What Prevents a Person from Moving Beyond Religion?

[southernhybrid]

The thing is that ever since very early humans became very cognitively aware, ( some refer to it as the Cognitive Revolution ) they started inventing all kinds of fictions, not just religious ones. That is probably a quality of being human and it will probably remain that way as long as humans exist on the planet. For that reason, I simply try to find the things that I have in common with other humans, including religious ones, and value those commonalities and avoid the things that cause more division. I don't even believe in what to me is the foolish concept of freewill and that makes it even easier to avoid judging others. Of course, sometimes it's difficult since I too am a product of my environment and genetic heritage. ( NO! I don't want to argue about freewill. ) If I had not been raised in an extreme version of Christianity, I might have enjoyed being a liberal Christian or Buddhist. Who knows. The cruelty of the version of Christianity that I was exposed to, made me think and question its validity. This isn't always the case because we are all different and we are all influenced by different factors. Some of us are fearful or insecure without religion. Some feel more hopeful with religion. We probably all have our own fictions. True democracy is a fiction, but it's one of the better fictions, so many of us believe in it or try to make it seem possible. The fictitious belief that the world was given to us be a god is a potentially harmful fiction as it often allows humans to feel superior to other animals, which often leads to their demise, including animals that we need for keeping our own environment intact.

Most atheists don't give a shit if others have gods in their lives. Some atheists enjoy arguing about religion. That's cool, but let's be honest. There are plenty of made up secular ideologies that have the potential to be every bit as harmful as the worst harm done by religion. Alt right extremists come to mind these days. Not all of them are religious. The social construct of race is also a potentially harmful fiction, as it sometimes leads to hateful tribalism. Look at some of the worst autocrats that ever lived. Some of them hated religion, while others used religion as a way to manipulate people. Some were religious themselves. Humans fuck things up. Humans are the most destructive animal on the planet. It's really that simple. Why pretend it's more complicated than it is? So, the way I see it is that religion is just one of many potentially good or harmful fictions that humans invented. it's that simple to me. I try not to dwell on all the negative aspects of humanity. I feel fortunate that I am usually able to do that. I didn't choose who I am. and if I were genetically or environmentally exposed to the exact same things as someone else was, I would be like that person, for better or worse. Our advanced cognition hasn't always made us better animals. I'm going way off topic now, but I just can't help myself.

 

[Opoponax]

Insufficient curiosity? The atheist answer to every ontological question is "It just exists. No reason." This is the answer of an exhausted mother dealing with the "why" stage, not that of a curious scientist. Atheists love Occam's razor: always seek the "simplest" answer. Not actually how the real world works, but boy is it ever comforting to insist that the truth is always simple.

Oh jeez. To live in a society where most of its members believe in a sky genie that watches them take a shower, but not believe what most believe, one has to be curious enough to ask why they believe in the sky genie. Then you have to ask what evidence there is for it. Those initial why and what questions are the foundation of curiosity for any subject.

Your description of atheists seeking simple answers to complex questions actually describes the believer's mindset.

Why? Because God. Because that's what I was raised to believe.
Evidence? Because look at all this stuff! And look at this book--it's like really old and says things!

It's un-curiousity. Doubt, and the subsequent, honest exploration of that doubt destroys religious belief.

Occam's Razor works. If someone who has cancer suddenly goes into remission, is it more sensible to believe that an all-powerful creator took a special interest in this one random person for some unknowable reason, or is the better explanation that sometimes people go into remission? You tell me.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Insufficient curiosity? The atheist answer to every ontological question is "It just exists. No reason." This is the answer of an exhausted mother dealing with the "why" stage, not that of a curious scientist. Atheists love Occam's razor: always seek the "simplest" answer. Not actually how the real world works, but boy is it ever comforting to insist that the truth is always simple.

Oh jeez. To live in a society where most of its members believe in a sky genie that watches them take a shower, but not believe what most believe, one has to be curious enough to ask why they believe in the sky genie. Then you have to ask what evidence there is for it. Those initial why and what questions are the foundation of curiosity for any subject.

Your description of atheists seeking simple answers to complex questions actually describes the believer's mindset.

Why? Because God. Because that's what I was raised to believe.
Evidence? Because look at all this stuff! And look at this book--it's like really old and says things!

It's un-curiousity. Doubt, and the subsequent, honest exploration of that doubt destroys religious belief.

Occam's Razor works. If someone who has cancer suddenly goes into remission, is it more sensible to believe that an all-powerful creator took a special interest in this one random person for some unknowable reason, or is the better explanation that sometimes people go into remission? You tell me.

It's simpler than that. If there really was a magic spaceman there wouldn't be cancer. It's like when there's some disaster where thousands are killed you'll always see the inevitable headline about how the spaceman saved someone. The woo is with us, even when the corpses pile high. That there might not be a woo goes unobserved.

 

[Opoponax]

It's simpler than that. If there really was a magic spaceman there wouldn't be cancer. It's like when there's some disaster where thousands are killed you'll always see the inevitable headline about how the spaceman saved someone. The woo is with us, even when the corpses pile high. That there might not be a woo goes unobserved.

Don't forget God's Mysterious Ways. It's why a man like Carl Saga dies at 62 while a black hearted SOB like Dick Cheney just keeps rollin'.

It proves that God exists.

Somehow.

 

[Random Person]

Insufficient curiosity? The atheist answer to every ontological question is "It just exists. No reason." This is the answer of an exhausted mother dealing with the "why" stage, not that of a curious scientist. Atheists love Occam's razor: always seek the "simplest" answer. Not actually how the real world works, but boy is it ever comforting to insist that the truth is always simple.

Oh jeez. To live in a society where most of its members believe in a sky genie that watches them take a shower, but not believe what most believe, one has to be curious enough to ask why they believe in the sky genie. Then you have to ask what evidence there is for it. Those initial why and what questions are the foundation of curiosity for any subject.

Your description of atheists seeking simple answers to complex questions actually describes the believer's mindset.

Why? Because God. Because that's what I was raised to believe.
Evidence? Because look at all this stuff! And look at this book--it's like really old and says things!

It's un-curiousity. Doubt, and the subsequent, honest exploration of that doubt destroys religious belief.

Occam's Razor works. If someone who has cancer suddenly goes into remission, is it more sensible to believe that an all-powerful creator took a special interest in this one random person for some unknowable reason, or is the better explanation that sometimes people go into remission? You tell me.

It's simpler than that. If there really was a magic spaceman there wouldn't be cancer. It's like when there's some disaster where thousands are killed you'll always see the inevitable headline about how the spaceman saved someone. The woo is with us, even when the corpses pile high. That there might not be a woo goes unobserved.

We all die of something. How does this disprove a magic spaceman?

 

[WAB]

At the top of the list is obviously insufficient intellect, the absence of a strong innate curiosity about how things work. It is no different than eventually understanding there really isn't a Tooth Fairy, and understanding instead how the money comes to be under the pillow. This is not a person's fault, it's not willful. We all know people who's religion is everything to them because it's all they know. These are primarily the Fundamentalists.

Secondly would be peer pressure to include cultural pressure. Practicing religion can have its rewards, even for people who have the intellect to know it's just superstitious nonsense. It can bring great wealth.

Also, some people are very superstitious, even though they may be quite bright. Call it simply being overly emotional. Religion and superstition just feel good, even if I'm a doctor or a scientist with respectable credentials.

Are there other reasons?

Level of intellect has little or nothing to do with it, as is evidenced by the sheer number of extremely bright people who are God-believers. Not that there aren't multitudes of sheeple in the world, but these sheeple (which I define as individuals who will believe whatever they're taught to believe without question, and continue to do so until death) would be just as likely to be atheists if that was how they were raised and taught.

In a world devoid of theism, it would require no intelligence to be an atheist. It would be the default state, and in fact is the default state, in this world, in the formative years, until the mind is able to grasp the concept of a god or God. Even in a world rife with religion, like the one we have, if someone has been raised without indoctrination, without acquaintance with religion except as something other people do, it doesn't require a high level of intelligence to be and remain an atheist.

What does require a higher level of intelligence and will is having been indoctrinated, and/or having had religious belief, and possessing the wherewithal to escape it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's simpler than that. If there really was a magic spaceman there wouldn't be cancer. It's like when there's some disaster where thousands are killed you'll always see the inevitable headline about how the spaceman saved someone. The woo is with us, even when the corpses pile high. That there might not be a woo goes unobserved.

We all die of something. How does this disprove a magic spaceman?

What manner of magic spaceman do you have in mind? But that subject only comes after the magic spaceman itself. We've invented lots of these guys so it seems odd that more folks don't have an aha moment. It must just be very comforting on some level despite the contradictions. It's why I maintain it's the human ability to pretend that's really operating, not invisible space creatures with magic powers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

At the top of the list is obviously insufficient intellect, the absence of a strong innate curiosity about how things work. It is no different than eventually understanding there really isn't a Tooth Fairy, and understanding instead how the money comes to be under the pillow. This is not a person's fault, it's not willful. We all know people who's religion is everything to them because it's all they know. These are primarily the Fundamentalists.

Secondly would be peer pressure to include cultural pressure. Practicing religion can have its rewards, even for people who have the intellect to know it's just superstitious nonsense. It can bring great wealth.

Also, some people are very superstitious, even though they may be quite bright. Call it simply being overly emotional. Religion and superstition just feel good, even if I'm a doctor or a scientist with respectable credentials.

Are there other reasons?

Level of intellect has little or nothing to do with it, as is evidenced by the sheer number of extremely bright people who are God-believers. Not that there aren't multitudes of sheeple in the world, but these sheeple (which I define as individuals who will believe whatever they're taught to believe without question, and continue to do so until death) would be just as likely to be atheists if that was how they were raised and taught.

In a world devoid of theism, it would require no intelligence to be an atheist. It would be the default state, and in fact is the default state, in this world, in the formative years, until the mind is able to grasp the concept of a god or God. Even in a world rife with religion, like the one we have, if someone has been raised without indoctrination, without acquaintance with religion except as something other people do, it doesn't require a high level of intelligence to be and remain an atheist.

What does require a higher level of intelligence and will is having been indoctrinated, and/or having had religious belief, and possessing the wherewithal to escape it.

But the trend that level of intellect is involved is obvious. It's not a 100% thing but it is there. It has to be a difference in the brain no different than something like height or athleticism. It must have a physical basis.

 

[WAB]

At the top of the list is obviously insufficient intellect, the absence of a strong innate curiosity about how things work. It is no different than eventually understanding there really isn't a Tooth Fairy, and understanding instead how the money comes to be under the pillow. This is not a person's fault, it's not willful. We all know people who's religion is everything to them because it's all they know. These are primarily the Fundamentalists.

Secondly would be peer pressure to include cultural pressure. Practicing religion can have its rewards, even for people who have the intellect to know it's just superstitious nonsense. It can bring great wealth.

Also, some people are very superstitious, even though they may be quite bright. Call it simply being overly emotional. Religion and superstition just feel good, even if I'm a doctor or a scientist with respectable credentials.

Are there other reasons?

Level of intellect has little or nothing to do with it, as is evidenced by the sheer number of extremely bright people who are God-believers. Not that there aren't multitudes of sheeple in the world, but these sheeple (which I define as individuals who will believe whatever they're taught to believe without question, and continue to do so until death) would be just as likely to be atheists if that was how they were raised and taught.

In a world devoid of theism, it would require no intelligence to be an atheist. It would be the default state, and in fact is the default state, in this world, in the formative years, until the mind is able to grasp the concept of a god or God. Even in a world rife with religion, like the one we have, if someone has been raised without indoctrination, without acquaintance with religion except as something other people do, it doesn't require a high level of intelligence to be and remain an atheist.

What does require a higher level of intelligence and will is having been indoctrinated, and/or having had religious belief, and possessing the wherewithal to escape it.

But the trend that level of intellect is involved is obvious. It's not a 100% thing but it is there. It has to be a difference in the brain no different than something like height or athleticism. It must have a physical basis.

I believe you are right in that it could come down to a difference in the brain. I'm thinking of the "God-helmet" experiments wherein some people had 'transcendent' experiences and others, like Richard Dawkins who tried it, felt none of it. Perhaps it doesn't boil down to emotional, psychological, or intellectual predispositions, but physical ones.

 

[Politesse]

Being unable to speak about opposing viewpoints without childish reductions like "magic spaceman" does not exactly demonstrate the supposed level of intellectual prowess and advancement you are claiming for your tribe; or your curiosity, which is really what my point was. It is specifically the claim of greater mental flexibility, not "intelligence" per se, that I find dubious as an outsider. Thinking about things from a different perspective than you were raised with is commendable, but especially if a lot of very painful and obvious factors drove you to that realization, having a groundshaking revelation about things exactly once in your life, is not necessarily evidence of generally curious and creative thinking so much as the necessary collapse of a particular mental structure that wasn't working for you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One of the ways that 'higher brain ...oup behavior might be a very different story.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Being unable to speak about opposing viewpoints without childish reductions like "magic spaceman" does not exactly demonstrate the supposed level of intellectual prowess and advancement you are claiming for your tribe; or your flexibility of mind, which is really what my point was. It is specifically the claim of greater mental flexibility, not "intelligence" per se, that I find dubious as an outsider. Thinking about things from a different perspective than you were raised with is commendable, but especially if a lot of very painful and obvious factors drove you to that realization, having a groundshaking revelation about things exactly once in your life, is not necessarily evidence of generally creative thinking so much as the necessary collapse of a particular mental structure that wasn't working for you.

I'm simply calling it what it is. I discovered years ago that religion is largely language, words for religious ideas. So I use secular language not to be insulting but simply to introduce perspective.

 

[Random Person]

It's simpler than that. If there really was a magic spaceman there wouldn't be cancer. It's like when there's some disaster where thousands are killed you'll always see the inevitable headline about how the spaceman saved someone. The woo is with us, even when the corpses pile high. That there might not be a woo goes unobserved.

We all die of something. How does this disprove a magic spaceman?

What manner of magic spaceman do you have in mind? But that subject only comes after the magic spaceman itself. We've invented lots of these guys so it seems odd that more folks don't have an aha moment. It must just be very comforting on some level despite the contradictions. It's why I maintain it's the human ability to pretend that's really operating, not invisible space creatures with magic powers.

I didn't have any magic spacemen in mind. I was using the language you used so as not to confuse you further.


Your cancer justification was a ruse. If cancer didn't exist your opinion would remain unchanged.

 

[Politesse]

Being unable to speak about opposing viewpoints without childish reductions like "magic spaceman" does not exactly demonstrate the supposed level of intellectual prowess and advancement you are claiming for your tribe; or your flexibility of mind, which is really what my point was. It is specifically the claim of greater mental flexibility, not "intelligence" per se, that I find dubious as an outsider. Thinking about things from a different perspective than you were raised with is commendable, but especially if a lot of very painful and obvious factors drove you to that realization, having a groundshaking revelation about things exactly once in your life, is not necessarily evidence of generally creative thinking so much as the necessary collapse of a particular mental structure that wasn't working for you.

I'm simply calling it what it is. I discovered years ago that religion is largely language, words for religious ideas. So I use secular language not to be insulting but simply to introduce perspective.

So if, for instance, I were to insist on only ever referring to atheism as "Your Holy Nothing Cult" and atheists as Nothing Cultists, your response would be to think, "that guy isn't trying to childishly insult me based on a misunderstanding of my position, he's just introducing a new perspective!"

 

[Opoponax]

Being unable to speak about opposing viewpoints without childish reductions like "magic spaceman" does not exactly demonstrate the supposed level of intellectual prowess and advancement you are claiming for your tribe; or your flexibility of mind, which is really what my point was. It is specifically the claim of greater mental flexibility, not "intelligence" per se, that I find dubious as an outsider. Thinking about things from a different perspective than you were raised with is commendable, but especially if a lot of very painful and obvious factors drove you to that realization, having a groundshaking revelation about things exactly once in your life, is not necessarily evidence of generally creative thinking so much as the necessary collapse of a particular mental structure that wasn't working for you.

I'm simply calling it what it is. I discovered years ago that religion is largely language, words for religious ideas. So I use secular language not to be insulting but simply to introduce perspective.

So if, for instance, I were to insist on only ever referring to atheism as "Your Holy Nothing Cult" and atheists as Nothing Cultists, your response would be to think, "that guy isn't trying to childishly insult me based on a misunderstanding of my position, he's just introducing a new perspective!"

Okay. What of the ancient perspective on your god? They believe it lived in the sky--in the Heavens. It's always looking down on us from on high.

Or do you really care to make the argument that the ancients were referring to parallel universes, different dimensions, the Matrix, etc.?

The God of the Bible was a sky-god, just like so many gods before and contemporaneous with it.

Job 20:6 - Though his loftiness reaches the heavens, And his head touches the clouds...

Isaiah 14:14 - I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.

Revelation 14:14 - Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand.

Etc.

Clearly, those who wrote the Bible believed their god lived in the sky. So to describe your god as a sky-god is wholly appropriate. That you find it insulting is immaterial. That you choose to harp on being insulted by an appropriate description of your god appears more of a distraction than an ability to account for its existence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if, for instance, I were to insist on only ever referring to atheism as "Your Holy Nothing Cult" and atheists as Nothing Cultists, your response would be to think,

Well, nothing created me or my universe, i owe deference to nothing, nothing judges me, nothing awaits me after death.
Nothing cares if i fail to sacrifice nothing to nothing in the name of nothing, nothing makes religious sense to me, nothing makes me feel that i am particularly special as far as the universe goes...

I would think , FINALLY, a believer gets it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Being unable to speak about opposing viewpoints without childish reductions like "magic spaceman" does not exactly demonstrate the supposed level of intellectual prowess and advancement you are claiming for your tribe; or your flexibility of mind, which is really what my point was. It is specifically the claim of greater mental flexibility, not "intelligence" per se, that I find dubious as an outsider. Thinking about things from a different perspective than you were raised with is commendable, but especially if a lot of very painful and obvious factors drove you to that realization, having a groundshaking revelation about things exactly once in your life, is not necessarily evidence of generally creative thinking so much as the necessary collapse of a particular mental structure that wasn't working for you.

I'm simply calling it what it is. I discovered years ago that religion is largely language, words for religious ideas. So I use secular language not to be insulting but simply to introduce perspective.

So if, for instance, I were to insist on only ever referring to atheism as "Your Holy Nothing Cult" and atheists as Nothing Cultists, your response would be to think, "that guy isn't trying to childishly insult me based on a misunderstanding of my position, he's just introducing a new perspective!"

Call it whatever you want. I can only hope your language accurately reflects what you are attempting to describe.

As far as insults are concerned, no, I'm not attempting insult. And even if I were, whether you are actually insulted by something I say is up to you, up to how you handle it. I think Eleanor Roosevelt talked about that somewhere, that no person can be insulted without their consent.

"Spaceman" is accurate if one is christian. It's accurate for lots of other religions also.

 

[Jobar]

Insufficient curiosity? The atheist answer to every ontological question is "It just exists. No reason." This is the answer of an exhausted mother dealing with the "why" stage, not that of a curious scientist. Atheists love Occam's razor: always seek the "simplest" answer. Not actually how the real world works, but boy is it ever comforting to insist that the truth is always simple.

Poli, it disturbs me that you say this. I had thought your long interaction with atheists would have given you better understanding of us.

As Opoponax says, this is a projection of the religious mindset onto our secular one. We do NOT say "no reason". We may well say "we don't understand yet", when the questions get that large.

Of course we seek simplest answers, but those answers have to cover all the bases- to explain all the known phenomena which the world presents to us.

I suppose that the Occam's Razor .gif I have so often posted could be to blame. Poli, that .gif is meant as a joke- as a poke at the theistic outlook, which would give God a U-for-Unquestionable status, despite the fact that we have no evidence or epistemological need to posit His existence. "God Just Exists"- but plenty of believers from many different religions consider it blasphemous to question or investigate that supposition.

Yes, certainly we think the universe exists- it presents itself to us at every moment. But no one, particularly not atheists, considers it unholy if we investigate all the whats, whys, and wherefores we can think of, concerning that existence.

You compare it to an exhausted mom finally telling a two-year-old asking 'why' to every statement "it just is", and that is in a way accurate. But it isn't two-year-olds we're addressing; it's believers with the persistence, and seemingly the lack of cognitive ability, of a two-year-old.

 

[WAB]

But it isn't two-year-olds we're addressing; it's believers with the persistence, and seemingly the lack of cognitive ability, of a two-year-old.

I agree wholeheartedly that with many religious people there may be a lack of cognitive ability, but a mountain of evidence, i.e. the existence of multitudes of extremely intelligent people and even people in the genius level (also a great number) is being utterly ignored by this too-easy generalization. I thought atheists prided themselves on acknowledging the reality of something for which there is overwhelming evidence?

There are many atheists on this BB. I would argue that a good many of them (a small percentage, but still a lot, given the number of members) are quite obviously lacking in cognitive ability (NOT you, Jobar - and of course I can't name names).

I know that personal testimony means little: but in my experience I see no marked difference in intelligence between religious people and atheists. My Uncle was an engineer and an inventor, who was also a deacon in his church. One of the brightest people I've ever known. I come from a family of highly intelligent, highly successful people who are or were largely church-going believers. There are also the atheists, like my father and sister, but they show no greater level of intelligence (in fact, less of it, if I am to be truthful).

This is not to say I haven't met religious people who are dumb as posts. But darn it can we stop sweeping ALL theists into the same basket?

It seems to be something done quite intentionally, to put all theists into one class which can then conveniently be treated as inferior. And the problem with a site like this, where the far greater majority of members are atheists, this lends itself to being repeated and reinforced over and over, until we have something akin to bigotry.

The same thing is done to republicans, in almost the exact same manner. If I had no mind of my own and was not able to think independently, I'd have to conclude that all republicans, conservatives, and even libertarians, are retarded, corrupt, and evil to the core; but I have the sense (and cognitive ability) to know that that is not true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I had no mind of my own and was not able to think independently, I'd have to conclude that all republicans, conservatives, and even libertarians, are retarded, corrupt, and evil to the core; but I have the sense (and cognitive ability) to know that that is not true.

After reading that I realize now that there is another obvious reason people do not move beyond religion.

When I was young there were lots of catholics, protestants, a couple Jews, blacks, hispanics, there were republicans and democrats, doctors, lawyers, and folks of every color, ethnicity and persuasion. But there was not a single atheist. In the U.S. anyway, atheism was and is demonized. Everyone held, and young people were taught, that atheism was a great evil, even though it was not. Public schools had to remove prayer because of atheism.

Without a doubt I am now certain that this was and is the primary reason people do not move beyond religion, precisely because they never meet anyone who has. Instead, they have this bigoted, prejudiced picture of what atheism and an atheist is.

Fortunately, however, that is changing in the U.S., and in a big way. If not atheist, certainly lots of people meeting each other who have no interest in religion. It took me 45 years to meet my first atheist, in casual conversation, not going to an atheist meetup of something like that.