What makes people continue to believe?

[Velma]

I'm not exactly sure what one particular thing it is that keeps people believing in God. There are some people who do it for the social interaction. I've heard some people say they feel comforted by the sounds of the songs (sounds affect brainwaves, so it's possible they do it for the same reason druids chanted?). I think you might be on to something with the personalities thing. Some religions, or no religion, appeals to people based on what they percieve to be right, or logical. I've got a decent IQ/EQ, live in middle-america, was raised Southern Baptist, lived agnostically, and teetered on athiesm until I started learning about how science interacts with faith..then joined the Catholic Church because of it. I don't think it was because I'm dumb, and it certainly wasn't because of my upbringing (most Baptists despise Catholics).
  ....the world may never know.

I went from nondenominational to Lutheran to catholic to agnostic ... and here I am. For me, when I was struggling to get everything to fit together, I ran into major problems with protestant theology. Of course, in my case, I continued having problems with theology and find myself a newly formed agnostic.

After years of being a fundamentalist christian, I returned to the catholic church looking for answers.  I had been part of the pro-life movement and conversations with my grandmother were opening my eyes to just how anti-woman and ultimately anti-child the "pro-life" movement actually was (and is).  Yeah, the catholic church is strongly anti-abortion, but the questioning that had started with what I was being taught by the leaders of the anti-abortion movement spread to the doctrine and theology of the fundamentalist church I was part of.  I figured that the catholic church might be able to answer those questions in a way that made sense.  It was also during this time that I began to read about science and discovered skepticism.  The more I read and studied about science, skepticism, and christian doctrine and theology, the less sense christianity in any form made.  In the end, I became an atheist at the age of 35.  It took me a long time to work my way through all the baggage from my years as a fundamentalist and I can't see myself ever returning to a point where I see science and faith as compatible.

[Gawen]

This post is not to bash Catholics, but just my take on it. I'm not up on Catholicism and their traditions/doctrine, etc. Catholicism is a religion with Catechism class up to grade 6, or thereabouts, and after that they go to church on Sunday and do what Catholics do, which is go to church on Sunday and listen to the priests and kind of believe whatever he says for at least as long as they are there. The rest of the mass is/was/can be/may be in Latin so there are no argument there. The mass is called the flock and hither and thither they go because the priest says that that is what Catholics do. I am not sure if anyone knows exactly why they do what they do or if even the priests knows why they have to do what they do, but he, too, says 'hither and thither' ere they go.
But then, Catholics are not Christians in the same way as Jews are not Christians (Protestant) and once a Jew becomes a Christian (Protestant) he is no longer a Jew and so will a Catholic no longer be a Catholic when he/she becomes a Christian (Protestant) and is not even welcome at Mass . . . where, among other things, he/she really does not or no longer wants to be.
And that's about it for religion in the life of a Catholic as I understand it.

[KebertX]

Because it feels nice...?  God is a really huge idea.  Like, seriously bigger than average human minds are adequate enough to wrap their heads around.  So, most people either draw conclusions about god by believing what their parents (or respected cult-leaders) tell them.  OR they take a cursory glance at the concept and dismiss God as Bullshit.

I am not satisfied by either approach.  People usually continue to believe or disbelieve the conclusion they've already drawn, and don't think much into their decision.  I don't believe in God right now, because that should be the default position.  At times I'm willing to assert that God definitely doesn't exist, at other times I argue that God is a definite possibility.

I have a lack of belief in God, but do not necessarily believe there is no God.  I desperately want to wrap my head around all these beliefs that humankind has come up with, and tackle down a viewpoint on the truly unanswerable questions.  I refuse to constrain my brain to things that are only relevant to my community, country, or even the whole planet.  I've got this innate desire to understand the whole damn universe.  I have a highly philosophical mind, and I'm probably not going to draw a permanent positive belief in my lifetime.

Anyways, the reason people continue to believe is because they make no attempt to tackle this colossal idea that is god, and just draw a quick conclusion and stick to it.  It's natural.  No one wants to waste their life philosophizing, when it is so easy to pretend it's easy to figure out the answer you want.  We are humans.  Stupid Arrogant hairless monkeys.  We think we know everything because we can build skyscrapers and wield the power to annihilate civilizations.  It is so easy and natural for individuals to pretend that they actually know something about the universe. Really, we know nothing.  The entire human experience has been an infinitely short perforation on a speck of dust hurling through an infinite expanse of unknown blackness.

No one wants to think like that.  It really hurts your fucking mind to wallow in the unknowable.  So theists continue to believe in God, because they think that they know.  Atheists continue to assert that God does not exist because they think they know.  Let me make this perfectly clear: Not a single entity that humankind has ever encountered really knows what belief is right.  Science and Religion has been working on these things since we first crawled into caves and started carving rocks into spearheads.  Even if every religion ever thought of was nothing but Bullshit, that would not be sufficient proof that there is no god(s), only that people don't know shit about it/them.

But to those who are certain that there is a God looking out for them, personally, I would like to make this point:  Neanderthals buried their dead with worldly possessions, and little pots of dust.  Their cave paintings indicate that they believed in some deities that were governing the outcomes of their hunts.  Just think: They believed god was watching out for them, and caring for their dead relatives, and now their species is extinct.  What does that tell you about the impermanence of your philosophical ideals?

[Gawen]

That was a really good post Kerbert.

[Being_Brave]

This post is not to bash Catholics, but just my take on it. I'm not up on Catholicism and their traditions/doctrine, etc. Catholicism is a religion with Catechism class up to grade 6, or thereabouts, and after that they go to church on Sunday and do what Catholics do, which is go to church on Sunday and listen to the priests and kind of believe whatever he says for at least as long as they are there. The rest of the mass is/was/can be/may be in Latin so there are no argument there. The mass is called the flock and hither and thither they go because the priest says that that is what Catholics do. I am not sure if anyone knows exactly why they do what they do or if even the priests knows why they have to do what they do, but he, too, says 'hither and thither' ere they go.
But then, Catholics are not Christians in the same way as Jews are not Christians (Protestant) and once a Jew becomes a Christian (Protestant) he is no longer a Jew and so will a Catholic no longer be a Catholic when he/she becomes a Christian (Protestant) and is not even welcome at Mass . . . where, among other things, he/she really does not or no longer wants to be.
And that's about it for religion in the life of a Catholic as I understand it.

I've heard Catholics joke that the "converts" are better Catholics than the "cradle" Catholics. They do go through religious education classes until about early teens, but I didn't so I can't offer any kind of info on how that works..only that they're supposed to study the why and how of the religion. I think in polls, the converts know more about the faith than those born into it, so I have no idea how many of them actually know what's going on when they attend Mass. There really are reasons for doing what they do during Mass (all the aerobics, and singing), but they have mostly to do with showing respect to a diety.

The Jewish trace their beginning back to about 460 BC when they attribute one man to refusing to worship multiple gods. They didn't have a Christ figure since Jesus wasn't in the picture yet, so they aren't Christian since they still follow the pre-Christ faith (they believe Jesus was just a prophet). Catholics claim one particular event (Jesus giving his Jewish followers instruction on how to live their religion) to the beginning of Christianity and the Catholic church. The other denominations, who didn't come into existence until almost 2,000 years later, split from the Catholic church when Martin Luther made his own church (basically, he edited the bible's content, and others branched off from there preaching it to be literally interpreted.) So, Catholics are Christian, the first ones, where the rest learned their basics. Anyone is welcome to a Catholic Mass, no participation is required. People can marry a Catholic without becoming Catholic, and other denominations are still considered Christian by the Catholic church as long as they accept the basic principle of Christ Jesus.

[Being_Brave]

I found some odd posts in this thread on the sexless reproduction theme a bit odd.
From my limited knowledge of the "facts" the two parties involved with the biblical event ascended to heaven.
No scientific verification of details is possible.
I don't understand why some dubious examples of sexless reproduction have any relevance to the immaculate conception story.

I can understand the desperation of parents with an unmarried pregnant daughter, ready to grab at any story that would save her from a stoning.

Or maybe the story tellers writing up the texts just tossed in the virgin birth, just because that was fashionable at the time.

In a totally different thread about human protogenesis, someone asked me if protogenesis would invalidate immaculate conception. I answered no because immaculate conception has to do with the soul being free of sin, not the body or being born of a virgin (the Biblical figure Mary was immaculately concieved by both parents). I don't think immaculate conception or souls has anything to do with protogenesis or virgin birth, it was just an answer to something someone asked me....My discussion with that person also led into her pointing out that proven cases in the original protogenesis research I posted were invalid, which is why I posted that as an example of why it's smart for any thiest to talk about things like that with an athiest. (I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for help understanding something).Whether or not the biblical account is true wasn't the issue, I was curious if it was possible (since it has been done in other mammals, and research suggests it's possible in humans).

(You are correct, both were supposedly ascended into heaven at the end of their lives, but not for the purpose of immaculate conception.)

[Being_Brave]

.[/quote]
Honestly, I do understand you. But I have to ask....where and why draw reality checks at all when dealing with superstition; religious or not?

It's early today and I'm fairly certain I haven't asked the proper question. But you may get what I'm asking. Sorry in advance.[/quote]

I get what you're saying The actual post was more like," Here's some stuff I found that says human protogenesis is possible, and here's some that says they found real cases of it happening. If someone can get pregnant by themselves, does that mean a virgin can get pregnant on her own?"....and went from there. It wasn't really asking someone to validate a religious claim, just the research.

[Gawen]

BB, please read this?
http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/

In April of this year, the Catholic Church modified the Code of Canon Law to remove all references to the act of formal defection, the process used by those who wish to formally renounce their membership of the Church.

Notice the word 'defection'.

The Holy See confirmed at the end of August that it was introducing changes to Canon Law and as a result it will no longer be possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church.

At least three groups are potentially affected by the change.

They are:

   1. Those who defect in order to join another church;
   2. Those who defect, marry and then subsequently rejoin. Their marriages will no longer be considered valid by the Church;
   3. Those for whom the canonical significance of the act is important, whether or not they believe in it themselves.

A wonderful tradition, don't you think?

Thought you might be interested...just in case....you wish to defect...at some time in the future...*grinnin*

[Being_Brave]

thanks Gawen.

[ElizabethPeart]

I think that for myself, the reason I continued to believe (to some extent) even where I knew that something was problematic included the following:

- Simple and pure emotionalism. I wanted to be personally comforted, to feel as though I have someone who cared about me, this supposedly terrible human being, who loved me no matter what and who could solve my problems.
  Religion provides for someone personally a placebo, a set of easy answers to life's problems contained in a book or a set of rules.

- Social reasons. Humans are programmed by evolution to need social structures and societal structures. Now I remember in my classes on early Greek religion that many early societies in Greece were organized around that society's/city's particular patron goddess. Many of these early city states sought to claim land by claiming it to be part of a mythic inheritance given to them by that particular god, and by setting up temples, sanctuaries and sacred sites on the edge of their land. Religious celebrations were often a chance for the whole community to meet and celebrate together at a time when people weren't always gathered into cities and organized settlements.
  Today you have parallels in the Muslim ummah, the belief that all Muslims are to each other brothers and sisters in one big brotherhood, or the concept that all Christians are one in the body of Christ.

- Intellectual dishonesty and laziness. Now this may be just be me talking as a deist, but I think a lot of belief in revealed religion is little better than intellectual dishonesty. People, in the face of difficult and patient study of the observable universe through science, which may not give us any or all the answers we need or indeed any answers at all, and which is hard, they choose the simple option of easy answers which ultimately appeal to the heart but not the brain. And then you get the slippery slope that the person will ultimately do anything to cling onto this happy position, which can range from a more moderate religious person simply glossing over bits of their religion to the fundamentalists like Creationists who twist science and logic to suit their own ends.

[SomewhereInND]

Answer: Fear

[Tank]

Another answer: A sense of belonging.

Given there are billions of believers it would be naive to think there was only one reason to continue to believe. As there would appear to be more than one reason it's reasonable to think that some people continue to believe for a combination of reasons and that combination could be very different between any two given individuals. It's also possible (probable?) that many believers really couldn't articulate why they believe. It's a bit like riding a bike. One can explain exactly what you need to do to ride a bike, effectively 'get on and peddle'. But painful experience shows us that simple instruction is not enough, one has to practice, to create a 'muscle memory' of how to do it. Once learned it's impossible to unlearn this memory and also one has no idea how one learned to ride a bike. It's not a logical process it's a biological process. But the act of 'bike riding' becomes embedded.

If one comes to religion 'organically' I.E. brought up in an environment where religious belief is the given it becomes a natural background behaviour reinforced at every turn. It becomes part of one's identity simply because it's right to be religious, it surrounds and permeates one's existance and being. Denying religion becomes about as easy as denying one's self. The sense of belonging and conforming is a critical survival trait in humans as we can't survive as individuals. There is the primary issue of reproduction, there has to be at least two humans, but even then two humans would be at a huge disadvantage in bringing up any offspring. So the the extended family or tribe becomes the effective minimum survival unit. In that unit behaviour seen to upset the cohesion of the group is frowned upon and altruistic behaviour within the group is encouraged. Being on the receiving end of altruistic behaviour is emotionally satisfying, carrying out altruistic behaviour is also emotionally satisfying, this builds a sense of belonging. If one extends the 'tribe' beyond genetic kinship to 'memetic' kinship the tribe and sense of belonging can be extended virtually indefinitely.  

Sharing a common belief in something gives a focus of agreement in a positive element. That focus becomes the centre of altruistic behaviour in terms of both giving and receiving. The tribe grows and trust between its members becomes an inherent quality, belonging to the tribe becomes a defining factor for the members of the tribe. Under these conditions making the choice to walk away from the tribe is extremely difficult at an emotionally level. Logically it may be obvious, emotionally it may be impossible. It is interesting to watch organic theists become atheists. Most, but not all, move between tribes before leaving tribalism behind. But is the ultimate 'leaving' simply one last tribal change from theism to atheism?

Is the ultimate issue with atheism that it lacks a positive rallying point for altruism, for tribalism, for community and social structure? Atheism is ultimately a singular choice in a way that theism is not. Theism is the norm, the majority of people are theists.  As an atheist I am a rouge element in the tribe, as such why should people be altruistic towards me and how can they judge if any altruistic behaviour by them will be reciprocated by me? There is no dogma for atheistic behaviour, no written dogmatic framework against which behaviour can be measured or expectations placed. From the theistic tribal point of view the atheist is not only an outsider they are the denier of the pivotal talisman within the tribe. To leave the tribe is to loose that sense of belonging to become an outcast in ones own mind from what one may have known all one's life.

EDIT: A little clarification.

[Achronos]

To know the best theories of existence and to choose the best from them (that is, to the best of our own strong conviction) appears to us the proper way to be neither bigot nor fanatic, but something more firm than a bigot and more terrible than a fanatic, a man with a definite opinion. But that definite opinion must in this view begin with the basic matters of human thought, and these must not be dismissed as irrelevant, as religion, for instance, is too often in our days dismissed as irrelevant. Even if we think religion insoluble, we cannot think it irrelevant. Even if we ourselves have no view of the ultimate verities, we must feel that wherever such a view exists in a man it must be more important than anything else in him. The instant that the thing ceases to be the unknowable, it becomes the indispensable. There can be no doubt, I think, that the idea does exist in our time that there is something narrow or irrelevant or even mean about attacking a man's religion, or arguing from it in matters of politics or ethics. There can be quite as little doubt that such an accusation of narrowness is itself almost grotesquely narrow.

A difference of opinion about the nature of governments matters very much; but a difference of opinion about the nature of sin does not matter at all. A difference of opinion about the object of taxation matters very much; but a difference of opinion about the object of human existence does not matter at all. We have a right to distrust a man who is in a different kind of municipality; but we have no right to mistrust a man who is in a different kind of cosmos. This sort of enlightenment is surely about the most unenlightened that it is possible to imagine. This is tantamount to saying that everything is important with the exception of everything. Religion is exactly the thing which cannot be left out, because it includes everything. The most absent-minded person cannot well pack his suitcase bag and leave out the bag. We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say or do, whether we like it or not. If we regard the Cosmos as a dream, we regard the Fiscal Question as a dream. If we regard the Cosmos as a joke, we regard St. Paul's Cathedral as a joke. If everything is bad, then we must believe (if it be possible) that beer is bad; if everything be good, we are forced to the rather fantastic conclusion that scientific philanthropy is good. Every man in the street must hold a metaphysical system, and hold it firmly. The possibility is that he may have held it so firmly and so long as to have forgotten all about its existence.

In response to Tank, this latter situation is certainly possible; in fact, it is the situation of the whole modern world. The modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that they are dogmas. It may be said even that the modern world, as a corporate body, holds certain dogmas so strongly that it does not know that they are dogmas. It may be thought "dogmatic," for instance, in some circles accounted progressive, to assume the perfection or improvement of man in another world. But it is not thought "dogmatic" to assume the perfection or improvement of man in this world; though that idea of progress is quite as unproved as the idea of immortality, and from a rationalistic point of view quite as improbable. Progress happens to be one of our dogmas, and a dogma means a thing which is not thought dogmatic. Or, again, we see nothing "dogmatic" in the inspiring, but certainly most startling, theory of physical science, that we should collect facts for the sake of facts, even though they seem as useless as sticks and straws. This is a great and suggestive idea, and its utility may, if you will, be proving itself, but its utility is, in the abstract, quite as disputable as the utility of that calling on oracles or consulting shrines which is also said to prove itself. Thus, because we are not in a civilization which believes strongly in oracles or sacred places, we see the full frenzy of those who killed themselves to find the sepulcher of Christ. But being in a civilization which does believe in this dogma of fact for facts' sake, we do not see the full frenzy of those who kill themselves to find the North Pole. I am not speaking of a tenable ultimate utility which is true both of the Crusades and the polar explorations. I mean merely that we do see the superficial and aesthetic singularity, the startling quality, about the idea of men crossing a continent with armies to conquer the place where a man died. But we do not see the aesthetic singularity and startling quality of men dying in agonies to find a place where no man can live, a place only interesting because it is supposed to be the meeting-place of some lines that do not exist.

Let us, at least, dig and seek till we have discovered our own opinions. The dogmas we really hold are far more fantastic, and, perhaps, far more beautiful than we think. I fear that I have spoken from time to time of rationalists and rationalism, and that in a disparaging sense. Being full of that kindliness which should come at the end of everything, even of a book, I apologize to the rationalists even for calling them rationalists. There are no rationalists. We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them. Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in the existence of the lady clothed with the sun. Some, with a more rustic, elvish instinct, believe merely in the impossible sun itself. Some hold the undemonstrable dogma of the existence of God; some the equally undemonstrable dogma of the existence of the man next door.

Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the skepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer.

We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.

Theism is the norm, the majority of people are theists.  As an atheist I am a rouge element in the tribe.

I feel I am at the greatest of rebellion; against man himself.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

There's come a time in many people's life, I would imagine, where they question something about themselves, especially when it comes to God and spirituality. I know I did in mine, and I believe, for some reason, I saw through the bullshit that is religion and faith in gods and all the things that come with it.

So if this is happening on a large scale, yet people are still- for lack of a better term- remaining religious, what is causing them to continue to believe?

Is it different for different personalities? Which religion it is? Geographic location? IQ? EQ?

What was it for you, if you experienced it? Namely, if you weren't raised secularly.

I suspect that many, many believers quietly, privately know that their religion is a crock. But to openly acknowledge this is to admit that they were duped/conned/brainwashed, and this would be seriously humiliating and embarrassing for them. So they suppress the truth and continue nodding their heads.

[Letra Runt]

I believed because I was taught to believe. I was not born believing in any deity. But my mother, her friends, the churches I spent my childhood at, people all over tv, and some family members they always talked about a deity. They told me the grass was usually green. They told me the sky usually appears blue. That clouds are gray or white. They explained to me as a child that dogs/cats did not actually walk on their front arms but instead had four legs. So if the other things they said made sense, the people who were teaching me from my childhood, from my mother to many other people, something that originally didn't make sense to me might if I just listened more or something I thought. I always had my slight doubt about this deity. Like most Americans the most popular religion around me was Christianity, so as chance had it virtually everyone around me called the deity they believed in Jesus.

However, as I got older I learned some things. For one thing believe it or not learning to not take things literally helped a little. I also learned that even if someone was certain about a subject, that they could still be mistaken. Which is why you see people full of conviction when they say something that isn't necessarily true. It's not the same thing as lying if they really believe it, but it makes it easier to believe what they say... Then finally I learned that people lied. Around that time my doubt became ever more stronger.

A lot of it is being told not to question. To assume other people don't lie, and especially to assume that if something is said with sincere conviction to not question it. The fact that such important figures (my mother), and just so many people around me around such an early time in my life believed, made it almost impossible for me to doubt them for some time. The more I felt doubt the worse I felt visiting church particularly during the gospel music, because I knew somewhere deep down inside I had an ambivalence.

Finally rejecting that all permanently, it meant the possibility of my mother, and all those people who controlled my childhood being wrong. It also meant having an empty void. A void that I don't think would have ever been there if I was raised an atheist or at least agnostic. Because it's hard letting go of things you are raised to rely on. I'm almost positive it's harder for someone who was raised religious to stop believing.  It's sometimes extremely difficult to finally let go of the things that may have been a source of childhood comfort, this applies to religion, and many other things. But yeah basically my recipe for how to keep someone believing if you asked me: Find a very young child, make sure their parents believe in a deity and repeatedly tell their child of said deity, then for bonus points surround the child with people who believe in said deity. Of course that's just one way some people keep believing though.

The modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that they are dogmas. It may be said even that the modern world, as a corporate body, holds certain dogmas so strongly that it does not know that they are dogmas.

This is very true. We are told to not suspect things seen of sacred of being dogmatic.

To leave the tribe is to loose that sense of belonging to become an outcast in ones own mind from what one may have known all one's life.

That was one of the fears I had. It wasn't the full fledged reason I continued to believe, but it definitely played a major part. That is something I've managed to let go of, to feel the safety of being in a herd to feeling alone. I survived it, and I won't go back to that herd/tribe. It's harder for some people than others. It was hard for me. I understand how it's too hard for many other people.