Spirituality therefore rather than religion is a positive for everyone in terms of finding an ‘inner peace’,that is very close perhaps I suggest to what the original idea behind the origins of gods, the deep understanding of what life is. — David S

Hmmm... but what is 'spirituality'? It's not a word that resonates with me at all and can mean anything you want. And I am not sure that the notion of 'a deep understanding of what life is' is anything more than a phrase.

In literature there are many examples but my favourite is the works of Tolkien. As much as he hated allegory in all its forms his own creation myth with Eru Iluvitar. — David S

I learned from reading about The Inklings (the group of friends including Tolkien, C S Lewis and others) that Tolkien attended Mass every day. And that his lecture schedule as a younger academic was absolutely exhausting, including Old Icelandic, Norse Poetry, and other such subjects, across a number of classes he gave in parallel. He was a great prodigy. Later in life he became an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, and had a reputation for thorough scholarship but at the cost of always being behind in his work; he would deliberate endlessly. Part of his aim with Lord of the Rings was to create an imaginary history for traditional Europe.

I think he would have hated the way Europe has become.

On the broader theme of your question - John Hick addresses it from an ‘insider’ perspective, as a philosopher of religion and theologian. There are many other approaches - the anthropological (Emile Durkheim), the sociological (Max Weber), the mythological (Joseph Campbell, the Golden Bough). It’s a truly vast topic, actually ‘bigger than history’ in some ways.

I get your point about ‘spiritual but not religious’, although in time I think you will identify one particular such tradition that really is the one for you, and when you do, I think you will find it has some ineluctably religious elements to it. But, that’s OK! No need to be phobic about religion.

Hmmm... but what is 'spirituality'? It's not a word that resonates with me at all and can mean anything you want. And I am not sure that the notion of 'a deep understanding of what life is' is anything more than a phrase. — Tom Storm

Tom, I guess that is the problem with language. Understanding. I try and keep it simple. “Spirituality’ for me is reaching a place where you know your own ‘true self`’. I think in particular in the modern world we can be so removed from our true nature. I also like the stoic view and the expression there are only two things an individual can control. “How you think”, and “how you act.” It may take a lifetime but finding your ‘true self’ and ways of thinking and acting can lead you there. I believe that this ‘true self’ everyone has and the search for finding it within yourself is spiritual. Many of course find religion is their path.

I get your point about ‘spiritual but not religious’, although in time I think you will identify one particular such tradition that really is the one for you, and when you do, I think you will find it has some ineluctably religious elements to it. But, that’s OK! No need to be phobic about religion. — Wayfarer

I have a good friend from early school days. He became a PhD doctor in Mathematics and teaches in Australia. He is a catholic. I remember when we were around 18 years old on a return from University we had a long discussion about our respective beliefs at the time. After many hours he concluded that we had a lot we could agree on and were like minded on. The Taoist and The Catholic.

Tom, I guess that is the problem with language. Understanding. I try and keep it simple. “Spirituality’ for me is reaching a place where you know your own ‘true self`’. I think in particular in the modern world we can be so removed from our true nature. I also like the stoic view and the expression there are only two things an individual can control. “How you think”, and “how you act.” It may take a lifetime but finding your ‘true self’ and ways of thinking and acting can lead you there. I believe that this ‘true self’ everyone has and the search for finding it within yourself is spiritual. Many of course find religion is their path. — David S

David S You can afford to be more ambitious. I have worked in the field of addiction and mental illness for decades, with a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention. So I know the significance of language and understand many people's fractured sense of self and need to find meaning. A pet hate of mine is inadequate words like 'spirituality' and 'true nature'. I don't want to be unnecessarily quarrelsome but they are not all that helpful except as bookstore categories. Unless you can put some substantial flesh on their bones...

Also what evidence do you have that in the modern world we are more removed from our true natures than in the past? It could be argued, with good reason, that people are much more likely in this current comparatively wealthy time of education and free time (and bookshops and on line) to find themselves. This kind of searching has certainly been a hallmark of the middle class West for the past 50 years.

You and Baker have agreed that not many religious followers actually believe in God. — T Clark

I said that I don't know anyone who does. I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any.

No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks!

I said that I don't know anyone who does. I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any. — baker

You’ve never heard of religious martyrs? Suicide bombers? You think these people don’t really believe in god and rewards of gods afterlife?
Why do you think they do it then? What is the reason why they are sacrificing their lives and claiming they do it because god wants them to?

You’ve never heard of religious martyrs? Suicide bombers? You think these people don’t really believe in god and rewards of gods afterlife? — DingoJones

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Note that the word "religious martyr" tends to be applied to anyone who died "for religion", regardless of how they lived prior to that; regardless of the specific of their death (whether it's a bus full of schoolchildren dying in a bomb attack, or whether it's someone who prior to their public execution said some notable religious words); and regardless of who declared their death to be "for religion" (Romans might have killed a lot of Christians, but should we therefore surmise that they were all martyrs for Christianity?).

Why do you think they do it then? What is the reason why they are sacrificing their lives and claiming they do it because god wants them to?

Some of them are egomaniacs. It's taboo to name names in this category, but surely you can think of some people who are publicly regarded as "saints", but it is also known they had a "dark side", replete with sex and drug scandals, financial shenaningans, and so on.

Some just have nothing left to live for, nothing to lose, so in a last desperate attempt to make sense of their lives, they do something extreme and pin a religious label to it.

Some are pathological altruists.

Some are blackmailed into extreme actions ("We'll kill your family if you don't blow yourself up with this bomb in the middle of a busy public square").

Some are just mentally ill.


These options seem more likely to be the explanations for the cause of religious martyrdom than religiosity. Of course, we can't empirically test this, and the available anecdotal data is limited.

Also, look at the lives of "saints" (they have whole lists and biographies of them in Catholicism, for example). In many cases, these people were ordinary people, some even by popular account, bad people, who in some extreme situation did something religiously notable. In some cases, the duration of their saintliness can be measured in days, or less.

Given this, it behooves that one take notions of sainthood and martyrdom with the proviso that they are characteristically temporally limited.

One general observation I would make is that we lack the ability to distinguish religion from philosophical spirituality. Because of the dogmatic attitude of Christianity, everything 'religious' gets tarred with the same brush. — Wayfarer

And you'd probably say that this is to our loss?

No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks! — 3017amen

Correction, the worst kind of troll is a childish troll.

:up:

I think the reasons depend on whether it is a true belief or not. If it's false, then perhaps humans are a bit crazy and have a tendency to believe any old nonsense. On the other hand, if it is true, then it could be because humans have considered the evidence and happily arrived at the correct conclusion. So to answer the question we have to first work out whether it's true or not. Then the fun begins. — Cuthbert

This.

As well as philosophy and reason, I'm not willing to dismiss felt intuitions. Introspection is often an unreliable guide to they way things are, but sometime sit may be perfectly reliable. It might simply be that some people do have genuine insight. Philosophers can't do much conclusively with the testimony of others, or even their own, of course. And I don't think that all claims of God's existence are extraordinary, although some are. The existence of Zeus on Mt Olympus is of course an extraordinary claim. But there are other God concepts which assert agency and consciousness at the beginning of things, and that seems entirely plausible. Indeed, echoing Un, it's not clear to me that the easy 'default' theoretical position is that there is no such agency. I don't think it's an extraordinary claim.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Note that the word "religious martyr" tends to be applied to anyone who died "for religion", regardless of how they lived prior to that; regardless of the specific of their death (whether it's a bus full of schoolchildren dying in a bomb attack, or whether it's someone who prior to their public execution said some notable religious words); and regardless of who declared their death to be "for religion" (Romans might have killed a lot of Christians, but should we therefore surmise that they were all martyrs for Christianity?). — baker

My point is that it would take a true belief in god in order to sacrifice your life for god. Let’s not get lost in the weeds it should be clear the exact kind of martyr I was talking about.

Some of them are egomaniacs. It's taboo to name names in this category, but surely you can think of some people who are publicly regarded as "saints", but it is also known they had a "dark side", replete with sex and drug scandals, financial shenaningans, and so on.

Some just have nothing left to live for, nothing to lose, so in a last desperate attempt to make sense of their lives, they do something extreme and pin a religious label to it.

Some are pathological altruists.

Some are blackmailed into extreme actions ("We'll kill your family if you don't blow yourself up with this bomb in the middle of a busy public square").

Some are just mentally ill.


These options seem more likely to be the explanations for the cause of religious martyrdom than religiosity. Of course, we can't empirically test this, and the available anecdotal data is limited. — baker

Sure, those are all reasons people might have for blowing themselves up. They don’t seem any more plausible than an actual belief they have that not only justifies but demands that behaviour.
Why are you so sure religiosity isn’t the reason even though that is the reason given AND we can see from the religious texts/religious leaders that they are instructed to do so?
Would you be equally dismissive of the reasons that I gave for any given action? If I told you I post on this forum because I want to practice debating would you suspect I actually was doing it for some other possible reason you can come up with?

I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any. — baker

I have met many. Just because someone isn't as self-aware of their beliefs as you think they should be, I don't hold that against them. @Tom Storm wrote previously, most people don't really examine their beliefs and the consequences of them.

Also what evidence do you have that in the modern world we are more removed from our true natures than in the past? It could be argued, with good reason, that people are much more likely in this current comparatively wealthy time of education and free time (and bookshops and on line) to find themselves. This kind of searching has certainly been a hallmark of the middle class West for the past 50 years. — Tom Storm

No hard evidence. It is not that I would go looking for some. Maybe the mindfulness movement that has been around for some time now. But again I would not necessarily think there has been a rush either to things like meditation classes. Of course there are more subtle things like days away in the country, or a stroll along the beach, or lying on the grass in a low light pollution area on a clear, dark, cloudless night.

I think it is true to that the younger generation are more likely to be distracted by technology with social media being a blessing and a curse in equal measure. Again if you are after hard based facts and evidence I am sorry to disappoint. I can ‘feel’ this might be true and be sad for it.

Astrology which many debunk argues that mankind is now in the Age of Aquarius.

Astrologers believe that an astrological age affects humanity, possibly by influencing the rise and fall of civilizations or cultural tendencies.

Traditionally, Aquarius is associated with electricity, computers, flight, democracy, freedom, humanitarianism, idealism, modernization, astrology, nervous disorders, rebellion, nonconformity, philanthropy, veracity, perseverance, humanity, and irresolution.

A common position expressed by many astrologers sees the Age of Aquarius as that time when humanity takes control of the Earth and its own destiny as its rightful heritage, with the destiny of humanity being the revelation of truth and the expansion of consciousness, and that some people will experience mental enlightenment in advance of others and therefore be recognized as the new leaders in the world.

Another view suggests that the rise of scientific rationalism, combined with the fall of religious influence, the increasing focus on human rights since the 1780s, the exponential growth of technology, plus the advent of flight and space travel, are evidence of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

These are not necessarily my views though Astrology has been a feature of mankind’s thinking along with scientific discovery as a way to understand the world and themselves.

For sure humanity does take some significant leaps forward. The age of information and data has been with us for years.

For sure the next 5 to 10 years should be interesting but most likely the division of the wealth and it’s unequal distribution will continue to widen.

Maybe for some seeking a way to find their own peace will remain as it always has done a very private endeavour.

I won't go too far back in time, prehistory is just too much conjecture than anything truthful. So, let's begin around the first century BC/AD when, it's said, the world's largest religion - Christianity - was born with the arrival of the messiah Jesus Christ into the house of a humble carpenter, Joseph [ I hope I got that right].

Some well-known atheists like Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens have made remarks to the effect that it's the heights of implausibility that God, the personification of wisdom, would reveal faer teachings to a group of bronze-age, illiterate, farmers, goat-herders. They would scarcely be able to understand the words let alone the divine message.

What Krauss and Hitchens said made a whole lot of sense until about 5 minutes ago. Ask yourself this question, "if you were god where would you send a message of love? I'm fairly confident that you would dispatch your messenger/prophet to a place where people had little to no idea of what love means, places where all kinds of immorality was not just condoned but even promoted as either acceptable or even compulsory. This is exactly what god did - his prophet/messenger was sent to the right place viz. the middle east which was at that time in a near moral vacuum. God had, in a sense, performed triage on humanity and dispatched an EMT to the middle-east.

The origins of Christianity lies in the ethical privation of the times. My hunch is other religions too had similar beginnings.

The origins of Christianity lies in the immorality of the times. My hunch is other religions too had similar beginnings. — TheMadFool

Sadly almost certainly true. Even pre Christian pagans had sacrifices. The aztecs too. Warfare and debauchery and slavery too off the back of conquests. I made the comment earlier that the expression Man made God in his own image is probably true. The problem is that the image was clearly not the right one. At least as far as the common man and woman goes.

The problem is that the image was clearly not the right one. — David S

I think there's nothing with the concept odf god we have - god can be taken as the living embodiment of all that's good in humans and dialling them up to infinity I suppose.

One general observation I would make is that we lack the ability to distinguish religion from philosophical spirituality. Because of the dogmatic attitude of Christianity, everything 'religious' gets tarred with the same brush.
— Wayfarer

And you'd probably say that this is to our loss? — baker

It interferes with the understanding. Much of what was best in ancient philosophy was absorbed into Christian theology, and then became rejected along with it. So there are philosophical ways of thinking and ideas that are rejected purely because of their association with religious dogma, even though that isn't an accurate depiction.

It is curious as well that Christian religion adopted what were pagan celebrations of Easter rebirth and Christmas and it’s symbology of course e.g. the egg and the Tree as they had to bring those worshipers into the fold, that or burn them at the stake for witchcraft. The important point it was important clearly to absorb these ways of worship into ‘the story’. Of course it is writing that was important to establish the word for most religions and sure metaphysical texts as well. We are all used to questing the validity of news stories but interpretations of religious texts can vary and thus potentially be moulded to fit a new narrative.

My point is that it would take a true belief in god in order to sacrifice your life for god. — DingoJones

And I doubt such is necessarily always the case.

Sure, those are all reasons people might have for blowing themselves up. They don’t seem any more plausible than an actual belief they have that not only justifies but demands that behaviour.
Why are you so sure religiosity isn’t the reason even though that is the reason given AND we can see from the religious texts/religious leaders that they are instructed to do so?

Because I've seen religion and religiosity from the inside. Like I said, I know many religious people, but I yet have to meet one who would actually believe what they say.
I've seen Catholics go to church, there chant "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", then go home and get drunk and curse God, Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Roman Church, and continue in that vein until next Sunday, when it is again "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", and so on.

I've seen similar patterns in other religions where people make a point of vowing to do something, and then don't do it, and it just goes on and on. At some point, one has to wonder whether this is really just simply failure, a human flaw, or whether it is deliberate duplicity. I see no reason to think that religious people are as naive as some atheists and anti-religionists like to portray them. Too much killing, raping, and pillaging has taken place in the name of religion to still allow us to think that it was all some massive mistake, a genuine failure or flaw, or the acts of the deranged few.

Would you be equally dismissive of the reasons that I gave for any given action? If I told you I post on this forum because I want to practice debating would you suspect I actually was doing it for some other possible reason you can come up with?

Probably not, and it's not relevant for the most part anyway.

And I doubt such is necessarily always the case. — baker

I agree with that. :up:

Because I've seen religion and religiosity from the inside. Like I said, I know many religious people, but I yet have to meet one who would actually believe what they say.
I've seen Catholics go to church, there chant "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", then go home and get drunk and curse God, Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Roman Church, and continue in that vein until next Sunday, when it is again "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", and so on. — baker

Ah, I see what you are saying now. They contradict what they purport to believe with their actions. To me that’s a lack of conviction rather than lack of belief. I suspect our disagreement is how we are defining belief. Am I right in guessing you would say there is no belief without conviction? That if you really believe something you obligate yourself to act in accordance with it?

Probably not, and it's not relevant for the most part anyway. — baker

Well I thought it was relevant because I misunderstood your reasoning. My mistake.

That if you really believe something you obligate yourself to act in accordance with it? — DingoJones

What else??

It interferes with the understanding. Much of what was best in ancient philosophy was absorbed into Christian theology, and then became rejected along with it. So there are philosophical ways of thinking and ideas that are rejected purely because of their association with religious dogma, even though that isn't an accurate depiction. — Wayfarer

It goes the other way around too: For example, the way Catholic monotheism and the motivation to proselytize were conveniently omitted from Descartes' philosophy (probably in an effort to make Descartes look palatable to secularists?) which was then raised to a secular standard for philosophizing. What a Trojan horse!

So there are philosophical ways of thinking and ideas that are rejected purely because of their association with religious dogma, even though that isn't an accurate depiction.

But for whom is this really a problem? Perhaps for the professional philosophers. Other people who also have some interest in philosophy can and do skirt this bias.

Cognitive dissonance, humans can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. It doesn’t mean they don’t believe in one or the other, it means they are holding an irrational contradiction. Most of the time it’s because the person doesn’t see the contradiction.
That makes more sense to me than saying they don’t really believe it considering the kinds of things they do in the name of their beliefs.

I don’t see “belief” as binary like you do, I think as long as there are differences in how strongly people can believe things you have to accept that conviction and belief are distinct from each other.

They contradict what they purport to believe with their actions. To me that’s a lack of conviction rather than lack of belief. — DingoJones

Well said. This lack of conviction is all around me here in the self-professed "Bible Belt" of the US where "belief", no doubt, is waved like a bloody flag. Few, it seems, 'believe with conviction'; I refer to them simply as believers (and "fundies" on relevant occasions). The rest who 'believe without conviction', as pointed out, I refer to as make-believers (and, deservedly quite often, "hypocrites" too).

There is plenty lack of conviction in humanity to go around. People have grown used to compromising themselves and they support each other’s lack conviction by a mutual, unspoken agreement to maintain an illusion of accountability when in fact there is almost none, at any level.

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

Well it's quite simple young David. Not so far from the fact we appear to have our own resident god here. One who claims to know that which is not currently known. This is what you imply is it not? You pose the question "why could anything I do not know possibly exist?" .. well there are two answers. One is offensive. And the other is as written.