Why religion?

Post Reply New Topic

I see the question of what would it take to convince someone to follow a religion. I want to know why you want someone to follow religion. Is it any religion that you want someone to follow, or only your religion that you want someone to follow. If it is to be "saved," there is more than one religion which has the goal of "saving souls." If it is your belief that only the religion that you believe in that can save "souls," then we are not talking about religion. We are talking about control. And the control comes from using fear to sell the notion that only your religion can save a soul, and the punishment your religion promises for noncompliance.

If it is not to be "saved" that you want people to follow a religious belief, then what is the reason?

A specific person or anyone at all? If it's the latter, then we have plenty of modern day examples of "Christian nations", which experience a serious state of decline. Religious sentiments within such nations differ greatly in strength and passion, and you will find a lot of people who perceive it only as a state of morals or ideas, people who are only interested in religion dictating the interests of people in power, people who are indifferent to spirituality, and ones who are nearly entirely secular. So if one wanted a nation to turn into a religious nation, say a Christian nation, the question would be: why? Why expect a positive change?



Wanting people to follow any religion at all seems something some shady, deceitful government-appointed journalist would carry out with little dedication, just going through the motions. Expecting people to adapt to a foreign culture's spiritual tradition, on the other hand, implies a kind of heroism, if not martyrdom. If anyone wants all people in China or North Korea to become Christians, for example, then this puts such people's basic moral qualities to doubt. Do you want people to suffer?



The belief that the different religions out there are all different paths to one and the same God is rather widespread, nowadays especially, and deserves all the respect.

What you mention about control seems like a kind of emotional judgment to me and isn't something I can comment on. For example, if I were to disagree with you and decided to present it along the lines of: "oh yeah, well that's what you say because you like deceiving yourself, you're very arrogant and have no intention to repent and your pride guides you to lead other people to their fall with you" - this would be exactly as cynical and as emotional as your assumption.

Rulers throughout history may have exploited religion for all manner of personal and state gain, but that is the quality of political leaders and not religion as such, even if religious leaders have historically held respectable positions in politics. I think that as long as we treat religion as a means and not an end, we keep distracting ourselves and distance ourselves from religion as such. It is a shallow viewpoint that places itself outside of religion and cannot discuss it any further.



Nobody is guaranteed to be saved, not merely be being a believer or claiming ("deciding"?) to be one. That said, Christianity in particular doesn't draw much of a difference between this life and what comes afterwards - a blessed life can have its fruits long before you die, and hell is just a logical continuation of one's earthly life. One who failed to find God and become part of Him while still alive cannot expect much more when no longer part of their own body.

I'd ask this question, you being irreligious and being religious - how do you perceive such a change to affect you? We can find plenty of irreligious people who seem 'better' than religious ones, but does becoming serious about religion not generally bring primarily positive outcomes? Of course, some people find it harder to be religious than others (especially people who take it for granted, for instance something they were brought up with).

People want a place to go after they pass away; they don't want to just fade into the earth. I know I wish there was such a place as "heaven," or even somewhere where we could be in peace and repose.

I'm not religious because I don't have "faith." If there was any way I could become religious, I'd take it immediately.

I just mentioned "control" as one of the reasons that I perceive. I could be mistaken. It is why I asked the question. I see so many religious people make the claim that is we had more "God" in schools, that is would change society for the better. What would be the basis for that claim? What statistics are there to back that claim up? I don't believe in the Biblical interpretation of God but I hardly consider myself to be amoral. One does not have to be religious to have morals, and the claim that all morality is based on Biblical teachings does not seem to have any basis in fact. I honestly want to understand why people want others to follow religion. Maybe the interpretation of the term religion itself is what should be questioned.

Many truly good intentions are exploited by people some of whom lack such intentions. You will hardly find an idea that hasn't yet been seriously discredited at some point, either. For example, a belief in democracy. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, not in my book, but there will plenty of shady political types who won't hesitate to exploit this idea, too. One fundamental difference, it seems to me, though, that while careers are dedicated to democracy, if we stop on that example, it's lives that are dedicated to faith. Or, if we go back to the interrelation of culture and religion, which one is really secondary to which? What do actually religious people think?

It's a widespread view I know, but not synonymous with being religious. I personally think that forcing "God", as you put it (because teachers generally can't get students acquainted with actual God through instruction by, first of all, failing to offer a positive example in their own lives) will do nothing but alienate students from the idea of God, very much akin to how introducing any other subject, even if somewhat skilfully, serves only to cause resentment in students' young minds.

As for statistics, morality and "being good" seem awfully difficult to measure. I would personally perceive such attempts very critically.


It is not an uncommon idea among religious people to view that morality is built into all humans and connects them to God. This would imply that an atheist that finds faith finds the true name and the true nature of what they have had some manner of glimpse through much of their lives.

I would also differentiate between "Biblical teachings" and Christian living. Ideas and being are two very different things. Of course, you can perceive your very own life as a kind of text, speaking very broadly.

You say that 'One does not have to be religious to have morals', and I agree, but I'll also add that one who isn't religious also has no moral obligations outside of those leading to comfort (e.g. commit no crime to face no legal hardships and pains), and even then you can choose to reject comfort as something of value to base your decisions upon (which religious people also do sometimes). The morals chosen in this context will be largely arbitrary and voluntary, largely dictated by the norms and tendencies of the culture around you. If it's the Christian culture that surrounds you, then it comes as no surprise that one can have Christian morals without actual being a Christian. The famous line from Tertullian that 'a soul is by nature Christian' can be reminded of here.



That's a good point; what do you understand by the notion of religion?

Religion, on balance, has been a very bad deal for the human race. Religion has motivated tyranny, violence, murder, war, stirred up hatred, racism and discrimination. Religion has a very bad track record.

ruveyn

What I want is for people to obey the laws.

Non sequitur. You jumped straight from "one's religion being the only one that can save souls" to "control." You haven't demonstrated that a single religion being the only one that can save really is about control.

BTW, I don't believe that "religion," strictly speaking, can save anyone. Religion is typically a set of rituals or activity designed to either a) bring about reconciliation with the Creator through man's actions alone, or b) manipulate supernatural forces into bringing about a desired result, like rain dances, "magic," etc. I don't believe man can earn his way into heaven, nor do I think God is man's puppet.