by the insane amount of shit (what u are pointing and science and blablabla) because the gold is of insane value. I actually think religions are very useful for people like us, because we are able to see much more and pick what is valuable. In fact, religions make u more suitable to receive grace, which is one of the most important things is this path. To be honest, I enjoy a lot christian sacraments, I find them very useful, powerful and purifying, it also helps me to be more loving. Also, as u can tell I love buddhism but in a different way, buddhism teaches me how I can be the perfect human, a buddha. But the path it is not only about being a perfect human, always in peace, joy, love and ecstasy. Also I love much Zen, but it is so blind in God realization. I love Islam in the way that they understand forgiveness and the infinitude and almightyness of God. I love Hinduism in the way that they are the most advanced and concious civilization but they take everything to serious, true espirituality is joyful and playful. I love Jainism in the respect that they have to all beings and the sincere and pure approuch they have.

Religions are a very important tool, like a catalyst, in my spiritual journey. I don't fall in their traps and see the beauty of their pointings rather than examining the finger as u are doing... I know it will come a time where I'll have to go my own way, but till that arrives I'll receive all the grace and love from all religions I can. Because there is a deep wisdom and love in all those traditions.

To end I'll finish with a quote of Sri Anandamayi Ma: All paths are it's path. I feel home in every temple.

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

That's a naive generalization that I don't agree with. It's one thing to outline possible limitations of science and to say entire science is BS is going a bit too far. After all you are using a scientific product rn to type that science is BS lol. Then stop using all the technology produced by science.

I thought you were asking about absolute truth, and in absolute truth science doesn't exist (it only exists in the mind), so of course it's BS (and also absolutely true, depending on how you look at it). There's nothing wrong per se with using BS technology. I know that sex is an illusion, and I allow myself to enjoy it. It doesn't matter the label BS, because it's just a judgement. I'm specifically using this judgement here because I've noticed some sort of attachment on your side, so I wanted to poke at that. That's all. Other than that, I'm an almost graduated college student.

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

However.. Testability +leap of faith in that testability (because it's based on direct experience and direct information) is far better then just mere faith based on nothing but a fucking holy book. Don't you think so? 

Of course I don't think so, because better vs. worse is a duality.

Relatively speaking, what religion provides, science cannot. And vice-versa. You said that religious people are generally happier than atheists, so that's one example of how religion is better than science. After all, we all want to be happy, right? However, it seems that you're valuing the materialist paradigm over happiness (at least in this particular conversation), so of course to you science will seem better than religion. If you want to manipulate the material world, probably science is the best way to do that. But what is the value in manipulating the material world? Does it really mean anything other than what you project onto it? Notice that for someone who values happiness over manipulation, religion is better.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Yahya]

@Someone here  Thanks for asking

1. I believe that Islam is true because the Quran is without any errors. If you can spot one error or mistake in terms of grammar or information to me in the Quran then I will leave Islam, today. Since, the Quran is without any mistake so I can trust and rely in this source of book. Therefore I can believe in the story of heaven and hell. I don't think its possible to verify but also is it possible to verify that these things not exist? If you can verify to me that these things does not exist in the afterlife then I will leave Islam today.

2. I believe in the Quran because it's free of errors. Also, Quran told some discoveries 1400 years ago which couldn't be told by Science. For e.g. The Quran told the barriers between two ocean which Science didn't discover 1400 years ago. Therefore, I trust whatever in Quran is true. Quran is not filled with Scientific error and myths. Spot one of them to me and I will leave Islam today. So, again if you can spot one mistake in grammar or information to me in Quran then I will leave Islam and Quran.

3. I am a Muslim because I believe that their is no God except Allah. Its also gives me security, peace, purpose and meaning but I think that I am a Muslim because I believe that their is no God except Allah. If you can overcome this challenge then you have defeated Islam. 

 

The purpose of my response is not to start a debate but to give me wisdom and help me to verify things for myself. I would like @Someone here to help me out with this issue.

[Gesundheit]

@Yahya Let's assume that it's true that the Quran is free from errors. What's the connection between that assumption and the claim that Islam comes from Allah?