Why do so many people continue to believe in ancient religions?

[Hugabear]

It never fails to amaze me that there are still hundreds of millions of people who believe in ancient religious beliefs. I'm not talking about merely using some religious tenets as principles to live by (ie do not kill, do not lie, treat your neighbor as you would yourself). I'm talking about active belief, going to a physical location, praying to some invisible being(s), believing that some deity literally created the universe, that the same deity will someday end it all, that the same deity will judge them after they die, etc.

I grew up in a fundamentalist family, read the Bible quite often while growing up. Even as a teenager I could see plenty of glaring errors in the Bible, tons of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For me, it was quite an easy decision. If any part of the Bible could be shown to be wrong, then the entire book has to be called into question. I don't have any problem with using parts of the Bible for inspiration, personally I think that most religions offer some good advice to live by. That that's quite different from actually believing that it was written or dictated by some invisible man in the sky.

Given how far we've come over the past few hundred years, why do so many people continue to cling to these ancient beliefs, many of which are thousands of years old? Do you foresee a time when the vast majority will abandon these antiquated beliefs?

[timeforpeace]

1. The notion of killing unbelievers and subjugating everyone else has a timeless appeal.

[DeSwiss]

9. Yuck, yuck, yuck.....

...you took the words right outta my mouth.

[Tikki]

2. I believe it is genetically coded now to use religion to dance around...

the fears of the natural events that we can't control. Or it might be
a chemical imbalance that gets passed on.


Tikki

[hedgehog]

3. The notion that the Bible was dictated by a man in the sky

is typical of children or fundamentalists. Many Christians are well aware of how the Bible evolved. (I can't speak for Jewish interpretations. I would guess the situation is similar, but I don't have any information.) Such knowledge is essential to a deeper understanding of the Bible. For example, attempts to condense the 4 Gospels into a single, linear account of the life off Jesus ignores the fact that the Gospels are not biography as we understand the term but four different interpretations of the meaning of Jesus developed for distinct communities with specific problems and questions.

The discovery that many Bible accounts are not literally true is typically made in early adolescence. You can choose whether or not to believe in God, but if you want to engage in an adult discussion of the Bible, you should learn more about it.

On edit: It's one thing to realize that the story of Adam and Eve is not borne out by science. It's quite another to study the story as a meditation on what makes us human, what makes us different from animals, what is evil, why is there evil, why do people do evil things, etc. Some of us even use the story to ask how and why we are separate from God. You might use it to ask why humans seem to be apart from Nature. The rabbis knew nothing about evolution, but give them credit for being smarter than a wise ass teenager.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. My experience (secondary) of Judaism

would say that literal reading of Torah is not at all usual. They have a better grasp on the variety of scripture and on the usefulness of a variety of interpretations. An almost endless one, in fact, as more people take the time to delve into them.

Good post - thanks for pointing that all out. As someone who came from a tradition that isn't at all literal, and doesn't place scripture in the position of being the one and only part of worship and understanding, I'm often amazed at the simplistic way those who are literalists look at the Bible.

[hedgehog]

8. I'm feeling guilty about being snarky, but I'm tired of straw man

attacks on believers. Yeah, a lot of fundies are mean or at least pains, but a lot of fundies do their best to live out their beliefs. The local fundy church her hosts chicken barbecues to stock a food pantry and hosts blood drives. We'd all do better to quit attacking other people's beliefs and try to live up to our own.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Yes. You're correct in that

at least offering the benefit of the doubt - on an individual basis.

I just feel compelled to point out often that there IS a place between non belief and biblical inerrancy. A whole spectrum, actually.

[ZombieHorde]

12. "We'd all do better to quit attacking other people's beliefs and try to live up to our own. "

Should we stop attacking the spiritual beliefs of the KKK?

[hedgehog]

17. The OP referenced belief in a deity and cited a literal

interpretation of Biblical scripture as proof that such a belief is foolish. ( It's foolish to accept a literal interpretation, a literal interpretation is the only one possible therefore belief in a deity is foolish.) Perhaps I might better have stated my point by saying we should judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs. I don't care what you believe as long as you treat others properly.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. well said, Hedgehog nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. For the conservative believers I think it's partly the fear factor. They are

told repeatedly that bad things will happen if they don't buy whatever "life insurance" is being sold to them. They also like the rigid structure and rules and feel quite lost without them. (I suspect this is one reason why so many dysfunctional people are drawn into stricter religious sects and cults.)

Like you I grew up in the "fundy" way, but by choice and not because of my parents. For myself, being a theological liberal now, I guess I like the idea of there being some connection between every living thing. Like "the force" if you will. I'm not really into superstitious belief very much any more, although I do still feel a joyful mysticism when I see the wonders of a beautiful rainbow, or a flower, a tree, or a baby. For some reason, since my mother has passed away, I seem to feel like she is in the breezes that caress my face and in the sunsets that I see when out walking. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But it comforts me. I do still call myself a Christian because a) I can still get into some of Christ's teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount, and b) I married into a conservative Christian family and since religion is the language with which we speak to and about god, I kept the language so that I could continue to communicate with my in-laws and husband.

As for abandoning beliefs, I can't quite see them dying out completely. There will always be someone like Phelps out there. But we do know that where there is education (especially about science,) peace, and prosperity, churches are emptier and beliefs are held much more loosely, if at all. If we can spread education instead of religious dogma, peace instead of war, prosperity instead of poverty it will go a long way into helping societies break free of those religious shackles. (At least, I hope, of the sort that breeds bigotry and hate for people who are not just like them.)

[JerseygirlCT]

5. In a way, your question is your answer

There's something in those religions that offers something to millions of people. They have validity, even in today's world, for very many.

Why is a question that's likely as individual as those millions, however.

I also think it's more likely that someone raised with the idea of biblical inerrancy is likely to toss the whole thing when those errors are discovered. There are many traditions in which that's not the case.

For people who belong to a religion (yes, some of them thousands of years old), they find in it meaning, fellowship, sometimes structure and guidance. Often peace and a sense of well-being, as well.

I think the mistake, with reference to people who belong to a religion, is to assume that evolution means moving away from these traditions. I understand that that was your particular path; it's not, by any means, true for all.

Humankind has had beliefs of some sort for as far back as we have history. There's something in us that searches for explanations of our world and our meaning, and that offers us guidance about how to relate to one another. If these religions hadn't been fitting the bill for people, they'd likely have become another piece of interesting history without current practitioners.

For practitioners, these aren't antiquated beliefs simply because they have a great deal of history in them.

[Hugabear]

18. Not quite so much...

I might read the writings of various philosophers, but I wouldn't worship any of them as a divine being. Yet millions of people still go to church, actively pray to an unseen deity, etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. I'm not understanding the connection

between your response and my post.

I never said these beliefs were not antiquated for everyone, did I?

And yes, millions of people still find them real, and immediate and compelling - even if they are thousands of years old.

Additionally, I'm not sure I know of any that worship the writings (or that are supposed to. I guess you can find some fundamentalists who've raised the Bible to the level of worship).

[Occam Bandage]

7. Why do you believe the age of the beliefs would make people less likely to accept them?

Religions provide a sense of grounding; they purport to explain both humanity's place in the universe and the individual's place in society. Literal truth isn't the point; the point is meaning. If a religion is able to link generations upon generation through ritual and belief, even as the face of the world changes beyond all recognition, then that would make people more likely and not less likely to accept it. After all, the answers to the universal questions of ultimate meaning should be universal; it is reassuring that many others in very different societies found the same things you're seeking in the place you're seeking them.

It seems you're looking at religion as many people do, and as more and more people are going to do as our society becomes more and more information-based: as either a framework of verifiable fact, or as a collection of guidelines for living within a society. It would make sense that the age of a religion would be a strike against it under those criteria; people thousands of years ago did not have a strong empirical knowledge base, and their societies were not similar to our own beyond a few human universals. Organized religion does not and cannot have much appeal to people who see it in this light. As logos replaces mythos in our social definitions of truth, I think organized religion will decline, but I have a hard time believing it will ever disappear entirely, or that the decline will be permanent. Humanity is in many ways predisposed to religion, and it's near impossible to predict how societies will evolve. Being able to look five years ahead is a rare skill that turns entrepreneurs into billionaires; who could look one hundred or five hundred?

Anyway, as a bit of an aside: I find it helps to consider a religion as a memetic "species" of sorts, with each person's belief set being one "organism" that "reproduces" through transmission into a new mind. Much as with genetic organisms, reproduction is usually faithful, with random mutations occasionally occurring. Much as with genetic organisms, mutations can make a religion more or less likely to survive and be transmitted. Much as with genetic organisms, there is competition for a limited resource, i.e. potential believers. And much as with genetic organisms, the environment can change drastically (as human society changes, leading to similar changes in most potential believers), shifting which phenotypes are beneficial and which are detrimental. Religions are 'designed' through millennia of natural selection to be believed in, and they have weathered drastic social changes before by adapting accordingly.

[Birthmark]

10. Because on some level...

...they derive personal satisfaction from such religions. It's that simple.

[ZombieHorde]

13. I sometimes believe that people only believe that they believe in these religions.

If someone held a gun to one's head and said, "Don't have premarital sex or I will shoot you!", then one would probably not have premarital sex in view of this person. Now replace the gunman with God, who we are always, at least allegedly, in view of and people will start having premarital sex. This is because we truly believe the gunman is truly real, but we don't truly believe God is truly real.

Being told that one's computer is an imaginary toy is less offensive than being told one's God is an imaginary friend. This is because most of us are truly confident our computer is real, but we are not confident that God is real.

I also believe that exceptions to my assertion exist.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. I think that's certainly true for some

and more likely to be so, perhaps, with those whose religious belief is very authoritarian and rigid. But even within that group, you'll find people for whom it's very real and deeply held.

I do think religion is a tool - the means, not the end. That may connect to your hypothesis, too. Those who see it as the end may be more likely to grasp it more tightly than those who see it as a means to greater connection - with God, with other people, etc.

[frogmarch]

14. I think fear of death, or at least

fear that there's no life after death, is what makes people cling to religion.

[sam sarrha]

15. because they are continue to be given credibility on the media..

[rd_kent]

16. Becuase brainwashed parents brainwash their children

Its an unending cycle. The good news is that for every cycle, a few more open their eyes to reality. I think that in 50-100 years, religion will be (or start to be) a thing of the past. Sure, we will ALWAYS have some true wingnuts, but they are all on their way out the door.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. So how do you explain people who were raised by atheists but

who always had a mystical sense? I know several such people, all of whom formally affiliated with a religion.

Yes, they didn't all affiliate with the same religion. But here's what atheists don't get: It's not the laundry list of beliefs, it's the EXPERIENCE. It's the path that best suits them as they seek to encounter the infinite. The creeds and stories are incidental.

The Soviets tried to wipe out religion for 70 years, not only having required courses in atheism in school and problems with career advancement for believers, and yet, in the early 1980s, the percentage of churchgoers in the population was higher in Moscow than in Paris.

[Odin2005]

24. One can have a "mystical sense" and still be an Atheist.

I suggest reading The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville.

I just don't feel any need to use the "God" label for such experiences. Comte-Sponville points out that many mystics in the West and in the Islamic world got in trouble with religious authorities because they propounded ideas the bordered on Atheism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. YMMV, as they say

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

27. What does YMMV mean?

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. "Your mileage may vary"

:-)

[Odin2005]

30. Ahhh! Thanx!

:)

[rrneck]

23. Why do people

still attend plays written by Shakespeare or read works by Virgil and Dante? Or for that matter why do they continue to be mesmerized by the cave paintings at Lasceaux? They all serve to illuminate half the human experience.

Religions get top billing because we have a tendency to invest a lot of money in them.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. There are ancient religions WITHOUT inconsistencies.

They are Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and probably others.

They came from cultures that valued science and exploration. Their scriptures are not a jumbled mass of stories and rumors and a bit of history, like the Abrahamic scriptures.

When Shakyamuni Buddha died, all the priests wrote down all his words they had memorized on palm leaves in Pali. They were added to by other priests later, but were not changed. They stand as not having translation problems at all, unlike the Amharic-Aramaic-Greek-Latin-English in the Babble.

The ancient Hindu stories do not have inconsistencies either, although they are so old their origins are lost in time.

[Odin2005]

28. Well, a lot of the Mahayana Buddhist scrptures were written centurues after Buddha's Death,

and were almost certainly never said by Mr. Siddhartha Gautama (now the Theravada Pali scriptures are another matter, far more faithful to the Buddha's actual beliefs, or so I've read.).

[tinrobot]

31. Because people are still inspired by them...

You said it yourself:

I don't have any problem with using parts of the Bible for inspiration, personally I think that most religions offer some good advice to live by.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

33. I don't know. Hell, I find one error in a science text book and it makes me want to toss it aside.

The bible is an anathema to me. I find it sub-standard even as literature. No consistency...and the action sequences are lame.

I just don't get it, when it comes down to it. I don't get it whether it's a fundamentalist who believes in it literally, or it's liberals/moderates who believe in it's "lessons". I can almost understand it if they didn't believe in ANY of the supernatural stuff...but the fact of the matter is, even most liberal christians believe in some aspects of the supernatural and this is entirely alien to me.

I've tried....I've tried to get it.

But in the end, it sounds like bullshit to me. No..more...it FEELS like bullshit. And I'm really not trying to sound offensive here (because this is the only thing in my experience I can compare it to), but it doesn't feel any different then talk about Santa, or fairies, or the chupacabra. And the fact that billions believe doesn't make a difference to me at all.