Why religion will never go away

[Taraz]

I'm not talking about any specific religion when I say this, but the concept of religion in general. I'm curious to hear if anybody has any comments on the following claim:

Religion is simply the relationship that we have with the unknown. It is a way to deal with questions that we cannot answer. There will always be questions that we can't answer, so there will always be a need for a method of dealing with fundamentally uknowable things at each point in human existence.


You can make the claim that we need to adopt science and logic as this "religion", but these fields are kind of limited. Science is a slow moving enterprise and there are many things that we can't study scientifically until we do a lot of groundwork first. For example, it is difficult to study complex thought in the brain before we hash out what it is that neurons are doing. There are also things that seem to be entirely out of the scope of science such as what happens when we die and what will happen in the future.

You can also claim that what we cannot answer scientifically is irrelevant. But I would basically retort that you cannot stop human curiosity. You will never convince humanity to stop asking questions that are unanswerable at the time because that's how progress works. By continually pushing the boundaries and asking questions we have gained some knowledge of things previously thought to be outside the scope of human understanding.

So one of the main functions of religion is to set up an attitude towards what we don't know and what we cannot know. For example, many religious people say that certain things are "in the hands of God" and they speak of "God's plan". Is this not just a way of accepting whatever happens and not dwelling on negative outcomes? It gives you a positive attitude toward an unknowable future. Speaking evolutionarily, it is adaptive to take this stance because you won't be paralyzed by indecision and misfortune.

Now I don't mean to say that religion is not other things as well or that there aren't a lot of negative things that go along with religion. People who share a specific attitude toward the unknown form a community and that community can act toward positive change or, unfortunately, to hinder such change and force a regression of ideas and thought.

The main problem is that when one of the unkowns becomes known, many religious people feel threatened because they feel that this progress is threatening what their religion had already explained to them. What they need to realize is that there will always be more questions than answers. Whenever science answers one question, five more pop up in its place.

These are the reasons that I think fundamentalism is the problem and not religion. Fundamentalism resists change because progress threatens what religion had previously been necessary for. But what the religious need to realize is that by embracing progress, the questions increase and religion becomes even more necessary.

This is why I believe that religions which have a mythology of supernatural events can be dangerous. If you cling to the mythology instead of the message, you are working against what your religion is supposed to be supplying. These stories also allow those in power to control the masses and abuse their power. Consequently I believe that religions such as Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith are a little bit more useful in the present times since they seem to be more like philosophies of life more than anything else.

[Dov]

I think you're right.

How many otherwise intelligent aethiests have referenced the 'Poker Gods'?

[Duke]

You lost me at: "Science is a slow-moving enterprise." That was only true when it was heresy to try to figure anything out by using it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me at: "Science is a slow-moving enterprise." That was only true when it was heresy to try to figure anything out by using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow in the sense that you can't answer many bigger questions until you hash out the smaller ones. Also in the sense that every question you answer raises more questions.

For example, you can't study how the brain controls your limbs until you understand how neurons work. You have to build on what has already been done.

By no means was I trying to imply that religion or philosophy "moves faster". Just that our questions will always outpace the answers and by a large margin.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You lost me at: "Science is a slow-moving enterprise." That was only true when it was heresy to try to figure anything out by using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow in the sense that you can't answer many bigger questions until you hash out the smaller ones. Also in the sense that every question you answer raises more questions.

For example, you can't study how the brain controls your limbs until you understand how neurons work. You have to build on what has already been done.

By no means was I trying to imply that religion or philosophy "moves faster". Just that our questions will always outpace the answers and by a large margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha.

I suppose you're right, and a lot of people seem to be predisposed to answers that satisfy them, whether they're actually right or not.

[kevin017]

I think this is exactly right.

I took 1 anthropology class in college. The teacher was a nutjob and I thought most of what we talked about was out there. I wish i remember more clearly what the example was, but we were talking about some african tribe. Basically whenever anything bad happened to these people they attributed it to evil spirits and such. Like if someone died of cancer, it was an evil spirit that caused them to die of cancer.

Its not that these people don't understand that he has a disease that killed him. They're blaming evil spirits for why THIS person got THIS disease NOW. Anyone ever lost a relative to cancer, etc? Have you ever wondered, why them? Science got any answers for you? There will always be the unknown, that which we don't understand, and religion fills in the gaps.

[LCposter]

I agree, well-written post. Attempting to explain how the universe operates is only one aspect of religion, and the only component that can be supplanted by science.

Religion also provides attempts to answer questions from the metaphysical realm (the "unknowable questions", which by definition are outside the scope of science), supply guidance on morality, provide hope in times of need, etc.

It's hard to imagine humans won't need some vehicle to fulfill these needs. Perhaps pure philosophy will suffice.

It's likely that in the future many of the organized religions of today will be whittled down to their core philosophical essences. It is also true that if we are able to accomplish things (for example, create a sentient robot with its own volition), then popular support for the concept of a soul will likely erode and the philosophical teachings of many religions would have to be revamped.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is simply the relationship that we have with the unknown. It is a way to deal with questions that we cannot answer. There will always be questions that we can't answer, so there will always be a need for a method of dealing with fundamentally uknowable things at each point in human existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is one of the main functions of religion. The human mode of thinking appears to function more happily if there are no unknown concepts. Or to put it another way, there is an instinctive drive for us to provide explanation for any concept we come across. Religion acting as a form of catch-all explanation for unexplained ideas. The more accurate explanation for a phenomenon with no known explanation, that it is an phenomenon with no known explanation, tends to jar with our method of retaining such ideas. Hence the often irresistible tendency towards invalid logic commonly applied to religious concepts.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone ever lost a relative to cancer, etc? Have you ever wondered, why them? Science got any answers for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

i asked science, and it told me something went wrong with his cell division.

would you ask "why were the first five cards in the deck hearts?" and be unsatisfied with the answer "because they were shuffled that way"?

anyone lost a relative to a hit-and-run? ever asked, "why them"?

they were in the way of the car.

[Drew_aces15]

Religion is simply the relationship that we have with the unknown. It is a way to deal with questions that we cannot answer. There will always be questions that we can't answer, so there will always be a need for a method of dealing with fundamentally uknowable things at each point in human existence.
It seems you beg the question. You assume that religion is contrived by man to answer unanswerable questions, and then say since there will always be unanswerable questions, man must continue to create/or hold onto the creation of religion. You just assume the point you are trying to prove.

So one of the main functions of religion is to set up an attitude towards what we don't know and what we cannot know.
Again, you're assuming your point - that religion has a pre-conceived function

The main problem is that when one of the unkowns becomes known, many religious people feel threatened because they feel that this progress is threatening what their religion had already explained to them. What they need to realize is that there will always be more questions than answers. Whenever science answers one question, five more pop up in its place.
This is also well circulated myth. While I do not respond on behalf of "religion" I will respond on my belief in Christianity. I have never learned any scientific fact that made me question what I believe. I love x-rays, ultra-sound, arthroscopic surgery, the combustion engine - none of that has ever made me feel threatened.

These are the reasons that I think fundamentalism is the problem and not religion. Fundamentalism resists change because progress threatens what religion had previously been necessary for. But what the religious need to realize is that by embracing progress, the questions increase and religion becomes even more necessary.
Progress toward what? Your sense of utopia? Or do you borrow an "ideal" world from one these religions as a standard to measure against? Why do you say the world is not as it should be? For an atheistic/humanistic/naturalistic world view, all you can have is what is. How do you create a "what-should-be"?

This is why I believe that religions which have a mythology of supernatural events can be dangerous. If you cling to the mythology instead of the message, you are working against what your religion is supposed to be supplying.
Again, you assume the point. You also deny Christians the logical conclusion that if you take away our "myths" there is no valid reason for accepting the rest of it (salvation, morality, comfort, peace, etc). Isn't that why you don't believe? Because you have already ruled out the myth? One story of Jesus is that one day several men brought to Him a man who was paralyzed and lying on a bed. He was moved with compassion and told the man that his sins were forgiven. The religious leaders of the day scoffed, and said "who can forgive sins except God alone". When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he said, wouldn't it be easier for me to say "your sins are forgiven" than to say "rise out this bed and walk"? But, so that they may know the invisible (forgiving of sins), He healed the man (visible miracle) and he walked away. [Luke 5:17-26] How can you tell me the myth isn't true but I should still hang onto the belief that my sins are forgiven? If Jesus didn't really miraculously heal that man, why would I believe He forgave me my sins?