What is the cause of peoples apparant need to believe?

[Fluffywolf]

I found a weird place on youtube where religious people try to use science to affirm their beliefs (and fail horribly? Or do they, considering the amount of views and thumbs up).

One such video is this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25OdhuSHxaA

The video starts off pretty bad and continues to get worse and worse, so much so that at first it is pretty laughable, but later on pretty worrysome.

It made me wonder. It seems like people need to believe and will take shortcuts and ignore logic even in order to believe in something, but if you are intelligent enough to create such an elaborate fairy tale, why can't they see the errors they make that is right in front of them. Not to mention that even though they seem to think they are 'scientifically' explaining themselves, they still make rigorious and absurd assumptions all the time. And they try to explain themselves in such ways that it almost sounds like they force themselves to believe it. It's like they deep down know it's not true, but it must be because they need to believe in something.

But where does this come from? What causes people to completely void themselves of logic to affirm their beliefs?

Do these people seek validation, trying to affirm their existance perhaps? But because in this world that is now so intrically connecting billions of people, it is almost impossible to bring something new to the table, that they have this need to go through these lengths in order to attempt and bring some significance into their lives, even if its false significance?

 

[ceecee]

It made me wonder. It seems like people need to believe and will take shortcuts and ignore logic even in order to believe in something, but if you are intelligent enough to create such an elaborate fairy tale, why can't they see the errors they make that is right in front of them.

My husband once asked me why people who are otherwise very intelligent and rational can buy into religion. I didn't have an answer then and I don't have an answer now. I think if someone has a need for faith, why do they need to validate it or explain it to anyone? Why don't they want to keep it a private thing that only they experience? I don't know why anyone would try to back a faith based belief with science. Why is it necessary to try to convince anyone of anything? It's their belief. But crazy assed propaganda certainly doesn't help anything. It just makes whatever the faith is look ridiculous.

 

[Doria]

Maybe people feel the need to validate their choice to have faith because they have been ridiculed for having it, or perhaps because they have been put down in many aspects of their life in general life so feel they have to justify everything. Also, in the patriarchal objectivist world many of us live in, rationality and science are often regarded as how one must justify one's belief/knowledge.

I am not religious. However, it seems to me that people who have faith must kind of lose it a bit if they feel they have to justify it rationally, because faith is just that, faith. I don't see that you have to defend having it- just any actions that it causes you to take that harm anyone else, or yourself.

 

[Luke O]

A lot of religious people are indoctrinated when young. A lot of those don't want to accept that everything they knew about the world is wrong.

 

[Beorn]

This is a silly question.
The more fascinating thing happening is that so many people believe nothing in the world has any inherent meaning or purpose and yet still manage to manufacture (pretend) meaning into existence. It's quite a stunning accomplishment. Frankly I think a lot of it has to do with the life of ease so many of us have in the west. Nobody could sustain such incompatible nonsense in their mind while doing back-breaking work all day only to return to a dirt-floored hovel with no hope of anything different in this life.

 

[Beorn]

Besides we all know what even the most hardcore atheists are like in foxholes.

 

[á´…eparted]

Having gone from very spiritual to completely atheist, I've had experience with both.

When you believe, nothing and noone can get to you, only you can get to you. I had many people try to tell me over the years that I was wrong. Ranging from the ineffective "that's stupid you're wrong", to the "ok let's walk through your logic, fairly". In each case, I ended up creating an "out" or a "reason" that didn't hold salt. Most of the time it was "I have had personal experiences, and there simply must be more to the world than just this. It's not logical for there not to be. There's too many chances". To me at the time, it felt full proof. If someone rejected it, then it was their failure for not seeing, or not allowing experiences to happen to them. I had all kinds of "rational" explinations for why people did or did not have experiences or things that could validate them. The simplest one was "if you're not open, then you will never get an experience, and never believe". At the time I honestly and truly thought with every fabric of my being that I was right, and it was not born from being defensive. I stood by and felt everything I said.

The reason I dropped my beliefs is because I began to question them. A lot of it stemmed from my training as a scientist. Specifically, the style of thought that is required. What evidence actually is, what precedent is, etc. One thing lead to another and I saw that nothing I held could be substantiated in any way. I did not want to drop it, but it happened on its own, and it was painful at the time. I regard it as the best thing that's ever happened to me. I am easily 10x more happy, healthy, and functional as a person than I ever was when I had my beliefs.

I've met others who have had similar experiences to me. It's from my experiences, and others that I almost never try to poke holes in anyone's beliefs, because I'm not going to change them. Though if the poke me first I'll usually try, but it's mostly born from getting ticked off with a holier than thou attitude, and occasionally if someone spouts too much flagrant bullshit. You can have the most flawless straight forward explanation for something, and it will never change them. It's a waste of energy.

I honestly wish religion was deleted from human consciousness. It causes FAR more problem than it brings in good. I understand it's "purpose" for many though, so it's only a fantasy.

Humans created and are drawn to religion as it's effectively an "accident" stemmed from our biology: Religion: Biological Accident, Adaptation — or Both | WIRED

 

[á´…eparted]

My husband once asked me why people who are otherwise very intelligent and rational can buy into religion. I didn't have an answer then and I don't have an answer now. I think if someone has a need for faith, why do they need to validate it or explain it to anyone? Why don't they want to keep it a private thing that only they experience? I don't know why anyone would try to back a faith based belief with science. Why is it necessary to try to convince anyone of anything? It's their belief. But crazy assed propaganda certainly doesn't help anything. It just makes whatever the faith is look ridiculous.

Intelligence and religosity have a inversely proportional link, but it's not nearly as strong as tauted. I've known some professors over the years (PhD's) who were very religious. One thing I curiously noticed was there as this qualatative "shift" in their vibe when the topic of religion came up. It's like a switch flips and a different set of gears begin to run. It's like a different set gets used.

People can be mind bogglingly intelligent, and still be very very wrong on things. If your fundemental axioms of the world are broken, then every system you build, which will be perfectly sound based off the base, will be wrong as the base is wrong. Example of such a person: Ted Cruz, extremely intelligent, with a completely wrong base.

People rarely fix there bases. They're regarded as axioms for a reason.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...] But where does this come from? What causes people to completely void themselves of logic to affirm their beliefs?

Do these people seek validation, trying to affirm their existance perhaps? But because in this world that is now so intrically connecting billions of people, it is almost impossible to bring something new to the table, that they have this need to go through these lengths in order to attempt and bring some significance into their lives, even if its false significance?

Same reason people do anything: Ego.

Think of the fortune-teller or psychic in a cheap little storefront shop or even just the average housewife who thinks she had a premonition the last time something bad happened to a family member 500 miles away. Why do they do that? They want to think they have some insight, that they're a little more tapped into the cosmic web than the rest of humanity, that they're special in some small way. Frankly it scares the shit out of them to think that they might not be special, that "this is as good as it gets," and that there's nothing for them but a cold grave at the end. So they clutch at any little sense of significance, weave a little personal myth about special powers they have out of minor daily coincidences that happen to them, etc.

Or they become the serial murderer or the bandit on the run, living large and supposedly proving that the laws of others don't apply to them. Or they become the pharaoh or Rockefeller building pyramids and empires and enormous monuments to themselves, thinking they're standing out and proving their specialness and beating cheap, common mortality that way. And so on. People act out in one manner or another, and then they weave the craziest rationalizations to justify their actions or beliefs.

It's also aluminum-foil-hat crazies sleeping in the park, conspiracy theorists on the Internet, and people who use the word "sheeple": "I have special powers of discernment and insight. I can see connections and networks and truths that no one else can see." And so on.

We all do weird shit to affirm our significance in the world and the universe, despite every indication that we are, in fact, totally insignificant. And the explanation is always the same: Ego. It's the ant shaking its fist at the universe and yelling, "I exist!" There's nothing wrong with the ant's action. But objectively speaking, the universe remains unaware of the ant's existence; the ant's gesture only has meaning in the ant's mind. But it soothes the ant's ego, so it's all good. Again: It's all Ego.

Religion is just one of many little games we play to frantically try to prove that we have a special place in the universe, that is, that we're the apple of God's eye and immortal like gods ourselves; and we try to deny that we're just "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" (worm food). Religion is mostly harmless, a socially-sanctioned outlet for out-of-control egos. Religion is better than becoming a serial killer or bandit on the run. Institutions (churches) are created to herd people toward religion for fear of what might happen to all those oversized egos otherwise.

And really, that's all there is to it. Freud wrote a lot about this stuff. His book "Civilization and Its Discontents" isn't specifically about the place of religion in society. But it's about the larger question of balancing the needs of millions of egos against the needs of civilization, that is, the need to get people to quit being such individualists and needy assholes and instead work and live in harmony. Religion is one of the outlets for soaking up some of the oversized ego and helping keep people mollified.

 

[RobinSkye]

Part of my own faith is that organized religions should be mostly discredited. A conscious decision to avoid or even actively speak against people and organizations that associate with such things.

 

[Also]

I often wonder the same thing about people who are certain that a god does not exist. I've engaged in long, drawn out debates with people only to be met with "theories" (sorry, not everything labeled as a theory can truly be classified as a theory) and speculations about how the earth came to be, why religion is a mistake, and why people who believe in God are living a fantasy.

But why? Why do people who choose not to believe abuse scientific platforms and logic for the sake of their disbelief?

What I usually see is very emotionally charged arguments against religion, God, and people of faith. Which, as I'm sure you know, is meaningless to a person who is looking for the objective truth. Does God exist? If you say no and you cannot provide the evidence necessary to debunk religious claims yet choose to slap a "void of logic" or "fantasy" label on those who believe, should you not be considered illogical? Irrational? Living in a fantasy land? You tell me OP...

 

[21%]

Faith doesn't need logic. It comes from a different place. If you need 'reasons' to justify your faith, you're doing it wrong.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

There is a point where logic and reason fail and we can start embracing uncertainty and faith.

For me, encountering the Austrian writer Robert Musil in a German philosophy course 22 years ago helped me to understand the futility of the quest for certainty, especially in the area of spirituality.

I also found too many dogmatic atheists, so fearful that they might be wrong that they attack those with belief.

Let everyone believe what they will. We all learn at different speeds and we have all unique paths.

According to research, the healthiest people emotionally have some version of religion and or spirituality in their lives. Are they just ignorant, or perhaps something else?

 

[miss fortune]

I can understand why people are religious and can even understand where religions could have come from... I cannot understand why some people enjoy making themselves laughingstocks by trying to use science to justify it though

(unless we're talking social sciences... then that WOULD make sense in some ways!)

 

[EcK]

Faith doesn't need logic. It comes from a different place. If you need 'reasons' to justify your faith, you're doing it wrong.

And the reason why this particular meme is so successful (praising not knowing) is because it's one of the thing that keeps people in religions by rewarding them for ignorance and punishing them for inquiring , asking 'WHY'

 

[EcK]

There is a point where logic and reason fail and we can start embracing uncertainty and faith.

For me, encountering the Austrian writer Robert Musil in a German philosophy course 22 years agochelped me to understand the futility of the quest for certainty, especially in the area of spirituality.

I also found too many dogmatic atheists, so fearful that they might be wrong that they attack those with belief.

Let everyone believe what they will. We all learn at different speeds and we have all unique paths.

According to research, the healthiest people emotionally have some version of religion and or spirituality in their lives. Are they just ignorant, or perhaps something else?

Atheists are usually no more FEARFUL of being wrong than the next guy.
Why would they be? In their eyes they are not 'losing' nearly as much as believers if they are wrong. A believe would 'lose' eternal life, seeing their loved ones again etc. The atheists would actually GAIN in being wrong in a sense. The thing is it's not intellectually honest to define what is true as 'what we want to be true'. Otherwise we'd all be model-billionaire-immortals

The atheists I've spoken with are usually just fed up with people stating things without any basis in fact as if they held the same 'truth value' as more rigorous approaches. Yes there are many dogmatic atheists, but why is it 'bad' when it's ok for dogmatic believers to be the way they are. Another common sentiment is just, bewilderment at how intelligent people can total ignore facts when it comes to religion. If I told the same story by replacing 'god' with some super intelligent alien/invisible unicorn/eye of sauron they'd think it's fiction, As soon as the right keywords are used it seems like their whole mind shifts to 'religious mod' and critical thinking goes out the window.

You must also realize that every time a non believer says 'I'm open to the idea' it is misconstrued for meaning 'so religions have as much value as any other idea'
Well no, they don't. You can make up a quasi infinity of divinities etc while there's only so many theories you can justify through outside evidence and hard, reproducible data.


Isn't every believer by nature dogmatic. Justifying their fears of death and meaninglessness away through bed time stories of an afterlife and ultimate justice ?

dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.
And isn't that exactly what religion is?

It is often necessary to use the language of dogmatism when talking to believers as anything else is misconstrued as 'this one can yet be saved'. When no, non believers, at least some of them. Don't think of clinical delusion as 'being saved'

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

 

[EcK]

I can understand why people are religious and can even understand where religions could have come from... I cannot understand why some people enjoy making themselves laughingstocks by trying to use science to justify it though

(unless we're talking social sciences... then that WOULD make sense in some ways!)

It all depends on the audience. They are not laughing stocks to themselves.
Noone is the 'bad guy' or 'wrong' in their own eyes.
Look at how people keep stating in the USA (lots of studies on the topic) how evolution is not real or 'just a theory' without seeming to understand that it's something we have an IMMENSE amount of evidence for AND have reproduced in labs. And without seeming to know that in hard sciences a 'THEORY' is a statement given with a VERY strong set of data backing it up. Not some idea someone just happened to dream up.

 

[EcK]

I often wonder the same thing about people who are certain that a god does not exist. I've engaged in long, drawn out debates with people only to be met with "theories" (sorry, not everything labeled as a theory can truly be classified as a theory) and speculations about how the earth came to be, why religion is a mistake, and why people who believe in God are living a fantasy.

But why? Why do people who choose not to believe abuse scientific platforms and logic for the sake of their disbelief?

What I usually see is very emotionally charged arguments against religion, God, and people of faith. Which, as I'm sure you know, is meaningless to a person who is looking for the objective truth. Does God exist? If you say no and you cannot provide the evidence necessary to debunk religious claims yet choose to slap a "void of logic" or "fantasy" label on those who believe, should you not be considered illogical? Irrational? Living in a fantasy land? You tell me OP...

You cannot prove a negative.
But noome ever proved god exists.

The burden of proof is not to non believers but no believers to prove their fantasies are somehow backed up by facts

On the other hand many "statements" in the bible and other books dont agree with reality as we know it. Which makes the whole thing rather suspect

 

[ceecee]

According to research, the healthiest people emotionally have some version of religion and or spirituality in their lives. Are they just ignorant, or perhaps something else?

Healthy? Maybe. Happy and unencumbered? More likely. When you "give it to god" or you go to confession or send money to a televangelist, aren't you then washing your hands of whatever your issues are? Wouldn't that be a form of ignorance? Granted it's like covering your eyes and thinking no one else can see you but why wouldn't that put a person at ease?

 

[Also]

You cannot prove a negative.
But noome ever proved god exists.

You can't provide evidence for your stance yet you are so certain that God doesn't exist. Logical?

The burden of proof is not to non believers but no believers to prove their fantasies are somehow backed up by facts

The burden of proof falls on the individual who is burdened in the first place. I have not dedicated my time on this forum to speaking about what I do not believe. Have you? Because the burden of proof may be on believers on a grander scale, but in this case, you are the one quoting people left and right about something you cannot prove based on your statement above. I would like to see the facts that back up your impossible to prove position.

On the other hand many "statements" in the bible and other books dont agree with reality as we know it. Which makes the whole thing rather suspect

Is this what it all comes down to? The differences between people who agree with evolution and those who don't? Or maybe you disagree with young earth creationists? That's what this comes down to, your disagreement with non-essential claims in the bible. How does this negate the existence of God?

And why only the God of the bible?
Or Jesus? Or The Father?
What about Allah?
Only Abrahamic religions? Monotheistic religions?
How much do you even know about the bible? Have you read the bible? Are you certain that you understood the bible? Let's test it, please post some of these statements and explain how they disagree with reality as we know it and how that adds to your impossible to prove position of God's non-existence.