How to Maintain Religious Faith

[Unknown Soldier]

Why can it be so difficult to maintain religious faith? No doubt there are many answers to this question. I think that one of the biggest reasons is that all the religious person can do is tell people why they believe what they do. Believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. If tough skeptics come along who want more than words, then the believer is left empty-handed.

Nevertheless, psychological bulwarks are available to the religious person to maintain the otherwise most defenseless religious claims. Defenders of most faiths are ready to offer the doubting Thomases of their sects food for faith. Books, websites and videos meant to convince believers with floundering faith to continue to believe are not hard to find.

Another way believers fend off tough skeptics is to demonize the skeptics and critics of their beliefs, very often literally. The skeptics are bad people, "fools and blind," who are not to be believed nor trusted. If possible they are to be silenced and very frequently silenced by force if necessary.

If all else fails, the faithful will simply avoid the skeptic. If the dialogue with a skeptic gets too hot, and the promises of the religion appear to be ready to crash and burn, then the believer will flee. As he does so, he may lob some barbs at the skeptic as a way to get him back for inflicting the painful doubt.

 

[DBT]

The flip side of faith is doubt. Unless one is delusional, a belief held without the support of evidence can never be reasonably certain.

 

[Politesse]

Another way believers fend off tough skeptics is to demonize the skeptics and critics of their beliefs, very often literally. The skeptics are bad people, "fools and blind," who are not to be believed nor trusted.

Or, "dishonest trolls", perhaps?

 

[Bronzeage]

This is as a good a straw man premise as I've seen lately. I know a great many people who profess religious faith and believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. There's even an expression for this, "Count your blessings." Don't get a believer started counting their blessings, unless you have no other plans for the afternoon.

 

[Ford]

The flip side of faith is doubt. Unless one is delusional, a belief held without the support of evidence can never be reasonably certain.

The other day on Next Door (a neighborhood social media site that's mostly recommendations for a plumber or "did you hear that loud noise just now...is that gunshots?" and such, someone made a post along the lines of "the world is depressing, but not to worry...Jesus will return shortly and the Kingdom of God" yada yada yada.

I pointed out that people have been making predictions of Jesus' imminent return for quite a long time, and it hasn't exactly happened. "Well those people aren't using the Bible" came the response. I pointed out that it is literally IN the Bible, but that wasn't enough. "The time cannot be known, but rest assured, it is coming soon."

"So you're making a prediction, but you're also saying no one can know when?" (while responding, I was watching the "when will then be now?" scene from Spaceballs).

The retort was that the return 'o Jesus was maybe not coming on a certain date, but was nonetheless inevitable. Someone else chimed in and asked if Santa Claus would be coming back as well, and the person deleted the entire post.

This is why - for the most part - I've stopped arguing with believers over predictions of imminent Rapture. They're convinced that it's just around the corner, and little or nothing will change that belief. On this particular thread, I said something along the lines of "instead of just bemoaning the fact that the world is awful and sinful, maybe you could instead work towards making it a better place. You know...fix the place up for when Jesus arrives?"

Nope. They need their Armageddon. Flaming sword and sinners punished. If Jesus came back, looked around and said "wow...this is better than I expected" the prophecy wouldn't be properly fulfilled.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd argue it is easy to maintain in thje case of Christianity, if it were hard Christianity would not be so popular. Faith makes you feel good.

The principles of Buddhism IMO are relatively hard. No alcohol or recreational intoxicants. Self moderation. Occupation and work consistent with the moral principles. Action and speech moderated by the principles.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Another way believers fend off tough skeptics is to demonize the skeptics and critics of their beliefs, very often literally. The skeptics are bad people, "fools and blind," who are not to be believed nor trusted.

Or, "dishonest trolls", perhaps?

I realize that you are trolling, but your comment here serves to validate what I said in the OP. Many times I've encountered religious trolls on forums who only insult those who disagree with their religion having nothing intelligent to add to the debate. It is ironic how the biggest trolls troll by calling others trolls. It's a way to maintain religious faith, I suppose.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is as a good a straw man premise as I've seen lately. I know a great many people who profess religious faith and believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. There's even an expression for this, "Count your blessings." Don't get a believer started counting their blessings, unless you have no other plans for the afternoon.

Oh sure, they might believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. I never said they didn't. What I did say is that they have nothing to (actually) show for their beliefs. So watch your own "straw men."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'd argue it is easy to maintain in thje case of Christianity, if it were hard Christianity would not be so popular. Faith makes you feel good.

Actually, nowadays with skeptics coming out of their closets to criticize religion, Christianity is in sharp decline in many parts of the world. As faith comes under fire, it becomes ever harder to maintain.

 

[Politesse]

Another way believers fend off tough skeptics is to demonize the skeptics and critics of their beliefs, very often literally. The skeptics are bad people, "fools and blind," who are not to be believed nor trusted.

Or, "dishonest trolls", perhaps?

I realize that you are trolling, but your comment here serves to validate what I said in the OP. Many times I've encountered religious trolls on forums who only insult those who disagree with their religion having nothing intelligent to add to the debate. It is ironic how the biggest trolls troll by calling others trolls. It's a way to maintain religious faith, I suppose.

I haven't called anyone a troll. You are calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. This is, of course, entirely against forum rules to do, and I wouldn't stoop to it myself, especially since I don't think you are a troll in any case; you're just an ideologue who refuses to answer any significant questions about any of your claims. That's not trolling, it's just annoying.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd argue it is easy to maintain in thje case of Christianity, if it were hard Christianity would not be so popular. Faith makes you feel good.

Actually, nowadays with skeptics coming out of their closets to criticize religion, Christianity is in sharp decline in many parts of the world. As faith comes under fire, it becomes ever harder to maintain.

Polls I have seen over the last decade would say the drop in Christianity is generally balanced out by adoption of other beliefs.
Starting in the 60s young people went from western Christianity towards the mysterious east for something they thought was better. Timothy Leary turned LSD iton a religious like cult.

Chinese and Japanese traditional mysticism is pervasive in our culture in the from of martial arts.

In my 70s Hartford Ct neigborhood was a house with American Sikh converts. The men grew beards and wore turbans, and had the ceremonial Sikh knives. They took on Sikh names. In the day I got up early for a few weeks to do their yoga in the morning. One of their cnants or matras was Sa Ta Na Ma. Repeated while touching thumb to the other fingers in seaquence.

There is an American convert Hindu church. There was the Bagwan, te Indian guru who brought a ranvh in Iregon with his wetern followers. That was bizarre.Then tose who may say they are atheist if yiu ask, but will also say they have a beilef in some intagible unversal force or higher power.
ple wnat thier Islamic idenity, they wantt to get rid of the theocracies lie Iran and Saudi Arabia.

From reports that do get out there is an underground Christian church in NK despite the harsh police state.

Religion is not going away.

If like Agnostic Christain you take a very narrow view you will miss the 'big picture'.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is as a good a straw man premise as I've seen lately. I know a great many people who profess religious faith and believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. There's even an expression for this, "Count your blessings." Don't get a believer started counting their blessings, unless you have no other plans for the afternoon.

Oh sure, they might believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. I never said they didn't. What I did say is that they have nothing to (actually) show for their beliefs. So watch your own "straw men."

If you contend that anyone who disagrees with you is lying about their situation in life, there's no real basis for discussion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Polls I have seen over the last decade would say the drop in Christianity is generally balanced out by adoption of other beliefs.

Rather than just disagree with your assertion here, I looked for evidence for my claim that Christianity is on the decline most notably here in America. Here's what one source, “Nones” on the Rise, has to say on the subject:

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%)...

...While the ranks of the unaffiliated have grown significantly over the past five years, the Protestant share of the population has shrunk. In 2007, 53% of adults in Pew Research Center surveys described themselves as Protestants. In surveys conducted in the first half of 2012, fewer than half of American adults say they are Protestant (48%). This marks the first time in Pew Research Center surveys that the Protestant share of the population has dipped significantly below 50%.

I see nothing in that article that claims that this decrease in Christianity is being offset by "other beliefs."

Religion is not going away.

Sad to say, I think religion will always be with us, but I'm optimistic that some day it will no longer be a significant threat to human welfare.

If like Agnostic Christain you take a very narrow view you will miss the 'big picture'.

My narrow view didn't keep me from missing the relevant information in that article. I'm not going to believe what you say without good reason to.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is as a good a straw man premise as I've seen lately. I know a great many people who profess religious faith and believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. There's even an expression for this, "Count your blessings." Don't get a believer started counting their blessings, unless you have no other plans for the afternoon.

Oh sure, they might believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. I never said they didn't. What I did say is that they have nothing to (actually) show for their beliefs. So watch your own "straw men."

If you contend that anyone who disagrees with you is lying about their situation in life, there's no real basis for discussion.

Backing up one's words with some substance helps immensely to demonstrate that one is not lying.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is as a good a straw man premise as I've seen lately. I know a great many people who profess religious faith and believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. There's even an expression for this, "Count your blessings." Don't get a believer started counting their blessings, unless you have no other plans for the afternoon.

Oh sure, they might believe they have plenty to show for their beliefs. I never said they didn't. What I did say is that they have nothing to (actually) show for their beliefs. So watch your own "straw men."

If you contend that anyone who disagrees with you is lying about their situation in life, there's no real basis for discussion.

Backing up one's words with some substance helps immensely to demonstrate that one is not lying.

A person says, "I am happy," and you say, "You don't look happy to me." Not a lot of substance in that.

If a person says, "My God has blessed me with many things", would you be satisfied if they shared their personal financial statement, or is there some other evidence which you would demand?

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

I have looked at religious polls since the 90s. You can find a poll to back whatever you want. A poll 'The rise of bones' is likely to be biased. Conformation bias. How the questions are framed and asked can be highly biased in favor of getting a specific result.

I go by my experience going back to the 70s.

What I consider one of best polls was doe in England. The actual questions were published. The general comclusion was asking if you are atheist has no meaning. One can be atheist and belive in a cosmic spirit.

If you narrowly define religion by attendance at church as some polls do, then you could say religion is declining. In an objective broader scope people look for something to believe in. I have known people who would say I don' go to church but I belive in the bible, god, and Jesus. It is impossible to quantify all of it in a single small sample poll.


A poll on religion depends on how you define religion and word the questions.

Atheists are as susceptible as theists to confirmation bias when making claims about religion.

There are a number of groups that are still around like Ekankar and EST from the 70s. Older traditions like Theosophy. There is a Church Of Satan.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A person says, "I am happy," and you say, "You don't look happy to me." Not a lot of substance in that.

I'm the skeptic. The person making the claim has the burden of proof, not I. They need to offer the substance; I don't.

If a person says, "My God has blessed me with many things", would you be satisfied if they shared their personal financial statement, or is there some other evidence which you would demand?

Any evidence to back up the claim is a plus, of course. If the claim is that God gave me A, then my seeing A is obviously better than my not seeing A. And obviously I would need some good evidence that the religious person received A from God.

If you disagree, then you would believe religious claims simply because you are told. To do so is very gullible.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm actually reading a rather well researched, dare I say, scholarly book about the rise of the nones. Surprisingly, I've learned that the majority of Nones still hold religious or theistic beliefs. One calls himself a "Jesus follower". He doesn't like what organized religion has done to the teachings of Jesus, but he does believe in Jesus.

Some hold other beliefs regarding the supernatural, or have found interest in other religions. So, one could correctly say that organized Christianity is on the decline, but religious beliefs are pretty static or maybe declining by a very small percent. Oddly enough, some of the atheists or agnostics who were interviewed by the author, claimed that they enjoy participating in religious rituals with family members, not because they believe these things in the literal sense, but because they enjoy the. unity and fellowship that prayer and such often bring. That's not my personal position, but I've found it very interesting learning about how other atheists perceive religion.

 

[abaddon]

I'm the skeptic. The person making the claim has the burden of proof, not I. They need to offer the substance; I don't.

That's not quite true. If you're so bleeding right, then just what are you right about? If religious people are wrong, then they're wrong compared to what?

Even hellfire bible-believers are the sort of skeptic who finds it easy to declare other sorts of believers are wrong and demand proof of others only.

I don't see a problem with anyone counting their blessings. I would disagree that it's a supernatural being that gives the blessings, but I don't see how that matters at all in this context.

-------

I'm going to add... I've considered your notion (stated in another thread) that "truth matters more than happiness" and decided that's wrong. I'm not saying truth doesn't matter. But, what exactly is the truth that matters more than happiness? The sentiment "truth matters most" as a stand-alone item is just an empty moralism. It needs context - you need to say what truth you have in mind. It's too easy to say "truth matters more than anything" when maybe what you have in mind isn't true.

 

[Bronzeage]

A person says, "I am happy," and you say, "You don't look happy to me." Not a lot of substance in that.

I'm the skeptic. The person making the claim has the burden of proof, not I. They need to offer the substance; I don't.

If a person says, "My God has blessed me with many things", would you be satisfied if they shared their personal financial statement, or is there some other evidence which you would demand?

Any evidence to back up the claim is a plus, of course. If the claim is that God gave me A, then my seeing A is obviously better than my not seeing A. And obviously I would need some good evidence that the religious person received A from God.

If you disagree, then you would believe religious claims simply because you are told. To do so is very gullible.

I don't believe you are a skeptic. Your claim to be a skeptic, or skeptical behavior are not sufficient to support your claim to be a skeptic.

Cicero would love this thread.