Thought on why people believe in gods

Post Reply New Topic

Is it possible, that people do so, because they are unable to accept, that they do not know everything? They must KNOW what/why/how something happened/is. Thus, they created god, and *POOF* all the troubles are gone. ( Similar with scientists, although I respect them more, for they change their own theories, and do not call them ultimate truth, just what they believe is the closest answer to the truth )

I, for one, can accept that I can not know how the universe was created. I personally fancy that it was not, but is a repetition of itself. Although it's flawed, for it had to (or did it?) begin at some point. Possibly that at some point in time, the universe, and thus the past, was created. And so on. Would also explain time, I think.

Oh, and I did not put this in the 'Why do you believe in God' thread, for it would be off topic. This is to explain why others, not I, believe in a god. Theirs is a statement, mine is a thought.

People who believe in gods or God cannot explain to you why just like a person who has a loving orgasm with another person can never explain that experience to a virgin.

It's a connection that we experience with our creator.

They had to start believing at some point, as in, they had to choose at some point. ( Unless they're f**ktards who never questioned the BS given by the parents/priesT/whatever )
It is the, why the started, and continue, to believe. They need an explanation for shite.

I think that explanation is closer than most people are comfortable with.

Reading a great book right now; "From Earth to Sky; How the Human Mind Shapes Myth." An interesting theory is brought up that the Human mind (NT at least) has a natural tendency to put a 'will' on everything. The tree that was standing over there yesterday has fallen over. Either someone caused it to fall over or the tree has a will and chose to fall over. Try to explain particle physics and chemical decomposition and weather factors to a caveman and he'll find it just as silly as some of us today find creationism or that clouds are God's dusty footprints in the sky.

Thus, the caveman theorizes there are powerful, invisible beings which cause trees to fall, or earthquakes, or floods, some wisely using that as a tool for power. "Look everyone; you questioned my authority and the next day there was a devastating storm. Obviously, the powerful invisible beings are angry with you for not bowing to my every whim!"

The explanation of powerful, invisible beings becomes so ingrained in Human society, its traditions carry on onto modern day.

As for 'choosing' to believe it? I think most people never considered that choice. I avoided that choice for many years; unconsciously because my NT parents and peers already thought I was a freak. Why would I really alienate myself by declaring the greatest norm of my society to be nothing more than a really huge Mother Goose tale? Until somewhere in my 20's where the Why's became too many and too large to ignore.

Adding that $0.02 to the pot...

- Jo

I should also qualify and say that I've come full circle on belief in god(s). While on one hand, I do feel mind-raped by the institution of Christianity and I see more harm done in the name of god(s) than not, I've also come to see some use for it.

In particular, a friend last Summer made his 3rd (that I know of) unsuccessful suicide attempt. After the other 2, as well as after this one, he concluded, "God must still want me here for some reason," and claims that since this one caused permanent injury, he's taking the hint and staying put on this planet as per God's wishes.

In that, I found myself thinking, "I so do not believe in your god, but if that's what you believe, if you aren't using that belief to hurt anyone, and if that belief is what's keeping you going ... more power to you." If he thinks Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck are guiding him down a healthier path, he can believe that all he wants as far as I'm concerned!

God might be a placebo, but in this case at least, it's a placebo that's an awful lot of good for my friend.

- Jo

I think its because nobody questions it. Religion and a belief in a god has been going on for thousands of years and people think of it as the norm. Breaking away from thousands of years of tradition is pretty hard.

People who say they believe in god for warm and fuzzy reasons is a hoax because they have not known any different, it was programmed into them by their parents, just as their parent's parents programmed them to believe it and so forth.

It's tradition that doesn't break. My parents never forced religion on me, but I went to church a few times. I became an agnostic at 7, but I never knew the terminology. Originally, you are right, they made it up to satisfy their need to know something.
People also feel that "6 billion people cannot be wrong", but they can be wrong.

How about fear of death?

ruveyn

As for the idea coming about in the first place, it probably comes about by analogy. People observe other people doing things, like making fire and whatnot, and when they observe natural events, they assume that there must also be people making those things happen, albeit much more powerful people than them. Then, having established that there are people responsible for rain, crop yeilds etc, naturally the idea will come about of bargaining with those people, trying to offer them something in return for more favourable conditions. Hence a whole bunch of religious rituals come about; most likely through people using the post hoc fallacy - doing some action, and when they have favourable crop yields or whatever, assuming that the gods were pleased by that action (and conversely, if some action is followed by disaster, then the gods must be displeased with that action).

But as for which religions become powerful and which ones don't, that is determined by politics. The religions that rise to dominance will ultimately be the ones that prove most useful to the people in power. Religion is a great way of ensuring that people will obey you; if they're merely being ordered about by an ordinary mortal, then they might be inclined to rebel should they find reason to disrespect said mortal. However, if that mortal is merely taking orders from some very powerful beings who you really don't want to upset, people are much less likely to disobey. It doesn't really matter whether the ruler believes the religion or not for it to be successful, though in most cases, particularly with the more egotistical rulers, they probably will - after all, what could be more egotistical than to believe that you've been chosen by the gods to fulfil some grand destiny? Believing that you actually have some divine right to rule is likey a very appealing belief.

Much of the content of religious belief will be determined by politics, as the rulers and the priest-class interpret events in terms of their religion. Any great victory that the king achieves will be painted as obvious proof that the gods favour them, with the stories becoming more and more embellished as time goes on, until in some cases they become fully fledged myths complete with miracles and all sorts of crazy divine intervention. Likewise, with natural disasters, these will be interpreted as being caused by some action (which the monarch/priests also happen to disapprove of) offending the gods. I imagine a good fraction of all religious myths began their lives as political propaganda - for instance, if you look through the Old Testament, there's clearly a lot of propaganda in there - 'this victory happened because we had Yahweh on our side', 'this disaster happened because the people did action x which upsets Yahweh'. Another good example is the myth of the battles between Horus and Set, which originated from the war to expel the occupying Hyksos from Egypt. The Hyksos identified their chief god, Sutekh, with the Egyptian god Set, and as a result Set became a god of evil to the Egyptains, and the story of a war between their armies eventually became a story of the clash between the gods themselves. Even today, you can see the beginnings of what would be in more credulous times the origins of new myths. People are continually going around claiming that whatever gods they believe in are on their sides, and that disasters such as the Boxing Day Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, etc are seen as the wrath of the gods. It doesn't take much imagination to see what might have happened if the rulers and priest class had the same power they did in ancient times, to have their views recorded as fact. The history of the Iraq war might read "And so the Lord spoke unto George W Bush, and did command him to smite Saddam. With the Lord leading his armies, Bush did free the people of Iraq." (being propaganda, it will naturally not mention the mess the war ended up being). A view of recent history written by some of the preachers of the religious right might read "and the Lord was angry with the people, for all around the world they sinned by fornicating and worshipping other gods. And so the Lord did send the sea crashing down upon them, and 200,000 people were struck down by His wrath." Fortunately in today's world most such pronouncements are dismissed by the most people (though a terrifying number still do believe them), but it would have been quite different in ancient times, without a free media, internet, and widespread skepticism.

Could be inborn. This has been suggested by everyone from hardcore atheists to believers. Kind of like a universal coping mechanism.