Why do you believe in your religion? What is the purpose of your religion?

To not feel afraid that no one is at the helm.

I do not have a religion, but I can tell you about what I will call—for lack of a better term—my religious stance. I am an apatheist, which is to say that I believe it makes no practical difference whether or not God exists. What I mean by “no practical difference” is that neither a proof of God’s existence nor a proof of God’s non-existence would cause me to change my behavior in any way, nor do I think either sort of proof should change one’s behavior.

The reason I believe it is for the only reason it is worth believing anything: I think it is true. I believe that practical questions—that is, questions about what we should do (which includes questions about moral behavior)—can and should be answered without relying on either the existence or the non-existence of God. My main reason is that I don’t think God can make any significant difference to practical or moral philosophy. For every theory that involves God, there is a counterpart that does the same job without God. As such, any theistic theory of practical behavior has an atheistic counterpart. It’s a logical stalemate.

So what do I like about this? What do I think it does for me? It keeps me focused on the right reasons for moral behavior. I am good for goodness’ sake, not out of fear. I don’t need God to tell me to love my neighbor or to tell me that Hitler was a bad man, and I question the moral faculties of anyone who does. It also keeps me from forgetting that the militant atheists are nearly as bad as the militant theists, and at least just as mistaken. It is not whether or not other people believe in God that matters, but whether or not they use that belief to abuse others. The metaphysical debate is just interesting trivia.

As for the purpose of religion, I don’t know that there is one. Purposes are projected onto things by people. They are not aspects of the things themselves. Religion has certainly served a wide variety of functions, however. Some have used it as a means of organizing a community, while others have used it as a means for dominating a community. Some use it as a source of strength, others as a source of power. Religion has been invoked to bring out both the best and the worst in people. Rather than having a purpose, though, it seems to be more of an expression—an early expression of longing and of mankind’s hope that there’s something to know about the world that isn’t immediately obvious.

My religion came to me because I was born in this family; and my family has been following this religion, so do I.

In my opinion, religion exists to guide people and to help keep them on the right path. The path is right if it leads to God. But, religion is, by any means, no greater than God. Some religions came depending on the circumstances of those times.

The thing I like about my religion is that it doesn’t force me to do some things; it just tells and I am the one to take the decision.

Many people take disadvantage of the religion in that they persuade people to donate money; and that money is used for someone’s selfish purposes.

@prasad

By “Right path” do you mean the morally right path? or a path defined to be right as per your religion?

My religion, Zen Buddhism, doesn’t have much to do with “belief”. It would feel as strange for me to say “I believe in Zen” as it would be to say “I believe in oral hygiene”. Zen, you could say, is mental hygiene.

I don’t practice Zen in order to get anything out of it. The practice is just a systematic way of clearing out mental junk that’s more trouble than it’s worth. It’s like cleaning the windows, so you’re not looking out at the world through a layer of crud. Or better yet, it’s like opening the windows, so there’s nothing at all between you and the world.

I think that the proper purpose of religion is to actualize compassion in people by reorienting them away from self-centeredness and breaking down the barriers to their native compassion. To the extent that a particular religion makes its followers less shitty toward others and create less havoc in the world, then it’s filling that function.

I’m a Christian, Catholic, now but was raised Southern Baptist and Fundamental Baptist. I am a bitter Christian, which means I get grief from non-Christians for my belief in God and grief from ‘real’ Christians because I don’t trust them and don’t attend church much anymore to add to their collection plates and participate in smothering social functions.

I believe in my religion because I was born into a Christian family with strong moral values in the Midwest, where God, country and family are our priorities, in that order. I started experimenting with other religions, studying more than practicing, around age 15, and kept searching until I found my comfort in the ritual of the Catholic faith.

For me, the purpose of my faith, is to strive to attain Holiness, which is basically perfection, in the emulation of perfect unconditional love which is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, the son of God. I’m still pretty far from perfect but I try to practice love and random acts of kindness, and be the best person I can be morally.

I am an agnostic atheist, so I will take this time to explain my reasons for non-belief:

Basically, my main line of thought is that God’s existence is unnecessary to explain the world. So, if the problem were described as this:

Null hypothesis: The universe has not been influenced by God.
Alternative hypothesis: God has influenced the universe.

Then, my current belief is that “there is not enough evidence to support the claim that God has influenced the universe.”

I am an atheist because I am not a theist, and I am agnostic because it is never possible to “prove” a null hypothesis.

@PhiNotPi I am professionally obligated to say the following things:

(1) Atheism is the view that no gods exist. Non-theism is the lack of belief in any gods. So the only thing that not being a theist entails is non-theism. (Internet atheists have, for some reason, decided to abuse the traditional lexicon here.)

(2) It is a common myth, but a myth nonetheless, that one cannot prove a null hypothesis. If my hypothesis is “it is possible to square the circle,” then my null hypothesis would be “it is not possible to square the circle.” Squaring the circle was proved to be impossible in 1882.

(3) Holding to a view solely because it cannot be disproven is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Agnosticism must be based on more than the mere possibility that the theistic and atheistic alternatives could turn out to be true.

@SavoirFaire Well, my experience with null hypotheses comes from statistics…

@PhiNotPi Okay, but we have to be careful about overgeneralizing.

Anyways, here’s a quote from the wiki page on “agnostic atheism” that does a better job of saying what I intended to day in my last sentence.

“Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.”

Organized religion is an evolutionary adaptation, and a historically useful one. It offered an outlet for caring for the sick, regulating sexual behavior, providing welfare to the poor, and even provided useful roles for members of a society that otherwise might not be very functional members of society. A schizophrenic makes a great shaman or anchorite.

Also, no, (1) atheism is not necessarily the* a view that God doesn’t exist and (2) never believe anything said on Wikipedia without triple checking it. Atheism is merely a lack of religious belief in God (“a-” = not, “theism” = belief in God). Most self-identified agnostics have an atheistic belief state, though most agnostics try to be socially acceptable and deny it. “Er, hurr, yeah, I think there could be a God! Why take a position? Teehee!” Some atheists go so far as to say they are certain God doesn’t exist, but that’s possibly a minority of atheists, at least discounting Objectivists and othr forms of fanciful materialism. I personally think the God idea is a bit frivolous and silly, but I don’t go so far as to say it can be ruled out. I’m still a fucking atheist.

* There really is no one kind of atheism. It’s an umbrella term.

@bolwerk I agree with you about the evolutionary bit. Why you think I am using Wikipedia for my definition of atheism, however, I do not know. I am using the term as it has been used by theologians and philosophers of religion for centuries. Note that I explicitly stated that the internet atheist culture has adopted different terms. I recognize the alternative usage, but reject it as unhelpful.

You are free to use whatever terms you like, of course. You could even redefine things such that the word “Christian” describes your belief set if you really wanted. Effective communication requires us to go beyond idiolects, however, and there is already a perfectly good—and more sensible—taxonomy of religious belief and non-belief than the one cobbled together on Usenet.

(Previous conversations on this matter can be found here, here, and a little bit here.)

@SavoirFaire: @PhiNotPi cited Wikipedia, not you. However, historically, the term was much broader than the modern online angry ex-theist atheist identity would probably allow, not narrower. That they arguably narrowed it to include only themselves is likely just identity politics.

@bolwerk Ah, I see. My mistake. Sorry for misunderstanding you. I still think we may disagree on the best usage, but perhaps it is not that important.

@raven860 Sorry to be late. I am not an expert on this subject, but I will express my thoughts.

The right path as defined by a religion may not always be the right path. And, morally right path may be different too. There are many examples in our religion. I don’t know what religion you are from, but I can see many examples in Christian religion too. You might want to see classic animated show The Flying House (just search this term on youtube; there are 52 episodes). I like this series very much myself.

It is said that one need to forgo everything in order to attain God, even the religion!

Suppose we want to go from our present location to a friend’s house, the destination, to meet our friend. We may go there by walking, running, by bicycle, by car, may be bus, boat, train, or through air. Once we get there and meet our friend, it is often immaterial how we got there. Similarly, our final Goal is the God, the destination. We may go by any way or through any religion or teachings, but the important thing is to get there, to meet our friend, the God. In this sense, it is easy to understand that God is more important than any religion.

@prasad

No problem regarding your lateness, thanks for answering!

One of the reasons why I asked this question was to see if religion and moral values go hand-to-hand. What do you think about that? I guess you did say 3 things that relate to it.
They are:
1) You are not knowledgeable enough to fully answer that question
2) Religion may require an immoral action
3) Religion and god are different. And religion means nothing if you can find god.

Is that correct? How would you directly answer that question that I have pondered about above; Does religion = having good moral values? or can religion excuse immoral values for the sake of faith?

We all like to hear/believe/tell that religion is peaceful, moral and beautiful. But is that really true? (I ask about the original version of religion and not the man-made abridged version that false preachers may preach)

@prasad I agree with you that finding God is the ultimate goal, to a degree, but taking others with us to find God is also very much a part of the Christian faith. I enjoyed your answer.

@KNOWITALL

What would your response be to my very last post.

@raven860 You are right about the first point, but then I would try again.

I’d say religion and moral values go hand and hand most of the time, but there can be exceptions. A religion tells what not to do (avoid immoral acts, bad things, or sins) and what to do (pray, serve God, etc.). At times, there can be conflicts between those things.

For example, a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl fall in love with each other. Should they marry each other? Would that be acceptable for either of the religions? (at least society here wouldn’t consider it acceptable, while morally they may marry each other).

I’d tell a short story. There were two monks travelling to a certain place. They came across a river. When they were about to swim, a young girl came and pleaded to carry her to the other side of the river. Now, monks here do not touch women (they consider all women as their mothers). One of the monks agreed and carried her to the other side. The monks continued their journey. But, the other monk was thinking how could his companion do such a thing? When they were resting under a tree, the other monk finally asked his companion that how could he touch the young girl when it is forbidden? The first monk smiled and answered, “Oh my friend, I left her back at the river, and you are still carrying her in your mind!”

Morally, we should speak truth. But at times, it is advisable (and may be right too) to lie. For example, we often lie to the patient who has been hospitalized instead of telling him or her the truth about their incurable disease that may shock them and put their lives in danger.

There are other examples, but that would require to clear a little background first. You might have heard about the holy book “Bhagavat Gita” (considered the holy book by Hindus).

About 5000 years back, the God came unto earth in the human form, known by the name “Krishna” or “Krushna”. At that time, there were 5 Pandavas (5 brothers) and their cousins 100 Kouravas. All were born in the family of the King. The Pandavas and Kouravas learned fighting from the same Guru or teacher. When they grew up, Pandavas were given more than half of the Kingdom because they exhibited good skills in many battles. Kouravas were angry at this division of the kingdom and called a battle to settle all the matters. When Pandavas and Kouravas faced off in the battle field, one of the Pandavas, Arjun, (who was/is considered the best archer). When he saw his cousins, his Guru, his uncle across the battlefield, He was confused. He thought it is immoral to kill his cousins, his Guru, and uncle. He asked his charioteer Krishna. At that time, Krishna, the God himself told Arjun the Bhagavat Gita. He told Arjun to let go of his thoughts and do his duty, to fight and kill the enemies. Arjun fought and Pandavas won the battle. You might want to see these images: Krishna and Arjun in the charriot, Krishna telling Arjun the Bhagavat Gita, Krishna.

@raven860 Having said above things, I now try to answer your questions.

Religion tells to avoid immoral acts. So, it may not be mentioned to do immoral acts when correct. Usually, we can decide ourselves what is moral. So, I would say religion does not require immoral act. But, we might do it if necessary.

Religion tells how to find God. Once we find God, even though one can let go of their religion, they live as a perfect example for others to follow. They want people to follow religion in order to find God.

Does religion = having good moral values? Partly yes, but it is not the only thing any religion tells. Religion = having good moral values + ...
Religion is like writings in a book, but when applying it practically we can face difficulties. So, we pray to God to show us the right path, take help from others, etc.

Religion tells God is beautiful, peaceful, moral. I think, religion does not praise itself.

Finally, it is difficult to define in words what is right. When there is a spiritual master like Jesus Christ, what he says (or orders us to do) is the right thing. But it is rare to find such a master, and it is even more rare to recognize him as the master.

Hope, I have answered to your satisfaction.

@KNOWITALL It looks like you are a magnanimous person. Of course, we should help others to find God. But, we (at least me) lack strength, patience, perseverance to drive others on the right path. While we are walking to God, we can hold others’ hands and help them. But, our strength is limited. When God sends someone like Jesus, they are capable to help thousands. He is like train, we need just be with him. He takes us to the right destination without much efforts and faster. Even those who board the train without tickets travel in the right direction! We just need to be with him all the time, and just don’t leave the train.

@raven860 Not sure which part you want me to comment on, please advise.

@prasad I try, but of course I am not perfect in any way. :)

I believe in God. A a child we went to churcha few times and I was baptized, then we stopped going. Then I used to pretend He didn’t exist at all and all kinds of evil and suffering stuff happened in my life. But then He found me again and my life has been less evil and less suffering, I truly feel blessed and looked after. So this is a major reason why I will always turn to God for help.

As a theist I believe that something cannot be started from nothing. We could have started from the big bang or by panspermia but to get anything around us it all came from something. We can’t say we came from nothing because that is just basic principle—and if you deny it it would self defeating. “Something” omnipotent rather than “nothing” created everything we have and thus far the most evidence we have on that is through Christian doctrine. And unless science comes up with something better than the “nothing”, I’m taking the road to heaven. O:)

Anyway I didn’t get to add my evidence for something from nothing I know what you’ll say, that just proves that we can get something from nothing and so on, I know, but just hear me out, maybe it makes sense. It proves to me that God is more omnipotent than I thought.

Because everyone wants to know if you can’t get something from nothing, [and of course science now says we can,] than how does God even exist, and to top it all off the “nothing” that science proves as being something is quite remarkable so imagine how remarkable He is. That’s just my opinion, I didn’t get to finish because my phone crashed, and I’m not looking for a flame war. Peace. :)

@nofurbelowsbatgirl Your belief is one thing, but your argument for your belief is another. Maybe your belief is true, but the argument that you give for it makes no sense.

There are two possibilities: either something can come from nothing, or it is not the case that something can come from nothing. Your first post says that the latter is true, and thus you conclude that God must exist. This does not follow, however, for at least two reasons.

First, the Big Bang does not say that something came from nothing. It says that everything was very densely packed, but then started rapidly expanding into the universe we know today. Thus it is not true that the Big Bang theory violates the principle that nothing comes from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit).

Second, saying that God must have created the universe because nothing comes from nothing gets us into an Occam’s razor problem. If everything that exists must have been created by something, then God—if He exists—must also have been created by something. The theist typically says that God just exists, but then the atheist can say that the universe just exists. To disallow the atheist this rejoinder would be to commit the special pleading fallacy. Here is the argument in graphic form, if you’re interested.

Let us consider the other possibility, then, that something can come from nothing. If this is a real possibility, then the previous argument goes away completely. Thus the theist faces another Occam’s razor problem: if something can come from nothing, then we don’t need God to explain how this happens. Moreover, the whole “image how remarkable He is” line of thought begs the question (another fallacy). It assumes that God exists and says, “wow, God’s so cool.” But that is in no way an argument. It leaves the atheist free to continue believing that God does not exist and think “wow, the universe is so cool.”

It is worth noting, however, that the linked article does not actually say that something can come from nothing in the traditional understanding of that phrase. It says that particle-antiparticle pairs blink in and out of existence in areas of space where there is sufficient energy (and implies that the process eventually becoming stable might explain why the universe is as we know it today). But energy is a thing in the sense with which the ex nihilo nihil fit principle is concerned. Furthermore, the proper conclusions to draw from this are not yet the subject of any scientific consensus. While the experiment and its results are widely accepted, what they mean is still quite contested.

@SavoirFaire It wasn’t supposed to make sense. If it made sense I would have all the answers. If I had all the answers I would be omipotent. If I was omnipotent I could tell you how I came to be, because no matter how you look at it we all started off from “something” not nothing and if we look through all the evidence scientific, other worldly religion, atheistic views, naturalist, pastafarians fairies, unicorns, etc.. it is the Christian evidence which has all of the components that support an omnipotent being as our successor.

Again that is my belief and I’m sticking to it.
No pun against the pastafarians.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl Literally every step of your attempted syllogism is problematic.

First you say that your explanation wasn’t supposed to make sense. But if it doesn’t make sense, then it isn’t an explanation. It doesn’t tell us anything. You might as well have written, “glish maboke tring fally dah—that’s why I believe in God.” Nonsense cannot be reason-giving, so your reply is tantamount to admitting that you didn’t actually answer the question.

Second, making sense doesn’t mean having all the answers. It is possible to make sense of one thing without making sense of everything. This is not to say that we would not learn more about all of the individual things we’ve made sense of in light of a larger explanation of everything as a whole. Understanding how one thing fits into everything else is certainly a way of making sense of it. But it is not the only way, and it is not necessary for saying that we have a sensible explanation of something. I can explain to you how water boils despite not having a complete understanding of cosmogony, quantum physics, or any number of other things.

Third, you say that if you had all the answers, you would be omnipotent. The first problem is that you seem to have confused omnipotence with omniscience. The former has to do with being able to do anything, whereas the latter has to do with knowing everything. Furthermore, it does not follow from having all the answers that one is omniscient. Knowledge can be divided into at least two broad categories: knowledge that, and knowledge how. Answers to questions are knowledge that (e.g., knowing that red is a color, knowing that Jim is taller than Susan, knowing that the Yankees won the 1939 World Series). Things like skills and abilities are knowledge how (e.g., knowing how to ride a bike, knowing how to repair a television, knowing how to play tennis). The two are related, but an omnipotent entity would have both kinds of knowledge. Knowing all the answer, on the other hand, would only require having complete knowledge that.

Fourth, your conclusion again makes no sense. For one thing, Christianity does not posit an omnipotent being as our successor. Perhaps you meant creator? Nor is it at all clear what your point about evidence is supposed to be. I don’t know if this is just because you formulated it poorly or because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, but the statement is simply incomprehensible in normal English. Perhaps you were trying to say that all of the evidence is on the side of Christianity? If so, that is just patently false. Perhaps all of the evidence you’ve been exposed to or have exposed yourself to supports Christianity, but that would just point to a lack of sufficient intellectual exploration on your part. Even committed Christians can admit that there are bits of evidence that support other views or that raise doubts about their own if they are intellectually honest. But again, it is unclear what you are trying to say here in the first place.

Finally, I am not saying that you are not allowed to stick to your belief. I am allowed, however, to point out that the reasons you have proffered for holding that belief are themselves completely irrational. If you wish to be irrational, so be it. But making one’s beliefs public puts them up for scrutiny. That’s just how conversation works. So while I cannot tell you what to believe, I can point out that your arguments are nonsensical.