Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Frumple]

Practically, more or less as much traction as anything else? It (ignoring the old testament laws/saying they no longer applied to christians) has informed massive movements within modern christianity. So's outright literal anti-christ tier heresy that violently pisses all over scripture (prosperity gospel).

Far as I'm aware tossing out the old testament rules doesn't have huge grounds for theological justification based on scripture (most seriousface theologians I've noticed would agree it's post-hoc justification nonsense with no basis in the text, to whatever degree they think that's actually important), but when the hell has that mattered? Theology's fun, but it ain't what's pulling the metaphorical cart when it comes to religion.

[Schmaven]

Sometimes I wonder to what extent belief is essential.  For example, if I never believed I could learn to swim, it seems very unlikely that I would have learned to swim.  For me, I think belief that it was possible was necessary in order to give it enough of a try, and to persevere long enough to be able to swim.  Initially, poorly, and not for very long.  But maintaining belief in my ability to increase swimming proficiency, I continued to practice, and continued to improve.  Now I can appreciate many fun activities where swimming is required.  If all I could do was drown in the water, all those fun activities would not be fun at all.  Even if I saw other people having fun in a wave pool, I would be drowning and having a bad time from the perspective of not being able to swim.  Knowing how to swim, I can experience first hand the joys of a wave pool (or water polo, snorkeling, etc.).  Then there's a feedback loop where having enjoyed it, I'm more inclined to do more of it, which would improve my skill, and lead to more enjoyment. 

I think that applies to more than just swimming.  Perhaps all skills that take time and effort to develop, require belief.  Some things we just learn through exposure and unwanted repetition, and so wouldn't require belief at all.  But I hypothesize that religion is one of those areas where belief is required to experience the benefits, and that the more practice we have, the more we can appreciate.  Also, that belief can be cultivated, and destroyed, depending on how we think.  We can exert effort to generate a stronger than normal belief for a short while, and just see what it's like.  Similarly, we can exert effort to reduce our belief about a certain thing for some time.  Through sustained regular effort, our normal equilibrium of where we naturally tend to believe can be altered.  Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.

[Strongpoint]

Positive thinking works, especially for acquiring skills. It is evident.

Through sustained regular effort, our normal equilibrium of where we naturally tend to believe can be altered.

Yes. We, humans, are wonderful beings. We can create cognitive dissonance in ourselves. We can repeatedly lie to ourselves until we (kinda) start believing the lie. Not that the truth goes away, it gets buried in the subconscious.

Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.

Many, many atheists are formerly religious. Vice versa also happens.

[Schmaven]

Yes. We, humans, are wonderful beings. We can create cognitive dissonance in ourselves. We can repeatedly lie to ourselves until we (kinda) start believing the lie. Not that the truth goes away, it gets buried in the subconscious.

Not only that, but also we can eliminate beliefs that are incorrect, and even adopt correct beliefs we don't yet fully understand.  The mind is a powerful tool at our disposal.

Many, many atheists are formerly religious. Vice versa also happens.

Likely from each it was those who better understood the other.

[Strongpoint]

Not only that, but also we can eliminate beliefs that are incorrect, and even adopt correct beliefs we don't yet fully understand.  The mind is a powerful tool at our disposal.

There are three ways to eliminate your beliefs.

1) Create cognitive dissonance by repeatedly telling yourself something you don't truly believe.
2) Learn the truth.
3) Admit that you don't (can't) know the truth about a particular thing.

[jipehog]

But I hypothesize that religion is one of those areas where belief is required to experience the benefits, and that the more practice we have, the more we can appreciate.

Praise krishna?! Or is it just the religion that you happen to be born into and know is conveniently offers the best experience and benefits.

I think that positive thinking/attitude are important, but these has aren't contingent on any one notion of god or religion. Btw the Church of Scientology smartly has avoided the common trap about god, instead of set dogma for god they allow individuals to come to their own understanding of God. Its much more blunt in way, focusing on the workings of the human mind and how to unlocking our true potential, and their by we by achieving spiritual enlightenment we become godlike. Kind like the old idea of apotheosis where individual who had distinguished themselves through extraordinary feats or deeds were elevated to hero or godhod status.

Because of this, I think it is very difficult for athiests and the religious to understand one another.

There might be a perception gap at play here. Like in politics, where despite most people holding views that are not be so different from one another, they hold deeply distorted view of their political other which lean into the extreme.

Bearing obvious external symbols most would not know the wiser who is who. I seen a show format that does just that, in one episode they actually put a group of orthodox and former orthodox atheist and they had to figure out who is who in 10min, and it was amusing how much differences was ingroup and not so much among the outgroup.

Then there is politics.. for example myself, though [i believe that] i don't have an issue with religion or religious, living in country that has no separation of state and church and growing power of religious parties I have very strong, even uncompromising opinion, on several topics.

[Schmaven]

On a basic level, I think religion gives people hope.  Hope by itself accomplishes nothing.  But without hope, nothing can be accomplished.

[TD1]

Yes, religion brings hope. Along with other things, of course - dependence, elation, community, politics.

On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.

[Schmaven]

Yes, religion brings hope. Along with other things, of course - dependence, elation, community, politics.

On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.

What do you mean by false hope?

[jipehog]

I think that hope can be very useful in certain context, especially in times of hardship and if you have no support system it can be the difference between a story in a fulfilling life and a spiral.

Quick google:
https://psychcentral.com/anxiety/the-9-types-of-hopelessness-and-how-to-overcome-them

[TD1]

It can be. My contention is not that such hope is useless - just that for me, personally, its role as a placebo is disquieting.

Yes, religion brings hope. Along with other things, of course - dependence, elation, community, politics.

On a personal level, I'd prefer not to have false hope.

What do you mean by false hope?

Hope that is unfounded, or without substance. False hope leads to unrealistic expectations.

There's a difference between saying 'your wife will be fine, the scans have come back and the cancer is benign' and saying 'we have prayed for your wife, and God will intercede on her behalf.'

That's obviously a crude metaphor, but you get the idea. It's also specific, but more general metaphors could be created. Say, about the role of religion in giving people hope about life after death.


Edit: I'll also add that while I admit false hope can be useful, I'm not convinced that it's morally appropriate to (knowingly) spread, or adhere to, it. I suppose (enjoy a crude simile this time) it would be like the doctor in the above scenario concealing that the cancer is, in fact, malicious and likely fatal. The patient has more hope, but has been cheated the opportunity to make well-informed decisions thereafter.

I suppose good intentions do not always have good results, or that the hedonistic calculus (an equation for determining moral action based on ensuring maximal happiness) is indeed imbalanced, flawed, and actively damaging.

[Strongpoint]

I knew a woman (my father's friend). She had a son who became a heroin addict. It was a trigger to push her into religion, into one of the protestant churches. And she was absolutely confident that God will save her son from the addiction. All her prayers were about that. She had bulletproof hope, total conviction that her son will join her in the Church, and will sing prayers.

While her son was on a road of minor crime (including, of course,  stealing from his own mother), she also wasted her limited resources donating unreasonable amounts to her church.

End result? Her son died from an overdose. She withered soon after. Was this hope of hers helpful? Absolutely not. Could she save her son by acting differently? Most likely not. But the probability of saving her son with prayers was exactly ZERO.

No, empty hope is not a good thing. I'd even say that it is a drug no less dangerous than heroin.

[Schmaven]

Would you say that someone with a disease, who does not have a good prognosis, should not have hope that maybe they'll be one of the 6% (or whatever) who beat the odds?  Unlikely as it is to be in that 6%, hope gives inspiration to more effectively apply the remedies.  It may still be the case that such a person is in the 94%, and such hope is false, but since the future is uncertain, what is the harm of such hope?

[Strongpoint]

Would you say that someone with a disease, who does not have a good prognosis, should not have hope that maybe they'll be one of the 6% (or whatever) who beat the odds?  Unlikely as it is to be in that 6%, hope gives inspiration to more effectively apply the remedies.  It may still be the case that such a person is in the 94%, and such hope is false, but since the future is uncertain, what is the harm of such hope?

But it is not the kind of hope religions preach. Religions preach to act as if this 94% of death don't exist. It actually goes - I have hope that I am in those 6% and be the strength of the hope alone I am guaranteed to be cured and don't need to waste my time on treatments. And stuff like preparing for your own death? Forget about it!

[hector13]

Can confirm. Someone I worked with thought that her belief in Jesus would protect her from Covid, and thus did not need to take precautions.